Pat Buchanan goes full-Lindbergh

Just as Hollywood liberals have a sweet spot for Socialist dictators like Hugo Chavez, there are those on the far right who just can’t say no to a good Fascist. It’s been a while since they had one. Franco and Salazar have been dead since the 70’s. Milosevic was too buffoonish and brutal to be minimally attractive.

I had expected that Buchanan, Ron Paul and Rand Paul would back off the pro-Putin antics now that he’s set himself up as a solid enemy of the US. So far only Rand Paul is doing it.  He’s late, unconvincing, and entirely off-key. Meanwhile Pat Buchanan is racing in the opposite direction, channeling Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford in a spirited defense of not only Putin, but the central tenets of Fascism.

In the estimation of this writer, Vladimir Putin is a blood-and-soil, altar-and-throne ethnonationalist who sees himself as Protector of Russia and looks on Russians abroad the way Israelis look upon Jews abroad, as people whose security is his legitimate concern.

Hmm…I wonder, what’s another term for a “blood and soil ethno-nationalist?” Something shorter, pithier, and dressed in a finely pressed brown shirt. And of course, the not-too-subtle tie-in to Israel is a fine rhetorical touch. The man is a pro. Leni Reifenstahl would be proud. So would Brent Bozell.

Even more unfortunate than Buchanan’s poor choice of allies is the effect this is going to have on the last remaining bastion of intelligent conservative thought. Buchanan has a stranglehold on The American Conservative. The thoughtful and intelligent writers at TAG have been a welcome counter to the increasingly paranoid bluster that has infected every other outlet of conservative thought in recent years. Fascism has always been their dirty little weakness and Buchanan is driving them straight off that cliff.

Read more from Buchanan’s most recent pro-Putin apology here, if only as a warning.

About

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He is a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago.

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Foreign Policy
119 comments on “Pat Buchanan goes full-Lindbergh
  1. Manhattan says:

    Pat has always been saying tons of bigoted stuff, he did after all have some part in making the Republican Party in what it is today with the party only appealing to whites, his parts where he thought Hitler was great and his little tirade at the 1992 Republican National Convention where the party lost New England and plenty of other places since then and did some part in the “true conservative” nonsense. Also, he suggested Reagan visit a graveyard with SS troopers on the 40th anniversary of World War II saying they were victims just like the people who suffered at the concentration camps. Right, that’s like saying the bully was a victim of the kid they bullied.

    Just research him and you can find tons of things he said.

    Funny thing he supports school prayer, but doesn’t realize his ancestors as Catholics were attacked by the Know Nothings and people who believed America is a Christian (read: code word for Protestants only) nation and saw his fellow Catholics as threats to the country. He is still fighting the wars of the 60’s and is stuck there probably until he croaks.

  2. Tuttabella says:

    FOR OV – Thanks for your recommendation of A YEAR WITH RILKE. What with all my incessant talk about wanting to take a vow of silence, I think today’s entry from Rilke is appropriate:

    “Since I’ve learned to be silent, everything has come so much closer to me. I am thinking of a summer on the Baltic when I was a child; how talkative I was to sea and forest; how, filled with an unaccustomed exuberance, I tried to leap over all limits with the hasty excitement of my words. And how, as I had to take my leave on a morning in September, I saw that we never give utterance to what is final and most blessed, and that all my rhapsodic Table d’hote conversations did not approach either my inchoate feelings or the ocean’s eternal self-revelation.”

  3. way2gosassy says:

    For Tutt,

    I’m not sure which university this came from but the references check out. Warning, it is a bit of a dry read but it isn’t very long. Mostly a synopsis of the change from eugenics to genetics.

    http://www.ulm.edu/~palmer/NewEugenics.htm

    The following is a web site on genetics. I looked at it kind of in a hurry but looks interesting.

    http://futurehumanevolution.com/human-genetic-engineering-vs-eugenics

    • Tuttabella says:

      Thanks, Sassy, I will check it out. Coincidentally, I have a cousin involved in genetics engineering research, but it’s something I’ve never had the time or the opportunity to discuss with her, and frankly, I’m uncomfortable bringing up the subject with her, since it’s controversial, plus she’s a rather private person.
      ,

  4. way2gosassy says:

    Kabuzz says,

    “Way2, are you saying someone who embraced eugenics was just following what was popular at the time? Come on. Eugenics is code words for racism and you know it. She didn’t want inferior minorities reproducing. Nice, almost excellent attempt at painting an old barn. She clearly stated her motivation but you focus on the tools.”

    I know I am on a fools errand here Kabuzz but let me say this, you cannot take out the historical context in which Lindbergh, Ford, and Sanger lived. You tend to give the males a pass for their “racist” beliefs yet you want to censor Sanger for what you believe to be hers.
    Sanger did not believe in abortion or euthanasia contrary to your earlier post. She also did not focus her fight for legal birth control to only one race.

    She was the 6th of 11 children and as such was uniquely situated to understand that if every woman had more control over their reproduction via birth control. Her premise was that if women were legally allowed to control when they had babies and how many that it would strengthen the family, the race ( all races) and the country.

    Her beliefs and campaign were made to strengthen all women’s reproductive rights and were more complex than I think you are capable of understanding. Unfortunately, many people today will only focus on her actions as they pertain to today’s world without the historical context, as you did.

    • way2gosassy says:

      Here is a very good article on the subject of eugenics for those who are interested. To read the full article you will need to sign up for a free membership.

      http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/505755_5

    • rightonrush says:

      Sass, when will you ever get it through your head that you ” Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.—Greg King ” Certain folks are dumb as a stump and will go to their grave in ignorance no matter how much you try to educate.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Well I agree in respect to some of the folks here, however I don’t do this just for them. I do it for us all! At least those of us that care to get some “facts” injected into the conversation.

      • rightonrush says:

        You have the patience of a saint Sass.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Not always! ROR. My friends tell me patience is a virtue. I’m not sure I have to many “virtues” according to some here. =)

    • kabuzz61 says:

      I am not overlooking anyone. I mentioned Hitler and Mengele as well as Lindberg and there were a host of upper class that believed in it and wanted it to happen.

      After what Hitler did, I think all the eugenics believers went back in the closet and cleaned up their resume’s. Your hero included. But I think I am on a fools errand to explain to you about motive.

      Of course she didn’t focus her birth control on just whites, cheesh, she didn’t want minorities to reproduce. You are backing the wrong horse unless you are a supporter of racist leaders.

      • GG says:

        Eugenics does not necessarily equal racism. In the future people will undoubtedly be able to select the sex, hair color and eye color of their children and weed out any undesirable traits and diseases, which would be a definite plus.

      • way2gosassy says:

        One more thing for you to ponder, Kabuzz, while many will credit Sanger with the formation of Planned Parenthood are you also aware that eugenics was the scientific precursor to genetics?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Way2, of course eugenics is the precursor to genetics but apples and oranges. My point is eugenics fans, the upper class especially, wanted to stop mostly minority reproduction. It would be really great for you to cede that point about Sanger, it is idiotic to hold her in any esteem for that belief let alone defend it.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Somebody explain the difference between eugenics and genetics to GG. Good luck.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        One last thing Way2 snobby. In yesterday’s comments, I posted a number of times how important it is to keep perspective in to historical data. I know the era. I know of the elitism that was pronounced back then before they went into hiding.

      • way2gosassy says:

        All right Kabuzz, you know what you know right? and nobody is going to change your mind, maybe your litter box, but certainly not your mind! I have reached the end of my “Virtue” with you. Have as good a day as you can.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Kabuzz says, “One last thing Way2 snobby.”

        For someone who whines incessantly about not being respected you certainly know how to garner that respect.

      • Tuttabella says:

        GG, you would support aborting a baby for having the “wrong” hair color?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Way2 Snobby, here is how YOU started: I know I am on a fools errand here Kabuzz but let me say this.”

        If you want whine about respect, give it. We were and could have continued to go back and forth but you went for the cheap shot. Now you’re demanding respect? Demonstrate you earn it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Gattaca, GG? Where those not “designed” are inferior, out down as in euthanised or treated as second class citizens? I don’t really see that as something positive.

      • way2gosassy says:

        It was not I that made such a demand as it is you who seem to be so needy that no one dare to so much as have an opinion. As usual you wallow in your own misery looking for excuses to be pissed. Well my furry little friend here is my parting shot of the day. Go to your litter box and piss off!

      • way2gosassy says:

        Tutt I don’t believe that is where she was going with that. Genetics as I understand it when we talk about “selecting” certain features or genders is more about Altering or engineering DNA. However I think that while it may be available now I don’t think it is ready for “prime time” as they say.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You mentioned that I called you a name. I showed you where you first did this and the second time with Texan. I called you on it and YOU get indignant. Now! Who is whining and acting out? You my dear. Read your comments before you attack. I only attack those that attack me unless there is a vile reference to TEA Party or conservatives with a broad brush. You know who you are.

        Take a lesson from Homer. Although he is part of the echo chamber and does play games, he doesn’t name call or disrespect. So for you to hint you would be foolish to attempt to try to get me to understand something is a very cheap shot and I was surprised you wallowed in the swamp that Texas, Desp and GG hang out in.

      • GG says:

        Thanks for your concern Buzzy but I do understand the difference. As usual you cannot help but be unpleasant. Must be miserable being you.

      • GG says:

        No, Tutt. Who mentioned abortion?

    • Tuttabella says:

      Sassy, I’ve always thought that your name should be Way2Classy.

    • Texan5142 says:

      “Her beliefs and campaign were made to strengthen all women’s reproductive rights and were more complex than I think you are capable of understanding. ”

      …..and the truth shall set you free. That is all.

    • Intrigue says:

      Well thank you Sassy for your effort. Although, I don’t comment much anymore, I read your posts and most of your links because I respect your opinion and the extensive research that goes into formulating your opinion. Just know your efforts are not wasted on an ignorant kitty cat. You can’t argue with supid and you can’t reason with crazy but bless you for trying. Lol

      • way2gosassy says:

        Thank you Intrigue, I have always enjoyed yours as well. We need to see more of you!

  5. John Galt says:

    I finally had a chance to read Buchanan’s article and I don’t really see much shocking here. Putin is a strong leader (which to Russians he clearly is) and if only the neocons had gotten their way NATO would have expanded all the way to the Volga and contained him. This is a nice bit of revisionism that forgets (a) that virtually nothing the neocons advocated turned out the way they hoped and (b) that would simply have provoked confrontations 10 years ago rather than today.

    But perhaps my threshold for being shocked by things Pat Buchanan says is so high that he has to work extra hard at it.

    • goplifer says:

      What makes it a “Lindbergh Moment” is the timing. Putin isn’t just a strong leader anymore. He is reading straight out of the Fascist playbook, engineering pointless territorial conflicts to divert attention while snuffing out dissent, all the while appealing to racial and religious justifications for his rising brutality.

      Ukraine is Putin’s Sudetenland. We know well enough to recognize that our entire strategic alignment now has to shift, with NATO’s defensive front now moving into Poland and the Baltic. That doesn’t mean we’re going to war (we almost certainly are not), but we do have to abandon any notion of cooperation with the Russians.

      This is the moment when a sober person looks back at the adoring things they said about Putin and acknowledges that they got it wrong. Or, they come out boldly in favor of the merits of “blood and soil ethnonationalism” which we also refer to as Fascism. At that point you cross the line from being a noisy curmudgeon to being an enemy of American values as we have generally understood them for more than a century.

      He’s now in a category with Noam Chomsky.

      • flypusher says:

        “Ukraine is Putin’s Sudetenland.”

        Sudetenland was the first word that popped into my mind when this whole Crimea brouhaha started. I recall that that old Soviet Union deliberately moved ethnic Russians into the Baltic states- that lets you dilute out their culture and gives you that time honored excuse for military intervention. I think they did that to some extent with Ukraine, but I’d have to go look up whether the ethnic makeup of Crimea was altered in the same way.

      • DanMan says:

        September 9, 2009
        The day after Obama eliminated the missile defense shield for Poland and Czechoslovakia the WSJ made this prescient statement in an editorial.

        “And as Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov has noted, Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin benefits by keeping the Iranian crisis on a low boil, because the threat of a Middle East crisis drives energy prices up while putting U.S. interests at risk. Russia also likes spooning out dollops of diplomatic help at the U.N. in exchange for material Western concessions. This time, the concession was missile defense. Next time, perhaps, the West can be seduced into trading away the pro-Western government of Georgia, or even Ukraine.

        The European switcheroo continues Mr. Obama’s trend of courting adversaries while smacking allies. His Administration has sought warmer ties with Iran, Burma, North Korea, Russia and even Venezuela. But it has picked trade fights with Canada and Mexico, sat on trade treaties with Colombia and South Korea, battled Israel over West Bank settlements, ignored Japan in deciding to talk with North Korea, and sanctioned Honduras for its sin of resisting the encroachments of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez.”

        March 26, 2012

        President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

        President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

        We don’t even know which side of this issue Obama is really on do we?

      • DanMan says:

        fly, I think many Russian navy and navy retirees live in the Crimea region. There are likely still some people left from when the Ukraine was still a part of Russia or their descendants living there so their relationship to Russia is likely pretty solid.

        I have a buddy that does a lot work over there and he believes the projection Putin puts out is very well received. He also says the captains of industry are also the political leaders of Russia.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        You know Dan…I’ve never thought of it that way.

        Sure, Obama says he is not in favor of what Putin did, but do we really know that? Do we even really know anything about the man?

        Come to think of it, do we really even know who we are? Maybe we are all just living in the imagination of larger, more power being.

        Rock on dude.

      • John Galt says:

        I don’t think Buchanan is doing any of these thing. He’s making a bizarre argument that Putin had semi-legit reasons for taking Crimea and has no reason to go further. It’s basically appeasement, which is naive. We are going to war, but it should be an economic one. Reduce dependency on Russian oil and a lot of options open up, none of which are good for them.

      • John Galt says:

        Dan, the Crimea is certainly mostly ethnic Russians, even today. They probably would have voted in a legit election to join Russia. The Crimea got to be mostly Russian when Stalin deported all the original residents (the Tatars) to Siberia and repopulated it with Russians.

      • DanMan says:

        yep JG, that’s probably why nobody cared when McCain tried to excoriate his repub colleagues for not agreeing to Reid’s efforts to revise the IMF funding hierarchy as a condition of providing funding to the Ukraine.

        Russia is going to have customers for its energy without Europe. China and Japan will absorb whatever Eurpope doesn’t get. What’s fascinating is that reliable dem base of eco-freaks don’t even want us expanding export capabilities to serve that European market and Obama’s cooperation with them.

      • DanMan says:

        some calls are easy to make

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-21/petrodollar-alert-isolated-west-putin-prepares-announce-holy-grail-gas-deal-china

        State-owned Russian gas firm Gazprom hopes to pump 38 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas per year to China from 2018 via the first pipeline between the world’s largest producer of conventional gas to the largest consumer.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Dan made a very good point with Obama’s ‘hot mic’ conversation. What does Homer to? Belittle. Homer, heal thyself first man.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Buzz…wasn’t Obama’s “hot mic” moment a true and accurate thing that would apply to any President?

        If you were shocked or saddened by that comment, you haven’t been paying attention for the last 20 or 30 years.

        I was mocking the hyperbole….”do we even know what side he is on” is a bit over the top.

  6. GG says:

    Well said Sassy.

    • goplifer says:

      She’s the Kesha Rogers of Chicago. Everybody in the GOP hierarchy has tried to get her booted. There are practically no Republicans in that Congressional district so it’s really difficult to do anything about it. The other candidate is a Ron Paul wingnut who had a restraining order slapped on him by some woman he was stalking.

      Either one is a token candidate in that district (12,000 GOP votes in over 300 precincts). It’s a shallow pool over there.

      • flypusher says:

        “I wonder if there were a lot of democrats voting in taht GOP primary. Wouldn’t be the first time.”

        It’s a solidly Dem district. Even a sane GOPer wouldn’t have a realistic chance there. What could any Dems possibly gain in voting for her? Why waste the chance to vote for preferred candidates in other races in order to vote for a whacko? Chris can probably pull up the turnout; I’m willing to bet many more people voted Dem than GOP in those precincts.

      • flypusher says:

        Yes Chris already posted the #s. Very few GOP votes. Also are primaries open in IL the way they are in TX?

      • goplifer says:

        technically, in IL you are bound to the party whose primary you voted in during the last primary election. It doesn’t make a lot of sense. No one checks when you ask for a ballot.

        That said, there is no reason for anyone to go muck around in the GOP primary in that district. The outcome didn’t matter. Both of the candidates were complete goofballs. An accident of statistics.

    • Owl of Bellaire says:

      What’s refreshing is the establishment response:

      “Republicans moved quickly to distance themselves from Atanus following her comments. Illinois Republican Chairman Jack Dorgan called on the candidate to end her congressional campaign, but Atanus refused to withdraw from the GOP primary.

      “In a statement, he said: ‘The offensive statements by Susanne Atanus have no place in the modern political debate, and she has no place on the ballot as a Republican.

      “’Her candidacy is neither supported nor endorsed by the leaders of our party, and she should withdraw from the race immediately.’

      “Adam Robinson, the chairman of the Chicago Republican Party, stressed that Atanus: ‘is not in any way affiliated with any of our efforts in the Chicago GOP, nor have we ever supported, endorsed, or assisted her in any way at any time.'”

      Hell, here in Texas they would have cheered her on, or even doubled down with stronger remarks.

      Just imagine her making out with Louie Gohmert in the House cloakroom….

      • flypusher says:

        “Just imagine her making out with Louie Gohmert in the House cloakroom….”

        Please, no.

        2 additional points: 1). Good on the Illinois GOP for properly and deservedly calling a nut job a nut job. 2) What is it with horrid stuff like genocide and child pornography and human trafficking not getting any rise out of God, but you allow gay marriages, and suddenly there’s gonna be some smitin’????

      • John Galt says:

        Now ask yourself if the Texas GOP would have issued a similar statement.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        “The constitution has been in effect for 400 years”- SJL, democrat and news star.
        “You have to pass the bill before you know what’s in it: Pelosi, Speaker of the House, democrat.
        Charles Rangle- Democrat
        Anthony Weiner- Disgraced democrat congressman and talking head.
        Chris Matthews-Aide to speaker of the house.
        Debra Wasserman-DNC chairperson.

        Very crazy quotes can be attributed to all of these LONG time democratic leaders. But you focus on an obscure somebody that nobody knows. Pathetic.

        I will bring more to the list as time allows. Hang on.

      • CaptSternn says:

        John, not sure what the GOP establishment in Texas would say, but you can bet she wouldn’t be getting any backing from the tea party movement. I wonder if there were a lot of democrats voting in taht GOP primary. Wouldn’t be the first time.

      • flypusher says:

        Would it really be that hard to just say that Anatus is way off the deep end Buzzy? You just can’t bear ANY criticism of anyone on the right, can you? Never mind whether they deserve it or not, Sir Buzzy will defend their honor by dredging up old SJL quotes that everyone already said were whacked out.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Well damn Owl, no I will never get that visual outta my head! =)

      • kabuzz61 says:

        If someone was to post Kesha Robers is an idiot and an outlier to most of the political process in the GOP. But no, you guys go on and on and on to the usual conclusion that Texas conservatives and TEA Party advocates would embrace her.

        My advice to you Fly is to ask your echo chamber to quit mentioning the whacko’s so I won’t feel the need to list your whacko’s.

        Later I will enter a current list of ten democrat’s saying something stupid.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Just look at Owly’s comment even though that person never adds anything substantive.

        So, get off the cross you nailed yourself to buddy, all’s fair after the first shot.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        kabuzz61 says:
        March 21, 2014 at 1:04 pm
        “If someone was to post Kesha Robers [sic] is an idiot and an outlier to most of the political process in the GOP. But no, you guys go on and on and on to the usual conclusion that Texas conservatives and TEA Party advocates would embrace her.”

        Buzzy, you can’t keep track of what you spew can you? Just a knee jerk reflex to attack the left. All you need is a brain stem.

        Kesha Rogers is a Larouchie nut job running in the Democratic primary for US Senator.

        We don’ need no stinkin’ facts!

      • kabuzz61 says:

        “Republicans moved quickly to distance themselves from Atanus following her comments. Illinois Republican Chairman Jack Dorgan called on the candidate to end her congressional campaign, but Atanus refused to withdraw from the GOP primary.

        “In a statement, he said: ‘The offensive statements by Susanne Atanus have no place in the modern political debate, and she has no place on the ballot as a Republican

        Bubbo, you are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Buzzy I’m not the one who CAN”T keep track of which crazy is in which party. Even you as a wingnut assumed the nut job Kesha Rogers is in the GOP.

        The truth comes out. Beside the fact that you aren’t too sharp.

        You know you are consorting in bed with a bunch of fellow whack jobs. And you like it.

        “Dumb as a bag of hammers”. Okaaaaaaaay.

      • flypusher says:

        “If someone was to post Kesha Robers is an idiot and an outlier to most of the political process in the GOP. ”

        My advice to YOU Buzzy is to actually research (or at least think for a minute) before you post. If you had been paying any attention, you would have known that Rogers is a LWNJ. I’m not surprised at all you jumped to the wrong conclusion.

    • GG says:

      Fly, that was not something I needed to see this early in the morning before I’ve finished all my coffee.

    • goplifer says:

      Those may stray a bit from the academic definitions. They seem to have a certain [ahem] ideological objective. Here’s my take:

      http://goplifer.com/2013/11/17/what-communism-socialism-and-fascism-actually-mean/

      • CaptSternn says:

        What is it with people making up definitions for words on the fly?

        Socialism: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

        Communism:a way of organizing a society in which the government owns the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property

        Fascism: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

      • way2gosassy says:

        True, but some sections of those “definitions” sound a bit like yours. =)

      • Tuttabella says:

        Making up definitions on the Fly? I wonder what Fly has to say about this.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Um, please, no offense to Fly. :)

        Way, I had problems signing in again and tried posting a few times before it took. I meant to give credit where credit is due. http://www.m-w.com

      • CaptSternn says:

        Way, another thing, maybe the definitions sound like mine because I tend to know the definitions or words and use them in the proper context rather than just making things up as I go, creating new and different definitions in an attempt to use them against people.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Well I hate to break it to you Sternn but my reply was to Chris.

      • CaptSternn says:

        D’oh! Blame the format. Still, people use the words as defined, or make up new definitions as they go.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Way2, my mother in law would never answer me unless I used direct address if we were in a room full of people. Many years ago, but the lesson was taken and appreciated.

      • Tuttabella says:

        Kabuzz, Sassy, Cap, and Chris,

        With this format I find it’s a good idea to always indicate whom you’re addressing because so often our replies end up in the wrong place.

      • way2gosassy says:

        Good Idea Tutt!

  7. desperado says:

    I suspect Buchanan’s man-love for Putin has more to do with pigmentation than anything else. He’s much more a racist than a fascist.

  8. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    I certainly do not personally know Pat Buchanan, but he strikes me as the kind of guy that knows lots and lots of people but may not have a whole bunch of folks who hold him in much affection. He seems like a tough person to love.

    I really got nothing on this one.

    I would much rather discuss Obama’s new proposal to have gay marriages performed at Planned Parenthood officiated by gov’t appointed clergy selected using an aggressive affirmative action program.

  9. CaptSternn says:

    Interesting article, but I don’t see how you interpret it to supporting facists. Many here, including many on the left, also think it is really none of our business if Crimea rejoins Russia. Now we are all facists? Maybe he does even have a point about our encroaching on Russian borders. I didn’t even get the impression from the article that he is pro-Putin or pro-Russia, or anti-U.S.. More like an attempt at a simple explanation of what is going on and the driving forces behind it.

  10. DanMan says:

    I don’t see the problem with Buchanan’s take but its interesting you mentioned Lindbergh. A conversation about a week ago at dinner included mention of his maligned name leading up to WWII. Lindbergh had praised Germany and it’s military build-up in an attempt to warn the west that a huge force was building. His praise was interpreted as siding with Germany though.

    Lindbergh spent many of the war years in the Pacific theater training pilots. He was especially adept at demonstrating and teaching his method of leaning out the fuel delivery to maximize flight times for fighters and bombers and he would also take up a fighter and do battle with Japanese Zeroes occasionally. He had several kills too.

    About the only thing I remembered about Lindbergh was he made the first trans-Atlantic non-stop flight and some accused him of kidnapping his own child. It was interesting to have a couple of guys that knew of his war contributions sitting there discussing him. One of them was a WWII veteran and had worked for the oil company that supplied the fuel Lindbergh used on his then record setting trans-Atlantic flight.

    • goplifer says:

      All true, but perhaps just a tad incomplete. Ever wonder why they sent him to the Pacific theater?

      Along with Henry Ford, Lindbergh was the most visible American apologist for Hitler prior to the war. He and Ford were both decorated by the Nazi’s. Lindbergh received his medal directly from Goring just a few weeks before Kristalnacht. He was nearly placed on the GOP ticket in 1940, but his ties to Germany were just a bit too deep for comfort. Interesting story that.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Lindbergh was also an avowed Aryanist. And of course he believed he himself was a perfect specimen to populate the world with.

        “Building on his belief that ‘racial strength is vital’, Lindbergh published an article in Reader’s Digest stating, ‘That our civilization depends on a Western wall of race and arms which can hold back… the infiltration of inferior blood.’ ”

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/sfeature/fallen.html

        Figures Dan would be obsequiously and creepily fawn over Lindbergh.

      • DanMan says:

        Kristalnacht happened in 1938. At that time most American media was still endorsing Mussolini as well. Once we did go whole hog and declare war in 1941 Henry Ford was a huge contributor to the war effort but he had been a thorn in FDR’s efforts to control industry by refusing to participate in the Blue Eagle program, but that was done in 1933 when FDR was dragging out the depression.

        And if we’re talking about political discomfort of that era, Henry Wallace was dumped as FDRs VP when dems realized FDR likely did not have the stamina to serve his final term. They were right about his stamina. Care to tell us why Mr. Wallace was replaced with Truman?

      • DanMan says:

        But not quite as accomplished as Margaret Sanger in that regard bubba.

        “It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.”

        She is recognized as the founder of Planned Parenthood.

        As your link mentions, Lindbergh cancelled his plans to move to Germany as a result of Kristalnacht. That was in November 1938. We joined the war in December 1941 only after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Your article also mentions Lindbergh was quite ready to serve his nation when the war kicked off.

        I will also add there were 10 candidates running on the repub ticket in 1940. Lindbergh was not one of them.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes Dan, Lindbergh was quite ready to serve…in the Pacific as Chris noted.

        Lindbergh quote from the same “American Experience” source:

        “These wars in Europe are not wars in which our civilization is defending itself against some Asiatic intruder… This is not a question of banding together to defend the white race against foreign invasion.”

        But please continue to blindly worship and kiss at your altar of Charlie the Great White Hope.

      • GG says:

        There’s nothing wrong with Sanger’s statement. Poverty does breed ignorance and poor health especially so in her time. Birth control is a good thing.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Dan is correct. Sanger was a eugenics supporter as was Lindberg and Hitler and Mengele. Sanger was for aborting the children of ‘inferior’ human specimen’s.

        Lindberg took the view of today’s left in regards to Iraq. Why go to war with Germany when we were attacked by Japan? A very good question back in the day.

        In regards to the post:

        “The last conservative…blah, blah, blah.”

        “Rand Paul…blah, blah, blah.”

        Chris, do you ever bore yourself with the same old nonsense? Break out of your bubble man. You can do it.

      • DanMan says:

        I found it interesting that someone who lived during the time had a take on a subject that was mentioned today in this blog bubba. That person had a take that was quite similar to the PBS article you linked without the baggage of scrambling the issue through the lens of PBS and the comparison you are making today for something occurring then. Work yourself into another lather and we’ll again marvel at your histrionics.

        Like every other time.

      • way2gosassy says:

        ” It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.[3]

        Despite this, I’ve read Sanger opposed many methods advocated by other negative eugenicists, including euthanasia. This opposition was not on moral grounds, but on an ideological one. It was her view that birth control alone was sufficient to empower strong and knowledgeable women to produce “fit” children and it was unacceptable to have any eugenics project that put power in the hands of anyone other than those who actually give birth.

        She said of this:

        The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics…. We are convinced that racial regeneration, like individual regeneration, must come ‘from within.’ That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without.[4]

        … a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother… Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment.[5]

        This is almost verbatim pro-choice rhetoric about the absolute autonomy of women and their absolute right to choice in reproductive matters. Her commitment to the power of eugenics being in the hands of women was so non-negotiable, Sanger is on record opposing the violent eugenics of Nazi Germany.
        – See more at: http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/20/margaret-sanger-was-against-abortion/#sthash.x2A8Wvjf.dpuf

        This is from the American Catholic and the entire article can be read here:

        http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/20/margaret-sanger-was-against-abortion/

        Eugenics was the social issue of the day in the 1930’s and while Margaret Sanger may have been vocal on the issue she still did not advocate abortion or euthanasia. She strongly believed that ALL women, regardless of race or social status, should be allowed legal birth control. She was in fact the founder of The American Birth Control League. That organization eventually became Planned Parenthood and she is given credit for it as founder although I don’t think she had much to do with it at the time. This change took place in 1942 at a time I believe she was more involved in the political aspects of legalizing birth control.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Yes, Dan let’s ignore historical perspective and Lindbergh’s own documented verbatim words for a couple of old White guys of his era with six degrees of Kevin Bacon association with Lindbergh just because you had dinner with them and so you can pathetically and insecurely inject yourself squarely as some type of first hand direct “expert” in the midst of the discussion. Again. You really think you’re Forrest Gump, don’t you Danny?

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        Those who insist that Sanger’s views on eugenics MUST still define the modern Planned Parenthood…

        …make about as much sense as someone claiming the modern Republican Party MUST believe in high tariffs because of the protectionist sentiments of its founders.

        In other words, it’s the sort of ignorant, illogical propaganda continuously peddled by all too many of the halfwits which infest the modern conservative movement.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, Owl, you finally admit that the actions against the War of Northern Aggression was caused by the unfair tariffs. Good for you.

        The idea that Lincoln started said war is based on, “the sort of ignorant, illogical propaganda continuously peddled by all too many of the halfwits which infest the modern liberal movement.”

      • bubbabobcat says:

        “The War of Northern Aggression”. With a straight face.

        That about says it all.

        You really don’t know you are a living parody in your own insulated bubble, do you Cappy?

        Cappy, listen to your buddy buzzy’s advice,

        “Break out of your bubble man. You can do it.”

        In my best Rob Schneider fake Cajun accent.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        The Confederates were traitors to the American ethos.

        Much like the neo-Confederates who infest the Texas Republican Party like maggots in a battlefield corpse.

      • John Galt says:

        When we start applying blame for the actions and beliefs of founders to their organizations many years later we will run into all sorts of problems. As Chris pointed out, you might think twice about buying a Ford, and you’d really have issues with a VW or Mitsubishi. It becomes rather absurd rather quickly.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Way2, are you saying someone who embraced eugenics was just following what was popular at the time? Come on. Eugenics is code words for racism and you know it. She didn’t want inferior minorities reproducing. Nice, almost excellent attempt at painting an old barn. She clearly stated her motivation but you focus on the tools.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        “Words are inadequate for me to say how honored I was to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award,” Martin Luther King Jr. wrote to the Planned Parenthood Federation in 1966. “This award will remain among my most cherished possessions.”

      • way2gosassy says:

        Thanks for that HT. Some here would have you believe that her “only” purpose was to eliminate minorities.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      DanMan says:
      March 20, 2014 at 11:03 am
      “Lindbergh had praised [Nazi] Germany and it’s military build-up in an attempt to warn the west that a huge force was building. His praise was interpreted as siding with Germany though.”

      Why yes I see your point Danny.

      My take on al Qaeda as interpreted by Lindbergh verbatim:

      “The organized vitality of al Qaeda was what most impressed me: the unceasing activity of the people, and the convinced dictatorial direction to create the new factories, airfields, and research laboratories…,” Lindbergh recalled in “Autobiography of Values.” His wife drew similar conclusions. “…I have never in my life been so conscious of such a directed force. It is thrilling when seen manifested in the energy, pride, and morale of the people–especially the young people.”

      Yup, I’m noooooot an al Qaeda sympathizer. At all. Jes’ warning fellow ‘Mericans “that a huge force was building.”

      Man you have your head way up Lindbergh’s butt Danny. You kind of enjoy that (metaphorically and physically speaking) despite your weak protestations to the contrary, don’t you Danny Boi?

      I can quite easily envision your shirt brown Danny. Among other of your bodily artifacts of similar hue.

      • DanMan says:

        I think we’re getting there….

        ‘yo fart whisperer, keep us posted on the angry queer take

      • Turtles Run says:

        Ohhh, Danny Boy is all “butt-hurt” for getting called out on his defense of a Nazi sympathizer.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Bubba, I really think you have latent homosexual tendencies with your constant focus on Dan’s butt.

      • DanMan says:

        kabuzz, I’m not sure latent is the word you were looking for. Perhaps ‘all consuming’ is a better fit.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So that is why you are such a turd to me buzzy? I take it as a badge of honor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Noahpinion

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

The Weekly Sift

making sense of the news one week at a time

GOPLifer

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

FiveThirtyEight » Features | FiveThirtyEight

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

Anthony Bourdain

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

Hip Hop Republican

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

The Big Picture

Because leaving isn't exactly an option

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 145 other followers

%d bloggers like this: