Talk:Pat Buchanan

No Children?

Buchanan is anti-abortion, quite possibly anti-contraceptives with his staunch Catholic adherence, and in Death of the West, he cited declined birthrates among white Americans and Europeans as one of the reasons the West is dying. He's been married from 37 years, yet has no children. This makes me wonder if he is either a hypocrite or if he and/or his wife were unable to conceive. I'm neither pro or anit-Buchanan, I just find it interesting that he has no children. Has he ever elaborated on this? -24.149.203.34 (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think his wife is capable of having children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people support the Second Amendment, although they do not own guns themselves.68.174.146.237 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Needed on Women

I've read Right from the Beginning and I find Buchanan to be anti-Feminist, but at the same time I feel strongly that the quote is misrepresented: Buchanan expresses that those things saved women time enough to liberate them from the world they had and did more to bring women out of the house than the feminist movement. Yes, if you only include the quote, it looks bad, but its horribly out of context. Please do not remove the tag until this is discussed, as this quote bounces around and is simply an unfair and inaccurate representation. It can definitely be alledged he is sexist, but to do this, proper sources should be used.J. M. 13:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That has been taken out of context to make him look misogynistic. Actually it seems to me to invoke Anne Morrow Lindbergh's Gift from the Sea. Shield2 09:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Needed on Trade and Economic Nationalism

PB has for decades supported vigorous protection of the American market for American products of all sorts.

How can a biography of the man say not one word about that topic, one of the few on which he is most vociferous and one that is highly topical, given that we are forever seeing debates between free traders (mostly GOP and conservative) and fair traders (mostly Dem and liberal to further left)?

Gaius sempronius gracchus 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See Political views of Pat Buchanan on global affairs, a spin-off article. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"paleoconservative?" as pejorative

I don't think this term is useful. It's definitely a pejorative term, associates negative connotations with those labeled as such (like their political ideology is stone-age, outdated or dinosaur-like) and was created by those who don't subscribe to the said political mindset. It's as if Bill Clinton's executive summary described him as a "bleeding-heart communist." Just because the term exists doesn't mean it's appropriate or correct to label people as such when the point is surely to detract. 210.20.86.85 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Paleoconservatism was a term created in the 1980s by Paul Gottfried, who is pro-Buchanan. It refers to conservatives who oppose neoconservatism and support certain ideals. WP has two big long articles on the movement. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The important factor is whether a reliable source has referred to Senator Buchanan with this term. If this is the case, the fact should be mentioned. But the article should not endorse the description. Itsmejudith 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Senator Buchanan"? When was he elected to office? Anyway, dozens of reliable sources have called him "paleoconservative". The Economist called him "Paleocon Pat".[1]. -Will Beback · † · 21:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Pat has ever called himself a Paleoconservative, but he has never shied away from the views, and admits great influence from many self described paleoconservatives like Sam Francis. I seriously doubt he would mind being described as such.

I've removed this, at least in the section I found it ("his views generally agree with the paleoconservative blah blah") the reference didn't mention "paleoconservative" and reeked of original research and anti-buchanananism. CarlosRodriguez 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had seen him referred to as "senator", anyway I'm not all that interested in US politics. I can't remember how I found my way to this article, maybe through a Request for Comment. The Economist is a good source, so if it has written about him then that could be summarised and added. "Paleoconservative" sounds like quite a dismissive term though. Itsmejudith 21:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to consider the context. A "communist" is very pejorative in America but obviously not in a communist country. US politicians in general are notably more eager to self-identify as "conservative" than "liberal". Bottom line ithat "paleocon" is not particularily pejorative, especially sinces it identifies one as conservative will distinguishing one as "neocon".Bdell555 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

College Education

The article states he graduated from Georgetown in 1961 and then obtained a master's degree in journalism from Columbia in 1962. How could he have gotten a masters degree in one year? Is this correct?

- Completing a professional master's degree in a calendar year is not uncommon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.41.67 (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Columbia J School masters is and was a one-year program. So are most journalism masters degrees.68.174.146.237 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Too big

This article is WAY too big. It is the only article that exceeds 100k. Somebody please try to shorten this article down by at least half. Plus, it mostly contains his views on certain topics, which warrant their own article, which would dramatically decrease size. Somebody please consider this. Dylanlip 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just added the bars for an article that is too long. Anyone suggest putting it up for cleanup? Dylanlip 18:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please add his "white supremacy" views? Thanks. �Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.60.136 (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow... so, the article needs to be shortened by more than half, and you wish to add even more to it???!!! Please add the info when the article is shortened, and plus, all topics he talked about shouldn't be put up. If someone put everything larry King talked about, the page would be over 150k large, but we need to suppress info. We can't have an article to be too large. We should seriously begin creating sub-articles for Pat Buchanan and then create a category to hold the sub-articles. If this plan works, we can cut about 50-60% of the info on this page. If not, we need to do an old fashioned shortening. Dylanlip 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

FEC records about his holdings are trivial and irrelevant. they look like a political stunt. even michael moore has investments in halliburton [2]. i'm removing them. -- 128.128.98.46 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Foreign policy part should be moved to the global affairs article

The parts under "Israel and accusations of anti-Semitism" that deal with foreign policy of other Middle Eastern countries should be moved to the article about his views on global affairs, and simply link to that page.Shield2 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1992 Campaign

I think the sentence referring to Molly Ivins' quote, under the 1992 Campaign, can be eliminated. I've now listened to the speech three times and haven't found a single referrence to anything that reasonable people would call Nazi-like. There's plenty for people of different political affiliations to disagree with, but I think Ivin's quote is categorically unfounded and out of place in what ought to be a biography of a living person (Unless the point, here, was merely to emphasize Ms. Ivins' inherent dislike for Germans.).Bobert432 (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Buchanan Diversity Definition

Pat Buchanan is making the rounds plugging a book he wrote. I've heard him on CSPAN at least twice now. He has claimed that diversity will destroy America. He says "diversity" is people who have nothing in common and do not even share a common language. I understand this is not correct denotation of the word "diversity" under any previously known use of the word. Under Buchanan diversity, he says America will "Balkanize". He cited the movie "Crash" as evidence.

• Has the book he's pushing been added to the article? I don't know what the title is.
• Is this re-definition of "Diversity" unique to Buchanan or has anyone observed it elsewhere?
• Is Buchanan "diversity" a new example of "framing the debate" or is he just struggling to give a label to "nothing at all in common"?
• Is there some other word which better describes the state of "having nothing in common at all, not even language? (other than D-I-V-O-R-C-I-T-Y) :-) Ace Frahm (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Is it time to add Buchanan diversity to the article, or do we need to wait to hear him say it some more?

Ace Frahm (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what you are saying about diversity, but my understanding is that he is talking about diversity of cultures and/or ethnicity and/or religion. He believes that having multiple ethnicities in a country causes problems such as we see causing wars in other countries around the world. JettaMann (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Is/was Buchanan CIA?

OK, this gets a bit into conspiracy stuff, but it's not completely wild... Braden, with whom Buchanan presented Crossfire, was in the CIA, and was part of Operation Mockingbird which was an operation to influence the media, which was made public by the Church committee. Timothy Leary is supposed to have made an accusation about this:

"That’s the left wing of the CIA debating the right wing of the CIA."

* Discussing CNN’s Crossfire as quoted in Rolling Stone (14 December 1989)

So that appears to me to be someone notable alleging that Buchanan is/was CIA. That's about all I've found of any note though. Searching google just turns up sites which would probably not be considered suitable for wikipedia to reference. So at this stage what I'm asking is does anyone know anything about this topic, especially if you know of any reputable sources, as it does seem to be quite an interesting idea and could be appropriate for the article if anyone can find a decent source on the discussion. Marty funkhouser (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

'National Conversation on Race'

The NCOR section was filled with original research written from a POV, seemingly anti-Buchanan perspective. The section itself was non-notable since the columns in question were written in response to an Obama campaign speech, and, to my knowledge, Buchanan's arguments did not generate major media coverage. Unless someone can establish notability for this section I think it should be removed. Algabal (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I thought it was simply some quotes published by Buchanan with some information from verifiable sources that provided different facts from Mr. Buchanan's. Seems like publishing Mr. Buchanan's material without discussing the hard data behind it (or counter to it) constitutes POV. Is notability strictly confined to "major media coverage"? If so, it logically follows that all references to information obtained from non-major media sources needs to be deleted, and a list of acceptable "major media outlets" needs to be published. 69.116.242.16 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing Tags

Its been a while and I don't see a need for them. I worked a lot on the article and don't think its POV. If it is POV change it but do not leave the tags indefinitely.

GordonUS (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti-war, anti-interventionist

The article seems to me to be weighted misleadingly. In particular, there is no indication of Buchanan's strong anti-war/anti-interventionist stance (cf: A Republic, Not an Empire), one of his main themes. He is basically against all USAmerican military intervention from the Spanish-American War to present. OTOH there is a boatload of text on smears alleging anti-Semitism and replies to such. It seems like the weight should be reversed here. Presently the article seems POV against Buchanan. Another error is the statement that "Buchanan denies gun ownership and violence are linked." I would like some citation here. From what I've read I suspect that Buchanan would assert a link - that private gun ownership reduces crime. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think most know Pat Buchanan for that. While it is true that he believes in those things, it should also be known that Pat Buchanan's image is one that is tied to being culturally conservative. I think some of his supporters lately have been making the Ron Paul rounds to clean his image up. There should be some mention in a sub section of Pat Buchanan's political positions. --Spikeleefan (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)