Buchanan delivers overtly biased damage control for Republicans

Catherine Grandorff

Catherine Grandorff

As I hesitantly extended my hand to greet last week’s acclaimed guest before his press conference, I could not help but think to myself, “So, this is what the touch of Satan feels like.”

Admittedly, Pat Buchanan has been in the political arena for a (too) long time, and as a one-time, third party presidential candidate, he has the potential to offer unique insight.

However, last week, this man proved to be sly at best, and (as a very astute person pointed out) “the closest thing to Hitler allowed in this country” at worst.

During his political sermon last Wednesday, Buchanan offered considerable criticism of the Iraq war, but little criticism or demand for responsibility on the part of the man who initiated it. Nevertheless, the transparency of his supportive opposition to the very unpopular war was painfully obvious.

He exuded a notion of “what’s done is done” and now, as patriots, we must support the very imbecile who, he admits, plunged our country unnecessarily into a region of sectarian violence and “created a haven for al-Qaida terrorists.”

In essence, Mr. Buchanan attempted to empathize with the 76 percent of Americans who are unhappy with the Iraq War and simultaneously gain their empathy for support of his beloved PR-damaged Republican party. In two words: damage control. Whether or not he truly believes what he’s spouting is of little consequence. If he can rally the support of the disenchanted American people, then mission accomplished.

As a member of the Feminist Majority Foundation and National Organization for Women, my favorite part of the evening was when Mr. Buchanan prefaced a portion of his speech with, “this may sound a bit sexist,” then proceeded to detail how women just don’t have the natural oration skills that men do. I almost gagged – quietly, as that is the inherent feminine sound level. Just ask Roseanne Barr, Oprah Winfrey or Nancy Pelosi.

No doubt the power of suggestion was a key component for Buchanan when discussing ’08 presidential candidates. Again, his staunch assurance of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s ability to pin down the Democratic nomination was vapidly transparent. According to recent polls, more than 50 percent of the country remained steadfast in saying that there’s no way in hell that they’d vote for H.R. Clinton, so naturally opposition would love for her to garner the Dems’ nomination – her chance for victory nationwide seems quite unlikely.

Anti-immigration is a political notion I may disagree with, but in the end, can understand when I manage to force myself to wiggle into those shoes. However, in Buchanan’s case, his anti-immigration tirade quickly disintegrated into rampant racism, in which he criticized those who dare to keep their customs, language and culture in this country of multiculturalism.

Buchanan seemed disgusted by (legal) Hispanic immigrants’ failure to assimilate into proper Americans. My question is simply this: What is a proper American? Are we not defined by our diversity?

Perhaps the fact that SDSU is located in one of the reddest states in the country happened to be overlooked when selecting this racist misogynist to speak at the Griffith Honors Forum. Bottom line: His overtly biased insight offered little diversity to an audience bombarded with similar notions every day.

#1.883542:1309593895.jpg:grandorff,catherine.jn.jpg:Catherine Grandorff, Connect the Dots: