Can't we please talk about poor Valerie Plame? Please? Pretty Please?

Johnny, you really need to find a better way to introduce Brian Unger. Whenever you use the word comedian it just reminds me that you lack substance and are also repetitive (insert substance lacking and repetitive joke about Olbermann here).

What are you talking about? I had a new one today: Unger, the Unjournalist. Of course you could say that about Olby too...

J$, your interview list doesn't include Pat Buchanan?

Pat Buchanan is not a partisan analyst. He left the Republican Party and ran as an independent for President. So he is neither (D) nor (R) and as such is not a "partisan" analyst.

I guess Goldwater Republicans don't belong in Dollar's view of the Republican party. It's neocon or nothing.

This is about as stoopid a comment as Nonfactor has posted, at least this week, maybe more. You don't have the faintest idea of what my view of the Republican party is, what I thought of Goldwater, or who does or doesn't belong.

It's not my "view of the Republican party" that Buchanan isn't a member of it. He's proud of his independent status. That's a simple, obvious fact, even if you cannot grasp it. It has nothing to do with my "view" of the GOP, and everything to do with Buchanan's view of the GOP: he's not one.

Pat Buchanan was a member of the Republican Party, then the Reform Party, then the Independent party, and then in 2004 he said he will continue being a Republican seeing as how he wasn't going to run for office anymore.

That is simple, obvious fact, and you can look it up if you want to.

Buchanan vehemently disagrees with the neocons, but that does not mean he isn't a Republican.

Let me be clear: You can be a Republican today and not agree with the Republicans in Washington D.C.

NonFactor claimed: "in 2004 he said he will continue being a Republican seeing as how he wasn't going to run for office anymore. That is simple, obvious fact, and you can look it up if you want to."

I love how people declare something is an "obvious fact" and provide no documentation for it. In fact I did look it up, and I found nothing that said in 2004 he became a Republican again. In fact, in 2005 he was asked if he considered himself a Repub, and he said he was an independent who usually votes Republican.

So where did you get this "obvious fact" that Buchanan rejoined the Republican Party in 2004? Do you have a source, or did you just make it up?

Gosh John,

I have to say that is the stupidest thing I have seen come out of your mouth in a long while. I mean sure Pat Buchanan isn't a Republican I mean that is obvious. he registered as an independent and even said he considers himself to be independent. That must make it true. he wouldn't do that for journalistic crediblity or anything. I mean he says he is independent and all the years pushing a conservative agenda must not mean anything at all. I think we can safely he must be right in the middle since he is an independent It isn't possible he thought the Republicans were too liberal or some such crazy thing is it? No probably not. You will be releived to know that Keith Olberman says he is not political at all and doesn't even vote. I mean he said it. Must be true. I guess you can quit accusing him of liberal bias now.

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/041130glaser/

>It's not my "view of the Republican party" that >Buchanan isn't a member of it. He's proud of >his independent status. That's a simple, >obvious fact, even if you cannot grasp it. It >has nothing to do with my "view" of the GOP, >and everything to do with Buchanan's view of >the GOP: he's not one."

Gosh John,

I have to say that is the stupidest thing I have seen come out of your mouth in a long while.

I mean sure Pat Buchanan isn't a Republican I mean that is obvious. he registered as an independent and even said he considers himself to be independent. That must make it true. he wouldn't do that for journalistic crediblity or anything. I mean he says he is independent and all the years pushing a conservative agenda must not mean anything at all.

I think we can safely he must be right in the middle since he is an independent It isn't possible he thought the Republicans were too liberal or some such crazy thing is it? No probably not. You will be releived to know that Keith Olberman says he is not political at all and doesn't even vote. I mean he said it. Must be true. I guess you can quit accusing him of liberal bias now.

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/041130glaser/

>It's not my "view of the Republican party" that >Buchanan isn't a member of it. He's proud of >his independent status. That's a simple, >obvious fact, even if you cannot grasp it. It >has nothing to do with my "view" of the GOP, >and everything to do with Buchanan's view of >the GOP: he's not one."

listen to the sound of silence.

I find it hillarious when people get proven wrong and then just hide like nothing happened.

Nonfactor, if Buchanan was on Countdown to debate with Krazy Keith on abortion or the destruction of human embryos or normal marriage, perhaps you would have a point.

Buchanan fundamentally disagrees with the administration on the war and agrees with the Dems that we should get out. Since one's stance on the war is the essential issue that defines who is with the Republican party and who is not at this time, Buchanan is by defintion not a Republican. He may not be a Democrat because, apart from his agreement with them regarding the war (and dislike of Israel), there is not much that the Dems and Buchanan agree on. Therefore, the categorization of Buchanan as an independent is correct.

On the other hand JT, it is ridculous to defend KO's statement that he is "not political". Everthing he presents on Meltdown is a slam at all things conservative with no disssenting opinion AT ALL. Orange Boy is the very essence of liberal partisanship

"I find it hillarious when people get proven wrong and then just hide like nothing happened."

I find it very courageous of you to admit to your behavior in that way, non. I asked you to document when in 2004 Buchanan announced he was returning to the Republican Party or admit you made it up, and you came up empty. But at least you are man enough to admit that you are deliberately ducking the question "like nothing happened". I congratulate you for your honesty about being dishonest.

In the summer of '04 he said he was coming back to the Republican Party to support George W. Bush for re-election.

if Buchanan was on Countdown to debate with Krazy Keith on abortion or the destruction of human embryos or normal marriage, perhaps you would have a point.

The point still stands, he's a Republican, maybe not a lifelong one, but he's still a Republican and believes in the issues most Republicans believe in. And when will you understand that Countdown isn't a debate show and probably never will be?

Buchanan is by defintion not a Republican.

Really, hank? If any Republican disagrees with the war in Iraq then they aren't Republicans? Wow, stop the presses! If you're not a neo-con you aren't a Republican! Get a grip.

Nonfactor wrote:

"Really, hank? If any Republican disagrees with the war in Iraq then they aren't Republicans? "

Just like the reverse! Just ask Senator Lieberman, eh Nonfactor?

"In the summer of '04 he said he was coming back to the Republican Party to support George W. Bush for re-election."

Just keep repeating it. See, that makes it true. You don't need to cite a source, you don't need an exact quote. Just keep saying it, over and over.

The fact is that Buchanan was on the record in 2005 that he had left the Republican Party and hadn't returned. He said he was an independent who usually votes Republican. He voted to Bush in 2004 but so did a lot of independents and even some Democrats. That doesn't make them Republicans.

So Non is still floundering around in the deep end of the pool, unable to provide a single piece of documentation for his peculiar notion that Buchanan, who states he is no longer a Republican, who calls himself an independent, in fact secretly rejoined the GOP in 2004. "It's a simple, obvious fact", says Non. "look it up".

Only Non appears unable to cite any source where anyone can look it up. And for a good reason. There is no such source. Non's claim that Buchanan rejoined the GOP in 2004? He made it up!

Nonfactor wrote:

"Really, hank? If any Republican disagrees with the war in Iraq then they aren't Republicans? "

Just the ones that quit the Republican Party to run on another party's ticket.

Just the ones that quit the Republican Party to run on another party's ticket.

That's not what he said. He said that if you don't agree with the Iraq war you aren't a Republican.

You don't need to cite a source, you don't need an exact quote.

You're one to talk. It is a fact that Buchanan went to the Republicans to support Bush in 2004 and right now I won't be bothered to cite a source when you haven't done so with all of your claims, and just like I wouldn't go and quote truths about the 4th amendment for you I'll let you figure out the truth by yourself. And even if Buchanan isn't a Republican his ideas are much more further than the right when he was in Ross Perot's party. Either way your claim that Olbermann hasn't had on someone other than a Democrat is false.

The fact is that Buchanan was on the record in 2005 that he had left the Republican Party and hadn't returned. He said he was an independent who usually votes Republican.

You can back that claim up?

Certainly. Unlike your made-up claim that he rejoined the GOP in 2004, Buchanan's statement is on the record--interview in the washington Times, where he was specifically asked if he was still a Republican and he said--no. He's an independent.

"Either way your claim that Olbermann hasn't had on someone other than a Democrat is false."

I didn't say he hasn't had someone other than a Democrat. Obviously he has. My claim is not a "claim" at all but simply a running tally of the PARTISAN (i.e. party-identified) politicians and strategists interviewed on Countdown. It just so happens that all of them who are identified with a party are all Democrats. And none is Republican. That's not a claim. That's just a plain, obvious fact. Look it up.

Nonfactor, when Buchanan, a non republican, is on meltdown with Krazy Keith, what is the purpose of his appearance? It's always to be critical of Bush and the war in Iraq, nothing else. Real brave of Keith there, don't you think? You're correct that Buchanan is conservative on the moral issues, although it would be nice to hear him give W. the kudos he deserves standing up for marriage and the pro life movement and against the killing of human embryos. It would be refreshing to see the no talent wonder boy of the left debate these issues with PB.

Buchanan's stock in trade is isolationism and anti-Israelism (he has even been accused of anti-Semitism, but Olby hasn't donned a Pat mask and done a Nazi salute just yet). Every time I've seen him on Countdown it has been to criticize the Iraq War or the Bush administration. I don't recall Olby bringing him on to discuss stem cells, or abortion, or judicial appointments, or any of the issues where he still holds Republican positions.

So if Pat WERE still a Republican, he would be a RINO brought on Countdown to slant the statistics--just like if someone brought on Zell Miller and claimed he represented a Dem point of view. It would be a phony trick. It is, of course, even phonier to use someone who has renounced the Republican Party (Pat) and claim that he really didn't, public statements and Presidential campaign to the contrary. That is really stretching credulity, but we can always rely on Non to desperately defend Olby till the last dog is hung.

and against the killing of human embryos.

Pat, you moron, W didn't stand up for that. If he did, he would outlaw the discarding of human embryos. What Bush did doesn't save them because they are still destroyed after a set period of time.

Sorry, Non, I was responding mostly to your claim that Buchanan is a Republican. He isn't. My source? pat Buchanan ran as the Reformed Party candidate in the 1998 election.

pat Buchanan ran as the Reformed Party candidate in the 1998 election.

There was no Presidential election in 1998. He ran as the Reform candidate in 2000.