J. D. Vance ♥ Tucker Carlson
As Kevin Roberts goes, so goes J. D. Vance (hat tip: commenter “Selfy”):
“Tucker’s a friend of mine,” [Vance] told Ahmari. “And do I have disagreements with Tucker Carlson? Sure. I have disagreements with most of my friends, especially those who work in politics. You know this. Most people who know me know this. I’m [also] a very loyal person, and I am not going to get into the business of throwing friends under the bus.”
I had no idea that friends can’t be criticized when they lie publicly and often. “My friend, right or wrong” isn’t a principle of which I’m aware. When your friend is doing something mendacious and destructive, and it’s public and influential, it’s moral cowardice to say nothing.
Of course, this isn’t really about friendship. I think I’m on safe ground when I say that. Tucker Carlson isn’t all that charming. What’s happening here, I believe, is that Vance doesn’t want to alienate Carlson’s Jew-hating supporters. They vote too, right? I don’t know how numerous they are, But J. D. must believe they are numerous enough that he needs them in the coalition. It’s true that Vance and others are in a bind, if this group is large enough that it’s necessary for victory. But they’re going to alienate a lot of other people in the process, and not just Jews.
More from Vance:
Vance noted further that “the idea that Tucker Carlson — who has one of the largest podcasts in the world, who has millions of listeners, who supported Donald Trump in the 2024 election, who supported me in the 2024 election — the idea that his views are somehow completely anathema to conservatism, that he has no place in the conservative movement, is frankly absurd.”
Meanwhile, the latest from good old friend Tucker to help you make up your own mind as to whether Carlson has a place in “the conservative movement”:
Pernicious mendacious garbage. The Qataris must love it, though.
Actor James Woods had a comment about Rob Reiner’s murder which said that, while he and Reiner had very different political views in recent years, the friendship had endured. If Vance is merely saying he’s not willing to cut off the friendship, so far, so good. But he does need to begin criticizing the views on which he and Carlson now disagree — assuming he does disagree. I’m willing to give Vance a little more time to see this, but really, Carlson’s being not only anti-Israel but also anti-Jew, and taking it farther in support of Islam, is too much, in my view. Vance needs to see this. His loyalty to his friend is blinding him at the moment.
Kate:
No one is asking Vance to stop being friends with Carlson, and it’s disingenuous of Vance to imply otherwise.
However, what Vance is also saying is that if he criticizes Carlson, Carlson won’t be his friend anymore. Apparently we’re in junior high.
Although, as I said, this isn’t about friendship. It’s about Vance’s perception of where the votes are.
I’m watching Vance. I don’t know if your idea that it’s all about Carlson’s possible voting bloc is what Vance is really doing. If that’s where it is, though, I’m out. I don’t hang around with old-style white racists, and I won’t hang out with, or vote for, Jew-haters either.
With friends like that …
(you already have known enemies J. D.).
Too clever by half.
Kate, agree fully. If JD can’t Tucker, as vile as Tucker is, then JD will not get my vote. Hate to see a Dem win. But it might happen. The Dems will make Tucker an Albatross around JD’s neck.
Vote for Vance or vote for Newsome?
Vote for neither, and Newsome gains one more vote.
It’s way too early, but there are other candidates possible besides Vance, and I think Vance has time to correct this error. Not two years’ time, but some. Rubio is doing an excellent job, and Ron DeSantis will be available.
If it’s Vance vs. Newsom, I’ll vote Vance, no question. I think highly enough of JD’s intelligence to believe that he’ll see this problem.
I will reserve judgement on Vance for a while longer, as I find him a very strong candidate for President.
Contrary to fullmoon, Newsom is not the only other choice.
Even VPs have to go through the Primary system (at the present time, anyway).
If a better candidate exists, however, now is the time to start making waves.
Rubio looks much better to me now than he did in 2016.
Related:
“Tucker Carlson and the Qatar First Republicans are sabotaging Trump”—
https://www.jns.org/tucker-carlson-and-the-qatar-first-republicans-are-sabotaging-trump/
Actually, they’re sabotaging the country…
…but that may be what is NECESSARY in order to achieve the ultimate goal/solution: the erasure of the State Israel (though perhaps even a more final solution is being contemplated by the pure at heart).
+ Bonus (another “purist” chimes in):
“The anti-Semitic delusions of Candace Owens;
“The digital right’s embrace of Jew hatred can no longer be ignored.”—
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/12/22/the-anti-semitic-delusions-of-candace-owens/
It would seem that the US must be willingly sacrificed to achieve either the extreme Left’s glittering fantasy of Global Government by self-appointed elites or—and/or?–the extreme Right’s glorious fantasy of a—finally—Jewless reality.
I think Tucker Carlson is gone, intellectually, but I have hopes that Vance’s intellect and his Christian faith are stronger than Carlson’s.
Islamists say first they’ll get the Saturday people (Jews) and then the Sunday people (Christians).
In re my Primary lineup, first some good news for Vance:
https://redstate.com/wardclark/2025/12/22/new-america-fest-results-jd-vance-dominates-2028-presidential-poll-n2197396
That was at TPUSA: “not just Republicans, not just conservatives, but conservative activists.”
And apparently Vance’s support of Tucker didn’t hurt him, because the poll was also highly supportive of Israel.
For Rubio, another checkmark on his report card.
https://redstate.com/katie-jerkovich/2025/12/22/state-department-confirms-trump-recalling-more-than-two-dozen-ambassadors-n2197397
He is enforcing President Trump’s priorities, not sandbagging them.
Hopefully, there will be places at State where the recalled dignitaries can’t do any damage.
A contender I didn’t mention above, but who has always been high on my list.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2025/12/22/anti-religion-group-comes-at-sarah-huckabee-sanders-over-christmas-but-shes-not-having-it-n2197391
More on the reason for the season, and turning some tables on the parasites.
“…gone, intellectually…”
Perhaps, but I think it’s his “Road to Doha” moment that bent him quite a bit out of shape.
Still possible, I suppose, that he’ll get unbent but I’m not sure how that will happen unless he gets some inkling of who the Qataris truly are…
…keeping in mind that the rewards of not straying from the chosen path may prove to be unsurmountable.
All the talk about Vance v. Newsome is premature. Vance is thinking about the 2028 GOP primaries, not the general election.
There is going to be a non-Trump/MAGA “lane” in 2028 that is going to be filled by someone like Glenn Youngkin, Niki Haley, Ron DeSantis, or perhaps a Trump administration member who can draw a lot of non-Trump/MAGA Republican support, such as Marco Rubio. None of those folks are going to have any appeal to Tucker Carlson’s audience.
I think there will also be a candidate or candidates who try to challenge Vance as the “true heir” in a pro-Trump/MAGA “lane.” I suspect this is what Vance is worried about. The Tucker Carlson audience probably isn’t big enough to win the GOP nomination, but it is big enough to cause Vance to lose it to the non-Trump/MAGA candidate if he doesn’t carry the pro-Tucker vote.
Exit question – even if Vance pulls off this maneuver now, how does he win the general election after spending the next three years of playing footsie with Groypers?
JD Vance will not get the support of groypers or Christian nationalists because he is married to an Indian and he’s perceived as being too close to big tech. Steve Bannon has made a big show of supporting Trump in 2028, not because he believes he will win but because he doesn’t want to support JD.
The people JD is trying to appease will turn on him once they find a suitable replacement (MTG?) and then he will have few defenders. He missed a great opportunity with his speech at Amfest to denounce the craziness of Candace and Tucker. A big problem is that Tucker’s son Buckley works for JD. Tucker has been an isolationist for quite a while but its only in the past nine months or so that he has gone completely off the rails.
JD has a lot of positives but he had better sort this out or his once very promising career will be over.
A few thoughts.
Firstly: Contra Neo, I do think Tucker is quite charming when he wants to be, and certainly WAS. Even many of his most strident critics and opponents have spoken about traveling with and working with him like the Shapiros, D’Souza, VDH, and so on, and they apparently got on quite well. That was one reason why they emphasized the painful nature of the “breakup” and how it made them confront him. Of course I cannot rule out that much of this is played up for the cameras to add drama and thus credibility, but I do think it speaks to something. I also have worked with and gotten along well with people of varying flavors, some of whom held beliefs I hold to be outright evil, and whom I tried to argue with to some success. And a few who abandoned those but others who cut me off. And it can be painful. So I would not rule out that is part of the equation.
Secondly: That being said, if someone is truly your friend you will make the effort to try and make them see the light and correct them when they are wrong, as Carlson obviously is. He is also doing himself no great favors and is making himself toxic by being a useful idiot at best or an enabler, and Fuentes and Cooper have not only been liabilities but also have shanked him in the back for his troubles
Thirdly: I do not buy that the Buchanan wing of Jew hating paleos is a key enough part of the Trump coalition to justify this, or be required for victory. I think Buchanan’s own results are a good indication of a high mark for that, and it is important to note the likes of Fuentes and Cooper are not there at all since they frankly want to destroy the American Conservative and Republican movements in favor of their own stuff. There definitely is an isolationist and even paleo part of the Trump coalition and they probably are important enough to the grand coalition for victory, but I am going to assume most of them are not this particular flavor of hardcore Jew hating pro totalitarian anti-western and anti-constitutionalist mold. Which along with the left driving American Jews and even many gentile moderates out as well as the epochal sort of realignment in American politics giving the chance of bringing many Jews into the fold paints this as folly. The move by Vance is bad enough, but if it was made for cynical calculation that would almost make it worse.
Fourth: I think Ace had it right and pre-emoted what Vance said about it being oh so unthinkable that Tucker can have a place in the Conservative coalition.
https://ace.mu.nu/archives/417192.php
“ “We Must Stop Fighting, We Cannot Divide the Right*”
* “Except for Tucker Carlson Who Is Allowed to Continue #Cancelling All Jewish Republicans He Doesn’t Like.”
Carlson is the one who has declared large swaths of the conservative coalition anathema. He has declared he hates them more than he hates anyone else. He did try to walk this back but I think most of us acknowledge how unlikely he was to be sincere in that, and it is moreover worth noting that by doing so he was casting many longtime friends and allies as well as his own father’s legacy under the bus.
As such Vance needs to know what time it is. And even if he truly were a harsh Jew hater like Dinkins or Agnew he should have the sense to know this is not going to work. Carlson is the one that left us.
Fifth: Even if Vance wanted to continue to be Carlson’s friend or at least posture as such, he could have done much better by making some more pointed but mild criticism or disavowal of remarks regarding Jews, Cooper, Fuentes, or so on. As it stands these remarks from him are probably some of the worst due to how mealy mouthed they are.
And I went to junior high school and all the way through it. I knew the value of sincere and well intentioned but pointed criticism in friendships, both giving and taking.
Sixth: it is depressing to see how it looks like this has divided the right further, including from what seems to be Sargon of Akkad and the Lotus Eaters who have taken a pro-Carlson anti-Shapiro anti-Israel line and a more pointed rejection of even classical liberalism.
“Who benefits?” Is overrated but I do think it has a point, and the issue of “if someone was paying Carlson/Owens/etc to sabotage the right, what would they be doing differently?” I can think of a few things to be fair, but it is still infuriating.
Seventh: Like Gregory Harper said, this is a self own because the Groypers and their adjacent ilk will not support Vance in the first place. Which again is why this is a poorly calculated trade off as well as morally repulsive some adjacent types like Yarvin and the Dark Enlightenment tards are probably more open on the issue of race but good luck getting them to amount to more than the tradeoff from Jews and other supporters of Jews and Israel.
There are some perfectly odious characters in the Unz comboxes, attracted no doubt by Ron Unz particular brand of Teh Crazy. The American Conservative is an annoying publication, as is Chronicles. Joseph Sobran fancied scheming Jews had ruined his life. It is, however, wrong to characterize Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul or Daniel McCarthy as Jew haters. Palaeos who have to put their name on their opinions often have an inflated idea of their own perspicacity, but that’s a different problem.
==
Surely you understand the difference between calling a friend on his BS privately vs making a public spectacle of him.
If not, it is a thing for guys. You present a united front with your friends in public, you criticize in private. You only escalate to a public callout as a last resort where things have gotten so bad it’s worth risking the friendship.
As for whether Tucker has any charm, I’ll only point out that he was once confronted by a random guy and well….
https://youtu.be/tnnd51SPqc4?si=bhDpeShQR6YJHrVl
Really sad to see Tucker going off the rails now.
With friends like Tucker who needs enemies?
Neo – I’ve moved to undecided in Vance vs. Newsome.
If the blue hairs get in and send us to camp for reeducation here’s my plan:
Shove Tucker at the guards and run for it.
The go signal is fnord.
…The only problem being that Democratic Party governance = multi-level, across-the-board DESTRUCTION…
(All the rest, as they say, is commentary.)
But hey, OMMV!…
…Until it can’t…
Art Deco: Totally agree.
Kate: Almost totally agree.
Sumdood called in to the place I used to work, complaining about the sales rep assigned to his account. The words “son of a bitch” were used quite a bit in the complaint, and concluded with, “you need to fire that son of a bitch” if we wanted any more of his business.
The stud duck (company President) was advised of the complaint and the reasons behind it, which were more than just a little justified. But he remarked that our guy may be a son of a bitch (he was, in fact, exactly that), but that he was OUR son of a bitch and nobody outside the company was gonna tell him who was gonna get fired.
But I’m not convinced Tucker is our son of a bitch any longer and the attention I pay to him is governed accordingly.
It’s also quite possible that Carlson’s (et al.) influence is in fact greatly exaggerated, using bots and other multiplier means (There’s already been reports of this, especially WRT Nick Fuentes.)
Keeping in mind that “The Narrative” (du jour) should NEVER be relied on.
In a nutshell:
“VDH: Hegseth Did What Biden Called ‘Impossible.’”—
https://instapundit.com/764204/
Opening graf:
IOW DPUSA
EXCUSESJUSTIFICATION for destruction. (Just think of it as one big snow job…and/or a nation-wide softening-up operation )@Art Deco @IrishOtter49
Can’t agree regarding at a minimum Buchanan. His track record and remarks were odious and consistent, and as someone who read much of his remarks and writings (including his duology on the World Wars, which amounted to Volkisch screeds that went far beyond even hardcore isolationism into outright whitewashing the Central Powers and the Axis) I would be an idiot if I ignored what they said. He was not nearly as subtle a man as he thought he was, nor as smart as he was. I have my issues with the late Buckley and am opposed to the Cult of William and the Old School National Review I have seen going far beyond the man’s heroic and significant but flawed legacy, but he cannot be faulted as a natural enemy of Buchanan – very much the opposite, he was a deep friend – but Buckley ultimately concluded the obvious.
Buchanan was a Jew Hater, and I think his track record shows it went far beyond his already deranged focus on Israel (which was hostile far beyond reason and involved peddling lies as well as inverting his own supposed principles and stances).
With Ron Paul and Daniel McCarthy I think the record is nowhere near as clear, at least given what I have seen. Though what I have seen is enough for me to be scathing. For whatever the Paul dynasty or Daniel McCarthy have done domestically, I have concluded them to be dishonest, historically illiterate useful idiots. Both Pauls have found have an annoying as hell tendency to Blame America First, and Ron Paul’s particular whinging about US involvement in WWII and that pop culture associates it with the Holocaust is technically true but still a god awful look fitting with his post 9/11 disgrace, and the fact that a former staffer had to point to Nazi attacks on US neutral shipping and Pearl Harbor is jarring. McCarthy I know less of, though his claim that Buchanan was marked as “antisemitic” just because he claimed only Israelis and their “amen corner” would want the US to fight Saddam’s Iraq paints a poor sign of his honesty.
That said I have not seen anything from either that indicates an undue hatred of Jews, unlike Buchanan. And in any case they have way bigger issues with them I can take them to the woodshed over.
@Nate Winchester
I agree the logic, but the problem goes back to the gravity. Tucker Carlson has gone far beyond criticizing in private. He publicly aired and helped try to legitimize racist pro-Nazi idiots like Cooper and Fuentes, helped launder Hamas and Kremlin propaganda, and professed his hatred for “Christian Zionists” as outstripping that for even the CCP or the scum that did 9/11. In spite of how there being every chance that describes most of the Trump/Conservative base, and which definitely does when you factor in the nonwhite non Catholics.
Again, this was not private like Tucker’s profession to hate Trump, which could be overlooked. This was public. It was utterly nasty. It was repeated. It demonstrates bigotry and poor judgement, and as Ace pointed out it divided the base. And as others pointed out it ultimately attacked both Vance’s own wife and children, and the family of his boss, the Trumps.
If this is not worth public call outs, what is? What would it take to judge this as worthy of a call out?
I do not grudge people private friendships, as I mentioned before, and I imagine it would be a hard place, one I can sympathize with to a degree due to finding myself in similar straits. But hard truths need to be said.
There is no divine edict that JD Vance cannot be friends with Tucker Carlson, as many people were and are, including the late Charlie Kirk (though Kirk did not know the depths Carlson and Owens would say). But Vance is not me. Vance is the Vice President of the US one heartbeat away from POTUS, and favored candidate for that position in the next presidential election.
Vance needs to decide whether he would rather be Donald Trump’s Vice President and political heir apparent – as well as the Vice President of hundreds of thousands of Americans, including an American Customary Ton of Jews, Protestants, Hindus, etc, and non-whites- or Tucker Carlson’s friend.
I will also note that Tucker putting Vance in this position to choose is a shit move and not very friend like. Ditto putting TPUSA and the surviving Kirks in by his repulsive diversion in the eulogy.
(And for the record, it is vanishingly unlikely the Sanhedrin or the Herodian Court that made up the Jewish part of the conspiracy that murdered Jesus would have eaten Hummus at the time, or that most Jews or frankly anyone would have; Hummus is a lot later than people realize and it took ages to get truly popular. So the phrasing was stupid, historically illiterate, and probably hateful as well as awkward.)
But I agree he can be very charming and that it is sad to see him going through this kind of spectacular crash out. But that doesn’t change the fact that he needs to be told enough is enough, and if he treats his friends like this then he is not worthy of being their friend.
Buchanan was a Jew Hater,
==
(1) He’s still alive; (2) I would refer you to Michael Kinsley’s account of working with him.
@Art Deco
Meant to write something along the lines of “throughout his life”. But didn’t follow through due to family stuff.
I’ve seen it. And it does fuck all to move my estimation. Which is why I repeat: Pat Buchanan is and was a Jew Hater.
Firstly: One of the many issues I have with modern interpretations of racism, Jew hatred, religious bigotry of other forms, and so on has been elevating it to not only be an evil (which it is) but to be the font of all evils, or even more evil. This is not something I agree with, and I will never claim that all Jew Haters are equally evil or murderous, or that Pat Buchanan is a genocidal Nazi.
After all, even Kaiser Wilhelm II – who was no friend of the Jews – had plenty of Jewish service people serve him and (however briefly) expressed horror at Kristalnacht (before trying to get back into Hitler’s good graces). At least one member of the Russian jury that acquitted Mendel Beilis was a Black Hundredist. There are people who can be bigoted or have prejudices without seeking to harm others or persecute them. And indeed, even with people far worse than I will ever claim Buchanan was, among a secret assembly of the SS (men who had already sworn to follow Hitler and who had murdered on his behalf), Himmler famously had to complain about the mentality of the “Good Jew” before having to lay down the line that there were no Good Jews and all had to be exterminated. And if he felt the need to do that to the NSDAP’s vanguard lest others follow their Fuhrer’s example in allowing a “Good Jew” (in Hitler’s case the doctor who treated his mother) to escape, it stands to reason others host their prejudices without anything like the malice or evil said SS or Hamas do.
Secondly: Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. Kinsley is a leftist, and has a particular flavor of agenda to push: tying Buchanan to Trump and claiming the latter is worse. Which is all the more important, especially since Trump’s overt Philojudaism, Philozionism, support for America’s Jewish community (and their support of him, especially among the most Orthodox), and Jewish family members contrasts sharply with Buchanan for essentially all his life, even during his most moderate and pro-Israeli (even if “never pro-Jewish” – to quote some – periods).
https://www.jta.org/archive/on-the-election-trail-buchanan-defending-israel-in-another-era-it-happened
Thirdly: Decent treatment of people who you systematically denigrate on or view as unequal does not mean you do not hate them or at a minimum wish to degrade them, it just means you have standards. Hence why the likes of – say – Wilhelm II could act with apparently unfeigned horror at Kristalnacht in between smash poetry about genocide with the much less repentant Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and why Alexander Stephens could simultaneously declare that the foundation of the Confederacy was the inequality of the “Black Man” to the “White” while apparently being a rather humane slaveowner (at least as far as the trade goes) who repeatedly tried and failed to get laws against mistreatments of slaves passed, and who was able to retain employment of some of his now former slaves and even had one serve as a pallbearer (granted, Stephens has always struck me as a far more genteel and amiable man in terms of personality than either Buchanan or especially Wilhelm II, as shown by his long friendship with a certain Kentucky Lawyer you might have heard of , and he was certainly heir to a Southern tradition of noblesse oblige and decorum, but still).
In any case, Kinsley does not outweigh the weight of decades of rather consistent and insidious behavior and prejudice, as well as the fact that frankly Buchanan fits his own definition for the disease. Which is also why I feel Buckley did not go as far as he should have.
And that’s not even one of the things I object to most stridently with Buchanan, given what I’ve read of his nonsense in the two World War books.
https://www.aei.org/articles/patrick-j-buchanan-and-the-jews/
Suffice it to say, he was a Jew Hater, but not a murderous one (at least not directly, though I could say plenty about the possible fruits of his policy preferences if carried out). He knee jerkingly blamed Israel for a host of things when he could and enjoyed quite a lot of Jew Baiting even outside of that. But his patriotism and anti-communism outweighed his Jew hatred and his respect for the law and some level of decency outweighed the hate. As such he certainly had much less blood on his hands than say Al Sharpton, of the greatest pogrom in North American history infamy, and deserves much less condemnation for it.
But I see no reason to mince words about what he was, as well as what he wasn’t.
@turtler
A completely valid point and it is a real challenge for every man on when a friend has crossed that line a public call out is necessary. Seems like sometimes there is never a right answer, too soon or too late it always is.
There is a reason I do not envy JD’s position in life. He is caught in thorny waters, especially in the modern day world of social media where we must be conscious of not only our words, but all those words that will be put into our mouths. At this point I half hope JD drags Tucker out fishing and talks some sense into him.
I’ve seen it. And it does fuck all to move my estimation. Which is why I repeat: Pat Buchanan is and was a Jew Hater.
==
If you’re attempting to get yourself categorized as a lunatic, you’re succeeding.
@Art Deco
If you’re attempting to concede the argument, there are better ways to do that.
If you’re attempting to actually make any kind of point against my claims and the evidence, this is an incompetent way of doing it. Incompetent, cowardly, and fucking stupid. It’s literally an ad hominem fallacy, and one that wouldn’t even help your claim if it were true.
Which seems to be a tendency of yours when you try to argue with me on historical matters (like regarding Weimar, Versailles, or a few others) and get your clock cleaned. You can’t argue that Buchanan’s conduct towards not just Israelis but Jews was disgraceful, consistent, and fitting of sane definitions of Jew Hatred, including his own definition of antisemitism. You can’t argue my point regarding Kinsley and how he is not an entirely trustworthy subject without agenda, and how in any case he doesn’t outweigh the contrary evidence.
So you resort to name calling.
Unfortunately for you, I don’t have to give a fuck about what you categorize me as, Art Deco.
I also know you are capable of addressing points at length, I’ve seen you do it before. So your decision here is folly, and believing it’d have any effect is a far truer sign of lunacy than anything from my post.
If you’re attempting to get yourself categorized as a lunatic, you’re succeeding.
Art Deco:
Please, would you just stop with these pseudo-clever put-downs? That’s the “ad hominem” fallacy. And it’s not just fallacious, it’s rude.
Address the comment, not the commenter.
@huxley
Thanks.
It’s also provably stupid and incompetent. Even if it were true, it would do jack all to refute my points. So what if I am a Lunatic? Ok, so I’m a lunatic.
But what does that make Buchanan’s long, sordid, and well documented history of Jew baiting, Jew bashing, Israel blaming, conspiratorial bullshit, and fondness for nationalist German totalitarianism, even when it hurt American interests?
I did not levy the charge of Jew Hater against Ron Paul or Daniel McCarthy, mostly because me doing so would not be honest as I do not know enough about them to make that stick. My provable issues with them mostly lie on other matters, and their largely knee jerk Israel bashing and America Bashing seems to stem largely from their particularly dumb in my opinion brand of isolationism, which for whatever its flaws is quite American and not at all defendant on Jew Hatred (likewise their historical and geographical illiteracy).
Buchanan is different in large part because of the large depth, span, and length of his statements, and how many of them cannot be explained away by particular instances like the Bitburg cemetery fiasco (where I largely side with him and Reagan) or as merely referring to Israel. It also cannot be brushed aside by principle (like his support for the release of all refusniks, which is much to his credit) such as refusing to deport Linneas for war crimes because he rejected the trustworthiness of Soviet ‘justice”, given the support for other deportations to the USSR.
He is far from the worst Jew Hater in history. He is far from the worst Jew hater in American history, or even in his own generation. But that doesn’t change the verdict of his conduct. Even the best Buckley could say was that while he did not believe Buchanan was an “antisemite” (a term I dislike for a host of reasons), that Buchanan had said several things that objectively were “antisemitic” and could not honestly be repudiated as such.
That was decades ago. Pat Buchanan has learned little since then and in many ways has gotten worse.
And apparently Art Deco lacks any substantive defense of his beyond “Trust Kinsley’s statement” (leaving aside the many flaws with that, such as the gigantic blindsides as well as how Kinsley is not the most trustworthy or agenda free of sources).
Also worth noting.
https://pjmedia.com/ron-radosh/2009/04/17/pat-buchanan-still-an-anti-semite-n182823
https://reason.com/2009/04/17/ivan-meets-pitchfork-pat/
https://www.jta.org/2012/02/21/ny/the-sins-of-pat-buchanan
Suffice it to say, most people do not make a habit of heavily corresponding with the “Institute of Historical Review” Neo-Nazi shills or uncritically signal boosting their propaganda. Not even most American Paleocons or Isolationists.
Vance’s words are moving. Moved me to undecided for 2028.
Siiiiiigh.
Listen up, Boomers and x-ers. And especially my fellow Kikes.
IT’S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU.
Here we go:
Gen Z and Millenials have a different idea than us of what “The Establishment” means.
For all those disaffected young men Kirk and Vance appeal to – the Establishment is the liberal, progressive people we grew up with (and whom many of us followed with varying degrees of blind ideology and condescending pride, for quite some time…). This Establishment disenfranchised young white people, especially men.
MAGA broke through and will achieve what Reagan and Gingrich could not – precisely because MAGA people throw off the constraints of politicized, weaponized “niceness” imposed by the left-leaning Establishment we grew up with.
It’s not just political or economic conservatism – it is cultural.
(And the cultural changes precipitated by MAGA will probably challenge most Boomer/Xer’s personal identity at some level – unless you’ve completely surrendered the “liberalism” we imbibed with Cronkite, Watergate, and SNL.)
JD Vance has repeatedly bruised any mainstream journos who tried to rope him into their predefined litmus tests (remember “I really don’t care, Margaret”…?)
That’s the point – He Does Not Care what that old establishment thinks.
See how he does not script or stage manage his wife, or make political hay from his “unconventional family” (judged that way by the identity-obsessed “old Establishment” – if he were a Dem they’d be gushing over his mixed-race kids… he is simply not interested in playing their game).
Vance represents a generation that was burned by identity politics and Marxist inquisitions – and so is vehemently opposed to any litmus tests. Like Kirk and Rogan, he welcomes real, open debate.
It’s not about the Jews, it’s not about Israel – Vice President Vance has clearly articulated America’s self-interest in its alliance with Israel, and in official appearances and on campus.
Vance is about completely rejecting the Establishment and any whiff of identity-group politics.
That is the source of his street cred with the younger generation. And I believe he is sincere….
As a Jew – and an Israeli – I have NOTHING to worry about from these young men and women.
Vance is a perfect complement to Donald Trump – a media-savvy New Yorker (which is halfway Jewish in many American’s eyes) with personal ties and affection for the Jewish people and Israel.
Excellent points, Ben David.
Should go without saying that an American administration should aim to do what is in America’s interests as opposed to work against those interests.
Hence it is no mystery why those “arguing” that support for Israel is NOT in America’s interest have to constantly and consistently employ lies, half-truths, ahistoricity, misrepresentation and innuendo to “prove” their cherished point.
– – – – – –
WRT Buchanan, I would have thought that as smart, talented and eloquent as he is, his bizarre (and historically outrageous contention) that it was Churchill who essentially precipitated WWII should have discredited him almost entirely. (People don’t “just” make mistakes of that nature.)
To be sure…his “amen corner” quip was another unnecessarily nasty instance of impaired judgment (but, as noted above, not JUST impaired judgment).
And yet, and yet…
“Mein Kulturkampf Continues;
“We are now witnessing yet another kulturkampf, this time being waged on the American right.”
https://claritywithmichaeloren.substack.com/p/mein-kulturkampf-continues
H/T Powerline blog.
(With some excellent comments…)
I’m more in agreement with Ben David (7:14 a.m.) than with Michael Oren at Barry’s link. At least, I hope Ben David has it right. Yes, it’s common for peoples to blame “the other” when things aren’t going well in their societies. Contra Oren, there have been plenty of anti-Jewish pogroms against orthodox, less-integrated Jews.
What drives me crazy is that people don’t look at the content of the belief systems of minority groups within their societies. It seems very clear to me that the current rise in Jew-hating is coming in great part (although not entirely, alas) from the growing Muslim populations in western countries. Turning against Jews, who do not, in fact, run secret conspiracies to rule the world, is insane when we are faced with an ideology that is very open about its intent to rule the world and force everyone to conform or be killed.