But a couple of weeks ago, George Szamuely (the paleoconservative library- book hoarder who has a weekly column in the New York Press) wrote a spirited defense of Buchanan that on its face seemed plausible...
I move to the D.C. area in 1980. One of the first things I noticed and began to follow were the radio dialogues between Tom Braden and Buchanan. I've been listening and watching Buchanan for 20 years. He is a consistent race- and jew-baiter. It isn't explicit, but it is consistent.
He knows how to behave himself, and he can be a very affable guy when he chooses. Usually when he's under the scrutiny of an interviewer he restrains himself. When he has an uncritical audience is when he lets loose. He works on two levels.
The critique of Buchanan's critics has a grain of truth in the following sense: Buchanan did not begin catching flak until he strayed off the GOP reservation, first with the Gulf War, second obviously now. His right-wing critics don't bother criticizing loyal Repugs. Nobody on the right criticized Trent Lott for the white citizens council connections. Nobody read Bob Dornan out of the party when he used the term "dirty Jew" on the floor of Congress in reference to a personable russian news commentator (whose name escapes me).
So Commentary et al are not good guides to who's in sheets or not. The ADL may be similarly biased; Berlet could speak on this w/more authority than me.
Buchanan is an excellent writer. He knows exactly the connotations of his words. He is also very deliberate, IMO. He doesn't pop off. He knows what he wants to do.
The record is there for anyone who wants to examine it directly. Second hand accounts are suspect. Wm F. Buckley did one of the most exacting jobs of this type. It may have been politically motivated, as per my suspicions above, but the piece in itself strived to be bulletproof.
mbs