I've never understood all the carping about Wall Street investors. 

If they invest in companies, providing them with more capital, then those companies can expand, hire more workers, etc. 

And that means they'll need to buy more from the company I work for, which means I benefit in job security, raises, bonuses and so on.

Investors take risks.  Everyone on the left lines up to criticize when they get a return on their investments, but why else would you take a risk to begin with if there weren't the opportunity for reward?

Pat Buchanan is hardly the only person that America's useful idiots in the press corps fraudulently portray as representing the "Republican" point of view and thus giving "balance" to their work.  Sen. Chuck Hagel (RINO, France) must have appeared on hundreds and hundreds of television programs as the "Republican" voice.  Of course, Hagel conveniently always used the same talking points as the leftist kook who appeared on the same programs.  John McCain is another example who appeared in thousands and thousands of programs where he was always paired with a leftist who routinely agreed with every thing uttered by McCain.

Let me challenge you guys to read what Cal Thomas said about Pat Buchanan:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas112907.php3

I have deep respect for Pat Buchanan.  This guy definitely speaks from his heart and doesn't care whether he upsets a democrat OR a republican.  I wish there were more Buchanan-type leaders in the G.O.P.  

to 1930's isolationism. He is Lindbergh personified, isolationist, anti Semitic, frightened and defeatist. He is the Mel Gibson of politics. The fact that MSNBC utilizes him shows how ultimately anti American he is. Has anyone ever taken a peek at his unreadble magazine the misnamed "The American Conservative"? It reads almost like The Nation.

The time to argue against intervention in Iraq was BEFORE we went in.

Now that we have gone into Iraq (with the support of almost 75% of our elected officials BTW), there is an overwhelming raft of reasons why it would be ethical and strategic insanity to cut and run.

He underestimates the strength of American culture to win over large numbers of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants (refer to the history of our country - Pat).

One does not need to be a fear monger and race baiter to advocate better border security and immigration reform.

We also desperately need to reform the corrupt university system - where race, culture, sex and class warfare is preached on a daily basis.

Buchanan is the real conservative and it's all of you that have been brainwashed that are the reason people are leaving the Republican Part by the truckload. My former party has made it clear they don't give a damn about middle Americans and only care about how much money their fat cat Wall Street buddies can make while raping the American people.

But you hardcore lunatics rally behind "conservatives" like Benito Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Huckabee. Please. It seems the only standard to judge a republican these days is if you support an illegal war that is being payed for by borrowing money from the Chinese. There is nothing conservative about that, it's classic interventionalist liberalism and you all have drank it down like you were hiking in the desert.

After just serving another stint in Iraq I want all of you to go sign up immediately and get over there. If it's the gravest threat this country faces then you should be over there you bunch of cowards. Then see if you want to go marching into Iran.

When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Disagree Mark....As a few others have noted, Buchanan's political philosophy is more aligned with traditional conservatism than is that of the current neocon-interventionist wing of the Republican party.  The fact that--in this one area--it happens to coincide with the views of anti-war Democrats is a slender thread from which to hang a claim of MSM bias...just as The New Republic's initial strong support of Bush's Iraq policies, or the occasional GOP-friendly remarks by pundits such as David Broder suggest they have become hostile to "liberalism" and accordingly are inauthentic purveyors of any Democratic related issues. 

If Buchanan were invited only to ostensibly offer the foreign policy views of the Republican party, your contention would have more merit.  But that's not the case.

Jer