Hard to Believe How they Defend the Paris Terrorists on McLaughlin Group

I have been watching this stupid show for decades -somehow have an enduring affection for it- but it does get increasingly harder...

Now hearing stalwart anti-immigrant Pat Buchanan stress the point that the French satire magazine Charlie Hedbo 'repeatedly provoked' the Kalishnikov-wielding jihadi's senseless slaughter came as a surprise to me, thus eliminating one of the few policy areas I still found myself agreement. 

You expect it from Eleanor Clift ('We have laws against hate crimes in this country, you know'), but I thought Pat was going to blame it on the immigration problem: once he's forgiving terrorists attacks like this, you can see there's no limit to where boundless pacifism will bring him. Buchanan called the cartoons 'lewd and crude', firmly implying where the fault lies, claiming this was 'avenged', then even seemed to glorify the terrorists' 'victory'. 

Hey Pat, the crime didn't start when the cartoonists told the Islamists to screw-off: the original crime was the radical Muslims threatening (and firebombing) the publication in the past, basically shaking them down if they didn't do as they where told (stop mocking Islam). I can see the motivation is entirely different, but how exactly is this -the crime itself- different than a mafia shakedown? Followed-up by murder for non-compliance, to boot?

Unfortunately, I just got a new TV, 'cuz watching Eleanor 'EXCUSE ME!' Clift in full-HD is not what you'd call a pleasant experience. Even worse, seeing the old Bolshevik battle-axe nodding in approval to ole Pat Buchanan's moral relativity (he's a big excuse-maker for Putin and his clunker of a
'great power', too) this week was really just too much to take. 

Tom Rogan from the Daily Telegraph is increasingly the only voice of reason on the show -with the occasional exception of the Old Man hisself- yet the young Brit is often drowned-out by more callused veterans of the show's free-for-all format. They again circled the wagons this week in an unsightly left-right alliance. The only lingering impression I got is most of them thought it was the magazine's fault, which seems sheer insanity to me.

Another reportable event came from Dem Mort Zuckerman, who makes sense sometimes- so how depressing to hear him declare 'Jeb Bush will be the nominee'. Perhaps a lot of people think that, but I sure don't know any. 

Bush most certainly can -and will- be beaten: he hasn't a speck of charm -is nothing like a conservative- and enjoys little or no grass-roots support. I think Ted Cruz would annihilate him in a debate, as Jeb is a boring schlub with nothing whatsoever to offer the GOP- nor the country. So much for the show's 'expert panel'.