paul buchanan, to you now. we hope it works. y, paul. >> reporter: my ifc has gone international or something. >> so steve's ifb, the thing he's listening to, has gone to another cnn network, which is cnn international. i'll tell you where this is. i used to live in chicago. this is what they call the south loop. it's right downtown. mccormick place is where they're holding the summit. mccormick place is a huge convention venue, trade shows, whatever. it is enormous. it's as big as more than probably ten football fields. it's a giant place where they're holding these things. this is probably, oh, another half a mile, maybe a mile away from where they're having that summit, and this is cermak and michigan avenue. so if you are able to see the camera pan over, it would pan right over to lake michigan, and mccormick place is on lake michigan. just to give you an idea of where all of this is happening, and it's in the shadow of downtown, as you call it. it's not down where you see all the big buildings but it's down where the busines

buchanan paul wing has been marginalized. a lot of us have fought hard. barney and others have fought hard to marginalize the anti-israel wing of the democratic party. it is just bigger, impyricly, a fact. and it is more of a problem there for, for the left. and i hope liberals, you know, marginalize those elements of their own party as we have tried to do in our party. >> barney. >> the fact is that you are talking about -- minuscule is bigger than microscopic. the fact is that the democratic party has been overwhelmingly and consistently supportive of a policy that respects israel's right to a independent democratic jewish state. you are talking about in the house of representatives 10, 20, maybe, 25 votes, very small minorities, a couple of republicans, more democrats, but this notion that -- the republicans have, have marginalized ron paul and buchanan but the democratic, anti-israel wing, critical of israel to the point. here is the difference. i would differentiate it this s way. and the point is that do people take their -- historically, conservati

republicans, more democrats, but this notion that -- the republicans have, have marginalized ron paul and buchanan but the democratic, anti-israel wing, critical of israel to the point. here is the difference. i would differentiate it this s way. and the point is that do people take their -- historically, conservatives have been critical of the israeli government thinking they went too far. and translate that into tractions that deny the needs in foreign policy. foreign aid, et cetera. the answer is that neither party's wing that is, excessively critical of israel and unwilling to support measures for israel had any impact on the policy process what ever. when people take credit for the fact that obama has become more pro israel. i think we are talking about an elephant stick. an elephant stick is a guy walking around -- central park with a big stick, and people say what is that for? he said that is to keep away the elephants. they say there are no elephants here. he said, yes, because my stick worked. i don't think obama needed that. even during the time when people are interpreting the speeches

buchanan paul wing has been marginalized. a lot of us have fought hard. barney and others have fought hard to marginalize the anti-israel wing of the democratic party. it is just bigger, impyricly, a fact. and it is more of a problem there for, for the left. and i hope liberals, you know, marginalize those elements of their own party as we have tried to do in our party. >> barney. >> the fact is that you are talking about -- min

but this notion that the republicans have marginalized ron paul and buchanan, but the democratic anti-israelg that's critical of israel to the point -- and i guess here's the difference. i would differentiate it this way, the question is do people take their differences with the policy of any israeli government -- and be historically conservatives have been critical of the israeli government on a whole range of issues thinking they went too far -- do you translate that into actions that deny israel the support it needs in foreign policy or in foreign aid, etc. and the answer is that neither party's wing that is excessively critical of israel and unwilling to support measures for israel has had any impact on the policy process whatever. and when people take credit for the fact that obama has become more pro-israel, i think we're talking about an elephant stick. an elephant stick is a guy walking around central park with a big stick, and people say what is that for, he said that's to keep away the elephants. and they say, well, there are no elephants. and he says, yes, because my stick worked.

it is a fact that the buchanan- ron paul wing of the republican party has been pretty much marginalized. i think it is more of a problem for the left, and i hope liberals marginalized those elements in their own party as we have tried to do in our party. >> the fact is you're talking about miniscule is bigger than microscopic. the fact is that the democratic party has been overwhelmingly and consistently supportive of a policy that respects israel's writes to end -- right to an independent state. you're talking in the house, 10, 20, maybe 25 votes, a small minority, a couple of republicans, more democrats. the notion the republicans have marginalized ron paul and became a, but the democratic anti- israel wing that is critical of israel -- here is the difference. the question is do people take their differences with the sraeli of any is r govement -- the transfer this into actions, etc? the answer is neither party boss wing that is excessively critical of israel has had any impact on the policy process. when people take credit for the fact that obama has become more protester, we are tal

buchanan voters decoders. what appealed to the tea party -- well, on foreign policy, ron paul has views akin to yours.ng to do with immigration, too i don't hear any of your views being considered.dÑdmdÑdldmdldÑd=dl >> i think mydÑ views on alsodmm d>nufacturing they are alldmdmú÷ dllking about it because theydÑ÷ dme what's happened.dmdldl they don't know what to do aboul it because they are free traderm and on voter security when wedmm needed in california along thedm imperial beach 11 miles in hedmÑ said that sounds like davidd-dlÑ duke.dmdld÷d÷ now hed> sounds like pat buchanl they are all going to build ad÷l fence.d,dldmd÷dÑdmdld- i said it's a low late, fellows. on foreign policy, too rahmdmdlÑ polis -- i'm not as libertarianÑ as lod.ng paul but he's telling dme right things.d-dl look, the cold war is over.dldÑÑ we have before.dmdmdÑd>dÑdÑ we went todl desert storm, iraq, d-ghanistan, lydia, not want to= do syria and iran and chinadmdÑ÷ hasn't done any war and the seem to be doingú- very well.ú- but there was a statement a lot< of my conservative friends quote >> [inaudible] [laughter] you're not

nothing, and the immortal words of pat buchanan celebrating a big fat nothing burger when barack obama basically said, i've got the same position on gay marriage as ron paul or ronald reagan. i'm not going to do anything about it. the states can do what they want. but it seems to me that a story like this is timed to go along with the media celebrating barack obama saying he's going to let states ban gay marriage. >> mark halperin said it yesterday on the show, and i think he's right. there's no downside for the president given that just about every single member of the media agrees with his position. so it will be celebrated. the timing of the piece, it is a bit curious, the day after. and i think voters will have to decide whether or not an incident that took place in 1965 is reflective of the character today of mitt romney. he came out yesterday and said, he doesn't remember the incident. if he in fact did that, if someone was hurt by that, he says he would apologize certainly. abc news actually talked to the sister of the man who was a young man at the time alleged to have been the victim here. and one of his sisters says the family of john lobner, fo