Tweet
Pat Buchanan is a racist, white supremacist intent on stoking racial hatred. There has never been any doubt of this, and throughout the confirmation process of Judge Sotomayor, he has repeated his unvarnished white supremacist views at every opportunity.
This is not about his anger at affirmative action, a policy that seeks to rectify past, persistent and continuing patterns of racial discrimination. You either agree on the need for this rebalancing or you don’t.
No, Buchanan’s argument is different, because he believes that non-whites are, as a matter of sheer, unadulterated prejudice, not entitled to equal treatment. He made that clear last night in this exchange with Rachel Maddow.
He starts with the opinion that Sotomayor is not qualified and that Obama’s choice of her was "affirmative action," just as the promotion of other non-whites could only have occurred, which he sees as "reverse discrimination against white males." Apparently, there are no qualified non-whites. But then this exchange occurs:
Maddow: Why do you think it is that of 110 Supreme Court Justices we’ve had in this country, 108 of them have been white?
Buchanan: Well, I think that white men were 100 percent of the people who wrote the Constitution, 100 percent of the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence, 100 percent of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100 percent of the people who died at Normandy.
This is been a country built basically by white folks in this country who were 90 percent of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up, and about 10 percent were African Americans who had been discriminated against.
It’s hard to find a clearer statement of white supremacist racism, even though Buchanan tries to argue he only wants "the finest minds you can get" on the Supreme Court.
Even if you ignore the historical revisions, the willful ignorance of the huge contributions made by everyone, the obtuse failure to mention hundreds of years of slavery, another hundred years of lynchings and Jim Crow, and the continuing demonization of non-whites/Hispanics as unAmerican or "illegal aliens," his core message is that white men are entitled to hold political power in America, and white men should be angry if anyone else wants a piece of that.
And whether you see him actually believing this dangerous nonsense or cynically stoking and exploiting the anger of others who do, there’s no doubt he’s exploiting his privileged MSNBC perch to stir up racial hatred. He’s said he means to do that.
So why is MSNBC promoting this? Yes, promoting. They’re not just occasionally interviewing their dear "Uncle Pat" to find out what whacko extremists are saying; they’re actively promoting him, every day, and night after night. And this is the same MSNBC that was condemning Reverend Wright for weeks, showing endless loops of video clips and urging their hosts and guests to characterize Wright’s views as unacceptably anti-white.
MSNBC knows that Buchanan has engaged in such racist speech throughout his career. The producers of MSNBC’s political news/commentary shows must be convinced that they can attract more viewers and sell more advertising if they feature an unabashed white supremacist as their featured "conservative" panelist. They don’t care that this must be deeply offensive to huge numbers of Americans; those viewers apparently don’t matter. We don’t matter.
There is no escaping the conclusion that MSNBC has a deliberate policy of promoting racism and white supremacy and that it thinks it’s just fine that Buchanan is deliberately agitating racial hatred by white males against all non-whites (and apparently all women), especially when those non-whites succeed in achieving political power.
Buchanan’s views and the media’s blatant promotion of them are a big part of the reason why racism and racial hostility persist. But legitimizing such attitudes is precisely why we get 5 to 4 Supreme Court decisions pretending the problem doesn’t exist.
What is MSNBC’s excuse for aggressively promoting such hateful views? And why should we continue to watch them?
Update: Jackie Mahendra at America’s Voice has collected posts from other blogs expressing similar views.
Jamison Foser, Media Matters, What would Pat Buchanan have to say . . .
Care2, one of several petitions to MSNBC
Greg Sargeant, Immigration group asks MSNBC to Muzzle Pat
80 Comments
Tell Rachel you’ve had enough of her “Uncle Pat” right here: rachel@msnbc.com
I have.
I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve sent asking that she not even mention Buchanan as that continues to validate him as some sort of an authority.
I also sent about 40 emails asking that she no longer agree to have Andrea Mitchell sub for her when she’s away and that she confront Mitchell when the latter tries to advance her agenda. I was happy to see that in the past week there was another host.
I don’t know how much leeway Maddow has here – she does, after all, work for GE. I think she could have been harder on Buchanan. I wasn’t going to watch last night’s show but figured in the end I wanted to see how she engaged him. It was irritating to hear him talking over her when she tried to make points showing his racism and bigotry for what it is but I think she handled it well.
I think all the anchors who are supposedly progressive need to push back against having people from Politico and people like Buchanan who are advancing a hateful agenda as guests on their shows. It gives these right wing tools exposure they can get from FOX – we don’t need to make them appear collegial because they are not. They aren’t interested in an honest reasoned debate, they want to scream their bilious views without any moderating voice opposing them.
Amen!! Politico is such a cesspool, and having people on from it just makes it appear legitimate.
And if I NEVER again see Ana Marie Cox on Rachel, I can die happy!
To that, I say “amen” and add Kent Jones. I turn off Rachel when that segment begins.
I don’t think Uncle Pat should appear without being paired with Lawrence O’Brien. O’Brien always devastates Pat. He goes at him directly, rips him up on the facts and matches his passion and decibel level. Rachel usually does a much better job opposite him than she did last night. Perhaps she was limited by a felt need for the host to be polite.
Thanks for that Teddy, I just sent her a note asking her to arrange for Buchanan to have a wardrobe malfunction — I figure that is the only thing that would force MSNBC to stop paying his salary ; )
maybe he’ll slip and say “blowjob”
I did too. I will not watch another Rachel Maddow broadcast if Pat Buchanan is *ever* on the show again, and that’s exactly what I said. I hope they are FLOODED with negative comments.
I know Rachel prides herself on wanting those with opposing views on her show, but I fault her, too, not just the show’s producers. She could have put her foot down and said a firm, “No” and she didn’t. She was shouted-over and her opposing views were lost in Buchanan’s ranting. MSNBC and Rachel did themselves a disservice.
I sent Rachel an e-mail. It felt great doing it, but I know it won’t do any good. She thinks he’s an irascible old coot who is, on some level I can’t fathom, lovable.
I’ve decided that whenever that racist windbag shows up on a program – I’m flipping the channel, or turning off the television altogether – and I won’t go back once I think his segment is over. I’m completely uninterested in his opinion about anything. I don’t believe he has anything valuable to contribute, and I won’t subject my ears to his high-pitched screeching and his whining about how white males have it so tough now that they aren’t able to own slaves and aren’t the only ones who can vote.
I love Rachel Maddow – I really do. I love her show – and I don’t find her show boring whatsoever. It’s informative, she gets into the weeds of issues and not just the obvious stuff. But I just refuse to subject myself to Pat Buchanan anymore. I don’t have to listen – and I won’t. That’s all.
Good point about the “promoting” of Uncle Pat. I’ve always wondered why he is a “guest” so often on msnbc. I mean every. day. Is this some kind of “sunset” job for old speechwriters?
He helpfully forgets that the plantations could not be run without slaves and that the railroads would not be built without cheap chinese labor. Many of those folks died for our country too in the course of all those endeavors.
Only the finest minds are white, right Uncle Pat? What an ass.
Thanks, Scarecrow. You did an excellent recap of last night’s exchange. I missed part of it because of a phone call, but heard enough to rattle my brains. He sounded like his hatred is consuming him.
Teddy, thank you too for the link. I just sent Rachel a few words, and hope she hears from lots of people and that she’ll tell us about responses this evening.
My letter to Rachel just went out. I told her (among other things) to send him (and his starched white sheets) over to Fox, that enough was enough.
I liked Maddow’s response when she said, (talking to Buchanan), “When I see 108 out of 110 Supreme Court Justices that were white males, I don’t automatically assume that they are somehow more inherently qualified to be on that bench.” I don’t know if that’s an exact quote but the spirit is there. I wondered if she had him on in order to goad him into just such a racial tirade. Don’t be rude with Rachel Maddow. She finds him every bit as dispicable as we do. I remember her very first interview with the guy on Air America Radio so that puts their whole relationship into context for me. She may not have a choice but to use him under terms of her contract.
“…She may not have a choice but to use him under terms of her contract…”
Ech…
She does a good job of keeping her cool, that’s for sure.
I may be giving too much credit to MSNBC, but in some ways it’s good to be reminded of the outrageousness of racism. Every time he opens his mouth Buchanan reminds us why the civil rights movement was important and is never over (after all, there was a time not long ago that his views were indeed the conventional wisdom in this country.)
I am truly astonished…
I grew up in the deep south between 1950-1975 and tonight I witnessed the existence of a time warp back to that era on your program….
Pat Buchanan, over the last few years has been getting more and more senile in his perspective and with the election, by overwhelming margins, of Barak Obama it seems like something has just snapped in Pat’s brain…He has begun to sound more and more like George Wallace and Ross Barnett and the always verbose Strom Thurmond of the 1960’s…If I could have taken Pat and his opinions he expressed tonight back thru that time warp to the world so aptly depicted in Robert Sherrill’s book of 1975 called “Gothic Politics in the Deep South” (still available from Amazon) he would have been right at home. In fact, he probably IS a character in that book..We also have to remember that Pat did work for Dick Nixon which is a completely separate set of wing-nut rhetoric discussions…..
Since the US, thru incredible struggle, has made amazing strides both in attitude and temperament with realization that we are all made better thru inclusion and curiosity rather than hate and racism toward others…BUT, there are still those that believe otherwise as was pointed out by Pat tonight. He wants everyone to go back to the 1950’s and nothing else will do. Pat needs to be retired – for good.
I’m amazed everyday that NBC stoops to his level of arrogance and tolerates such intolerable behavior.
Stroke might explain it I’m sure Obama getting elected might have given many GOPers a group stroke if such a thing is possible.
Just more proof that mainstream media is a business above all else. They give people like Olberman and Maddow shows because there’s a market for it. And they put on jerks like Buchanan because we love to hate them, and we’ll watch when they’re on, too. The only way to end it is for us to turn off the TV as we soon as we see Buchanan’s face. Same goes for Joe Scarborough.
It is futile to look for consistency, coherence, or fairness in the media. The media are about bread and circuses, propaganda and infotainment. They have on Pat Buchanan because Bozo the Clown died and left an opening.
I do think we risk being complacent if we are not confronted with the ugliness of these views once in a while. There are people in this country who want to take us back to the past (Remember Trent Lott’s comments at Strom Thurmond’s birthday party?)
I think so too.
Let your starched sheets show, Pat. It’s like a demonstation…of how not to be. We need to be aware of it, though.
Every time people hear him talk, I hope more of them will think “how ugly, how awful.”
Sent my letter to Rachel and asked her to correct a lie Buchanan told last night in the interest of truth. Buchanan repeatedly stated that Sotomayor got into the best schools due to affirmative action admissions. Yet, she was repeatedly at the top of her class from her earliest education at each and every school. She was not an affirmative action admission, but someone with outstanding academic acheivement. I hope she puts the record straight correcting Buchanans lies.
I’d like to address one aspect of Pat Buchanan’s “affirmative action” canard.
The term legitimately applies to government sponsored programs that are designed to compensate for enduring, past discrimination deemed harmful to society, to groups within it and to specific individuals.
Those programs grant access to society’s corridors of power, be they local or national, Ivy League school admissions or local government hiring. Only by institutionalizing access to such bases of power can we as a society begin to utilize the skills of the many we have shunned and to empower them to participate fully in society. Only then can we learn from and about them and better ourselves as well as those we have demeaned and shunned.
Such programs are a kind of governmental stewardship of those with promise. Blue bloods and other tightly knit groups have long done this for their insiders. For medieval bureaucrats, Robber Barons and Ivy League dynasties alike, it was at the core of their notion of service. (See, George Bush, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol.)
Such elites hate the idea of governmental affirmative action because it steals their turf, it competes with the success of their own members. Any benefit that goes elsewhere is a positive loss to them, or so they think. And so they project their resentment onto the masses in order to stoke it there and gain political leverage – not to improve the lot of the masses, any more than lowering taxes on the wealthy does – but to consolidate their own power and remove competitors to it.
The latter is what Pat Buchanan is doing. It’s what his forebears did. It’s what the English immigrants to America did to the Scots and Germans, the Germans to the Irish, the Irish to the Italians, the Italians to the East European Slavs and Hispanic immigrants from Puerto Rico and Cuba. And it’s what they and unions and working men’s clubs and others once did to African Americans.
None of that applies to Ms. Sotomayor, except to the extent that merit scholarships paid for her education. She was top of her class at Princeton, a needle in a field of haystacks. She did similarly well at law school and has been noticed and regularly promoted after seventeen years on the federal bench. Her advancement is owing to her actual performance, not for her promise or because of her skin or sex, and often in spite of it.
I fervently wish Obama recognized the need for a more liberal voice inside the cold conservative corridors inside the Supreme Court. But Ms. Sotomayor has earned consideration to join its ranks. Given her nomination, she should be approved.
Mr. Buchanan is entitled to his opinion and to voice it. He is not entitled to have anyone agree with him.
Or so they think Bush should be stacking shelves at Jewel this piece is a great explanation of Reverse Darwinism.
The Elite are not allowed to fail and so they never let their weaker members sink to their real level of ability.
End Result the Bush Presidency.
Buchanan knows why he continues to get air time and who he’s talking to. The outrageousness of racism may be a deflection to examining the reasons behind these results:
*Rasmussen Reports national telephone polling conducted Tuesday and Wednesday night shows that 87% of U.S. voters expect Sotomayor to be confirmed as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Thirty-seven percent (37%) favor her confirmation while 41% are opposed.
1* How closely have you followed news stories about President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court?
42% Very closely 38% Somewhat closely 15% Not very closely
5* In political terms is Sonia Sotomayor liberal, moderate or conservative?
47% Liberal 33% Moderate 5% Conservative
http://www.rasmussenreports.co…..14_15_2009
She has 43 favorable to 47 unfavorable, is considered a liberal and 80% have followed the hearings and likely read or watched the news.
If someone can explain reasons other than race influencing almost 1/2 those polled not wanting her on the court then please do.
The wisdom of the people:
Public Supports Alito Nomination
Widespread opposition if Alito would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade; few think he would
PRINCETON, NJ — … Fifty-four percent say they would like to see the Senate vote in favor of confirmation, while 30% would not.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/210…..ation.aspx
and this: The poll, conducted Sept. 8-11, finds that 58% of Americans support the Senate confirming Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Twenty-seven percent oppose his confirmation and 15% have no opinion.
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1126972238.shtml
*To sum it up: 58% yes for Roberts, 54% yes for Alito, 37% yes for Sotomayor (who had more experience on the bench when nominated than the 2 of them combined). 27% no for Roberts, 30% no for Alito, 41% no for Sotomayor, the 3rd woman and first Hispanic nominated.
In there lies the answer to Rachel’s question to Buchanan, he knows who he’s talking to (my “liberal” neighbors who answered truthfully when talking to a stranger on the phone) Obama’s election and his family’s living in the WH is just another step in that long march.
Projection Pat is projecting his beliefs on to everyone this is exactly what people without empathy do.
The GOP is a great place to study abnormal psychology and how they interact in groups.
I’m pretty sure no university would give anyone the Ethics ok to create such a study though.
Still its fascinating to watch.
I thought Sotomayor had better college records than Alito and probably most of the Supreme Court plus doesn’t she have more trial experience than Alito the current head of the Supreme Court.
So just how is she not qualified Pat.
This is the same pat buchanan I have always known. No change that I can see. It always amazes me that the MSM carries and promotes this asshat. Even the San Jose Merc, which on it’s good days tries to at least bring out progressive dialogue, carries the admittedly syndicated column that this bum writes.
I am happy that they at least carry his byline at the top of the column before I start reading it so I don’t have to waste my time.
And one more thing, Puerto Rican’s are not immigrants: “Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens. As such, they are entitled to vote at the federal level…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico
Sotomayor’s mother is a U.S. citizen, her father was a U.S. citizen just as my parents were and I am. Buchanan, who lives in my state, would no more refer to me first as a “Marylander” before calling me an american white male than he would Sarah Palin as an “Alaskan”. Sotomayor’s is an American.
Looks like the core of the question is whether he gets some sort of endorsement by being on or is really the face of the old, racist reminder that still hangs on and we need not to forget. Like why does anyone listen to Rush or Coulter or Tammy Bruce (arrrgh) But they are out there with rants that pretend to rational argument. Maybe we need the reminder: There are still Bush/Cheney bumper signs in public view.
I was very disappointed with Rachel’s permitting Pat Buchanan yet another soapbox. This morning, I sent Rachel’s show the following email:
The factoid all Congresscritters seem to have been briefed on is that Ms. Sotomayor apparently has more time on the federal bench than any S.Ct. nominee in nearly a hundred years. I don’t doubt but can’t confirm it. And yes, she has far more time as a federal judge than Chief Justice John Roberts.
Buchana is lying about Ms. Sotomayor’s lack of educational accomplishment and deceptively parsing when he says he’s never read a law review article by her. That’s an artfully deceptive compound claim that implies he’s read any law review articles or would understand them, or that that’s an adequate or the best measure of her legal expertise or temperament. After seventeen years on the bench, there are over a hundred opinions he might read instead.
Pat Buchanan is not attempting to educate his viewers, better society, enhance the federal government, recover the balance of power inside it, or elevate the aggregate talent on the Supreme Court. He is stoking flames so that others will rhetorically burn. It’s an old Irish tradition usually reserved for the English, which he’s adapted for use inside the Beltway.
The White People have to join together but fortunately they have Buchanan and the Republican Party to rally around. They are the master race after all, as they prove time and time again. Buchanan defends the Third Reich and presumably their racial policies. But Pat gets a “F” in history especially about the 2nd World War. According to Pat, Hitler was a peace-nik but the war mongers in Britain and Poland made Hitler go to war.
OT, but Hitler’s notion of an “alliance” with Poland before the war was rather like Stalin’s idea of “free elections” there after it.
Buchanan, like David Brooks, is being artful by slipping into his propaganda the occasional nugget of valid if incomplete criticism (a technique that makes propaganda effective).
Chamberlain ought to have issued his guarantee to Czechoslovakia a year earlier. Hitler was then more vulnerable. The Czechs had a more sustainable government, a better army, better terrain to defend than Poland’s open plains, and one of Europe’s top armaments industries.
All that was lost to an English-French alliance after Hitler acquired the Sudetenland and then all of Czechoslovakia. The move consolidated the Anschluss with neighboring Austria earlier in 1938. By issuing his guarantee to Poland, Chamberlain was admitting his earlier mistake and his realization that war was no longer avoidable.
Pat Buchanan is admitting that Ms. Sotomayor will be a justice on the Supreme Court. He’s just setting up his criticisms for her opinions he won’t like. He doesn’t waste much effort.
Good point. It seems that Pat forgot that Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union prior to their joint attack on Poland.
Boy it sure would be nice if the world was exactly the way we think it ought to be. But it isn’t. At least MSNBC has given liberals a forum in Olbermann and Ed and Rachel. They deserve our support, and criticism when warranted. But all this narcissistic nonsense about “I will never watch it again” is simply cutting off our nose to spite our face. When something comes on that you don’t care for, change the channel.
You still pay for Fox News Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs if I could get basic cable without paying a penny to those guys I would.
When a channel repeatedly features someone like this, it is no longer worth my time to watch. This isn’t simply someone I disagree with, it is someone I will no longer permit in my home. Everyone who quits watching costs them eyeballs and ad dollars.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..92663.html
Pat Holocaust Denier I think we should ask some Jewish groups to help us axe him.
That and ask the NeoCons and Press just why do they hang out with him?
Free Speech is one thing the News however has the job to report the News not deny reality. Pat can get a job on a pay for view Nazi network.
I don’t agree with Pat Buchanan especially on Israel policy. But I do agree with him on small government and the need for that. That you call can think MSNBC(!) is racist when they are the HOME of Rachel, “tingle up my my leg” Chris Matthews, Keith Obermann, et al., is sort of humorous…Pat still is a conservative, albeit a paleocon. He does like Clarence Thomas, so he can’t be a racist.
Thomas is a Self hating Uncle Tom.
With emphasis on the self-hate. He hates his skin color, his past, his academic and professional success, and his lack of even greater success.
If Obama is as comfortable as could be inside his skin, Clarence Thomas is his psychological opposite.
The putting of Clarence Thomas in the “Uncle Tom” flavour is itself extremely racist in its mentality. Just because he doesn’t agree with the radical Lefties does not a racist make him.
But it implies he is sure wanting to forget, shall we say “whitewash” the past.
“Well, I think that white men were 100 percent of the people who wrote the Constitution, 100 percent of the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence, 100 percent of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg”
I think thats because all the blacks were kept in chains by said white men. I am sure they would of liked to contribute in ways that didn’t involve being whipped and raped.
Also maybe WOMEN of all colors had something to do with building this country as well, but Pat says its all men.
Half those men died to make Obama President and probably want Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.
The South left cause of Slavery nobody up North thought that was a good reason to leave the South could have fought the issue of slavery at the voting booth and in the courts but they choose to fight with guns.
We did not let them push us around.
Chicago Tribune had a bit about a Civil War solder who died about 8 years ago a female who crossed dressed and volunteered for the army.
Pat never served did he.
The CT piece was 8 years ago the solder died much earlier than that sorry:)
Why hasn’t Pat Buchanan been retired to the Ole White Racist Rest Home as he deserves?…instead, we’re treated to an almost daily diet of his racist and divisive bloviating on all the MSNBC news and talk shows…
I think Rachel was WAY TOO NICE here to the old bast*rd…he managed to eat up about 85% of the air time with his clueless ranting, and Maddow only managed to get a word in now and then. There’s definitely a pattern of men talking over women at MSNBC…Matthews does it all the time to women guests, Joe gets angry as hell if Mika doesn’t agree with his every word, and Ratigan constantly talks over Contessa on Morning Meeting (in fact, Dylan, with his long-winded questions, is shaping up as THE most irritating and loathsome host of a cable talk show).
I wish this had been Ed, or Olberman or O’Donnell having this “conversation” with Pat…they might have been able to deliver the smack down blow this idiot deserves!
Please MSNBC…Lose Buchanan…or at least limit the amount of damage he can do to the national discourse by limiting his appearances!
It really must’ve been weird for Pat, working as he did in the day for a guy who supported affirmative action, enforced public school desegregation, imposed wage and price controls, advocated a minimum guaranteed income for all citizens, didn’t believe in governmental prohibitions against abortion and, with respect to all of the preceding, stood in a position to do something about it…although I suppose that all of that trampling on civil liberties and playing rough with domestic dissenters that was going on at the same time went a long way toward reconciling whatever cognitive dissonance with which his work life may have forced him to grapple.
Anyway –and believe it or not– I say “more like it.” Having watched these Sotomayor confirmation hearings at some considerable length, I’ve found it useful to be reminded for several hours each day this week just what I’ve spent my life from the age of 11 fighting against, and I don’t doubt that others could’ve done with such a reminder as well (and if they saw a tenth of what I did, then there can be little doubt that they got an adequate booster shot that should tide them over for at least some of the time that’s to pass between now and the next primary season, at any rate).
There are of course reasonable limits upon tolerance of intolerance in a relatively free society –no police protection at taxpayers’ expense for Klan marches thru the ‘hood, for instance, and I don’t much give a damn that they paid to pave those streets, too– but otherwise I say let ‘em rant on while, for my own part, standing up to the lies and fighting back with the facts. You can’t take on each and every instance of this sort of thing, of course, but neither can you refute what you don’t (or won’t) hear, and acts of banishment coupled with just wishing ‘em away is, as I see it, a fool’s way out.
Oh, don’t get me started on Ana Marie Cox –I just enjoyed a rather substantial lunch and would like very much for it to remain where it now is.
Is Buchanan against the Republican form of affirmative action? Claiming that Sotomayor is an affirmative action baby is sort of like claiming that Tiger Woods is an affirmative action baby. On the other hand, you can make a pretty good case that Justice Thomas is where he is today because he was so politically useful to the Republicans that his obvious–and incurable–mediocrity didn’t bother them. Indeed, since his shortcomings bolstered their belief that black people are inherently inferior, he gave them a twofer.
I will not watch another show that airs the view of racist pig, pat buchanan. MSGOP should be horrified by what came out of his mouth. Why doesn’t he apply the same standard to Thomas, who’s credentials aren’t even on the same planet as Sotomayor. It’s really astonishing that these people would think we are so pathetically stupid that we can’t remember what happened yesterday. To call them hypoctritical would be the understatement of the century.
I don’t know if MSNBC or whomever would be responsible for using the “It’s Pat” moniker for Buchannan paid for or what, but that has been used for the “Pat” Character from Saturday Night Live in a movie titled “It’s Pat”.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110169/
Thanks for the terrific analysis.
I don’t watch MSNBC except for exerpts of Rachel or Olberman, etc.
I no longer watch ABC because of the gross stupidity and corruptness of Gibson and Sawyer. My disgust for them led to my boycott of ABC.
NBC and CBS are so little to offer as an alternative. and all too often PBS is just as bad for a variety of reasons. TV is less and less a part of my life.
Buchanan is a total idiot and I’m sickened that anyone gives him a platform. When he comes on, I change the channel or turn off the TV.
Blessings,
Does anyone really watch Rachel Maddow? Her show is BORING. This is a very exciting time to be a liberal/democrat and hold people accountable, as demonstrated here on FDL, yet Maddow makes it dull every night. Her show is ridiculous. She’s done NOTHING on health care, every night there’s a story on “how will the republican party rebuild itself” “whats happening with republicans?” blah freaking blah.
I recall a few nights ago she had Elizabeth Warren on her show, at around 9:40, and for about 5 minutes, you only had to get through an entire show about Mark Sanford/Ensign to see it. Maddow’s show SUCKS. Am I wrong here?
You are right. I hate the ” cutie cut ups” part of both Olbermann and Maddow. I want news and reporting not cute predicable shit.
Agreed, Maddow could do some important work in that slot but wastes it with stories about Republicans that can’t keep it in their pants and an odd segment with Buchanan informing the rubes that he is racist….duh, tell us something we don’t know Rachel.
Yes.
I just sent Rachel a note saying:
“If you’re going to have an old, white racist on your show, at least make it entertaining and invite Zell Miller.”
“This is been a country built basically by white folks”
Hey Pat,
The African-Americans who grew the cotton in the Southeast and sweated in the steel mills of Birmingham, the Chinese-Americans who built the railways and manned the mines in the west, the Latino-Americans who basically enable the modern life-giving miracle that is California agriculture, the Japanese-Americans who fought and died in European battlefields, etc, etc, would beg to differ with you. Just because men of your political persuasion carried a whip and used that whip to create laws that made sure you and your kind alone could seize and monopolize all the cushy and prestigious leadership positions to yourselves doesn’t mean you deserve credit for “building” anything. It just meant y’all were the biggest and most heavily armed thugs. Just because y’all claim to have made all the “important” decisions for everyone else behind barbed wire in your racially exclusive country clubs doesn’t mean that you get claim you “built” stuff.
Yup, Pat should repeat his comment to the blacks and Chinese and other immigrants who helped build the railroads, roads, bridges, dams, steel mills and coal mines, factories, fields, reservoirs and ports. If they weren’t there, it’s because whites kept them out because their employers stoked racial hatred and resentment as a way to keep their workers fearful and cheap. Old trick, old Pat.
I’m reminded of Molly Ivins rejoinder to Pat Bucchanan:
“It sounded better in the original German.”
You are dead on.Why Maddow continues to cuddle this racists vile man as someone lovingly kind is beyond me.Buchanan is a racists.Why the heck don’t she bring David Duke on her show nightly to “discuss race & America”.I am sick of it ,And I refuse to support any show that features this racists man.
But Maddow having Buchanan on her show brings no new arguments to the debate it’s not edifying & just a platform for Buchanan to say whites are suffering discriminations.
But lets remember folks Maddow now works for GE,a giant corpoartion,I tune in to her show irregularly:I haven’t seen her do anything on the most important debate today Health Care.The content fo her show is now getting redicuilous,how many times can you tell us that Michael Steele is an idiot or Mark Sandford cheated on his wife.We have moved on from that,The most critical issue to Americans is Health Care reform.And we all know Pat Buchanan is a damned racists.You don’t think GE has an interest in not seeing Health Care reform eh ?
Buchanon should be required to wear his white sheets when he makes an appearance.
I disagree with those of you who say that Rachel’s show is boring. Or you don’t like Kent Jones and Ana Marie Cox. I think the bits as you’ve called them make the show more fun and interesting. It give the show a different feel and flavor from all the others. That said, I too have sent an email to Rachel about having that racist SALTINE on. I think now, I’ll go over the the MSNBC website and send them one as well. I suggest everyone do the same!
By the way, I think it’s important that Rachel continues to feature the Sanford and Ensign stories to keep them going. It only makes the GOP look even more ridiculous. She also continues to highlight the CIA story and I’m sure you’ve noticed that these people don’t come off well on her show.
MSNBC’s good intentions are not to be taken seriously. However, Buchanan did a better job exposing the raw paleolithic bigotry of the opposition to Sotomayor than even Jeff (”the NAACP is a terrorist organization”) Sessions. For that he deserves high marks for clarity.
Rachel handled him well.
Poor Pat just doesn’t understand the ” White Privilege” he has enjoyed his entire life…or maybe the little bastard just doesn’t care.
But I think it helps to educate the dummies when they can see it all played out. Ick.
Isn’t it about time that Hollywood tackled this one and spread the concept around? Or maybe they did and I missed it….
I just cannot resist the image of a wise Latina woman stepping on the head of this pasty little white guy to keep him down.
Ha!
I have great hope for the next generation…they seem to have the wisdom that Pat lacks.
It has gotten that whenever I see Crazy Uncle Pat on the tube, I hear the strains of “Horst Wessel” playing quietly in the background: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdSCU-hlpKk
Pat has lost it like many of the Freeper persuasion. A Black Man in the White House has caused such rage that they just can’t hide it anymore.
Maddow almost never has the right wing-gang on her show because they hate what she is and hope she fails , but some how her program manager placed Mr KKK himself on her show so he could continue his program of hatred of non-white people everywhere . There is some very influential member of the KKK out there because Ed always has some members of the GOP , KKK , Wall Street gang on his show that always speaks first , and we all know Ed is not in favor of that .
But Pat, I thought we had a right to have a jury of our peers…and not just a jury full of white men!
Personally, Pat needs to continue to go on Rachel’s show. She needs to continue to point out that Pat is a republican too just so everyone is clear as to how this political party thinks and is!
I didnt see this particular episode, but I’ve seen Buchanan’s act before. To me, having Buchanan on MSNBC proves the wisdom of traditional liberal views re freedom of speech. His ideas are like mildew: exposing them to the light and air of a public forum is the best way to kill them and dissipate the stink. No competent adult is going to fall for Buchanan at this point.
Based on a recent post at Plumline, it would appear ol’ uncie pat (or rather msnbc) is finding a wee bit of shit stuck in their fan today. Interestingly, no tweety at 5:00 p.m. but Lawrence O’Donnell doing a segment that appeared to be an extremely weak attempt to backpedal from buchanan……..and he was not present. If you catch the second hour, leave a note as to your reaction. I await Keef (who’ll probably be gone again tonight) and Rachel to see what is said there.
Interesting that David Duke and the KKK are mentioned. I covered this in February:
Heart of Darkness
[scroll down …]
Pat Buchanan on the David Duke website
He is Angry…Buchanan to Obama on Race!
Only this time, the (more …) takes you to a page on the Official David Duke website.
So, perhaps the firewall between arch-loons like Edgar J. Steele out in cloud-cuckoo land and MSNBC or CNN or FAUX Nooz™ with Pat Buchanan isn’t as impermeable as we’ve been led to believe.
And ask yourself, what are Duke, Steele, Pat Buchanan and Bay Buchanan all doing together on David Duke’s “official” web page? I wonder if either would object, if they didn’t know about it and found out? Or if they did know about it, and decided that it wasn’t good PR? […]
How come the Buchanans are glad to let Duke
stick this in Google: site:www.davidduke.com “patrick j buchanan”
And you get 787 hits.
Seig Heil, Pat.
Bay, Pat’s bats*** crazy sister, only wrote ONE article on the Duke site, but it’s a doozy:
Protect America – Bring Our Troops Home and Put Them on the Border …
By Bay Buchanan. The escalating brutality south of our border has now caught the attention of a branch of the Defense Department, if not our President. …
So, how come so many of the Buchanans’ articles are on the website? (Kind of suggests a kindredness of spirits). And how come Buchanan hasn’t screamed that they be taken down?
You want to embarrass Pat Buchanan? Just ask how come so many of his articles are reprinted on the David Duke website and why doesn’t he order them taken down? After all, he owns the copyright, and Duke is either committing a crime by freely reprinting copyrighted material, OR he has Pat’s tacit approval.
Inquiring minds want to know.
That guilt by association. I could go to Marxist sites (I do occaisionally) and find mainstream liberals’ articles supportive of general Marxist opinion.
Not a crime….or a real controversy.
[whoops. ‘puter ate my paragraph. Should read]
Back to July 17: How come the Buchanans are glad to let Duke reprint their columns on his official website? I mean is there ANYBODY in DC who doesn’t consider David Duke toxic (whether they agree with him or not)?
stick this in Google: site:www.davidduke.com “patrick j buchanan”
And you get 787 hits.
[and so forth]
Politically correct racism is still racism.
One of the firefighters discriminated against was Hispanic. This is the bizzare result of a spoils system with a politically correct racial aspect.
So much for “colorblind.”
No, it’s not guilt by association. Why are literally hundreds of Buchanan posts on David Duke’s website?
That’s a legitimate question.
And, frankly, when you associate with Hell’s Angels or drug dealers all the time, and they quote you slavishly, it DOES say something about your beliefs, your interests and your character. Guilt by association isn’t always a fallacy: it’s just inadmissible in court. I’d hope, Fredo23, that you noticed this isn’t a court.
It’s a forum. There’s a difference.