MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan Problem

Warning: troll stench in the discussion queue is thanks to a link I got on a wingnut blog. Nice of everyone to come to the defense of Pat Buchanan and racists in general but I’m *this* close to cutting off comments on this thread.

—————————————–

It’s always a shock to remember that the “liberal” MSNBC has this guy on the payroll.

Seriously, I can’t respect any network or any of the talking heads who appear on it — and yes, Rachel Maddow and Rev. Al, I’m talking to you — as long as this racist bigot is given a platform every week.

Folks have long speculated that Pat Buchanan has photos of MSNBC honchos in compromising positions with hookers and blow. There can be no other excuse for his continued presence there when others have been fired for far lesser offenses. But really, this blatant racism needs to be answered by some people in authority.

22 Comments

Filed under Media, MSNBC, Pat Buchanan, racism

22 responses to “MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan Problem

  1. Eykis

    Every time I hear Buchanan he sounds worse. Perhaps Rachel and Rev Al have no choice as to which of their “analysts” get airtime. Something is definitely WRONG in the MSNBC bosses’ minds for allowing this PIG to remain on the payroll. I’ve noticed he is promoting his current tome of tripe and is on Faux Noise quite a bit as well – when will MSNBC just give him his walking papers and send him across the street? Besides his political and racist garbage, OlePat is JUST PLAIN OLD – he never completes any thought or sentence that does not include Nixon – does he not realize it has been FORTY YEARS? He is as tired and boringly ridiculous as McLoser – both need to get out of our sight.

  2. John Weiss

    Ms. Beale,

    “Folks have long speculated that Pat Buchanan has photos of MSNBC honchos in compromising positions with hookers and blow.”

    Blow? D’you mean cocaine?

    BTW ol’ Pat should retire while he has the faintest bit of respectability. It could be he has Ronnie’s disease.

    • Blow? D’you mean cocaine?

      Well yes, is there another kind? “Hookers and blow” is something of an internet meme, a catch all meaning scandalous stuff.

    • ThresherK

      “Faintest bit of respectability”?

      We should share a beer and synchronize journalistic compasses.

      CNN is holding on to the “faintest bit of respectability” but I see them losing that by election day.

      Crazy Old Racist Uncle Pat has been doing the patented Fox News Demo Reel for several years.

  3. If you disagree with someone, just call him a racist or a biggot. Pat is neither. Just a smart guy who doesn’t buy into your world vision.

    • Yeah well my “world vision” doesn’t buy into the fantasy that black people were better off under segregation and that Hispanics and African Americas are stupider than white people and then there’s his views praising Hitler’s courage and Holocaust denialism. Which is the crap that Pat is selling and yes, it’s racist and bigoted.

  4. imnotblue

    Why is racist Pat Buchanan, bad… but racist Al Sharpton, good?

    Shouldn’t they both be shown the door?

    • So now Al Sharpton is racist? Because how? Because white people who have been in charge of everything since forever don’t like when he points that out? That’s a good one.

      • imnotblue

        Oh, no… I was thinking about things like the Tawana Brawley scandal, the Duke Lacrosse scandal (remember, he took sides before there were facts, based solely on race, said some pretty awful things, and it turned out to be 100% wrong), and of course his involvment in the Crown Heights riots:

        Quote Sharpton:
        “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house…”
        (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton#Controversy)

        You know… that kind of overt racist stuff.

      • So, saying “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house…” — which let me add for context was said in the middle of the 1991 Crown Heights Riot sparked by the death of an African immigrant child during the funeral of a Hasidic rabbi — now THAT is racist (or anti-Semitic). But denying the Holocaust happened, defending Nazi war criminals and opposing every single piece of Civil Right legislation over the past 50 years is not?

        Riiiight. Okie dokie.

        Sharpton wasn’t the only one conned by Tawana Brawleyn and Crystal Gail Mangum but Buchanan’s defense of Nazis and Jim Crow does put him on the fringe of American politics. Well, except for what remains of the Republikkkan Party these days, of course. Buchanan is right about one thing: American diversity will ensure the Republican Party will be a thing of the past thanks to the shameless racism and bigotry on display by modern Republicans.

        And every one of you wingnut assholes sent over here by the Fox News-loving blog that linked to my post is proving it with your every comment. Keep it up. Let your freak flag fly, sensible thinking people need to know what the Republican Party is all about.

      • imnotblue

        Well, I’m not actually arguing that Buchanan ISN’T racist or anti-Semitic. Personally, I think he’s a knucklehead, who only really represents one person… and that is Pat Buchanan. You many want to group him in with mainstream Republicans (and really, that’s why MSNBC keeps him on… because if they weren’t bashing Republicans, their entire program schedule could fit inside a commercial break), but he hasn’t been “mainstream” for years.

        Of course, since one of them is a guest, the other is a host, there is a difference, no?

        YOU brought up Sharpton, so the comparison is valid. He IS a racist, and (despite excuses) has been involved in racists events (as I listed), and refused to apologize for his misstatements and racial attacks (again, see the Duke Lacrosse case).

        So why is Sharpton okay, while Buchanan is not? I’m starting to think that the reasoning is simply because Sharpton is on the political left, and Buchanan is on the political right. Therefor, racism is overlooked or tolerated for political purposes. Am I right? Is that the reason?

      • You must not watch much MSNBC. Or at least, not the three hours in the morning hosted by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough … crazy Chris Matthews who waxes on about the manly men in the GOP …. the daily program hosted by Mrs. Alan Greenspan, who actually worked with Ayn Rand … all of the crazy “locked up in Tulsa” and other craptacular fear porn …

        Yeah, pretty typical. A Republican who doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Imagine.

        Al Sharpton is only a racist to someone who’s so drunk on the conservative kool aid they wouldn’t know a racist if it walked up to them wearing a white sheet.

        Now run along, kiddies. You’re boring me.

      • imnotblue

        Southern… I’m disappointed.

        You didn’t respond to my evidence that Sharpton is a racist… which I suppose means you can’t defend it, so you resort to name calling.

        Then you attempted to state something about MSNBC having Scarborough on (who cares… he’s as much a Republican, as Zell Miller is a Democrat), and Andrea Mitchell (who apparently has to be a Republican, because of her husband… because, you know, women can’t think for themselves, and their opinions can’t change over time). Although, I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. If you don’t think that either of them spend a lot of time attacking Republicans (and that this makes up for MSNBC’s entire afternoon and primetime programming), you’re mistaken.

        I’ll ask again, and not be surprised when you resort to more name calling, or dodge the question: How is Sharpton not a racist, despite the racist actions of his past? If you’re going to defend him for political reasons, at least have the courage to admit it. What does it say about someone who is too afraid to state the truth about their views? Doesn’t that mean you recognize there’s something wrong with them?

        I will further point out that I have been nothing but respectful to you and your site. You are the one who’s hurled personal insults my way (violating your stated rules). Why is that?

      • This is MY site. I can say whatever I want here. I didn’t invite you here. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else.

        Al Sharpton is not a racist. You say he is but you’re wrong. He defended some people who were con artists. That doesn’t make him a racist. It makes him stupid to rush to judgment. Your definition of racism is mind-numbingly ignorant.

        This is MY blog. I can say whatever I want here. You want to say whatever you want? Get your own damn blog. I have responded to every one of your ridiculous comments, which is more than I can say for most blog hosts. And now I’m tired of wasting time with you. Fuck off.

  5. Sensible thinking people don’t resort to name calling. They don’t need to.

  6. Al Sharpton is not a racist. He is a race pimp.

  7. Hey, SouthernBeale, try taking a course in comprehension before you comment about Buchanan again. It’s always good yo understand what he is saying before inserting your foot in your mouth.

  8. Right wingers, Conservatives whatever you want to call them have delusional minds. To say Buchanan is not a racist, is mind numbing.

  9. Pat Buchanon is a xenophobic fearful man. Free speech doesn’t include hate speech that promotes illegal activites such as segregation which was abolished long ago. Now, if Pat continues to harbor such urges to speek out, let him do it in the safety of his own home.

    • Eh, pretty sure free speech extends even to heinous things like violating the Civil Rights Act. That’s why the ACLU defended the KKK’s right to have a parade back in the day.

      However, no one has a Constitutional right to be an MSNBC commentator. Buchananas can say what he wants but that doesn’t mean MSNBC has to pay him to do so.