Why MSNBC Can’t Stand Pat Buchanan
As for MSNBC, they have added to their line-up the repulsive and largely simplistic Rev. Al Sharpton, whose comments and campaigns over the years have reeked of anti-Semitism, demagoguery (remember the Tawana Brawley affair?), and worse. Recall that isolation of Sharpton during the 2008 Obama campaign, when candidate Obama went out of his way to keep away from the revered, who, if anything, might have reminded the public of Obama’s mentor Jeremiah Wright, who, after the videos of his sermons surfaced, was also sent out to the pasture. And if you want to bring up Rev. Sharpton’s past actions and protest his being hired — guess what? You will not get too far.
So now to my conclusion. And it is not one you will suspect from me. Having made the mistake of first hiring Pat Buchanan, I believe that MSNBC had no good cause to fire him. I do not go so far as Andrew Sullivan, who argues that Buchanan is a “paragon of intellectual integrity” compared to Sharpton and Ed Schultz, and who acknowledges that he is “publicly bigoted, sometimes outrageous, a flame-thrower, a reactionary who flirted at times with what only can be called neo-fascism,” but should be honored because at the same time he is “true to his own ideas and a gifted writer.”
If that is the criterion for being on MSNBC or any other network, almost anyone who writes and believes his own myths should have a program. The point is that MSNBC got rid of him at a moment of rising right-wing populism, and perhaps, I suspect, they feared Buchanan would see the likes of Ron Paul quite favorably, and would lend his support to the type of candidate they least appreciate. I suspect — and yes, these are hunches only — that the NBC brass did not want further trouble from minority pressure groups as Buchanan appeared to them as a TV stand-in for retrograde politics from the far-Right populists.
Sullivan also writes that Buchanan “is also a compassionate and decent man in private and an honest intellectual in public.” Sullivan likes him because he sees him as a person with whom he could debate reasonably and because, when it was announced Sullivan was HIV positive, he sent him a warm and lovely note that he would pray for him recovering his health, despite his own well-known position on gay issues. What Sullivan does not mention, one must note, is his own agreement with Buchanan on foreign policy issues, particularly the idea that the Israel lobby is largely responsible for pressuring our country into a wrong-headed war in Iraq. This is a strange omission given how easy it is to find resemblances between Buchanan and Sullivan’s own comments on the Iraq war and who bears responsibility.
But yes, my own limited contact with Buchanan reveals him to be charming, polite, and cordial. He believes what he says, and on a personal level, he never has been hostile or nasty when I have had the chance to speak with him.
So, anyone who believes in civil liberties, and welcomes debate with those with whom you believe are seriously wrong on major issues, should not be happy at Buchanan’s dismissal. First they came for Buchanan, as the old saying goes cribbed from Pastor Martin Niemoller, and next they will come for Joe Scarborough. Before you know it, Scarborough will be gone, and Christopher Hayes of The Nation, who now has the weekend slot, will replace Scarborough on the weekdays. MSNBC will then be the all far-Left network — being far less in the mainstream than Fox News is on the other side of the spectrum.
See also at PJ Tatler: The Dance of the Lemons and MSNBC Fires Antisemitic Contributor for the Wrong Reason
REMEMBER ‘HANNITY AND COLMES’ , WELL, HOW ABOUT ‘BUCHANAN AND SHARPTON’ ….I’D WATCH THAT EVERY DAY !!!!
Buchanan isn’t a hateful man. He loves his religion, his country, and his race, and he has opposed perhaps every war ever waged.
Yes, he loves his religion.
And hates all followers of others that refuse to convert.
Yes, he loves his country.
And hates all others that refuse to be ruled by it.
Yes, he loves his race.
And hates all others that refuse to be second class to it.
Yes, he opposes perhaps every war that ever waged.
If he feels they diminished his religion, country, or race; if they aggrandized them he loves them, if they didn’t involve them he just doesn’t care.
But he’s not a “hateful” man.
So he hates his sister? She converted from Roman Catholicism to Mormonism.
“Anti-Semite” like “racist” or “sexist” means anything leftists (including neocons) want it to mean.
Ex Communist Radosh: The other commentary I would cite about him was written by Christopher Hitchens, and may indeed be the single most devastating assault Buchanan ever received.
Quoting Christian-hating Marxist Trotskyist Hitchens is now considered normal amongst American “conservatives”. What does that say about the people who have taken over conservatism?
“Anti-Semite” has a meaning among conservatives as well.
And that meaning is amply demonstrated by Buchanan.
OK, you don’t like Hitchens; it takes all sorts. Mona Charen, the columnist and TV talking head, is an old-line Goldwater-Buckley conservative who happens to be Jewish, and she said once that if you give Buchanan his head, he goes after the Jews every time.
Mr. Radosh why are you wasting your time and life’s limited vital energy on this Pat Buchanan flap? No one cares whether MSNBC Can’t Stand Pat Buchanan or not.
But, there is plenty of room in this year’s GOP candidate mess for the rare individuals that can swing a pen with the convincing force that you have.
There is a deep, burning hunger embedded throughout our nation now; it desperately needs someone that can slap enough sense into it before the GOP up and commits suicide this November.
Defending Israel is fine, but you and I and all of Earth know that Israel is fully capable of taking care of itself while also in the midst of doing America’s job when it comes to neutralizing Iran.
It is America that needs the help now; your help. As far as dealing with Obama and the liberal mainstream media goes the GOP stage is filled with emptiness.
Can you even sense the level of sheer frustration of the everyday people in our country subjected to this coming from the members of our own party?
Then, it is almost more than unbearable to come here to PJMedia and watch the gifted talent what we know would work.. wasted in the blackness of liberalism against; or on behalf of MSNBC and Pat Buchanan.
And the people who really insisted on regime change in Iraq were——-the Saudis. These correctly viewed Saddam as a critical weak link in their defenses against Persian hegemony via Shia radicals threatening Sunni/Wahabi dominance.
Of course the House of Saud was not real fond of the way Dubya went about it but so long as the objective was reached, they were not ones to complain.
Buchanan was a hawk—albeit it a bit of a chickenhawk——during the Cold War but as soon as Reagan nailed down our victory he began to show his true colors. A facade of patriotic isolationism partially cloaked his belief that anything that benefited Israel came at American expense and never mind the obvious fact that an Israel that capitulated would reveal rot in Western Civilization that doomed the USA as well.
In this regard, he is not alone on either the left or the right. Note how the chickendoves never bother to refute his premises. Getting fired by MSNBC just shows that that network no longer needs him in becoming ever more irrelevent by the day.
Ditto’s
This article is total BS. The writer of the article is a sophist who peddles tripe and dabbles in name-calling and character assassination… There is too much in this article to criticize, so I won’t even bother.
Pat Buchanan is a Prophet. You can make fun of him all you want and smear him…but he has been absolutely correct on the major issues facing this country. Historians will be able to look back and see who was correct on the seminal issues facing America and the West in the late 20th/early 21st Century. What has happened in this country over the last few decades has proved Buchanan right all along. Despite his defunct critics, Mr. Buchanan’s legacy will stand the test of time.
On the important issues — (unlimited) immigration, “free trade”, open borders, multiculturalism, globalism, foreign policy, the welfare state, neo-pagan morality… Buchanan is right.
How’s NAFTA working out for you? CAFTA? the WTO? MFN for China?
How’s Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act of 1965 working out?
The Iraq war? nation-building? the global democratic revolution?
…
On trade and foreign policy Buchanan’s position is the traditional Republican/Conservative position. Do a little research, you will be surprised.
Buchanan’s The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (2002), State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America (2006), Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart(2007), and … Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? (2011) are so on the money it is frightening.
BTW, the Republican Party is DOOMED — thanks to Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act of 1965, and the cultural revolution of the 1960s.
We will see who is laughing then…
In 1980, European-Americans were 88% of the electorate. In 2000, European-Americans were down to 81% of the electorate. In 2008, European-Americans were down to only 74% of the electorate. And in 2012 European-Americans will probably be around 72% of the electorate. It is pretty obvious where this is going…
And in 4 or 8 years it will be impossible for the GOP to ever win another election. Due to their changing demographics Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona etc. will soon flip to the Dems. The GOP will never win another election for the rest of the century. We will have a one-party system. The GOP will be irrelevant, a permanent minority.
The GOP is DOOMED. They brought it on themselves. They did everything possible to destroy their base — the white working and middle class. And so they will get exactly what they deserve…
We are living in the last great days of the Great Republic of the United States of America.
Other than the insult at the beginning I think you’re probably right. It shows to what extent even Conservatives have been infected and blind-sided by political correctness and Marxist Critical Pedagogy.
As for Buchanan’s anti-Semitism, I don’t think a case has been made that would stand up in a reasonable debate or using courtroom-style arguments. There are far worse bigots tolerated on the Left than Buchanan. Compare Buchanan to Rev. Jeremiah Wright for example and it’s the arguable against obvious.
Hmm Fail, I didn’t realize that Rev. Wright was an integral part of modern day liberalism. Oh…in fact, he isn’t. He isn’t pertinent at all, to liberals nor to this discussion. You’re grasping.
“As for Buchanan’s anti-Semitism, I don’t think a case has been made”
Praising Hitler
Mocking Holocaust survivors
Promoting Holocaust deniers
Whitewashing anti-Western Islamofascist savages like Ahmedinejad and Sheikh Yassin who “conicidentally” want to wipe out Israel.
Blaming Jews for a war started by an administration very cool if not downright hostile to Israel (1st Gulf War/GHWB & “F*** the Jews” Jim Baker)
And that’s only a few right off the top of my head. The evidence is OVERWHELMING and CONCLUSIVE that Buchanan is a rabid, fanatic antisemite who hates Jews to the marrow of his bones. Anyone who cannot see that is either a hopeless dunce or is as bigoted as he is.
My goodness, “Truth Hurts”, why should any of us bother to get out of bed tomorrow morning?
The first commenter writes:
“Buchanan isn’t a hateful man. He loves his religion, his country, and his race.”
If this were a joke, it would actually be pretty good!
Not a joke…a recipe…for a white supremacist.
I’m surprised that MSNBC got rid of Pat Buchanan. I think the only reason they kept him on so long is that they saw him as the ultimate caricature of what a conservative is. The far left sees conservatives as old, white, anti-semites that are anti-abortion, anti-gay anything, loaded with guns, and willing to go to war at the drop of the hat. And Buchanan fit right into that stereotype. So MSNBC kept him on for laughs so that the other far-left people on the station could ridicule him and set him up as an example of what “real” conservatives are all about. Getting rid of Buchanan is probably the best thing the far left could have done for conservatism. Now the world won’t have to see his sour puss on a regular basis and MSNBC can go on being fully run by idiotic far-left loons.
If MSNBC wants to see the face of a true conservative, they should look at people like Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal, two of the best and youngest conservatives in the Republican Party today. But MSNBC is terrified of people like that because it would show American the true face of not only conservatism, but also the Tea Parties as well. And they certainly could never have that on MSNBC.
….we don’t need Buchanan anymore. We have Michael Steele, who’s a lot smarter than lightwieghts Jindal & Rubio. Pat The Clown will be sorely missed though.
Jindahl had his shot…and didn’t measure up. Neither will Rubio. Who could you possibly consider to be “far left” in this society? You’re not one of those “Obama’s a Marxist” goofs, are you?
Buchanan is dead on about immigration and free trade.
The American Empire is coming to an end. This nation is bankrupt with a $15 Trillion National Debt — 100% of GDP (and rising); and that is not even counting $62 Trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities – Medicare, Social Security etc. Whether you agree with Buchanan’s foreign policy views or not, (***his views on American foreign policy are traditional Conservative Republican positions – before the Republican Party foreign policy was hijacked by the neocons) America is a bankrupt nation that can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman, nation-build, and make the world safe for Democracy. When austerity comes to America, the first thing to get cut will be foreign aid, military bases and troops in Japan, Germany, Korea and Europe, and cuts to the military. The people will insist on their Medicare and Social Security, but they will be willing to cut defense spending.
America is turning into a Third World hellhole. What’s coming cannot be stopped. You fools brought it on yourselves. Serves you right. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
“A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.” — Karl Marx
it’s the specter of Paulism…
http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/18/ron-paul-leads-obama-in-iowa-according-t
the ‘unelectable’ Paul leads Obama in blue-leaning Iowa. But letting disillusioned anti-war Democrats vote for any Republican is cheating! cjm, cw or some other Republican here at PJM told me so!
http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/16/ron-paul-his-opponents-dont-even-know-th
Paul’s opponents don’t even know how many delegates he’s winning, despite whole counties getting their results trashed in Maine and multiple precincts being deep-sixed in Iowa
First, there is In Search of Anti-Semitism, by William F. Buckley, Jr., which features a reprint of a 1991 article in National Review where the late dean of conservatism reluctantly concluded that Buchanan was indeed an anti-Semite.
Surely you must know that Buckley’s piece on anti-Semitism was an embarrassing flop at the time. It made Buckley look like a groveller and it permanently tarnished his name among actual conservatives – unless you count neocons as actual conservatives!
The second source are two articles by Joshua Muravchick
Joshua Muravchick – former leader of the Young Peoples Socialist League! Yeah, I always go to such people for information on conservatism!
Re Josh Muravchik and the “Young Peoples Socialist League”. Jose was a YPSL (Yipsal), a Democratic Socialist, like his father, but he stood with us on Vietnam when other liberals/socialists fled like cowards. I remember our debate at Charlie Stephen’s NY house in Jan. 1970. He was good and over the years, he has gotten a lot more knowledgeable about the true enemy of those days, and today, communism (now joined by Islamofascism).
He is a first class writer and researcher. His works stand the test of time and are valuable references for people interested in international affairs and internal security.
I once belonged to the “Young Peoples League” or something like that. It was a synagogue youth social group and we held one dance, which my partner and I won. Does that make me a “YPLer”? I don’t think there is anyone left around who even remembers that group or dance, except my partner (who is still alive) and myself. We were bad, very bad, but we could dance!
Odd to enlist Christopher Hitchens-who stated that he hated Christianity and ridiculed Jewish faith practices.
Hitch was a vocal supporter and friend on David Irving–the Holocaust denier
Hitchens committed public suicide by drinking and smoking himself to death-
Hitch was quite a slimy toad in fact
–if they have given his corpse an enema -they could have buried Hitch in match box.
I knew him so well I called him “Hi-”.
I think I tried to reply to this yesterday; don’t know whether it got through. But Victor doesn’t like Hitchens? OK, it takes all kinds. But Mona Charen, the columnist and TV talking head, is an old-line Buckley-Goldwater conservative who happens to be Jewish, and she’s said that given his head, Buchanan will go after the Jews every time.
I always thought it was a good idea to keep him there because only about 40,000 drooling liberals watch the network- you could get ‘em all in Shea stadium.
Buchanon is to MSNBC as Colmes is to Fox.
MSNBC hired Buchanan as their “voice of the right” BECAUSE he is a fascist anti-Semite, not in spite of that fact. Think about it.
“Civil liberties” have to do with a citizen’s rights against the government; they have absolutely nothing to do with the decision of a private employer to dispense with the services of someone they no longer wish to employ. Accordingly, anyone who believes in civil liberties should not give a fart in a windstorm that Pat Buchanan has lost his berth at MSNBC.
And, since Buchanan has run true to form in blaming “the Jews” or some sub-section thereof, there is no reason that any Jew should consider standing up for Pat Buchanan a worthy expenditure of even a nanosecond of time. It will not prove to Buchanan, or to his supporters, anything other than that Jews are craven, self-hating wimps who rush to protect those who gleefully hate them. Any Jew so foolish as to waste time in such an endeavor will deserve the extra dollop of being-despised he or she will reap for doing so.
If you read your post you’ll realize you completely contradict yourself which is common for people who believe all roads lead to ethnicity and defend based on that rather than fair play. At some point, usually very early on, justice goes right out the window to be put atop a crappy old barn and used as a weather vane to blow in whatever direction naked bigotry blows. Even an Orwell character would be challenged to say Jews want/don’t want Buchanan fired. Give it at least an hour’s worth of separation and then we’ll all be fooled.
I do not contradict myself in the least: I say that Buchanan’s firing has nothing to do with “civil liberties”—and it hasn’t. Radosh says that “anyone who believes in civil liberties” should go to bat for Buchanan, and he strongly implies that this applies a fortiori to Jews, who tend to be and have historically often been involved in “civil liberties” imbroglios. The strongly-spoken unspoken implication is that civil libertarians, and Jewish civil libertarians in particular, are supposed to try and “prove” something to the miserable Buchanan or his troglodyte supporters, or at least burnish their civil-liberties credentials, by coming to this creep’s defense.
Nope. Sorry. Not a civil-liberties issue, and attempts at “proof” such as Radosh advocates are a complete waste of time.
Calling everyone who question any of AIPACs strategies an “anti-semite” is a policy of very rapidly diminishing returns.
Al Sharpton, Rev Wright and Jesse Jackson etc– have said much more extreme things than Buchanan.
Also we have lost the debate if every criticism of the the current Israeli policy by American Jews is defined as ” anti semitism”
Such rhetoric will lead to questions of dual loyalty etc
Those who want to accuse Jews of “dual loyalty” will do so regardless of what any Jew anywhere actually does.
Buzzsaw, the real “dual loyalty” is Victor, who pretends to be an American but is in reality a Turkish national pimping their anti-American Islamist regimer.
Pat Buchanan is more odious than Radosh lets on. I agree with buzzsawmaonkey above that it’s pathetic to defend – even a little – Buchanan on this front. what is it about Buchanan’s zero credibility that is so difficult to get?
Buchanan has flirted with Holocaust Revisionism (look it up. Radosh missed the big fish, what else is new?), Buchanan has sympathized with David Duke, indulged in the most crude anti-black race baiting (why is that given a pass by Radosh, or is it just not that high up on the Radosh radar or doesn’t Radosh have the vaguest notion here?) and of course Pat B just loves to blame America’s wars on the Jooooos (yes I know Radosh at least mentioned that). Ron Paul is very much the successor to Buchanan on the paleo-con extreme isolationist Right in America.
Buchanan is simply a disgrace who cannot be taken seriously. Yes there are people who take him seriously and there are people who take Sharpton seriously and 9-11 conspiracy gobbledegook seriously. So? The fact that gasbags like these bigots are featured by MSNBC just tells us that the MSM is a joke, the blind leading the blind. What else is new?
Buchanan is not an isolationist strictly speaking, since he used to support all-out intervention against the “Judeo-Bolshevik entity.” He only becomes “isolationist” when the enemies are Nazis or Muslims.
Why are we still worrying about Pat Buchanan, when Ron Paul should be the primary concern of those who worry about anti-Semitism amongst our fellow rightists?
Because they’re roughly the same age and we can look forward to their retirement from public life fairly soon?
Really, both have repugnant views, and I cannot wait for them to retire to their rocking chairs.
Actually, what’s truly worrying about anti-semetism is that so many respected politicos, both Democrat and Republican, buy into it, defend it and have absolutely no shame about indulging in it, and blamng “Da Jooooooos” at every opportunity, even to the point of re-writing WWII to make the Allies the bad guys.
Anti-semetism has become acceptable in our culture. After 9/11, the big fear was that we were all going to go out and attack poor, innocent Moslems. Instead, we seem to have adopted anti-semetism, perhaps in some demented Stockholm Syndrome attempt to endear ourselves to our Islamic masters; “Don’t hurt us, religion of peace! We hate da Jooooos too!”
‘What Sullivan does not mention, one must note, is his own agreement with Buchanan on foreign policy issues’
There is no ideological differences between national socialist(Buchanan) i.e Nazi and international socialist(Sullivan). Both are joint by their hip when it comes to blaming the Jews for everything they don’t like.
The reason MSNBC hates PB is as plain as the ears on Obama’s face. Pat, as a conservative, is smarter than all of the communists (or whatever euphemism you want to call the miscreants) at MSNBC put together. And it’s been galling them for the last ten years.
Pat isn’t one hundred percent right, just ninety-five percent.
I agree rachel – Buchanan, like Santorum has a brilliant mind… for the 13th century.
We tell ourselves what we must?
Why does every person’s worth (and the importance of their ideas) have to be defined in terms of whether or not they are anti-semitic? This is disproportionate.
I liked Pat Buchanan because he had the courage to say what he thought. While I disagreed with him on many issues, and thought he was a little crazy with the sexual moralism, I admired his courage and his intellect.
If there is no place for such individuals in our “free” society, we should stop pretending to value free speech and freedom of conscience and acknowledge our intellectual slavery.
I should have said deemed to be anti-Semite. This is an important distinction.
I dislike people who dislike people based on their race. But I also feel strongly that calling someone anti-Semitic should not automatically disqualify them from expressing an opinion.
Pat is still free to express all the bigoted half-baked opinions he wants. He simply will no longer get paid by a crappy cable network for shooting off his big fat ignorant mouth. Just like you and me.
I would imagine the reason PB was hired by MSNBC in the first place is they have a very warped view of conservatives and they were using him to perpeturate that distorted vision. however, once they gave him a podium, they lost control of their toy.
I don’t like PB, but MSNBC has no one to blame but themselves as they hired him when they already knew what he was.(and that was WHY they hired him.) this is an open assault on the first amendment by the intolerant left – but we’ve all known for a long time their definition of “tolerance” is all must agree with them.
Which it could be said is why Faux Snooze has so many facistic lefty loons on their show but they never get fired no matter what they say. So what gives??
As for the anti-semeitic slur, again just like racist, it has become tedious and overused by persons who cannot argue facts.
But this does show how we on the right form a circle and start firing at each other in a vain attempt to show the left, “Hey we are really nice people. Please like us..”
Monkey: “Radosh says that “anyone who believes in civil liberties” should go to bat for Buchanan, and he strongly implies that this applies a fortiori to Jews, who tend to be and have historically often been involved in “civil liberties” imbroglios.”
List the last time America Jews have stood up for something American, or some American tradition? The only civil liberties American Jews stand up for are those stated by the left as being the ONLY civil rights allowed to be defended.
“The strongly-spoken unspoken implication is that civil libertarians, and Jewish civil libertarians in particular, are supposed to try and “prove” something to the miserable Buchanan or his troglodyte supporters, or at least burnish their civil-liberties credentials, by coming to this creep’s defense.”
And what is wrong with defending he civil liberties of those with whom you dislike? Isn’t our law system supposed to be about defending everybody’s right to speak or is it just who and what you and Ron says is the correct speach and from whom it is said? And by the way, Monkey, you seem just a bit bigoted yourself so your arguments and those of Ron are just a little to specious to be thought of as serious, at least to me. Just say’in.
According to the aptly named “blotto”, civil liberties include the right for an embittered old media jockey who has never accomplished anything substantive in his life to hold down a cushy gig getting paid to bloviate on a bargain-basement cable network. Buchanan is still in full possession of his constitutional rights. Any time he wants to he can put on lipstick and a pink tutu and go to a street corner and rant his head off about Jooos or neocons, just like blotto.
Do you think it may be time for righties to drop the “blacks as victims” mindless talking point? Think about it whenever you finish whining like a little girl.
Being fired by MSNBC is as good a recommendation of the man as could be given, and not the smartest way to go about trying to convict an anti-Semite.
MSNBC is an unforgivable abomination. Better to point out that Buchanan had so little class as to work there in the first place, as he once ran for President with a socialist running-mate when no one else would have him.
Ron, you left out Buchanan’s assertions that Poland actually started WWII. This is like blaming Megan’s Law on Megan. But I can’t say I’m surprised that Buchanan takes his ethical cues from NAMBLA.
My objection to Buchanan was his relevancy – or lack of it. He really hasn’t had an original thought since the 1950′s – he is stalled intellectually, and unfortunately for him, the rest of the world isn’t and has moved on from his neanderthalic views. He didn’t add anything positive to the conversation. His racial views were stuck back in another ugly time and have not grown – so he added nostalgia, but really nothing pertinent. I personally will not miss him, and feel that the less we see of people like Buchanan, the better.
One big difference between Fox and MSNBC no matter what they do with Scarborough: MSNBC owns their bias while Fox claims to be “fair & balanced.” Fox just makes stuff up out of whole cloth. MSNBC certainly slants left, and they might be biased and selective in what they cover, but they do not deliberately invent the propaganda as Fox does.
Where was the author’s outrage when Phil Donohue was fired – despite GOOD ratings – for lack of fealty to the Iraq war?
He was nowhere because he’s full of crap.
Yeah, MSNBC is always dumping conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Keith Olberman, and Phil Donahue.
This is fascinating, but to rely on Hitch to put down Buchanan is insulting to the intelligence. I loved Hitch when he took on Clinton, but on most others topics, he is shrill. Yes, maybe Pat is somewhat anti-semitic, and that’s a shame, but he’s no danger to infecting our minds. A little debate never hurts us, I feel.
Pat’s book on WWII is based on isolationism more than anything else. Can’t you see that? That’s also why he doesn’t want us involved in the ME and helping Israel. Misguided, but not demonic. I’m half Jewish and hate the nazis, so don’t give me grief on this, but the Holocaust was not, indeed a major cause of WWII. Invading other countries who were our allies or friends was the cause. Lets get real.
The Holocaust would have happened with or without WWII; it was always the plan of the nazis. PS: Pearl Harbor got us into the war and it had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Japan’s alliance with the Axis in Europe was the major cause. We turned away 1000 German Jews who sailed across the Atlantic on the SS St. Louis, and Canada did also. Our hands were not clean. Is Isolationism a credible philosophy? I don’t think so, but it existed as mainstream American political thought long before the nazis took over in Germany.
Hypocrisy is on display here. Jews are to be ethnic nationalists when it comes to themselves — their nation Israel is allowed to take whatever steps necessary to ensure it remains Jewish ruled, ideally through perpetual majority rule, but through minority rule if necessary (see West Bank). Intermarriage with non-Jews is discouraged (outside Israel) or made impossible (within Israel). Jewish survival is paramount.
However, when it comes to other countries they live in, Jews generally do everything within their power, using the media and political system, to discourage any similar nationalism amongst christians, and amongst peoples of european descent. White gentiles are simply not allowed to have the same group self-interest that Jews have for themselves, and figures like Buchanan who ENCOURAGE whites and Christians to act more like, well, Jews, are defamed and marginalized and silenced.
Fascinating.
It’s all out now, isn’t it, markus, from the Jew-baiter who compared Israel to Nazi Germany and then squealed like a stuck pig when I nailed you on it. The best thing about being Jewish is that anti-semites are *always* nitwits, misf*cks and born losers, like you and Buchanan.
Like Bill Buckley became, Ron Radosh is a neocon. Reading the posts following Radosh’s article it appears many of the contributors are too, hence the “poison pen” attacks on Pat Buchanan.
Pat Buchanan is a giant. In comparison, Mr. Radosh, you are an ant. One of the hundreds of MSM army-ants who beat the drum for the USA to carry out endless wars around the globe.
What say you to this, Mr. Neocon Radosh? Let’s pull all American troops out of Afghanistan and let the Israeli Army replace them. Same for Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. If troops have to die, then let them be Israelis.. because it’s their neighborhood, not ours.
I watch MSNBC regularly and agree with Mr. Radosh’s assessments of Buchanan and Sharpton as flawed vessels of their respective ideologies. Mr. Radosh asks why MSNBC hired Buchanan in the first place. Wiki provides some history: CNN declined to rehire Buchanan after Crossfire expired (thanks Jon Stewart!), so MSNBC brought him on to co-host a show with a similar format in 2002 (“Buchanan and Press”). I think the question is not why MSNBC hired Buchanan, but why did they try to replicate a terrible show that CNN had abandoned? I never watched B&P. Apparently not enough other people did either, because it was canceled in 2003. Buchanan stayed on MSNBC as a commentator. Why you might ask? Maybe inertia? Maybe MSNBC simply assumed that by then he had tenure? Because it’s not like Pat Buchanan has ever really been out of the public eye in the nearly 40 years since his days working oppo in the Nixon White House. We’ve never had the opportunity to miss him.
Mr. Radosh lost me at the end of this post with the scary speculation about MSNBC purging the last of its conservative voices. I would bet against it. Joe Scarborough may be overbearing and obnoxious on occasion, but he doesn’t have the baggage of Buchanan’s long history of flirting with anti-Semitism. Also, unlike Buchanan, Scarborough has actually won a race for elected office and draws on his experience in Congress to make interesting political observations. Finally, just because Fox and MSNBC occupy opposite ends of the ideological spectrum doesn’t make them mirror images of each other. It’s risible to claim that MSNBC without Scarborough would be less “mainstream” than Fox.
Buchanan had some good points to make about the changing ethnic composition of America and what that will do to the country in the long run. That is a subject that is untouchable right now in the media (both MSM and blogging punditocracy) because of political correctness. It’s unfortunate that someone of his character should be the only one raising this issue.
The problem with Buchanan is not his concern for legitimate topics that are not being addressed, but that his motivations and attitudes are a throwback to 1950′s Catholic triumphalism and white racial superiority, both of which have largely disappeared in the civilized part of America. He can’t seem to accept that. Whatever the problems of the black underclass (which should be discussed openly and is not), the solution is NOT to go back to the precivil rights era when blacks were treated as second-class citizens and systematically discriminated against. That is Buchanan’s preferred solution, but sorry, that doesn’t wash. Neither does his theologically-based anti-Semitic and anti-Israel world view, which also comes from a deep-seated hatred that is simply no longer acceptable in America, although it once was.
What is repelling about Buchanan, therefore, is not his point of view – which is legitimate – but his underlying motivation, which is based on bigotry and hatred. He simply dresses up this motivations in an acceptable way, because he is jovial and sophisticated on talk shows and in his columns, and has gotten away with it for decades. In Europe, this kind of thin veneer of respectability placed over hatreds coming from prejudice is par for the course, but in America it isn’t. European anti-Semites are generally seen for what they are in the rest of the world, even if in their own closed echo chambers their views are parroted endlessly. Unfortunately for Buchanan, the norm in Europe is not the norm in America, and Helen Thomas found that out the hard way, as well.
Buzzsaw what is so fascinating about what I wrote? This is what anti-Semites write about incessantly — Jewish hypocrisy. Do Jews have the right to a Jewish majority state of their own? Do European-Americans have the right to a European-American majority state of their own? If your answer is different between the two questions, why? Its about the only issue that anti-semites bring up that sticks in my opinion, so if you can justify it, then you’re teflon.
Gary, glad to see you crawl out of the woodwork I thought maybe you were dead. I remain a staunch Zionist, and constantly defend Israel in pro-white forums, pointing out that Israel far from being an enemy should be a model for Europe and for European-Americans. Also, as you know, liar, I never said Israel was like Nazi Germany. I implied they would become like Nazi Germany if they tried to move Arabs of the West Bank by force. Israelis strongly agree that Kahane who advocated this was a racist and a fascist, so what I said should have been uncontroversal.
” I remain a staunch Zionist”
Right, just like Buchanan and Ron Paul and David Duke and Louis Farrakhan.
“constantly defend Israel in pro-white forums”
I’ve heard that one so many times “I have been criticized in pro-Palestinian blogs bla bla bla”. Never got a link, never believed it and am not going to fall for it now.
“I never said Israel was like Nazi Germany”
Still weaseling after all these years. I made you admit and then you immediately started denying it. Thanks for proving everything I said about you.
“I think it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread”
But Buzzsaw, he looooooves Joooos and Israel so much! He only wants to save us from ourselves, just like Hamas and Hezbollah and the IRI!
“I thought maybe you were dead”
Holocaust dreams for markus.
Markus sez: “Israelis strongly agree that Kahane who advocated this [moving Arabs out of the West Bank by force] was a racist and a fascist”
First, it is my recollection that Kahane did not advocate moving Arabs out of the West Bank by force. He advocated their repatriation to the only legitimate “Palestinian Arab” state—Jordan—but he did not demand that it be by force.
Second, “Israelis” do not “strongly agree” that Kahane’s position was “racist and fascist.” Leftwing Israelis, who tend as a group to advocate national suicide, claimed this, but they are—much to marky-markus’ chagrin—hardly the majority in Israel.
Third, given the overtly racist rhetoric, genocidal aspirations, and insistence on Jew-free territory which are the hallmarks of all Arab “peace overtures,” it is more than a little disingenuous for marky-markus to complain that the Israelis might return the favor by preferring to enjoy their legitimately-won territory without the spoiler presence of a bunch of genocidal Arabs—especially since people like marky-markus tend to have their tongues very far indeed up the posterior of whatever genocidal imam or mullah is currently prominent in the Middle East.
What makes you think you can casually speak about “Jewish hypocricy” and then expect that your inter-ethnic bullying should be met with polite discussion? American Jews, like other Americans, have a right to express any view they like on immigration or anything else, and it could only make them hypocritical in the worldview of racist fanatics.
I am so grateful to the Buchananite/Coughlinite Jew-baiters for slithering out from beneath the baseboards. They serve as a constant reminder of the nasty bigotries my parents and grandparents had to endure and which, despite the immense outpouring of goodwill between and among most sincere people of faith, which has occurred in recent decades notwithstanding the differences in their belief systems, still rots and festers in a few brackish mental backwaters.
buzz, what do you think of the recent decision by the Israeli Supreme Court to deny citizenship to Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens? How would you feel if we changed our laws in America along the same lines?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16526469
Markus: I think it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and that if I do comment on the topic it will be after you find a link discussing the same decision that has been posted by Arutz Sheva or Melanie Phillips instead of the notoriously antisemitic BBC.
You mean change our laws from the government investigating for possible marriage scams?
I suppose it depends.
What would we change it too?
Canada’s law, which does not grant automatic citizenship to foreigners marrying Canadian citizens?
England’s law, which may not even permit you to remain a resident in England after getting married?
And doing some checking, it looks like a lot of Western nations require 2-3 year periods before considering citizenship for spouses, and they must still meet other requirements.
How then is the Israeli law, which applies only to people from certain specific countries engaged in or actively supporting war against Israel so outrageous?
Are Jews the only people not allowed to restrict citizenship to foreigners by marriage while every other country is?
According to the BBC, anything Israel does is, on its face, wrong, discriminatory, racist and fascist; if any other nation does it, the BBC yawns and shrugs.
This is why I do not trust or believe anything the BBC writes or says about Israel.
as an american citizen if i marry someone from iran, or the west bank, or venezuela, or ANYWHERE, that person automatically becomes a US citizen.
the israeli supreme court gave TWO reasons for its law prohibiting Palestinians who marry Israelis from becoming Israeli citizens. The first, security concerns, seems specious, since most of these Palestinian spouses are still allowed to apply for residency in Israel. The second is the real reason: the need to ensure Israel remains a Jewish-majority state. NO OTHER Western country is accorded the same privilege. No mainstream politician in America or Europe or Canada or Australia or New Zealand is allowed to say publicly that the white citizens of these countries have the right to want to remain the MAJORITY in their countries. And the fact is that Jewish groups and individuals in the West have taken a leading role in fighting to make this idea politically and morally verboten ONLY WITH REGARD to Europeans and peoples of European descent. This gives rise to the accusation of hypocrisy amongst many people sympathetic to Buchanan and paleoconservativism, given the overwhelming Jewish support for Israel remaining a Jewish majority state, even if the demographics of the territory which Israel holds become majority non-Jewish (Arab). It seems like a double standard: Jews are allowed to fight for group power and preservation both in Israel and abroad, while Europeans and people of European descent are not.
“White?” “European?” Tell me, please, about the culture and ethnicity common to a Sicilian peasant, a British peer, and a reindeer breeder in Lappland. That bogus concept of a “shared culture” was the basis for the failure known as the European Union, currently coming apart at the seams.
“Allowed?” Nobody’s stopping the Australians, or Canadians, or New Zealanders or whomever else from doing whatever they want. If you think that they are prevented from doing what they will by a tiny minority of Jews, you are even crazier and more stupid than you sound—if that is possible—and seem to have avoided noticing the many Jews such as Melanie Phillips (England), Ezra Levant (Canada), Jonah Goldberg and Norman Podhoretz (United States) among many, many others, who have inveighed and continue to inveigh against the idiocies of political correctness.
Just come out and say that you’re a white-supremacist moron, Markus. You know you want to.
“as an american citizen if i marry someone from iran, or the west bank, or venezuela, or ANYWHERE, that person automatically becomes a US citizen.”
This is 100% TOTALLY FALSE. The requirements are somewhat easier than otherwise but it is far from “automatic”. For starters you can’t apply until you have lived here for three years.
Proof that Markus is a liar
Aside from the link, I know about this because my brother married a woman who was not a US citizen. It has now been proven beyond any possible shadow of a doubt that markus is a lying ignoramus and his posts should be read (or not read) in that light.
Dan Senor’s comeback to this pathetic, embittered old Jew-baiter was great, and it would have applied even more to Peppermint Patti at the time of the first Gulf War when he made his notorious “amen corner” slur. The Bush I administration was the most anti-Israel administratioin between Carter and Obama, led by the Saudi’s consigliere James Baker famous for saying “F*** the Jews”. They were pressuring Israel and sucking up to Saddam almost to the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. Then they put a half million American troops in that noted bastion of neocon Zionists, Saudi Arabia. Nope, it had nothing to do with oil, it was all about da Joooooooos!
be fair–repeat James Baker’s whole statement: “F–k the Jews, they don’t vote for us [Republicans] anyway.”
and in that, he was unfortunately correct. they still don’t “vote for us.” and this year, with all we know about Barack Obama and his hostility to the Jewish state, if my fellow co-religionists STILL vote for the Democrats, they will have no one to blame but themselves.
This is a pretty cool thread, because it shows several things:
1) Buchanan partisans are so incredibly bigoted that they seamlessly drift from anti-Zionism to antisemitism and back again. They are living proof that so-called “anti-Zionists” are really just good old-fashioned Jew-haters.
2) Antisemites are craven cowards. When more than one person stands up to them they tend to run away—or devolve into sputtering incoherence and irrelevancies.
3) The old, fetid Coughlinite strain in the American psyche still exists, but it is weaker than it was back when the Radio Priest was spewing his poison.
The original seeds that resulted in the below article were sown:
[1] December 31, 1600 with the creation of the British East India stock company, which financed the early English colonies on the Eastern seaboard of North America[later the United States]…and was the precurser to the London Exchange and Wall Street where George Washington was inaugurated.(It is interesting that the address of the White House is 1600.)
[2]Let us review some of the facts involved in the creation of The Bank of England:
In 1693, William Paterson proposed that the “Bank of England” be based on the idea of a “Fund of Perpetual Interest” which creates a permanent National Debt. Backers of Paterson’s idea were impressive. The spokesman was Michael Godfrey, a merchant of great substance. Other supporters were members of the leading City Livery Companies. Many were Members of Parliament and many were directly associated with the government of the City. Of the first twenty six members of the Court of Directors, six subsequently became Lord Mayor. All were solid in their support of the “Glorious Revolution” which was Protestants versus Catholics. All were Protestants.
The promoters had in mind a bank of issue which involved creating their own currency. They had long known that the most profitable source of income to the Goldsmith-Bankers were in their own “notes”, which passed from hand to hand in the limited area where they were recognized. It would greatly enhance profits for a bank, if they could issue notes which would be recognized and accepted over an area far wider than any that the goldsmiths could command.
ok so wait. first you make fun of Buchanan for saying he was blacklisted by Colors of Change, et al., and then you say:
“I suspect — and yes, these are hunches only — that the NBC brass did not want further trouble from minority pressure groups as Buchanan appeared to them as a TV stand-in for retrograde politics from the far-Right populists.”
–which basically confirms what Buchanan was saying!
The only difference between Socialism and Totalitarianism is the former employs a Group as it’s slavemaster, and the latter, an individual.
I’d enjoy a debate between Radosh (unrepentent leftist) and Buchanan (unrepentent old rightist) about the whole ‘anti-semite’ canard which has become as much a tool for the some on the right as for the left as racism.
It is amazing how a washed up Trotskyite like Radosh can boldly claim that Buchanan is unaccomplished.
“It is amazing how a washed up Trotskyite like Radosh can boldly claim that Buchanan is unaccomplished.”
Buchanan talks tough but in reality he is a pampered little Lord Fauntleroy whose daddy put him through Yale and has never created, accomplished or been responsible for anything of value in his life. He is a career media jockey who has never made an honest buck unless you count his family’s investments and shooting his yap off.