About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Buchanan plays defense for Limbaugh -- more bigotry ensues

October 15, 2009 7:25 pm ET by Brian Frederick

Unsurprisingly, Pat Buchanan took to Hardball to defend Rush Limbaugh in the wake of Limbaugh's abrupt firing -- as Limbaugh put it this afternoon -- from his ownership bid for the St. Louis Rams. Buchanan predictably failed to grasp that Limbaugh was not entitled to be an owner of an NFL team and it was his own partners who ran him off. Instead, Buchanan claimed that Limbaugh was the victim of "blacklisting" "just like they used to do out in Hollywood to communists."

But where he really showed his true colors was when he made this statement about Limbaugh's previous firing from ESPN:

He was wrong about McNabb.  McNabb had a great season that year.  So he made a wrong statement.

So according to Buchanan, Limbaugh was fired because his analysis of McNabb was faulty because McNabb actually had a great season that year...

Here's what Limbaugh said of McNabb on Sunday NFL Countdown in September 2003:

Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go ... I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.

Buchanan fails to grasp that Limbaugh's analysis actually had nothing to do with whether or not McNabb had a great season. Limbaugh's point was that the media wanted a black quarterback to succeed and gave him undue credit. Limbaugh needlessly saw the situation of the Eagles through a racial prism, as he does with much of his social and political commentary.

It is a prism Buchanan himself often uses and which should have gotten him fired from MSNBC long ago.

During his defense of Limbaugh on Hardball, Buchanan used the opportunity to defend another radio host who was fired for his racially charged comments -- Don Imus. During a back and forth with Rev. Al Sharpton in which Sharpton said no one was calling for Limbaugh to be fired, Buchanan suddenly yelled at Sharpton: "What did you say about Don Imus? Didn't you say he ought to be taken off the air?" After Sharpton stated that they asked sponsors not to underwrite his show, Buchanan stated:

Look, you ran a campaign to get this guy dropped off the air for two words at 6:15 in the morning.

Two words.

Buchanan was presumably referring to the words "nappy-headed hos." (Imus' partner producer Bernard McGuirk called them "hard-core hos" and "Jigaboos.")

Of course, those two words are a lot more than two words. Imus was fired because of what was behind those words, what they represented. And Buchanan completely ignores the context in which those words came, as well as Imus' long history of bigoted remarks.

Buchanan has long defended Imus, claiming among other things that "the court of elite opinion," which was "pandering to the mob, lynched him. Yet, for all his sins, he was a better man than the lot of them rejoicing at the foot of the cottonwood tree."

Great analogy, Pat.

Buchanan's latest defense of Rush Limbaugh is no different than his defense of Don Imus -- and ultimately, it is a defense of Pat Buchanan.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (October 15, 2009 7:35 pm ET)
         
      I like Pat Buchanan but he really makes it Hard.
      He stands by Rush Limbaugh a man hoisted on his own Petard.
      Pat Buchanan has an endearing smile.
      If he's not careful it may soon resemble Bile.

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (October 15, 2009 8:24 pm ET)
      6  
      Other than the whole "why is Pat on the air when he is obviously either crazy or senile", you could call it black listing. That is you could if Rush was "fired" or denied unemployment because he was a communist/socialist/liberal.

      What do you cal it when some of the people speaking out against him were members of the same club he belongs to. That being rich, white, old men.

      Considering the members of the rich, old, white mens club that is the NFL owership (apologies to Green Bay), what does it say when even they don't want Rush as a member
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotx (October 16, 2009 5:05 am ET)
      4  
      Birds of a feateher. If I ever get on the air and say something offensive I hope Pat doesn't come to my defense. Uh, thanks but no thanks.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pongotwistleton (October 16, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
        2
      Why did my earlier posts get pulled? Because I called Brian out on his shameless dishonesty? Sure I insulted the twit, but no more so than liberal posters let fly insults on here all day long.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jpcapone (October 16, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
         
      ya and its funny that this guy thinks that because buchanan defended vick's reinstatement we should say that his stance on rush's snub is consistent. they are so far from the same thing its ridiculous. people want to villify vick but he served time in jail. he paid the price for the crime. rush used his racially coded comments to further his career. on his score card he is even up more points from the nfl snub. its all these other people and this conspiracy oh woe is me. get the heck outta here with that crap. i am sure his audience is eating it up and i bet if you did a poll you would find that a large portion of his legions trully do believe that crap. now thats scary.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by debb17055 (October 17, 2009 6:43 am ET)
      2  
      MSNBC really needs to stop his screeching, or at least reimburse me for the batteries in my remote. I'm all for opposing opinions but please get someone that is civil.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by political_left-religious_right (October 17, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
      2  
      Look, you ran a campaign to get this guy dropped off the air for two words at 6:15 in the morning. (emphasis added)

      By not quoting the two words themselves, I guess even Pat knows where to draw the line. And anyway, it's not like you can suddenly extract the two words and have everything be okay, any more than you can extract two teaspoons of arsenic from your elderberry wine; those two words are part of an overall message, and it was indeed hateful. Imus deserved all that he got and more; Buchanan is frankly foolish for defending him, and he's piling it higher and deeper in doing the same for Limbaugh.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jibal (October 18, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
        1  
        The issue isn't whether Buchanan is "foolish", but whether he's a racist defending racists -- and he is.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.

Weekly Columns

Feed Icon