MSNBC's Buchanan compounded sexist comments, misquoted Samuel Johnson
SUMMARY: Referring to comments he had made about Sen. Hillary Clinton's voice, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan said on the February 27 edition of Morning Joe, "Look, the famous Dr. Johnson, and I hate to repeat it, said, you know, 'To see a woman speaking is to watch a dog walking on its hind legs ... Sure, he said you're surprised not to see it done -- not that it's not done well, but to see it done at all."
During the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan referred to comments -- noted by Media Matters for America -- he had made on the previous day's broadcast about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's voice. Buchanan stated, "Wait, are they arguing about the line I've used in my speeches when I go out there? I said her voice rises to a level that every husband in America," at which point co-host Joe Scarborough interrupted and said, "Don't say that again; they think that's sexist." Buchanan replied, "But there's no doubt about it," and co-host Mika Brzezinski stated, "It is sexist." Then, referring to 18th-century author Samuel Johnson, Buchanan stated: "Look, the famous Dr. Johnson, and I hate to repeat it, said, you know, 'To see a woman speaking is to watch a dog walking on its hind legs,' " adding: "Sure, he said you're surprised not to see it done -- not that it's not done well, but to see it done at all." Brzezinski replied, "[W]ow, wow," and Scarborough asked, "Who is this Dr. Johnson?" Buchanan replied, "Boswell's Dr. Johnson, for heaven's sakes."
Buchanan misquoted Johnson. In his book The Life of Samuel Johnson, James Boswell wrote that he told Johnson, "I had been that morning at a meeting of the people called Quakers, where I had heard a woman preach," to which Johnson replied, "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."
Scarborough had introduced the segment by saying to Buchanan, "[Y]ou upset some people on a website ... yesterday with something you said." Yesterday, Media Matters noted that Buchanan claimed that when Clinton "raises her voice, and when a lot of women do, you know, it's -- as I say -- it reaches a point ... where every husband in America ... has heard at one time or another." During that broadcast, Brzezinski replied: " Oh, Pat, you're lucky you're not here in the studio, I'm telling you." Buchanan replied: " I know that's a sexist comment ... but there's truth to it! ... There's truth to it."
From the February 27 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, speaking of which, Pat, you upset some people on a website --
BRZEZINSKI: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: -- yesterday with something you said.
BRZEZINSKI: You upset me tremendously.
SCARBOROUGH: Upset Mika tremendously.
BRZEZINSKI: I am. As a woman --
SCARBOROUGH: But do you remember back in 1988 when people said that George Bush senior reminded every woman of their first husband?
BUCHANAN: Their first husband, right.
SCARBOROUGH: Have you d that?
BUCHANAN: Sure, they used to use it all the time.
SCARBOROUGH: Everybody said it all the time, right?
BRZEZINSKI: So no men have to [unintelligible].
SCARBOROUGH: Well now Mike Barnicle got in trouble a couple of weeks ago --
BRZEZINSKI: Oh boy, here we go.
SCARBOROUGH: -- for saying that Hillary Clinton reminded every -- every husband of his first wife.
BRZEZINSKI: OK. Yep.
SCARBOROUGH: It was this huge explosion.
BRZEZINSKI: At probate court.
SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no, I'm just saying, though, this is the hypocrisy, this is the double standard. There was this huge explosion and everybody was outraged. I had friends call me up, women calling me up, saying, "This is the worst thing, Barnicle is -- needs -- " and I said, don't you remember back in '88, everybody said George Bush reminded every woman of her first husband?
BRZEZINSKI: Well, you know what? Let's bring it to today. And I think it's fair to say that her tone's being picked apart, and I just wonder if, you know, you saw the many different dimensions of a male candidate, if it would be so noted, Pat?
BUCHANAN: Wait, are they arguing about the line I've used in my speeches when I go out there? I said her voice rises to a level that every husband in America --
SCARBOROUGH and BRZEZINSKI: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, yes, yes. Don't say that again; they think that's sexist.
BRZEZINSKI: Yes, that was a problem, Pat.
SCARBOROUGH: They think that's sexist.
BUCHANAN: But there's no doubt about it --
BRZEZINSKI: It is sexist.
BUCHANAN: -- it's a very, very difficult thing. Look, the famous Dr. Johnson, and I hate to repeat it, said, you know, "To see a woman speaking is to watch a dog walking on its hind legs. That you are --
SCARBOROUGH: Wait, who's that? What?
BRZEZINSKI: Make sure we quote that.
BUCHANAN: Dr. Johnson.
SCARBOROUGH: Dr. Johnson?
BRZEZINSKI: Make sure we clip that.
BUCHANAN: Sure, he said you're surprised not to see it done -- not that it's not done well, but to see it done at all.
SCARBOROUGH: What are you doing, Pat?
BRZEZINSKI: Wow, wow, um --
SCARBOROUGH: Who is this Dr. Johnson, when he's --
BUCHANAN: Boswell's Dr. Johnson, for heaven's sakes --
BRZEZINSKI: Let me help you out here, two men, two white men on the set --
BUCHANAN: --you learned that in -- you learned that in graduate school, didn't you, Joe?
"Scarborough asked, "Who is this Dr. Johnson?" Buchanan replied, "Boswell's Dr. Johnson, for heaven's sakes."
This is the funniest line of all. At least Joe didn't confuse him with the other Dr. Johnson, the one known as Doc.
Good one!! But I think you mean the late, great Molly Ivins. Molly Ivers is an actress, I believe.
You are correct, Linus.
Ok who is going to make appologies for this foray into misogyny and ignorance?
Isn't it interesting that THIS program was the best MSNBC could come up with to replace Don Imus???
I think Hispanics outnumber blacks in the U.S.
There are plenty in Chicago but I can only think of one on any of the Chicago news channels, a Puerto Rican who is the 'around town reporter" on WGN, I don't think she's ever even filled in as a co-anchor when the regular ones are sick.
Be careful what you wish for.
You might end up with a show hosted by Armstrong Williams or Condi (if she ever became available)
Geez... MSNBC is freakin' falling apart. Pat 'trying' to explain his sexist remarks by misquoting some guy from the 1700s?
How stupid does one have to actually be...
To sit in front of a TV and watch these morons?
I wasn't implying you were stupid Wolf...
My post wasn't clear.
Then I stopped watching except for things like debate or primary coverage of course.
I think Pat is losing his mind.
He can't lose what he never had in the first place, Sue..... :-)
"Yet another fine example of how MSNBC is terrible."
Exactly...thank God they still have Keith. ;>)
I, for one, am usually poking fun at Sue, which I believe is what Irony was doing as well.
However, I have taken her to task for saying false things about KO, and for that I will not apologize.
I think Pat's funny. You know, there are such things as jokes...
I'm a little baffled about the Dr. Johnson quote, because everyone who knows this line knows it is about women preachers... it's very famous.
People like Cunningham and Buchanan are really the result of our Jerry-Springer culture. We want headlines (no content, research, or justification needed), then we want some blowhard to entertain us and insult others.
This stuff also comes from news organizations wanting people to give opinion's on other people's motivations, feelings, thoughts, etc. Subjective stuff. Just the facts, MSNBC. Just the facts.
Hey, the Rightwing is just trying to firm up its base, to get all those angry white men out there united in their opposition to "that woman" who reminds them of every woman they've ever known and hated ... nagging them, screeching, keeping them from their buddies by expecting some attention be paid to the children, interrupting football games, wanting chores done, not providing sex on demand ... the list is long of complaints men have about "those women."
There's mom, all those damn TEACHERS, then the first wife, the first mother-in-law, that "friend" of the first wife who always sided with her, all those damn women who made life miserable, and couldn't just let a MAN be a MAN. MEN want to go hunting, fishing, "out with the boys", maybe go to a strip joint, and SO WHAT? WHY do those WOMEN want to ruin all the fun by demanding time and attention be paid to ... pffft! ... "responsibilities"?
So Pat is helping to unite the groundswell against women, ANY women, but particularly Hillary, in the service of Republicans ... who can then turn around and claim FAMILY VALUES!
Those values are, MEN can do what they want, WHEN they want, and don't want any nagging lip. Women should be barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen or the bedroom, and keep that screeching voice MUTED.
That second wife was just like the first, but even worse ... always on me for those damn child support payments. What AM I, made of money? She can kiss my elbow ...
Now there's the understatement of the year.
Tex lives and dies with these evil rightwing baseless generalizations of his. He does it on nearly every topic, take the specifity of an item and extrapolate it into an end of the world rightwing plot to destroy all things good and holy.
It's harmless, and damn funny to read, if nothing else.
Well, I won't even ask for stats to back that up, I mean what you "think", it's your opinion, I accept it. I have no idea, I only can opine on the people I personally know about, and that is purely anecdotal.
If you say many of Tex's post are satire, then that is a relief. I cannot imagine anyone with even moderate thinking skills would post such nonsense if they were seriously trying to make a point.
Well, they are either mindless, blabbering, leftwing talking point jibberish, or extremely clever satirical prose.
I prefer to give Tex the benefit of the doubt, after Dbeden's take on his posts, and give props to Tex for even fooling me all these years with what I thought was the jibberish stuff, never catching on that it's all tongue in cheek satire. He is smarter than I gave him credit for.
Until he proves otherwise, he has my congratulations.
If I misspoke, I apologize.
So you are saying Tex uses hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric to make a point, you mean like Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh? Then I take him just as seriously as I take them.
So you are trying to say Bush and Hitler are the same? Whatever.....
If you got that from my agreeing with Dbeden, then I completely understand your defending Tex's posts. It's all clear now.
MR L:
Thanks for the kind words. The CHARACTER and mindset of the Rightwinger is revealed through the policies they advocate. Those policies have specific GOALS, and reveal a common world view.
My contention is, if a Rightwinger does not want to be "stereotyped" as a predictable Rightwinger, then it falls to him to change icons, heroes, and ideology which combine to underscore common goals and like-thinking.
Ann Coulter, for example, DEFINES how the Rightwinger THINKS, what he or she values, and what he or she disdains. Until or unless a Rightwinger wholly REPUDIATES Coulter, it is entirely fair to judge all on "her team" by her standards, ideas, and tactics. And by REPUDIATION, I mean get her OFF the talk shows, OFF the lecture circuit.
Tex,
Actually I don't think it's about ALL women. I believe it's very specific. It's about Hillary.
And with few exceptions the folks on MSNBC have been beating on Hillary & fawning over Obama.
Tex’s post was great brain food. I am gay and have had only one intimate relationship with a woman in my adult lifetime. So maybe that explains why I’ve never looked at things in the way Tex illustrates. But when you think about what he wrote you understand why “It’s a man’s world”, is more than just a song title. All you have to do is look at the oldest and most primitive cultures in the world to see how this “king of the beasts” attitude is engrained in the male of the species. If American women feel oppressed, they can only begin to imagine what it must be like to be a woman in most parts of the world.
Before this election, I always thought racism was the worst “wrong” in society – but sexism has it beat hands down. I hope Hillary’s campaign sparks a women’s movement that turns out to be bigger than the one in the 60’s that allowed them to burn their bras, or take the pill. put their shoes back on, and get out in the workforce to pursue real careers with a real education. It looks like true equality is still a long way off - one step at a time.
"Before this election, I always thought racism was the worst “wrong” in society – but sexism has it beat hands down. "
Absolutely! I live in the Deep South...the homeground of the native genus of "racist, sexist pig" (male of course) and I can promise you that if the general election was between a woman and a black man every "racist, sexist pig" in the South would, without hesitation, vote for the black man...because, black or not, he's a MAN and their sexism is FAR more deeply ingrained than is their racism.
And no, before anyone jumps in feet first, I am NOT saying that all men in the Deep South are either racist or sexist, or both...we just seem to have more than our share of the genus.
Can liberals play in the sandbox?
Are there any liberal commentators on MSNBC who are allowed to slime and smear at will--like Buchanan, Carlson and god knows who else?
MSNBC liberal commentator: "a lot of women today just won't vote for McCain because they don't think he can even produce a hord-on anymore, he's so damn old. Stay with us, after the break we'll have virility psychologist Frank Duck help us examine the phenomenon of the 'reluctant female voter' and how this might damage McCain."
Old white men, including Ted Kennedy, are all conservatives, so it's not conservative misinformation.
Why didn't you name the commentator?
I do have to say, after seeing the video, Buchanan is absolutely out of his mind, he can't even form a coherent point. Though MMfA is a little off on the fact that he misquoted Dr. Johnson.
The transcript says "BUCHANAN: -- it's a very, very difficult thing. Look, the famous Dr. Johnson, and I hate to repeat it, said, you know, "To hear a woman speaking is to watch a dog walking on its hind legs. That you are --"
But if you listen to what he says, he says "To see a woman speaking" which, in the original quote, was to see a woman preaching.
Saying "to hear a woman speaking," IMO, is a little worse than saying "to see a woman speaking," and makes Buchanan out to be worse off than he already is.
Just to clarify, Both ways of characterizing it are disreputable in their own right, I just mean that in the context of historical mysoginy, women not having a voice in society was and still is a huge issue. However, to take the original quote and apply it to what Buchanan was saying in its historical context, kinda makes a little more sense as to what he was alluding to.
I'm really not trying to offend anyone, don't take this the wrong way. I am putting this out there in the hope that MMfA will correct their transcript.
It's from the 1700's, so you have to take it into historical account. But, from what I remember in my lit classes, Johnson was actually praising women who were preachers. His quote comes from the fact that, back then, you never see a woman standing up and preaching because that wasn't the norm, and really, was extremely rare. It's not misogyny, it's just the truth as he saw it from an 18th century standpoint.
I could be wrong about the praising women preachers though, I'll have to look it up.
"Can someone please explain the original Johnson quote? "
In Johnson's time (and not only then!) some of the injunctions in the Bible were taken very seriously, and this is one of them:
"1 Corinthians 14:34 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."
Actually from a metaphysical point of view, (not able to read the original Greek) the receptive (female) aspect in each person is SUPPOSED to shut up and listen to God in the church, rather than blather on and on about what they think about what God is saying. Too bad that's not what happens. That's one reason I think why so many evangelical churches are so noisy (they don't want to hear that still small voice)
"Well I'm sure that St. Paul would have a change of heart in this modern age."
I wouldn't put money on it either way. St Paul never actually met Jesus, and I, for one, tend to discount most of what he has to say as it is SO obvious that he stretched what he learned to fit a LOT of his preconceived notions about the coming of the Savior. Plus, it's an easy thing to do to read his letters and come to the conclusion that he MIGHT have been gay. Not that it matters one way or the other, but it's a great parlor game.
But he was definitely a MAN of his times, and he obviously expected the women in his version of the church to live to the norms of his society. Not something I am convinced would have gone over very well with Jesus.
But back to Buchanan, judging from his statements I am fairly certain that he hasn't met any higher beings on any road.
Do you have any idea to which of the 2 closest women in Jesus’ life that you owe your namesake? Not that names mean anything, just curious - And if I didn’t appreciate your satire, I wouldn’t have asked.:)
I was raised Catholic and there are 2 saints with my namesake – one was an apostle. At about the age of 7, I made the decision to make the other guy my “Patron Saint”. This just has me thinking that, even back then, I thought like a liberal and went with the less popular guy – who I felt was every bit as deserving. I denounced all the Catholic fairy tale crap about 30 years ago and am now an atheist. So it sometimes scares me to think of all the billions of people in the world who are still controlled by religion. As if being in a “minority” as gay wasn’t enough – this one I actually CHOSE. I guess I was just never one to take the easy route by falling in line with the majority of the masses. (I like that term, “falling in line” – it says a lot.)
I'm not a Catholic & don't belong to a mainstream church. I greatly respect Christian mysticism. Mystics of all faiths are connected through spiritual experience. In my view religious extremists are really materialists.
Actually Buchanan and people of his ilk had little influence on my decision; however they greatly reinforce it now. At the time, I was not near the political junkie I’ve become lately. It was more a matter of waking up to reality and realizing that my whole life I had been brainwashed by a bunch of illogic fear mongers. Once I had a better understanding of how authoritive power is used in this world and the role of all religions throughout history, I just could no longer buy into the sell that Catholicism was “the one true religion believing in the one true god” and that anyone who wasn’t a Catholic would never make it to “heaven”. This led to questioning if there IS a one true religion or one true god, which led to questioning if there is a god at all. It wasn’t an easy conclusion to accept - eliminating god, heaven, hell, the bible – and any other comic books and fables left over from primitive man was almost as hard as giving up my belief in Santa Claus – yet every bit as logical and mature a decision.
I’m sure there are many people who hear my story and consider it sad - some ready to kill me as Satan, and others content with just “praying for me” - but I long ago realized that is there problem, not mine. Atheists in general have a lot of unneeded weight off their backs – it hasn’t left me with any more of the answers – just eliminated the need to have to come up with ridiculous explanations for the unanswerable ones.
Bet you're on more of the same page as Him about lots of things. As to whether there is an afterlife, see you next lifetime to discuss ;-)
"I have it from a good source that Paul did indeed meet Jesus on the road to Damascus. "
Oh sure...and your "good" source just happens to be St Paul himself. Unfortunately we don't have any corroboration from the other party to that "meeting."
St Paul's epiphany that day doesn't alter the fact that he never met Jesus - yes change here - WHILE Jesus walked the earth and preached his messages of peace and assistance to the poor and each other.
There is no question in my mind, however, that he described the mystical path based upon his experience of it...and that his description of the Illumination can only be understood by personal experience, something that the modern Christian church is ignorant about.
"If you want a successful marriage, let your husband do what he wants to do." Rush Limbaugh
As the self proclaimed spokesman of the angry white male that fat blowhard just proves Tex's earlier post was true, even if he was half joking. How does a guy on his third wife give marrital advice?
I too was never aware of the Bush comment, so I looked it up. Jane O'Reilly takes credit for it way back in 1988.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4D61438F932A2575AC0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
... I wrote it in 1984 in a small pensee on the nature of sex appeal. And I didn't really mean it to be funny. There are two or three generations of women in this country who spent hours and hours explaining the women's movement to their first husbands. And the husbands would appear to listen, and agree that second-class citizenship should be abolished, and then without missing a beat inquire: ''Honey, where are my clean socks?'' ...
ON "The WOMEN'S MOVEMENT"...
"I love the women's movement -- especially when walking behind it." -- Thrice-Divorced, childless Viagra user Rush Limbaugh
The "Voice" Issue...
What I find so amazing - is that so many at MSNBC have criticized and mocked the "tone" of Hillary's voice - and yet never seem to notice that Buchanan has the MOST unpleasant shrilly - nasally voice that always sounds like he's yelling.
And Craig Crawford - who I actually like somewhat - is almost "unlistenable" with his ah's - ah's - uh's - uh's and the weird tone of his voice.
Over the past year my husband and I have found it increasingly difficult to listen to either one of them - not because of what they say - but because - particularly Buchanan's shrill nasally tone - and Crawfords' stumbling uh - uh - uh's have been driving us crazy.
So it's just amazing that Buchanan of all people - doesn't realize that his voice is like many nails on a blackboard - and of course none of the guys at MSNBC find it something to openly mock him about - like they do Hillary's voice. I don't find her's to be anything unusual - but theirs have been very distracting and annoying and difficult to even listen to many times.
And if anyone ever did tell Buchanan just how shrill and annoying his voice was - he would dismiss it as ridiculous and silly - and simply evidence of just how superficial and petty the other person criticizing him was being.