About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Does MSNBC approve of Pat Buchanan's appearances on a "pro-White" radio show?

August 19, 2008 7:08 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan appeared on the June 29, 2008, and September 14, 2006, editions of The Political Cesspool Radio Show, a program whose "Statement of Principles" asserts that it "represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White." Buchanan's June 29 interview was streamed "Live" on the self-described "White Nationalist" and "White Pride" website Stormfront.org.

91 Comments

As Media Matters for America has noted, Obama Nation author Jerome Corsi reportedly canceled an appearance on the August 17 edition of The Political Cesspool Radio Show -- a program whose "Statement of Principles" asserts that it "represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White" -- after Media Matters for America, the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch blog, and several media outlets noted Corsi's reported plan to appear on the show. Corsi had appeared on the show's July 20 edition. But Corsi isn't the only conservative media figure to appear on Political Cesspool; MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan appeared on the program's June 29, 2008, and September 14, 2006, editions. Buchanan's June 29 interview was streamed "Live" on the self-described "White Nationalist" and "White Pride" website Stormfront.org.

In a statement posted on Political Cesspool co-host James Edwards' website following Buchanan's appearance on September 14, 2006, co-host Winston Smith wrote:

On Thursday night, September 14, James Edwards and [co-host] Jess Bonds interviewed Pat Buchanan in a show that attracted much fanfare. But what does it all mean?

First of all, Pat Buchanan is one of the giants of America First Constitutional Conservatism and his appearance on our show says a lot about The Political Cesspool. Don't ever let anyone tell you that this broadcast doesn't matter, my friends, because when the likes of Pat Buchanan agrees to be on your program, he does so only after his people have researched the program and decided it's in their interest to be noticed by that program's audience because of that audience's quantity and quality. So, not only does Pat Buchanan's appearance on The Political Cesspool speak well of this show, it also speaks well of this show's audience.

To put it in its simplest terms, Pat Buchanan thinks you good folks are worth his time. He wants you to hear what he's got to say.

A Winter 2006 article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report noted Buchanan's September 14, 2006, appearance on The Political Cesspool and reported that the show has "featured an array of past and present Klansmen and neo-Nazis, a veritable 'Who's Who' of the radical right."

Notwithstanding Buchanan's appearances on a "pro-White" radio show and his own history of controversial statements on race, Buchanan appeared opposite Washington Post columnist Gene Robinson on the August 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball and discussed with guest host Mike Barnicle the question: "Who did play the race card, [Sen. John] McCain or [Sen. Barack] Obama? Or was it both?"

During his appearance on the June 29 edition of The Political Cesspool, Buchanan disputed "the idea that [World War II] was a good war, this was a war where good -- pure good fought pure evil" and also said: "But as I say, had there been no war, there would have been no Holocaust, and I'm not sure there would have been a war if the British hadn't issued this insane war guarantee." Buchanan then had the following exchange with Edwards about Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee:

EDWARDS: Well, you know, history is, Pat, kind of like a Sunday buffet. People seemingly take what they want and leave the rest on the table. And, of course, it's been lost to antiquity, the fact that the vast majority of Americans stood with Charles A. Lindbergh and the America First Committee in opposition to our entry into World War II, before the attack, of course, on Pearl Harbor.

BUCHANAN: Well, good for you. Good for you in bringing up Colonel Lindbergh's name, because his reputation has been blackened because of a single speech he gave and a couple of paragraphs in it, where he said that, you know, there are three forces that are moving for war, and one of them is, of course, the Roosevelt administration. The other is the British, which was clearly true. They had the man called Intrepid, William Stephenson, trying to find ways to get the Americans into war, putting up propaganda, frankly blackmailing senators and everything.

And then he said the Jewish community is beating the drums for war, but this is going to be a disaster for the Jewish community if we get into war. And of course, that was verboten to say, but frankly, no one has said he -- what he said was, you know, palpably untrue. And these folks -- and before December 7, 1941, the America First Committee offered -- they said, "Look, let's put up a resolution in Congress saying, 'We declare war on Germany,' and have it voted up or down, but don't sneak us by a back door" --

EDWARDS: Mm-hmm.

BUCHANAN: -- "into war."

Later in the interview, Edwards thanked Buchanan "for coming back on our program, for fighting for our people." According to The Political Cesspool's "Statement of Principles," the show "heartily endorse[s] and accept[s] as our own" the belief that "the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people." Buchanan did not respond to Edwards' reference to Buchanan's "fighting for our people."

Following Buchanan's June 29 appearance on The Political Cesspool, the Anti-Defamation League issued a press release asserting that "Edwards regularly invites anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers and conspiracy theorists to voice their views on his show." The press release also quoted ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman's statement: "While parading himself as a moderate, to sell his book Pat Buchanan has stooped into the cesspool of extremism." Responding to the release in a July 2 blog post, Edwards wrote: "For four years we have withstood attacks and refused to apologize for our beliefs. We know our Cause is righteous. When lesser men would have cowered, we have held our ground. This, along with an unblemished record of on-air professionalism and consistency has forged a fine reputation for The Political Cesspool Radio Program."

Audio of Buchanan's June 29 appearance on The Political Cesspool was posted to Buchanan's website on July 8 by the Webmaster, "Linda," who wrote: "Here's the radio show clip that gave the Anti-Defamation League [ADL] a reason to get all fired up against Pat - again. I'm sure the ADL will use this as a key issue in their next several fund raising letters."

According to a Google cache snapshot of Stormfront.org "as it appeared on Jun 29, 2008 23:50:45 GMT," text under the headline "Stormfront Broadcast Radio" stated: "Live NOW: Political Cesspool with James Edwards & Bill Rolen & Winston Smith -- Guests: Patrick J. Buchanan, promoting with new book; 'Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War.' " Media Matters has noted that Corsi's July 20 appearance was also streamed "Live" on Stormfront.org. Edwards has stated on his blog that The Political Cesspool is "in syndication" with Stormfront, which The Washington Post described as "a central meeting place for the white power movement" in a June 22 article about "an increase in racist and white supremacist activity" surrounding Obama.

The Google cache of Stormfront.org's website "as it appeared on Jun 29, 2008 23:50:45 GMT," taken on August 19 at 5:50 p.m. ET:

On June 6, the ADL stated: "Initially billed as 'The South's Foremost Conservative Populist Radio Program,' the Political Cesspool's Mission Statement now says that the show 'represent[s] a philosophy that is pro-White ... [and seeks] to grow the percentage of Whites in the world relative to other races.' " According to an article in the Fall 2007 issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report," 'The Political Cesspool' in the past two years has become the primary radio nexus of hate in America." Media Matters has documented numerous statements regarding race made by Edwards on his blog, including his June 6 post headlined "Does she hate Whitey?" in which Edwards wrote: "Michelle Obama, that is. Uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure she does. Just like her husband. Just like about 90% of blacks."

For his part, Buchanan has previously:

  • Asserted that "America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known," adding, "We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?"
  • Cited gang wars "in South Central L.A." and "in the prisons" as evidence that tensions between African-Americans and Latinos would affect voting in the Democratic presidential primaries.
  • Predicted that immigration will result in the "complete balkanization of America."
  • Claimed that illegal immigration constitutes an "invasion of the United States of America."
  • Said that illegal immigration threatens to reduce America to "a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities."

From the August 5 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

BARNICLE: Good evening. I'm Mike Barnicle, in for Chris Matthews. Welcome to Hardball. Leading off: Forget all those national poll numbers. Presidential elections are won state by state. And tonight, we've got the latest results from the NBC News political unit: what states are leaning to McCain, which ones are looking good for Barack Obama, and who's got the edge in those key battleground states. The best political map anywhere in just a few minutes.

Plus: Who did play the race card, McCain or Obama? Or was it both? Pat Buchanan and [Washington Post columnist] Gene Robinson join us in a debate. You won't want to miss it. And name that veep. He topped our "Power Rankings" last night as the most likely McCain running mate. Tonight, Mitt Romney joins us for a one-on-one interview.

From the June 29 edition of The Political Cesspool Radio Show:

EDWARDS: Excellent answer, very well put. And as with any Buchanan book, this one has received a great deal of fanfare, much critical acclaim, and a few inevitable attacks. What is it, Pat, about World War II that your detractors don't seem to understand?

BUCHANAN: I think they -- there is the idea, and it's come, frankly, from some-- and the book is dedicated to four of my uncles who were "Greatest Generation" Americans and fought in Europe, one of them who came back from Anzio with a Silver Star. I think it's the idea that this was a good war, this was a war where good -- pure good fought pure evil, which -- a war that had to be fought and was necessary, and there was no -- there are no doubts and qualms about it. But that is not true, as I write, and that's why you, in effect, are dispelling some of the great myths by which Americans live. When you say that the -- I mean, Winston Churchill blundered -- I mean, Chamberlain and Churchill blundered serially, again and again, to bring about a war with Germany. Hitler didn't want war with the West, he didn't want war with Poland, he didn't want a world war. He wasn't even prepared for a world war.

EDWARDS: Mm-hmm.

BUCHANAN: To say that he was a thug and a brutal dictator and a bully and someone who used threats of violence and force as tools of diplomacy is correct. To say that he did horrible things in wartime is correct. But as I say, had there been no war, there would have been no Holocaust, and I'm not sure there would have been a war if the British hadn't issued this insane war guarantee.

EDWARDS: Well, you know, history is, Pat, kind of like a Sunday buffet. People seemingly take what they want and leave the rest on the table. And, of course, it's been lost to antiquity, the fact that the vast majority of Americans stood with Charles A. Lindbergh and the America First Committee in opposition to our entry into World War II, before the attack, of course, on Pearl Harbor.

BUCHANAN: Well, good for you. Good for you in bringing up Colonel Lindbergh's name, because his reputation has been blackened because of a single speech he gave and a couple of paragraphs in it, where he said that, you know, there are three forces that are moving for war, and one of them is, of course, the Roosevelt administration. The other is the British, which was clearly true. They had the man called Intrepid, William Stephenson, trying to find ways to get the Americans into war, putting up propaganda, frankly blackmailing senators and everything.

And then he said the Jewish community is beating the drums for war, but this is going to be a disaster for the Jewish community if we get into war. And of course, that was verboten to say, but frankly, no one has said he -- what he said was, you know, palpably untrue. And these folks -- and before December 7, 1941, the America First Committee offered -- they said, "Look, let's put up a resolution in Congress saying, 'We declare war on Germany,' and have it voted up or down, but don't sneak us by a back door" --

EDWARDS: Mm-hmm.

BUCHANAN: -- "into war." And because their son-- their fathers and uncles had fought and bled and died in World War I, only to make the world safe for democracy, only to see the British Empire annex another million square miles.

EDWARDS: And we're certainly following in their footsteps with regards to the collapse of what was truly the greatest nation in the history of civilization, this -- these United States of America. But you mention propaganda. Had divine providence seen fit for Pearl Harbor to have never occurred, let's say the United States stays home and Germany proceeds to defeat Stalin, what would America have looked like in 2008, Pat? Would Hitler have come over here, liquidated Christianity, Holocausted our people? Or would, perhaps, the world have been a better place, had we abstained?

BUCHANAN: Well, you can't know -- I mean, by then, when you're talking about 1941, Hitler did not want war in the West. That's why he didn't demand the return of Alsace-Lorraine from France, where he did want the return of Danzig from Poland, or from the League of Nations. And he did not want war with Britain, never did. He wanted to see the British Empire preserved. He was a great admirer of it. He thought Britain was a natural ally of Germany because they had no conflicts.

And so I think, if the British hadn't given the war guarantee, I don't know that there would even have been a war with Poland. Because the German offer was not outrageous for returned political control of their city, Danzig, with the Poles having economic control. And I don't know if there would even have been a war with the Soviet Union, then, for the reason that Germany would not have had a border with the Soviet Union. They would have had to get permission from Romania or from Poland or -- and from Hungary even to invade the Soviet Union.

So, I don't know there would have been a world war. If, however, the United States -- Hitler had not declared war on the United States, I think he would have been stopped in Russia. The Russians had stopped him clearly by 1940. But it might have -- the outcome of that war would have been in doubt, because I think it was American Lend-Lease and all the equipment we gave to Stalin which enabled him to really sustain his war effort and mount that enormous offensive the Russians had coming into Europe.

EDWARDS: Right.

BUCHANAN: I do think if you had not gotten into the war by '43, Stalin would probably have been on the Rhine, not just the Elbe.

EDWARDS: Well, that's very interesting, and it could have been. But certainly a lot of American blood would have been spared, and I think that's what we all would have wanted.

[...]

EDWARDS: Mr. Buchanan, thank you so much for coming back on our program, for fighting for our people. And last question: What can your fans expect to see from Pat Buchanan for the next 20 to 30 years?

BUCHANAN: Well, I don't know how long we're all going to last, to be very honest. But I hope to write -- you know, I've got one book in mind. I'm not sure I'm going to do it. One book in mind, which is -- I think that -- and it would be a -- not a large book. But it's sort of the -- it's not death of the West, but it's sort of the coming world where, I think, issues of race and ethnicity and culture -- the wars of race, ethnicity, and culture are going to replace the old wars, if you will, of ideology and dynasty and empire.

And I see that coming, and it's not a pleasant sight. But Pat Moynihan sort of saw it coming, so did Dr. Schlesinger. And I've read a number of columns on this. And you see the divisions in our society, increasingly along the lines of race and ethnicity. And I don't think it's a pleasant prospect that our kids and grandkids confront. And I'm going to try to address it and see if there's any ways it can be resolved, sort of -- short of some sort of balkanization of America.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DAWUSS (August 19, 2008 7:24 pm ET)
        1

      1) Isn't he allowed to appear wherever he wants?

      2) Just because he appears on a certain network, does that mean that he endorses or supports all of their views? I notice that the reverse is explicitly not the case (the views expressed... are not necessarily the views of...).

       

       

      Maybe I'm taking the whole "Freedom" bit a bit too liberally...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (August 19, 2008 7:31 pm ET)
        1  

        Maybe you're just asking questions...

        LIKE MMFA DID. 

        Report Abuse
      • Author by onionhead (August 19, 2008 7:40 pm ET)
        1  

        This guy has been on cable news for as long as I can remember.  MSNBC (and CNN before them) would have to ignore just about everything that this bigot has said over his cable news career not to know that he was a racist. 

        But we must be "fair and balanced" and overlook every racist thing he ever said or any appearance on a White Supremacist radio show because I guess this man represents Conservatism in America.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by heru (August 19, 2008 7:41 pm ET)
        1  
        Maybe you shouldn't be in such a rush to post first that you fail to wait for a thought to enter your head.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by leftinmississippi (August 19, 2008 7:42 pm ET)
        1  
        Of course he's allowed to appear where he wants, but seriously, Cesspool,  Stormwatch and CCC, along with David Duke's "European American" group, whatever he calls it this week, are just white supremacists  - the Klan, essentially -nothing more, nothing less.  They're hate groups and they should be recognised as such, shunned, and given no credibility or respect whatsoever. If you doubt this, take a ride around here and check them out. 
        Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (August 19, 2008 7:57 pm ET)
        1  
        Oddly enough, our free market and constitutional protections do not apply in the workplace. Pat is a representative of NBC and GE. If he wants to appear on White Supremacist radio shows, I'm sure GE will let him out of his contract and he can use his freedom.

        But as long as he draws an NBC/GE paycheck, it might behoove him to steer clear of racist radio and stop trying to resurrect the reputation of Colonel Lindbergh.

        He may have been an aviation pioneer, but he was also a Nazi supporter for awhile and an anti-semite for most of his life.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jeter2 (August 20, 2008 11:54 am ET)
             

          Pat is a representative of NBC and GE. If he wants to appear on White Supremacist radio shows, I'm sure GE will let him out of his contract and he can use his freedom.
          But as long as he draws an NBC/GE paycheck, it might behoove him to steer clear of racist radio and stop trying to resurrect the reputation of Colonel Lindbergh.

          I see where you're coming from King, but we have no idea what exactly NBC/GE will allow their employees to do, write, or on what type of programming they may appear.

          MMFA asks : Does MSNBC approve of Pat Buchanan's appearances on a "pro-White" radio show? 

          Since Buchanan appeared on The Political Cesspool Radio Show [very aptly named if you think about] it back in June of this year & September of '06, one could assume NBC/GE may either not care or bother to keep track of his or other employees outside appearances.

          One would think that Buchanan would know better than to align himself with this extremist type of programming. But it does speak volumes about him, doesn't it?

          I often find Buchanan an interesting political analyst. I agree with some of his political viewpoints. But the guy has long been considered a racist, & his appearing on this "Pro-White" radio program certainly validates that opinion.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (August 20, 2008 3:04 pm ET)
            1  
            I would think that it would reflect badly on GE / NBC / MSNBC that one of their highly respected employees did appear on a white power radio show. I mean, it's not as if he's just some dude working in the back room. He is front and center for a lot of their political shows, and is on often.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (August 19, 2008 7:28 pm ET)
      1  
      I also read awhile back that PB said we fought on the wrong side in WW2?  I wasn't sure but this seems to atleast confirm some of that, and affection for Hitler.  This is atrocious that MSNBC would use him as has CNN and Fox. Liberal media my axx. I am e-mailing my protest appropriate parties.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by zamfir273114 (August 19, 2008 7:29 pm ET)
        1
      Are we living in the old USSR now? Does everybody need to make sure the mainstream media approves of where somebody like Buchanan goes to get his message out? Better yet, does Media Matters want to control what everybody does in regards to media? I don't agree with a damn thing Stormfront endorses but I do know that their platform is no different than La Raza. When I listen to liberal commentators like Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy (yes I listen to left AND right) I hear a lot of nonsense too! Doesn't mean I want to blacklist Mike or Randi.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by leftinmississippi (August 19, 2008 7:45 pm ET)
        1  
        It's not about control.  It's about watchfulness, knowledge and respect for this country's history, and acknowledgement of what can happen when hate is mistakenly given any respectability whatsoever. 
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (August 19, 2008 7:48 pm ET)
        1  

        "Are we living in the old USSR now? Does everybody need to make sure the mainstream media approves of where somebody like Buchanan goes to get his message out? Better yet, does Media Matters want to control what everybody does in regards to media?"

        The ol' invocation of communism, right on cue.

        Maybe it would be nice to know how MSNBC's management feels about Pat Buchanan frolicking with white supremacists.  That way, everyone will have one more reason to either hate or love MSNBC that much more.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by zamfir273114 (August 19, 2008 8:06 pm ET)
            1
          Are you saying that people are not smart enough to recognize a "bigot" when they hear or see one? They need somebody like to tell them? I don't think I have ever heard Buchanan say anything that was vicious. Instead, I have only heard him speak professionally on a wide range of topics that I either chose to agree or disagree with. Isn't like he's singing "Kill these people, kill those people....lock em up, etc etc".
          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (August 19, 2008 8:23 pm ET)
            1  
            Oh, but we sure do have lots of clips of other conservatives saying "kill them all, lock them up, etc. etc..." so quit whining about the rights of a bigot when your team on air is full of bigoted racists who want to deny free speech. Y'all killed the fairness doctrine, not us libs.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DAWUSS (August 19, 2008 8:49 pm ET)
              1  

              And then the more I think about things like that, the more I start to wonder why I should still listen to conservatives. They do have many things that I stand for (free market capitalism, limited government, individualism, fair taxation [such as the aptly named FairTax], freedom of religion, freedom of speech, human rights [born or unborn], strong national identity and security...) but then they do things that totally contradict what they believe in.

               

              I think I'm starting to find a new home on the radio with moderates and independents like Neal Boortz and Lou Dobbs as opposed to cookie-cutter GOP conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

               

              And look at the bright side, MMFA made me see Michael Savage for who he was...

              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (August 19, 2008 8:55 pm ET)
                1  
                Good for you! I work for the man, and I also took a risk and started a small business on the side. I may sound like a far left loon some of the time, but I know who butters my bread. Might be a bit of a surprise to you, huh?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by oscar the grouch (August 19, 2008 10:14 pm ET)
                     
                  Bingo, Snoopy.  I think we would pull away all the dross surrounding most of us, we would find that we have more in common than we have differences. Sure, we all see core things a little differently, but I think we are all Americans, that we all have life and liberty and that we can pursue happiness (we may not always achieve what we desire, but we are free to continue pursuing it).  We read the preamble to the Constitution and interpret "promote the general welfare" differently for example, but that's ok and is one of the many things that makes this country great.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by eweston8542983 (August 19, 2008 11:09 pm ET)
                       
                    Good for you Oscar. More often than not you've got something to say that's worth reading. Your snarky too, and show a good sense of humer with that snark. :)
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by john174541842 (August 20, 2008 9:51 am ET)
                  1
                dawuss,

                I saw your post from the other day that stated how MMFA had changed your view of Savage through the autism statement. I agree that the "99.9% fraudulent" statement was factually incorrect, but everyone failed to accept the intended notion of his tirade, which was to draw attention to the common misdiagnosis of the problem in many children. All I can assume is that you had not been a Savage listener for very long if you think he was attacking the autistic community and children. Savage is a staunch defender of children and their health (he wrote books addressing the subject before he was in radio); and he has always been an extremely harsh critic of greedy doctors and the drug industry...especially drugs geared towards children.

                By your own admission, you state that MMFA changed your view of Savage. You seem to be an individual with a good conservative outlook...why allow a far far left internet attack group sway your opinion, when they fail to fairly present Savage's past actions that have been an asset to children's health?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (August 20, 2008 10:54 am ET)
                  1  
                  And I see from your post that since you see fit to defend Michael Savage's horrible remarks about autism, then you must be a useless scumbag as well......
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by john174541842 (August 20, 2008 12:25 pm ET)
                      1

                    Yeah, attack me for making note of Savage's track record of defending children and their health.  It's funny because this thread about Buchanan is making the same kind of point...MMFA knows it cannot condemn Buchanan just because of a single recent action.  MMFA reports Buchanan's history of "support" for the pro-white community by showing the programs he has appeared on and people he has associated with.  In other words, his track record.

                    MMFA (and apparently some of the posters here) showed their inconsistency in condemning individuals when they went after Savage for one over the top tirade on the misdiagnosis of autism.  Since Savage only has a positive track record with regard to helping children and their health, and attacking the evils of crooked doctors and greedy drug companies, MMFA attempted to "lynch" Savage based on a one paragraph quote.

                    There are many other issues that Savage's opposition could pin him down on with a much better argument that utilizes his historical track record on certain issues.  There was just nothing to back up the claim that Savage was out to slander truely autistic children and their families, which is why the issue died within 2 weeks.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by JimmyCraghorn (August 21, 2008 2:45 pm ET)
                      1  
                      Please try to confine your Savage Love to the topics that are about the wiener.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by magnolialover (August 20, 2008 3:07 pm ET)
                1  
                Don't kid yourself. Boortz and Dobbs say that they're independents, but it's funny how they criticize and only seem to call out liberals, and or democrats for their positions and stances.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by leftinmississippi (August 19, 2008 9:45 pm ET)
            1  
            It isn't that American people aren't smart enough to recognize bigots - it's just that they have a responsibility as citizens to pay attention.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (August 19, 2008 11:31 pm ET)
            1  
            The real question is:why the hell would anyone want to be on this program if they don't agree with the views?  It's not just a question of differing opinions, like a conservative appearing on The Daily Show.  That doesn't indicate or require any sort of agreement between the two of them, because there's no reason that lack of agreement should prevent that person from appearing on the show.  Generally there's still a reasoned conversation to be had there.

            There's an entirely different dynamic with racists.  Generally, people who aren't racists don't accept the whole idea.  It's prejudice, it's hatred.  There's no reasonable conversation to be had with these people if you oppose their views, because then you're the enemy.   So it's not just a matter of mere disagreement to associate with racists, it's downright vile.

            Anyone who gives someone who thinks that race is our extended family and that interracial sex is white genocide any respect whatsoever is a damned racist.  There's no way to imagine how anyone but a racist would want to associate their name with these people in any way.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by Lorelei (August 20, 2008 12:16 pm ET)
          1  

          Considering that the mainstream media is what forges peoples opinions on who should be president, hell yes, it is important that we know whether or not the owners of the papers, newscasts etc, "approve" of where their representatives appear.  And I would even further that by wondering what the agenda's of those owners were, if they did indeed approve of those appearances.

           

          Are you saying that people are not smart enough to recognize a "bigot" when they hear or see one? They need somebody like to tell them?... zammy

          Yeah It does seem that the right leaning conservative do need that.  Apparently they cannot see a bigot if they hit "each other in the face".  Thus we have an over abundance of right leaning radio, television, etc. telling themselves they are not racists,  bigots etc, just wonderful "white" americans who love their country.

          Wasn't that long ago either zamfir, that blacks were killed because they were black, so don't think that doesn't happen even now, its similar to gays that are beat to death because they are gay.   Just because its not front page news don't even think it isn't happening, it is.

           

           

          Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (August 19, 2008 9:00 pm ET)
        1  

        Are we living in the old USSR now? Does everybody need to make sure the mainstream media approves of where somebody like Buchanan goes to get his message out?

        When Buchanan goes on these shows, he gives them validation.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by hogprint (August 20, 2008 1:11 am ET)
          1

        Zamfir posted:

        Are we living in the old USSR now?... Better yet, does Media Matters want to control what everybody does in regards to media?

        No we don't live in the USSR, but MMfA would love nothing more than the US to veer left under the hammer and sickle.  

        Yes to the second part.  That is what this forum was created for.  

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (August 20, 2008 7:37 am ET)
          1  

          "No we don't live in the USSR, but MMfA would love nothing more than the US to veer left under the hammer and sickle....Yes to the second part.  That is what this forum was created for."

          Are you really saying that white nationalism is an acceptable philosophy to you?  Or is bashing MMfA just more important than calling out racists?  It says a lot about you either way.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by hogprint (August 20, 2008 10:01 am ET)
              1

            This is only the second or third thread MMfA has headlined about "racists" as you say, and it's not really about the racists is it.  It's about trying to force Pat to only do what MMfA deems he should.  When MMfA starts going after this "show" more then I'll say you have a point.

            Where is your outrage over the reverse swift boating of McCain on MMfA?  It's one in the same as far as I can tell.  

            Report Abuse
            • Author by rtwmd1230 (August 20, 2008 10:21 am ET)
              1  
              Swiftboating means lying, so reverse swiftboating must mean telling the truth.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by hogprint (August 20, 2008 12:08 pm ET)
                  1

                Call it what you want.  What the left and in particular the people on this forum (out of character I might add) are doing to impugn McCain's war record, time as a POW, and even the end of his Naval career are very telling.  

                The beauty is that it seems to be limited to far left blogs/websites and the American people aren't buying the lies.  

                Report Abuse
                • Author by Lorelei (August 20, 2008 12:42 pm ET)
                  1  

                  No you are wrong, it IS about calling out major media outlets that allow racists crappola to go out over the air waves. 

                  It is also about pointing it out to them telling them, "Hey racist/liar/etc, we see what you are saying and we are sick and tired of it, and we are not gonna take it anymore!", and calling them on it.

                   

                   

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by john174541842 (August 20, 2008 1:04 pm ET)
                      1

                    So, based on your point of view, Obama's pastor, rev. Wright, should have never been allowed to express himself to the media, and appear on television.  I mean, he is pro-black, and we cant have that kind of racism voiced in the media.

                    Or perhaps, if we imposed the lefty idea of the "fairness doctrine," every time old Pat Buchanan got air time in the media, they would be required to follow it up with insight from rev. Wright or Louis Farrakan.  Wouldn't that be nice and fair?

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (August 20, 2008 1:21 pm ET)
                      1  
                      "Pro-black" is not the opposite of "pro-white".  The former does not require prejudice, the latter does.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Lorelei (August 20, 2008 3:05 pm ET)
                        1  

                        Thank you, I went to lunch and you replied as I would have.

                        I would also add that the context is considered and found lacking in some respects regarding what Wright said, and what seems to be endorsed in the Pat Buchanan issue. 

                        Also at issue is whether or not the media outlets, major and minor at this time, are furthering the agenda of the latter and NOT free speech.

                        All those white Aryan hillbillies have the right, now, to spout what they believe in, but is it okay with everyone that we have the exact same right to call them down on their racist bull sh*t?  I would venture to say that the "Ayran's" would have it another way!

                         

                         

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by john174541842 (August 20, 2008 3:08 pm ET)
                          1

                        "Pro-black" is not the opposite of "pro-white".  The former does not require prejudice, the latter does.

                        Thank you, thank you, thank you.  That has got to be the most far-left white guilt statement I have ever heard in my life!  So, let me get this straight...every single person who is "pro-white" is prejudiced and anti-black/all other races; while every single person who is "pro-black" has no prejudices or ill-will for anyone of any other race, they just love and support their own people/culture/traditions.

                        Being a white man, why is it impossible for me to love and support my own people/culture/traditions without holding prejudices?

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Lorelei (August 20, 2008 3:16 pm ET)
                          1  

                          Being a white man, why is it impossible for me to love and support my own people/culture/traditions without holding prejudices?

                           

                          It isn't.  And you know it.

                          You also know that the "stated" goals of the people in question are indeed, NOT what you are describing.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Lorelei (August 20, 2008 3:57 pm ET)
                            1  

                            After thinking about it for a while, the "stated goals" part I mean.  I reread the article here and the last paragraph was one doosey!

                            And I'm going to try to address it and see if there's any ways it can be resolved, sort of -- short of some sort of balkanization of America.

                             

                            Balkanization!  Way back, some years ago, (but then again, it really wasn't that long ago in the scheme of things) the White Aryan's in the 4 corner states of America, wanted to secede from America...They proposed that all 4 states secede and become one country seperate from America.

                            You can guess for yourself what kind of people were to be allowed in this "new" country.

                            The FBI, or was it the CIA, can't remember, investigated this group of people in these states and it was bad, very bad.  There were murders, cross burnings...etc. 

                            Read up on it folks.  No, really....see the people that were involved in it.

                            For PB to suggest that America would balkanize due to "race" is a strange thing to say, don't you think?

                            You think this is just some guy being proud of his culture, race etc? He says it is the "coming world".

                            Sheesh, shades of Charles Manson, Helter Skelter.  

                            I think, issues of race and ethnicity and culture -- the wars of race, ethnicity, and culture are going to replace the old wars, if you will, of ideology and dynasty and empire.

                            What are the media masters thinking?  Do they agree with these kinds of statements?   I WANT TO KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                            People have lost their humanity, its gone right down the drain right along with their morals.    

                             

                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by Brabantio (August 20, 2008 8:17 pm ET)
                          1  

                          "Thank you, thank you, thank you.  That has got to be the most far-left white guilt statement I have ever heard in my life!"

                          There's no guilt involved.  It's just how it is, really. 

                          "So, let me get this straight...every single person who is "pro-white" is prejudiced and anti-black/all other races; while every single person who is "pro-black" has no prejudices or ill-will for anyone of any other race, they just love and support their own people/culture/traditions...Being a white man, why is it impossible for me to love and support my own people/culture/traditions without holding prejudices?"

                          It's not impossible for you to "love" without holding prejudices.  It's impossible for you to hold a "pro-white" position without being prejudiced.  "Pro-black" in itself just means supporting a black agenda, trying to establish equality.  Some people might be "pro-black" and also biased against other races at the same time, but "pro-black" in and of itself does not suggest racism.  The issue with "pro-white" is that there is no similar agenda.  It's not about gaining equality, since white people have most of the power and societal advantage.  So any "pro-white" agenda is about maintaining that power and opposing interracial relationships, both of which are indisputably racist.

                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by Pyrrhonist (August 20, 2008 2:04 pm ET)
                      1  

                      John - It isn't about allowing or disallowing expression.  This is not a censorship issue. It's about recognizing and pointing out racism and hate.  Reverend Wright was put in the spotlight and discredited for incendiary, ill-conceived statements. The same should happen here. It's the marketplace of ideas - remember that from Civics? Why is it that the Right sees an either/or racism/communism choice? 

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by magnolialover (August 20, 2008 3:10 pm ET)
                        1  
                        I might add that Rev Wright never asked to be put on TV, and never asked to be put on the endless news cycle, someone got a tape of his "sermon" and posted it, and it has played endlessly ever since. I keep wondering, if Wright is SOOOOOO BAD, how come we haven't seen any other hellfire sermons like the 20 seconds that played endlessly for months, and is still being referenced now?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by john174541842 (August 20, 2008 5:25 pm ET)
                            1

                          If he truely isn't "asking" to be placed in the endless news cycle, then why is he releasing his new book in October?  This guy got a sampling of riding the media high in the spring, and he's coming back for more.  He's probably returning with a vengence as well, because he doesn't seem like the type of person to sit back quietly after being thrown under the obama bus (actually, I know he doesn't want to stay under that bus because obama's white grandmother is under there too, and no way Wright would hang out anywhere with whitey).

                          I'm not complaing though, this guy triggered obama's downward spiral, and his return to the spotlight in October will be oh so sweet for doing more damage.

                          Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (August 20, 2008 2:36 pm ET)
                  1  
                  I don't recall seeing you come to Kerry's defense over the blatant lies and dishonoring of his service, as a matter of fact I've seen you perpetuate some of those lies. I don't recall you defending the smears against max cleland either. I don't recall you defending Jessica Lynche when republicans turned on her for revealing the truth behind the glorification republicans tried to create and exploit for political purposes. So if you don't like liberals questioning McCain or even debasing his service, I'd say you really aren't in a position to complain as you yourself engage in that practice when it suits your political purpose.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by hogprint (August 20, 2008 4:47 pm ET)
                      1

                    Not sure if this is for me Snoop, but I'll reply anyway.  Please give me an example of me smearing any of those mentioned above.  

                    In fact I explained it to you in another thread, which you either didn't read or respond to.  

                    Once again, I welcome any examples of my misdeeds.  You have three years of posts to pick through.  

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by blueblood (August 21, 2008 8:41 pm ET)
                  1  

                  Have we said anything inaccurate? Please cite specific instances where something inaccurate was stated. Otherwise, STFU.

                  After what the right did to Kerry's war record, it is only fair that liberals do the same, except they haven't. Name any prominent liberal involved with the McCain campaigned that has questioned McCain's war record.

                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (August 20, 2008 1:19 pm ET)
              1  

              Is saying that mainstream pundits shouldn't appear on racist programming an unreasonable position to take?  If you chastise someone for mocking crippled veterans, are you trying to dictate their behavior?

              What am I supposed to be outraged about with "reverse swiftboating"?  Saying that people in the media shouldn't push the idea that he doesn't like talking about it doesn't say anything about his POW status itself.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by blueblood (August 21, 2008 8:39 pm ET)
          1  
          Totally baseless assertion. COnservatism has sunk to such a low and has brought the country down with it.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by heru (August 19, 2008 7:37 pm ET)
      1  

      Pat Buchanan is a dyed in the wool Nazi apologist. He has been a radical white nationalist since the days when he was chief mythmaker for the crooked Nixon administration. Now the pale prophet announces that race war is going to replace old kinds of war one day? Hey moron, the white race has been waging war on the Black race since the 15th century.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (August 19, 2008 7:40 pm ET)
         
      Pat B. is a white nationalist thats why he shouldn't be on TV. 
      Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (August 19, 2008 7:52 pm ET)
      1  

      "It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known...We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?"

      Wow. This is probably the most disgusting use of hindsight defense EVER. As for the claim that blacks in the U.S. experience the greatest prosperity and freedom in the U.S., that's true only if you're comparing it to Africa.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (August 19, 2008 8:06 pm ET)
           
        True, conservatives do love to compare the US with third world nations when people have a complaint about a certain aspect of life with this country prior to telling them to move there (most notably Neal Boortz and Michael Savage). I almost want to say that, according to them, you're not allowed to bring up ideas to improve this country, but I'm probably distorting their views, and taking their statements out of context.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by john174541842 (August 20, 2008 1:14 pm ET)
            1

          "you're not allowed to bring up ideas to improve this country"

          Well, sure you are, except good ideas do not include white people issuing formal apologies for slavery for something no living white has ever done, and no living black has ever experienced.  Same goes for reparations, for the same reason.  More welfare, assisted living programs, and other handouts will not improve things either...based on the fact that they have existed for 40+ years, and we are still in need of coming up with "ideas for improvement."

          How about:  Cut business taxes and a lot of the red tape involved in starting up a business, which will make it easier and less costly for individuals to start up their own businesses?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by JimmyCraghorn (August 21, 2008 3:05 pm ET)
            1  
            I just started a business, and I don't remember any red tape.  Do you even know what you are talking about?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (August 19, 2008 11:39 pm ET)
        1  
        What I love about that quote is the suggestion that people owe us thanks for giving them "Christian salvation".  As if black people are thinking "I could have believed in my own religion in Africa...but it was worth 400 years of slavery so that white people could introduce me to their religion".  Why aren't black people coming right out and saying that, where is the gratitude?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Lorelei (August 20, 2008 12:26 pm ET)
        1  

        Yep I spit coffee on that one too.

        Fricking Fracking no good people, no respect, no gratitude, and we introduced them to christianity and all.

        When they die in poverty, or back in the day, got hung or shot or worked to death or skinned alive, or however "we" decided they should die, at LEAST THEY WOULD GO TO HEAVEN.....oooooohhhh wait.....blacks in heaven?

        Well...we have the CCC to correct that little problem.   And I am sure heaven will be sectioned off, you know just like the white / black drinking fountains, restrooms, seats on the bus, restaurants etc..... 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (August 19, 2008 7:52 pm ET)
      1  

      Conservatives keep bringing up the fact that Senator Robert Byrd was once a member of the KKK, but fail to mention that he quit over 60 years ago and now regards his KKK membership as one of the biggest mistakes he ever made.  Yet these same conservatives stand behind a known racist like Pat Buchanan, who has probably attended at least one cross burning in the past month.

      Go figure....

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (August 19, 2008 8:12 pm ET)
          1
        I never hear the "Robert Byrd (D-KKK)" (sic) crowd make those statements. In fact, that's the first I've heard of that. But then again I guess conservatives love bringing up things that may carry little relevance anymore. But then again liberals do the same thing with George Bush and his Nat'l Guard service, and Rush Limbaugh and his alleged draft dodging. Neither one really holds much weight anymore either, does it?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (August 19, 2008 8:26 pm ET)
          1  
          it wasn't alledged, he got out because he had a pimple on hit fat ass. And bush never finished his NG service, regardless of what you think about "rathergate" he was AWOL and should be jailed, unless you plan on giving a pass to the soldiers who are conscientious objectors.
          Report Abuse
            • Author by Lorelei (August 20, 2008 3:12 pm ET)
              1  
              No pay stubs, no relevant medical records, no sign-in sheets, no AWOL defense, but it does contain a disciplinary letter of grounding and a report by his commanders that he was absent 300 days in a row.(here) --Politex, 02.14.04
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Lorelei (August 20, 2008 3:32 pm ET)
              1  

              Burkett says that the state Guard commander, Maj. Gen. Daniel James III, discussed "cleansing" Bush's military files of embarrassing or incriminating documents in the summer of 1997. At the time, Burkett was a lieutenant colonel and a chief adviser to James. He says he was just outside James' open office door when his boss discussed the records on a speakerphone with Joe Allbaugh, who was then Gov. Bush's chief of staff.....
               In an interview, Burkett said he recalled Allbaugh's words: "We certainly don't want anything that is embarrassing in there." Burkett said he immediately told two other officers about the conversation and noted it in a daily journal he kept. The two officers, George Conn and Dennis Adams, confirmed to USA TODAY in 2002 that Burkett told them of the conversation within days......
               Soon afterward, there was a series of meetings of top commanders at Texas Guard headquarters at Camp Mabry. Bush's records were carried between the base archives and the headquarters building, according to Burkett and the second Guard official, who was there.

              The meetings were confirmed in a 2002 interview by USA TODAY with William Leon, who was the state Guard's freedom-of-information officer in the 1990s. He was involved in discussions about what to release....

              Allbaugh, James and the White House denied Burkett's story. As president, Bush has since elevated James to be director of the Air National Guard for the entire country.".....

              White House claims newly-released documents prove Bush actively served paid days between May 27, 1972, and May 26, 1973, but do not account for 6 month gap in 1972, nor identifies the nature of the work on the days served, according to the Washington Post. Retired Lt. Col. previously used by Bush campaign claims records prove Bush contention...

              and..so, I am not surprised that there "might" not be any awol records.  But not showing up for 300 consecutive days would be awol by many other soldiers standards.  What's your standard of awol? 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by hogprint (August 20, 2008 6:41 pm ET)
                  1

                I love when you nuts still try and push this story! 

                Burkett has been discredited and is a know liar, forger, and changed his story THREE TIMES!  He tried to get CBS to pay him for this without putting him on the RECORD!  The Thornburgh investigation has debunked this sham of a story four years ago:

                Burkett lies

                PDF file of Thornburgh investigation1

                How many democrats have to lose jobs before you get it?!

                Report Abuse
          • Author by john174541842 (August 20, 2008 1:19 pm ET)
              1
            Can't you just concede that dawuss made a good point?  Both sides are a bit "fickle" when slandering each other on issues of this nature...
            Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (August 19, 2008 9:02 pm ET)
          1  

          I never hear the "Robert Byrd (D-KKK)" (sic) crowd make those statements.

          hannity does it all the time. 

          Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (August 19, 2008 10:27 pm ET)
          1  

          It holds a lot of weight to those of us who lost loved ones who didn't shirk their responsibilities.

          These Chickenhawks have no problem sending others to die, yet like certain posters, prefer to agitate from their keyboards and pulpits. 

          Report Abuse
    • Author by cArn (August 19, 2008 7:57 pm ET)
      1  

      Excuse me. I should have wrote: "As for the claim that blacks in the U.S. experience the most prosperity and freedom, that's true only if you're comparing it to Africa."

      Report Abuse
      • Author by annes10 (August 19, 2008 10:22 pm ET)
          1

        We don't know much about what life was like in Africa in, say, 1750, for  Africans right before they got scooped up, carried away, and sold into slavery. Prior to that happening, those blacks may have enjoyed much greater liberty and prosperity than, for example, my peasant ancestors who suffered bitterly at the time under theiving English aristocratics.

        Just saying, to me there is no point in buying into any part of what Buchanan said about those former slave ingrates. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by annes10 (August 19, 2008 10:38 pm ET)
            1

          MMfA is pointing out (tattling to his employers) that PB seeks side-work on extreme-right wing venues. PB may be the granddaddy of all racists, but this is still the USA and he has the right to his opinion, and the right to discuss it openly. And the hideous white-supremacist media outlets also have a right to engage in public discourse, and I have the right to call them hideous. So there.

          And if the fairness doctrine is reinstated, the racists will have the right to voice their opinions in the MSM, to counter what they consider to be PCBS. Fair is fair, and exposure in the mainstream will do more to sort these folks out than any amount of posting here.

          In all fairness, PB actually hasn't done or said anything anything today to merit MMfA scrutiny today.  

          Report Abuse
        • Author by Lorelei (August 20, 2008 12:27 pm ET)
          1  
          Uh, they have a history, read it.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (August 19, 2008 11:14 pm ET)
      1  

      On a hopefully positive move MSNBC has hired Rachal Maddow for a 9:00P.M. showing.

      Still not worth getting cablefiberopticsattelite fer the TV, but encouraging.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (August 19, 2008 11:31 pm ET)
        1  

        And you see the divisions in our society, increasingly along the lines of race and ethnicity. And I don't think it's a pleasant prospect that our kids and grandkids confront.

        What, Pat? After a couple hundred years of everything being "just right", and everybody knowing their place, you see some "divisions" coming on? Your  grandkids may have to face some unpleasant prospects?

        As a white man, I have to ask; When does our suffering end?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (August 20, 2008 11:06 am ET)
             

          When we look arround and see nothing but Indians.

          "And here comes the headline! 'A white man becomes a blackman who becomes a yellowman who becomes a redman.'

          Some may say that's an oversimplification.

          It is an oversimplification!

          But from here today, it looks like its better than killing people.

          I think we can agree on that?

          Yes I don't think we need to kill anyone.

          Lets get out of this rain!

          We can agreee on that!

           

          Why don't we doit again?"

          FST, "Just Folks", the closer.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by neondesert (August 20, 2008 12:08 pm ET)
          1  

          You have brought the suffering on yourself as a white liberal.

          You gots the best education sistem in the world but you make it integrated and force people to take busses out of there own neybordhoods and watch it turn to sh!t because you liberals want everthing to be fare!!!1!  you give away jobs that shuld be going to the best qaulifyed man who happens to be white but you give them away to minoritys becasue you liberals like afirmetive action!!!  that is why our ecomony is in such bad shape becuase we do not have the best poeple doing the jobs and the companys half to go oversees to hire there people to do the best jobs!1!!

          (After yesterday, and the display that I saw from MGarnett and Barney, I've decided to argue for the conservatives today in the hope that I could even things out a bit.  AA, Hogprint, NoLeftTurns, Science - I'm proud to be working with you today.  I'll do my best to not let you down...)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Pyrrhonist (August 20, 2008 12:19 pm ET)
            1  

            Excellent channeling of MGARNETT.  I'm sure he'll appreciate your efforts on his behalf.  But you forgot THE CAPS!!! 

            Report Abuse
    • Author by right-winger (August 20, 2008 11:12 am ET)
        1
      I LOVE LOOKING AT THIS POST AND READING HOW IT'S OK FOR BUCHANAN TO APPEARANCES ON A PRO-WHITE SHOW BUT LET IT HAVE BEEN OBAMA OR SOMEONE WHO KNOW OBAMA ON A ALL PRO-BLACK OR MUSLIM SHOW THESE SAME PEOPLE WHO SAYS IT OK FOR BUCHANAN AND THE MEDIA WOULD BE ALL OVER OBAMA OR THE PERSON HE KNEW.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Cheney2012 (August 20, 2008 11:39 am ET)
          1

        Barack Obama is running for President.  Buchanan is not.  Of course Obama is held to a higher standard.  As John McCain should be -- and anybody else who runs for the nation's highest office.

        MMFA and liberals in general want that higher standard to apply to Buchanan and Corsi and want to no criticism of Obama or other liberals running for office based on the who they associate or what they have said.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by neondesert (August 20, 2008 12:21 pm ET)
          1  

          THAT IS BECASE THE LIBERAL MEDIA CANT HANDEL ANYBODY CRITISIZING THERE MESSIAH OBAMA.THEY ARE SO IN THE TANK FOR A BLACK PRES THEY WILL DO ANYTHING TO MAKE SURE HE IS ELECTED.  THEY WANT AMERICA TO LOOSE IN IRAQ JUST LIKE HUSSEIN OBAMA AND WHEN SOMEBODY GO ON THE RADIO AND SAYS SOMETHING BAD AOBUT THERE SAVIOR THEY GONUTS

          (I'm especially proud of the "Handel" "messiah" reference.  But is it too "lefty"?)

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Lorelei (August 20, 2008 12:35 pm ET)
            1  

            But, you are falling down on the job, you spelled it correctly.

            Funny stuff.  Maybe you should apply for a job at the conservative media hiring office, lol.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by blueblood (August 21, 2008 8:46 pm ET)
          1  
          Wrong as usual. It is so easy to throw out unsubstantiated assertions.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (August 20, 2008 11:42 am ET)
      1  
      Buchanan has a long history as a commentator for the right and is pretty widely respected unlike Corsi.  I doubt MSNBC is going to want to let go of one of the few semi-reasonable right wing voices over his appearance on a radical radio show.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hogprint (August 20, 2008 12:29 pm ET)
         

      Breaking news:

      Maddow to replace Abrams 

      Maddow replaces Abrams

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by insaneloki20024664 (August 21, 2008 10:13 am ET)
        1

      I don't get what the problem is. What is wrong with a group or radio show espousing a pro-white agenda? How is this different than any of the other radio, television, and print mediums aimed at espousing supposed "minority" viewpoints? 

      Plus if he wants to be a rcist SOB it is his right as an American.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (August 21, 2008 11:30 am ET)
        1  

        It's different because there's no legitimate cause or agenda for white people.  Since black people are still working for total equality, they have a legitimate cause.

        If he wants to be a racist SOB he can be, but then he should be criticized for it and no respectable organization should want to have anything to do with him.  Is that not fair?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Lorelei (August 21, 2008 2:00 pm ET)
      1  

      Just wanted to give ya some flavor of Buchanan from some years ago:

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      To: Multiple recipients of the Stormfront-L Mailing List
      Host: Don Black  Finger for PGP public key.
      To unsubscribe, send e-mail to 'listserv@stormfront.org' with the
      line 'unsubscribe Stormfront-L' in the message BODY, not the subject.
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      -----
      Processed with Listserv v2.83 for Wildcat v4


      Article 14539 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
      Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.uoregon.edu!mars.efn.org!garcia.efn.org!mjk
      From: "Milton John Kleim, Jr"
      Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
      Subject: Buchanan and the Aryan activist
      Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 20:04:22 -0800
      Organization: Oregon Public Networking
      Lines: 86
      Message-ID:
      NNTP-Posting-Host: garcia.efn.org
      Mime-Version: 1.0
      Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
      Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14539 alt.politics.white-power:20024

      BUCHANAN AND THE ARYAN ACTIVIST


      The success of Pat Buchanan in catapulting himself onto Campaign '96's
      center stage presents great temptation for many of us.
        Yearning for an
      Establishment political leader who represents many of our desires and
      offers potential relief for the hardships visited upon our Nation by the
      "New World Order," alot of Aryan activists perceive Buchanan as a
      forgivably flawed savior, someone deserving of support in his struggle
      with internationalist, staunchly "politically correct" willing minions of
      the Jews.

      Pat Buchanan may be a sincere man, longing for an America with happy
      families, safe streets, good jobs, and most of the things we long for as
      well, and seek to regain for our country, too.  He may very well be
      denouncing "racism" and "racists" as an unavoidable expedient tactic for
      "mainstream" political viability


      However, Pat Buchanan comes up short on the most fundamental issue, the
      "master key to history," as it's been rightly called.  That issue is of
      course the Race issue.  Buchanan is above all a _socio-economic_ conserv-
      ative and not a racial conservative.  He may hold views -- privately --
      comparable to our own about preference for fellow Whites,
      but there is no
      evidence to indicate he is either conscious of the overwhelming primacy of
      human biology in human affairs -- history, politics, indeed all culture --
      or is willing to act in accordance with this reality even if he is aware.

      In the unlikelihood Buchanan overcomes Dole and Alexander, earns the
      Republican nomination, and then defeats Commissar General Clinton, his
      victory could have disastrous effects upon our Cause.  Pat Buchanan
      advocates _half-measures_, not the full, comprehensive measures our
      civilization desperately needs.  He offers band-aids when strong
      antibiotics are necessary to sustain life.  His temporary remedies to the
      human biology-based problems we face would mask the actual roots of social disharmonics and decadence.  Time is short now, and a Buchanan "relief valve" would neutralize much of the growing discontent brewing in America today.  Abatement of _secondary_ and _tertiary_ socio-economic ills --
      unemployment, pervasive crime, decadent "culture" -- would occur, and
      analysis of genuine solutions, solutions directed at the primary causes of
      these ills, would be stymied.  Worst of all, pervasive miscegenation would
      continue to occur, perhaps increase, as "good Christians" seek to overcome
      "hate" and "bigotry."  The implementation of Buchanan's populist yet
      "color blind" policies could be the coup de grace to the myopic and grand-
      iose designs of the so-called white nationalist "movement."  Buchanan's
      hopeless ideas bring to mind the racially-fatal ideas of a similar nature
      put forth by the character "Ryan" the upstart FBI leader in William
      Pierce's novel, _Hunter_.

      Though Buchanan is certainly not "one of us," this is not to imply the
      Aryan activist should not consider involvement in this year's campaign.
      Actually, involvement can be beneficial, both personally and racially.
      Most Buchanan supporters agree on most issues with us.  Most of these
      people may disagree with some of our beliefs, but only due to ignorance of
      what we stand for and why.  While no one should donate money or labor to
      the Buchanan campaign for its _own_ sake, participating in the Buchanan
      campaign is a great opportunity to network with fellow Euro-Americans,
      making new like-minded friends, and after some enlightenment, perhaps new
      comrades as well.

      A prerequisite to a successful national political campaign is control of
      the media (or at least its tacit approval). 
      (my emphasis)  Obviously, we don't have it.
      We cannot and will not succeed in conventional politics.  ANY expression
      of White racial preservation, or even expression of _preference_ for
      fellow Aryans, is outside the Establishment's "permissible" spectrum of
      thought.  Racial preservation will not be allowed as the topic in any
      Establishment-sponsored discussion.

      Our only viable objective is to continue to inform our benighted brothers
      and sisters in America and across the world of our message, and strive to
      guarantee them the ability to receive and freely consider factual data
      about this unhappy world's problems, as well as our heritage.  We will
      not elect a "savior" through the controlled ballot box, and there is no
      point to expending vital resources toward that dead-end.  Let everyone
      who believes otherwise remember that Americans have "elected" the present dictatorship we live under.

      Good people abound in the Buchanan campaign.  Seek them out.  Enlighten them. Earn yourself new friends...and gain some comrades as well.

      -- Milton John Kleim, Jr.



       "We must secure the existence of our People and a future for White children."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by greenpagan (August 21, 2008 7:41 pm ET)
      1  

      Re WW2 Europe

      It was a war that ended with the liberation of the death camps so of course Pat was against it. After all, he never met a Nazi war criminal he didn't like.  

       

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.