Pat Buchanan is what he is, which is unfortunate, but there are a lot of people like him dotted about the world. Allegedly, he's under indefinite suspension at MSNBC for views expressed in his latest book, Suicide of a Superpower. He's said more than a fair few controversial things on air, as well, including referring to the President as "your boy Obama" and even ranted about America being founded and established primarily for white people on Rachel Maddow's show.
Recently, there have been numerous petitions by numerous groups of people, imploring MSNBC to get rid of Buchanan, who occupies the position of political analyst. You can view some of these petitions here, here, and here.
Make no mistake: I think Pat Buchanan's views are abhorrent, antiquated and, yes, blatantly racist. He's a man of his time and his people, who's been unable to accept at least that sort of change with regard to society. However, Buchanan is a seasoned professional political analyst, who's worked within the realms of the political sphere at the highest level for fifty years. He knows the game, he knows the strategy, and on his day, he's one of the best political analysts in the business. Case in point: Buchanan is one of three political commentators regularly consulted by no less than the BBC when they require a conservative political viewpoint from the United States. That's a pretty serious accolade.
Do I think Pat Buchanan should be sacked from the network? No. Not because I agree with him. I don't, but I think, in the interests of the First Amendment, viewpoints like those espoused by Pat Buchanan need to be heard, no matter how offensive they are. Because we need to know and be cognizant that people like Pat still exist in this world. It's the only way we can combat them - by exposing their prejudices as something unacceptable to us. It gives us the opportunity to respond to their ignorance.
Ban them, and you not only flout the Constitution, you make them martyrs.
No one's fanned the flames against Pat Buchanan more than Salon's Joan Walsh. Joan's been after Buchanan for years, mostly appearing with him on mutual friend Chris Matthews's Hardball debating everything from Scott McClellan's expose' of the Bush Administration to Affirmative Action, with Joan always expounding the Progressive point of view.
Walsh seems particularly conflicted by Buchanan and responded to his latest book's appearance with a very peculiar hit piece of hatred of her own disguised as a review.
I say it's peculiar because Joan, herself, has a problem with race issues, except that Joan doesn't allow this to become public knowledge in her MSNBC appearances. Instead, she mostly expostulates on Twitter, where she mostly digs a ginormous hole by inadvertantly remarking how much she resents black people who think they are part and parcel of the President's base. Or she deliberately misquotes Ishmael Reed in a Salon article. Or she even resorts to the standard bigot's disguise of declaring, "I have black friends," in response to Melissa Harris-Perry's posit that maybe, just maybe, the reason white liberals were abandoning the President has something to do with race.
From referring to the President's supporters as "Obamalovers" (a phrase which is now a euphemistic substitute for the old "n-lover" epithet) to declaring that the President's most vociferous supporters on social networking sites are really Republican trolls paid by Andrew Breitbart, Joan's made such a name for herself amongst various pragmatic Progressives of all hues, distinctly, as a white privilegist and a race baiter, but of the Left Coast variety - patronising in her remarks and presenting herself as a furrowed-brow concern troll.
In fact, the blogger Zandar responds to Walsh's review of Buchanan's book, by highlighting her obvious incongruity, intertwining it with her subtle omission of any support for the President.
Referring to this remark by Walsh in her piece:-
Zandar opines:-
All of the above needs to be taken into consideration because in the early hours of this morning, Joan tweeted this:-
I had thought I'd been seeing a lot of Joan here and there on MSNBC recently. Whereas before, she'd confined herself mostly to the comfort zone offered by Chris Matthews, now she's everywhere - Ed Schultz's show, nattering with the insipid Alex Wagner (MSNBC's answer to sorority politics and Valley Girls). Previously, Joan had always demurred that, as a political contributor to MSNBC, she was unpaid. (Pull the other one). Now, she's a fully-fledged political analyst - in equal standing to the likes of former Governor Ed Rendell and fulfilling the same function as Pat Buchanan.
Pat Buchanan served as an advisor and speechwriter to two Presidents and ran for President, himself, several times. His direct and hands-on political experience is enormous. Joan Walsh is a good writer, but her direct political expertise ranges from minimal to nil. She has never worked for a candidate or an elected representative. She is, at best, an opinionator. I cannot imagine anyone from the BBC requesting Joan Walsh's expert opinion on either the incumbent or any future President, without expecting a heavy dose of snark, especially if the President in question is one whom she doesn't support - and she doesn't support this President, for obvious reasons.
Joan Walsh, in her capacity as political journalist, has manaaged to validate Andrew Breitbart (albeit inadvertantly)and managed to make Rick Warren look more compassionate than the Progressive she's supposed to be.
Is that what a political analyst is supposed to do?
Joan Walsh is the walking embodiment of the particular sort of condescending, patronising and very subtle racism which exists amongst the Progressive tranches of today's Left. I suppose MSNBC has only managed to replace their resident white supremacist with a white privilegist.
No change there.
Recently, there have been numerous petitions by numerous groups of people, imploring MSNBC to get rid of Buchanan, who occupies the position of political analyst. You can view some of these petitions here, here, and here.
Make no mistake: I think Pat Buchanan's views are abhorrent, antiquated and, yes, blatantly racist. He's a man of his time and his people, who's been unable to accept at least that sort of change with regard to society. However, Buchanan is a seasoned professional political analyst, who's worked within the realms of the political sphere at the highest level for fifty years. He knows the game, he knows the strategy, and on his day, he's one of the best political analysts in the business. Case in point: Buchanan is one of three political commentators regularly consulted by no less than the BBC when they require a conservative political viewpoint from the United States. That's a pretty serious accolade.
Do I think Pat Buchanan should be sacked from the network? No. Not because I agree with him. I don't, but I think, in the interests of the First Amendment, viewpoints like those espoused by Pat Buchanan need to be heard, no matter how offensive they are. Because we need to know and be cognizant that people like Pat still exist in this world. It's the only way we can combat them - by exposing their prejudices as something unacceptable to us. It gives us the opportunity to respond to their ignorance.
Ban them, and you not only flout the Constitution, you make them martyrs.
No one's fanned the flames against Pat Buchanan more than Salon's Joan Walsh. Joan's been after Buchanan for years, mostly appearing with him on mutual friend Chris Matthews's Hardball debating everything from Scott McClellan's expose' of the Bush Administration to Affirmative Action, with Joan always expounding the Progressive point of view.
Walsh seems particularly conflicted by Buchanan and responded to his latest book's appearance with a very peculiar hit piece of hatred of her own disguised as a review.
I say it's peculiar because Joan, herself, has a problem with race issues, except that Joan doesn't allow this to become public knowledge in her MSNBC appearances. Instead, she mostly expostulates on Twitter, where she mostly digs a ginormous hole by inadvertantly remarking how much she resents black people who think they are part and parcel of the President's base. Or she deliberately misquotes Ishmael Reed in a Salon article. Or she even resorts to the standard bigot's disguise of declaring, "I have black friends," in response to Melissa Harris-Perry's posit that maybe, just maybe, the reason white liberals were abandoning the President has something to do with race.
From referring to the President's supporters as "Obamalovers" (a phrase which is now a euphemistic substitute for the old "n-lover" epithet) to declaring that the President's most vociferous supporters on social networking sites are really Republican trolls paid by Andrew Breitbart, Joan's made such a name for herself amongst various pragmatic Progressives of all hues, distinctly, as a white privilegist and a race baiter, but of the Left Coast variety - patronising in her remarks and presenting herself as a furrowed-brow concern troll.
In fact, the blogger Zandar responds to Walsh's review of Buchanan's book, by highlighting her obvious incongruity, intertwining it with her subtle omission of any support for the President.
Referring to this remark by Walsh in her piece:-
But it’s also as if he’s decided to lose the larger war. I can’t imagine giving up on my country, my party and even my religion, just because the people who had come to share it didn’t quite look like me. I take this book seriously because I owe a certain debt to Pat Buchanan. Doing television with this infamous Irish Catholic conservative, I began to reflect seriously for the first time on the vision of America I grew up with. It was handed to me by my parents, working-class Irish Catholics who believed in e pluribus unum – that those words made their inclusion possible, and they would stretch forward to make sure the civil rights movement accomplished its goals, too.
Zandar opines:-
The bolded sentences need to be considered individually. First, she can’t imagine “giving up” on her country, party and religion, which is a reasonable statement in and of itself but missing one phrase that most of us would have included: “my president”. It’s a curious omission given Walsh’s recent history…or perhaps it’s completely explained by that history. She notes that Buchanan had given up on a number of Republican politicians, but she leaves out her “support” of President Obama and he’s only mentioned by name in the paragraph directly above the this one, in reference to Buchanan’s plan to defeat him.
All of the above needs to be taken into consideration because in the early hours of this morning, Joan tweeted this:-
Why yes. I am now officially an MSNBC political analyst. Still writing for Salon. Fired up for 2012. Thanks everyone for your support.
I had thought I'd been seeing a lot of Joan here and there on MSNBC recently. Whereas before, she'd confined herself mostly to the comfort zone offered by Chris Matthews, now she's everywhere - Ed Schultz's show, nattering with the insipid Alex Wagner (MSNBC's answer to sorority politics and Valley Girls). Previously, Joan had always demurred that, as a political contributor to MSNBC, she was unpaid. (Pull the other one). Now, she's a fully-fledged political analyst - in equal standing to the likes of former Governor Ed Rendell and fulfilling the same function as Pat Buchanan.
Pat Buchanan served as an advisor and speechwriter to two Presidents and ran for President, himself, several times. His direct and hands-on political experience is enormous. Joan Walsh is a good writer, but her direct political expertise ranges from minimal to nil. She has never worked for a candidate or an elected representative. She is, at best, an opinionator. I cannot imagine anyone from the BBC requesting Joan Walsh's expert opinion on either the incumbent or any future President, without expecting a heavy dose of snark, especially if the President in question is one whom she doesn't support - and she doesn't support this President, for obvious reasons.
Joan Walsh, in her capacity as political journalist, has manaaged to validate Andrew Breitbart (albeit inadvertantly)and managed to make Rick Warren look more compassionate than the Progressive she's supposed to be.
Is that what a political analyst is supposed to do?
Joan Walsh is the walking embodiment of the particular sort of condescending, patronising and very subtle racism which exists amongst the Progressive tranches of today's Left. I suppose MSNBC has only managed to replace their resident white supremacist with a white privilegist.
No change there.
We could do without Pat. If they were going to get a sane conservative they can get David Frum. We can do without Walsh as well.
ReplyDeletePat's book was grounds for a deeper conversation. The type that Walsh isn't qualified to speak. They should've called Dr. Harris-Perry or Dyson to spend time talking about the book. I've noticed cable news doesn't really do serious outside of a select few.
Vic78