Where in the world is Pat Buchanan?

MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan has been MIA from MSNBC’s air for quite a while. ICN started getting queries from MSNBC viewers about Pat’s whereabouts some weeks ago. I knew Pat had been doing a book tour so I didn’t pay too much attention at first. But as time went by I started getting more and more curious. Buchanan’s last appearance on MSNBC was October 22nd which is more than two months ago.

ICN reached out to MSNBC but they would not comment. That for me is a red flag so let the speculation begin. What could be going on? Is it Pat’s new book? Back in November The Huffington Post’s Michael Calderone wrote about Buchanan’s disappearing act when it was still relatively young.

But one network on which Buchanan hasn’t talked up the book is the one that actually employs him, MSNBC. Buchanan, a former Republican presidential speechwriter who later ran for the White House as a fiery populist candidate, hasn’t appeared on MSNBC since Oct. 22, a few days after his book hit the shelves. The book, however, wasn’t discussed.

and this…

MSNBC declined to comment for this article. However, an MSNBC executive said that the network is taking the concerns seriously, while contending there had been a conscious decision — predating any outside criticism — not to have Buchanan on air promoting the book. The issue at hand, the executive said, was the views expressed in the book rather than any policy against promoting books written by on-air talent. Although Buchanan made one appearance since the book was published, it was not discussed on air.

It would not be unreasonable for one to conclude based on this that Pat’s book may still be keeping him off MSNBC’s air. Will it be permanent? That’s the $64,000 question. The fact that he’s been off MSNBC during GOP primary season is a big deal.

About these ads

49 Responses to “Where in the world is Pat Buchanan?”

  1. Is it Pat’s new book?

    Yes.

  2. tonytheobald Says:

    The man is a flat out bigot. He should just go away quietly.

  3. MSNBC may grant you your wish…

  4. The White House doesn’t like him. They call the shots at MSNBC.

  5. Pat’s not a bigot.

  6. Pat IS a bigot and for someone that “calls the shots” the White House sure does get beat up on MSNBC.

  7. lonestar77 Says:

    Ehh, everybody who’s not a liberal is a “bigot” in the minds of most liberals. Ironically, the most biogted statements tend to come from liberals. But, they’re “enlightened” bigots.

  8. mlong5000 Says:

    If MSNBC were to fire Pat because he’s a bigot then would they also have to fire Sharpton whose not only Antisemitic but also has gotten people killed in race riots he started…now as far as I know Buchanan hasn’t gotten anyone killed with his remarks.

  9. Who cares one way or the other.

    What irks me is that Buchannan is labeled a conservative Republican.

    Buchannan is an isolationist and is not representative of the GOP.

  10. glounthaune Says:

    Who knows. It might be a personal issue that’s keeping him off the air.

  11. True, he’s hardly a kid anymore.

  12. Pat always brings some insights from a historical perspective. Served in administrations of both Nixon and Reagan. He actually won the New Hampshire Presidential Primary against George H. W. Bush. Hardly the Jew hating capital of the world. You’d think proproprogresives would like someone their oh so smart Maddow and Hayes could argue with once in a while.

  13. Buchannan is an isolationist and is not representative of the GOP.

    That doesn’t disqualify him from being a Conservative. Social Conservatives and Neo Conservatives like to think that just because they rule the roost right now that this means they get to define what constitutes a conservative. They don’t.

  14. bushleaguer Says:

    I don’t remember how long ago it was, but on Morning Joe Scarborough mentioned that Buchanan was in the hospital with pneumonia but was doing ok. That doesn’t explain MSNBC’s silence regarding the issue….you’d think they would have said that Pat was recovering from an illness and they looked forward to having him back on yada yada.

    I would imagine that he is still under contract with MSNBC.

  15. Sorry, Spud, but you’ve got the wrong gal to use labels such as “social conservative” and “neocon” on. I suspect that I’ve self described as a conservative Republican for quite a few years before you were even born. Your labels are recent and meaningless in this context.

    National defense and a strong foreign policy projection and influence on the world has long been a staple of conservative republicans.

    To find the isolationist views of Buchannan in the GOP you have to go back to the 1930s.

    Additionally I feel that we actual conservatives have far more of a right and proper credentials to determine who is and is not a conservative than the nonpartisan (yeh right) folks at MSNBC, those same folks who are touting Meghan McCain as a conservative analyst.

    Is Scott Marshall a liberal spokesman if I say he is.

  16. ^ nice — Pat is a throwback to pre WWII when people like Lindburg and Henry Ford remembered the horror of being dragged int WW I.

  17. Sorry, Spud, but you’ve got the wrong gal to use labels such as “social conservative” and “neocon” on.

    If I was referring to you specifically I would have said you specifically. I’ve visited Free Republic enough times to know that what I wrote is absolutely accurate. It may not refer to you specifically. But it’s still accurate.

    National defense and a strong foreign policy projection and influence on the world has long been a staple of conservative republicans

    You’re selecting a couple of specific issues as the sole litmus test of Conservatism. That’s not what Conservatism is. That’s never been what Conservatism is. Conservatism is smaller government and not radical change. That’s it. Everything else…hawkish foreign policy, pax americana, social issues…even fiscal policy…is all a sideshow to Conservatism. Don’t confuse GOPism with Conseratism. Ron Paul is a helluva lot more Conservative than most of the entire GOP party.

    The GOP has hijacked the both the term and the meaning of the term Conservatism and turned it into something that it never was.

  18. imnotblue Says:

    ^ Perhaps fair enough. But if you’re going to be brought on television as a “Conservative analyst” (or any party, for that matter), what responsibility do you have to actually represent the majority?

    It would be like bringing Zell Miller on as a “Democrat” (which of course, has been done), and posing him “Do Democrats see this issues…” type questions.

    Buchanan doesn’t represent the majority of modern Conservatives, and aren’t those the people we’re talking about? Semantics aside, he is not a Conservative… at best, he’s (what I would call) a Buchanan-Conservative, the leader of his own faction, but not necessarily representative of the whole.

  19. Ron Paul is a libertarian; he’s not a conservative.

    If Paul were to be elected, he would enact (for good or bad) the most far reaching and radical changes in American governence since, well, ever.

    Nothing conservative in that. Additionally, his isolationism emanates from a view that is fundamentally different that the isolation of conservatives like Robert Taft or even Pat Buchanan.

    Again, he’s simply not a conservative.

    Note: Traditional conservatives were “fused” with social conservatives and libertarians by the late William F. Buckley in the fifties largely through the promotion of anti-communist policies but also opposition to the welfare state.

    With the collapse of communism, that fusion has ended.

  20. Pat Buchanan is half-crazy, but a great guest. I miss him.

  21. If Paul were to be elected, he would enact (for good or bad) the most far reaching and radical changes in American governence since, well, ever.

    Nothing conservative in that.

    It is Conservative if you operate under the belief that all the changes you’re undoing should never have been done in the first place. From any other perspective it looks like radical realigment. But from where Paul stands it’s not radical realigment…the “radical realigment” was starting these programs in the first place.

    In any case I didn’t say Paul was a Conservative. I said he was a lot more Conservative than most of the GOP.

    The only difference between most of the GOP in general, and Social Conservatives in particular, and Progressives is WHERE they want government to intervene in our lives. Not whether. Once you understand this…it’s easier to see why a person like Paul is more conservative.

  22. I guess I should point out that I don’t support Ron Paul. I think he’s batsh*t crazy sometimes if he thinks he can get elected and undo all that he wants to undo. So’s his son. You can temper it but you can’t undo it. But I do understand him and appreciate his position.

  23. Buchanan doesn’t represent the majority of modern Conservatives, and aren’t those the people we’re talking about? Semantics aside, he is not a Conservative…

    Yes, he is. He’s just not your type of conservative. He’s not my type either. But he is a conservative.

    BTW, did I ever mention that I want to find the person who coined the term RINO and punch them in the mouth?

  24. From any other perspective it looks like radical realigment. But from where Paul stands it’s not radical realigment…the “radical realigment” was starting these programs in the first place.

    Yes, but his proposals on how to change these programs are not conservative, they’re radical. I don’t see anything conservative in Paul’s agenda (you do know that he first left the GOP under Reagan?)

    The mainstream conservative view on the welfare state and domestic programs is for a gradual reduction and not overnight elimination (e.g., the Ryan plan on Medicare). As you said above, conservatism is about – or has been historically – reform and gradual changes, not revolutionary ones. Conservatives recognize that many Americans have built their retirements around these programs. They can’t be eliminated overnight. That’s not conservatism (or even practicable).

    This is why, for example, Friedrich Hayek said he wasn’t a conservative. Conservatives, for him, didn’t go far or fast enough.

    Second, there’s always been a conservative school that believed in using the state to promote social views on the family and what used to be called “traditional morality.” See Russell Kirk’s book “The Conservative Mind” which is considered sort of the “bible” of conservative thought.

    Man, I’m going too far astray with this. Sorry for the diversion from cable news.

  25. bushleaguer Says:

    Erich – Just out of curiosity, would you consider Ronald Reagan a “Conservative” given how he radically changed the tax code? I’d say that was a revolutionary change give where the top tax rate was when he entered office and how far he lowered it.

  26. - RINO -

    I hate that crap. First they tagged Scarborough with it, now they’re telling me he’s a liberal. I’M A LIBERAL. I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

  27. I’d say that was a revolutionary change give where the top tax rate was when he entered office and how far he lowered it.

    Yeah, I agree with your view on that.

    But recall that 3-4 years later when the economy was growing and the deficits were exploding he agreed to numerous tax increases.

    So he was willing to reform/scale back his plan.

    A radical (Ron Paul) wouldn’t do that; a conservative would (or should).

  28. Where Pat’s three-sigma deviation on the conservative normal distribution falls is hardly pertinent to the heart of the matter of this blog: why is he not on MSNBC? If it’s because after all these years, his well know views don’t coincide with MSNBC’s intent to push wind into the Obama campaign’s sails, that would be a shame.

    Because, as a wise, grumpy liberal once said, “a great guest. I miss him.”

  29. [...] air for over two months. The absence has been notable, and on Friday, the Inside Cable News blog wondered aloud what was going on: It would not be unreasonable for one to conclude based on this that Pat’s [...]

  30. Just to set things right I didn’t intend my comment to mean that you singled me out because you sure didn’t.

    As for Ron Paul I think calling him “batsh*t crazy” is perhaps a gentler description than I would use for his defense and foreign policy stances.

    As for the rest it seems you have the exact same position re Scarborough being a liberal as I and many others here do about Buchanan being a conservative. I suspect that your view on Scarborough is widely held in the liberal world as our Buchanan views are among conservatives.

    I’m perfectly content to accept the preponderant liberal view on who are their fellow liberals are and are not. I just wish that those same liberals would return the courtesy to us.

  31. Grammie, you’re confusing my and Spud’s comments. I’m Joeremi, he’s ICN2.

  32. ^ one’s a potato, the other a potatohead

  33. After all this time I really have no idea what Spud’s political ideology is nor do I much care. His driving force seems to be the value and integrity of cable channels as news, reporting and analysis choices.

  34. and in his own words:

    “But it’s not what I want to talk about on this blog. I don’t care if the network is to the right of Hitler or to the left of Stalin. I care about whether they cover the news and how well they do it.”

  35. ^^^ I know that Spud is ICN.

    Perhaps I mistakenly attributed one of your comments to him. I’ll check.

    Yep, I did, re Scarborough being a liberal. Makes no difference to the essential point I made about who gets to definitively identify who is and is not a part of their group: the group as a whole or someone outside the group with reverse beliefs.

  36. Y’all can debate who’s a conservative or not to your heart’s content. What irritates me is RINO, specifically as it applies to Scarborough. You can’t just DECIDE he’s not a Republican because he’s not mondo uber conservative. It’s not right.

  37. Joeremi, Jan 6:
    ” You can’t just DECIDE he’s not a Republican because he’s not mondo uber conservative. It’s not right.”

    Joeremi, Dec 29:
    “Alan Colmes and Kirsten Powers, and Juan Williams playing the Fake Liberal”

  38. I SAID we can debate how conservative/liberal they are. I’ve never doubted Powers, Williams, or Colmes’ party affiliation, or voting record.

  39. So make an effort to actually understand what I wrote, not just the preconceived notions in your head.

  40. Understanding what you write is too hard for anyone to understand!

  41. Excuse me? I don’t understand..

  42. NY Times is now reporting MSNBC sez yes, they have kept Pat off the air and what’s more, he may never be back.

  43. mlong5000 Says:

    Once again I’ll ask if Pat has to go because of his racism how can MSNBC keep Al Sharpton on?

  44. Mlong, my entirely cynical answer would be that Sharpton’s actions are in the distant past, as were Pat’s until he wrote that ridiculous book. It’s not like Buchanan hadn’t said that stuff dozens of times before.

  45. [...] I Nostradamus-like. Yesterday I post about Pat “The Missing” Buchanan and today MSNBC President Phil Griffin [...]

  46. [...] Friday, The Huffington Post and others once again raised the issue of Buchanan’s status with the [...]

  47. [...] Friday, The Huffington Post and others once again raised the issue of Buchanan’s status with the [...]

  48. [...] Friday, The Huffington Post and others once again raised the issue of Buchanan’s status with the [...]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 217 other followers

%d bloggers like this: