MSNBC Comes Full Circle…Albeit Inverted.

Reading what Phil Griffin had to say today about the Pat Buchanan situation made me think about why this is happening.

“During the period of the book tour I asked him not to be on,” Mr. Griffin said. “Since then the issue has become the nature of some of the statements in the book.”

Mr. Buchanan argues in “Suicide of a Superpower” — which has the subtitle “Will America Survive to 2025?” — that the “European and Christian core of our country is shrinking,” which is damaging the nation “ethnically, culturally, morally, politically.” The book also contains a chapter titled “The End of White America.”

I haven’t read Pat’s book nor do I have any interest in doing so. But this is not new territory for Pat Buchanan to venture in to. He’s been on the edge of the paleocon xenophobic spectrum for a long time and anyone who has followed him even in passing can attest to this.

Certainly anyone who has dealt with Pat at MSNBC knows this. Pat has not changed. He may be a bit more vocal and shrill about it but he hasn’t changed his positions.

On the other hand, MSNBC has changed. It openly courts Progressive views and news. It puts out job ads asking for candidates with a progressive news background. Its pundit host class is all progressive and the network lets them show up en masse at the White House for off the record get togethers. The network is openly and aggressively courting the African American viewing audience so much so that it now notes how big it is in African American viewership in its releases.

Add all these things together and you now have a scenario where MSNBC, which used to be able to handle a Pat Buchanan and his intransigent controversial views, can no longer afford to do so without alienating core constituencies it covets. As Bill Carter wrote today…

Mr. Griffin said, “The ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much less the dialogue on MSNBC.” The network has set out to brand itself as a network designed to appeal to progressive and liberal viewers.

Phil Griffin basically copped to it. If you piss off MSNBC core demographic audiences and they start going ape, as Color of Change did over Buchanan, you may end up being taken off the network, whereas five years ago such a tactic probably would not have succeeded.

And yet, this isn’t Michael Savage we’re talking about where some guy says something on MSNBC’s air that’s toxic. This is Pat Buchanan who is smart enough to moderate and modulate what he says on MSNBC vs. what he writes in his books. Buchanan in effect is being punished on MSNBC for something he didn’t do on MSNBC but is something that he’s been well known for by the people at MSNBC for years.

What I find ironic about this, and gave me the motivation to write up the headline the way I did, is with the Pat Buchanan situation MSNBC has gone and returned to the days of Phil Donahue and the run up to the Iraq War except it’s inverted because this time it’s not Conservative viewers MSNBC is afraid of alienating with Buchanan as it was nearly 10 years ago with Donahue…it’s Progressive ones.

About these ads

118 Responses to “MSNBC Comes Full Circle…Albeit Inverted.”

  1. Most astute. But why does it make me sad.

  2. The color of change is beige.

  3. Spot on analysis.

    No one should be surprised by Buchanan’s views in this latest book. Certainly MSNBC shouldn’t. They’re essentially the same ones he’s written about in columns and other books for several decades (and they’re ones that have gotten Ron Paul in trouble over with his newsletters).

    New package, same old ugliness.

    It is ironic that the network that is building itself, in part, around identity politics fires a guy because he promotes identity politics.

    Just the wrong kind.

  4. So MSNBC has fulfilled one of Spud’s resolutions…sort of.

    Now can they put Hardball live at 7 (which would probably help both 7 pm and primetime ratings because of a better lead-in) and move Ratigan to 5 and Bashir to 4? While they are at it, extend NewsNation to two hours from 2-4 and make Jansing & Co from 10-noon.

    Move Thomas Roberts to weekends to host a 2-hr program Sat and Sun. Have live programming on the weekends until 6 PM (possible anchors include Craig Melvin, Richard Lui, Veronica de la Cruz, and Paige Hopkins), replace prison docs with ones that Progressives would want to watch, add a program like “Vanguard” to the weekend schedule, re-air “Rock Center” on weekends, and maybe even give Eliot Spitzer a show now that he understands how TV works.

  5. I also have some ideas for how Current should fill its schedule. Mainly a two-hour “Young Turks” show that features the current cast plus Ben Mankiewicz, airing from 5-7 eastern. Cenk would only do one segment per hour as an extended tease for his own program which would air at 7.

  6. ^ that won’t fill a void of viewers and is off topic to boot.

    Meanwhile,
    If MSNBC won’t put Pat back on, I hope they will let him tear up his contract if he finds work at another cable outlet. Not sure how many years he has left, but I’d like to share a few.

  7. Josh, if MSNBC is going to fill up its weekend schedule, it’s not going to do it with anchors. It will be more talking heads, The Five ripoffs, and lefty opinion. They’re out of the business of adding news. Only subtracting it.

  8. Johnny, I think you are right, and I guess as a right wing FNC viewer I shouldn’t really care. But MSNBC would be smart to air two-hours of talking heads followed by two hours of news on the weekends instead of what they are planning to do now, which is four hours of talking heads followed by two hours of news.

  9. I know nothing about how PB makes his case for “Will America Survive to 2025″ but I have seen these stages of a democracy and it seems to make sense to me:

    ‘The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
    1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
    2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
    3. From courage to liberty;
    4. From liberty to abundance;
    5. From abundance to complacency;
    6. From complacency to apathy;
    7. From apathy to dependence;
    8. From dependence back into bondage’

    Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota

    And as far as the chapter entitled “The End of White America.” isn’t that a statement about what the most recent census has told us?

    Like I said, I know nothing about how he presents these ideas and if he uses inflammatory language, racist language, demeaning language. So maybe it’s more about that he actually says these things rather than if they are true or not.

  10. More and more it shows that MSNBC has no interest in news or even showing differing opinions. I personally couldn’t care less but they shouldn’t be a news channel, it’s a disgrace to networks who actually DO news.

  11. Larry, I guess I should just do what you do and post random thoughts in the free-for-all ;) .

  12. ^ Joe even yelled at me for that once, but there is a home for random thoughts — even mine

  13. Interracial marriage today has little stigma attached. Wasn’t that long ago it was even illegal in many states. Anyone that has eyes and goes to a large events can easily see the changed in the spectrum the last 30 years. No debate that the dominance of the white race since the founding of the country is on the wane. The only question is if you can talk about it. My opinion is the answer is not freely and not without a penalty. Folks always say we need a conversation about race, but they have a pretty firm idea what that conversation should be. And Pat sure as heck best shut up.

  14. No debate that the dominance of the white race since the founding of the country is on the wane

    Yes, Larry, but your race doesn’t determine what you think. Or how you act. Or what you believe.

    I don’t care what the race is of the people who run this country or our institutions. I only care about what they think and believe.

    If America falls tomorrow because the people running it aren’t white, it’s not because their race. It’s because they’re embracing the wrong ideas and principles.

    Culture? Yes. Race? No.

    I find it odd that Buchanan holds many of the same views of those who once said that people named Buchanan and O’Hanahan and Kelly (!!) couldn’t be Americans.

    Boy, were they ever wrong. Just walk up and down Arlington National Cemetery for the evidence.

  15. ^ you simply Pat’s views to the point of a base distortion. Shame on you and shame that you wave the flag of righessness as you casually smother opposing views. Color of Change, Media Matter, share share that flag. It is dangerous.

  16. ^Excuse me, sir, no one is stopping Pat Buchanan from expressing his views. His books and columns are published and are widely available. I oppose anyone who tries to use the government to censor or stop his ideas from being published.

    But he doesn’t have the right to express them on a privately owned network. MSNBC can ban him. And Fox News can ban whoever they want too. MSNBC is obligated to have Buchanan on anymore than Fox is obligated to have Michael Moore on.

    And, I’ll add, sir, no one is stopping you from embracing Buchanan’s ugly ideas.

    But just as you and he have the right to express your views on race, I have the right to express mine.

    If you want to judge people by their race, you’re welcome to it. I don’t and I’ll make my arguments as well.

    May the better argument win.

  17. MSNBC is obligated to have Buchanan on anymore than Fox is obligated to have Michael Moore on.

    That’s “not obligated”, of course.

  18. Apparently the biggest problem with Pat…..something like the Left’s problem with Joe McCarthy…..he was right.

  19. Interracial marriage today has little stigma attached. Wasn’t that long ago it was even illegal in many states.

    Is it good or bad that those things have changed?

    Was the country better off when the races couldn’t marry? Not only legally but also in terms of public opinion?

    I’d be interested in what you think.

    Here’s a hint on what I think: I’m dating a Cuban-American lady. I’m very very lucky.

  20. It was a good thing the stigma is gone. Like Pat you have no idea what I believe but you are prepared to believe the worst. Date anyone you want, this is America. What do you want, a medal?

  21. Griffin, “I don’t think the ideas that [Buchanan] put forth [in the book] are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC.” Will Buchanan be back at all on MSNBC? “I have not made my decision,” replied Griffin, who did say he will be tinkering with the network’s format as the year goes on. “Pat’s a good guy. He didn’t like [being removed from the air], but he understood.”

    Like my self-rightness antagonist, Mr. Griffon knows best what is right for the national dialog. Fotunatly Giffon only runs a single cable network and Eric the Purifier runs nothing.

  22. Pat Buchanan’s demise at MSNBC seems similar to Marc Lamont Hill’s demise at FNC.

  23. It was a good thing the stigma is gone.

    Then why did you cite it in a post lamenting the decline of the white race in America?

    Pat Buchanan believes – he’s stated this many, many times over many many years – that the changing racial makeup of America is leading to the end of the country, to the demise of the nation, to disaster.

    I believe that the race of a person tells us nothing about them.

    If America falls it will be not be because white people no longer dominate. If Buchanan stuck to culture, he’d be fine. I’d agree with him (for the most part).

    Hey, but you and Pat are certainly free to lament the decline of the white race in America. Have your pity party with lots of fireworks and a big cake.

    Sounds like fun.

  24. Joe even yelled at me for that once, but there is a home for random thoughts — even mine.

    I didn’t yell. I admonished with a stern, disapproving tone, followed by a “tut tut”.

    But MSNBC would be smart to air two-hours of talking heads followed by two hours of news on the weekends instead of what they are planning to do now, which is four hours of talking heads followed by two hours of news.

    This stuff is going to start very early on weekend mornings, even here on the West Coast. I think MSNBC expects most viewers to DVR the blocks, possibly watch a small portion live, then catch up with whichever programs they prefer later.

  25. Pundits come and go on cable news nets all the time. Pat Buchanan had a good run at MSNBC but his analysis and POV are well known and there is always a risk of him going off the reservation. The network has recently hired some very good Republican pundits; the best being Michael Steele and Steve Schmidt; so Buchanan won’t be missed by most MSNBC viewers.

  26. I wish MSNBC would add more news, but they’re subtracting it with boring opinion shows.

    CURRENT should try to get Anna Kasparian her own show and draw Alyona Minkovski over from RT. They’d have a lot of success attracting young progressive viewers with Anna, Alyona and Cenk at the helm on the same network.

  27. Apparently the biggest problem with Pat…..something like the Left’s problem with Joe McCarthy…..he was right.

    Whoa…a rare Bricko appearance in the ICN comments…

    Pat Buchanan’s demise at MSNBC seems similar to Marc Lamont Hill’s demise at FNC.

    Interesting analogy. But is it accurate? I thought Hill got taken out because of stuff he was saying on FNC, especially on The Factor?

    Pat’s getting taken out not because of what he says on MSNBC but because certain interest groups which are in MSNBC’s core demographic are bitching about what he’s writing in books.

  28. Whoa…a rare Bricko appearance in the ICN comments…

    And he didn’t say something disgusting about women!

  29. No, Hill’s departure was basically due to complaints about his backing of convicted cop-killer Jamal. The stuff he said was out there, to be sure, but he came across as decently good natured when people challenged him, not angry or insulting. That sort of approach usually will not rile up people as much.

    The one difference between the two is that Dr Hill still appears on FNC. If MS fires Buchanan I doubt he will ever be allowed on their air again.

  30. It was a good thing the stigma is gone.
    Then why did you cite it in a post lamenting the decline of the white race in America?

    I wasn’t lamenting anything. Just acknowledging it was happening and we shouldn’t be afraid to discuss it.

    The fact that reckless people make reckless charges of bigotry is why those in the public eye are afraid for good reason.

    The result that I get falsely accused of bigotry by some joker shows how right I was.

  31. ^ Then we get a lecture from Eric Holder(!) on how America is too gutless to discuss race, or something. Gee, ya think?

  32. The question isn’t about discussing race it’s about the views of a nativist and xenophobe like Buchanan. Surely there must be some limits to the discussion? Some guidelines? Are David Duke’s views acceptable? Louis Farrakhan’s? I would hope not (I’m not comparing Buchanan to them; just making a point about limits).

    Buchanan is an odd person: as a person he probably isn’t a bigot. But he definitely believes in bigoted views such as that the decline in the numbers of white Americans – by itself – is a bad thing for the country. Why? What does race have to do with it?

    If we exchanged 20 million white Americans for 20 million black Africans from Nigeria, what would be the difference racially? Culturally there would be huge problems assimilating those new immigrants. But that’s because of culture and language and not because they are black skinned.

    Larry Kelly has twice claimed that I’ve misrepresented Buchanan’s views on race in America but nowhere has he stated where.

    Where is my characterization of Buchanan wrong?

  33. lol. I find it funny that a small Marxist group like “Color of Change” can have the power to dictate what’s on MSNBC. That’s pretty weak.

  34. I think it’s safe to say the brass at NBC and MSNBC were troubled by the book all on their own. And thanks for the ludicrous Marxist crap.

  35. Another thing. MSNBC keeps Al Sharpton who is still a racist and race baiter. Just last week Al Sharpton called the GOP the “white ring” of the Republican party. Yet no outrage about that. Then MSNBC hires another one on Melissa Perry Harris who has said and written a lot of racially insensitive things about white people. Not only that but she gets her own show. MSNBC not outraged by these two, but Pat Buchanan is this horrible racist and race baiting monster?! Hypocrisy much at MSDNC?

  36. This isn’t a “discussion about race”. It’s a discussion about the concept of white purity being threatened by immigrants. That’s Aryan Brotherhood shyte right there, and MSNBC is wise to get as far away from it as possible.

    I like Pat personally, but I’m shocked that he’s so invested in this idea that he would throw away a television career to promote it. He brought this on himself.

  37. “I think it’s safe to say the brass at NBC and MSNBC were troubled by the book all on their own. And thanks for the ludicrous Marxist crap.”

    I doubt that because Pat has written a lot of controversial books before in the past while still on the network and MSNBC said nothing about it. Why is that when Color of Change cries about Pat Buchanan’s books NOW MSNBC finally does something about Buchanan? How come MSNBC brass didn’t fire Buchanan long ago?

  38. - MSDNC -

    Just think that one up, did ya?

    Melissa teaches and writes about race relations from the black perspective. That’s quite a different thing from the white one, for patently obvious reasons.

  39. This isn’t a “discussion about race”. It’s a discussion about the concept of white purity being threatened by immigrants

    Threatened by non-white immigrants that is.

    I don’t think Buchanan would be upset if we had a influx of Irish immigrants. He’s got race on the brain.

    If he limited his concerns to culture, to assimilation and acculturation of these new immigrants he’d be on solid ground. There is a problem or question about the old melting pot and bringing in an entirely new group of people to America. What does this new set of Americans mean for us?

    But again that has nothing to do with skin color.

  40. To my knowledge, Pat wrote no books on this subject while at MSNBC prior to this one. It appeared to me that he had gotten a little older and wiser, and had decided to settle into standard commentary. His book surprised me.

  41. “This isn’t a “discussion about race”. It’s a discussion about the concept of white purity being threatened by immigrants.”

    I don’t buy that either. This is selective outrage from the left as usual. They are sympathetic with black racists i.e. Al Sharpton and Messlia Perry but hate racists like Buchanan? Also this show how weak MSNBC’s brass are when handling racial interest pressure groups like “color of change”. Which in of itself is like a black version pf the “Aryan Brotherhood” in my view. BTW MSNBC’s Sharpton has showed up many times with Anti Semitic and Anti White Louis Farrakhan and his so called “State of the Black Union” conventions. Does that concern you and MSNBC and why does he still have a job?

  42. “Melissa teaches and writes about race relations from the black perspective. That’s quite a different thing from the white one, for patently obvious reasons.”

    More hypocrisy much? From a “black” perceptive ehh? So it’s okay according to MSNBC’ers to teach the MSNBC audience a so called “black” perceptive but not a white one. Wouldn’t that be “racist” to teach anybody a perceptive based on someone’s color. I mean that’s what left minded people having been lecturing all of us for the pass 40 years or so. This sounds like a double standard to me.

  43. That “double standard” is the result of slavery, Sparky. But keep throwing your horsecrap around, I’m quite familiar with you and your bleating. Have a nice day.

  44. “To my knowledge, Pat wrote no books on this subject while at MSNBC prior to this one. It appeared to me that he had gotten a little older and wiser, and had decided to settle into standard commentary. His book surprised me.”

    For your info he has written “The Death of the West” and “Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World”. Both of these books were written while he was still a MSNBC contributor. So again why didn’t the MSNBC brass say something then if the Black Marxist racial interest group “Color of Change” had nothing at all to do with MSNBC’s decision?

    “His book surprised me.”

    If you are a follower of Pat his two other books he’s written previous should have long surprised you and MSNBC.

  45. “That “double standard” is the result of slavery, Sparky. But keep throwing your horsecrap around, I’m quite familiar with you and your bleating. Have a nice day.”

    Slavery is gone i’m talking about right now. So it’s okay for racist blacks and there guilty white liberal supporters to use the historical tragedy of slavery and beat anti white propaganda into everybody’s heads? Who’s the real hater here?

  46. Don’t ever call me a hater again. I know your nasty rightwing shouting game. It’s stupid and boring.

  47. “I don’t think Buchanan would be upset if we had a influx of Irish immigrants. He’s got race on the brain.”

    Well we could say the same thing about Al Sharpton and Melissa Perry Harris. Both of them are proven race baiters. Especially Al Sharpton. But yet the difference is that they keep they’re jobs. This type of double standard is why the racial diverseness and blatant racial bias will never leave America. So keep whistling past the graveyard there erich500.

  48. “Don’t ever call me a hater again. I know your nasty rightwing shouting game. It’s stupid and boring.”

    I didn’t call you anything. I said WHO’s the real hater here? Also I didn’t shout at anyone i’m just stating some obvious truth’s that make you uncomfortable.

  49. So keep whistling past the graveyard there erich500.

    I think you’re confusing Joe Remi with me.

    I don’t disagree that there’s a double standard nor do I agree that slavery justifies it.

    But the question is the firing of Buchanan and whether it was justified.

  50. I didn’t call you anything. I said WHO’s the real hater here?

    Yeah, ’cause that’s completely different.
    Your “truths” are hysterical bullsh!t. Enjoy the echo.

  51. “But the question is the firing of Buchanan and whether it was justified.”

    It’s would “justified” only if Al Sharpton and Melissa Perry Harris were to join Buchanan. I’m just asking for some consistency. If race baiting and racial biased remarks are “offense” to MSNBC and the left then they should for once be a little consistent and get rid of Sharpton and Harris along with Buchanan. How hard is that?

  52. I’m just asking for some consistency

    If you want to propose that MSNBC has a double standard when it comes to race, you’re absolutely right.

    There was no justification in hiring Al Sharpton. His ugly past has been well documented.

    A network that claims to be concerned about their people making questionable racial comments simply cannot hire a Sharpton.

    As to Ms. Harris, I don’t know enough to comment.

  53. Yeah, ’cause that’s completely different.

    Did I address you specifically? Who’s getting hysterical here? lol

    Your “truths” are hysterical bullsh!t. Enjoy the echo.

    Oh so now i’m hysterical? lol. You know what it’s obvious you can’t handle facts and rational debate so i’m out. Good day! lol.

  54. Well, that went well….

    Making friends on the Internet can be fun.

  55. “I’m just asking for some consistency

    If you want to propose that MSNBC has a double standard when it comes to race, you’re absolutely right.

    There was no justification in hiring Al Sharpton. His ugly past has been well documented.

    A network that claims to be concerned about their people making questionable racial comments simply cannot hire a Sharpton.

    As to Ms. Harris, I don’t know enough to comment.”

    Well I’m glad you see it that way unlike joereimi who won’t or refuses to understand. Look up some of Harris’s comments on race on YouTube. And also read some of her racially insensitive rants about whites in some of her journals and you will question like me why did MSNBC fire Pat but gives her a show.

  56. “Facts”. “Debate”. Bullsh!t.

  57. imnotblue Says:

    @ ash

    Don’t worry about Remi. He thinks this is his site, takes it personally when people disagree with him, and gets rude the moment they try to defend or support their opinions (especially when they aren’t an affirmation of his own).

    We’ve all been there. It’s best to either accept his view, or just ignore him.

  58. Ash’s accusations of racism against Melissa Harris-Perry are complete crap. I’m very familiar with his “MSDNC/Marxist” screeching. You boys should have a grand time in your little echo chamber.

  59. – we’ve all been there –

    Yes, it’s a cross we bear, and a fine substitute for real problems.

  60. “Ash’s accusations of racism against Melissa Harris-Perry are complete crap.”

    It’s complete crap because you probably buy into her anti white racist crap and race baiting.

  61. “Don’t worry about Remi. He thinks this is his site, takes it personally when people disagree with him, and gets rude the moment they try to defend or support their opinions (especially when they aren’t an affirmation of his own).”

    Thanks. I’m fully aware now. :)

  62. takes it personally when people disagree with him

    Yes, everybody knows I have the EXACT SAME REACTION TO ALL DISAGREEING OPINIONS AT ALL TIMES.

  63. There’s something about blog posting that leads to people ending up fighting with one another. It’s the nature of the medium.

    We have to use shorthand, people misread what we wrote or we write poorly and hastily, a thread is lost and people lose track of who said what…

    Yes, it’s not an original observation but we see it here. Add the volatile issue of race and kaboom.

    Either that or we’re all arrogant jerks.

    I have been called that on occasion, as shocking as it is to believe.

  64. imnotblue Says:

    ^ I’m pretty sure you meant that sarcastically. Which is a shame, because it means you really don’t see it.

  65. Btw, I don’t support MSNBC’s hiring of Sharpton, nor their banishment of Buchanan. I’ll leave it to you to sort out the rest.

  66. I’m pretty sure you meant that sarcastically. Which is a shame, because it means you really don’t see it.

    Come again?

    I wasn’t being sarcastic except for that last part, i.e., the arrogant jerks.

  67. ‘Sarcastic” was for me, Eric. Blue has convinced himself of a delusional representation of my character, and there’s nothing to be done about it.

  68. ^Oops, sorry.

    Like I said, these things can get messed up.

  69. imnotblue Says:

    Joe’s correct, Erich… that was for him.

    Joe and I frequently don’t “get along.” I’m not a fan of his arrogant and unstable personality here on this site… and Joe is not a fan of my pointing it out when he says things that reflect that view.

  70. Joe and I frequently don’t “get along.” I’m not a fan of his arrogant and unstable personality

    Oh goodie, I’m being diagnosed by a streetcorner psychologist again. Bill me, b!tch.

  71. ” Bill me, b!tch.”

    Another demonstration of that “new civility” the left’s been self righteously touting. Thanks for proving imnotblue about your temperament.

  72. Proving innotblue right that is.

  73. This wasn’t even Blue’s battle. He’s an internet stalker with a serious obsession with me. “Civil discourse” my a$$.

  74. “This wasn’t even Blue’s battle. He’s an internet stalker with a serious obsession with me. “Civil discourse” my a$$.”

    lol whatever!

  75. imnotblue Says:

    @ Joe

    Ash hits it out of the park. Not trying to “diagnose” you with anything. Only calling our your erratic (syn. for unstable) behavior (civil one moment, freaking out and screaming the next).

  76. lol whatever!

  77. “Oh goodie, I’m being diagnosed by a streetcorner psychologist again. Bill me, b!tch.”

    You’re nuts and I’m a racist. Meet you half way in Kansa City and buy you a beer.

  78. Meet you half way in Kansa City and buy you a beer.

    I’ve got a long way to go, and a short time to get there..

  79. Another demonstration of that “new civility” the left’s been self righteously touting.

    JR isn’t part of the “left”, so why should he bother following any kind of civility? He probably calls himself a liberal (which is for him to clarify), but he’s not required to follow any kind of policy on being civil.

    As a frequent visitor of this site, I consider JR a very reasonable and useful voice, so when people like INB and J$ come on to spew their BS, we have someone to keep them in line.

    I got your back, JR… and will battle against the aforementioned wingnuts (and whatever friends they bring along) when they only come here to stir up trouble and smear civilized people like MHP with baseless accusations.

    You people are so paranoid about the right being branded as racists (which they have a history of being), you try to make the liberals the same way, and it falls apart each time.

    It’s just classic projection coming from the side of the political spectrum which will be denying their history of racism until the end of time.

  80. “JR isn’t part of the “left”, so why should he bother following any kind of civility? He probably calls himself a liberal (which is for him to clarify), but he’s not required to follow any kind of policy on being civil.”

    What I was getting that it that most of the people on the left claim this moral superiority of civility and you hear this notion all the time by the likes of Keith Olbermann, Bill Press, and Chris Mattews. You heard it from most the left very loudy after the Gabby Giffords shooting. Everyone must be civil they were yapping about. I’m just pointing out that they don’t have that moral superiority because of people like Joe and others that I try to have a discussion with. Trying meaning that most of the liberals I try to debate quickly go into personal attacks. The right does the same thing but they never claimed the moral high ground on “civility”.

    “It’s just classic projection coming from the side of the political ”

    No it’s projection coming from your side. You guys claim to be for tolerance and equality but you guys definitely do not tolerant people that disagree with your world view. Also you’re not for equality because you guys attack white Christian males on a regular basis and get away with it while at the same time you tolerate black racists and their white liberal supporters. But I say keep on with your double standards. Your Anti white biases and selective outrages will not end racism anytime soon.

  81. Fanny Doollee is a Progressive Liberarian.

  82. - anti White biases –

    That’s a handy little phrase you’ve developed there. Sweeping generalized accusations of racism against any group – left or right – are ridiculous. You have to pick one example from one person at a time. These amorphous “the left is this” and “the right is that” barbs are meaningless. They have nothing to do with debate, and everything to do with “hear me now!”

  83. but not a liberal.

  84. “That’s a handy little phrase you’ve developed there. ”

    I didn’t develop anything. That’s called reality. You can spin it all you want.

    “. Sweeping generalized accusations of racism against any group – left or right – are ridiculous.”

    I didnt make sweeping anything I just pointing out what’s real. There is such is thing as anti white bias. MSNBC proves that all the time by hiring Al Sharpton and Melissa Harris but firing Pat Buchanan. They again prove it when Al Sharpton on national tv can say “the WHITE wing” and get away with it. And I can cite many Anti white barbs swung on that network. To pretend that didn’t happen is ridiculous.

    “These amorphous “the left is this” and “the right is that” barbs are meaningless.”

    I hear that a lot from progressives who can’t defend their polices. They pretend not to care about left or right issues, but in reality they do matter.

  85. “Fanny Doollee is a Progressive Libertarian.”

    That’s a oxymoron.

  86. I’m not a progressive..I don’t know who you’re talking to. Oh right. Yourself.

  87. Right. Did I reference you? If your not a progressive then why are you worried?

  88. Yes, genius, you were directly responding to me. It’s right after MY QUOTE YOU COPY/PASTED. I swear..

  89. Are you paranoid or something? Did I say ” lot from progressives LIKE YOU”. No I didn’t. I was simply saying that I hear progressives saying such things. Can you separate out things I said that specifically reference you? I believe you can. Please don’t play these games.

  90. I believe you only use others’ quotes as an excuse to grandstand with your mindless, sweeping generalizations. Bring on the walls of text!

  91. “I believe you only use others’ quotes as an excuse to grandstand with your mindless, sweeping generalizations. Bring on the walls of text!”

    Not my fault you’re slow and can’t keep up.

  92. Oo, good one!

  93. imnotblue Says:

    ProgLib Says:
    January 8, 2012 at 7:41 pm

    Oh goodie! Prog is back! Here to make more unsubstantiated claims against people who don’t hold his very confused world view.

    JR isn’t part of the “left”, so why should he bother following any kind of civility? He probably calls himself a liberal (which is for him to clarify), but he’s not required to follow any kind of policy on being civil.

    Nobody is “required” to be civil. It would be nice, but it’s not a requirement. Of course, to you… nobody is part of “the left.” It doesn’t matter that 99% of their views line up with “the left.” Everyone left-of-center is unique, and part of their own group. On the right, according to you, it’s very differently… they’re all the same (which you allude to later).

    As a frequent visitor of this site, I consider JR a very reasonable and useful voice, so when people like INB and J$ come on to spew their BS, we have someone to keep them in line.

    And if JR has the Prog vote… well, terrific! I mean, Prog is the same guy who propped up Olbermann, despite not actually liking or agreeing with his tactics, because he helped “the left” (which doesn’t exist, except for when it does). So why wouldn’t he think JR is reasonable?

    Oh, and what BS do we “spew?” Can you provide an example?

    I got your back, JR… and will battle against the aforementioned wingnuts (and whatever friends they bring along) when they only come here to stir up trouble and smear civilized people like MHP with baseless accusations.

    You realize that “baseless accusations” is not the same as “things I disagree with,” right? I don’t know much about MHP, but a quick Google search shows quite a few questions about her, and her comments on the topic of race. The biggest argument (at the moment) seems to be over her article calling WHITE LIBERALS racist, for “abandoning Obama” and holding him to too high of a standard, because of his race. Here’s the original story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/26/opinion/main20111553.shtml

    So which is it? Is MHP correct, and Liberals are racist? Or is she wrong, and using race as an excuse to defend Obama, and attack people who (while still supporting him over any reasonable alternative) believe Obama isn’t doing a super-terrific-great job?

    Also, Sharpton was brought up as an example of MSNBC’s duplicity. Any comment there?

    You people are so paranoid about the right being branded as racists (which they have a history of being), you try to make the liberals the same way, and it falls apart each time.

    Remember folks, there is no “the left,” but there is a “you people” when talking about “the right.” It’s not hypocrisy… it’s ProgLib theory.

    Oh, and if you want to talk about parties having a “history” if racism… please get ready to discuss the history of ALL the parties. Your selective memory and subsequent selective outrage doesn’t fool anyone.

    It’s just classic projection coming from the side of the political spectrum which will be denying their history of racism until the end of time.

    As opposed to the left, which won’t deny their racism… only blame everyone else for it, lie about it, and whine and cry and whine and cry until all reasonable people have just walked away.

    Thanks for stopping by, Prog. Come back when you have a fact, a bit of evidence, or anything even slightly worthwhile to say.

  94. imnotblue Says:

    @ Ash

    What did I tell you? Joe is incapable of debate, so he starts little semantic games. You’re about a hair away from him calling you names, and whining that everyone is so mean to him. It doesn’t matter that he said:

    You have to pick one example from one person at a time.

    And then you explained you were talking about MSNBC, and provided examples. You’re still wrong. Not because of anything he can argue, but just because he says so.

    “Debating” Joe is pointless, because (as he has explained) he has no interest in actually debating or changing his mind. He’s only here to tell YOU, and everyone else, to think… and you’re a fool if you think he gives a cr@p what anyone else has to say. He’s obnoxiously arrogant, completely self-unaware, and grows less temperamental every day.

    It’s like trying to win a basketball game, when the guy has taken the ball, and already started walking home, shouting: “I win! It’s my ball! You cheated! I don’t care what the score was! I win! You stink!” You don’t win. You both lose.

  95. You can’t quit me, Blue.

  96. “because he helped “the left” (which doesn’t exist, except for when it does).”

    Isn’t it interesting Blue when liberals and progressives make the claim that there is no left and right but if you don’t agree with them they automatically call you a “right” winger and start up the personal attacks? They tend to try to have it both ways.

  97. To Blue:

    Good link you posted about Harris. Harris would indict a ham sandwich as “racist”. She also makes a pretty good living on race baiting and division. But to liberals and progressives her and Al Sharpton’s racial rhetoric is AOK and Pat Buchanan is the barbaric white racist. Go figure.

  98. Lumping Melissa and Sharpton together is ludicrous. MHP teaches about race relations. Ya think that might include discussions of racism on the part of some white people? According to your ridiculous standard, any discussion of a white person’s racism is a racist attack on that person! Kinda convenient, dontcha think?

  99. “MHP teaches about race relations”

    LOL. I believe she teaches hatred against white people. If you want to called that “race relations” then knock yourself out.

    “Ya think that might include discussions of racism on the part of some white people? ”

    That’s not my problem but I suspect that dominates 90% of her class judging by some of her journals I’ve read.

    “According to your ridiculous standard, any discussion of a white person’s racism is a racist attack on that person! Kinda convenient, dontcha think?”

    I never said that. See when you can’t refuse something I’ve said you make stuff up.

  100. You said she has said some negative things about some white people. Do you have any proof of racist statements, or just discussions of white racism towards blacks? A black person teaching about the history of racism has every right to note those examples. It doesn’t make her “anti white”. She’s teaching history. Furthermore, she’s a very intelligent, very nice person. Your screed against her is unwarranted.

  101. I didn’t say she was a racist I said she was a race baiter. And she’s is good at stoking racial tension.

    Recently she’s accused the GOP of a “conspiracy” to disenfranchise black voters by states enacting photo ID laws which is not true.

    She’s was even mad at Maxine Waters for not standing in “Black solidarity” with President Barack Obama.

    If that’s not borderline racist I don’t know what is Joe, you tell me? Imagine if a white person teaching a “race relation” class had said the same thing Perry said about “White solidarity”.

    She doesn’t come outright and say blatant racist things about whites like Sharpton does but tries to be very subtle and careful.

    ” A black person teaching about the history of racism has every right to note those examples.”

    Fine but I never saw any black person that teaches these classes acknowledge brown and black racism but only white racism. See that’s what’s i’m getting at. And that exclusion makes these types of classes very anti white. Very simple math.

    “She’s teaching history. ”

    You don’t know what she’s teaching. She’s maybe teaching her version or the pro black version of history.

    “she’s a very intelligent, very nice person.

    I don’t care about how supposedly nice and intelligent she is. I care that she brainwashing her students with anti white propaganda and bigotry.

    “. Your screed against her is unwarranted.””

    Very warranted.

  102. Um…have I mentioned that the most prolific commenter is Joeremi? 2nd place is well well behind his dust…

  103. Nice try. I know the conservative trick of hypothetically swapping the races in an example, then saying “see?”. It doesn’t work that way in the real world. The idea of a white person teaching a class on race issues, and how the white man has suffered because of it, is complete Bizarro World. You’re using a false equivalent to pretend MHP has no right to discuss race relations and racism. You live in a world called Denial.

  104. If you want me to stop commenting, say the word.

  105. “It doesn’t work that way in the real world. ”

    Not a trick we know the left and how hypocritical they can be on this racial issue and the standards they want everyone else to go by on this issue. They’re standards are this.

    “Some people are more equal than others.”

    “The idea of a white person teaching a class on race issues, and how the white man has suffered because of it, is complete Bizarro World.”

    So are you saying only black and browns are ONLY qualified to teach such classes? Wouldn’t that be “discrimination”? Keep exposing yourself Joe, less work for me.

    “You live in a world called Denial.”

    You live in a world called “Hypocrisy”.

  106. Of course a white person can teach about racism. But if he starts teaching about how whites are suffering at the hand of the black man, well..

  107. “2nd place is well well behind his dust…”

    If I’m trailing Progressive Libertine, I’m going to kill my self.

  108. Now you say that. A white “race relations” teacher for instance could teach how Affirmative Action is discriminatory against white males by disfranchising whites of all classes of getting good paying jobs. He could also go on to talk about the racial cast system in the NFL and NBA. There are topicsOplenty.

    Anyways back to MPH. When she told Maxine Waters for not standing in “Black solidarity” with President Barack Obama. Was she a bigot when she said that and do you think that statement makes her qualified to teach anybody anything about ‘race relations”?

  109. No more answers for you, Ash. I’m getting the ‘pipe down’ signal, so pipe down I shall. Peace.

  110. Okay. Np. See you around.

  111. 1996 NH Repunlican Primary winner: Pat Buchanan. Little did he know freedom hating special interest groups would later silence him. Progressive is the new regressive.

  112. imnotblue Says:

    icn2 Says:
    January 8, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    Um…have I mentioned that the most prolific commenter is Joeremi? 2nd place is well well behind his dust…

    I would love to see that list!

  113. ^ The obsession continues..

  114. Oh, to be able to use the line, “Eat my dust!”.

  115. You have to do it with an Opie voice.

  116. I would love to see that list!

    I bet you would…

  117. [...] interest group politicking and ideological divide crossing the chasm into the newsroom. I have said this before and Brian Stelter all but said it yesterday; this decision has less to do with Buchanan and his [...]

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 211 other followers

%d bloggers like this: