Zed

A disgrace to his race. Time to pack it up Uncle Pat.

Truly a pig, totally unmasked this time. And Rachel let him have it. In her artful, smiling way, she all but called him a blathering, senile, fuddy duddy.

Thank you, attaturk.
I’ve been sitting here stewing over BuKKKanan’s utterly revolting performance.

100% white males in Civil War battles? Nearly 100% white males at Normandy?!!! WTF. Black regiments fought in WWI for God’s sake.

As disgusting as it is, I guess he’s entitled to his opinion. But he’s NOT entitled to his own facts, and he’s NOT entitled to say that since the writers of our Founding Documents were 100% white males that only White Males should have a say over what happens in America. Just how far back would he turn the clock?

Color me irredeemably offended by that screed. Honestly, if I saw him at a bus stop tomorrow, I’d spit in his face.

And for him to imply that he’s the only one who knows anything about working class people? Infuriatingly ludicrous. I’m glad Rachel didn’t let him get away with that.

And comparing Sotomayor to Harriet Miers? WTF?

I’ve got reservations about Sotomayor, but I’d rather see a SCOTUS justice with decades of experience applying the law to real cases than someone (like Yoo or Bybee) who’s considered a brilliant theorist.

And “Antonin Scalia is a Legal Genius”? WTF? Did I miss something? IIRC, he only seems bright in comparison to Thomas and Alito.

SPIT!

FunnyWheelieDiva

Mornin’, pups -

It’s a given buchanan is gonna show up on the starbucks show……fits right in with the mentality of its host but the fact that he is a feature on every single other segment msnbc produces throughout the day is getting way past disgusting. Hall and shuster have been especially worthless in dealing with his rants in their laughing reaction to them……it’s almost an attitude of “Oh, he’s just our crazy uncle and you. know. how. he. is.” *snicker, snicker*

I’m just so disappointed in Rachel and, if some of the comments I read on other lefty blog threads yesterday are any indication, she’s gonna take a noticeable hit in viewership. One of the pups on a thread I missed here said something to the effect of being glad Rachel didn’t let him shout her down. Not sure if we were looking at the same show b/c on the one I was looking at, he OWNED her. The usual rethug habit of talking over *everything* the other person says and if the other person continues to talk, he just turns up the volume of *his* diatribe. It’s a given Rachel is an extremely smart woman and at no time did I see her score an effective putdown of the prick. I’ve never e-mailed her but today is gonna be the day. Apparently msnbc keeps him on b/c they *think* he is good for controversy and ratings; if that is the case, I beg to differ with their analysis. :-(

Pardon the rant but it doesn’t even *begin* to reflect the harshness of my reaction…..I’m so far past pissed you couldn’t get there from here.

Previous comment was based on viewing the original full segment during show. Just saw this clip, and it doesn’t show enough of the conversation, cuts off before the fur really started flying. If you didn’t see it, take a look at the MSNBC site or parts 2&3 on YouTube — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMaCAJjvekw and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woVJGGKjWyw.

He’s too mean to let the rabies win.

Wasn’t referring to you in my previous comment……I’m on dial-up and can’t watch vids but I saw the entire interview (if it could be called that :-[) live last night and my analysis reflects the totality, not selected clips.

Off for coffee with a neighbor. bbl

Fucking unindicted coconspirator.

He’s also not entitled to be paid to do all those things. I’d guess paid handsomely to boot. That’s the thing with all these offensive asshats,sure,they have freedom of speech,but freedom to get paid(often millions) for it? I don’t think that’s part of their 1st ammendment rights.

Good morning, pups. It’s Bobo and Krugman this morning. In “No Size Fits All” Bobo finds himself in agreement with the current administration. He says President Obama’s plan for producing more community college grads doesn’t throw money at the problem. It ties money to reform and has the potential to spur innovation. Prof. Krugman, in “The Joy of Sachs,” says Goldman Sachs’s record quarterly profits show us that the investment bank is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America.

Here they are.

The coffee and tea are ready, the cold drinks are in the fridge for later, and I’ve got some blueberry pancakes with fresh blueberries. This has been a wonderful year for berries of all types, the best I can remember in years.

I was watching Rachel last night, and hit the mute button fairly early on in Buchanan’s rant. I think I understand what Rachel is doing with him — giving him yards and yards of rope with which to hang himself, but I just couldn’t stand it last night. It’s way, way past time someone called him a disgusting troglodyte racist to his face, backed it up with about 4 hours of clips, and forced him to watch in silence. The latter would probably have to involve a ball gag. Damn. Now I’m as mad as I was last night when I mashed the mute button… Time for another cup of tea. Have a great day.

The question is not why does Pat Buchanan have a job, the question is Why does Jeff Immelt have a job.

I think that part of the problem is that he really IS their “crazy Uncle Pat.” My understanding is that the Pat Buchanon you get behind the scenes is kind and solicitous and the guy who remembers the names/ages/occupations/health issues of the families of his co-workers; on-air talent and gaffer alike. The fact that THAT guy could exist in the same person as the racist prick you get on-air is more dissonance than I can personally deal with. I have seen Rachel talking about him and there IS a sort of exasperated acceptance there.

Morning all.
I believe the best on air take down of MSNBCs resident white supremecist was by Lawrence O’Donnell over Obamas Notre dame visit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipJiUfbut9A
It really gets going at about 5:00 in

I’ve got reservations about Sotomayor

Tell me why you have reservations, please. Is there anything in her record on her views on Roe v Wade? All the press has been b.s., nothing of substance. So, I don’t know if she’s as liberal as we’re hoping.

The reaction to pats’rant in my house was stunned silence. Even when Rachel attempted to point out to him that she let him talk and now it is her turn, he just talked a little louder and never stopped. The converstional equal of school yard bullying.

That being said, it occurs to me that pat did exactly what was hoped for by Rachel, in that he pulled his racist pants down and exposed, in almost the most graphic terms possible, himself and the republican party for all to see. It is difficult to remember a more naked display of racism on tv since the ’60s.

Almost forgot, good morning all and thanks for the post Attaturk.

I’m pretty confident Pat Buchanan hasn’t read a law review article in about forty years.

I’m pretty sure he’s never been within a half mile of a law review at all. He has “a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia”. His career has been as a speechwriter and publicist, often for himself.

Son of a Virginia-born partner in a DC accounting firm, Jesuit trained at Gonzaga High, and further Catholic training at Georgetown, he is as he was trained to be. And yes, he’s another Republican who got a convenient medical deferment from the draft, in 1960.

A true son of white DC.

Does anyone know what happened at the sentencing of the racist who ran his PAC?

I saw it too and thought Rachel did a fairly good job but didn’t knock down some of his lies (such as ‘white men built this country’ wtf?). Another thing I wondered about, did SS really say she didn’t have the scores to get into Princeton? Or was that another lie?
Did you notice, however, that he didn’t use the word ‘militant’ to describe SS last night? He abandoned that word when he knew he’d be challenged.

Jesuit trained at Gonzaga High, and further Catholic training at Georgetown, he is as he was trained to be.

I’ll never believe that. I went to Catholic school. We were not taught to hate. And the Jesuits in the 60’s were quite liberal. Nope, he got it somewhere else.

OT, but hugely important: The New York Times in its lead editorial this morning has called for a “full investigation” of Bush era criminal conduct saying that it’s the only way we have to discourage this kind of conduct in the future.

White people were 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg…

WTF?

In that senseless war of honky vs. honky, non-whites were the only sensible ones for not letting themselves get shot up.

For most part, I find Buchanon’s outrageous viewpoints easier to tolerate than the insidious and bullying Scarborough. Buchanon occasionally even has the shadow of of decent thought mixed with the outrageous views. If they had him less often, always accompanied by Lawrence O’Donnell who continuously has his eyes fixed on Buchanon’s jugular, I wouldn’t mind him on display.

I didn’t have a problem with Rachel’s handling although I enjoy O’Donnell’s eagerness to go after Buchanon more.

“In January 2008 Epstein plea bargained to a charge of simple assault, as part of a settlement that included a letter of apology to his victim and a $1,000 donation to the United Negro College Fund. He will be in court again July 8, but because he met the terms of his settlement, Epstein’s employers expect the ordeal to end then and there. Epstein could not be reached for comment on Monday.”

You mean this one?

That is the one. Sentencing should have been last week.

This interview last night was all the proof we needed to the question why the white neocon race is becoming extinct! Maureen Dowd also explained…

http://community.nytimes.com/c…..5dowd.html

Buchanan should be ashamed of himself! Oh wait. One would have to have a conscience to be able to do that. Nevermind. Buchanan and others like him are cavemen. The End.

Anyone who knows the first thing about American history can see that those statements are examples of Buchanon desparately pulling arguments out of his butt. Even informed bigots could see the absurdity of those statements.

Just back from the big Orange and reading comments on the post about last night. Difficult to judge %s of the “Rachel did great!” contingent vs. “Why in the name of Dog did she give him *another* platform?” people. I’ve changed my mind on e-mailing her for no other reason than msnbc and Rachel are gonna be hit with a shit storm of reaction today and I will not lend my vote to encouraging the company to stir up even more of these mud slinging matches to gin up ratings. Spit!

MoJoe is talking healthcare and how much it’s going to cost. Has the CBO ever done an analysis on what one-payer would cost in taxes vs what Americans would pay in current system? I think it would be a savings.

I plan to write to MSNBC and Rachel’s website and state that for what it’s worth to them, I will stop watching if Buchanan is *ever* on Rachel’s show again. I think we have to flood them with complaints. Mine is only one voice. He was unbelievably offensive.

Oldnslow, I love “pulled his racist pants down and exposed, in almost the most graphic terms possible, himself and the republican party for all to see” — great phrase!! Exactly what he did. Unfortunately he outshouted Rachel, who remained incredibly composed.

Must go prepare for work. See all later.

Even informed bigots could see the absurdity of those statements.

You give them waaaaaay too much credit. :-(

That emoticon isn’t in reaction to what *you* said but my personal certainity that there is no such thing as an “informed bigot”. *g*

Let’s have a SPIT! parade, Funnydiva2002! :-)

I think if you asked George Will, for example, he would have to shrug and shake his head at those absurdities. When you see your guy start flailing blindly, you know he’s in trouble.

Good morning. I had to switch channels about 1/4 into the diatribe. Don’t know why Rachel has him on.

Speaking of positive stands against bigotry, Jimmy Carter is pulling out of the southern baptist church:

http://www.theage.com.au/opini…..0714-dk0v.

Having been reared one for 18 years, my reaction is “better late than never”. *G*

edit: That link doesn’t seem to work. I found it via this one:

http://www.democraticundergrou…..15;8531082

She wanted to give Pat enough rope to hang himself with. And she succeeded. :-) I’m sure Joe & Mika Scarborough will have Pat Buchanan on again and will praise the racist Pig for a job well done!

You think she won? At the beginning and briefly when I switched back, it sounded like he was winning hands down and she was being a total whimp. What changed?

No, she looked like the rational non-racist white American who was cool, concise, correct, and composed. Pat looked like the republican party of today: THE AMERICAN TALIBAN WHO HATES ANYONE WHO IS DARKER THAN PASTY WHITE. As an Italian woman myself whose skin is olive colored, Pat wouldn’t want me near him and he proved that last night.

Neither link worked for me.

Let’s try this one:

http://www.msmagazine.com/news…..p?ID=11819

[Fingers crossed]

eCAHN–there is no way she “won”, imo. I saw the entire segment, and she never sucessfully countered his argument. I was particularly disappointed in Maddow. This was in her house, and yet she left the field to him.

Buchanan exceeded my cringe factor by a large amount, but I fear that to many white voters Buchanan is a savior, no matter how cool & rational Rachel is. His foaming at the mouth just whets their appetites. I would have wanted her to counter his “evidence” or question it. In the part I watched I didn’t see that.

That’s what I observed at the beginning and couldn’t continue to listen to just him steamrolling her. As I said, I switched back briefly and saw the same thing.

She never came to grips with his main point, which was that affirmative action is prejudicial. So long as she left that point uncontested, all she could say was that America has a racial past that it has not yet escaped. Which is true, but does not hinder his argument.

Buchanon, like many of his rabid cohorts, does not yield the floor and just attempts to shout down anyone he is debating. They should not be allowed on unless the host has an on – off switch for their microphone.

Thanks all for the feedback. I’m moving outside to make more headway on Savage War of Peace (the definitive tome on the Algerian war of independence), some 566 pages long, while I finish my coffee.

The people who watch Rachel already know what buchanan is and the people who don’t watch her still won’t just b/c he is on….therefore, the basic question is: what is msnbc’s agenda? Only thing I can figure is to promote controversy for ratings pump.

Iirc, she never gave a solid closing argument but just made the “interview” go away with the excuse of being out of time.

Sorry, but PAT WAS TALKING OVER HER POINTS AND WAS LISTENING TO HER WITH HIS FINGERS IN HIS EARS.

No doubt Pat was exciting the neo-Nazis white supremacists of America last night! Sarah Palin will most likely put Buchanan on her team now.

OT but the Democrats have dropped the card check legislation.

She made the point that out of the last 110 Supreme Court judges, they’ve all been white men with the exception of 2. She made the point that Affirmative Action is to help those who are darker than pasty white to go to college and to have a good paying job. Both points Pat screamed over because he didn’t want to hear it. To Pat, it’s always been the white man who has been discriminated against. He believes Sotomayor was only picked because she’s Hispanic and not because she’s qualified to be on the US Supreme Court. Rachel said many times last night that she did not agree with Buchanan on any point he made. Oh, but Pat wanted to make sure his racist points were heard by the soon to be extinct white neocon males of America! Just because he was speaking loudly doesn’t make what he said as truth representing all Americans! He was speaking for the small majority of America who arm themselves and shoot those who are beige or darker to be heard.

And speaking of Lawrence O’Donnell, WHY doesn’t he have a show on MSNBC? Last week was the first time in AGES I have watched Hardball, because Chris was out and Lawrence was on. The rerun that damned show (here in the east it is on at 5PM and 7PM – why? How about an original show in there, with Lawrence O’Donnell hosting? He absolutely eviscerates when he wants to.

As an Italian woman myself whose skin is olive colored, Pat wouldn’t want me near him and he proved that last night.

Your comment reminds me of the old New Haven Lawn Club in the late 60s (I was taken there one day for lunch by Prescott Bush’s sister). They didn’t allow any Italians or Poles in. I don’t think Buchanan would have got in either. Isn’t he a Mick?

Please Kay, while I’m often in sympathy with what you have to say, I’m starting to squirm over this “pasty white” description. It reminds me of a document where the politically correct writer, after repeatedly discussing “people of color”, referred to the rest of us as “people of non-color.” I’m sure she considered and rejected “non-people of color.” After thinking about it, I decided we preferred to be called, “people of a normally pinkish hue.” :)

Late to the page….an Austin radio station suspended its early morning talkers for using the term “wetbacks”…our paper covered the story well and explained the historical context/slur of the word parallel to the N word.

Read about that somewhere earlier. Got the impression that the person didn’t just use the term one time, but repeatedly.

I think that’s right…with even the co-host calling him “out”. They are both off the air for 2 weeks. Glad you saw it.

Can somebody please tell Pat that law schools have blind grading, and that, therefore, Sotomayor didn’t get her grades or law review based on affirmative action?

And that she was the Editor of her Law Review…what about him?

Oh, but they all grade on the curve, according to Pat! And her superior grades had nothing to do with any of her educational achievements. What a racist idjit the man is.

On edit: and he wouldn’t have a platform if MSNBC didn’t love the controversy.

Loved that Rachel asked what his grades were at Georgetown. He fluffed the answer by saying his high school grades were better than Sotomayor’s (if I understood correctly — they were talking over each other at that point).

I wonder where those “100% white men” received the inspiration for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? HMMM!!!
Actually I believe that the owners of MSNBC know that Pat is beginning to “slip” and they only have him on in short periods to honor some contract. He is pathetic but I guess we should thank someone for letting us see what we are up against.

Plus, that’s not true. There were black units, even in the Civil War. It’s even worse that he asserted that the Normandy invasion was “almost 100% white males.” Bull$HiT! Blacks fought even in WWI, let alone WWII.
Despicable, repulsive man. And it’d be even worse if this is “just” his on-air persona. Worse than dishonest.

FunnyWheelieDiva

During WWII, African Americans were kept in segregated units, mostly with white officers, and often kept in supposedly support roles. Pat Buchanon had to have known about the famous “Red Ball Express” which was the black transportation unit which kept allied armies supplied over the long and dangerous routes from Normandy to the advancing front. He also had to have known about the 54th Massachussetts, the Civil War unit on which the movie Glory was based. They have fought in all wars in which the U.S. has been engaged. From the War of 1812 to the Korean War, they were forced be in segregated units. Pat Buchanon, who dropped out of college ROTC, has written supposed history books and knows that. That’s why I noted earlier that the absurdity of his statements was a sign of desparation and obvious to anyone.

Oh, but they all grade on the curve, according to Pat! And her superior grades had nothing to do with any of her educational achievements.

Yeah. A blind curve. ^-^