Gay Patriot Header Image

MSNBC Gives Platform to Anti-Semite

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:18 pm - May 1, 2009.
Filed under: Ex-Conservatives,Media Bias

The left-wing network features more than just gay marriage opponents.  They’re also help pevent one of the most prominent anti-Semites in America from fading into a much deserved oblivion.  “Pat Buchanan, one of America’s leading conservative voices (sic), is a political analyst and regular contributor on MSNBC.

Does MSNBC just keep him on because they believe he’s a conservative and they so want to tar conservatism in general by his narrow-minded mean-spirited rantings?

No serious conservative considers Buchanan a part of our movement any longer.  He left the GOP to run for President on the Reform Party ticket and supports an economic (and foreign) policy totally at odds with anything the Gipper ever championed.

Plus, as the GOP and consrvatives in general have become more pro-Israel, he has become increasingly antagonistic to the Jewish State.



  1. I agree. Buchanan is a blow hard and should be put to pasture. But shall we even begin to talk about the credibility of some of folks on Fox News?

    Comment by Inlookout — May 1, 2009 @ 2:52 pm - May 1, 2009

  2. I take your point, GPW, but am personally agnostic on Buchanan. WFB was too, if I recall that NR cover story from back in the day.

    His economic views are demonstrably luddite (and probably closer to the sitting President’s than not). His WWII book of revisionist history was positively shameful in blaming Churchill for “provoking” Hitler into invading Poland among other nonsense. Plus, he’s still shilling for the worst (and most leftish) excesses of the Nixon administration.

    And, yet, despite it all, I still have a soft spot for this McLaughlin alum. Rachel Maddow’s first or second show, he came on and – in a three minute segment, mind you – managed to demolish all the straw men and other specious arguments she has carefully set up in the prior thirty minutes.

    I have to give that grudging respect.

    Best wishes,

    Comment by MFS — May 1, 2009 @ 2:57 pm - May 1, 2009

  3. Well if the choice was Buchanan or Sullivan – they chose the better candidate.

    Comment by Leah — May 1, 2009 @ 3:13 pm - May 1, 2009

  4. #1 – “But shall we even begin to talk about the credibility of some of folks on Fox News?”

    By all means, kiddo. Go ahead – cite specific instances of supposed lack of credibility. The burden of proof is on you.

    And if you can’t or won’t, it just proves that you are talking through your hat like every other liberal out there.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 1, 2009 @ 3:26 pm - May 1, 2009

  5. So is the new definition of anti-Semitism anything defined as “antagonistic to the Jewish state”, meaning however anyone wants to define it? If I disagree with Israeli policies, am I now anti-Semitic, as you imply? If I agree with Israel’s right to self-defense, but disagree with how they’re going about it and the U.S. role in support of it (diplomacy, materiel, money), I’m anti-Semitic? This kind of equation is meant to shut down any disagreement whatsoever with a magic epithet.

    Comment by Ignatius — May 1, 2009 @ 4:01 pm - May 1, 2009

  6. He is a limited Government, Anti Abortion, Anti-Gay, Bigoted, Pro Family, Close-the-Borders, Conservative who believes that the USA has had a lot of troubles over its overly blind support of Israel.
    And you think that makes him kicked out of your “movement”?!?!?!? HA!

    [Gillie, please take the former Secretary of State’s advice and do your homework before opening your mouth. First, your list above shows how ignorant you are of conservatives. Second, go familiarize yourself with Buchanan’s record, he’s adverse to free trade and free markets. I don’t know that I’d call him a liberal, but he’s clearly not a conservative. –Dan]

    I think I only agree with him on ONE issue. Yet I do not think he is a liberal
    Too funny.

    GPW – Is it me or does the quality of your posts go down in relation to their frequency?

    Comment by gillie — May 1, 2009 @ 4:47 pm - May 1, 2009

  7. Wow. Liberals don’t understand the concept of anti-Semitism. Big shocker.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 1, 2009 @ 5:59 pm - May 1, 2009

  8. gillie,

    Where do you get the idea that Buchanan is limited government?

    Since at least 1992, his positions have been statist and anti-free market. Perhaps you will recall that he was the left’s favored “conservative” during the NAFTA debates.

    You seem to be under the impression that he himself was tagged a liberal in the original posting. I’m curious how you got there.

    Best wishes,

    Comment by MFS — May 1, 2009 @ 6:18 pm - May 1, 2009

  9. Limited government? Pro-family? OMG! Does that make gillie anti-family? Pro-leviathan?

    Comment by SoCalRobert — May 1, 2009 @ 8:05 pm - May 1, 2009

  10. Statist?
    Pat B?

    No way.
    Isolationist maybe, but not statist all.

    Sorry guys, he is a conservative through and through.
    And a bigot
    kinda goes together doesn’t it? 🙂

    Comment by gillie — May 2, 2009 @ 12:28 am - May 2, 2009

  11. Still waiting for an example of so-called “credibility issues” with Fox News from our little people.

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    I rest my case.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 2, 2009 @ 3:17 pm - May 2, 2009

  12. Oh, come on gille.

    In 2000, when he accepted the Reform Party nomination, he was endorsed by later Socialist Party USA head Brian Moore based on his economic platform.

    Lani Guinier anyone? He dropped all the limited government talk after ’92.

    Yet another example of the perniciousness of Roe v. Wade. Any traditional catholic must ispo facto be a “conservative through and through.”

    Best wishes,

    Comment by MFS — May 2, 2009 @ 4:32 pm - May 2, 2009

  13. Finally, some one else has said it! There are only two votes in my life I regret. First, voting for Gov. Benedict Arnold not once, but twice. And voting for Pat Buchanan in the 1992 California Republican primary against President George H. W. Bush. He is so off the reservation. But, he suits MSNBC’s purposes. To make conservatives look bad. I comment on this on my blog. Thank you again for saying it!

    Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — May 3, 2009 @ 12:53 am - May 3, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.