Beach Peanuts

Florida Watch Protests Koch's "Tentacles Of Influence" Into Florida Newspapers

Florida Watch Action will be protesting the potential sale of the Orlando Sentinel and other Tribune Company newspapers to the Koch Brothers in Orlando this afternoon. 

Protests have been held at other papers owned by the Tribune Company recently as well. At the Los Angeles Times, half their staff threatened to quit, should the Koch's buy the paper, and around 300 labor union members and activists protested earlier this week at an investment firm that holds a 20% stake in the Tribune Company. Last week another protest was held at the Chicago Tribune.

From Florida Watch:

The “billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have bought more politicians, think tanks, colleges and universities, and media outlets than you can shake a stick at," the group says in a promotion of the planned protest outside the Sentinel set for 5:30 p.m. Thursday.

"And their tentacles of influence are spreading further," the group said. "Now they are trying to purchase eight daily newspapers, including the Orlando and Sun Sentinel, to further their libertarian anti-government, anti-union agenda.”

The Tribune Company's CEO went on the defensive yesterday and sent an email to employees Wednesday calling speculation about a transaction premature:

“A sale transaction is only one of our possible strategic options, and there are many others.”

The Koch Brothers caused a similar stir when they began funding at Florida State University, funding that was subject to their approval of chosen professors, even though they claimed they would have no agenda or economics influence over the curriculum. They also fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Americans for Prosperity, Tea Party groups and the Cato Institute.

If they were to buy the newspapers in Florida, it would push much of the news influence far to the right, especially in the I-4 corridor, the more progressive part of the state. As Progress Florida puts it, it would be tantamount to a Tea Party takeover of Florida news:

The Koch Brothers are chief architects and funders of the extreme right wing political machine. They're behind corporate front group "think tanks" like the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute. The Kochs are also the largest funders of the Tea Party movement and are notorious peddlers of falsehoods about Medicare, Social Security, worker’s rights, climate change, and more.

It's important that local newspapers like the Orlando Sentinel and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel remain unbiased sources of reliable news, not as propaganda outlets for the Koch Brothers' extreme ideological machine. But if the Koch Brothers are allowed to purchase the Tribune Company, that is exactly what will happen.

There's a reason why freedom of the press is mentioned in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The health of our democracy is based on a well-informed citizenry. The Koch Brothers' attempt to subvert local media is a direct attack on this fundamental foundation of our country.

Related articles

The Florida GOP And Sick-Time: "Small Government" Hypocrites

Marco Rubio Has Shown His True Colors, And They Aren't Red, White, And Blue

Today's "Media Lack Of Self-Awareness Award" Goes To....Chuck Todd!

Yes, don't hate those other members of the media for being self-absorbed. They can't help themselves. But Chuck Todd, self-absorbed? Never:

It's not about him, people!!!

Meanwhile, we join Chuck Todd....on Chuck Todd, earlier in the day:

BREAKING! - VIEWERS TOO STUPID TO EMBRACE THE INTELLECTUAL HUMOR OF VERY SERIOUS JOURNALIST CHUCK TODD

Maybe no one found it amusing, considering that everyday Americans are actually suffering and are about to suffer more.

Or maybe no one was watching, period. Because these days if they want actual news, viewers have to turn on Comedy Central to get it from The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert. Sadly, the reverse is not true. When searching for an amusing distraction, no one says "Gosh, I just can't wait for Chuck Todd's austerity quip o' the day!"

Or, maybe they weren't tuning in at all, because they're tired of having the Chuckster insult their intelligence:

 

How does anyone get through the day without the brilliance of the Pundit Whisperer?

While we're on the subject, Mr. Todd, please explain how this whole sequester business got started in the first place? Better yet, how about a little history on obstruction, and the lack of Republican compromise?

Read: False Equivalence.

"Be nice" if we could get actual facts from the media, rather than having them beat the dead "both sides" horse? As Chuck Todd would say, "too much to ask, of course."

When I saw Todd's Woodward tweet this morning it reminded me of seeing him on an episode of "Real Time" years ago, when Jeremy Scahill called Todd out for wanting to be a rock star, and for not taking the facts on torture under Bush and Cheney seriously. At the time, Todd called talking about torture "political catnip." Later off camera, Todd accused Scahill of "taking a cheap shot" at him. When Scahill asked Todd to point out what he said that wasn't true, Todd said:

 "That's not the point. You sullied my reputation on TV."

Nope. Truth still isn't the point.

And still, it's really all just about Chuck Todd.

Shameless Request: Beach Peanuts Would Love Your Nomination For "The Fix" Best State Blogs List

The Washington Post's The Fix is again looking for nominations for the best state-based political blogs to put together a comprehensive list of where to find the best political news and analysis in each of the 50 states.

If you read Beach Peanuts and like what I have to say here, I would be so grateful for a shout out to be on The Fix list for Florida. 

From The Fix:

Here’s what we want from you. If you’ve got a favorite blog in your home state, your adopted home state or just a state whose politics you follow closely, submit it in our nomination form [here]. (You can fill out the form as many times as you like if you have a whole lot of blogs you like.) If you prefer to make your nominations via Twitter, just make sure it contains the hashtag #fixblogs.

There's so much to cover in Florida, and while there's no way I can cover all of it, (it's just me here, with a little assistance in my "art department") I do my best to choose some of the topics that I think are most important. 

Whether you nominate me or not, I appreciate all my readers, both the regulars and those of you who are new here, and I hope you'll keep coming back!

Thank you.

Martha Jackovics

 

 

Connie Mack IV Bites The Hand That Endorses Him

After spending the majority of his time recently attacking the Tampa Bay Times for pointing out facts and having the audacity to endorse someone other than himself, Connie Mack IV did manage to score somewhat of an endorsement from The Tampa Tribune over the weekend.

The Tribune found that, as conservative Republicans go, Mack is indeed a conservative Republican who votes consistently Republican, when he's in Washington that is.

Their endorsement: "But no candidate is flawless."

What can you say other than "you go with the candidate you have, not the candidate you want?"

One of the positive things they had to say for Mack was to call him "quick-witted." Quick-witted? Really? The Tampa Tribune may want to re-think that:

When you've lashed out at one Bay area newspaper, calling them "Left Wing" and "the National Enquirer of Florida politics," just because they didn't bow at the altar of Mack, the least you can do for the one that threw you a bone of an endorsement is to get their name right.

Connie Mack Attacks Reporter (Again) For Stating Facts

If you were already somewhat safely employed but had bigger ambitions and wanted to look for another job, would you do things like spend company money sending emails from work with copies of your resume on your employer's dime? Would you find a way to charge new suits for your interviews to your employer? Would you take off weeks at a time from your current job to go to those interviews and think nobody would notice?

Say you did all those things, and someone caught you doing them, and that person went and told your employer about it. Would you attack the messenger for pointing it out, belittle and insult them for doing so while invading their personal space, and then go on your merry way because after all, your Daddy once worked for the company, and for that reason alone you should just get away with it? Do you think your employer would ignore your actions and just say "No matter! Carry on?"

Probably not.

But say you were a member of Congress with bigger ambitions like running for the U.S. Senate?

Would you send out taxpayer funded emails to residents in districts you don't reside in and charge clothing from Brooks Brothers to your campaign, both of which are violations, attack a reporter by writing angry complaint letters because his paper was "mean to you" when it endorsed another candidate, and spend the majority of the time you had left over from that going to fundraisers?

Or would you do your job by showing up in Washington and actually voting once in a while?

If you thought to yourself, "Why, of course I would be in Washington voting, after all that's what I was elected to do," then you would not be Connie Mack IV.

Connie Mack has chosen to take the juvenile route on the low road described above rather than doing the job he already holds, hoping the taxpayers he represents won't notice. When a reporter calls him out on it, he attacks the reporter, no doubt hoping that if he plays the "evil liberal media" card from the sad and tired Republican playbook, said reporter will be intimidated and back off. Maybe bend entirely in the other direction toward the right no matter what the facts are in the hopes of no further attacks.

If that's what Mack is trying to do, it doesn't seem to be working for him, (although he's doing a really good job of making a fool of himself) and let's hope it stays that way, because facts are facts no matter how foreign facts may be to the Mack campaign:

Graphic: GovTrack

When a reporter from the Tampa Bay Times pointed out that Mack has been far from Washington a lot lately and missing a huge amount of votes, Mack doubled down on the juvenile intimidation antics and had his campaign fire off another angry letter, this one more ridiculous than the last:

Adam Smith
The Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Dear Adam, 

Since we recently (and appropriately) criticized you for unfairly attacking Connie while doing everything you can to protect Bill Nelson, your latest attack comes as no surprise. 

I guess you just can’t help yourself. 

You tweeted and reported that Connie missed votes this year.  What you didn’t mention is that when Bill Nelson was in Congress and running statewide for Governor in 1990, he had the absolute worst voting record of anyone in Congress. He missed a whopping 56% of his votes. Surely you must know that.

Once again you are acting like Bill Nelson’s Communications Director doing opposition research on your opponent while ignoring the record of your own candidate. The only thing that surprises me, Adam, is that you would do this so soon after being exposed. 

I’m sure Bill Nelson appreciates all your doing for him. But Adam, there’s still time for your redemption, and the people would appreciate that so much more.

Your friend,

Jeff Cohen

Why yes Rep. Mack, you're just too clever by half!

There's a scandalous headline for you:

"REPORTER "EXPOSED" FOR NOT MENTIONING 22 YEAR OLD VOTING RECORD!"

Seriously Rep. Mack??

Since you've shown so little interest in your current job, maybe it's best to let the grownup stick with the one you're running for.

Mitt Romney Goes Palin In Florida

"No questions!"

That apparently was the order of the day for Mitt Romney's campaign stop in St. Petersburg, Florida this morning. Several national reporters covering his campaign Tweeted how they announced on his campaign bus that there would be no questions, and others said reporters were blocked from Romney's rope line altogether. Not too surprising from the man with no plan beyond "lie, rinse, loot, repeat" but a bold move anyway. A common problem when you refuse to even take questions, much less answer any makes it appear you have none. For Romney it's worse: We've heard his ideas enough to know this about him already. If he can't stand the scrutiny of reporters, he certainly has no business trying to lead the country.

Is the plan to hide from world leaders and tough situations in a bunker somewhere for four years? If so, his campaign slogan should be "Mitt Happens."

Reporters weren't all that Romney was ducking either. He spoke "of" but not directly about "He Who Shall Not Be Named," George W. Bush. Sadly he couldn't escape the plague Bush legacy, as Dubya managed to snag him with an endorsement yesterday in spite of an elevator door with other plans. Too bad there, Mittens. Or as George himself would say: "Heh, heh!"

Romney also made it a point to avoid "He Who Shall Not Be Named Number Two," and that would be Florida Governor Voldemort, Rick Scott. (Not to mention his secondary title: "He Who Will Not Answer Questions From Reporters Either.") Scott could be an even worse albatross around Mitt's neck than Bush, given that their careers of crash and burn at the expense of others for profit mirror each other, it would be kind of like trying to launch a cruise to the White House with a nod from the captain of the Titanic. What better preview of what Romney would do to the country than showcasing what Scott has done (so far) to Florida? "Like disaster on a grand scale? Then Mitt's your guy!"

You're welcome.

So no, not a big surprise that Romney fears reporters almost as much as he fears having principles and a spine. It just seems natural that he would pull a Palin and refuse to further make a fool of himself. Why bother talking to the "little people" you may not be able to trick anyway?

Especially when, also like Palin, you've already won over the ones who really matter, the ones who would gladly finance the looting?

Ann Coulter: Marco Rubio Frightens Me

Romney, Christie, Romney, Rubio, Kyl........Or Christie.....?

Well, now that Mitt Romney is all but official, the Republican establishment is using the tactic they constantly accuse the other side of using. They're "forcing Romney down the throat" of GOP voters as their ever-willing enablers and pushers, the traditional media, continue their collective swoon over Marco Rubio as Veep to make Mitt easier to swallow. Unfortunately there's trouble in paradise. Turns out you can't force-feed everyone.

Right-wing fear factor fiction writer Ann Coulter is not about to let the good old boys in her party force Rubio down her throat, no sir! Shorter Ann Coulter? Bite me.

Appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos Sunday, Coulter said Rubio as Romney's VP pick would be a "mistake." Stephanopoulos explains on his This Week website:

“I think that would be a mistake because the same people who loved Rubio loved [former presidential candidate and Texas Gov.] Rick Perry,” Coulter told me Sunday during the “This Week” roundtable discussion. “I want someone who’s been a bit more tested.”

But Coulter, who is a firm Mitt Romney supporter, said the GOP frontrunner needs a running mate who is tried and tested, which, as a first-term Senator, Rubio is not.

This is a first for me, but if I were a Republican voter, I would be inclined to agree with Ms. Coulter,
although not for the same reasons. I would say Rick Perry's been tested, he's just failed all the tests so far. I don't know who those lovers of both Perry and Rubio are unless she's talking about the Tea Party. If that's the case then yes, Rubio would be a mistake. He sucked up to the Tea Baggies big-time to get their votes and once elected he showed his true establishment Republican colors and
they've soured on him for that. At this point the only groups that love Rubio are the GOP who see him as a savior, and the media. He hasn't been tested because he hasn't accomplished much of anything in his short time in the Senate beyond taking steps to bar women's access  to birth control.

Another observation here, on Coulter as a "firm Mitt Romney supporter." Far be it from me to point out that while this "woman of principle" may be a supporter of Mittens, that support isn't exactly so "firm." Why it seems like only yesterday when Coulter saw Romney as the Republicans best chance at losing the election when she said if they didn't run Chris Christie for President, "then Romney will win the nomination and we'll lose in 2012."

So who would Coulter prefer?

Coulter suggested Romney pick someone like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

“He’s been tested, he’s steady, he’s not frightening,” Coulter said of Kyl. “He could certainly step into the job.”

Let's address Jon Kyl first:

Huh?

Where did that pick come from? Did Coulter close her eyes and point to names on a list of choices and Kyl's name is where her bony finger landed? Did she zero in on him because he's retiring from the Senate soon and therefore has nothing better to do?

If she's going for the "most qualified to be the General in the War On Women" vote, Kyl would make sense. After all he enlisted in the War On Women long before it was fashionable. Early on in the health care reform fight, during negotiations for required employer benefits Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) made the case for maternity care. Kyl objected, saying:

“I don’t need maternity care, so requiring that on my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.”

Then there was the incident that, in a perfect world, should disqualify him from office of any kind. That was the one where, during a budget debate on the Senate floor, he made the now infamous blatantly inaccurate statement:

If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that's well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does."

Of course, only 3 percent of the work Planned Parenthood does involves abortion. When CNN asked Kyl to explain his statement, that explanation made him a national joke and inspired comedians everywhere, not to mention it's own hashtag on Twitter. (#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement)

"We did call [Kyl's] office trying to ask what he was talking about there. And I just want to give it you verbatim here. It says, 'his remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.'"

Kyl may not be a "frightening" figure to Ann Coulter, but I doubt many others share her enthusiasm or feel the same way. As far as the Republicans go, anyone who would go as far as Kyl does when it comes to keeping women in their place and where they belong: In a kitchen, barefoot and perpetually pregnant, Kyl's their man. He'll say anything!

He could face fierce competition from Coulter's other choice, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. As an
op-ed from the Times of Trenton said yesterday, in conjunction with Women's History Month:

....it’s not just about whether Christie believes in a woman’s “right to choose.” It seems he doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to ... well ... anything.

....Ever since taking office, through both policy and his words, the governor has consistently unleashed a wholesale assault on the women of New Jersey. Some of the things he’s said and done along these lines would make even Rush Limbaugh blush.

Christie scores high with the GOP not only for his anti-women's rights cred, but he would prefer
putting gay marriage up for a vote rather than merely whipping out his veto pen for a gay marriage bill. Also like Romney's "corporations are people my friend" beliefs, Christie joins the growing number of states Republican lawmakers letting the corporations and ALEC write the legislation.

So if there's someone out there who actually takes her opinions seriously, sure. Either of Coulter's VP picks have more experience toeing the party line than Marco Rubio, but I would have to ask that person why they take her seriously? Why does anyone? Why does George Stephanopoulos bring her on the air and ask her, as if she were some sort of expert?

It wasn't that long ago that she said Mitt Romney would cost Republicans the election and only Chris Christie as President could save them. Today Romney is their only hope to win. Could former savior Christie as number two seal the deal? Maybe, maybe not.

As always, when it comes to Ann Coulter's "words of wisdom," they should be followed with a disclaimer. Or maybe, to quote Jon Kyl:

#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

Photos, Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio, Screenshots, YouTube

Why Are We Giving The "Game Changers" A Free Pass?

I read a few reviews of the HBO movie "Game Change" before it aired, and I wasn't sure I cared to watch it. So many said that it was geared towards making Sarah Palin a sympathetic character and a victim. Since we all lived the nightmare of 2008, most of us already knew better. She was no victim.

I did watch it though, fully prepared for that predicted portrayal of Palin, but I was pleasantly surprised. Rather than a Sarah pity party, it actually portrayed her similar to the wingnut narcissist we've come to witness in the last few years. If anything, they may have just toned down the crazy a notch or two.

The most sympathetic character seemed to be John McCain. I was struck by how he was made out to be not just the "hero" as per usual, but the "movie McCain" seemed almost competent, aside from the scene where he refuses to "deal" with Palin out of fear she'll "turn on him too." (So heroic.) I'll give McCain credit for explaining the truth to a voter that President Obama was a decent man rather than a terrorist, but other than that, I wouldn't say "competent to be President" described the McCain of 2008. Nor did many voters, thank God.

But what bothered me the most wasn't in the movie.

What bothered me in the past, and bothers me even more since the movie came out is the way traditional media is giving a free pass to the real life "Game Changers," Steve Schmidt in particular, and enabler Nicole Wallace. Schmidt is the one who picked Palin, and Wallace, who was not only tasked with the impossible job of turning Palin into someone who looked like she had a clue, but has gone on to write a novel inspired by what she calls a woman who is "cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs" making it to the White House. How quaint.

Here's my question: Why is the traditional media treating these two like mere candid celebrities who act as if they were on the outside looking in? Granted, I suppose we shouldn't be completely surprised, after all it's been well documented by several bloggers that members of past failed GOP Administrations, among others, fill the majority of the time slots on the network Sunday shows rather than members of the Democratic party who are actually well accomplished. Time after time on the major networks, when an expert on certain policy or electoral politics is needed, the media loves a failure. Who better to ask how to win an election than someone who has made a career of failed ones? It boggles the mind.

But Schmidt and Wallace? Please. Schmidt is a political analyst for MSNBC who is trotted out for his expertise on all things political much like another popular GOP failure, Michael Steele. (Full disclosure, I'm a fan of most of MSNBC's programming and many who work there, but I have to wonder why they picked these two?)

Wallace on the other hand pops up whenever Palin's name is mentioned for more than just her routine "I'm a victim, watch my temper tantrum!" antics. Whenever Palin "must be discussed" in detail, there's Wallace all bubbly and willing to trash her as if she were just a mean girl sorority sister of hers rather than a bumbling, ignorant woman unleashed on gullible voters who Wallace knows better than any of the viewers.

Excuse me if I don't jump in line to congratulate these two for telling the real story behind their campaign, because what these two did to damage our politics and nearly our country wasn't a "Game Change." It was a horror show.

The McCain-Palin "Country First" campaign was a travesty that never should have happened. Schmidt and Wallace knew it never should have happened, but they were perfectly willing to do whatever it took to put "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran, but seriously folks" McCain and Palin, who seems to have the mental age of a spoiled 5 year old but with less smarts, into the two highest offices in America. Yes, the man who was more afraid that his running mate would turn on him if he dared criticize her than he was fearful that she might one day gain access to and put her finger on the button and take us all out in an atomic blaze of God fearing glory, or whatever it is she believes.

I heard one interviewer say how noble it was of Schmidt to stand up to Palin and deny her the chance to give an unprecedented VP concession speech. Yes, if true, that was a point in the movie where viewers no doubt were cheering Schmidt on. But what would have been more patriotic was if he had never placed Palin and this entire country in that position in the first place. He never should have chosen Palin to run.

Wallace claims she was horrified with Palin and couldn't work with her. She's also admitted that when the time came, she couldn't even bring herself to vote. I suppose she feels we should thank her for that and say "all better now?" Nope, sorry. What would have been impressive was if she would have spoken up during the campaign rather than after we were lucky enough to dodge an electoral bullet.

Sure, they know they were wrong to do what they did, and they say they've learned from their mistakes. I'm sorry, but I don't think that's good enough. As all seems to be forgiven from the media standpoint, Schmidt now pontificates GOP strategy in the current election, which gives me pause. Have we learned from the mistakes made on behalf of the GOP in the 2008 election? I don't think so. Just look at the current field of Republicans who are left. I wouldn't call them much of an improvement on McCain-Palin. Rather than learn from previous mistakes, they've merely doubled down on them.

No, today's Republicans aren't any more concerned with putting the country first than the 2008 crew were. They see the entire race as a game, so "shaking things up" with a "game change" is all they have left. Wouldn't it be nice if someone from the Republican Party, or say an analyst or novelist who brought us to the brink would actually be bold enough to not only say that, but try to change things for the good of the country instead of continuing to play along?

Now that would be a true "Game Change."

Ron Paul Tells The Press To Get Off His Lawn, Again

"We'll Have To Leave It There" (YouTube)

Remember a while back when Ron Paul walked out on a CNN reporter because he didn't like her questions about those old newsletters? Well, today he did it again.

Reporter Dana Bash of CNN was initially asking Paul about his campaign presence (or the lack thereof) in Florida, but then asked him about a woman who complained Paul didn't spend enough time talking to voters during an earlier campaign stop in Manchester, New Hampshire. Paul cut off the interview, and his campaign manager shouted at Bash afterwards.

Paul is placing the blame for both this incident, and the previous one on the press.

Yes, by all means blame the media....for asking those pesky questions. It's funny how Paul, and the other Republican candidates either cut off questions from the media and voters when a particularly uncomfortable or tough question is asked, or they suddenly have no time left and must make a hasty retreat to "another event."

In Paul's case, it's a bit ironic to suddenly want to chastise the press who up until recently he claimed wouldn't give him the time of day. Now that they're giving him air time, they're asking "junk questions" or causing controversies, which in turn causes Paul to get in touch with his inner cranky, rip off his mic and flee.

If Paul and the other candidates can't handle tough questions from the media and voters, or any questions at all for that matter, they should get off the trail.

Here's the video of Paul's latest tantrum with CNN:

 

 

Memo To MSNBC: Pat Buchanan Needs To Go

When is enough enough?

From a network that routinely suspends and dismisses its anchors for saying things it doesn't like, I can only assume that MSNBC is good with its resident bigot Pat Buchanan. Buchanan, as far as I know, has never been suspended or thrown off the network for making outrageous and offensive statements, and he's done it again. He's now an apologist for the crimes of extremist Anders Breivik in Norway. As Think Progress noted (below) Buchanan seems to think Breivik "may have had a valid point."

Offering his take on the horrendous terrorist attacks in Norway, Buchanan joined the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post in arguing that the far-right extremist perpetrator Anders Breivik may have had a valid point. Arguing that Breivik was bringing attention to his cause, “a Crusader’s war between the real Europe and the ‘cultural Marxists’ and Muslims,” Buchanan declares that, on the “climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world…Breivik may be right“:

But, awful as this atrocity was, native-born and homegrown terrorism is not the macro-threat to the continent.

That threat comes from a burgeoning Muslim presence in a Europe that has never known mass immigration, its failure to assimilate, its growing alienation, and its sometime sympathy for Islamic militants and terrorists.

Europe faces today an authentic and historic crisis.

With her native-born populations aging, shrinking and dying, Europe’s nations have not discovered how to maintain their prosperity without immigrants. Yet the immigrants who have come – from the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia – have been slow to learn the language and have failed to attain the educational and occupational levels of Europeans. And the welfare states of Europe are breaking under the burden.[...]

As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.

The sad reality is that Buchanan helps mainstream anti-Muslim intolerance. A regular MSNBC contributor and frequent guest on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Buchanan once invoked the Nazis’ attempt to march in Skokie, Illinois as an argument against the Islamic Center proposal in New York. He also used this platform to defend Rep. Peter King’s (R-NY) “McCarthyesque hearings” on the threat of terrorism from American Muslims, saying American Muslims are “most susceptible or vulnerable to the recruitment” by terrorists who will “radicalize them and make them enemies of America.”

It's people like Pat Buchanan who fan the flames of intolerance again and again, (and when the flames contribute to an actual fire, they absolve themselves of blame) and you would think that would rate MSNBC disassociating themselves from him. This is only the latest example in a long line of outrageous, bigoted and racist statements Buchanan has made. 

Before I'm accused of not believing in free speech, that isn't the case. Far from it. But MSNBC routinely bans and fires people who don't share their views, and suspends anchors for saying offensive things about FOX-GOP-TV anchors who make statements similar to Buchanan on a regular basis, but if a statement like the one above by one of their own is OK, that's practicing quite a double standard. 

By continuing to put Pat Buchanan on the air and giving him a platform to say things like this brands the network as the same, and we can only assume that Pat Buchanan in turn speaks the views of MSNBC or he, like others, would be banned, suspended or fired. 

Clearly, by their own standards, MSNBC feels the same as Buchanan.

If not, then Pat Buchanan needs to go.