DOWNLOADS: (101)

PLAYS: (142)

Embed

This weekend on PBS's The McLaughlin Group, we were treated to host John McLaughlin hoping for the return to the days of special prosecutor Ken Starr investigating another sex scandal. McLaughlin asked his panel what the probability that another special prosecutor would be assigned to investigate the recent sex scandal with members of the Secret Service hiring prostitutes and was met with a resounding "No!" by every one of his guests.

Pat Buchanan, who is still a weekly regular on this show on PBS despite his firing from MSNBC, told McLaughlin that there's no need for a special prosecutor unless the government is failing to do their job and investigate the matter themselves, which is not the case here. And Mort Zuckerman, who they had placed on the wrong side of the aisle as usual with Eleanor Clift, responded that "one Ken Starr was enough" in his lifetime.

That did not deter McLaughlin from proclaiming that there was an 80 percent chance that one would be assigned.

DOWNLOADS: (93)

PLAYS: (346)

Embed

MSNBC isn't the only network that needs to hear from their viewers that Pat Buchanan ought to be taken off the air. Buchanan is also a regular guest on PBS's The McLaughlin Group and this week was no exception with Buchanan and the other panel members being asked to weigh in on whether President Obama is going to have any trouble being reelected because of his failure to get some sort of immigration reform passed.

After one of the other guests, Susan Ferrechio pointed out the obvious, that there was no way Obama was ever going to get any type of immigration reform past a Republican filibuster and wavering Conserva-Dems in the Senate, it didn't take Buchanan long to go on a little tirade here about amnesty and whether the children of illegal immigrants who were brought here at a young age should be allowed a path to citizenship.

Eleanor Clift rightfully pointed out that any backlash that President Obama might be facing is likely to be more than offset by the likes of Buchanan and his ilk who have been hammering on the issue of illegal immigration for political gain for some time now.

After Clarence Page pointed out that what really has the Hispanic community upset is the number of deportations that we've seen soar under the Obama administration, host McLaughlin asked why we're not talking about just what activities they're doing that are considered illegal and what they actually contribute to our society and said we should welcome them with our aging population here in the United States.

After McLaughlin asked if easing refinancing for homeowners would earn him any Hispanic support back, Buchanan responded:

BUCHANAN: No and the immigration should be cut John because we've got twenty five million unemployed and underemployed and you're bringing in workers? […] Send them home and tell them to file their papers and get in line!

MCLAUGHLIN: It would ruin the economy! It would depress it even more! They're at the top of their profession, some of them.

BUCHANAN: They're agricultural workers!

As Eleanor Clift rightfully pointed out following that remark, immigrants whether legal or illegal are not the ones destroying the economy and if anyone wants some proof of that, just look at what happened in Alabama where farmers had crops rotting off of their vines.

Buchanan is the last person the viewers on PBS or any other network need to be hearing from when it comes to the topics of immigration, racism, or minority rights in the United States. As Nicole wrote here, Color of Change is asking that everyone sign a petition to MSNBC to get Buchanan taken off the air there. If you'd like to send PBS the same message, you can find their contact information here.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (99)

PLAYS: (335)

Embed

On this weekend's The McLaughlin Group on PBS, after host John McLaughlin asked his panel whether or not the Occupy Wall Street is going to have any impact on the upcoming presidential race next year and whether the movement is "transitory or enduring", Pat Buchanan responded by comparing the movement to the demonstrations we saw in the 1960's, proving once again that he still hasn't quit reliving his days from back in the Nixon White House.

BUCHANAN: It's going to be very damaging to the President for this reason if he gets too close to it because it’s going end very, very badly with these folks in the winter, and they’re not going to be getting publicity, they’re going to be acting up and acting badly, like the worst of the demonstrators in the 60's.

MCLAUGHLIN: You mean overnight camping? Things like that?

BUCHANAN: Well not just overnight camping. They’re going to start fighting with the cops.

Eleanor Clift followed up by noting that it was a Iraq veteran and not the police who was harmed during the Occupy Oakland protests and asked Buchanan which side he was going to blame for that. And both Clift and Page responded the they believe the group has staying power. As Page noted, they've already succeeded in changing the debate in America from deficit reduction, which is all you heard from these Villagers in the corporate media, to income disparity and the wealth gap, as demonstrated by the fact that they were even having that very conversation during this segment.

Buchanan and his ilk have been using the tactics of divide and conquer and fear for political gain in order to divide the working class against each other for decades now. I'm sure he's hoping they'll manage to do the same thing by demonizing the Occupy Wall Street movement as we've from him and his cohorts on Fox and in the right wing media ever since the movement started picking up steam and they could no longer ignore them completely.

DOWNLOADS: (453)

PLAYS: (1305)

Embed

Mitt Romney stood up for those poor downtrodden corporate "people" that those evil liberals who crashed his event in Iowa this Thursday were asking to have their taxes raised on, but if you're one of the long-term unemployed, well, it appears you're on your own.

During the Republican debate in Iowa, when asked if he would extend unemployment benefits for those who are about to lose their benefits in a few months, not only did Romney say that he would not extend them, but he also touted the idea of privatizing unemployment benefits and changing our current system to one offering unemployment insurance savings accounts.

What could possibly go wrong? I haven't read much on this, so I'm no expert and it would be nice to hear more from anyone who is in the comments section, but this just looks to this layman as another way to draw money out of another one of our social safety nets in the name of "personal responsibility." Romney said this would "make the system work better by giving people responsibility for their own employment opportunities." That's rich since they don't have much control over those "opportunities" if there are no jobs to be found in the first place. Not everyone's got a rich family and the "opportunity" to become some multimillionaire vulture capitalist like our buddy Mittens here did. Some of us have to make money the old fashioned way, like actually working for it.

And god knows with some of the greatest income disparity since the Gilded Age, we can't have our priorities be spending more money on anti-poverty programs, now can we? No, better to be reducing those taxes and burdensome regulations on those "job creators" because the have-mores are just struggling so badly right now in Mitt Romney and the GOP's fantasy-land. Heaven forbid we do anything to hurt their feelings or they might go Galt on us and leave the country and take their jobs with them.

Continue reading »