Pat Buchanan is now officially off MSNBC; he was basically fired and he didn't quit of his own accord as he makes clear in "Blacklisted, But Not Beaten" (link) [1].

To a certain extent, Buchanan played the same role on MSNBC that, say, Sean Penn might serve if he were invited to comment on Fox News. However, there were good reasons to keep him on the air and to oppose those who wanted to silence him. MSNBC president Phil Griffin admitted that taking Buchanan off the air was an attempt to stifle debate (a Griffin quote: "When Pat was on his book tour, because of the content of the book, I didn't think it should be part of the national dialogue much less part of the dialogue on MSNBC"). Attempts to stifle debate should be opposed, no matter who's involved. Plus, Buchanan is one of the few people given a microphone who actually opposes massive/illegal immigration (as opposed to just playing games) and who's generally on the right side of trade. Plus, those who wanted him off the air are far-left and what could be called "liberal fascists": Van Jones, Anti Defamation League, Media Matters for America, Human Rights Campaign, and others.

Given that, you might think that at least conservatives would have at least tried to keep him on the air.

So, why didn't they?

Some Tea Parties types are willing to drive hundreds of miles to wave loopy signs, yet they weren't willing or able to try to keep Buchanan on MSNBC. It would greatly serve Teaparty interests to oppose efforts by Van Jones, the ADL, MMFA, and the rest to stifle speech, yet they weren't willing or able to do anything. Why is that?

I've already given my answer in "Pat Buchanan off MSNBC: Van Jones and elites win; working Americans lose; Teaparty still incompetent", but now I want to hear from others especially conservatives and especially Teapartiers. Offer your explanation in comments.