Rachel Maddow Slams Pat Buchanan (He: 'This Has Been A Country Built Basically By White Folks')

Run time: 10:53 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0LiydCYJQs   Posted on YouTube: July 17, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: July 17, 2009 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 12453

 
MSNBC The Rachel Maddow - July 16, 2009: Pat Buchanan goes full-tilt bigot.

I meant to type up a partial transcript after I posted and got working on another post and forgot to come back to this one.

Care of, unfortunately, Newsbusters, but it should be accurate, because the columnist who posted it was making the point that Maddow was civil in her interviews:


RACHEL MADDOW, HOST: One prominent Republican who believes that the Republicans did not make enough of the issue of race at the Sotomayor confirmation hearing is my MSNBC colleague, Patrick J. Buchanan, who argued in his column this week that the hearings should have been seized even more by Republicans to try to win over white conservatives who feel aggrieved by racial issues.

He says, quote, "These are the folks that pay the price of affirmative action when their sons and daughters are pushed aside to make room for the Sonia Sotomayors. What Republicans must do is expose Sotomayor as a political activist whose career bespeaks a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males."

"Even if Sotomayor is confirmed," Pat says, "making the nation aware she a militant supporter since college days of ethnic and gender preferences is an I assignment worth pursuing."

Joining us now is my MSNBC political colleague, Pat Buchanan.

Pat, it is-it's been far too long since you've been on the show.

It's so nice to see you.

PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to see you, Rachel.

MADDOW: So, your argument is that Republicans could reap political rewards by making the argument that Sotomayor essentially doesn't deserve to be on the supreme court, that she's only there because of her race. Is that-is that-did I understand your argument correctly?

BUCHANAN: Well, I think I would vote no on Sonia Sotomayor the same way I would have voted no on Harriet Miers-and I said so the first day she was nominated.

I don't think Judge Sonia Sotomayor is qualified for the United States Supreme Court. She has not shown any great intellect here or any great depth of knowledge of the Constitution. She's never written anything that I've read in terms of a law review article or major book or something like that on the law.

And I do believe she's an affirmative action appointment by the president of the United States. He eliminated everyone but four women and then he picked the Hispanic. I think this is an affirmative action appointment and I would vote no.

MADDOW: And what do you-what do you think that affirmative action is for?

BUCHANAN: Affirmative action is to increase diversity by discriminating against white males. As Alan Bakke was discriminated at the University of California at Davis; As Brian Weber, that worker in Louisiana was discriminated against; As Frank Ricci and those firefighters were discriminated against; As Jennifer Gratz, was discriminated against and kept out of the University of Michigan which she set her heart on, even though her grades were far higher than people who were aloud in there.

That's the type-affirmative action is basically reverse discrimination against white males and it's as wrong as discrimination against black females and Hispanics and others. And that's why I oppose it.

MADDOW: I obviously-I have a different view about it, but I want to give you a chance to explain what you.

BUCHANAN: But why do you have a different view? Why is it OK to discriminate against white males?

MADDOW: Well, let me-let me just-let me ask-let me ask you this.

BUCHANAN: Sure.

MADDOW: Why do you think is that of the 110 Supreme Court justices we've had in this country, 108 of them have been white?

BUCHANAN: Well, I think white men were 100 percent of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100 percent of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100 percent of people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Probably close to 100 percent of the people who died at Normandy.

This has been a country built basically by white folks in this country who are 90 percent of the entire nation-in 1960, when I was growing up, Rachel-and the other 10 percent were African-American who had been discriminated against. That's why.

MADDOW: But does that mean that you think that there are 108 of 110 white Supreme Court justices because white people essentially deserve to have 99.5 percent of those positions? That there's nothing-that doesn't reflect any sort of barrier to those positions by people who aren't white. You think that's what they've-you think that's just purely on the basis of what white people have deserved to get?

BUCHANAN: I think a lot of people get up there for a lot of reason, but my argument would be: get the finest mind you can get. Get real scholars. Whether you agree with Bork or Scalia or not, they're tremendous minds and I think there are other minds. I'm sure the Democratic Party, I'm sure has women there that can stand up head-to-head with Scalia and make the case, who have got tremendous credential, knowledge, background.

But this one doesn't have that. She was appointed because she's a Latina, a Hispanic and a woman.

MADDOW: She's also.

BUCHANAN: I mean, look at.

MADDOW: She is also the judicial nominee who has more judging experience than any judge has gone up in, say, in the past, I don't know, what is it, 70 years? She has been an appellate court judge of some distinction for a lot longer than Judge Roberts was, Judge Alito was. I mean, it's not like she was-she was picked out.

BUCHANAN: Rachel.

MADDOW: . she was like picked out of the minor leagues and brought up here, Pat.

BUCHANAN: Listen, it certainly is. Look at her own words in "The New York Times," from the tapes. It's in "The New York Times," June 11th. She said, "I'm an affirmative action baby."

MADDOW: Yes.

BUCHANAN: I got into Princeton on affirmative action. I got into Yale. I didn't have the scores that these other kids did.

How did she get on Yale law review? Affirmative action. How did she get on the federal bench by Moynihan? Moynihan needs a Hispanic woman just like Barack Obama needs a Hispanic woman.

That is not the criteria we ought to use, Rachel.

MADDOW: But, Pat.

BUCHANAN: ... for Supreme Court justices, conservative or liberal.

That's why I opposed Harriet Miers. I said I know she's going to vote with me. She's a good Christian woman. She's probably a fine lawyer, but she's not Supreme Court material, and neither is Sonia Sotomayor.

And I think-I think you know that, Rachel.

MADDOW: I don't know that at all.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: And I would say that if you and I agree that what our country needs is to be able to choose from the largest possible pool of talent in order to be able to pick the people who are going to have to function at the highest levels so that our country can compete and our country to do all the hard things we need do, I would hope that you would see that picking 108 out of 110 white justices.

BUCHANAN: Rachel.

MADDOW: . to the Supreme Court means that other people aren't actually being appropriately considered. And the reason that you have affirmative action is that you recognize that the fact that people were discriminated against for hundreds of years in this country means that you sort of gained the system, unless you give other people a leg up.

BUCHANAN: It is not. It does not.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: ... the best schools and the best jobs-hold on, I let you talk for a while.

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: She was put into the best schools. She was put into the best schools.

MADDOW: That's right. She was.

BUCHANAN: Of affirmative action, not because of ability, Rachel. She was put there, she said herself, because of where she came from. She's a Hispanic woman. She's from Puerto Rico. That's why she was passed over. Other students who applied there with better scores who were denied the right to go to Princeton.

MADDOW: Do you think that she got the grades that she got at Princeton on the basis of affirmative action, too?

BUCHANAN: I think what they do in the Ivy League, and you know it as well as I do, that half the class graduates cum laude these days.

MADDOW: How did you do at Georgetown compared to how she did at Princeton?

BUCHANAN: I'll tell you, I graduated higher in my high school, I will bet or as high as she did. And I certainly say, in Georgetown, I did. And I'll tell you, I will match my test scores against her-but I'm not qualified for the United States Supreme Court.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: But, Pat, for you to argue that there's no basis on which the United States benefits.

BUCHANAN: Right.

MADDOW: . from having Hispanics be among the people who we choose the best and brightest from defies belief.

BUCHANAN: I don't.

MADDOW: The idea that you think we'll best serve by only choosing among 99.9 percent white people.

BUCHANAN: Hold it. No, no, no.

MADDOW: . to hold these jobs, I don't believe you believe it, Pat.

BUCHANAN: I-hold on-I believe everybody should get a chance to excel and be on the United States Supreme Court. But if I look at the U.S. track team in the Olympics, and they're all black folks, I don't automatically assume it's discrimination. I will say, "I think maybe those are the fastest guys we got, that maybe they're the fastest guys in the country, maybe they're the fastest in the world. If they're all-our Olympic team in hockey is eight white guys from Minnesota, I don't assume discrimination.

Why do you assume discrimination simply because you got one component on the Supreme Court? Where is the genius you think who's a woman and a feminist who sure ought to be on that Supreme Court? Go for her. Don't go for an affirmative action person you know was picked because she's a Latina and because she's a woman.

MADDOW: Pat, when I look at the United States Supreme Court and I see 108 out of 110 white people, I see 108 out of 110 men. I'm-I don't look at that and think, "God, white guys are naturally better at this type of work than other people who aren't getting these jobs." I don't think that way.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: I want to hear you-I would love to hear your answer as to whether or not you think that is what explains it, too. Because, I think, what the more obvious explanation is, is that you have to be a white guy in order to get considered for these jobs and has been true since the dawn of time in this country.

BUCHANAN: No.

MADDOW: That's starting to break up now so that we can tap a bigger pool of talent. You should be happy about that for your country, Pat.

BUCHANAN: I do. I do. I'm happy when you got all 78 firemen can take a test, but if all the guys that win in the test are all white guys and one is Hispanic, I don't say, automatically, the test was fixed, bias, bigoted against black people, because I don't know that, Rachel.

And those guys did well in that test and they are victims of this evil affirmative action policy which says in effect that everybody's covered by the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws unless you're a white male and your parents and ancestors came from Europe. Then we can discriminate against you. That's what I am against.

MADDOW: Pat, do you-do you-are you happy that we've got a Latino on the Supreme Court for the first time or we're about to? Does that seem like a positive thing for the country?

BUCHANAN: I would-I think the Republicans had an outstanding Latino who had outstanding grades, who was brilliant and was gutted, Miguel Estrada.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: Let me just ask you a question before going to talk about some other Latino who's not in question here. Are you happy for the United States of America for our prospect as a nation that we'll be the best that we can be, that there is a Latino on the Supreme Court for the first time ever, that that glass ceiling is broken. Do you see it as a positive thing?

BUCHANAN: If you say, be the best question we can be. We're not being the best we can be with Sonia Sotomayor and I think you know it.

MADDOW: Pat, I couldn't disagree with you more. I tribute-I credit you sticking to your gun. I think you're absolutely wrong about this and I think that by advocating that the Republican Party try to stir up racial animus among white voters.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: You're dating yourself.

BUCHANAN: I say, you know, I think what they ought to do-they ought to defend the legitimate rights of white working-class folks who are the victims of discrimination, because that's the right thing to do and because it's the politically right thing to do. It so happens that here, that doing the right thing is the right political thing, standing up for Frank Ricci. We saw the face of-the face of a victim of these policies.

Rachel, you and your friends admire up there and in New York and you never look at these guys who are working class guys with their own dreams, just like Sonia Sotomayor.


MADDOW: Pat, I don't need a lecture from you about whether or not I know what working class.

BUCHANAN: You certainly do, Rachel.

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: I really don't need a lecture from you about what I think about working class Americans or what anybody else in New York, including Sonia Sotomayor who grew up in the Bronx thinks about working-class Americans.

BUCHANAN: What do you think?

MADDOW: A lot of things divide us, Pat. Race is one of those. But there's a lot of other ways in which we just gratify as a country, and for you to privilege race and say that what we really need to make sure we tap, politically, is white people's racial grievances, you're playing with fire and you're dating yourself. You're living in the 1950s, Pat.

BUCHANAN: Maybe I'm dating-I'm dating in the 1960s when the civil rights act was passed. Do you think Frank Ricci and those guys were treated justly when they were denied that promotion because they were white?

MADDOW: Pat Buchanan, MSNBC political analyst-I'm very sorry that we're out of time. It's nice to have you back on the show, Pat. Thanks.

BUCHANAN: I've enjoyed it. As I always do, Rachel

I gave you the #50 rec!

beyond disgusting.

for MSNBC to stop putting Buchanan on the air.

Republican bigots need more exposure. The political demographic has changed, and the more insane and disgusting they appear the more voters run from them.

Sign this petition: Ask MSNBC to Fire Pat Buchanan

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ask-msnbc-to-fire-pat-buchanan

Infact, they might alreayd know his views and this may not be a surprise

he is really playing with fire and digging up the old George Wallace rhetoric of the past

Overt racists of that virulence are mostly dying out. Thank God.

Unfortunately, they are still here and will, most likely, always be with us. Perhaps the politicians of today are more careful, but the racism is still there. George Allen was a perfect example.

I'm 22 and can say that in my opinion all those idiots have done is pass their crap down to their children and grandchildren. It maybe fewer of them later on, but racism will never die.

do not for one minute fool yourself with that line of thinking. The children of these idiots are all on the internet--and that's how they're keeping their numbers of followers.

There is going to be some bs jumping off before this summer is over.

They couldn't win on the right-wing religious BS, so now they're dropping their cover and trying the blatant tack. MSNBC will never get rid of him because he provides good television.

because he would have created an audience of his own that continue to spread his kind of idealogy.

I'm a liberal and voted for Obama, but you can't tell me that white people are immune from discrimination. Affirmative action is not judging someone by the content of the character rather than the color of their skin. Apart from being unfair, it treats the symptom of inequality, not the cause. Put more money into early education and you'll find the playing field will become more even.

od minorities have the power to exploit white males AS A CLASS?

No--

She was admitted into Yale Law School in 1976.
1976.
That was 33 years ago.
Should she be blacklisted because of that?
Should everything she has accomplished in those 33 years be viewed as illegitimate because in your eyes and the eyes of Pat Buchanan, she had no right to those accomplishments because she her education as a recipient of affirmative action?

What on earth are you going on about judging people by the "content of character" rather than color of skin?
Do you really think the content of Sotomayor's character has been ignored?
Did Yale Law School and Barack Obama happen to see a feminine, hispanic name on some piece of paper and choose her on that basis?
Kids who get into Ivy League schools by way of affirmative action aren't just some academic fuck ups who are thrown into prestigious schools for the hell of it.
These are brilliant kids who may have slightly lower test scores or GPAs than a white applicant.
It is often the "content of their character" that makes them more compelling selections.

Of course, when George W. Bush was accepted to Yale and Harvard despite his low test scores because of his family name, that wasn't affirmative action.
Oh, no.
That's called being a "legacy scholar."
That's not about race or personal hardship; its about money and social status.
So, see, its completely different.

And. no.
No group is completely immune from discrimination.
Still, to connect Judge Sotomayor's appointment to the discrimination of white people is absurd.

I was responding to an implication that white people aren't discriminated against, which simply isn't true. Not once in my post do I state that Sotomayor isn't qualified. She is. You should read more carefully next time.

If you use that to counter me by saying "well without affirmative action she wouldn't have this opportunity," I would say that we will never know what a snubbed white or Asian (or whoever may have been mroe qualified) student would have accomplished in her place.

In regards to Bush, I also despise legacy students. Like affirmative action, it is a form of admission based on political factors. The way that I see it, the most deserving students should be admitted. As for affirmative action students having "slightly lower" scores, I guess you haven't experienced this snubbing first-hand. There were students in my high school who had FAR inferior scores to myself and others, yet universities were literally throwing money at them because of their skin color. Is that fair? No. Believe me, if you had experienced this yourself, you'd be pretty bitter about it too. Until you do, it's all pie in the sky and sounds fanciful.

Even on DU - where we ought to understand this issue better - there are so few references to actual policy.

I don't know if you've looked at the rate of college admissions by race, but from my perspective as part of the Wisconsin system, there is no danger anytime soon of underqualified minorities pushing aside whites as far as the number of admissions. Part of the reason for the persistence of white over-representation in most universities is this: while on one hand, affirmative action, after being restricted significantly by several significant court cases, essentially amounts to greater reporting requirements, allowing racial identity to count as one factor among some employers and universities, and occasional efforts to advertise job openings in publications that target minorities. On the other hand, the systematic effects of racial discrimination on life chances are still reflected in the lives of most American minority groups through higher rates of poverty, inadequate public school facilities, health disparities, unemployment and incarceration, and pretty much any other measure of economic and social health you can name.

The bottom line is - even with affirmative action, the least understood policy issue in recent history, I see no convincing evidence that members of minority groups are systematically advantaged in employment or employment opportunities in the United States. You can look at individual cases such as the U of MI admissions case or the firefighters case and have a legitimate discussion of the effectiveness or constitutionality of these policies, but I'm pretty sure that when you crunch the numbers, embedded institutional racism more than makes up for the presence of limited affirmative action policies. I would challenge you to find some real-world evidence where these policies result in the systematic disenfranchising of white people. Achievement gaps persist, and racial identity continues to impact life chances in the United States - to the negative if you happen not to be white. There is no denying this sociological fact.

IOW, rest assured - the systematic advantages of being white in America, on average, are still intact. I think that the idea of "most qualified" is a myth anyway. If you've ever made human resources decisions, you would probably agree that once you get to the top 25% of applicants, every one of them can do the job, but the way that people evaluate individual qualifications vary (i.e. Obama vs. Clinton, remember that?).

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Justice Sotomayor is definitely leagues ahead of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Those four are just ideological hacks who couldn't give a shit about justice. Their concern is about privilege. They reek of corruption. And somehow we're supposed to have honor for our Supreme Court. They are dangerous and dishonorable men.

And the Supreme Court's history is riddled with horrific stories and blunders in judgment. Sotomayor is a breath of fresh air simply because she has a hell of a lot more experience. Whether she's going to lean right or left is anyone's guess but at least she's not picked simply because she'll do the bidding of big business and the wealthy, which is all the above four are about.

a legal scholar in a public forum Scalia gets dismissive and changes the subject, hence no video or audio recordings permitted when Scalia is in such a setting.
He was a second hand attorney who made his bones in the Nixon White House where he was known as Nino or Tony The Fixer.
He does know how to bully, and that's his strong suit. He can be very charming, but he can't be trusted.
He reminds me of a Soprano's character.

He's a genius compared to Clarence "whatever Tony said" Thomas.

Prime Time at Faux.

So sad = lost in the 40's.

He is as hard to listen to as Bush and Cheney,I can`t stand either one of them.He is a total moron

That ain't supposed to happen.
We own it ALL remember?

:sarcasm:

Racial polarization tends to increase during bad economic times. They might actually believe that with a nonwhite President - they have a free hand to use language that has been generally considered off limits since the 60's.

They might actually believe that playing on fears of "the minorities taking over" and the white man becoming a persecuted minority will pay off for them politically.

No doubt there is a market for this demagoguery. I certainly hope and think it is a minority that will accept this nonsense. I am quite certain that the Republicans will lose any inroad they were hoping to build with minority communities. But they may really think that just as they have had some success with the strategy of making themselves the party of God, Guns and Guts, they may genuinely think they can be equally successful with a strategy of presenting themselves as the party of the "downtrodden white man."

There is a guy who not only had no qualifications for the job, he has done absolutely nothing of any distinction in his tenure as a Justice. If ever there was an "affirmative action appointment", this was it. So I assume Buchanan was against Thomas' nomination, was vocal against Thomas, and now would be happy if Thomas were to leave the court.

Yeah, right.

Why do these assholes get any airtime?

The only thing Bukkkanan's been consistent on over the years is his hatred of anyone and everyone who isn't white.

though he clearly benefitted from it.

After all, being accepted to Yale based on his daddy and granddaddy's alumni status must have deprived some poor, hard working white student of his Ivy League dreams.
According to Buchanan's logic, because Bush was accepted to Yale over 40 years ago through affirmative action (aka legacy scholarship), all of his subsequent accomplishments are null and void.
His entire life from that moment should be seen as completely illegitimate.

betrays all asses!

:sarcasm:

I don't remember Pat pouring over the qualifications in depth of Roberts, Alito, and Scalia. Of course, maybe he could just ASSUME they were brilliant since they brought themselves up from their upper middle class bootstraps against a system that just breaks the back of us poor white males every step of the way!!! WAAAAAHHHHHHHH!

No offense to fecal matter.

By Pat, whose unabashed racism should tarnish all conservatives for several election cycles. And by Rachel, who remained classy, intelligent, and forceful throughout.

trying to maintain her facial expressions -- she's got some control going there!

Go Rachel!

Rachel did a great job staying cool and letting Pat have plenty of rope for his self-lynching.

This isn't gonna go away.

wants to. She is the best, Our Rachel.

You go with what helped you in the past...

Problem with this strategy is that a whole generation o Americans have attained political awareness without having white or black or brown or whatever hue your skin might be clouding your eyes...

He's such a knuckle-dragger.

She makes him show his true colors.

ETA-Color, singular, white power Pat.

"It's a tough job bein' the President. It's hard work." -- GWB

White House & Capitol Bldg -- built by slaves.

He leaves this all out - blatant revisionist racism. He's a sick bastard.

Interesting book -- should be a movie --

I have to check the calendar to see what century this is.

They were there to fight *against* racists like Pat Buchanan. For him to use their sacrifice as justification for a lack of minority representation on the Supreme Court is disgraceful.

.... for personal exercise along w/ road races.

Pat's knowledge of history and Judge Sotomayor is also screwed up too.

The first person killed in the Revolutionary war was a black man, Cyprus Attucks.

The U.S. Capital & the White House were built w/ slave labor.

The best fighter cover for the bombers in Europe were the Tuskegee Airmen.

Sotomayor has a wonderful academic and legal work history that stacks up against anybody ....
matter of fact she has the best record as per the U.S. Supreme Court reviewing @ her cases
of all the Judges on the Fed. Bench.

The Pat in this video clip is the same bully who along w/ his brothers used to beat up Jewish kids
on their way home from school as a teen. His dad being a good Irish Catholic encouraged this by
getting his kids boxing lessons.

n/t

Don't make these assertions as it ruins credibility. The ratio in Vietnam was about the same as the general population.

86% of our war dead from the Vietnam War were White. 12.4% Black.

http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#race


Plenty of racial injustice in our history without inventing any.

he would know why:

The Army was segregated, and wouldn't allow blacks to participate! Same with the Navy. Many racist "logical reasons" were given too for the bigotry.

However, the Tuskegee Airmen (an all-black air corps that protected US bombers) had many casualties, yet they never lost a bomber they were protecting.

a number of bomber pilots were well aware of the prowess of the Tuskegee Airmen and often made the specific request for them to fly as their escorts. :patriot:

:beer:

When you are rich and white, they call it "legacy scholarship" or something like that.

(was this a set up from the higher ups to break his contract and cut him lose from msnbc?)

or did rachel really want him on just for fodder? if so then i wish she wouldn't do that--if her viewers want to hear ANYONE spewing that kind of crap all we have to do is turn on rush, fox, or cnn headline news for beck.

Even I (UK citizen) know that Black troops fought and died on both sides of the US Civil War



Source: http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/history/aa_history.htm

and also check http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war/

and as for Normandy - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/05/2009-06-05_allblack_battalion_that_landed_in_normandy_france_on_dday_to_be_honored_on_anniv.html

Perhaps he thinks that Hispanic Troops did not fight for the US

Perhaps he should remember the Alamo! where there were at least 8 "Tejanos" who died for Texas and then there was Col. Seguin and Antonio Cruz who were sent through Santa Ana's lines to obtain reinforcements etc etc ad infinitum (check pg 144 http://books.google.com/books?id=DN7xQW3aIbMC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=alamo+campaign+texas+hispanic&source=bl&ots=d5AMpeTW83&sig=oviO9Qb7uze7nHzroRxbwwbZVEA&hl=en&ei=AzJgSviGKYKhjAeG_uC8Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5 )

Crypt where he came from, along with his stone age thinking.

I actually think it is so good that Pat Buchanan continues to appear on MSNBC expressing his point-of-view, especially with Rachel, because Rachel makes the argument in such a rational and reasoned way without demeaning Buchanan in the fashion of a Fox News Channel talk show host, that I would bet that it encourages a lot of people to actually sit back and listen, who might not otherwise do so.

I hope the next Supreme Court Justice is an Asian American. (not John Woo, though...)

Harold Koh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Koh

If he had been living a hundred fifty years ago, or even 100 years ago, he would have been discriminated against because of his faith. The KKK burned crosses against Catholics as well as blacks, and were denied jobs by some folks--heck, Maryland was created as a colony so that Catholics would have a place to settle! Go back to Massachusetts Bay Colony, Pat, and see how fast you would have been turned out into the wilderness for your beliefs!

And yet this man thinks discrimination is okay, and domination of white men is okay. Why not go whole hog and say only WASPS can sit on the SCOTUS? Oh, it's because Catholics are okay, as long as they are white males. :sarcasm:

Was Pat in Tombstone, AZ during his 1996 Presidential campaign, holding a six-shooter. :scared:

That's like having a team of whites and minorities and only playing the whites and having the coach say the team's success is due to the white players.

Considering everything, there have been significant inventions and events in this country attributed to minorities which are remarkable considering their status in our society in the first hundred years or so of our country's existence.

And each new group of immigrants, even the white ones (maybe even some of Pat's ancestors), were despised as being inferior by many of the people that already lived here.

He does what the others in the ruling class won't do. He is up front with his bigotry. He makes it crystal clear what the others of his kind are too afraid or to wary to admit. Their thinking: White people (meaning rich white people) founded this country. They allowed in minorities for labor purposes only. They, the rich white people, still think they own the rest of us.

And this is not just a racial issue. This is class warfare. Pat and those like him (ruling class) are absolutely convinced that they are superior to the rest of us, no matter what race, sexual orientation, or gender we are. Wasn't it Barbara Bush that said to those in the Astrodome after the Katrina disaster, "Let them eat candy."?

I think this exchange between Ms. Maddow and Buchanan is classic. Buchanan, the classic representative of the rich, white, male, ruling class verses Rachel, the epitome of everything they hate (and fear).

Bravo Ms. Maddow, you are my favorite.

Your memory is just a tad too short. You are an embarrassment to your family and this country. Now sit down and wait until you are called on!

He doesn't even hide that he's racist. It's stunning to watch though, he was probably even worse in the segment on Hardball with Matthews and Eugene Robinson.

My little brother and I once watched Pat go off on the Iraq War on the McGlaughlin (sp?) Group. He gave a brilliant analysis of it, as good an anti-war defense that any Dem could give. It was a great moment. And then the next week on the same show, he flipped out on abortion or something and started saying some seriously crazy things. I remember turning to my brother and saying something about how just when you think Pat might be a pretty reasonable guy like most of us, he always comes back to some issue where he has absolutely insane opinions on. This isn't even rational. I heard him say the other day that Sotomayor's scores didn't even matter. To him nothing would matter, he's a bigot and unreasonable and no accomplishment could ever be hers because that's just what he thinks. Pat has developed a more cuddly reputation in recent years, but that guy is filled with some serious hate and resentment and sometimes he really lets it out of the box. It's ugly stuff.

At 3:24 he calls her "this one".
This one what?

At least he's open about his bigotry, I guess? I foresee many 'well, what I really meant was...' news conferences.

how does he figure that? Does he believe the college she went to lied about her grades too. Also, his statement that she is unqualified is BS based upon that presumption.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Maddow's argument relies completely upon Affirmative Action and the justness of this policy. Buchanan's argument relies upon pointing out that all things being equal, she is not the best possible candidate. Maddow is unable to deny this because, quite frankly, it is true. Buchanon wins points in the argument by pointing out that he did not support Harriet Miers. Maddow should have called him out on this one because Sottomayor is a much, much more qualified candidate than Miers was and the comparison is insulting to Sottomayor's qualifications, but she fails to do so.

I think Maddow should have focused more on Buchanon's "best possible candidate" argument because it is an unattainable ideal. There is no consensus "best candidate". Maddow should have asked Buchanon, "who is the best candidate?" I don't think Buchanon would have been able to answer this, or he would have thrown out multiple names thereby proving the falseness of his own argument.

Sottomayor is as qualified a candidate as the majority of past justices. But that's not the sense I got from Maddow. Buchanon is successful in steering Maddow into defending the nomination based on affirmative action and that was basically his point from the beginning. The viewer is left with the feeling that Sottomayor deserves to be there because of past racial injustices. If Maddow was successful, the viewer would have been left with the feeling that Sottomayor deserves to be there because she is an extremely qualified candidate regardless of her race and gender.

As previous posters have mentioned, it would have been interesting to see how Buchanon would have responded if Maddow had brought up Clarence Thomas. Sottomayor is certainly more qualified than Thomas was.

You spelt it wrong throughout your post.

You may think my post is full of crap but let me ask you what we are arguing here. Are we arguing that Sottomayor is a qualified candidate, or are we arguing that although she is not the best candidate, affirmative action is a just policy and she deserves to be there for that reason?

My point is that I think she's an extremely qualified candidate and getting roped into an affirmative action debate as Maddow allowed herself to be only serves to diminish the legitimacy of her nomination. The argument became "oh, well she may not be the best candidate, but affirmative action is a good thing." Maddow allowed herself to be led down this path by BuchanAn and by allowing him to frame the discussion in this manner she basically conceded that Sottomayor is not the best person for the job.

BuchanAn's main point is that she's only there because she's a Latina. I'm just saying that I don't think Maddow should have conceded that point.

Why can one say "She's only there because she's a Latina" but not say "Roberts was only picked because he was a young white male"? Was the body of Robert's work so much more impressive than Sottomayor's? I think you could make the opposite argument. I don't think you can can say that any of the justices were the consensus best person for the job at the time of their nomination because that consensus will never exist. To point out that there may exist more qualified candidates only when the nominee is a member of a minority group is racist in itself. Again, there is no reason to concede that point and try to defend it on the basis of affirmative action because by doing so you are forcing Sottomayor to be held to a higher standard than any other past nominee.

I hope that made my point more understandable. I am a huge fan of Rachael Maddow. I just disagree with the way she chose to pursue this particular argument.

early on in the video, though Buchananan started yelling over her points as soon as he realized where she was going with it. Maybe could have reenforced the point later (to remind those w/ short attention spans). But overall, this was more of a case of watching him implode into 'discruntled old white bigot rant'...

I think everyone knows he is a racist and anti-Semite. He more or less admitted it himself when discussing all those Palm Beach ballots that went his way in 2000.

How on earth did Buchanan win points comparing a woman with NO judicial experience to another woman who has more FEDERAL judicial experience than any other supreme court justice in 100 years.
Come on.

But he wins points there by criticizing a conservative nominee therefore showing a non-partisan opinion, and because Maddow did not counter with the point you just made. She let the comparison stand.

Pat has said for two weeks that the fact that the top four candidates were all women proves that Obama was "discriminating" against white males. Has he vetted the qualifications of those four women? Of course not, he just finds it fishy that the control group, white males, weren't included and therefor concludes that all of them are there because they are women.

...the 2009 bigot in politics who is too f*cking stupid to see his own inconsistency in what he is saying.

WHY is this old fart still on the networks, except to represent the old and dying mentality in this country that bigotry is OK...so long as I have my way with it.

This old fart needs to move to the hills of Mississippi and see whether he can get away with having slavery on his plantation without the rest of the world knowing about it.

What an archaic sack of shit. The sooner these sick minds die off, the better this country will be for it.

Hopefully it will help him wake up.

This is now a country that is not afraid to vote for black people. Regardless of Pat feeling that only the descendants of people who fought at Gettysburg deserve consideration. (Apparently he has never read the memorirs of Union Soldiers who were helped out so much by those still in slavery - everything from being helped when wounded to being offered information about the Rebel Army's movements. The slaves helping in such ways often did so at risk to their own lives.)

and all the other racists out there being Governed by a black man ..

:rofl: as their heads continue to explode for all the world to see. i am loving it :evilgrin:

I'm having people over for games and grub tomorrow eve.

Trying to start a weekly game night anyway .

Last week was so fun .

As always you are welcome to come over...

The more the merrier .

love ya
T

:loveya: not sure what i am doing, but if i can make it i will.

:thumbsup:

and how did he become president of the united states? didn't pat support sarah palin? was it because she was the most qualified?

OMFG, what an asshole.

I suppose swinging a whip is 'work' but uh... yeah. Nice one Pat.

who is trying to hide is racism behind bullshit excuses.

But I made it less than 2 minutes. He's such a jerk - even his voice irritates me.

There's just something about a rich white guy who got where he is by pure virtue of the fact his cock is white, bitching about how oppressed white men are, that makes me want to bite him.

he just fails to see what a lousy country they built.

Maddow was smug as always, and she was far too focused on Sotomayor being Hispanic. It was as if Maddow was simply stating "isn't it great that we have an Hispanic female on the court" instead of "I think it's great that we have such a qualified candidate who happens to be an Hispanic female."

Buchanan on the other hand should've looked into who would've been more qualified. By not naming other superior candidates and listing credentials vs. Sotomayor his argument seemed abstract.

I guess it boils down to the same point for both: who would've been more qualified and why?

First let me say that I object to your characterization of Ms. Maddow as smug. That comment speaks volumes about you. I think Ms. Maddow is intellectually confident. Also, she doesn't need stronger arguments. Pat's sad argument is clearly that white men (he omitted rich) deserve to rule and that no minority can compete. Ms. Maddow only needs to point out how bigoted Pat's argument is. Ms. Maddow doesn't need to submit arguments as to the qualifications of Judge Sotomayor, as she is obviously more than qualified. You see, it is absurd to think that only the most qualified can be appointed. To make that determination is ridiculous. The judge is among a group of equally qualified judges. From that group Pres. Obama can choose. He used his choice to give the Hispanic population representation that they have lacked for decades. Pat's argument is that the choice must be a white male (rich) because Pat is one of the bigoted rich, white, ruling class.

I don't support any system that uses superficial criteria to supersede true merit. Affirmative action supports advancing people based on skin color regardless of who may be the most qualified. I prefer a system that rewards the most qualified and is color blind. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: affirmative action treats the symptoms of inequality, but not the cause. It's a politician's acceptance of mediocrity to achieve the illusion of equality.

I also think that Sotomayor IS qualified. Buchanan's argument is weak because he couldn't name anyone more qualified than she is. Maddow could've jumped on this and demanded names of who Buchanan would have picked. I liked her statistic about 108/110 judges, but she could've nailed it with that one demand.

that have been under-represented in the past. There is no practical way to decide who the absolute most qualified is. Whatever criteria you may use will be biased. Maybe the top ten or 15.

As though Buchanan himself was not "far too focused on Sotomayor being Hispanic."

I agree that Rachel Maddow should have emphasized how extremely qualified Sotomayor is as a Supreme court justice. She understated that.

Who would have been more qualified? Who else is in the picture? Are you thinking of that Estrada man?

The Republican party mostly has fundies and angry bigoted white folks left as a base. Liberals aren't going to support them, moderates aren't and most minorities certainly aren't.

Of course Clarence the clown isn't qualified -- ABA found that -- lowest rating.

Plus, he's a right wing fanatic picked for that and his skin color.

When I saw Pat on the show last night I just turned it off --

I gave 7 minutes to this video -- and didn't see a kill.

Love Rachel but she shouldn't have Pat on -- he sexist, racist and homophobic --

an old Nazi still working for GE.

Dump him, Rachel!

...but the poster that mentioned 'you mean the white men that killed what turned out to be all the Native Americans? Or the white men that saw an opportunity to make money by buying slaves and bringing 'em to 'good ol 'Merica' for cheap labor (after all, rightwing conservatives have been the party of 'cheap labor' all along)..Those white men? Those are the ones we should be protecting?

Also, when Buchanan brought up that the US track team was all (although actually predominately) black, or that the hockey team is all white (of course he left off he swimming team, but then he probably remembers Al Campanis), I wish Rachel had raised the key point - 'Pat, what you're talking about is the US Olympic Team and when I saw that team march into the Olympic Stadium last year in China, I was reminded of what makes us the greatest country in the world - the diversity of faces, features, skin colors, ethnicity, heritages and talent - like no other in the world. All those groups have to have had opportunities. Opportunities that otherwise would never have existed if 'white men' had been allowed to do as they please for all these years. I mean if integration hadn't been mandated do you honestly think that the Jeff Sessions of this country would have been any different than the guy he was way back when? This is what stands us apart from all the rest and if you don't realize that then you, Pat, just don't understand America, and never will.'

Yeah, that's what I would have liked to have heard.

No offense meant to lesser ignorant bumpkin assholes.

is primarily nutcase material 98 percent of the time. He starts out this particular rant with the fact that he has not been able to find any law review articles written by Judge Sotomayor and because of that, he opines that she is not scholarly enough to be considered to a legitimate candidate for the USSC, so it must simply be her ethnic background and gender that got her the nod.
Pat, like most of his ilk and those who support him here, is truth-challenged. Had he spent two seconds on Google, he could have found a plethora of material on Sotomayor that completely disproves every rabid word that came out of his mouth. Even wiki shows her as having written three law review articles (one in Spanish).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

Of course, she was pretty busy in her day job and, while the Repugs like to dwell on the three rulings that the USSC reversed, she was in the majority in nearly 400 opinions. Only five of those rulings were reviewed by the USSC and two were upheld. Wiki points out that Senate Rethugs already had a fit when Bill Clinton named her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with their champion Rush Limbaugh leading the charge even then. So it's the same-old-same-old.
I love Rachel, but I would like her simply to have turned off Buchanan's mike and left him frothing, which is what he deserved, racist bigot that he is. In fact, he deserves a lot worse and, if there were any justice in the US M$M, MSNBC would fire his a$$ forthwith.

A few years back when he was speaking out about, "A Republic - Not an Empire" and denouncing the neocons and articulating very well some thinking on some Middle East issues in which I found myself more in agreement with him than with most leading Democrats, I was willing to give him a chance.

But unfortunately, he is a plane old-fashioned old school bigot.

His demeanor can be quite misleading at times. He can remind some of us of an old uncle with a sense of humor and some colorful anecdotes, someone who is a nice guy, but has some archaic and down right nutty opinions. This can be disarming. But his record and his own words speak for themself. Yes, he is indeed just a plane old-fashioned - old school bigot.

He use to work for the NIXON administration! That alone shoots any ounce of credibility he has--out of the water!

a first world nation was garnered by the use of slaves. I hope she said that to the nitwit.

I've seen right wingers laughing at him. I think Hannity is the only friend he has left.

is bliss for Pat.

and she didn't mention that she herself is probably where she is due to affirmative action (a policy that benefited white women the most). Once again, affirmative action isn't about putting unqualified people in, it's about diversity. People like Pat assume that white men are the best in the room when that is usually not the case. The law was put in place to force bigots like Pat to consider racial/gender minorities.