The Rachel Maddow Show / By Rachel Maddow
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 393

Rachel Maddow Takes Down MSNBC's Resident Racist, Pat Buchanan

On her show recently, Rachel Maddow showed just how dated and racist conservative whining about affirmative action and "reverse discrimination" is.
July 20, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

Editor's Note: For decades, conservatives played on the racist and sexist fears of their constituents by spinning dramatic tales of the white man's decline in the face of advances by women, African-Americans, Hispanics and other minority groups. Conveniently putting aside their calls for personal responsibility, conservative pundits and many GOP legislators blamed the woes of working-class white men on affirmative action programs.

Uppity women and minority groups, or so the story went, were exploiting past injustice to gain an unearned leg-up over more deserving white males. White men were, allegedly, increasingly victimized by government policies that privileged women and minorities.

Needless to say, conservatives were far more concerned with rolling back the rights of women and minorities than offering policy solutions that truly helped low-income white men.

In the past few months, conservative griping about the oppression of white men has come back with a vengeance. Lacking any real material with which to attack judicial nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Republican lawmakers and media conservatives have mightily struggled to paint Sotomayor as an unqualified affirmative-action candidate -- one committed to using the law to erode the rights of while males. 

Sotomayor was absurdly attacked as a "reverse racist"; she was accused of gaming the system to get ahead; her temperament, educational achievements and judicial history were slimely undermined despite ample evidence that she is more than qualified to serve on the Court.

Some of the most vicious attacks have come from Pat Buchanan, a conservative extremist who for mysterious reasons still enjoys a spot on MSNBC as a "political analyst". Recently Buchanan appeared on the Rachel Maddow show to argue that Sotomayor has made a career of discriminating against white males and that her nomination constitutes affirmative action run amok. Needless to say, Maddow easily dispatched Buchanan's silly -- and racist -- arguments. By the end, the frazzled Buchanan looked like someone's racist grandpa, as Maddow showed just how irrelevant, retrograde and blatantly racist conservative grievance-based ideology has become.

Here is the full transcript:

Rachel Maddow: 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.

RM: 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?

PB: 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.


View as a single page
 
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: republicans, gop, conservatives, maddow, racists, affirmative action, sotomayor, buchannan, reverse dicrimination, ricci

comments COMMENTS ( 393 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

Rachael's Greeting Incongruent With Opposition To A Racist
[Report this comment]
Posted by: desidid on Jul 20, 2009 12:50 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would anyone but another racist tell one how glad they are to see them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: mythmorph
» Everyone deserves respect... Posted by: buffeliscious
» Pots and kettles Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: Natasha_W
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: peacefullaim1
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: mainspark
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: Natasha_W
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: peacefullaim1
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: Bibsisis
» Comity Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: Reading Into Comments Posted by: desidid

Comments are closed-

When?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: soulrebeljc on Jul 20, 2009 1:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At what point does Pat Buchanan become someone that nobody listens to anymore because they are just fucking nuts? What does he have to offer anyone, ever? And yes, why would Rachel be glad to see him, what kind of bullshit is that? Can't liberals just say "You're a joke, you must know that? I'm bringing you onto my show because your opinions are vulgar and dangerous, and your contribution to policy debate is akin to Howdy Doody playing Hamlet, only slightly less believable." Time to dispense with the niceties on freaks like Buchanan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When? Posted by: orwellturns
» RE: When? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: When? Posted by: orwellturns
» Pat Buchanan is not a freak... Posted by: permanentilt
» Mexicans?!? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: Trouble is... Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Mexicans?!? Posted by: babs
» Exacto mondo ! Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE:Goddam, Mr. Jefferson... Posted by: aichbe
» RE: When? Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: When? Posted by: babs
» Yes, but.... Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: When? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: When? Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: When? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: When? Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: When? Posted by: aichbe
» RE: When? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: When? Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: When? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: When? Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: When? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: When? Posted by: aichbe
» RE: When? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: When? Posted by: Livemike

Comments are closed-

She likes to see him...with his tail between his legs.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reason2believe on Jul 20, 2009 1:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps she was glad to see him cos she planned to give him a drubbing! Haha

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I Agree That There Have Been some Mistakes In A.A....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Razional Thinker on Jul 20, 2009 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but how many thousands of knowledgeable, industrious people were left out in the cold before then?
How do you account for hundreds of years before A.A.? How do you account for the hundreds of years of white man advantage? How do you account for the struggle of a lot of A.A. people having to be pioneers in their families and environment? The isolation/stress (but the pride) of being among the first allowed educational and employment opportunities must have been difficult. And, gradually that is turning around. Now you have segments of society who can discuss and motivate their youth in the struggle through college or the struggle in a professional work environment. Why? Because, unlike the generation before, they themselves are/were in a professional environment or graduated college.

Yes, I agree with Pat...in pursual of righting wrongs....some wrongs have occured. But, how very few in comparison?

You go Rachel!!....Pat,indeed, has dated himself (I hope that's what it is) and shown he has no dimension(color)...he is pompously white throughout. Sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Buchanan unmasked
[Report this comment]
Posted by: 3party on Jul 20, 2009 2:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is very easy to label Pat Buchanan a racist, just as his views about Israel made it easy to label him anti-semitic -- until more and more people started to agree with him. I am Jewish, and I have never been persuaded that Buchanan is an anti-semite. On Israel, I largely agree with him. On matters of race, including affirmative action, I thought he was always very careful to make his arguments rest on grounds that could not be called racial prejudice. To my mind, there was precious little evidence that Buchanan's views on these subjects were motivated by any kind of racial or ethnic prejudice. I disagreed with most of what he said, but I respected his views.

The Sotomayor nomination really blew his cover, at least where Hispanics are concerned. He has articulated his opposition to, and disdain for Judge Sotomayor's nomination in terms which make clear that the facts do not matter, even when they are central to his argument. Specifically, he assumes that at every stage of her education and, later, her legal career, she was an inferior candidate given a leg up by the system. Under questioning from Rachel M., it became very clear that he simply did not know that she got special treatment when admitted to Yale Law School, or when she was elected to the law Journal, or when she won the highest academic prize at Princeton.

Pat Buchanan was exposed, this time, as an unreformed, unapologetic racist where Judge Sotomayor was concerned. For once, he was so rattled (by Rachel's excellent cross-examination) that he gave away the store. Well done, Rachel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Buchanan unmasked Posted by: desidid
» RE: Buchanan unmasked Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: Buchanan unmasked Posted by: desidid
» RE: Let's see... Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: 'Mrs. Jefferson' unmasked Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE:YOU unmasked Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: Buchanan unmasked Posted by: babs
» RE: Buchanan unmasked Posted by: AZLBRAX07
» RE: automatically a "racist" Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: HMMMM. Possibly so. Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: HMMMM. Possibly so. Posted by: AZLBRAX07
» Tell the truth Posted by: westomoon
» RE: SHUT YOUR ...sheesh! Posted by: beijaflor

Comments are closed-

Rachel had Pat on for discussion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Nightowl on Jul 20, 2009 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what she does so well.

I see Pat's point of view, and disagree with it. He sees isolated incidents instead of the whole picture. His thinking is based on fear and staying with the status quo. Fearful people are afraid of change. They don't see that diversity benefits all.

I'm a white woman living in New Mexico, and I'm a minority here. The whole country may be that way someday. Change happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: achel had Pat on for discussion Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: being a minority Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: being a minority Posted by: mythmorph

Comments are closed-

Ankle Biters
[Report this comment]
Posted by: billslm on Jul 20, 2009 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The people Buchanan represents and speaks for are also politically stuck like him back in 1952. That has actually always been Buchanan's strong point. It is what a conservative is: Backward looking! To the good old days!

Then too, Repukes lie. They lie the way you blink your eyelids, or walk on two legs, or inhale and exhale. Tonight, I heard, from a reliable source, that now the Repukes have begun a new campaign to discredit the Obama presidency because they say Obama's style of governance forced whatsisname Lewis, the CEO of Bank of America, (Skank of America)to lose all that money when he bought all those poisoned derivatives with Merril-Lynch. To them it's entirely beside the point that all that was signed and sealed by Bush long before Obama entered the Whitehouse. The problem is that when you deal with Right wing ankle biters, and they are all ankle biters, you are trying to deal as a rational human being with an equal.

And rational human to rational human is not the equation at all.

Republicans are a totally deranged bunch who simply cannot begin to make their purview coincide with reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ankle Biters Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: Ankle Biters Posted by: babs
» RE: Ankle Biters Posted by: countingdaisies

Comments are closed-

I Love Getting A 1 Rating
[Report this comment]
Posted by: desidid on Jul 20, 2009 2:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it means I said something that struck a nerve. It still doesn't explain why "liberal whites" continue to make racist feel welcome to express their point of view. If Pat were Black and ranted that way I wonder how many of you would support her having him on her show and being warm to him? At some point good tv simply isn't good enough. I watch Rachael and have told others to watch her. But I have stopped because I emailed her a while ago about Pat Buchanan's particular brand of racism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Benn_Miller = lying troll Posted by: Quannah
» Quannah = lying troll Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» LOL ... She still hasn't got it!!! Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Quannah = lying troll Posted by: beijaflor
» RE: I Love Getting A 1 Rating Posted by: cmaciain
» Oh, grow up, yellow Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Hey Genius Posted by: desidid
» RE: RM was "warm"? Posted by: mythmorph
» desidid Posted by: foreverhope
» desi, IOU Posted by: westomoon
» RE: West Posted by: desidid
» Rachel's crazy Uncle Posted by: westomoon
» RE: achel's crazy Uncle Posted by: Quannah

Comments are closed-

Truelass
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Truelass on Jul 20, 2009 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watch the McLaughlan Report, which is possibly the best time to hear and see Pat Buchanan exploit his white supremist views. I have been waiting for him to say if we have to have a women then why can't it be Sarah Palin? Oh migawd he would then reach the height of stupidity.
Yet, he is not stupid and still he makes the most outrageous statements on abysmal ignorance, almost as moronic as the great bigots Limbaugh and Kristel. Like them and the Fox crowd he is a racist, a bigot and more often a clown. He opens mouth to change feet and spouts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Truelass Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: True bull shit Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Truelass Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: Truelass Posted by: babs

Comments are closed-

Affirmative Action is Not Cool
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Jul 20, 2009 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want you guilty white folks to get denied admissions to your favorite university all because the color of your skin and then realise this can happen to you.

I know Pat B is unapologetic when it comes to his conservatism however that doesn't make him a Racist so find a better way to win an argument because this is getting old. Really we don't ask ourselves when we are watching the Olympics and see a Track Meet or the Ski Team and try to apply "Affirmative Action" we just hope the USA kicks ass.

I just want this to happen to you when Hispanics get pushed into positions just because of race (certain Hispanics) that undercuts qualified Asians. I know its the era to pick on the Anglo Saxon however attitudes only shift to favor another race grope however when it happens to you I'll join you at "state school," you can help me fix my grammar.

p.s. whatever happen to the Hispanic New Haven Firefighter whom did not get promoted

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it happen to theh Irish and Italians... Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: it happen to theh Irish and Italians... Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: Your point? Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: Your point? Posted by: desidid
» RE: But Institutional Racism Is Posted by: soulrebeljc
» Affirmative Action is Still Not Cool Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: Affirmative Action is Not Cool Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: Affirmative Action is Not Cool Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» The White Folks I know an't no Kennedy's of Kerry's Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: A bunch of underachievers. Posted by: mythmorph
» What Are YOU DOING! Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: What Are YOU DOING! Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: Better Than Being Posted by: desidid
» RE:It Appears Posted by: desidid
» President Bush? Posted by: permanentilt
» U of Texas told President Bush NO for MBA school Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» the blood of the civil war Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars

Comments are closed-

SONIA'S CREDENTIALS
[Report this comment]
Posted by: soowee on Jul 20, 2009 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pat Buchanan raises a legitimate issue, regardless of his antiquated personal biases, that no one should ever be considered for public office on the basis of mere group "status." Therefore, the proper way to respond to his argument is not, as Rachel Maddow tries to say in defense of gender/ethnic "affirmative action," that we should all be proud that someone of a historically ignored group can now get onto the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, race- or gender-based affirmative action patently violate the 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal justice under the law.

I certainly deplore the dominance of the Supreme Court by so many clueless white men, but their gender and skin color are not the problem. Most of them were also people of high academic and professional achievement, so those are not the deciding factors, either. The proper way to promote Sonia Sotomayor is to pronounce her many abilities and qualities obviously suitable for a US Supreme Court justice, but also display a core philosophy of ensuring personal liberty and access to justice that badly need reinforcement on the current Supreme Court. Her gender and ethnic background do not really count, and her accomplishments tell only part of the tale I want to hear.

I'd rather have a white guy who is a raging civil libertarian than a Latina who might be a raving statist. I doubt that accurately describes Sotomayor's philosophy. I hope she gets on the Court.

H. Watkins Ellerson
PO Box 90
Hadensville, VA 23067
(804) 457-4243

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SONIA'S CREDENTIALS Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: SONIA'S CREDENTIALS Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: SONIA'S CREDENTIALS Posted by: soowee

Comments are closed-

Affirmative Action is the epitome of reverse discrimination.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: CharlesRoland on Jul 20, 2009 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Affirmative Action is the epitome of reverse discrimination. There is just no other way to see it. Try being a white male in today's PC society. There's no such thing as a Caucasian Male College Fund, but I noticed the United Negro College Fund. Woman can have groups and clubs - but men cannot. It's illegal to outwardly be proud of being of white European decent in this country. It's illegal to give a helping hand to fellow white male youth, but it's alright to make special passes for females and non-white males.
If you were a white male in today's society you would see the reverse discrimination. If you don't then you must hate your own race. If it wasn't for white males we'd still be living in the woods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rubbish. Posted by: Parcival01
» RE: Awwww, poor you. Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: CRY BABY!!!!! Posted by: blurider

Comments are closed-

Actually - Maddow Did NOT Take Down Uncle Pat
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kyletlucas@yahoo.com on Jul 20, 2009 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was a bit of hyperbole for Alternet to title this post "Rachel Maddow Takes Down MSNBC's Resident Racist, Pat Buchanan." In fact, because I so strongly disagree with Maddow's inept handling of Buchanan, I resent Alternet's promotion. A regular fan of the Rachel Maddow, I cringe every time that she invites Buchanan on and affectionately refers to him as her "Uncle Pat." Nonetheless, following his Sotomayor hearings column, she easily convinced me that she intended to get serious with the man whose racist beliefs are well-documented. So, I was surprised by hear her warm welcome followed by a tepid exchange that with her colleague and "Uncle Pat." I expected an intelligent and articulate debate of Buchanan's racist rants. I most certainly didn't expect her to thank a racist and tell him how nice it was to have him on her show.

As a fan, I am familiar with Maddow as gutsy as a matter of fact in addressing other issues and individuals. So, as a woman of color, I was dismayed by her seeming inability or certainly--unwillingness to address Buchanan's racism head-on. B

elow, is a copy of my letter conveying these concerns to her, which included a link to the acclaimed and much cited Peggy McIntosh piece on white privilege. I did not receive a response.

Hello Rachel,

As a long-term fan, thought I'd shoot you a quick message about your uncle Pat Buchanan. I was eager to see your show yesterday and hopeful for an articulate counter to the bigoted views of Pat Buchanan. I must say that your affectionate reference to him as "My Uncle Pat" was always troubling and my stomach turned every time you said it.

Frankly, with his blatant ignorance of and bigoted attack on Judge Sotomayor, I expected stronger statements from you. Here is a post that I made to my Facebook page today:

"I am baffled by a favorite--Rachel Maddow--for her tepid counter to her "Uncle Pat" Buchanan and his bigoted ranting as guest on her show yesterday. For a PhD, I am alarmed at her inability to articulately counter her "Uncle Pat's" ignorant ravings. Perhaps she needs an education on white privilege. I intend to send her a copy of Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" http://tinyurl.com/md8zq2">linked text

I have no doubt that you've read the McIntosh piece in the past, but thought you might like to review it.

As a woman of color, I have been incensed by the blatant racist, sexist attacks on Judge Sotomayor by white male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, but also in the media. I had hoped for a more impassioned statement from you. With Pat Buchanan's ravings on Affirmative Action, I hope that you will better educate yourself about this nation's progress on civil rights and equality as well as its lack of progress.

Thank you.

I regularly give Rachel Maddow props for her gutsy interviews and commentary, but she did not "take down" Uncle Pat last Thursday.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent post, wbblack! Posted by: dazzle59
» Good for you! Posted by: mythmorph

Comments are closed-

Let's see the title of this article is....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Jul 20, 2009 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..."Rachel Maddow Takes Down MSNBC's Resident Racist, Pat Buchanan," by RACHEL MADDOW!?

Racel Maddow is rating her own performance?! How objective!

It is obvious that Rachel Maddow, and others here, did NOT actually read the article or listen to the interview.

Unfortunately Buchanan held MORE than his own with Maddow. His rhetoric was essentially untouched by her. I beg anyone here to cite an excerpt where Maddow "one upped" Buchanan...including...Maddow!

Maddow like most "progressives" came unprepared for battle. She is like Bill Mahr, and John Stewart to a degree. They are fine when the guest in question is not present, but play nice when they interview. I have seen it happen adnausium.

Say what you what to about the Repukes, they come prepared with their talking points, and they know what "liberal" shows will allow them to get their points across and ameliorate their positions. Buchanan did just that. He had at least a tie if he did not win out right. He had an answer for every question.

For one thing, Maddow kept hinting that the 108 white men were not the most qualified of anyone to be found at that time. If she would have had any proof, she could have then blown him out of the water, and his arguement.

You may not like Buchanan (I find him repulsive), but he is dumb like a fox. He is calculating, comes prepared, and knows he will get an easy time on Maddow's show, or why do you think he would go on?

In my opinion Maddow threw softballs, and had no defense. Buchanan may not have had homeruns, but many hits, and played enough defense to at least keep is close, if not win by a hair. For a racist to do that is a BIG victory. For Maddow this should have been like the Yankees playing a little league team...but it wasn't.

Other than Keith Oberman, I cannot think of anyone (progressive) that can stand up consistently to the racist, bigoted, hateful, Repukes. Until that day comes, this country is in trouble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

gathaiga
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gathaiga on Jul 20, 2009 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While my views tend to be aligned with Maddow's I was waiting for the take down of Buchanan. I didn't see it, all I saw was opposing views being expressed and, depending on one's viewpoint, neither one gaining an advantage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Pat the Geek
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jmmartin on Jul 20, 2009 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nick the Greek got fired from network television sportscasting when he made comments like this one from Buchanan:

PB: "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."

This is the same as saying, "It's OK for blacks to be sports people because they are racially endowed with physical prowess and abilities beyond those of whites, but few if any blacks are Supreme Court material." Considering the current token African-American among the Nine Nutty Professors, I tend to agree with him -- vis-a-vis THAT black man only. But I don't think that a tendency to mash women is racially exclusive (I can even imagine a white man telling a woman he's found a pubic hair on his Coke can).

My question is, why does NBC and its cable news network MSNBC continue to HIRE Buchanan to come on and express his right wingnut opinions? Nick the Greek was drummed into obscurity when he said these things years ago. Perhaps it is time we started peppering NBC and MSNBC with objections to Pat appearing on their programs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jimmy The Greek Posted by: desidid
» RE: Jimmy The Greek Posted by: astockton
» RE: Jimmy The Greek Posted by: desidid
» RE: Jimmy The Greek Posted by: astockton
» RE: Jimmy The Greek Posted by: desidid
» The Maddow show fills a niche. Posted by: Parcival01
» RE: Pat the Geek Posted by: rickiey

Comments are closed-

I wish Maddow would have had the guts to answer PB's question, but she didn't.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rickiey on Jul 20, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you think Frank Ricci and those guys were treated justly when they were denied that promotion because they were white?

He asked, she ran away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

maddow did not take him down
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kungfuma on Jul 20, 2009 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hardly.nice try tho I guess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: maddow did not take him down Posted by: Redhead5050

Comments are closed-

Josie
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jegnj on Jul 20, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at his appointees - first black Attorney General, first black head of the FDA and now Sonya. Can they not all be AA appointees? What are the odds?
I have no issue with picking the best people for the job and if they happen to be Chinese, black or purple who cares? His record is starting to speak for itself though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Josie Posted by: desidid
» RE: Josie Posted by: yellow
» RE: Josie Posted by: desidid
» RE: Josie Posted by: Redhead5050
» RE: Josie Posted by: yellow
» About that "study" you cite Posted by: westomoon
» You poor sap Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Wait up here, Josie..... Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: Wait up here, Josie..... Posted by: shanghaicharlie

Comments are closed-

The problem here is simple...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tim Chadron on Jul 20, 2009 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It involves two things. Assumptions, and labels.

When are we going to stop placing labels on everyone. Republican, Democrat, white, black, latina, gay, straight, pro-life whatever!! As soon as we label (and we even do this to ourselves) we pidgeon-hole ourselves into a narrow little category AND that leads to assumptions. (She was chosen because she was a WOMAN, and a LATINO WOMAN at that! And it was all about AA and is a slap in the face to all white men.... Blah blah blah) What a crock of crap!! I wish society would evolve to the point where we stopped always looking for differences in each other, and started looking for commonalities. Is this human being intelligent, hard working, ethical, knowledgeable about the work they are about to take part in? Are they the most qualified for the position? Has there been any unethical behaviour in their recent past which would indicate they are unfit for the position at hand?

Being a woman, a latino, or a white male hasn't got squat to do with whether or not a person is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The problem here is simple... Posted by: countingdaisies

Comments are closed-

Each playing to thier own
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kad on Jul 20, 2009 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each participant in the exchange was clearly playing to their core audience. The libs will think RM won, the conservatives will think PB blew her away. Just another case of infotainment run amok.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: each playing to thier own Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: ach playing to thier own Posted by: Redhead5050
» RE: ach playing to thier own Posted by: kepstein7777

Comments are closed-

"You're dating yourself."
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jul 20, 2009 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is she calling PB a jack off?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, a dinosaur Posted by: westomoon

Comments are closed-

I agree that "taking down" is the wrong title here
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cindroo on Jul 20, 2009 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I seriously WANTED to read about a good come back to Pat Buchanan's repugnant stance on race and affirmative action, I must agree with several comments below that Rachel did a poor and blustery job in talking with Pat. He was really more articulate and she didn't answer his legitimate sounding points with any intellectually considered opposition. She just was stuck in "you are racist and old fashioned." I think it was liberals who ended up looking whiny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I respectully disagree Posted by: Parcival01
» RE: I respectully disagree Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

It looks like Buchanan plans to run for office.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Parcival01 on Jul 20, 2009 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And his appeal will be to the Archie Bunkers among us.

I had an old friend, a life-long Republican,who said back in 2000 when Buchanan was running like he was a character from "Gone with the Wind." That friend said, "You know, Buchanan has some very good questions. [e.g., "I had a neighbor when I was a kid who worked at a hardware store. He had a house, a couple of kids, a car. Why couldn't somebody working in a hardware store live that way anymore?"] But he comes up with the wrong answers!"

Whatever differences we may have with Affirmative Action--and I have some, as a veteran of civil rights law--white male victimhood ain't the answer to that difference. Buchanan seems to be setting himself up for a future run on the same terms on which he ran in 2000.

Is he anticipating an abysmal Obama failure?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Buchanan/Palin or Buchanan/Jeb Posted by: zipper696
» I was thinking Palin/Coulter. Posted by: Parcival01

Comments are closed-

Disturbing comments
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Frank J. on Jul 20, 2009 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pat Buchanan's comments on affirmative action and minorities in this interview disturb me greatly.
His final statements about Judge Sonya Sotomayor not understanding the working class really ticked me off. Judge Sotomayor may have benefited originally from affirmative action but then excelled in all her professional activities based upon her own skills and qualities, an outcome of affirmative action that I believe we should celebrate.
In addition she comes from a humble upbringing, something I'm very happy to have on the court. It's not just enough to point out the court is mostly white guys. But they are mostly white guys of privilege. I'm happy to have another Supreme Court Justice who knows the working class, grew up with the working class and is working class.
To me Pat's comments were as much a shout for class warfare against the working class of this country as a racial statement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Disturbing comments Posted by: Redhead5050

Comments are closed-

I didn't see the interview, so I can't judge him/her, but...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Fempatriot on Jul 20, 2009 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the fact that Ms. Sotomayor is active in "La Raza" (The Race) bothers me. No matter how it tries to cover up--it is a Hispanic racist group dedicated to taking back all the states it says the USA "stole" from Mexico. California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona...and more.

As a woman, I was turned down for several jobs that I could have done equally well as a man--but the man got the job every time. One reason was because I was over 40, going up against young men and women in their 30s and younger. So I know how it feels. I would not have wanted a job because I was a woman, but because I could have done it better than the person picked.

As for affirmative action--unfortunately when someone is put in a position because of their race or sex--and not because they are the best qualified for the job--that's racist too, no matter how you slice it. I'm not saying "white people" are more qualified than other people--I'm just saying that if I were filling a job, I would hate to have to pick a person because of their race/sex if I thought they were going to do a mediocre job performance. I'm truly color blind when it comes to job performance. The best way for minorities to qualify equally is to get a good education and to have a good attitude. Whites are fast becoming a minority in this "nation." It will be interesting 20 years from now...will "whitey" the minority get a job? I doubt it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, lordy Posted by: westomoon

Comments are closed-

Mr.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gerald on Jul 20, 2009 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While watching Pat's flaying against the tide I couldn't help thinking that he's the last honest white man on TV. He's like the old bull being taken down by a pack of wolves; that doesn't make him sympathetic but one has to admire his stance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mr. Posted by: Lilly

Comments are closed-

Buchanan and war
[Report this comment]
Posted by: homingpigeon on Jul 20, 2009 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm really troubled by the nastiness spewed about Pat Buchanan. There is a difference between being a racist and having a position against affirmative action.

How about if people looked at the main thing going on in the world now - the mass murder carried out by the Washington regime in so many places. Pat Buchanan is an articulate advocate against the wars abroad and reaches conservatives with that message.

I never thought I'd have anything in common with the fellow but I'll take him any day over the vicious shrews of the Feminist Majority who are colluding with and enabling the true horrors carried out by abroad by the Empire.

Buchanan is disagreeing with the choice for a seat on the Supreme Court. I am more concerned about people who have claimed to be in the peace camp who now are part of the program of inflicting unimaginable horror overseas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Buchanan and war Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Buchanan and war Posted by: Quannah

Comments are closed-

aumfish
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aumfish on Jul 20, 2009 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that Buchanan's position is mischaracterized by the title and tone of this article. I am a committed liberal who believes in evening the playing field for all, yet I think that Buchanan has made some valid points. That 108 justices have been white males reflects so much more about culture than the simple two-variable exclusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Stupid AND racist
[Report this comment]
Posted by: westomoon on Jul 20, 2009 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's this man who can barely string together a grammatical sentence, condemning Sotomayor as intellectually inferior. Here's what he had to say (emphasis added):

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.

In other words, he hasn't even bothered to research what she's written. He just knows she's intellectually inferior -- because she's a Latina.

It's weirdly reminiscent of Geraldine Ferraro's complaint during the primary that Obama was so intellectually inferior, he would never have been considered as a candidate except for affirmative action.

In both cases, a huge quantity of pertinent information about each candidate is outweighed by the single fact of skin color / ethnicity. That's racism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

"reverse discrimination"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tjg1984 on Jul 20, 2009 8:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not crazy about Buchanan either, but I just wanted to comment on this phrase.

The use of the phrase "reverse discrimination" acknowledges a prior and/or more prevalent "forward discrimination." I think that the problem is that some people (who are more likely to be white, male, and/or Christian) focus on the decrease in the original discrimination and the increase in "reverse discrimination," while others (more likely to be women or minorities of some sort) see mainly the extent to which the original discrimination remains.

If we can try to avoid attacking each other and defuse misunderstandings when they occur, maybe we can come closer to understanding each other and getting along, whether or not this one white guy is stupid and/or racist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

"100 percent of the people in Gettysburg were white..."
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Kally on Jul 20, 2009 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What an absurd lie!!! There were African American regiments in the Revolutionary War, and DID fight at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. As for the argument that "100 percent of the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence were 100 percent white," people of color and women were not considered fully human by the ruling elite males. Africans were ripped from their homes and brought here to be slaves, and women who spoke up for themselves were cast out from society. It's ludicrous for Buchanan to make this argument. What about the fact no women signed the Declaration? Does that make all men inherently better then women? ARGH this country makes me sad

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» THANK you! Posted by: westomoon

Comments are closed-

What a hypocrite
[Report this comment]
Posted by: helenwheels on Jul 20, 2009 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pat Puke-anon thinks that Sotomayor is not qualified to sit on the SCOTUS but Palin is qualified to be president.

The man is crazy as well as racist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Helluva start to a Monday! (plus a little mild humor)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: westomoon on Jul 20, 2009 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read through these comments to see if anybody else had already mentioned the amusing thing I'd noticed about Buchanan's remarks (see below). Instead, I find that we have time-warped back fifty years into the past, and are discussing -- on AlterNet! -- whether non-white people and women have a right to take part in American society. Makes me want to crawl back under the covers and sob my little heart out.

I know AlterNet is subject to occasional troll storms, especially when a headline has a keyword that sends out bulletins to the lunatic fringe. But this is beyond trollery -- have people truly gotten this stupid? It really brings home the 30-year push to dumb down the electorate in a painfully vivid way.

What kind of idiot would look straight past every salient characteristic of an overqualified candidate and see only their ethnicity? Sotomayor's history is practically an explanation of what "equal opportunity" means. She got into Princeton as an "affirmative action baby", she says -- though has anyone checked out Buchanan's assumption that she didn't have the SAT scores or the grades to get admitted on a level playing field? There was a stretch in the 60's and 70's where "non-traditional" [working class, or female, or non-WASP] candidates for admission to Ivy League schools were considered "affirmative action", even if their credentials were better than those of "traditional" applicants.

Whatever her admission qualifications were, when she got to Princeton, she outperformed her "traditional" classmates and ended up graduating in the far upper reaches of her class. Same with Yale Law. Then she went on to a very solid career, first in the law, then on the bench. See, once she was given the opportunity to compete, she did extremely well -- all affirmative action did was to give her the chance to try. The rest was merit and hard work.

Which brings me to the comment I originally wanted to make. Did anybody else notice that Buchanan reinvented the wheel in his comments? Neanderthal Pat rediscovered the principle of "discriminatory effect" that the firefighter case was based on in the first place.

You know, when your selection criteria, whether you designed them that way or not, produce a selection pool that excludes some groups disproportionately, you have to take a serious look at those criteria. If they're valid, you can keep them; if they don't actually correlate to what's needed to do the job, you have to replace them. In the case of the firefighters, the whole court case was because the city decided they were obligated to make sure their test wasn't unfairly biased, because the applicant pool it produced looked so weird.

Buchanan applies the same "discriminatory effect" to Obama's selection process for the Supreme Court seat -- he doesn't know what criteria Obama used, but he does know that it looks weird, disproportionate, and wrong that the final pool was all one gender, so he assumes the selection process was flawed. Here's what he had to say:

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.

But I guess it was just my little fantasy that other AlterNet readers would find this an amusing irony.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Could not agree with you more but... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
» RE: As Usual Posted by: desidid

Comments are closed-

HURRAY FOR RACHEL!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: on Jul 20, 2009 10:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Man, isn't this woman amazing –– clear, bright, concise, caring! I just hope when she can finally get married she doesn't decide to retire. What a loss that would be for all of us.
Meanwhile, speaking of "retirement," shouldn't the old Irish racist Pat B. start thinking along those lines!?
Good on ya, Rachel.
m. swof.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HURRAY FOR RACHEL!!! Posted by: madcat007

Comments are closed-

Pat needs a history lesson
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tymefornew on Jul 20, 2009 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pat's comments about the racial composition of military in the Civil War and the World Wars shows just how the history of our nation has been re-written in the minds of white Americans. The following shows just how wrong he was!

http://www.answers.com/topic/military-service-and-minorities

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Huh?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ava1984 on Jul 20, 2009 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watch Rachel's MSNBC program Mon-Fri; and, have not seen this exchange! When and where did this occur?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Huh? Posted by: westomoon

Comments are closed-

Automated (I assume) transcribing leaves something to be desired...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eyejam on Jul 20, 2009 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There appeared to be a number of mistakes in the transcription that made some of the material a little confusing. Otherwise, the interview was interesting and worthwhile.

If anything should make clear how irrelevant and outdated pundits like Pat Buchannan are, it's this interview. The questioning that Sotomayor endured by some Repub senators was equally offensive in it's naivete and ignorance. You have to wonder how these rubes get elected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Pat is a typical white supremacist
[Report this comment]
Posted by: free71 on Jul 20, 2009 1:37 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I'm not surprised by Pat Buchanan's racial thinking, I am surprised that he is still treated as a guest who can contribute meaningful commentary on political matters. Pat basically believes that white people still have an intelligence edge on us darker-skinned human beings, and he all but said so.

When he referred to the fact that the US Olympic team is made up of mostly Black people, he did so because he thinks Black people are inherently faster runners. He was also saying that he believes the Supreme Court SHOULD be mostly white because white people are inherently more intelligent than others (i.e., Sotomayor doesn't have the "mind" that a Scalia or Bork do - as if these are two paragons of supreme intelligence!). Classic white supremacist thinking there, cut and dry.

At the turn of the 20th century, white supremacists believed that whites were inherently superior in the endowments of the mind AND the body. This was the case until Black people like boxer Jack Johnson and Olympic star Jesse Owens started to lift the curtain on this delusion, and white supremacist thinkers eventually relinquished their claim to physical superiority, but clung tighter to delusions of mental superiority (video of Jesse Owens outrunning Hitler's super Aryans is classic!). The popularity of Murray and Hernstein's "Bell Curve" in the 90's shows that this thinking is still well-entrenched in this country, and Pat was expressing his belief in it.

The question we should all be asking is why do some people have a NEED to think themselves superior to anyone simply because of their skin pigmentation? We've come a long way but we've obviously got a long way yet to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» typical white supremacist Posted by: shanghaicharlie

Comments are closed-

I found an awesome clip from the vaults
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Jul 20, 2009 2:03 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joe's interview demonstrates why he is such a really good interviewer,

Scarborough and Montel discuss medical marijuana June 16, 2005.

The second segment is Chris Matthews discussing the war with Pat Buchanan.

Both are well worth watching.

Joe's C street connections are problematic for him though, check out this one, especially the last two minutes,

Real time with Bill Maher July 17 2009 Joe Scarborough

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What tire
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lamac66 on Jul 20, 2009 2:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JOKE this guy has been over the years. He laughs all the way to the bank on this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Rachel Maddow is just another Obama cheerleader. YAWN !
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Benn_Miller on Jul 20, 2009 2:47 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pat Buchanan shouldn't be an issue. The Democrats have 60 votes to avert a filibuster and the GOP blocking them so what's the matter? Stupid article and stupid comments !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

its political theater
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Curioso on Jul 20, 2009 2:55 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It should be evident that this is theater. People read novels primarily because the conflict and suspense is magnetic. We view things like this under the guise of intellectual pursuit, but it is actually the conflict that energizes you to tune in to the utter foolishness of this rehearsed banter. Buchanan may not even believe what he says but he gets big bucks because people watch and listen. Maybe we are the real idiots here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

judesedit
[Report this comment]
Posted by: judette on Jul 20, 2009 4:12 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel was great. These elderly, racist, sexist, white men of the GOP have been ridiculing anyone who's not like them, putting them in categories and holding them there for centuries by using whatever negative propaganda they could dream up. It's about time someone started putting them in THEIR place. Funny, isn't it? It took a 30-ish, gay, white female to do it. AND I LOVE IT! Keep up the good work, Rachel. The new majority is listening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: judesedit Posted by: shanghaicharlie

Comments are closed-

The Mainstreaming of White Racism, Sexism, Classism, etc.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Nuuon on Jul 20, 2009 4:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amazing how the mainstream "white" media continues to give racist assholes like Buchanan, Beck, Savage, Limbaugh, etc. a platform-- and make them wealthy in the process.

Let's face it, if Al Sharpton was given a mainstream platform and he said any of the bullshit that comes out of the mouths of the aforementioned his contract would have been canceled- FAST (some members of the mainstream press are STILL harassing Sharpton about the Tawana Brawley case so many years after the fact-- especially when he comes anywhere NEAR the possibility of winning a public office). Sharpton has evolved: the white racist pundits have remained super-pigs. And they have been paid handsomely to be so.

It we want to get rid of these racist pricks for good we have to target the managers, supervisors, editors, programmers, and CEOs who are responsible for keeping them on the air. If these facilitators were publicized and harassed everywhere they went (Crowd Member yells: "Hey CEO, why do you continue to employ a known racist??) things would be much different for American politics.

We have to stop giving the business creeps who hire these racists a free pass. They must be forced to explain their obvious agenda of keeping racist, bigoted, sexist pigs in the spotlight. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT? Do they want to keep working class whites ready for racial war or primed to join a death squad?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Dee Rohner
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dmrohner on Jul 20, 2009 4:50 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pat Buchanan is not a racist, he is an elitist. That is, he believes that racial and cultural solidarity contribute to the strength of a people. He doesn't think that an overweight, illiterate, promiscuous, alcohol and drug addicted underclass that believes in something for nothing is the future of mankind. Delude yourself otherwise to your own peril.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» shanghaicharlie Posted by: Quannah
» RE: shanghaicharlie Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: Dee Rohner Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Dee Rohner Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: Dee Rohner Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Dee Rohner Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: Dee Rohner Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Dee Rohner Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF

Comments are closed-

Benny Waters
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Benwa on Jul 20, 2009 5:47 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! Kudos to you Rachael!! This is the best piece of pure leftist propoganda I have ever seen! It is Soviet pure!! To bad the Soviets aren't around to pat you on the back and award you the Order of Lenin!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "America, love it or leave it" Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Benny Waters Posted by: Bibsisis
» RE: Benny Waters Posted by:

Comments are closed-

Proof of Bona-fide Stupidity in the World of the Rightist Wing Nuts
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Nuuon on Jul 20, 2009 6:12 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out the comments of westomoon, FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF, shanghaicharlie and LaughingModerateIndependent. . . I'm tempted to assume they were merely cracking jokes, but one can't tell when it comes to these folks.

Damn, does anyone need any more proof of how completely screwed up, convoluted, incoherent and just plain crazy consumers of right-wing radio/TV punditry have become? Are these folks stuck on stupid or what? Clearly, listening to right-wing bull for so long has rendered them allergic to intelligent thought.

They provide definitive proof that a "talking cure" won't work with them. Somebody please buy these fools a dictionary and an inexpensive education at the local community college. And get ready for the civil war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow! Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Wow! Posted by: Nuuon
» Nuuon Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Wow! Posted by: Quannah
» Quannah Posted by: westomoon
» Rightwing nuts ? FUCK YOU ! Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: ightwing nuts ? FUCK YOU ! Posted by: soulrebeljc

Comments are closed-

Buchanan is a republican
[Report this comment]
Posted by: IRIQUOIS227 on Jul 20, 2009 7:28 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He and his sister Bay (as in at the moon)are right wing republican garbage. There is no more use in trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with Pat than there was with Strom Thurmond. Rachel just had a bad experience with the rats scurrying in the walls and sewers of the world. That would be Republicans, creators of major wars, major financial catastrophes, race hatred, women haters, and just plain pasty, pudgy, white men. Sadly, the human race has a ways to go to evolve away from the Pat Buchanans of the world. The world has had eight years to see republicanism out in the open for a change, and at it's very smelly worst. These sick rodents live off of the taxpayer, have no concern about the constitution, as George W. said, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper," which he and his dick, cheney promptly shredded. Hopefully Maddow has learned a lesson from this. Never look for a republican to talk intelligently with. It's just like talking to Kim Jung Il.
Sorry about the garbage can occupant, Buchanan Rachel, but, thankfully, as a rule, , this lesson lasts for ever. You have a great show!!!

ted

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Differing opinions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tjg1984 on Jul 20, 2009 7:33 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Council of Conservative Citizens says exactly the opposite about the same interview (warning: their title may be offensive).

Yes, I know they're a bunch of racists, and they make more spelling and grammatical errors than Alternet, too. But what sort of victory is it if people on the opposite side cannot perceive their loss?

I think each of the debate participants made at least one valid point and at least one error in logic and/or communication, and maybe others on both sides should try to calm down and talk more civilly, rather than shouting things like "Rachel Maddow Takes Down Racist" or "Pat Buchanan Destroys Lesbian." More boring, but more accurate, I think, would be "Two People Talk Loudly at Each Other; Nobody Won."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Differing opinions Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: Differing opinions Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Differing opinions Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: Differing opinions Posted by: soulrebeljc

Comments are closed-

Black Scholar Arrested As Housebreaker
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Lilly on Jul 20, 2009 8:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Monday night 7-19, go to Google News. In Cambridge MA a white woman informed police that a black man was breaking into a house. Police arrived to find Henry Louis Gates Jr, head of Harvard's African-American history department, in his own home. The door had stuck and he put his shoulder to it. He produced his Harvard ID and objected to obvious racial profiling. The police then hauled him onto his porch, handcuffed him in front of his neighbors, and arrested him for disorderly conduct. The article also reports that another black scholar who had taught Neuroscience at Harvard for 25 years was arrested while walking across the campus at night; he was taken for a robbery suspect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

No clear winner here
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jamesbh999 on Jul 20, 2009 8:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The headline is misleading ... PB appeared to hold his own too, and RM should not (as PB mentioned) use a 'unfair results argument' to illudtrate or support a claim of racism - she blew this one. It's ok to me (as a white male) that folks support her position or want the same outcomes she does but she hardly made an intelligent counter argument and resorted to name calling and blatant mischaracterizations -- not my idea of an educated or measured argument in the least.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No clear winner here Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF

Comments are closed-

Affirmative Action is an "Ends Justify the Means" Policy
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jul 20, 2009 8:56 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel that I am lost.

I used to be a very progressive person back in my college days only 10 years ago (I also happened to be codependent and I don't think it's a coincidence).

As I got older I spent most of my downtime at my job reading everything I could get my hands on, political and philosophical.

As I turned into a more independent, self-reliant libertarian, I have found myself more and more at odds with opinions on sites like Alternet.

I don't know if I have changed so much, if Alternet has changed so much, or both of us have.

Quite frankly I do not see how RM trounced PB or that PB showed himself to be a racist in this interview.


Affirmative Action is an "Ends Justify the Means" policy. It is specifically designed to privilege people whose ancestors have belonged to groups that were discriminated against at the expense of people whose ancestors did the discriminating.

In some kind of effort to make things right for the sins of our fathers the left has decided to punish the children for the crimes of their parents.


I realize poverty and opportunity are still in short supply for many of the offspring of groups previously discriminated against but that does not mean the ends justify the means and that more qualified individuals should be discriminated against in some kind of attempt to balance out the cosmic scales for our past misdeeds.


How about doing the right thing and respecting individual liberty? If we ended the drug war for example, that would probably do more to help Black and Latino Americans than any affirmative action policy. Blacks and Latinos are arrested, fined, and imprisoned more for drug crimes than whites.

Having a felony conviction on your record will do far more to keep you from getting a good job than discrimination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, but what PB said was BS. Posted by: Parcival01

Comments are closed-

Mrs. Jefferson...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bibsisis on Jul 21, 2009 12:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you are full of shit and reveal yourself to be a racist non-pariel! Getthehell off here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

SS IS A RACIST
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reelman on Jul 21, 2009 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only the dufus modern secular socialist liberal would think that discrimination ends discrimination...
Silly dimwitted liberals go on and on...but we know the truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR WHITE FOLKS
[Report this comment]
Posted by: edpierce on Jul 21, 2009 7:33 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a basic point that is overlooked by White Americans. The United States was founded on the principle of Affirmative Action for White Folks. Affirmative Action for White Folks is still alive and well in our country. Would an African American with the brains and academic ability of George Bush have been accepted for admission to Yale?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR WHITE FOLKS Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com

Comments are closed-

Colbert slams Buchanan
[Report this comment]
Posted by: filhtymcnasty on Jul 22, 2009 3:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
cuz maddow didnt
http://www.colbertnation.com/
the-colbert-report-videos/239121/
july-20-2009/reverse-racism

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Buchanan like Limbaugh needs to make a living!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: johnbradleycopeland on Jul 22, 2009 3:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by preaching to his "choir" at every opportunity. The "old goat" has still got it in him. It seems that only the Joe Plumber's, Christian nazi's, bible and gun toters care to listen to PB ad nauseam. Rachel let PB on her show so that America could judge for themselves if PB were to have an intelligent thought; which he did not. PB is helping America see that the Republikkkan party is still united with the KKK. - P.S. Mayby PB should go to the same church (C Street) as my Governor (Mark Sanford R-SC) to get forgiveness and he could of course also "counsel" with John Ensign (R) or "Chip" Pickering about how to re-define "marriage" into something that the Focus on the Family empire could support!!!! god bless!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

WHEN RACHEL (OR HER HANDLERS) PUT ON PAT BUCHANAN I EITHER HIT THE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jul 22, 2009 9:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mute button or change channels. This 'thought' substitute flows directly out of the right wing think tank industry's daily talking points. Why should I waste my time even listening to them. I already know what they are going to say. The executives in charge think that if they use "fair and balanced" to present the right wing talking points we will somehow be convinced by them.

At this point it has been shown scientifically, solid statistics, that NO segment of our populus profits from the right wing political positions. Our wealthy people do worse than wealthy people in other industrial nations. The why is a bit uncertain. But the fact is indisputable.

Our right wing is driven by a hunger for power. We are now at a level that they know they can only keep power through deception or force. As, and if, the deception fails they know and are understanding they can only continue through force.

Over the last 8 years and yet even further back we have seen an emerging police state promoted as being "tough on crime". The purpose was never to protect the weak. The purpose was, and is, to project state power onto the streets. They are preparing for "krystalnacht". Go back and read Naomi Wolf again.

Remind yourself that Pat Buchanan once wrote a book telling us that we did not live in a democracy. He said that we live in a representative republic. Sadly, they bought the representatives. Aha, the advent of a plutocracy. I do think that we all knew that we had yet to create participatory democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Rachel Maddow Takes Down MSNBC's Resident Racist Pat Buchanan
[Report this comment]
Posted by: diannesrave on Jul 23, 2009 10:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rachel Maddow rocks. She does her research, and intelligently and calmly takes down those she disagrees with. Pat Buchanan with a chuckle has made offense comments about other races on MSNBC shows for quite awhile now. He has carried his race bias on the air on Morning Joe for quite some time without anyone even blinking an eye. Ms. Maddow listened and waited for a while and then let loose in her manner. It is about time and I hope it is not the last time that Mr. Buchanan is called out for his racism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

blare premire
[Report this comment]
Posted by: itouch backup on Jul 24, 2009 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

Comments are closed-

Never heard of AlterNet till today. Obviously anti-American
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Pro61 on Jul 24, 2009 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You little site has all the ingredients. Happily skipping along and trying your best to push America to third-world status.

Losers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A key to the Gate of Cheerful Marriage - Tiffany Jewelry
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jamie1990 on Jul 24, 2009 6:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lately, professionals selected by vote for the most attractive women. According to the result published on the U.S. media, Michelle Obama ranked first. There is no need to wonder why Angelina Jolie and Gisele Bundchen, the sweetest creatures, are left far behind. It can't be simpler. What do you think will happen if such women appear in the office? Having no advantages in face and figure, Michelle Obama, however, draws the admiration of the majority of people for her sensitive taste on fashion and capacity on dresses and jewellery. In consideration of her age, figure, status, and taste, she is absolutely the outstanding model of women in the middle class all over the world. As to the women in managing level, they also have their true Tiffany Pendant icon at last. Michelle Obama likes to wear pearls, as we all know, but you know what she also tries to terrace the jewels. For instance, she ever wore Cartier upon Tiffany Pendants, winning most women's compliments. This kind of lamination keeps the focus of eyes and increases the sense of jewels' gradation whose luxury and brightness makes her too charming to be ignored. But the brilliance of these pendant requires people having certain status, abilities, qualities, as well as experience, being suitable for professional women in high positions. It is necessary for these women to possess a piece of unique and brilliant diamond jewelry in order to keep being confident among women in the same circle. The lamination of jewels is just a fashionable style for young ladies and diamonds are too dear, so Tiffanys or Channel silver jewelries, for example, are best alternative. Focusing your attention on Michelle Obama is equal to focus on fashion and you can then lead a wonderful life as an OL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

links of london - the Charm That You Cannot Ignore
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jamie1990 on Jul 24, 2009 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
your hairstyle should be considered when choosing your suitable charm bracelet. Clothes with many laces go well with charm bracelets in simple design. Wearing properly jewels that are fit for certain occasion of the gathering with your friends and relatives will let others feel relax and comfortable. On the contrary, the jewels with dark color will let these women having fair skin look brighter. These plump ladies and shining links of london bracelet are a perfect match from which a sense of nobility and dignity will be revealed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

clae shoes
[Report this comment]
Posted by: wen on Jul 25, 2009 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome to visite www.shoes-base.com (Support PayPal) we update our website . Various Sizes available; Top Quality; Novel design; jordan air yeezy shoes Attractive appearance; Express Delivery.Every weak you will find many new style items from it thanks if you have any questions Please feel free to contact us.We will reply to you within 24hours.
http://www.shoes-base.com
www.shoes-base.com
Msn: shoesbase@msn.cn
Send email to: shoesbase@yahoo.cn


air force ones puma shoes clae shoes all star basketball shoes shoes online buy shoes gucci shoes beach shoes fidel shoes jordan jf retro air yeezy size 13 ed hardy xl women ed hardy tiger shirts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

RACISM and SEXISM are JUST ANOTHER FORM OF IGNORANCE!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sushi on Jul 25, 2009 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it weren't for Affirmative Action, we all would be back in the 1950's. Nostalgia for some meant a cookie-cutter life for women and minorities.

In 1972 I was told that my high grades in algebra and geometry were never going to do anything for me; "I should take a typing class so I could earn a living as a secretary if I didn't get married and have babies right out of high school." (This guidance counsellor also mentioned that "I might make a good airline hostess, since I was slender, young and pretty" ...the only kind they hired back then. Gain 10 lbs and you lost your job!) I wanted to take an architecture class and was told, "No one is going to hire a female architect. Those jobs go to men raising families." (As if women didn't raise families...) "No one wants to hire a woman and train her because she will only get pregnant and training would be wasted."

I was good at algebra and liked geometry so I kept those classes despite his advice.

Funny thing about when I graduated... Affirmative Action helped me get an entry level job doing Civil Engineering drafting in roadway design, my career for 15 years. I was one of the best draftsmen they had! They used my work as examples for other employees as inspiration.

Another thing about algebra: it kept me from signing onto one of those tempting adjustable rate teaser-mortgages that are screwing so many people right now. The Ruling Class know how to manipulate numbers and unless YOU know what THEY know, you can be taken serious advantage of. Most people don't even know what an amortization schedule is, let alone what variable interest can do. When store clerks offer me 10% off my purchase if I sign up for a store credit card with 28% interest rates, I laugh at them.

Republican votes count on ramping up racism and sexism. How many of the working class continue to vote for the very policies that keep them struggling? Any coincidence that Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and the rest of the "red states" are poverty-stricken with crappy educations while rich masters exploit their resources? Any of Louisiana's oil money going to benefit the citizens? Keeping people ignorant, resentful and scared is the goal of the Master Class so they can continue to rip people off.

Sushi
"Ever wonder what life will be like when THESE are the good ol' days?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

basic point
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hahaho on Jul 30, 2009 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a basic point that is overlooked by White Americans. The United States was founded on the principle of Affirmative Action for White Folks. Affirmative Action for White Folks is still alive and well in our country. links of londontiffany

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Disappeared group
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DHFabian on Aug 15, 2009 9:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you really wonder who America's non-people are today, consider low-income white women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Rachael's Greeting Incongruent With Opposition To A Racist
[Report this comment]
Posted by: desidid on Jul 20, 2009 12:50 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would anyone but another racist tell one how glad they are to see them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: mythmorph
» Everyone deserves respect... Posted by: buffeliscious
» Pots and kettles Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: Natasha_W
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: peacefullaim1
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: mainspark
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: Natasha_W
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: peacefullaim1
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: Perhaps because Rachel... Posted by: Bibsisis
» Comity Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: Reading Into Comments Posted by: desidid

Comments are closed-

When?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: soulrebeljc on Jul 20, 2009 1:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At what point does Pat Buchanan become someone that nobody listens to anymore because they are just fucking nuts? What does he have to offer anyone, ever? And yes, why would Rachel be glad to see him, what kind of bullshit is that? Can't liberals just say "You're a joke, you must know that? I'm bringing you onto my show because your opinions are vulgar and dangerous, and your contribution to policy debate is akin to Howdy Doody playing Hamlet, only slightly less believable." Time to dispense with the niceties on freaks like Buchanan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When? Posted by: orwellturns
» RE: When? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: When? Posted by: orwellturns
» Pat Buchanan is not a freak... Posted by: permanentilt
» Mexicans?!? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: Trouble is... Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Mexicans?!? Posted by: babs
» Exacto mondo ! Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE:Goddam, Mr. Jefferson... Posted by: aichbe
» RE: When? Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: When? Posted by: babs
» Yes, but.... Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: When? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: When? Posted by: Benn_Miller
» RE: When? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: When? Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: When? Posted by: aichbe
» RE: When? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: When? Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: When? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: When? Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: When? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: When? Posted by: aichbe
» RE: When? Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: When? Posted by: Livemike

Comments are closed-

She likes to see him...with his tail between his legs.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: reason2believe on Jul 20, 2009 1:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps she was glad to see him cos she planned to give him a drubbing! Haha

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I Agree That There Have Been some Mistakes In A.A....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Razional Thinker on Jul 20, 2009 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but how many thousands of knowledgeable, industrious people were left out in the cold before then?
How do you account for hundreds of years before A.A.? How do you account for the hundreds of years of white man advantage? How do you account for the struggle of a lot of A.A. people having to be pioneers in their families and environment? The isolation/stress (but the pride) of being among the first allowed educational and employment opportunities must have been difficult. And, gradually that is turning around. Now you have segments of society who can discuss and motivate their youth in the struggle through college or the struggle in a professional work environment. Why? Because, unlike the generation before, they themselves are/were in a professional environment or graduated college.

Yes, I agree with Pat...in pursual of righting wrongs....some wrongs have occured. But, how very few in comparison?

You go Rachel!!....Pat,indeed, has dated himself (I hope that's what it is) and shown he has no dimension(color)...he is pompously white throughout. Sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Buchanan unmasked
[Report this comment]
Posted by: 3party on Jul 20, 2009 2:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is very easy to label Pat Buchanan a racist, just as his views about Israel made it easy to label him anti-semitic -- until more and more people started to agree with him. I am Jewish, and I have never been persuaded that Buchanan is an anti-semite. On Israel, I largely agree with him. On matters of race, including affirmative action, I thought he was always very careful to make his arguments rest on grounds that could not be called racial prejudice. To my mind, there was precious little evidence that Buchanan's views on these subjects were motivated by any kind of racial or ethnic prejudice. I disagreed with most of what he said, but I respected his views.

The Sotomayor nomination really blew his cover, at least where Hispanics are concerned. He has articulated his opposition to, and disdain for Judge Sotomayor's nomination in terms which make clear that the facts do not matter, even when they are central to his argument. Specifically, he assumes that at every stage of her education and, later, her legal career, she was an inferior candidate given a leg up by the system. Under questioning from Rachel M., it became very clear that he simply did not know that she got special treatment when admitted to Yale Law School, or when she was elected to the law Journal, or when she won the highest academic prize at Princeton.

Pat Buchanan was exposed, this time, as an unreformed, unapologetic racist where Judge Sotomayor was concerned. For once, he was so rattled (by Rachel's excellent cross-examination) that he gave away the store. Well done, Rachel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Buchanan unmasked Posted by: desidid
» RE: Buchanan unmasked Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: Buchanan unmasked Posted by: desidid
» RE: Let's see... Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: 'Mrs. Jefferson' unmasked Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE:YOU unmasked Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: Buchanan unmasked Posted by: babs
» RE: Buchanan unmasked Posted by: AZLBRAX07
» RE: automatically a "racist" Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: HMMMM. Possibly so. Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: HMMMM. Possibly so. Posted by: AZLBRAX07
» Tell the truth Posted by: westomoon
» RE: SHUT YOUR ...sheesh! Posted by: beijaflor

Comments are closed-

Rachel had Pat on for discussion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Nightowl on Jul 20, 2009 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's what she does so well.

I see Pat's point of view, and disagree with it. He sees isolated incidents instead of the whole picture. His thinking is based on fear and staying with the status quo. Fearful people are afraid of change. They don't see that diversity benefits all.

I'm a white woman living in New Mexico, and I'm a minority here. The whole country may be that way someday. Change happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: achel had Pat on for discussion Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: being a minority Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: being a minority Posted by: mythmorph

Comments are closed-

Ankle Biters
[Report this comment]
Posted by: billslm on Jul 20, 2009 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The people Buchanan represents and speaks for are also politically stuck like him back in 1952. That has actually always been Buchanan's strong point. It is what a conservative is: Backward looking! To the good old days!

Then too, Repukes lie. They lie the way you blink your eyelids, or walk on two legs, or inhale and exhale. Tonight, I heard, from a reliable source, that now the Repukes have begun a new campaign to discredit the Obama presidency because they say Obama's style of governance forced whatsisname Lewis, the CEO of Bank of America, (Skank of America)to lose all that money when he bought all those poisoned derivatives with Merril-Lynch. To them it's entirely beside the point that all that was signed and sealed by Bush long before Obama entered the Whitehouse. The problem is that when you deal with Right wing ankle biters, and they are all ankle biters, you are trying to deal as a rational human being with an equal.

And rational human to rational human is not the equation at all.

Republicans are a totally deranged bunch who simply cannot begin to make their purview coincide with reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ankle Biters Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: Ankle Biters Posted by: babs
» RE: Ankle Biters Posted by: countingdaisies

Comments are closed-

I Love Getting A 1 Rating
[Report this comment]
Posted by: desidid on Jul 20, 2009 2:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it means I said something that struck a nerve. It still doesn't explain why "liberal whites" continue to make racist feel welcome to express their point of view. If Pat were Black and ranted that way I wonder how many of you would support her having him on her show and being warm to him? At some point good tv simply isn't good enough. I watch Rachael and have told others to watch her. But I have stopped because I emailed her a while ago about Pat Buchanan's particular brand of racism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Benn_Miller = lying troll Posted by: Quannah
» Quannah = lying troll Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» LOL ... She still hasn't got it!!! Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Quannah = lying troll Posted by: beijaflor
» RE: I Love Getting A 1 Rating Posted by: cmaciain
» Oh, grow up, yellow Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Hey Genius Posted by: desidid
» RE: RM was "warm"? Posted by: mythmorph
» desidid Posted by: foreverhope
» desi, IOU Posted by: westomoon
» RE: West Posted by: desidid
» Rachel's crazy Uncle Posted by: westomoon
» RE: achel's crazy Uncle Posted by: Quannah

Comments are closed-

Truelass
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Truelass on Jul 20, 2009 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watch the McLaughlan Report, which is possibly the best time to hear and see Pat Buchanan exploit his white supremist views. I have been waiting for him to say if we have to have a women then why can't it be Sarah Palin? Oh migawd he would then reach the height of stupidity.
Yet, he is not stupid and still he makes the most outrageous statements on abysmal ignorance, almost as moronic as the great bigots Limbaugh and Kristel. Like them and the Fox crowd he is a racist, a bigot and more often a clown. He opens mouth to change feet and spouts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Truelass Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: True bull shit Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Truelass Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: Truelass Posted by: babs

Comments are closed-

Affirmative Action is Not Cool
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Jul 20, 2009 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want you guilty white folks to get denied admissions to your favorite university all because the color of your skin and then realise this can happen to you.

I know Pat B is unapologetic when it comes to his conservatism however that doesn't make him a Racist so find a better way to win an argument because this is getting old. Really we don't ask ourselves when we are watching the Olympics and see a Track Meet or the Ski Team and try to apply "Affirmative Action" we just hope the USA kicks ass.

I just want this to happen to you when Hispanics get pushed into positions just because of race (certain Hispanics) that undercuts qualified Asians. I know its the era to pick on the Anglo Saxon however attitudes only shift to favor another race grope however when it happens to you I'll join you at "state school," you can help me fix my grammar.

p.s. whatever happen to the Hispanic New Haven Firefighter whom did not get promoted

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it happen to theh Irish and Italians... Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: it happen to theh Irish and Italians... Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: Your point? Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: Your point? Posted by: desidid
» RE: But Institutional Racism Is Posted by: soulrebeljc
» Affirmative Action is Still Not Cool Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: Affirmative Action is Not Cool Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: Affirmative Action is Not Cool Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» The White Folks I know an't no Kennedy's of Kerry's Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: A bunch of underachievers. Posted by: mythmorph
» What Are YOU DOING! Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: What Are YOU DOING! Posted by: FULLPROOF BULLETPROOF
» RE: Better Than Being Posted by: desidid
» RE:It Appears Posted by: desidid
» President Bush? Posted by: permanentilt
» U of Texas told President Bush NO for MBA school Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» the blood of the civil war Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars

Comments are closed-

SONIA'S CREDENTIALS
[Report this comment]
Posted by: soowee on Jul 20, 2009 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pat Buchanan raises a legitimate issue, regardless of his antiquated personal biases, that no one should ever be considered for public office on the basis of mere group "status." Therefore, the proper way to respond to his argument is not, as Rachel Maddow tries to say in defense of gender/ethnic "affirmative action," that we should all be proud that someone of a historically ignored group can now get onto the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, race- or gender-based affirmative action patently violate the 14th Amendment's guarantees of equal justice under the law.

I certainly deplore the dominance of the Supreme Court by so many clueless white men, but their gender and skin color are not the problem. Most of them were also people of high academic and professional achievement, so those are not the deciding factors, either. The proper way to promote Sonia Sotomayor is to pronounce her many abilities and qualities obviously suitable for a US Supreme Court justice, but also display a core philosophy of ensuring personal liberty and access to justice that badly need reinforcement on the current Supreme Court. Her gender and ethnic background do not really count, and her accomplishments tell only part of the tale I want to hear.

I'd rather have a white guy who is a raging civil libertarian than a Latina who might be a raving statist. I doubt that accurately describes Sotomayor's philosophy. I hope she gets on the Court.

H. Watkins Ellerson
PO Box 90
Hadensville, VA 23067
(804) 457-4243

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SONIA'S CREDENTIALS Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: SONIA'S CREDENTIALS Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: SONIA'S CREDENTIALS Posted by: soowee

Comments are closed-

Affirmative Action is the epitome of reverse discrimination.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: CharlesRoland on Jul 20, 2009 4:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Affirmative Action is the epitome of reverse discrimination. There is just no other way to see it. Try being a white male in today's PC society. There's no such thing as a Caucasian Male College Fund, but I noticed the United Negro College Fund. Woman can have groups and clubs - but men cannot. It's illegal to outwardly be proud of being of white European decent in this country. It's illegal to give a helping hand to fellow white male youth, but it's alright to make special passes for females and non-white males.
If you were a white male in today's society you would see the reverse discrimination. If you don't then you must hate your own race. If it wasn't for white males we'd still be living in the woods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rubbish. Posted by: Parcival01
» RE: Awwww, poor you. Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: CRY BABY!!!!! Posted by: blurider

Comments are closed-

Actually - Maddow Did NOT Take Down Uncle Pat
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kyletlucas@yahoo.com on Jul 20, 2009 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was a bit of hyperbole for Alternet to title this post "Rachel Maddow Takes Down MSNBC's Resident Racist, Pat Buchanan." In fact, because I so strongly disagree with Maddow's inept handling of Buchanan, I resent Alternet's promotion. A regular fan of the Rachel Maddow, I cringe every time that she invites Buchanan on and affectionately refers to him as her "Uncle Pat." Nonetheless, following his Sotomayor hearings column, she easily convinced me that she intended to get serious with the man whose racist beliefs are well-documented. So, I was surprised by hear her warm welcome followed by a tepid exchange that with her colleague and "Uncle Pat." I expected an intelligent and articulate debate of Buchanan's racist rants. I most certainly didn't expect her to thank a racist and tell him how nice it was to have him on her show.

As a fan, I am familiar with Maddow as gutsy as a matter of fact in addressing other issues and individuals. So, as a woman of color, I was dismayed by her seeming inability or certainly--unwillingness to address Buchanan's racism head-on. B

elow, is a copy of my letter conveying these concerns to her, which included a link to the acclaimed and much cited Peggy McIntosh piece on white privilege. I did not receive a response.

Hello Rachel,

As a long-term fan, thought I'd shoot you a quick message about your uncle Pat Buchanan. I was eager to see your show yesterday and hopeful for an articulate counter to the bigoted views of Pat Buchanan. I must say that your affectionate reference to him as "My Uncle Pat" was always troubling and my stomach turned every time you said it.

Frankly, with his blatant ignorance of and bigoted attack on Judge Sotomayor, I expected stronger statements from you. Here is a post that I made to my Facebook page today:

"I am baffled by a favorite--Rachel Maddow--for her tepid counter to her "Uncle Pat" Buchanan and his bigoted ranting as guest on her show yesterday. For a PhD, I am alarmed at her inability to articulately counter her "Uncle Pat's" ignorant ravings. Perhaps she needs an education on white privilege. I intend to send her a copy of Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" http://tinyurl.com/md8zq2">linked text

I have no doubt that you've read the McIntosh piece in the past, but thought you might like to review it.

As a woman of color, I have been incensed by the blatant racist, sexist attacks on Judge Sotomayor by white male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, but also in the media. I had hoped for a more impassioned statement from you. With Pat Buchanan's ravings on Affirmative Action, I hope that you will better educate yourself about this nation's progress on civil rights and equality as well as its lack of progress.

Thank you.

I regularly give Rachel Maddow props for her gutsy interviews and commentary, but she did not "take down" Uncle Pat last Thursday.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excellent post, wbblack! Posted by: dazzle59
» Good for you! Posted by: mythmorph

Comments are closed-

Let's see the title of this article is....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Jul 20, 2009 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..."Rachel Maddow Takes Down MSNBC's Resident Racist, Pat Buchanan," by RACHEL MADDOW!?

Racel Maddow is rating her own performance?! How objective!

It is obvious that Rachel Maddow, and others here, did NOT actually read the article or listen to the interview.

Unfortunately Buchanan held MORE than his own with Maddow. His rhetoric was essentially untouched by her. I beg anyone here to cite an excerpt where Maddow "one upped" Buchanan...including...Maddow!

Maddow like most "progressives" came unprepared for battle. She is like Bill Mahr, and John Stewart to a degree. They are fine when the guest in question is not present, but play nice when they interview. I have seen it happen adnausium.

Say what you what to about the Repukes, they come prepared with their talking points, and they know what "liberal" shows will allow them to get their points across and ameliorate their positions. Buchanan did just that. He had at least a tie if he did not win out right. He had an answer for every question.

For one thing, Maddow kept hinting that the 108 white men were not the most qualified of anyone to be found at that time. If she would have had any proof, she could have then blown him out of the water, and his arguement.

You may not like Buchanan (I find him repulsive), but he is dumb like a fox. He is calculating, comes prepared, and knows he will get an easy time on Maddow's show, or why do you think he would go on?

In my opinion Maddow threw softballs, and had no defense. Buchanan may not have had homeruns, but many hits, and played enough defense to at least keep is close, if not win by a hair. For a racist to do that is a BIG victory. For Maddow this should have been like the Yankees playing a little league team...but it wasn't.

Other than Keith Oberman, I cannot think of anyone (progressive) that can stand up consistently to the racist, bigoted, hateful, Repukes. Until that day comes, this country is in trouble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

gathaiga
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gathaiga on Jul 20, 2009 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While my views tend to be aligned with Maddow's I was waiting for the take down of Buchanan. I didn't see it, all I saw was opposing views being expressed and, depending on one's viewpoint, neither one gaining an advantage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Pat the Geek
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jmmartin on Jul 20, 2009 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nick the Greek got fired from network television sportscasting when he made comments like this one from Buchanan:

PB: "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."

This is the same as saying, "It's OK for blacks to be sports people because they are racially endowed with physical prowess and abilities beyond those of whites, but few if any blacks are Supreme Court material." Considering the current token African-American among the Nine Nutty Professors, I tend to agree with him -- vis-a-vis THAT black man only. But I don't think that a tendency to mash women is racially exclusive (I can even imagine a white man telling a woman he's found a pubic hair on his Coke can).

My question is, why does NBC and its cable news network MSNBC continue to HIRE Buchanan to come on and express his right wingnut opinions? Nick the Greek was drummed into obscurity when he said these things years ago. Perhaps it is time we started peppering NBC and MSNBC with objections to Pat appearing on their programs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jimmy The Greek Posted by: desidid
» RE: Jimmy The Greek Posted by: astockton
» RE: Jimmy The Greek Posted by: desidid
» RE: Jimmy The Greek Posted by: astockton
» RE: Jimmy The Greek Posted by: desidid
» The Maddow show fills a niche. Posted by: Parcival01
» RE: Pat the Geek Posted by: rickiey

Comments are closed-

I wish Maddow would have had the guts to answer PB's question, but she didn't.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: rickiey on Jul 20, 2009 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you think Frank Ricci and those guys were treated justly when they were denied that promotion because they were white?

He asked, she ran away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

maddow did not take him down
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kungfuma on Jul 20, 2009 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hardly.nice try tho I guess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: maddow did not take him down Posted by: Redhead5050

Comments are closed-

Josie
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jegnj on Jul 20, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at his appointees - first black Attorney General, first black head of the FDA and now Sonya. Can they not all be AA appointees? What are the odds?
I have no issue with picking the best people for the job and if they happen to be Chinese, black or purple who cares? His record is starting to speak for itself though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Josie Posted by: desidid
» RE: Josie Posted by: yellow
» RE: Josie Posted by: desidid
» RE: Josie Posted by: Redhead5050
» RE: Josie Posted by: yellow
» About that "study" you cite Posted by: westomoon
» You poor sap Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Wait up here, Josie..... Posted by: mythmorph
» RE: Wait up here, Josie..... Posted by: shanghaicharlie

Comments are closed-

The problem here is simple...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tim Chadron on Jul 20, 2009 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It involves two things. Assumptions, and labels.

When are we going to stop placing labels on everyone. Republican, Democrat, white, black, latina, gay, straight, pro-life whatever!! As soon as we label (and we even do this to ourselves) we pidgeon-hole ourselves into a narrow little category AND that leads to assumptions. (She was chosen because she was a WOMAN, and a LATINO WOMAN at that! And it was all about AA and is a slap in the face to all white men.... Blah blah blah) What a crock of crap!! I wish society would evolve to the point where we stopped always looking for differences in each other, and started looking for commonalities. Is this human being intelligent, hard working, ethical, knowledgeable about the work they are about to take part in? Are they the most qualified for the position? Has there been any unethical behaviour in their recent past which would indicate they are unfit for the position at hand?

Being a woman, a latino, or a white male hasn't got squat to do with whether or not a person is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The problem here is simple... Posted by: countingdaisies

Comments are closed-

Each playing to thier own
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kad on Jul 20, 2009 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each participant in the exchange was clearly playing to their core audience. The libs will think RM won, the conservatives will think PB blew her away. Just another case of infotainment run amok.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: each playing to thier own Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: ach playing to thier own Posted by: Redhead5050
» RE: ach playing to thier own Posted by: kepstein7777

Comments are closed-

"You're dating yourself."
[Report this comment]
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jul 20, 2009 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is she calling PB a jack off?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, a dinosaur Posted by: westomoon

Comments are closed-

I agree that "taking down" is the wrong title here
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cindroo on Jul 20, 2009 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I seriously WANTED to read about a good come back to Pat Buchanan's repugnant stance on race and affirmative action, I must agree with several comments below that Rachel did a poor and blustery job in talking with Pat. He was really more articulate and she didn't answer his legitimate sounding points with any intellectually considered opposition. She just was stuck in "you are racist and old fashioned." I think it was liberals who ended up looking whiny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I respectully disagree Posted by: Parcival01
» RE: I respectully disagree Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

It looks like Buchanan plans to run for office.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Parcival01 on Jul 20, 2009 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And his appeal will be to the Archie Bunkers among us.

I had an old friend, a life-long Republican,who said back in 2000 when Buchanan was running like he was a character from "Gone with the Wind." That friend said, "You know, Buchanan has some very good questions. [e.g., "I had a neighbor when I was a kid who worked at a hardware store. He had a house, a couple of kids, a car. Why couldn't somebody working in a hardware store live that way anymore?"] But he comes up with the wrong answers!"

Whatever differences we may have with Affirmative Action--and I have some, as a veteran of civil rights law--white male victimhood ain't the answer to that difference. Buchanan seems to be setting himself up for a future run on the same terms on which he ran in 2000.

Is he anticipating an abysmal Obama failure?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Buchanan/Palin or Buchanan/Jeb Posted by: zipper696
» I was thinking Palin/Coulter. Posted by: Parcival01

Comments are closed-

Disturbing comments
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Frank J. on Jul 20, 2009 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pat Buchanan's comments on affirmative action and minorities in this interview disturb me greatly.
His final statements about Judge Sonya Sotomayor not understanding the working class really ticked me off. Judge Sotomayor may have benefited originally from affirmative action but then excelled in all her professional activities based upon her own skills and qualities, an outcome of affirmative action that I believe we should celebrate.
In addition she comes from a humble upbringing, something I'm very happy to have on the court. It's not just enough to point out the court is mostly white guys. But they are mostly white guys of privilege. I'm happy to have another Supreme Court Justice who knows the working class, grew up with the working class and is working class.
To me Pat's comments were as much a shout for class warfare against the working class of this country as a racial statement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Disturbing comments Posted by: Redhead5050

Comments are closed-

I didn't see the interview, so I can't judge him/her, but...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Fempatriot on Jul 20, 2009 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the fact that Ms. Sotomayor is active in "La Raza" (The Race) bothers me. No matter how it tries to cover up--it is a Hispanic racist group dedicated to taking back all the states it says the USA "stole" from Mexico. California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona...and more.

As a woman, I was turned down for several jobs that I could have done equally well as a man--but the man got the job every time. One reason was because I was over 40, going up against young men and women in their 30s and younger. So I know how it feels. I would not have wanted a job because I was a woman, but because I could have done it better than the person picked.

As for affirmative action--unfortunately when someone is put in a position because of their race or sex--and not because they are the best qualified for the job--that's racist too, no matter how you slice it. I'm not saying "white people" are more qualified than other people--I'm just saying that if I were filling a job, I would hate to have to pick a person because of their race/sex if I thought they were going to do a mediocre job performance. I'm truly color blind when it comes to job performance. The best way for minorities to qualify equally is to get a good education and to have a good attitude. Whites are fast becoming a minority in this "nation." It will be interesting 20 years from now...will "whitey" the minority get a job? I doubt it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, lordy Posted by: westomoon

Comments are closed-

Mr.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gerald on Jul 20, 2009 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While watching Pat's flaying against the tide I couldn't help thinking that he's the last honest white man on TV. He's like the old bull being taken down by a pack of wolves; that doesn't make him sympathetic but one has to admire his stance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mr. Posted by: Lilly

Comments are closed-

Buchanan and war
[Report this comment]
Posted by: homingpigeon on Jul 20, 2009 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm really troubled by the nastiness spewed about Pat Buchanan. There is a difference between being a racist and having a position against affirmative action.

How about if people looked at the main thing going on in the world now - the mass murder carried out by the Washington regime in so many places. Pat Buchanan is an articulate advocate against the wars abroad and reaches conservatives with that message.

I never thought I'd have anything in common with the fellow but I'll take him any day over the vicious shrews of the Feminist Majority who are colluding with and enabling the true horrors carried out by abroad by the Empire.

Buchanan is disagreeing with the choice for a seat on the Supreme Court. I am more concerned about people who have claimed to be in the peace camp who now are part of the program of inflicting unimaginable horror overseas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Buchanan and war Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Buchanan and war Posted by: Quannah

Comments are closed-

aumfish
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aumfish on Jul 20, 2009 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that Buchanan's position is mischaracterized by the title and tone of this article. I am a committed liberal who believes in evening the playing field for all, yet I think that Buchanan has made some valid points. That 108 justices have been white males reflects so much more about culture than the simple two-variable exclusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Stupid AND racist
[Report this comment]
Posted by: westomoon on Jul 20, 2009 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's this man who can barely string together a grammatical sentence, condemning Sotomayor as intellectually inferior. Here's what he had to say (emphasis added):

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.

In other words, he hasn't even bothered to research what she's written. He just knows she's intellectually inferior -- because she's a Latina.

It's weirdly reminiscent of Geraldine Ferraro's complaint during the primary that Obama was so intellectually inferior, he would never have been considered as a candidate except for affirmative action.

In both cases, a huge quantity of pertinent information about each candidate is outweighed by the single fact of skin color / ethnicity. That's racism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 -&n