HuffingtonPost:Rachel Maddow Duels With Pat Buchanan On Affirmative Action

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

:doh::doh:

Click on the link and scroll down to see the VIDEO.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/rachel-maddow-duels-with_n_237036.html

Rachel Maddow got into a fierce argument with Pat Buchanan about affirmative action and the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor on Thursday night.

The epic battle included accusations, interruptions, and strong feelings with Maddow incredulous that Buchanan could not bring himself to admit that discrimination might play a part in the fact that 108 out of 110 U.S. Supreme Court justices have been white.

Buchanan said he considered Sotomayor unqualified and called her an "affirmative-action appointment" by Obama. When Maddow pressed him on why he was critical of affirmative action, Buchanan launched into a vigorous defense of whites who have been discriminated against.

When asked why the overwhelming majority of justices have been white, Buchanan declined to explicitly cite discrimination, but explained that "White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up and the other 10% were African-Americans who had been discriminated against. That's why."

When Maddow asked whether the reason that 108 out of 110 justice were white is because "white people deserved to have those positions," Buchanan answered: "A lot of people get up there for a lot of reasons."

An incredulous Maddow continued: "I would hope that you would see that picking 108 out of 110 white justices of the Supreme Court means that other people are not being appropriately considered... and the reason we have affirmative action is you recognize that the fact that people were discriminated against for hundreds of years means that you sort of gamed the system unless you give other people a leg up..."

When Buchanan began to interrupt her, Maddow said, "Hold on, I let you talk for a long time."

Later, Buchanan compared the historically white make-up of the Supreme Court to an all-black track team or all-white hockey team, asking Maddow, "Why do you assume discrimination simply because you got one component on the Supreme Court... Where's the genius who is a woman who you think is a genius? Go for her..."

When Buchanan referenced the white firefighters who Sotomayor ruled against in a court ruling, claiming that they "are victims of that evil affirmative action," Maddow replied, "I couldn't disagree with you more."

Later, Buchanan attacked Maddow for being out of touch and seemed to slam judges who support affirmative action when he stated, "You know what they ought to do? They ought to defend the rights of white working-class folks."Maddow cut him off and snapped, "I don't need a lecture from you about whether or not I know, what I think about working class Americans... For you to privilege race... and say that what we need to tap politically is white people's racial grievance, you're playing with fire and dating yourself."

[JimboDaMan]

This just in: Pat Buchanon is a complete knucklehead. Film at 11.

[ACW]

Buchanan's overall point is somewhat correct, but he's not the best person to make the case :no:

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Buchanan's overall point is somewhat correct, but he's not the best person to make the case :no:

Personally, I think his overall point is BS.

[ACW]

Personally, I think his overall point is BS.

Nah, affirmative action CAN hurt whites. But the WAY he makes his case :doh:

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Nah, affirmative action CAN hurt whites. But the WAY he makes his case :doh:

I agree that AA CAN hurt whites but IMO, Pat's concern goes deeper than that.

IMO, Buchanan has an intense FEAR of whites becoming a minority in this country.

It's all about who has the power and he would prefer that whites keep it. :2cents:

(PS:FWIW, occasionally I'll agree with Pat even though I think he has some major "issues" regarding race.)

[twa]

When Buchanan referenced the white firefighters who Sotomayor ruled against in a court ruling, claiming that they "are victims of that evil affirmative action," Maddow replied, "I couldn't disagree with you more."

How were they not victims of AA?

[Burgold]

AA is one of those things that shouldn't exist in this country, but that there is probably still a need for. By definition though, restacking the deck to try to make it more fair for some groups will make it unfair for others. Was that necessary to break up the old boy's club and give some newcomers a chance? Is it still necessary? My biggest concern about AA is that it hasn't really evolved. I think that the culture of hiring and opportunity is different today than it was thirty years ago. I think the way we monitor and prod should also change.

I still think discrimination exists, but that it manifests differently and that AA should adapt to that new challenge. The ultimate goal of AA should be to make itself obsolete and thus it needs to be something monitored with the pressure increased and decreased perioidically.

From a somewhat outside position, it feels like there has been enormous positive growth in the workplace... now, I contribute that as much to a changing culture as to changing laws. At some point though, you have to see if it is real and if it... let it fly on its own.

[JimboDaMan]

Buchanan's overall point is somewhat correct, but he's not the best person to make the case :no:

He's bragging about the accomplishments of white men vs. black men, during a time when those white men kept those black men as slaves. Or perhaps he's just noting for the record that historically much of America's nation building has been accomplished by whites - but failing the little footnote that those whites owned those blacks as property which might be the reason why whites are over represented. And then the gentleman preceeds to call her an "affirmative action" appointment. Of course her race, sex, politics, accomplishments, temperament and experience were all factors in her selection. As was the case in all the appointments, but I don't recall Buchanon making similar complaints when he liked the politics of the nominee.

Here's what I glean from his comments:

- SC appointments have been based on "best available". For whatever reason, those have almost always been white males.

- There are currently NO women qualified for SCOTUS "Where's the genius who is a woman who you think is a genius? Go for her..."

- And apparently no minorities, because this woman is dismissed as unqualified and appointed solely for race/gender reasons, and he has no other qualified women or minorities to recommend.

- Yet his overall point is that "They ought to defend the rights of white working-class folks".

Good arguement, Pat.

[JimboDaMan]

When Buchanan referenced the white firefighters who Sotomayor ruled against in a court ruling, claiming that they "are victims of that evil affirmative action," Maddow replied, "I couldn't disagree with you more."

How were they not victims of AA?

I think you should review the issues involved in the case. Its kind of ironic that the Republicans are using the "Look at the poor firefighters" approach to this case, after claiming that Sotomayor would rule cases using empathy instead of law.

[IbleedBnG83]

This mother ****er is ****ing ridiculous. I'm not quick to call some one racist, but this guy his it written all over him.

I understand the points he wants to make, but there seem to be underlying feelings surfacing and he is showing his true colors.

[twa]

I think you should review the issues involved in the case. Its kind of ironic that the Republicans are using the "Look at the poor firefighters" approach to this case, after claiming that Sotomayor would rule cases using empathy instead of law.

I have looked at the issues...care to explain?

I agree Buchanan is a ass ,but that was not my question

[Art Monk Fan]

I think the issue is more complex than either of them are willing to admit.

Is Sotomayor qualified? Yes. Would she be my choice? Probably not. Were race and gender a consideration when Obama chose her? you'd have to be deeply deluded to think otherwise.

Bush and Obama both really wanted to be the first to appoint an Hispanic to the SOTUS, but Bush's favorite was a never going to get approved, so Obama gets the feather in his cap. To pretend that race played no part in this selection is ridiculous.

[ccsl2]

I think the issue is more complex than either of them are willing to admit.

Is Sotomayor qualified? Yes. Would she be my choice? Probably not. Were race and gender a consideration when Obama chose her? you'd have to be deeply deluded to think otherwise.

Bush and Obama both really wanted to be the first to appoint an Hispanic to the SOTUS, but Bush's favorite was a never going to get approved, so Obama gets the feather in his cap. To pretend that race played no part in this selection is ridiculous.

And for Buchanan say that white people built this country alone, and to pretend that race didn't have a factor in the last 108 of 110 SC Justices being white is ridiculous too.

if sh eis quaslified, which she seems to be, what duifference does it make what her race is. He record speaks for itself. And you can't deny she has a good record.

[JimboDaMan]

I have looked at the issues...care to explain?

I agree Buchanan is a ass ,but that was not my question

Oversimplifying thousands of pages of documents to the point of stupidity, the issue is: Was the city of New Haven within its rights to conclude that the widely disparate results on that test left the city culpable for disparate treatment of the test takers?

For the record, after the admittedly cursory review of the evidence from an outsider's position, I'd have to say New Haven was wrong in their conclusion, mostly because the test did not generally produce as dramatic a problem in other cities where it had been used. But the point is, were they within their rights to make that judgement. Its not an easy answer, as reflected by the 5-4 split decision. That's why when you seem to think this is a slam-dunk AA situation I questioned whether you have read the case.

[Burgold]

Yeah, I don't get the AA judge thing actually. Isn't Sotomayor more experienced as a judge than most of the previous candidates who've been accepted. Doesn't she have a great CV? Went to great schools? Trial Lawyer? 17 years as a Judge? etc. I mean what more could you want in terms of credentials?

[ccsl2]

Yeah, I don't get the AA judge thing actually. Isn't Sotomayor more experienced as a judge than most of the previous candidates who've been accepted. Doesn't she have a great CV? Went to great schools? Trial Lawyer? 17 years as a Judge? etc. I mean what more could you want in terms of credentials?

If you let Buchanon tell it, she needs to be white. Especially if you simply dismiss her as an AA appointee.

If you ask me, she was the best candidate, who happens to be hispanic.

[Burgold]

Even if you don't think she's the best person for the job... there's no way that you can legitimately make the argument that she's underqualified and got an unfair boost solely on her race.

[IbleedBnG83]

Even if you don't think she's the best person for the job... there's no way that you can legitimately make the argument that she's underqualified and got an unfair boost solely on her race.

I agree. I would have to be inclined to agree that race would have a part to due with her selection. However, I don't think she is underqulified and for that matter, I think she was one of the best available.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Even if you don't think she's the best person for the job... there's no way that you can legitimately make the argument that she's underqualified and got an unfair boost solely on her race.

FWIW, Karl Rove said that Sotomayor lacked "intellectual strength".

[@DCGoldPants]

Sadly, Maddow and Buchanan didn't just start making out at the end of their debate.

[ACW]

Sadly, Maddow and Buchanan didn't just start making out at the end of their debate.

:puke:

[IbleedBnG83]

Sadly, Maddow and Buchanan didn't just start making out at the end of their debate.

Too bad she is a big lesbo...or is it:evilg:

[JMS]

Buchanan's overall point is somewhat correct, but he's not the best person to make the case :no:

He's not the best person to make the case, cause he's fearless and has many battle-scares...... But most of what Buchanan says is somewhat correct and worth discussing regardless of how controversial it might appear when he presents it.

I thought Pat's historic refferences were his most convincing points, still that doesn't support his statement Sotamyer is "unqualified". Fact is the Americna bar association gave her their highest rating. She's finished top of her class from prestigous instituitons of learning, and she's got more judicary experience than any nominee going back 100 years. Rachel should have stayed on current events and not delved into History with Pat.... It's upsetting that Rachel felt the need only to defend affirmative action, and not defend the Sotamyer selection on it's merrits alone. It's like she was conceeding all minority nominations were gifts and unmerited.

Note to Pat... Whites didn't make up 100% of Gettysburg fatalities, nor Normandy, nor Iwo Jima. The first person who died in the American Revolutionary war was a minority Crispis Atticks. There were many minorities who fought and died in the civil war, Boston has a memorial to the Massachusetts Fifty-fourth Regiment and Robert Shaw right in front of the State house. Just like there were minorities in WWI and WWII. The first Medal of Honor of WWII should have gone to a minority, would have if he were white. (Doris Miller).

America's history is not nearly as ethnically simple as Pat presented, it's a shame Rachel wasn't knowledge enough to call him on that.

It's a shame Dorris was more concerned with defending affirmative action and allowed Pat to get away with shotty slanerous statements about both American history and Ms Sotomyer.

[techboy]

I think he was trying to say that the reason the percentage of whites on the Supreme Court is so high is that the percentage of people in the country that were white was historically high.

That particular comment would appear to be poor math and bad history, not overt racism.