Maddow vs Buchanan
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Here’s a noisy, entertaining row about affirmative action. (It starts about five minutes in.)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Although heated, the debate remains civil. Say what you want about Maddow, she is at least able to treat Buchanan as a human being. Unfortunately, Ezra Klein, chock-full of bien-pensant indignation, seems unwilling to do the same on his Washington Post blog:
I was going to post this video with the description “Rachel Maddow exposes Pat Buchanan as a huge racist.” But that’s not quite right. It’s more that she re-exposes him as a huge racist. It’s a good reminder of how weird it is that a caveman like Buchanan has been normalized as a valued and sage political commentator in recent years.
Watch Pat Buchanan on that clip. This is man who got his start helping Nixon divide and demoralize this country. Who helped destroy the Republican Party in 1992 by running one of the most noxious presidential campaigns in recent memory. Today, he is a name-brand political commentator who draws a paycheck from NBC.
Not all forms of affirmative action benefit the dispossessed. Some benefit the powerful. And affirmative action for the powerful goes a whole lot further back than affirmative action for the powerless. The futile assault that Jeff Sessions and Pat Buchanan mounted against Sonia Sotomayor was a rearguard defense for the system of privilege that has served them so well, and so faithfully. But Sessions fell short in his struggle. And Buchanan ended his week being dismissed as “dated” on Maddow’s show. They are losing, and they know it.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Obama gives speech designed to appeal to race. His theme was that in the face of white racism, both black and white (mostly black, implied) rose up and defied the “white rulers” and made things better. This sets the stage for a “civil rights” discussion.
Then Sonya Sotomayor is presented as an evolutionary step in the civil rights advancement of this country. Objections, by Republicans, to Sotomayor were reduced (falsely) to questions of race. This is to COMPLETELY miss the point of what the Republicans were trying to do. (That is, they were bringing to America’s attention that a JUDGE should be an originalist, and not a political activist with an agenda to change societal rights, along gender, racial, or economic lines). Rachel Maddow falsely asserts that they are interested ONLY in, “Race, Race, Race, and also Race”. (She’s not too dumb to understand her mistake, she is simply following the MSNBC Agenda.)
One example of the blind agenda, here, is the attribution to Tom Coburn as a racist, doing a Ricky Ricardo impersonation. (It is FALSE, and ignores that those of us who have met him in person, know that he talks like that, whether or not minorities are present. Here particularly in Oklahoma, an effort to be racially sensitive is commonplace, among ALL politicians. And I PERSONNALY know Tom Coburn to not be in the least racist. I am always criticizing him on other issues, however.)
Let’s continue with this staged “hit job” on Republicans. The joke being, of course, that Rachel Maddow does not have the equipment to understand how Pat Buchanan views the Republicans, and barely accepts his “sometimes” classification as one of them.
A good portion of his (Pat Buchanan’s) article is “word for word” similar to an email I sent to him in early june, demonstrating that those around him tended to prevent thoughtful articles that agreed with him, and rabid articles that disagreed with him.
Instead, at TAC, one would usually find the rabid folks who agree with Pat, pushed to the fore, as were the thoughtful and intelligent articles either disagreeing, or making fun of him.
Looks like MSNBC is doing a similar job on him here. Note that Rachel Maddow has only one thing on her mind – pushing race. She is essentially not hearing Pat. Note that when Pat ascribes racial favoritism to the “race-peddlers”, Rachel Maddow keeps trying to turn the discussion to make Pat look racist.
Pat actually said, “…and it’s as wrong as discrimination against black females, hispanics, and others…”, but they forgot to edit that out, and they ignore that.
Another example is, that Pat said that, when he was growing up, only 10% of the population were black, and that they WERE discriminated against. Note how Rachel Maddow ignores what he just said, and keeps trying to twist his words.
Take for example, Rachel Maddow’s assertion that Sotomayor “has more experience than any other nominee, presented in the last 70 years.” She carefully avoids getting pulled into discussion of judicial qualification, of the prejudices that Sotomayor has shown, continuing to pound on the racial theme.
Then, at the end, while she starts out arguing that the best candidate, from all pools of candidates, needs to be considered, she slips into the old racist mantra herself, asserting that “white people” somehow “owe” minorities, and that is why preference to “diversity” must be allowed.
Note that Rachel Maddow keeps lying, and attributing racial motives to Pat, while spouting idiot racist “affirmative action” racism herself. Her reasoning is that if there have been “110 out of 108″ white guys (Um, Rachel, 110 – blacks, women, hispanics, does NOT = 108). She then thinks that we need to balance, such that, at some future date we can say that the numbers of Supreme Court Judges of all races will have been equal.
Pat was victim of a “hit job” at MSNBC, similar to what he enjoys at TAC sometimes.
Buchanan would have made a great president. Someday when he dies, he should be cryogenically frozen so that he can be thawed out and revived to govern some future generation.
That Buchanan can argue against affirmative action is laughable. The man benefited from special consideration for his race and economic status his whole life. He grew up in a segregated neighborhood, when that was the law. He got out of Vietnam by getting a phony doctor’s report – an avenue pursued by middle and upper class whites.
KXB,
Buchanan was rejected from the draft in 1960, well before the US troops were sent to Vietnam. That’s pretty incredible that he was able to avoid serving in a war that he didn’t even know we were going to be in.
That Buchanan can argue against affirmative action is laughable. The man benefited from special consideration for his race and economic status his whole life.–KXB
Apparently it is a grievous sin to enjoy the bequest of one’s patrimony. This type of thinking, however, is conducive to chaos, for it casts into doubt the claims of all peoples to settle and cultivate property. Perhaps you, KXB, adhering to your worldview, would as lief leap into the pool of dispossession. Besides, non-Western countries are not routinely castigated for succeeding at the expense of any minorities in their midst.
“Pat was victim of a “hit job” at MSNBC, similar to what he enjoys at TAC sometimes.”
Again with the language of victimization. Pat was the ‘victim’ of nothing. He was argued against. He’s a big boy and he can and did defend himself. HE WORKS FOR MSNBC, for chrissake!
As Republicans search for a new direction forward and a new strategy to appeal to voters again, they should run far, far away from bigots like Buchanan. Maddow is correct that the viewpoints he puts forth in this segment date him and that he is stuck in the 1950’s.
Rachel Maddow is a master of spinning arguments and completely distorting what her opponents are actually saying. Bravo Maddow! Your par for the course in our 1984, post-totalitarian society.
Americans are turning against affirmative action, but Pat Buchanan (though he is smart, courageous, and funny) is not the ideal person to be the face of that switch. He has been (unjustly, in my opinion) smeared as a racist for decades.
Maddow may have chosen to interview him on this issue in hopes of painting the whole of the anti-affirmative action community as racist. In fact, MSNBC might employ Buchanan because they thing he’ll help them caricature the right more easily.
If so, then the joke’s on them. Whatever their grand strategy might be, I’m all for it if it puts my favorite conservative columnist on TV and allows him to talk sense.
So if I’m reading your right, Matt, you’re suggesting Pat isn’t a victim but instead is too stupid to understand he’s being used by MSNBC as a caricature of Conservatives?
What’s ironic is Pat has increasingly bucked the GOP party line on a number of issues and, of course, to many on the right the fact he works for MSNBC and writes for The American Conservative is proof he’s a RINO and not to be trusted.
I simply don’t see the Right/Left dichotomy as embodied by Pat Buchanan. Speaking as a longtime Democrat, I strongly disagree with Pat on Sotomayor but think he’s right more often than wrong on a number of issues. I think both he and MSNBC know what they are doing and beyond some sort of “let’s embarrass Conservatives” conspiracy I believe the channel, like any other business, is just looking for a return on an investment.
“Apparently it is a grievous sin to enjoy the bequest of one’s patrimony. This type of thinking, however, is conducive to chaos, for it casts into doubt the claims of all peoples to settle and cultivate property. Perhaps you, KXB, adhering to your worldview, would as lief leap into the pool of dispossession. Besides, non-Western countries are not routinely castigated for succeeding at the expense of any minorities in their midst.”
I was not aware that the ability to buy property, and then pass it on to one’s heirs, entitles those heirs to get out of the draft. I’m sure had Buchanan been deemed healthy, he could have served, and returned home to DC and still inherited whatever property his parents earned. I did not realize that the American dream, earning a living of one’s own, had morphed into simply biding one’s time to wait for one’s harder working family members to die and pass on their wealth.
As for the notion that since Buchanan got his deferment in 1960, well before Vietnam hostilities began – what does it say of Buchanan’s priorities that he did not feel the need to get back into shape so that he could serve alongside those other Americans who were not lucky enough to have the right family connections and a cooperating doctor?
BTW – whatever happened to all that FEC money Buchanan got in 2000? He got a couple of million for being the Reform Party candidate, but I don’t recall seeing even a bumper sticker with his name on it.
If anybody wants to hear about Pat’s toilet habits, or that he’s the heavy breather on the phone, check out HuffPost.
But only if you’re prepared to also see Palin mentioned, in the same light as Pat, in every 4th comment. (If Pat and Palin are so irrelevant, why such energy opposing them among the libs?)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/rachel-maddow-duels-with_n_237036.html
As one @TAC blogger observed, “But Barney, you can’t tell much about a person by who his enemies are”.
A corollary would be, “You can’t tell much about an @TAC blogger, if they typically agree with the HuffPost bloggers”.
Not that it applies to very many of us.
Hey if anyone want to hear about how Obama is a Communist-Muslim check out [insert blog here] and especially the commenters! How is this relevant to a thread on @Tac? It isn’t! But boy do those people suck and there may be people here that agree with them!
A few things stand out in this clip. First, Maddow’s laughable attempt to imply that the GOP senators were racist for throwing the wise Latina’s words back at her. Next was how disingenuous if not dishonest Maddow was with regards to what Pat was actually saying. Though I’m open to the possibility that she is simply stupid. Finally, the fact that Maddow wouldn’t respond to Pat on the Ricci case. It seems there are some things not every member of the far left MSM will defend.
“The man benefited from special consideration for his race and economic status his whole life.”
It was this assertion of yours to which I was referring, KXB. My rebuttal to the ideological underpinnings of this position still stands: “This type of thinking, however, is conducive to chaos, for it casts into doubt the claims of all peoples to settle and cultivate property.” Never did I maintain that it was befitting of Americans to merely lay in wait for a legacy. Your repugnance for any who happen to be the recipients of “special consideration”, however, points to one in favor of a world bereft of any distinctions and a Jacobin disgust of such. We have seen how this radicalism unfolds. Additionally, it must be admitted that in all nations there are groups who are beneficiaries of their forebears–shall the historical denizens and cultural majority of these nations be similarly condemned by you, KXB?
One thing about Pat is he is no dummy. I do not think he is a racist, he just does not use the politically correct speech habits. Although I disagree with him more then not, he at least believes what he is saying, and can actually be engaged.
I believe Pat is called, “Paleo-conservative: a believer in classical learning but with a bit to much Ancien Regieme in his politics.”
He definalty believes in oligarch but is benevolent. Also his kind generally fight in our wars and are typically found near the front or volunteering for all kinds of dangerous stuff- unlike say the majority of neo con pundits . Pat also believes there are actual rules of rationlism and adheres to the belief that certian people get and for the most part the majority does not- think Plato.
At this point though he is a broken record who needs to step aside and let the new blood come to fore. He should be the elder statesmen stay of television and write. this is just one man’s opinion.
My take is that Maddow is obsessed with symbolic tokens of ethnic harmony in the United States. I think Pat Buchanan is right that people should be judged on merit, but it is the failings of human nature that lead to affirmative action. He is going to have to address that to avoid being trapped in a negative stereotype.
I don’t really have an opinion on Sotomayor. The justices of the supreme court seem to think the US is a dictatorship or that property rights mean nothing. Abortion is legal because of the right of privacy but wiretapping, and other intrusions of privacy are allowed. A judge can be the smartest person in the world but it doesn’t mean he or she will do a good job on the bench.
“Your repugnance for any who happen to be the recipients of “special consideration”, however, points to one in favor of a world bereft of any distinctions and a Jacobin disgust of such. We have seen how this radicalism unfolds. Additionally, it must be admitted that in all nations there are groups who are beneficiaries of their forebears–shall the historical denizens and cultural majority of these nations be similarly condemned by you, KXB?”
And what was this distinction of Buchanan’s that got him out of the draft? A talent for medicine, so he should go on to become a talented doctor? A skilled scientist? Nope – just having the connections to get out of an obligation to his country, not using his connections to advance anything worthwhile. A man who has made his living at the public trough, without contributing anything. A man who claims to stick up for family values, but has no children of his own. A man who sticks up for the white working class, but socializes only with wealthy whites of the DC party circuit.
KXB,
As was stated before, Buchanan was rejected from the draft in 1960, several years before US sent troops to Vietnam. However, it’s obvious you didn’t know this detail when you brought it up, as you probably just read it somewhere on a lefty blog that “Buchanan dodged the draft.” Yet you still insist on bringing it up. So then you criticize him for not volunteering some 6 years later, give me a break.
Also you pontificate on other things you know absolutely nothing about. Whatever the reason Buchanan has no children is none of your business, and not having children is not antithetic to family values. It’s not like he’s mormon. How do you know whom Buchanan socializes with? For a got guy who doesn’t appreciate Buchanan, you must follow him around everywhere to know what he does when he’s not on the air.
Having and utilizing connections is a fact of life in all aspects of life and not something that can be institutionalized away…right down from a kid who takes a summer job for his uncle to all the zillions of young hollywood actors that are the children of famous stars.
It’s true that blacks were discriminated against institutionally for hundreds of years, but the lesson from this is that institutionalized discrimination is wrong, not that it should be altered to “make up for lost time.” And the fact that “whites” may have “gained control of the system” is Maddow says is irrelevant since the kind of whites who control the system from the top all the way down are the guilty white liberal stereotypes like those characterized in the book “Stuff White People Like,” the ones actively promoting affirmative action.
I’m sorry that you have such little respect for people of other races to think that can’t succeed without lowing the intelligence bar dumbing down our society and industries. When Martin Luther King said men “should be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” I took it literally. That’s why it’s a mistake to continually “groupify” people, color categorize them and even think of people in terms of race if we are going to ever begin to achieve that goal.
Pat cleaned her clock.
All she could do was resort to name calling.
There is absolutely nowhere I can go to find truly objective information. Everything is spun in one direction or another. Clearly people like to go where they can hear their own views confirmed. Folks can come here and whine about how Rachel Maddow “victimized” Pat Buchanan and others can go to Huff Post and hear about how the Republicans are the “party of no”. Never the twain shall meet.
The commitment to dueling echo chambers will be our undoing. Politicians will continue to take advantage of the public’s perceived ignorance and private citizens will pay the price. Corporations will continue to own the political process, and networks will make money broadcasting the bickering between both sides. Facts…truth…will be inconsequential, and we will be having these exact arguments 20 years from now. What’s the point?
Note that much of what Pat said simply wasn’t true. White people were not 100% of the people who built this country and there were Blacks, Latinos, and Asians who fought in the wars. But that doesn’t matter right? As long as he scored some points on Rachel, or she on him…because at the end of the day that’s what this is all about. Superiority. Whoever is on top, whoever has the most votes (regardless of how they earned them), whoever has the most support (regardless of intellect, policy points, or integrity)—that person gets control and free reign to guarantee their own interests at the detriment of the country. We don’t need terrorists. We’ve got this well in hand.
I responded to Maddow at my blog (see comments as well):
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/07/maddow-and-buchanan-analysis.html
What makes me mad is that Maddow came on at a later date to respond to some things Pat said, and argued against him, without him being there to defend himself! I guess she realizes Pat whips her every time when it’s one on one, so she now attacks him while he is not there to respond.
It seems a lot of the MSNBC commentators are doing that during the past week. It makes me wonder if they are trying to push Pat out. If Pat goes I am never watching that network again. I like Morning Joe and of course Pat, but otherwise that network is pathetic.
[...] make the show’s political impersonators look almost exactly like the real thing on camera? This is a two-minute clip of Obama preaching in New York before the NAACP, speaking in a very divergent tone and style. I find [...]
left / right paradigm = everybody loses
Asian Americans are disproportionately represented at university with advanced degrees yet are doubly discriminated by both society in general and specifically by the policies of Affirmative Action by being categorized as OVER-REPRESENTED in professional positions, i.e. the “glass ceiling.”
Pat B makes the case, correctly, that you don’t end discrimination by changing who you discriminate against. Everything should be on merit alone. That was the whole point of Civil Rights. If it’s wrong to choose whites who are less qualified simply because they are white, it’s equally wrong to choose someone less qualified simply because they are black, latina, or any other ethnicity.
And we can raise the dead!
Rachel Maddow is a self-hating white socialist. Rude and disgusting. Her liberal professors did a great job brainwashing her in college…
Rachel Maddow’s stock just went way, way down in my eyes. I thought she was much more principled than that.
Discrimination based on arbitrary attributes (skin color, ethnicity, etc.) is wrong. Maddow appears to agree with that statement with one exception – it’s OK to discriminate on the basis of race as long as the race is white. All others must be protected from discrimination. Why? Must be because she wants to get even with whitey for all the racial discrimination from whites against others in the past. How many time did she harp on the 108 white supreme court justices? There were very likely 108 because of wrongful arbitrary discrimination in the past. Yes, there was plenty of it, and it was very wrong. But two wrongs do not make a right. Affirmative action is trying to use present day wrongful discrimination against whites to make up for the abhorable past of discrimination against minorities and blacks. It won’t work. All it will do is to continue to stir the pot of hatred and create a power struggle to see who can discriminate the most effectively against who. We need to learn how to treat ALL people with EQUALITY and respect. Discrimination for logical reasons makes sense. Five black basketball players starting for a NBA basketball team may make perfectly good logical sense – they were most likely selected for logical, not arbitrary, reasons, they were the best five players. 108 white supreme court justices probably didn’t make sense due to probable arbitrary discrimination, but it is possibly that it could have had there not been arbitrary discrimination and the logical best 108 were chosen. We need to be color blind and only use logical discrimination. That’s what the word EQUAL means. DUH!
I am actually suprised that anyone had expectations for Maddow. She is a snarky, petty little left wing hack of the same type that you can see on Keith Olbermann’s show. She has no staying power and will go the way of all the other MSNMBC hosts (except Olbermann and Mathews) within a year.
Without the god awful Bush administration and the god awful Iraq war she and Keith have nothing.