About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Buchanan again says Sotomayor nomination is "affirmative action"

July 14, 2009 2:27 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Buchanan declares Sotomayor an "affirmative action pick"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by TheKidFromKountyMeath (July 14, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
      1  
      It's Pat, the Broken Record!
      His reputation's checkered!
      He's gonna win your heart,
      Sayin' only white males are smart,
      He's Paaaat the Brooooooken Record!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (July 14, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
      1  
      Pat Buchanan, Would you please turn your frown upside down?


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (July 14, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
      5  
      Your calls for honesty are as hollow as your head, Pat. Why don't you be honest about what your real problem is with Sotomayor?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by goesto11 (July 14, 2009 3:10 pm ET)
        1  
        I think he is being pretty honest: he hates her because she's a minority woman.

        If he's trying to disguise that fact, he's done a lousy job of it.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (July 14, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
      2  
      Buchanan again says Sotomayor nomination is "affirmative action"


      And again, I say: Pat, you're RIGHT.

      Just as with the presidency, we are trying to end the "preferential hiring practice" of putting overindulged white males in positions of power.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by lewislaw7153 (July 14, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
      5  
      So we can all assume that CLARENCE THOMAS was also an affirmative action selection??

      I find it interesting that Clarence Thomas presided over Rush Limbaugh's 3rd wedding. Not earth shattering, just interesting . . (crickets)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by TheKidFromKountyMeath (July 14, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
           
        He should've told the bride about the established precedent.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 3:20 am ET)
             
          If you see this, follow me forward to the newest threads. I had a pen pal 30 years ago who's address was kilskyre, kells, co. meath. I'm curious if you are in the same vacinity, I'd like to contact Catriona again.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 3:21 am ET)
             
          If you see this, follow me forward to the newest threads. I had a pen pal 30 years ago who's address was kilskyre, kells, co. meath. I'm curious if you are in the same vacinity, I'd like to contact Catriona again.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (July 14, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
      4  
      This man is a racist pure and simple. Why is he given a platform anyway?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blueline99 (July 14, 2009 2:42 pm ET)
      5  
      I know that Pat Buchanon would prefer another White Male on the Supreme Court, but what is wrong with choosing a Latina for the Supreme Court.

      She's ridiculously qualified, no can claim that she is unqualified for the position.

      Pat (and other White Men) are scared that they are losing their never before challenged, stranglehold, on how they defined America... Christian White Men...

      Guess what, parties over... the US is not a nation of white men, it's about time that our government starts representing us all.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (July 14, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
      5  
      I'm going out on a limb here, but seems to me this is the reich's gameplan to "prove" that we don't need AA anymore. So far, they've "proved" that they can hurl every racist insult possible at Obama and yet he was still elected, and now they are hurling every racist insult possible at Sotomayor and barring a meltdown she will still get appointed. See? Proof that racism isn't a problem anymore (but don't let the fact that it's a national stage where voters are involved fool ya!).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by John Paradox (July 14, 2009 4:26 pm ET)
        2  
        I THINK it was Molly Ivins who had a story about two rednecks coming into a restaurant, and commenting (paraphrased) "what will the Ni**ers complain about now that there's no need for Affirmative Action?"

        BTW... I remember when AA started, the basic rule was: if two candidates are equally qualified, the job should go to the minority. There was no 'quota' system, percentages, or any of the other claims that have since arisen. Most of these errors (quotas) were pushing beyond the actual requirements.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by phredicles (July 14, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
      4  
      This is shamelessly stolen from another board and I cannot take credit for it. But it's so good it bears repeating: In Reich-wing world a colorblind society means the best candidate always gets the job, which of course is always a white male. Anyone else and it's affirmative action, which of course is racist.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (July 14, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
        2  
        I like that one.

        And as someone else said (blueline99), the woman is qualified for the job. She's a brilliant jurist, had a good run in law school, and so on. It's not as if she's Harriet Miers or something like that.

        She's qualified, and just so HAPPENS to be a latina. And this is affirmative action? BS I say. Pat, STFU already.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 14, 2009 3:11 pm ET)
      1  
      Well he may have a point but who says affirmative action is bad?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 14, 2009 3:12 pm ET)
         
      Well he may have a point but who says affirmative action is bad?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (July 14, 2009 3:26 pm ET)
      2  
      Gee......that how all wingnuts get hired.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by American_kidd (July 14, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
      3  
      Sessions and Buchanan do not see their own prejudices because to them the logical choice of excellence is a white conservative male. To these guys anything else is obviously affirmative action.

      Mind you they are not aware of their prejudice, this is just the obvious thing to them - they cannot fathom that there could be a person from another gender or race that could do the job as well.

      This is an inbred and internal process it is not something that resides in the conscious mind, rather it forms a part of their unconscious belief system and they are not aware of it because to them it is just plain ol' reality.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by SMTDL (July 15, 2009 12:44 pm ET)
           
        No you got it wrong..Pat supports AA..just only for white males...He is pathetic!!!The absolute denial and inability to see how bigoted and racist he sounds is unfortunately so typical of the "reverse racism" card players..poor persecuted group that they are!!
        Report Abuse