Maddow slams "Uncle Pat" Buchanan for "stoking... white people's racial animus" on Sotomayor

And who knows more about racism than you?

by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 9:19 pm ET)
...I want racial quotas in basketball so that there is an equal number of non-black athletes. Am I going
to get any of those things? Didn't think so.

by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 11:33 pm ET)
People are still people. When people talk before they think, they can say stupid and derogatory
things. To cite every incidence as "racism" is overreaching.

by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:14 pm ET)
Savage has a point. Every neighborhood that illegals have migrated to has gone down the tubes. My birthplace of Van Nuys, CA is like "little Mexico" now. Shootings, rapings, pillaging, drive-by's, grafiti,
prostitution, drugs, (you know, all the things that go along with the Mexican-illegal population. Even
the African-American neighborhoods are in awe!

by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:27 pm ET)
Then why is it that every one of these Mexican populated areas crime-ridden? Really, all P.C. aside,
can you tell me why the real estate prices decrease in these areas? One more thing, why are the
prisons filled with Mexicans? P.C. aside. See, nothing ever gets done because everybody is afraid to
talk about these things.

by zamfir273114 (February 15, 2008 12:38 am ET)
I don't have to agree with someone in order to value free speech. Sure, Imus et. Al. say some nasty
comments; however, unless you can diminish his listenership or his value, your barking up the wrong
tree. If Hillary were black, you could resort to using Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Unfortunately, they
only come running when black folk are ridiculed. Hmm, that seems a little "racist" in and of itself.

by zamfir273114 (February 14, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
That is Mr. Hussein's, I mean Obama's, name. Coulter only speaks what millions of American's think.
The American people have a right to know who they are voting for. Barack Hussein Obama.

by zamfir273114 (July 08, 2009 6:53 pm ET)
If Kilmeade had known the P.C. police were going to take him out of context, he should have rephrased
his statement in a more P.C/B.S. way. What he is saying might be correct though: research
done in Sweden might have no correlation to research done in the United States because the United
States is a much less limited gene-pool. MMFA inferred that he was somehow saying one was
greater than the other.

Hi Zammy. Your sheets are ready to be picked up. We had to use extra bleach to get rid of the red stains. There is an extra charge to rush your order to meet tomorrow's meeting deadline...

"She is the one that believes standardized tests should be thrown out"

That is not at all what the ruling of the court was. Your ignorance has been unduly influenced by the demagogery of the Repartisan hacks in Washington and people like Rash (how low can you go?) Limbo.

In point of fact, Judge Sotomayor has ruled with the majority opinion over 90% of the time in discrimination cases, joining with Republican judges in more than 85% of those cases. Her ruling in the Ricci case followed presedent. The conservative majority in the SCOTUS was making law with their ruling. Don't be a tool.

This from the person who still can't even spell the nominee's name and argues that she probably harbors racist prejudices because she's "white looking":

"I just wonder if Sotomeyer looks down on other ethnicities as well, like Asian, Black or even Mestizo. Afterall, in is well-known that in many Latin American countries, many predominantly "Spanish" individuals look down on the darker "Mestizo" varieties. It's disgusting. Sotomeyer is very white looking. I hope they check this woman."
- zamfir273114, May 30, 2009 6:06 pm ET

It certainly is disgusting, zamfir273114. One wonders why you choose to engage in it if you truly find it so repugnant.

I love it how calling attention to Sotomeyer's racist philosophy is somehow racist. Interesting.

If that were true (and it isn't, because, as has been pointed out to you many times, pan-flute boy, Sotomayor does not have a racist philosophy, except to morons who can neither read nor understand what she has actually said), pointing out your idiocy would make someone an idiot.

And that hasn't caused as much as a single point IQ drop in any of the posters who have illuminated your stupidity. So your analogy is proven wrong yet again.

She doesn't have a racist philosophy and you are uninformed with regard to the Ricci case. Sotomayor and the other COA judges ruled in that case based upon ESTABLISHED CASE LAW [almost 40 years of established case law] which supported their opinion. If you read the 2nd Circuit decision, you see that the judges were very sympathetic to Ricci's plight, but they had to rule according to established precedence.

It was appealed to the very loaded S.Ct. which CREATED new law in the 5-4 decision to reverse the lower court's decision. Personally, I think it was done to assist the Republicans with their racist questioning of Judge Sotomayor.

You shouldn't make judgments on legal issues if you don't know what they mean.

So how did you feel when Clarence Thomas said that Senate Democrats were just like the KKK?

i wouldn't be talking about racisim if i were you buddy boy

It's actually because she is one of the few people on TV who will actually debate him and call him out on his ignorance. She did it on Tucker Carlson's show all the time, before Carlson demonstrated that the bow-tie was the only thing keeping his brains from leaking out his ears, and lost his mind on television.

I've wondered the same. But right wingers who hate Olbermann remind me that Olbermann doesn't have people on his show who "disagree" with him--as if that's the exception in the TV news biz, yet Rachel does. I think Rachel fills a different niche:

Olberman is half analysis, half entertainment, and Rachel, who has, I believe an Oxford poly sci Ph.D., is a little less entertaining and a little more analytical.

I don't know if Buchanan may bite the MSNBC dust now...he certainly fits into the Faux Noose ideological realm.

I print this article from FAIR.org please forgive the lenght but I think it very relevant : "...Buchanan and Duke
Playing the Same Hand




Patrick Buchanan and David Duke today find themselves in the same place--using nearly identical issues and rhetoric to challenge George Bush from the right. But they took different paths to get to this point: Duke rose to prominence through the use of KKK robes; Buchanan rode a more conventional vehicle: television.

Although Duke recently received soft treatment on national TV (see Extra!, 1-2/92), he's still considered outside the mainstream by the political press corps. By contrast, Buchanan is one of the boys. Among TV pundits, he's been the leader of the packthe only one to appear on national TV seven days a week, as co-host of CNN's Crossfire, host of Capital Gang, and a regular member of the McLaughlin Group. Besides these recurring gigs, he's been a frequent guest on ABC's Nightline and Good Morning America.

Buchanan has served up his far-right positions so incessantly, they've become almost commonplace. His fellow TV pundits (see box on page 12) appear incapable of noticing the stark similarities in the ideologies of Buchanan and Duke. Buchanan, like Duke, has long displayed authoritarian inclinations and sympathy for fascism. In his autobiography, Right from the Beginning, Buchanan waxes nostalgic about his dad's hero, Gen. Francisco Franco, Buchanan has referred to the Spanish dictator as a "Catholic savior" and, along with Chile's Gen. Pinochet, as a "soldier-patriot who saved his country from Communism," Buchanan also admires South Africa--which he calls the "Boer Republic"--and asks (9/17/89 column): "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?"

For years Buchanan has championed accused Nazi war criminals, and campaigned for the U.S, Justice Department to stop "running down 70-year-old camp guards." His columns questioning the historical record about the gassing of Jews at Treblinka have run in pro-Nazi publications that claim the death camps are a Jewish hoax. Buchanan is credited with crafting Reagan's line that called the Nazi troops buried at Bitburg "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."

In a bizarre 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was also


an individual of great courage. . . . Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.


Buchanan is contemptuous of what he calls "the democratist temptation, the worship of democracy as a form of governance, The would-he president writes: "Like all idolatries, democrats substitutes a false god for the real, a love of process for a love of country." He has written disparagingly of "the one man, one vote Earl Warren system." In one column (1/9/91) he suggested that "quasi-dictatorial rule" might be the solution to the problems of big municipalities and' the federal fiscal crisis: "If the people are corrupt, the more democracy, the worse the government,"

Like Duke, Buchanan has a demonstrated attraction to white-supremacist views. In the Nixon White House, he called an Atlantic magazine article about the genetic basis of intelligence "a seminal piece of major significance for U.S. society." (See Boston Globe, 1/4/92.) The piece, he wrote to Nixon, indicates that


integration of blacks and whites--but even more so, poor and well-to-do--is less likely to result in accommodation than it is in perpetual friction--as the incapable are placed consciously by government side by side with the capable.


Buchanan was one of the first to advocate that the Republican Party exploit racial issues. In another memo to Nixon, he wrote:


There is a legitimate grievance in my view of white working-class people that every time, on every issue, that the black militants loud-mouth it, welcome up with more money.... The time has come to say--we have done enough for the poor blacks; right now we want to give some relief for working-class ethnics and Catholics--and make an unabashed appeal to these patient working people, who always get the short end of the stick. If we can give 50 Phantoms to the Jews, and a multibillion dollar welfare program for the blacks...why not help the Catholics save their collapsing school system.


Today, Buchanan couches many of his campaign themes, from trade policy to the "underclass," in racial terms. In a recent discussion of immigration, he asked contemptuously whether "Zulus" or "Englishmen" would be easier to assimilate.

It's ironic to see Buchanan now trying to distance himself from Duke. (He complains that Republican officials treat him "no different than Duke.") Three years ago, when Duke ran for the Louisiana state legislature and shared a phone with the Klan, Buchanan ridiculed national Republican leaders (2/25/89 column) for overreacting to Duke and his Nazi "costume": "Take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues, and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles."

Buchanan said Duke was right on target attacking "reverse discrimination against white folks" and crime committed by the "urban underclass"--Buchanan's codephrase for blacks. He saluted Duke for walking "into the vacuum left when conservative Republicans in the Reagan years were intimidated into shucking off winning social issues."

The column concluded: "The GOP is throwing away a winning hand, and David Duke is only the first fellow to pick up the discards." But Buchanan's friends in the media seem unlikely to look too closely at the cards Buchanan is holding.

Some have gone out of their way to blur perceptions of Buchanan's far-right views: William Safire (New York Times, 12/16/91) described Buchanan's supporters as a "network of the nativist right and isolationist left," while Stephen Rosenfeld in the Washington Post (12/13/91) wrote that Buchanan's America First platform raises "fair questions," but he worried that the "come-home movement" might be "captured or severely tainted by extremists, including David Duke."



See FAIR's Archives for more on:
Time Warner/Pat Buchanan
Race and Racism