In showdown with Maddow, Buchanan says Sotomayor "was appointed because she's a Latina, and a Hispanic, and a woman" 

And did you notice that Buchanan mispronounced Estrada's first name, and Ricci's surname? If he's such a big fan of theirs, couldn't he have learned how to say their names? It's not like these folks were unknown or their names were actually difficult to pronounce (unlike, say, my colleague Krzysztof--I hope to get it right in a year or two, but at least I'm trying).

And despite his being internationally prominent for years now, you still hear MSM talking heads mispronounce "Hugo Chávez" pretty consistently. (The "h" in "Hugo" is silent, the "ch" is pronounced as in "chair," not like "sh," and the accent in "Chávez" is on the first syllable (hence the accent mark). I get so sick of hearing it pronounced "Sha-VEZZ." Football announcers manage those Samoan names, can't newscasters and pundits learn much simpler Spanish and Italian names?

Buchanan made 100% valid points? Boy, are you deluded. Pat Buchanan made NO valid points. Everything he was spewing was incorrect, even his comments regarding Ricci. Ricci was decided by the 2nd Circuit, not just Sotomayor, on almost 40 years of ESTABLISHED precedence. It had NOTHING to do with "reverse discrimination." The very activist so-called "conservative" crew in the S.Ct. reversed this legitimate case based upon the NEW law which they created.

Buchanan is a racist, a bigot, a sexist and an embarrassment. Rachel showed great constraint. If I'd been her, I'd have probably decked him. I was yelling at the television while he was spewing that garbage. I don't know how she kept her cool as well as she did.

Yeah, Pat's right. The Republicans might as well stop pretending and retreat to their Racist Southern base. It's all they have left.

By the way, the "luna-chick" is smarter than you and Pat put together.

You do realize that the argument that you use against Rachel Maddow is in essence the same argument that she was making to Pat. I watched this live, the segment on the show was about 10 minutes long, she made Pat look dated and foolish. Between him ranting about her being let into Yale to basically saying that white men were more entitled to serve on SCOTUS. Yep, he just mopped the floor with her.

By the way, she probably does know a bit about discrimination...She's gay, and you would have known that if you had read anything about her.

Miers had NO legitimate qualifications to be S.Ct. Justice and Estrada had no legitimate qualifications to be appointed as a Federal Court judge.

To be honest, I have a dear friend who is a Federal Court Judge in Dallas who I was hoping would get a "promotion." He's Hispanic and his story is similar to Sotomayor's. He worked his way to the top. Pat would probably trash him, also, because of the color of his skin and his "foreign" name.

P.Buchanan is wrong about everything, it wasn't only "white" people who built this country are died at Normandy. I post this entire article from FAIR.org : Extra! March 1992

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