Buchanan equated purported rift in minority voters to "war[s]" in South Central L.A., prisons
SUMMARY: Responding to columnist Eugene Robinson's statement that "I can't think of a whole lot of situations where there's an actual clash between Latino and African American issues," Pat Buchanan cited gang wars "in South Central L.A." and "in the prisons" as evidence that tensions between African Americans and Latinos would affect voting in the Democratic primary. Buchanan said, "I regret to say you're mistaken about the African-American community and the Hispanics. South Central L.A., there is a turf war going on. There's a war in the prisons. People who don't understand that don't understand America, I'm sorry to say."
During MSNBC's coverage of the South Carolina Democratic primary, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson said, "I can't think of a whole lot of situations where there's an actual clash between Latino and African American issues." He added, "I think there is a perception that they're at odds, but I don't think they really are to that extent." Following Robinson's comments, Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough asked MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan, "Final grim thoughts for us tonight?" In response, Buchanan cited gang wars "in South Central L.A. [Los Angeles]" and "in the prisons" as evidence that tensions between African Americans and Latinos would affect voting in the Democratic primary. Buchanan said: "I regret to say you are mistaken about the African American community and the Hispanics. South Central L.A., there is a turf war going on. There's a war in the prisons." Buchanan continued, "People who don't understand that don't understand America, I'm sorry to say."
Buchanan recently claimed that the phrase "Sí, se puede" -- the motto of the United Farm Workers, often translated as "Yes, we can" -- is "the cause of the illegal immigration movement and the amnesty movement." He has also previously predicted that immigration will result in the "complete balkanization of America." Further, he has claimed that illegal immigration constitutes an invasion of the United States of America and that it threatens to reduce America to "a polyglot boarding house for the world, a tangle of squabbling minorities."
From the 10 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's January 26 coverage of the South Carolina Democratic primary:
HOWARD FINEMAN (Newsweek senior Washington correspondent): If you listen to [Sen. Barack] Obama's [D-IL] speech very carefully tonight, one of the things he kept saying was, "yes, we can." And, as Pat pointed out, "Sí, se puede," that's the Spanish for "yes, we can." That's the farm workers' slogan. Well, the United Farm Workers, the farm workers' union, has endorsed [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham] Clinton [D-NY]. And talking tonight to one of the major Hispanic pollsters, a guy who really knows the Latino community -- he has just completed a poll of the Super Tuesday states with the largest number of Hispanics, and those are California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Arizona is the fifth one. In those five states, according to his poll, Hillary leads among Hispanic Democrats by 4-to-1. That is a powerful number. Now, Obama's campaign is fully aware of this. You heard him talk about how hard he worked with Hispanic organizers on the streets of Chicago. David Axelrod, his campaign manager, knows a lot about this. The next link in the chain for Obama has got to be Latino voters because they are now -- the Latinos are now the largest minority group in the country. They don't vote in that number, but they're incredibly important, and the next challenge Obama has, aside from winning delegates on February 5, is to cut into that 4-to-1 number that Hillary has right now. Hillary's got the mayor of Los Angeles, she's got Senator [Robert] Menendez [D] from New Jersey. But you watch Obama over the next 10 days. He's going to be focusing like a laser on Hispanic voters because that's going to have to be key part of his constituency.
SCARBOROUGH: Margaret?
MARGARET CARLSON (Bloomberg News columnist): This is one reason -- remember a few months ago Obama wasn't black enough? That was his problem. Well, the Clintons made him black enough to make Hispanics, which are up for grabs, 4-to-1 for her. And it is crucial in California with 400 delegates --
SCARBOROUGH: Aren't the two groups mutually exclusive?
CARLSON: Well, they're -- you know, in a speech Obama gave on Sunday, he said, you know, we've been competitors whereas we should be colleagues and fight together. But in the small -- in the crumbs thereafter, they've been competitive with each other for what's out there, and so they have seemed that way. But they are not.
SCARBOROUGH: Gene, can you explain that to me?
ROBINSON: Well, yeah, I mean, I think there's more perception of a competition than there really is. I mean, if you look, for example, in cities, I can't think of a whole lot of situations where there's an actual clash between Latino and African-American issues. I mean -- and I can't think of a city where there's not, you know, coalitions that form at times in order to, you know, just to make the cities work. So I don't -- you know, I think there's a perception that they're at odds, but I don't think they really are to that extent. I mean, we'll see.
SCARBOROUGH: Pat, quickly, final word to you tonight. You have grabbed the cloak -- the crown of the Prince of Darkness from Bob Novak. Final grim thoughts for us tonight?
BUCHANAN: I regret to say you're mistaken about the African-American community and the Hispanics. South Central L.A., there is a turf war going on. There's a war in the prisons. People who don't understand that don't understand America, I'm sorry to say.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, thank you so much. Greatly appreciate that, Pat.
[laughter]
BUCHANAN: That positive ending.
SCARBOROUGH: That was decidedly grim.
"[laughter]"
Yeah, this was the most disapointing part of the clip for me.
What's "Crap" about it?
Buchanan is totally right about Southern California race relations.
Do you live here? I do.
Most Blacks and Browns don't get along.
Unless something unprecedented happens, Latinos are NOT going to vote for Obama on Feb. 5th.
Sorry, MMFA, you're way off base here. Buchanan is totally right about this. There's nothing improper about his comments, it's an expression of fact. He may be exaggerating a bit about the drama here, but So Cal especially is not Obama country.
What, are you competing with finfarn to see who can be the most openly racist poster on the board. You have no clue what "most black and browns" think.
Do you live in Southern California? Do you know anything about ethinc relations here?
If not, reserve the self-righteousness for something else.
Merely citing that most Blacks and Browns don't get along in So Cal--especially politically-- is not a generalization. It's a statement of fact, and to claim that it's anything else is self-righteous cant.
It may make you feel better, but it's not going to help Obama, and that's Buchanan's point.
There's little political and cultural commonality between these groups, though things are getting better . But they clearly tend to segregate themselves from each other.
Wanna argue about that?
But they clearly tend to segregate themselves from each other.
America is largely a segregated society. It's not unique to just Blacks and Hispanics.
The conversation up until Pat's comments had been about Hillary's 4-1 lead among Hispanic voters nationally, then Pat had to chime in with his race war crap. It's crap, Pat is crap, his defenders are crap.
They were talking about Feb 5th and California, and they were dismissing Buchanan entirely about everything.
That's why he "chimed in" with his rationale. He was backing up his statements-- something none of the other pundits there were doing.....
Are you still willing to argue that South Central can be used as a paradigm for the entirety of the state of California?
Latino and Black GANGS DO NOT get along. Every day folks have no problem.
I'm not surprised that some use words like "majority" or "most" describing a majority of a race of people that they want to label. It is completely ignorant to continue to lump all of ANY race into whatever statement you want to make UNLESS you have PROOF that it is actually a majority or most. It would be like me saying that most white folks belong to the Klan. So before saying that is a stupid statement, take a look at the one you make first.
And before the questions is asked IF I live in Los Angeles, I moved to Los Angeles in 1963, living 10 blocks from the original Watts Riots. I moved to West Los Angeles in 1966 and did not leave Los Angeles until 2001, so YES I KNOW QUITE A BIT ABOUT LOS ANGELES!
JJ:
Agreed. I'm regularly stunned to have BUCHANAN, of all people, being the voice of moderation and reason, and putting ordinary "campaigning" in perspective in the midst of a MSM which has already written the script for an all-out RACE and GENDER WAR within the Democratic Party (which, of course, the Republicans are not involved in at all).
Someone's been watching MSNBC's Lockdown a little too much. It's obvious that to Buchanan, the "African American and Latino communities" means prisoners and gang members.
LOL
Clams I was thinking the same thing, wow, gangs and prisons represent Blacks and Latinos in Los Angeles.
Why didn't I know my 'gang' colors, I lived in Los Angeles for over 40 years. ;-)
Pat again is the LAST person who could make a rational comment about African Americans or Latinos less we forget, he's worried that they will over populate and make whites the minority.
Juliajayne, imagine a 73 year old granny wearing a rag. LOL
I think I saw a comedy routine like that. ;-)
LOL
OMG, Juliajayne do they have a class for me to take?
Whodathunkit (my niece gave me that one), me a Republican. ;-)
Girl, don't you know, Pat Buchanan has been the voice of reason regarding race relations for YEARS! After all, he did say that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a "divisive figure." Always count on Buchanan to give us a moment of truth. ;)
I'm just amazed at some of you guys. Shoot the messenger, why don't you.
None of you know what you are talking about when it comes to the attitudes of most African Americans and Latinos in Southern California.
Buchanan is absolutely correct about this-- Latinos are big Clinton supporters and they will not vote for Obama.
"Latinos are big Clinton supporters and they will not vote for Obama."
No need to wait, you're already patently wrong.
Evidence? Polls on this?
Of course not.
This, folks, is the reason why Democrats lose elections. Self righteousness is no substitute for strong, determined action, especially against the Right Wing.
Hillary has always led among Latinos, by an incredible amount. The polls here in Cal. show her winning the Latino vote by a landslide. There is a clear racial division, which can be accounted for by-- well-- race! (no, they like her clothes better I guess...)
The point is this primary. Who know what will happen in November?
Maybe they'll settle for Obama-- who knows? The issue here is the primary, and the reason why Latinos support Hillary-- at least one of the big reasons.
Sorry to break it to you-- but there's lots of prejudice in the world. Merely noting it on my part is not culpable. It's not a dream world out there-- oh, I forgot, this is Obama-time--- let's all play nicey nicey.
That'll sure work.
Maybe they'll settle for Obama
Maybe your race war aint so bitter.
Hillary has always led among Latinos, by an incredible amount. The polls here in Cal. show her winning the Latino vote by a landslide. There is a clear racial division, which can be accounted for by-- well-- race! (no, they like her clothes better I guess...)
I don't think so. I'm Black and I'm supporting Edward's long shot bid.
More than a few pundits jumped on the idea that Latino voters simply didn't like the fact that her opponent was African American. The only problem with this new conventional wisdom is that it's wrong. "It's one of those unqualified stereotypes about Latinos that people embrace even though there's not a bit of data to support it," says political scientist Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount University, an expert on Latino voting patterns. "Here in Los Angeles, all three black members of Congress represent heavily Latino districts and couldn't survive without significant Latino support."
Nationwide, no fewer than eight black House members--including New York's Charles Rangel and Texas' Al Green--represent districts that are more than 25% Latino and must therefore depend heavily on Latino votes. And there are other examples. University of Washington political scientist Matt Barreto has begun compiling a list of black big-city mayors who have received large-scale Latino support over the past several decades. In 1983, Harold Washington pulled 80% of the Latino vote in Chicago. David Dinkins won 73% in New York City's mayoral race in 1989. And Denver's Wellington Webb garnered more than 70% in 1991, as did Ron Kirk in Dallas in 1995 and again in 1997 and '99. If he had gone back further, Barreto could have added longtime Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, who won a majority of Latino votes in all four of his re-election campaigns between 1977 and 1989.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1707221,00.html
KNOWLEDGE IS THE KEY!
That can't possibly be true, because Latinos and blacks don't get along in prison.
He said the two groups are unable to work together and cited the prison population as an example.
That's like saying because skin heads in prison are white and hate every other racial group that's true of the white population at large.
Carlileb, your Obama hatred is bordering on insanity. Anyone who knows my posts can tell you that I'm not an Obama supporter and been very critical of him and his campaign. Hell, I even had one guy ask me how could I turn my back on my own race for not supporting Obama. So do not try to marginalize me as some Obamaite.
I called Fin a white supremacist because that's what he is. If you know his history here you wouldn't be so quick to jump on my case for calling him that. He has praised Eugenics, called for America to return back to its segregated roots, states interracial dating/marriage is an abomination and destroying the white race, etc., etc. Calling him a white supremacist had nothing to do with Obama.
You need to chill with your hatred of Obama. It's one thing to be critical of him, but it's another thing to sound like someone that holds so much hatred for a candidate you can't even make an intelligent, coherent critique of Obama or his supporters.
You need to chill with your hatred of Obama. It's one thing to be critical of him, but it's another thing to sound like someone that holds so much hatred for a candidate you can't even make an intelligent, coherent critique of Obama or his supporters.
AMEN Preston, AMEN!
He has called me dumb, stupid, whinny and naive. He has explained to me that it's really like the 1960's and totally unrealistic of me to think that a black man with a Muslim sounding name will get elected. He has questioned my loyalty to a party that I've supported long before he was EVER able to vote. He has blamed me for all the wrongs that this nation will suffer if another Republicans gets into office ALL because I wont do what he wants which is support Hillary.
And somehow based on this, I'm suppose to vote for her. Last time I checked this is a democracy, I'm free and able to decide who I want to vote for and I don't owe ANYONE an explanation for who I choose to vote for.
None of you know what you are talking about when it comes to the attitudes of most African Americans and Latinos in Southern California.
NO, THAT WOULD BE YOU!!!!!
Pearlene, you can vote for whoever you want to, but Obama hasn't a chance in hell of defeating McCain, and that's all I'm saying.
I think Obama supporters are naive, and many of them are nasty, too, and incredibly self-righteous. I've seen it here and on Digby, too, where it got so bad with them (mostly) that she had to close down all the comments.
I don't hate Obama- but I think he's an empty suit, and more than a touch arrogant, and I think his supporters (many of them) have this mindless hatred of the Clintons that is positively nutty and unwarranted.
It all reminds me of the Schwarzenegger mania a few years ago. Nothing but celebrity-hood, and jumping on the bandwagon, and then trying to fabricate all sorts of phony excuses to justify it.
And guess who then loses?! It ain't the Republicans!
There I said it: HOE.
Now all I have to do is work spade into the sentence and I'll qualify for my own radio show.
The comment previous was in response to an early Preston post.
Seemed so at the time. Hmmm . . . "strange fruit" - been listening to old records again . . . Division is not per se a bad thing . . . I particularly appreciate significant division between "us" and the Repugnants . . . hmmm . . . still looks ok, all the ideas seem clear enough.
But, since I already knew what it said, how could I fail to see what it meant?
Did you have a particular question?
Off topic, but...
"strange fruit" - been listening to old records again - conley
Any chance you are referring to The Gun Club? They are a favourite of mine from wayyy back. If not - nevermind.
Girl, don't you know, Pat Buchanan has been the voice of reason regarding race relations for YEARS! After all, he did say that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a "divisive figure." Always count on Buchanan to give us a moment of truth. ;)
Preston is that not the funnest thing, Pat giving advice on race relations. Clams said it best, Pat's been watching too much Lockdown. ;-)
I'm wondering how somebody who is whiter than the Pillsbury Doughboy would know that?
"Pat again is the LAST person who could make a rational comment about African Americans or Latinos less we forget, he's worried that they will over populate and make whites the minority." pearl
Now i would disagree, my belief is that even though a person has an opinion on a subject that you disagree with or find 'ignorant' this does not mean this person is incapable of being correct or insightful on an issue remotely related to the one on which you disagree.
This is a cause for worry, that you are so Judging and close minded you feel that way.
Now i would disagree, my belief is that even though a person has an opinion on a subject that you disagree with or find 'ignorant' this does not mean this person is incapable of being correct or insightful on an issue remotely related to the one on which you disagree. This is a cause for worry, that you are so Judging and close minded you feel that way
OMG, LMAO
THIS from the man who says 'MAJORITY' black in EVERY NEGATIVE statement he can possibly make about them? THIS coming from YOU? TOO FUNNY, TOO FUNNY!!!
Pearlene, right on. Finfarfin's capacity for doing the intellectual limbo never ceases to amaze me.
Fin, take your condescending "advice" and shove it. You're a racist, and an embarrassment.
Buchanan can't catch a break from the ridiculous far-left. Of the many, many comments he made last night regarding the dem primary, that's the best that the hacks at MM can come up with as conservative misrepresentation. Of course, being in bed with Clinton, MM can't attack Pat's actual coverage of the SC primary, as he's the only msnbc commentator who acknowledges the fact that politics is a tough business, and that Clinton is simply running a tough campaign. And his dumb example notwithstanding, many polls do indicate that a disproportionate number of blacks support Obama and a disproportionate number of hispanics support HC.
Buchanan made a number of good points about Clinton and Obama last night. He was the only one on MSNBC who wasn't giddy about the results.
Of all the nutty comments made on MSNBC about this primary, for them to pick this one by Buchanan makes no sense. There's nothing racist about it, it's an expression of Black/Brown realities here.
What about Joe Scarborough calling Bill Clinton a liar, over and over again, without citing evidence?
There's nothing racist about it, it's an expression of Black/Brown realities here.
Even though I think Buchanan is a racist, it wasn't a racist comment. Equating what happens in prisons and turf wars to the general population is just plain asinine.
He wasn't equating it. He was using it as an example of his point, that ethnic relations are strained, and that Latinos aren't going to vote for Obama in California
He was trying to mollify the giddiness of his co-hosts.
How can anyone possibly argue with that? Just look at the polls.
Speculate all you want, but stop pretending like what you stating is a fact.
IF Latino voters turn away from Obama, it could be based on a number of factors, including race. You've provided no empirical evidence to support that position. Stating that your right because all you have to do is "look at the polls" to show that Latino voters are not going to support Obama to bolster your position is just silly. What your doing is called a 'casual observation' and it's mainstay of silly political pundits that want to sound authoritative.
I could easily say that Latino voters aren't going to vote for Hillary due to Machismo and be on par with your statement.
"Did you really mean to write that you think the MM is "in bed with Clinton?" If so, you really can't be serious. The MM has run a virtual hatchet job on Hillary for months now, reaching a fever pitch at the start of the primaries."
While I agree that the MsM has done a hatchet job on Hillary, it's hard to feel too much sympathy for her when she peddles the bogus story about how Obama worked for the slum lord Antoin Rezko or when she distorts what Obama said about Ronald Reagan.
Reality Check:
Obama admitted that he actually worked on the case for a little bit. And she didn't even mention his later property deal with the guy.
Check out Bob Somerby last week for the real story about Hillary's comments on Reagan and Obama. She did no such thing-- you are believing blatant media lies:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012308.shtml
Somerby brilliantly dissects the big lie about Hillary.
Now go away, because Tommy does the "why is this here" and the "this isn't misinformation" schtick much better than you.
The problem here is that they are trying to make something culpable that is not at all so.
Of all the things that were said at that MSNBC broadcast, to focus on this one comment alone is pretty bizarre for MMFA to do.
I watched the first segment of their panel and turned the channel. Having seen Pat Buchanan get cut off from being able to inject his point of view, maybe he was just being cynical. Why was he labeled the Prince of Darkness?? The answer is he was not going along with all the Clinton bashing at the table, thats all. I'm planning on keeping up with the contest on the internet from now on. MSNBC is clearly pushing Obama, much like FOX pushes Bush, only on STEROIDS!!
Fin, is this your new name?
I agree H. there is no love lost among all Asians and African Americans. i guess that they see them in the light of reality, not some idealistic liberal dream haze.
And freidbergboy, that is not me, if it was i think you would know by the moniker, if you know anything at all.
I'm not sure about breaking it down ethnicity to ethnicity here in California, but for anyone to claim that Buchanan is making wacky comments about Latinos and African Americans not getting along, especially politically, is-- well-- WACKY!
Latinos are not going to vote for Obama here.
There, I said it. Wanna start calling me names as well?
The Conservatives here are correct-- this is all a bunch of liberal hazy thinking. It's naivete of the highest order-- the same thing largely behind Obama-mania-- and decades of dumb, Democratic losses.
You keep speaking in generalized terms about people and back yourself up with one specific but unrelated example.
Fin,
Sorry to see you have a kindred spirit, I just thought there was one race baiter/racist here.
You guys are sure quick to start calling people racist, aren't you?
Sadly, that seems to have become a mantra for many Obama supporters against Hillary fans. It's a sign of weakness, and sure to go over real good in November.
The resentful backlash it will engender will set the dems back 30 years if Obama is the nominee.
As for evidence about Latino voting choices-- just look at the polls in California.
Carlieb,
Look up fin's comments about equal segregation being a good idea or that he feels that the term "white supremacist" should be redefined more positively.
For the record, I want Edwards.
I shall say again; Разом нас багато, Нас не подолати!
There are more of us then you may think.
Ethnic Russians are Whites also. Are you saying you're a Ukrainian supremacist as well as a White supremacist or only one of the two?
Also, one can be a supremacist (of any race/ethnicity) and not be separatist and vice-versa. Are you also a separatist?
In addition, as to your earlier posts in this thread, measured intelligence is a complicated thing. Are you asserting there’s an inborn difference among racial/ethnic groupsEddy, I am a white nationalist and this is and can be separate from my love of my motherland. I had never said that Russians are not white, subsequent white ethnic types are too minute in their differences to detect a meaningful contrast in performance. I am not a Ukrainian supremacist, there is no evidence of ukrainian supremacy. I am not a separatist, I find it an unlikely probability that separatists would achieve their aims.
I am asserting that the intelligence difference has a lot do do with social advancement of the particular ethnicity, And that it is most likely a combination of inborn and cultural factors that produces this difference.
Fin,
A few questions for you. If you are not a separatist, why is bi-racial marriage an "abomination" (his words, not mine) and why do you live in perhaps the most diverse nation on earth with these views?
If you believe that there are some in-born advantages, are people "muddying the gene pool" (his words not mine) when different European groups marry? If your theory were to make sense, should Italians only marry Italians, Germans only marry Germans, etc? Is that what you are advocating?
I think you misunderstood my point, I was saying that it is obtuse to think you can expect Caucasian ethnicities to marry only with their own. What i said was that the differences among whites are so minute it is not of great consequence if they intermarry. A gene pool is muddy if there is a drastically different set of genetics from a race mixed with the other.
And this is based on what? You have just insulted some of the best people I know. Their children do more to make this a great country than any crazed wacko idea you have.
While there’s no real need to have more evidence of this guy’s forever racist outlook, it’s really telling to see that he’s willing to go so completely off topic and use the final word to stomp on the notion that there’s growing harmony among minority groups.
Hey Gov, when the election results come in on Feb 5 and I'm proven correct about Califonia Latinos supporting Hillary, you gonna apologize? Or call more names?
And his dumb example notwithstanding, many polls do indicate that a disproportionate number of blacks support Obama and a disproportionate number of hispanics support HC.
His dumb example is the reason this thread was nade. What do gangs and prisoners have to do with the minority vote?
It's obvious from the context of the conversation (see carlson's comments) that Buchanan was commenting on the polarization of the vote of two minority groups.
"There's a war in the prisons."
Thomp,
The metaphor is the issue. If he were to bring up a rift between religious voters do you think he would bring up the Spanish Inquisition?
"Maybe they feel Clinton is more electable; maybe they feel she represent their interests more than Obama; maybe they're not fully aware of his policies to feel confident enough to vote for him. "-Preston
Preston, these postulations as to why Hispanics prefer Clinton are dependent on a generality of a whole populations mindset in politics. You cannot assume that a whole population is ignorant on a particular candidates stand, t'would be much more precise to make the assumption that the population dislikes the certain economic competitor typified by race as Pat did.
Fin,
Did you just say that another poster couldn't generalize? Will wonders never cease.....
Fin,
Out of curiousity, which candidate supports your goal of equal segregation?
Fin,
Who are you supporting for President?
Preston, I agree with you that neither I (nor Pat) should make baseless generalizations regarding the motives of why people vote for a particular candidate. And you're right, that blacks and latinos, just like everybody else, likely are voting for the candidate that best represents their interests.
I guess the issue is whether the two campaigns are deliberately trying to polarize the minority vote. All outlets have reported on Clinton sort of ceding defeat in SC b/c that electorate was "obama's people." And then Bill's reference about how Jesse Jackson had won the SC primary in "86 and 88. Personally I'm not so sure these remarks are designed to create a rift and polarize the vote, but still they are a bit curious.
perhaps this is what he was referring to. latin street gangs in los angeles have targeted blacks for doing nothing more than being in latin neighborhoods. there have been several murders that prosecuters say are based on race only.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/61950/page/2
Mefirst, I see your point, but I still think it's a big stretch on Buchanan's part to equate gang violence between blacks and Hispanics as some type of racial tension. Gangs only make up a small portion of the black and Hispanic demographic. Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson has been pushing this meme since Hillary Clinton walked out of Nevada with a huge number of Hispanic votes. I don't believe the reason Hispanics vote for Hillary as a protest against voting for a black man. There have been many black politicians where Hispanics have supported overwhelmingly across the nation, so Buchanan's and Carlson's theory doesn't hold under close scrutiny.
I think this has more to do with the fact that Hispanics are probably still unfamiliar with Obama and not sure if he represent their interests. Remember, Obama's number among black voters weren't that high compared to Clinton's months ago. She actually led among black voters for a long time. Honestly, this is another fake race-base story to sensationalize and divide the Democratic Party. If women vote for Hillary Clinton over Obama in NH, it's the Bradley Effect; if Hispanics vote for Hillary over Obama, they're racist against blacks; if blacks vote for Obama more than Hillary, they're repudiating the Clintons, etc., etc.
There's plenty of racial tension between Blacks and Latinos. It's not just gangs.
Ask any teacher in L.A., ask any cop. Ask any witness to the proceedings here.
This discussion is ridiculous. The bottom line is-- and MMFA left this part out of the article-- is that Buchanan is correct about Obama's prospects in California. He's crystal clear correct.
Obama's only hope is the large number of independent voters who can cross over into the Dem. primary. That's either disillusioned Nader supporters, or right-wingers who hate Hillary.
"MMFA left this part out of the article"
What article?
It's obvious from the context of the conversation (see carlson's comments) that Buchanan was commenting on the polarization of the vote of two minority groups.
That is not the problem here.
Although violence among segments of those groups may not have much to do with it, that doesn't make the polarization, which Pat believes to exist, any less real. If, in MM's mind, there is no polarization, then it should refute Pat's "misinformation".
Buchanan equated purported rift in minority voters to "war[s]" in South Central L.A., prisons
It's clear just from the above title that MM is not taking issue with whether or not polarization exits between two voting groups. They are taking issue with Buchanan's belief that it has to do with gang and prison violence.
I'm not sure about that.
I think MMFA is inferring that these kind of general comments are racist in nature. And that's a canard. It's a false premise.
Like I said, he may have used an example that doesn't exactly prove his point, but that's inconsequential to the actual point.
You mean misinformation. That's why it's here. His example is a non-seqitor that isn't substantiated by any evidence.
It's not quite that simple, but it's not that far off, either, for many, unfortunately.
For anyone to dispute this is-- well-- like living in a dream world.
And MMFA is incorrect to claim that Buchanan was likening all of this to gang wars. He was merely using gang problems as an example of his point, as evidence.
How can anyone dispute this? It's a reality.
Of all the nonsense that was spouted that night on MSNBC, it is baffling why MMFA focuses on this one statement alone, to the exclusion of everything else.
What was historic was the voter turnout not Obama's victory and nobody is going to remember it if he doesn't do well on Super Tuesday.
Also, the idea that South Carolina is some kind of microcosm of the rest of America is ridiculous but that didn't stop it from being part of the story line.
It's not quite that simple, but it's not that far off, either, for many, unfortunately.
For anyone to dispute this is-- well-- like living in a dream world.
If it's so indisputable, then it should be pretty easy to back it up with solid facts and evidence. I'll be waiting...
And MMFA is incorrect to claim that Buchanan was likening all of this to gang wars. He was merely using gang problems as an example of his point, as evidence.
MMFA did no such thing. They are criticizing Pat for using it as evidence, period, because it's a non-sequitor. In their own words: Pat Buchanan cited gang wars "in South Central L.A." and "in the prisons" as evidence that tensions between African Americans and Latinos would affect voting in the Democratic primary. They did not accuse him of likening "all of this" to gang wars.
Haven't you heard? His evidence is that he lives in Southern California. What more do you need? He lives there, so naturally he simply knows what most African Americans and Hispanics think.
HBL was a deranged troll and a bigot. Good riddance to stanky rubbish, I say.
The cut of his jib was sub-par at best, and his chin, unremarkable.
Welcome back!
you might consider
MMFA is inferring that there is something ridiculous about referencing gang wars and ethnic voting tendencies.
Buchanan's only point was that Latinos and Blacks don't get along and that they are not going to vote accordingly. He was citing gang wars as an example of the conflicts that exist in the community.
How is that a non-sequitur?
It's called presenting evidence to back up his statement. He may be a little melodramatic, but it's not flower-power time here. These 'gang wars' do not exist in a vacuum.
I'm really amazed at the disingenuousness here, mostly coming from Obama supporters, apparently. You guys are in denial about ethnic realities.
I think MMFA is inferring that these kind of general comments are racist in nature. And that's a canard. It's a false premise.
Pat's statement is a non-sequitor. Just because there are "wars" in South Central L.A., prisons between blacks and hispanics does not necessarily mean they will cause rifts between minority voters. It's a leap of logic and he provides no further explanation to back up the assertion. Do gang members and prisoners normally vote? Do they make up the majority of the black and hispanic population? What purpose does such an irrevelant point bring to the discussion? It may not be racist but it's certainly a stupid assessment and absolutely misinformation.
Again, he was not making a causal leap, saying that gang wars are actively influencing anything politically.
He was merely illustrating the fact that relations are strained, and that that's an example of it.
I mean, come on, this projection of meaning onto the plain obviousness of what he was getting at, in a heated moment, with a bunch of Hillary-hating, sexist boobs against him, is silly.
The guy made some good points. The big concern of MMFA should be the inanity of Scarborough, Olbermann, and company that night.
He was merely illustrating the fact that relations are strained, and that that's an example of it.
He was responding to Robinson's comment: "I can't think of a whole lot of situations where there's an actual clash between Latino and African-American issues". It was not a statement about race relations in general. Robinson was specifically referring to purported voter polarization between two minority groups. That's why Pat's comment was unnecessary.
How are gang and prison wars related to the rift in minority vote between blacks and hispanics? Do gang members and prisoners normally vote?
You might as well say that most Cambodians and Vietnamese don't get along, and then cite Los Angeles gang rivalries as your evidence. It's ridiculous.
Well said! That's exactly my point.