It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pat Buchanan on Rachel Maddow show 16 July 2009

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Did anyone catch this on MSNBC? I don't watch her show, but I happen to flip past as she was discussing Sotomayor. Mr. Buchanan came across as extremely bigoted and did nothing to help the name of the Republican Party. Fortunately, Ms. Maddow proceeded to OWN Mr. Buchanan...she clearly got him flustered...I couldn't help but laugh out loud.

Here is a link to the story and the video interview can be found at the bottom of the page.

www.advocate.com...

Enjoy!





[edit on 17-7-2009 by Aggie Man]




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I would laugh at Buchanan more, but the trouble is he speaks for a lot of people.

Sotomayor is clearly a threat to him, or he wouldn't have gotten so worked up as he did.

I don't think he, or a lot of people in his party, can hear himself the way others hear him.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
I would laugh at Buchanan more, but the trouble is he speaks for a lot of people.

Sotomayor is clearly a threat to him, or he wouldn't have gotten so worked up as he did.

I don't think he, or a lot of people in his party, can hear himself the way others hear him.


I TOTALLY agree! I don't think that he, or anyone else in the Republican Party, intend to come across as bigoted. It is most likely one of 2 things in my opinion.

1. They are blind to their bigotry, as white males have ALWAYS, and still do, "rule the roost" that is Washington D.C.; therefore, it just seems like "business as usual"; or

2. It is showing the desperation of the dying Republican Party.

I hope he (PB) looks back at that interview and smacks his forehead, realizing how out of touch he is w/modern America.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Did anyone catch this on MSNBC? I don't watch her show, but I happen to flip past as she was discussing Sotomayor. Mr. Buchanan came across as extremely bigoted and did nothing to help the name of the Republican Party. Fortunately, Ms. Maddow proceeded to OWN Mr. Buchanan...she clearly got him flustered...I couldn't help but laugh out loud.


This is interesting because I caught part of this when it was broadcast live and I had a similar impression. But I just watched the video again and listened carefully to their arguments and I think Buchanan made good points. He went a little too far comparing her to Harriet Myers, but his case against affirmative action was consistent and made sense.

Maddow twice brought up 106 out of 110 justices (or whatever) have been white males, but Buchanan reminded her up until the 1960s, 90% of the country was white and the other 10% of blacks were discriminated against.

The fact that hispanic or asian people get a preference over whites makes no sense to me. Were they ever held as slaves in the United States ? No.

Nobody will ever convince me that giving racial preference is constitutional or right.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
I would laugh at Buchanan more, but the trouble is he speaks for a lot of people.

Sotomayor is clearly a threat to him, or he wouldn't have gotten so worked up as he did.

I don't think he, or a lot of people in his party, can hear himself the way others hear him.


You like Ratchel, completely misunderstand Pat's position. Why is it that liberals cannot look at a white person who is critical of a non-white as anything other than racist? Pat is simply saying that the court is mostly whites, because for a long time it was only them who could make it to those positions. Some of it was almost surely due to racism, but not all of it and we're trying to move past those days. By discriminating against whites, we are simply perpetuating the cycle. Rachel avoided addressing those points like the plague.

All pat is saying is that we shouldn't just start putting non-whites in these positions, simply to fill some imaginary quota. Pat brought up non-white Republican nominees that were fought tooth and nail by the democrats. Why are they not held to that same standard? You'll notice Rathel again avoided those points at all cost.

Finally, Rathel's assertion that believing in equal rights for all is "showing Pat's age", or is "50s" is beyond me. Why do Liberals in general not see anti-white hate/discrimination as legitimate?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
They argued over one point: Buchanan doesn't believe that the Obama Administration put forth a thorough search for a candidate, Maddow believes that they did. Since Pat never verbalized this Maddow easily walked all over him. If this wasn't evident earlier in the video, it becomes very obvious by the last minute when Buchanan mentions Miguel Estrada.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join