@blatham,
blatham wrote:
I think Maddow is going to have Uncle Pat on tonight to talk about that column. There appears to be a sincere fondness between the two of them but she ain't no shrinking violet and she's smarter than he is...ought to be interesting.
Here's a link to the Rachel Maddow Show website:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/
The segment wherein "Maddow challenges Buchanan on race" is available.
____________________________
In his column, Buchanan strenuously argued in favor of tapping into the racial prejudices of white conservatives to discredit minority beneficiaries of "affirmative action." He argued this will help the GOP to reap political reward by securing the votes of white conservatives who are racially inflamed over the idea that minorities are taking something that belongs to a white person.
Buchanan defined affirmative action as discrimination of against WHITE MEN for the purpose of increasing diversity. He sees nothing wrong with a historical record that shows that only 110 people have served as Supreme Court justices since the founding of this country, and that 108 of them were WHITE (and 106 were WHITE MEN). He simply sees
white men as uniquely qualified to sit on the nation's highest court because, he says, white men are 100 percent of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence and wrote the Constitution and 100 percent of the people who died at Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and Normandy.
Buchanan stresses that this was a country built by WHITE men. (In his column, he stresses that WHITE men founded this country and wrote the constitution for THEMSELVES and THEIR posterity, i.e. for their WHITE descendents.) And, he stated, when he was growing up in the 1960's, 90 percent of the population was white and the remaining 10 percent consisted of black people who were discriminated against. He said that's why he believes white men should occupy the seats on the Supreme Court.
Buchanan claims perhaps the Democrats can tap a woman who can stand up to Scalia, but "this one" doesn't have that! Buchanan says "affirmative action" Sotomayor was appointed because she's Hispanic and a woman. Maddow pointed out Sotomayor's qualifications. She is the judicial nominee who has more judging experience than any other judge who was considered over the last 70 years. She has been an appellate court judge of distinction for a lot longer than Roberts or Alito were when they were nominated. She wasn't brought up from the minor leagues. Buchanan emphatically stated that Sotomayor is "NOT Supreme Court material." He places her in the same category as Harriet Miers. (And he believes that Sotomayor can't even kiss Estrada's feet even though Estrada has absolutely no judicial experience and the Republicans made his body of work unavailable for review.)
Maddow argued, if we can agree that our country needs to be able to choose from the largest possible pool of talent in order to achieve our goals, then we must hopefully see that choosing 108 white justices (out of a total of 110) means that other people aren't actually being appropriately considered. And the fact that other people have been discriminated against for hundreds of years means that the choosers gamed the system by putting white people in the best schools and best jobs and this discriminatory system cannot be remedied unless you give other people a leg up (which is the purpose of affirmative action).
Buchanan disagrees. He views the President's nomination of Sotomayor as an outrageous act of intentional discrimination against white men. He views Sotomayor as an undeserving Hispanic woman from Puerto Rico who took a slot in Princeton away from white students who had better scores.
Just because 99.5 percent of all justices have been white, Buchanan states he refuses to assume discrimination (because, obviously white men founded this country and are the finest scholars deserving of being placed on the high court) just like he doesn't assume discrimination if the Olympic track team consists entirely of black men. He assumes they're simply the fastest guys we have.
Maddow argued, when she sees 108 white guys out of 110 being selected for a seat on the Supreme Court, she does not automatically assume its because white guys are better qualified than other people who are not being selected. The more obvious explanation is that you HAVE to be a white guy in order to be considered for the position--and that HAS been true since this country was founded. That's starting to break up now so we can tap a bigger pool of talent. You should be happy about that for your country.
Buchanan railed that white firefighters were the victims of this EVIL affirmative action policy that permits discrimination against white men.
Buchanan fails to celebrate breaking the glass ceiling on the Supreme Court and rails that the "affirmative action" nominee Sotomayor does not exemplify being the best we can be.
