Rachel Maddow Debunks Pat's Racist Statements Made on Her Show
Rachel Maddow corrects Pat Buchanan's racist statements he made on her show last week. Classy as usual, she manages to do it without attacking Buchanan, but just pointing out the fact that he lies like a rug by debunking his B.S..lol.
Maddow: It's not cool to talk about guests after their segment is over. It's also not fair to re-litigate these arguments in the absence of one of the parties who participated in the argument, and I will not try to do that now. But what I do feel obliged to do is to correct some of the things that were said in the course of my argument with Pat that were stated as fact, that were not true. I feel an obligation just to correct the factual record as we would with anything else that was stated as fact on this show that was not true.
Rachel goes on to debunk Pat's statements about whether Sotomayor has ever written anything in terms of a law review article, how Sotomayor got on the Yale Law Review, that the United States was not "built by white folks", his statements about who died for the United States in combat, his statement that he was not in favor of affirmative action, when he himself promoted affirmative action for Catholics, that the United States track team in the Olympics is not "all black folks", and the Olympic hockey team is not all from Minnesota.
the facts and statistics to Pat's shameful rant. I think that just the commenters of color alone here at C & L could look into our family histories to find examples that poke holes into his whole tirade. I gave a little taste of that in one thread where I mentioned two Confederate officer relatives/ancestors, one Tejano, one Native American.
Also, if I have a smug look on my face, it's because surprise surprise, Buchanan is all for affirmative action when it benefits the "right" people. What a fucker!
I've never seen change without a fire
she had to say. Uninterrupted.
bulldozed the conversation, so her being able to debunk him without interruption was a big plus.
I've never seen change without a fire
Neither of these segments were Rachel's finest moments.
First, she showed too much deference to Pat. I can appreciate her appreciation of him, given that he came on her show early on to give her new program some "juice".
However, there were so many historical inaccuracies and half truths spoken, and to let them go uncorrected was terrible.
Her correction of these inaccuracies also fell short in her second segment.
There are specific reasons why "white men" made all the major decisions in the history of the country. Slavery was an atrocity, but it was not the reason why white men controlled government. It was about elitism, which today cuts across all races (ie Michael Steele, Geraldo Rivera, Justice Thomas).
Rachel had a real opportunity to give the country a REAL history lesson about how this country was formed, and what political power is all about. She blew it.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
She's the best. Classy in every way ...
I didn't question her class.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
...your post does read like concern trolling.
I didn't see what you saw. Her goal was not to give a history lesson, but to "correct errors" said on her show. She did it in such a way to demonstrate those "errors" as disingenuous lies and/or propaganda.
Also, she quite explicitly told the viewer what the ethics are in journalistic integrity. You call it "deference" when in fact, him & his words are the entire subject of the segment. She directly tied her words to Pat's appearance, and in so doing took on every right-wing propagandists who masquerade as journalists on tv. Lies are given out as fact on a regular basis, and it is a rare journalist who will not only stand up against it, but do so in a way that demonstrates their own journalistic integrity. It seems like you wanted Rachel to stoop to the level of Scarborough & Beck.
Or maybe not, as I can't really figure out what you were wanting. The line about 'elitism' isn't very informative. Are you saying that 'elitism' can cut across racial/ethnic divides? A nice point, but Rachel wasn't there to give self-evident facts. She was there to counter propagandistic lies that are all too easily believed by many in this country.
And for that, she did an excellent job. Thank You, Rachel, for being one of the few journalists on tv w/ class, integrity & ethics.
Correct errors on the show?
The biggest "error" was his statement that white men have made all the decisions throughout the country's history.
That statement is correct. However, that wasn't the issue. The issue is WHY that statement is correct...and what it says about the country then...and what we believe the country should be NOW. It's also why she missed an opportunity to educate at least a portion of our population on how this country was really founded and expanded. Or do you believe all those hokey stories you learned in grade school about George Washington and the cherry tree, the acquisition of Texas, New Mexico and California, and how Columbus discovered the new world?
You see, son...Pat Buchanan's views aren't outdated. It is how white elite males have thought throughout history, and to today. He's not a relic, he's a representation.
That's not concern trolling. I suggest you look it up.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
"to educate at least a portion of our population on how this country was really founded and expanded."
But that's precisely what she did! So how _did_ she "miss an opportunity"???
Now, if you mean that she didn't talk about the many, varied and repetitive acts of bigotry, both institutional and personal, that have been perpetuated in this country since before it's inception, yes, I'll grant you that. But that is a VERY tall order, something that would take months to complete, 24/7. She only had 6 minutes. My concern troll comment came from what I read of your words. It looked to me as if she'd just saved someone's life, and you say "That's not good enough, there are still millions of people dying. You blew it."
Now, that's what I read of your words. If you didn't mean that, then write more clearly. And stop with the condescension, okay? You must realize how it makes you appear online.
You state:
"Lies are given out as fact on a regular basis, and it is a rare journalist who will not only stand up against it, but do so in a way that demonstrates their own journalistic integrity."
Maddow shouldn't be giving folks like Buchanan a forum. Period. She's just as complicit in the dissemination of his lies as he is. The question, however, is why.
Frankly, the answer reduces itself, like everything else on television, to ratings. Buchanan's unusual brand of right-wing nonsense provides a foil against which Maddow and her liberal guests can rail, and viewers like conflict and drama, so Maddow continues to extend an invitation to Buchanan and these other chowderheads. I mean, c'mon -- Uncle Pat will be back on her program later this week at some point, and the whole thing will start again.
Journalistic integrity? For some, I guess.
Maddow is not honoring or praising Pat Buchanan.
She is quite gifted at being crafty. Maddow's so-called "comments of praise" are exactly the opposite.
Maddow is quite sardonic. In calling him "Uncle Pat" she is actually patronizing and mocking him.
I am surprised that some of you in here don't realize that Maddow adeptly disarms Pat Buchanan by mocking him, and she is not just being "nice" to him. She is constantly asking him to repeat absurd statements over and over again. "Like again, Pat, you are not serious," types of questions is definitely mocking his b.s.
On another note----Rachel Maddow is an open and out lesbian. I find it quite funny that a homophobe, sexist and bigot like Buchanan shows up to be on with Rachel Maddow. Knowing that Maddow is an open lesbian makes it all the more ironic when Pat Buchanan is on with her. I am sure Rachel also chuckles that as a lesbian, not only does she get Pat to actually show up on her show, but that calling him "Uncle Pat" is flattery, but not the good kind.
Do you understand the sardonic tones of "praise" Maddow gives to Buchanan? If you haven't yet, listen more carefully.
In no way, shape, or form does Maddow agree with Pat Buchanan. Unlike Pat Buchanan, Ms. Maddow is civil in her political discourse as well as very astute in disarming Buchanan with sardonic comments. Maddow is not as raw or obvious as other talk show hosts but if one listens very carefully to her word usage, tone, and tenor, one would realize when guests are looking like the dopes even if they don't realize it.
Liberalism was the predominant government ideology from circa 1932 to circa 1985. The conservatives took back this nation primariy because of the organisations they formed in the 1950s like the Heritage Foundation and others. Then they slowly and methodically took this country over, like they had it thru all of the 17th and 18th centuries.
But they took it back slowly and methodically. So be patient. People like Obama and Rachel can't correct 25 years of right wing control overnight. Frankly, I think the people are getting this nation back quicker than I ever thought possible. We have a long way to go, but it's happening. And the Republican party and their TV network are running scared.
So be patient.
@prius04
Amen, brother.
. . . why she and others at MSNBC have Buchanan on their shows in the first place. For chrissakes, this is the guy who said that today's blacks should be grateful that slavery landed their ancestors in America. And yet you're now patting her on the back for "correcting" the record? WTF?!!
The general problem with today's media, including shows like the Rachel Maddow show, is that they invite purported journalists from the left and right to offer opinions regarding the "news," as if these people were somehow qualified to discuss the issues in any cogent manner, and on presumption that the truth might emerge somewhere in the middle. Buw we know this isn't the case -- all we get is loons watching tv believing the loons reporting the "news." If Maddow really wanted to exercise courage, she'd take a stand against Buchanan ever showing up on her show again.
Here's a suggestion for Maddow and MSNBC -- quit paying Buchanan for appearing on your programs, and let this chowderhead take take his freakshow to Fox where it belongs.
She did what she set out to do, which was debunk Pat's "facts."
leads one to question why this show or network allow such a racist to spew such lies and innacuracies as fact, and then pay him a salary to do so. Don Imus was fired for a joke.
soul. And Buchanan exposed himself. Take that any way you please.
The good news is that I haven't seen Pat on msnbc since he appeared on her show.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
This country does not need his racist, false comments. I cannot believe his racism and hypocrisy, wanting affirmative action for "ethnic Catholics," but not anyone else! For him not to acknowledge the contributions that blacks, Asians, Latinos and others have made is unconscionable. Go away, Pat Buchanan.
But that was just the other night!
People like Buchanan need to be called on their bullshit to their face, on the spot. I was sorry to (again) see Rachel treat Buchanan as her cranky, crazy uncle rather than the lying, hate-spewing racist that he is. She should have at least had him back on confront him with the facts face to face. And then, never have him back again.
What makes you think that she is in total control of her show? Ultimately, the owner of the network is in control, and that would be GE. Maybe if they tied him to a chair and put duct tape over his mouth, she could tell him what she thinks. Short of that, he has had years of experience shouting down anyone who dares to disagree with him. Friends close, enemies closer.
And that is just an indictment of Rachel's show and other's just like her's. Perhaps what they need to do is take talk show host lessons from Bill O'Lielly.
level. Never. When someone is about to reveal their true colors, let them.
First rule of politics.
When your opponent is in the process of immolating himself, you neither assist nor attempt to do more harm. You simply stand aside quietly.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
However, I suspect the only viewers who perceived Buchanan as self-immolating were progressives. The few right winger and Blue Dog viewers probably tuned in to see Buchanan rip Rachel a new asshole, and he did just that. They would not bother to see Rachel's factual refutation a few days later. So, I endorse Unsean's "Too little, too late?" comments below
Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.
Just call them on their bullshit to their face, and don't treat them like cranky Uncle Pat.
means what? I cannot figure out what your point is. You seem to be just bitching about Rachel. If you don't like her, don't watch her. It's still a partially free country.
I love Rachel Maddow. She is one of the best commentators on mass media TV. But, I object to her Uncle Pat way of relating with a hate-spewing racist. I object to others like Chris Matthews with their collegial handling of people like Buchanan. I object to all talk show hosts that do not call the Buchanan-types on their bullshit to their faces. If anyone but progressives tuned into her interview with Buchanan, they heard just what they wanted to hear, unchallenged by Rachel. I'd bet they completely avoided her rebuttal show days later.
.
Pat Buchanan is a jack-booted, racist thug. He's beside himself that a Latina woman will become a Supreme Court justice.
The poor privileged, doughy white racist men are terrified of the brown woman.
Good job Rachel.
*
Nicely done Rachel, Keep the fire to their feet, so many half truths and direct lies permeate the airwaves these days, that it is always nice to see someone check the facts out. Facts being checked out!? what is this, some kind of journalism? I wonder how much reluctant respect for Rachel Buchanan has shown her in the past will he be able to muster after this great slap in his racist face. Way to go Maddow.
To me, we are well beyond Rachel's "crazy old racist" grandpa routine with Buchanon. He is fomenting a race war and she is complicit.
Her show needs to be boycotted if that pig ever shows his face on her show again. Someone has to take a stand before this racist stuff becomes even more acceptable than it's becoming.
Are you calling for a boycott of them, too? It's because she's a woman, isn't it? Can't stand them uppity smart women? Too bad. I guess racism is bad, but sexism isn't. GFY. You, Ed in NJ and Gary.
They are all the same, except they are "collegial" with Buchanan, Scarborough even somewhat like minded. With Rachel, Buchanan is kindly old Uncle Pat.
Do you think this makes you sound clever? When was the last time you saw anyone treat him like a kindly old uncle? When?
Do you think this makes you sound clever? When was the last time you saw anyone treat him like a kindly old uncle? When?
Pat Buchanan is routinely handled with kid gloves by the people at MSNBC, including Maddow. He makes snide racist comments all the time, and the only time I have heard her rebuke him was on the Dan Abrams show in March last year, when he told a black female pundit to "shut up." Maddow's response? “Pat, I’ve been on TV with you a million times . . . I’ve never heard you tell anyone to shut up before. That was absolutely, completely ridiculous of you.” But what'd she say five minutes prior? "As much as I love Pat, and Pat you and I spend a lot of time on tv together. . . . "
Nothing Pat Buchanan is saying here is new for him -- it's his standard routine. Why does Rachel Maddow invite him onto her show? Is he just the only conservative who will show up?
Maddow and her producers know that Buchanan generates conflict.
is a F-----G genius!!!!!
The history of the Supreme Court is littered with white male mediocrities who were appointed because of who they were and who they knew, not WHAT they knew.
Only a handful of SC Justices have turned out to be great. For every Felix Frankfurter, there are between 8-10 mediocrities like Minton, Whittaker, Van Devanter, Stone, etc.
People like Pat Buchanan want to claim Sotomayor is an "affirmative action" pick who is "under qualified" for the position. Well, so was Clarence Thomas. Any fair minded observer knows damn well that Thomas was NOT the most qualified candidate GHW Bush could have picked to succeed Justice Marshall. However, he was determined to pick a black conservative, which is why he picked Thomas.
I didn't hear any right-wingers bitching about Thomas being "under qualified." So, I guess CONSERVATIVE affirmative action is OK, while "liberal" affirmative action is "racist."
Others claim Sotomayor has never written an important or pathbreaking opinion in her life. Well, neither did Hugo Black...until he became a Supreme Court Justice. Black was a member of the KKK during his early political career, and was a graduate of the University of Alabama law school--hardly an Ivy League institution. Yet he became one of the greatest Justices in SC history, a champion of civil rights and author of the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright.
My point in all this is that there have been MANY white men (and one black man) who have been appointed to the SCOTUS for political reasons, not because they were "the most qualified." I agree that Sotomayor's ethnic background has played a part in her appointment. My response-- So what? Thomas was nominated partly because of his race. Wilson nominated Brandeis to the SCOTUS partly because he wanted to be the first President to elevate a Jewish person to the Court. That glass ceiling was shattered, and Obama is about to shatter another one.
People who bitch about Sotomayor's nomination are blowing smoke like nobody's business. She is NOT the first candidate to be selected partly due to her race, she is NOT the first candidate to be declared "under qualified" for the seat, and she is NOT the first candidate to take a seat without having (yet) written a major opinion.
If Sotormayor were a white guy, she could be all of these things, and the Pat Buchanans of the world wouldn't be saying a word in protest.
because he is so substandard. They don't want someone superior who is from a racial minority. Thomas was selected and appointed for his lack of intellect, not because he was suitable for the Court. Do you realize that only the highest and the lowest courts in this country can have judges that are not lawyers? The SCOTUS and town justice courts, or their equivalents. Bush, Sr.,and his henchmen chose a very bad example of affirmative action and stuck it on the Court to be a long-term reminder of how affirmative action does not work. I know three judges that I truly despise. They all now look like toads. Thomas is one of them. I find this quite comforting.
that it will do any good to debunk Buchanan? Will it shame him? Will any less people believe his load of crap? The people who take him seriously will gladly believe anything that a Republican "Conservative" like Buchanan or Limbaugh spews
Throwing out his line of nonsense is how he makes his living. He's not going to give that up any time soon.
The best thing to do is ignore him.
Lower the retirement age.
what all the other racists are thinking. Don't you think that's a good idea?
The best thing to do might be to ignore him if you're just giving up and letting ignorance and evil win, if you're never going to confront racism and stupidity in your own neighbors, co-workers, family, and friends, and if you're never in need of good facts with which to educate young people and write letters to an editor of a publication...
I wrote about his on my blog, because Pat Buchanan's (or anyone's for that matter) racism needs to be challenged when it happens, not after the fact (though after the fact is certainly better than not at all).
I understand that it is difficult, seeing that she has no idea what insanity is going to issue from his mouth, but an effort needs to be made to call people on their lies sooner rather than later, before they permerate the public consciousness and feed the more 'reactive' and radical elements in our society.
Below is my blog address, if anyone wants to see what I have wrote on the matter.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzepr1xp/page1/page...
But of course it's hard to talk over that old bully a lot of the time...
I've never seen change without a fire
...when a bully talks over the interviewer or the other guests? Is it a total no-no to cut their microphone until the other person is done?
I'd like to see that become a policy! One person at a time talks. Period. No interruptions, no talking over the other person.
I don't agree at all. What you're advocating is the sort of yelling/screaming/tantrum throwing that are all the rage on Cable News. They love people yelling at each other, because it's "entertainment." And while it pleases the rubes, it is not journalism. Real journalism is slow, methodical, and informative, done with adequate research, which this segment was. It is not bar-room arguments where opinions are spewed about as 'facts.' This is the type of conflict that the Buchanan-types (O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Scarborough, Dobbs, et al) thrive on. They're bullies, they know it, they love it, and issues like integrity, research and respect have no place.
The bully-pulpit type of journalism came about during the Reagan era, when he removed news shows from being non-profit. The News Divisions had to show profit for their corporate owners, and so it became entertainment. I am thankful for rare birds like Rachel Maddow, because her goal is NOT to entertain, but to inform. It may be too slow and boring for you, but that's what REAL journalism is.
Real journalists shouldn't have the Buchanan-types on at all. Especially if they are going to treat them as cranky old uncles.
Rachel is great. And even though I disagree with her on affirmative action I like how she wtfpwnd Pat.
There is one place that bigots cannot live and that is the limelight. Exposure of this type of lazy thinking, which is embraced by too many Americans, is the best thing to do. Ignoring an issue is counter-productive.
There are several issues going on here, and they are brought together on this segment. Journalist accountability, bigotry, propaganda. Can you imagine something like this happening in '03? That was just six years ago! And voices like Buchanan were legion, everywhere you turned. They aren't just the guests, they are the hosts, along w/ the producers & writers. It really is BAD, and to ignore this is to condone it. I'm glad Rachel is not one of those 'softy liberals' who allow this crap to continue, by thinking that paying attention to it is somehow condoning it.
They seem to do just fine in the limelight. In fact, they love it and make great money as well. Give Limbaugh, O'Lielly, Glen Beck, etc. the limelight and they just take a bow.
That there are demagogues out there, yes, of course. But their words are NOT advertised as *BIGOTRY* or *HATRED* or *RACISM*. They present themselves as thoughtful, respectable and honorable people. What I meant by "limelight" is having their words exposed, through truly rational means, in how their reasoning is actually bigotry in disguise.
So when you & I see these men on tv, and are about to puke our guts out because of what WE see, well, we're knowledgeable folks who like to think. There are others who need some help. Because these men are actually hiding, right there on stage, in front of the cameras, behind cozy words, lazy thinking, and appealing to people's baser emotions.
That's why I like this segment, because Rachel was armed w/ FACTS, which is the exposure I was alluding to. It's not about eyeballs, but the brains behind those eyeballs.
But, if you give these demagogues a public forum and don't confront them face-to face with their lies, racism and hatred, and instead treat them like a kindly, crazy uncle, then they are not being put in the "limelight" as you define it. Rather, they are being given a spotlight, and they will spout their unchallenged bullshit and take bows all the way to the bank. Rachel's factual rebuttal days later was fine and good, but nothing more than preaching to the choir at that point.
Making converts?
Preaching to the choir with his unchallenged bullshit. Just like Rachel with her too little, too late rebuttal.
I just sent this e-mail to rachel@msnbc.com: "I don't know why you give Pat Buchanan the public microphone. Certainly there are other, more intelligent conservative representatives you could invite on. Is Pat Buchanan really the best use of valuable air time? Actually, considering his track record on civil rights in general, and gay rights specifically, how can you justify his appearances on your show? For example, "In a 1977 column urging a 'thrashing' of gay groups, Buchanan wrote: 'Homosexuality is not a civil right. Its rise almost always is accompanied, as in the Weimar Republic, with a decay of society and a collapse of its basic cinder block, the family.'''(New Republic, 3/30/92)
"Here's the address for a Buchanan column detailing a lot of his hate speech: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553 Can you address this?"
I urge everyone to go to the Fair.Org address shown above. His views are nauseating and cross the line into hate speech. I'll give him credit that he's an equal opportunity hater: hates women, blacks, immigrants, Jews, Israel, Holocaust believers, Catholics; loves Hitler, the Confederacy, Joe McCarthy, and apartheid.
Very cool, Offred! You inspired me, so I just e-mailed her too:
"I really liked your debunking of the falsities that Pat Buchanan claimed on your show the other night.
"I've been reading comments on CrooksAndLiars.com's article on your debunking, and some people are saying that such racism and ignorance should be confronted at the time it's being said. But of course Mr. Buchanan would just talk louder and continue to interrupt.
"How about a new rule (à la Bill Maher) – when you interview someone whom you know is a conversational bully, you tell him or her, "New rule: I get to say something without any interruptions. If you interrupt me, my engineer will cut your microphone until I'm done. Then you get to talk, and I won't interrupt. You can talk until you tell a lie or falsify a fact. Then my engineer cuts your mike until I can correct it on air. Then you get to retract the falsehood..."
"Ah, well, I know I'm just dreaming ... but it was a wonderful dream for a minute there!"
You assume that other conservatives are lining up to be on her show. Only this arrogant old bastard would think he would be able to outsmart and out shout her. Not to mention the fact that GE OWNS MSNBC. Get it? If they want Buchanan on, he goes on. Send your e-mails to them. You have officially been added to the list containing Ed in NJ and Gary. The "He-Man Woman Haters Club."
It's a good thing to have Buchanan on the show...
It exposes the real belief system of the man who coined the term, the phrase "Silent Majority," and to understand what America has not only gone through, but, continues to face.
I would rather have these people up front and center than allowing them to go in the shadows and be overly covert.
Although such views are indeed despicable, it is much better that these views and mindset and ideology be exposed openly for all to see. It is time Americans again see the likes of Pat Buchanan, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Hal Turner, Neil Boortz, and the rest of these right-wing racists, bigots, and sexists for who and what they are.
Censoring these people by no means makes the problems associated with hatred and bigotry go away. In some cases, it radicalizes these people even more.
It is important to allow them to spew such hate and then shine the big flood lights on them....and then we can also show the hypocrisy of their so-called "Christian morality" as well....
Rachel should be nominated for an Edward R. Morrow Award for having THE SPINE to review and reject Pat B.'s racist ideology. She's protecting herself and her show... and well she should. I hope this is the beginning of the END for Buchanan The SPEWING Head... on ANY network.
The modern day republican party is made up of liars totally.
They don't even attempt to be honest or even try to cover their lies. I guess because for so long they have had the cover of the socalled journalists not asking questions and just letting them say whateve they wanted without question.
It just shows ho much these media personalities are in the pocket of the owners.
They let any bullshit pass for the pay check.
That is why I never watch TV news anymore.
People like pat have soiled the whole country. Brought shame and disgrace to the news profession and almost destroyed our country.
republicanism is a mental illness!
..."Just the facts, ma'am,"!
The (R)evisionist,(R)eligionist,(R)epublicanism, fascist party are quite adept at chronicling and disseminating the fiction vs. facts. I believe you'll find a correlating similarity amongst the Blue
GodDog Coalition a.k.a. Conservative Democrats, not unlike......Carter Glass, famous for the "Glass-Steagall Act and whom was identified as an "Conservative Democrat". A few points about him..."Even as he worked to disenfranchise certain segments of society, he had a soft spot in his heart for individual blacks. In the midst of the fight over the Federal Reserve Bill, Glass made a special trip home to Lynchburg to appear at the manslaughter trial of his black servant. He took the witness stand, "swore that William was the best Negro that ever lived in the United States" and pleaded to keep him from imprisonment. When William was fined $200, Congressman Glass reached into his pocket, pulled out a roll of bills, paid the fine, then rushed back to Washington, D.C"...
...Snip - Perhaps the most telling comment about Carter Glass came from President Franklin Roosevelt, who called Glass an "Unreconstructed Rebel." Roosevelt meant exactly what the capital "R" on Rebel implies. As the Senate's last surviving member born in the antebellum South, Glass unapologetically fought to retain a society in which property-owning, white males sat at the top of the pyramid. In that regard, he was a man of his times. Carter Glass was born just as the year 1858 began, into a newspaper family that did not back away from a fight.
In case you didn't know...
"Montview", also known as the "Carter Glass Mansion", was built in 1923 on his farm, which was then outside Lynchburg in Campbell County. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and now serves as a museum on the grounds of Liberty University within the expanded city limits of Lynchburg, an independent city. The front lawn of "Montview" is the burial site of Dr. Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montview ]
Study the symptoms not the virus...
I just wish she would have also pointed out last night that "white men" were not the only ones to die for our independence. The first recorded person to die for this country's freedom from English tyranny was Crispus Attucks (A Black Man). He was the first to die for the American Revolution in a happening we now know as the Boston Massacre.
"Crispus Attucks" was "The first recorded person to die for this country's freedom from English tyranny"?
I've found, "Very few facts are known about Crispus Attucks prior to his involvement with the Boston Massacre" and...
...an October 2, 1750, advertisement placed in the Boston Gazette read:
"Ran away from his Master William Brown of Framingham on the 30th of Sept. last a mulatto Fellow, about 27 years of age, named Crispus, 6 Feet and 2 inches high, short curl'd Hair, his Knees near together than common; and had on a light colour'd Beaverskin Coat, plain new buckskin breeches, blue yarn stockings and a checked woolen shirt. Whoever shall take up said runaway and convey him to his aforesaid master shall have 10 pounds old tenor reward, and all necessary charges paid. And all masters of vessels and others are hereby cautioned against concealing or carrying off said servant on penalty of law." Thank you for bringing Mr. Attucks history to my attention.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2p24.html
www.africawithin.com/bios/crispus_attucks.htm
www.bridgew.edu/hoba/attucks.htm
These are just a few sites that discuss Crispus Attucks.
...Only after you've judiciously deposed pertinent individuals and rationally performed an adequate discovery... to gather said fact(s).
Reflection often makes things clearer, especially in hindsight.
"America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
--George W. Bush
Rachel = rational... George W. Bush = irrational
Study the symptoms not the virus...
to read, the only thing that would have ever come out of his mouth would have been chimp noises. Calling him irrational is giving him way too much credit.
You have to be kidding---Racism in America?
Did racism ever go away? Hell, no. It may have receded or been less overt, but racism is still here, and contrary to fable, has never gone away at all.
That is what the yelling about political correctness is about. Bigots resent having to be less overt about their hate and racism.
Pat Buchanan was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom, and wrote press releases for that organization. He served as an executive assistant in the Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander, and Mitchell law offices in New York City in 1965. Buchanan was the first adviser hired to Nixon's presidential campaign and mostly performed duties involving opposition research, or slamming and slurring political opponents. Buchanan worked as a White House adviser and speechwriter for Nixon and vice president Spiro Agnew. Buchanan coined the phrase Silent Majority. He also used that strategy to draw millions of white Democrats to Nixon and the GOP. He also wrote a 1972 memo whuch suggested that the White House should adopt the "anti-Establishment theme," even though Pat Buchanan has rarely worked OUTSIDE that ESTABLISHMENT American elite political system himself, and is still a big part of it, on MSNBC night after night, spewing his racism and Revisionist History. After all, it was his butt-boy Nixon who put in many of those Affirmative Action programs that Buchanan now bitches about night and day. One other note about Pat Buchanan---he urged to Nixon to call George McGovern, an "extremist." Even though McGovern was a decorated WWII Veteran, something neither Buchanan or Nixon could ever say. Then again Pat Buchanan opposed WWII, favoring the alliance of Hoover, Hitler and Chamberlain over the alliance of FDR, Stalin and Churchill. One last thing about Buchanan----he strongly urged Nixon to BURN the White House tapes, which showed both the racism and Anti-Semitism of someone Buchanan liked to wipe the butthole of. Good ole Pat Buchanan here!!!
Richard Nixon and Affirmative Action
1969. Executive Order 11,478 issued in 1969 by President Nixon required federal agencies to establish affirmative action programs for civilian employees. Following a five-month study, a Presidential Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, dated July 19, 1995, declared in part: This Administration will continue to support affirmative measures that promote opportunities in employment, education, and government contracting for Americans subject to discrimination or its continuing effects. . . . [T] he Federal Government will continue to support lawful consideration of race, ethnicity, and gender under programs that are flexible, realistic, subject to reevaluation, and fair."
1970. The Labor Department, under President Richard M. Nixon, issued Order No.4, authorizing flexible goals and timetables to correct "underutilization" of minorities by federal contractors. Yes, the the U.S. Department of Labor, under President Richard M. Nixon, issued Order No. 4, authorized such goals and timetables, in order to correct such issues.
1971. Order No.4 was revised to include women.
1971. President Nixon issued E.O. 11625, directing federal agencies to develop comprehensive plans and specific program goals for a national Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) contracting program.
1973. The Nixon administration issued "Memorandum-Permissible Goals and Timetables in State and Local Government Employment Practices," distinguishing between proper goals and timetables and impermissible quotas. The aim of the Nixon Administration's memorandum targeted the practices of state and local government's employment practices.
On broader issues let's review:
Originally, civil rights programs were enacted to help African Americans become full citizens of the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution made slavery illegal; the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law; the Fifteenth Amendment forbids racial discrimination in access to voting. The 1866 Civil Rights Act guarantees every citizen "the same right to make and enforce contracts as enjoyed by white citizens." In 1896, the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld a "separate, but equal" doctrine that proved to be anything but equal for African Americans. The decision marked the end of the post-Civil War reconstruction era as Jim Crow laws spread across the South. Thus, consistent with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Affirmative action, was to be a set of public policies and initiatives to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, because of prior and yes, preventing ongoing or future attacks.
Other similar legislation and the Civil Rights Act:
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause: [No] State [shall]. . .deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Equal Rights Under the Law ( 42 USC §1981 - 1996a) provides right to enforce laws and the same rights as "white persons" including making and enforcing contracts, These rights are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
Public Accommodations. (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a to 2000a-6) Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public baccommodation . All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Employment (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17) bans discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It covers all terms and conditions of employment, and it holds employers responsible for any discrimination that goes on within the organization. It is administered by the EEOC and covers all businesses with fifteen or more employees.
Federally Assisted Programs. (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7) Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin. "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Equal Pay Act of 1963(29 USC § 206) forbids pay differentials based on sex. It covers all employees who come under the Fair Labor Standards Act, plus executive, administrative and professional employees and outside sales people. Investigative and compliance responsibilities are handled by the EEOC.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 621 - 634) bans employment discrimination based on age for anyone forty years of age or older.
Affirmative Action for U.S. Veterans (38 USC 4142, et. al).
Vietnam-Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.
says he is a strict constructionist....Thomas and other strict constructionists are still pissed off about the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment's which were the precursors to Affirmative Action and other laws helping to allow equality under the law....
Man, these people are ignorant!
I don't know why she has that asshole on her show. He is a bigot. He out shouts her and he is her guest so Rachel lets him vomit his hate. I was glad she came up with the facts. White men were in charge in our country for most of our history. But slaves and immigrants built it. And Pat's plea to Nixon for catholic immigrants to be supremes is funny.
Alas, she repeats the neo-confederate BS about "thousands' of black troops fighting for the confederacy. I sent her an email. I hope she corrects that on the air too!
I'm a big fan of Rachel Maddow and she did a great job of fact-checking in that segment. But the last thing she said disappointed me. Her "one more thing..." didn't past muster.
She stated that Pat said, ""The US track team in the Olympics... they're all black folks"
When in fact he said, "If I look at the US track team in the Olympics and they're all black folks, I don't automatically assume it's discrimination"
I never thought I would defend Pat Buchanan, because I agree with her position on Affirmative Action over his, but I didn't think she needed to clip his words to make it seem like he said something he didn't. She did a great job up until then and she should've left that last part out. I still love her, though!
Much to my chagrin, Pat Buchanan is quite ignorant about the history of track and field, in the Olympic Games. Buchanan’s “White-Man” vs. “Black-Man” Track Athlete Thesis is quite appalling and very telling about his lack of knowledge regarding sports.
After Jesse Owens won the 100 Meters in Germany in 1936, the 100 Meters was a virtual split down the “color line,” contrary to what Pat Buchanan claims. An African-American named William Harrison Dillard did take home the 100 Meters in the London Games in 1948. But in the next three Olympic Games, three white men would take home the Gold Medals in the 100 Meters, which is a severe blow to Pat Buchanan’s Racist Thesis regarding “white sprinters” who always “fail to win” against others. Thus, at Helsinki in 1952, the white runner named Lindy Remigino took home the Gold Medal in the 100 Meters for the United States. I wonder if Pat Buchanan could even name Mr. Remigino who I had the pleasure of meeting in Hartford, CT years ago. There was not a racist bone in Mr. Remigino’s being, unlike Pat Buchanan. Another white man, from the USA named Bobby Joe Murrow won the Gold Medal in the 100 Meters at the 1956 Games in Melbourne. Murrow also won the Gold Medal at Melbourne in the 200 Meters and 4X100 Meters Relay, giving him a grand total of three Gold Medals. In 1960, at the Rome Olympic Games, another white man, from Germany, Armin Hary took home the Gold Medal in the 100 Meters as well. In the 1972 Games in Munich, another white runner from the Soviet Union, but , what is now Ukraine, Valeriy Borzov won the Gold Medal in the 100 Meters. Borzov also won the Gold Medal in the 200 Meters in the 1972 Games in Munich as well.Allan Wipper Wells of the United Kingdom, another white male, won the Gold Medal in the 100 Meters at the Olympic Games held in Moscow in 1980. (America boycotted the 1980 games)
The following track stars who won the 100 Meters in the Olympics were black. In 1964-Bob Hayes from the USA won the Gold Medal in the 100 Meters in Tokyo; in 1968- Jim Hines from the USA won the Gold Medal in the 100 Meters in Mexico City; in 1976, Hasely Crawford from Trinidad & Tobago won the Gold Medal in the 100 Meters in Montreal. From 1984 to 2004, all winners at the Olympics in the Gold Medal in the 100 Meters have been black. In 1984-Carl Lewis from the USA won in Los Angeles; in 1988 -Ben Johnson from Canada won in Seoul; in 1992-Linford Christie from the United Kingdom, won in Barcelona; in 1996-Donovan Bailey of Canada won in Atlanta; in 2000 Maurice Greene of the USA won in Sydney; and, in 2004-Justin Gatlin of the USA won in Athens. Buchanan’s thesis is incorrect and historically inaccurate, that whites cannot compete with blacks in running-short sprints. Thus, Buchanan shows a clear ignorance of Olympic History. I guess the issue here which Buchanan misses is that blacks were mostly barred from competition in the U.S., and elsewhere for years. Blacks had to break color barriers in sports before given the chance to even play. Buchanan’s sports analogies are repugnant.
Go listen to the Jim Brown-Bill Russell HBO interview on "Real Sports" with Bryant Gumbel, in order to understand what they had to go through as black athletes, in segregated America, which Pat Buchanan seems to defend time and again. Buchanan has a short memory regarding blacks and their lack of access to competing in America and elsewhere in the world, and in this case-athletics. Buchanan, I guess thinks blacks always had "opportunities" to compete in sports in America. Well, they did not. And, when given the chance African-Americans have dominated the three major sports of baseball, basketball, and football and also great strides in professional tennis and golf. Just remember that although W.E.B. Dubois, who was a black man, received his Ph.D, but, due to segregation and white racism could not get hired as a professor at any white-dominated university. Same goes for the likes of music legends such as Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Bo Diddley.
Pat Buchanan has obviously never heard of the great sensation, Jeremy Wariner, a fantastic white track man from Texas. Buchanan needs to study sports and track before mouthing off about it. Thus, the following about three- time Olympic gold medal winner Jeremy Wariner. Yes, indeed, Jeremy Wariner stands out as an exceptional white track star in the 400 meters. At age 19, Wariner won the 400 meters at only age nineteen in the 2004 Olympics. That only “blacks” are worthy of winning track sprints as Pat Buchanan claims is RACIST. Meet Jeremy Wariner who puts Pat Buchanan’s thesis of “black track athletes” to rest. Buchanan only sees “black track stars” because of societal and media stereotypes. Since 2004, Wariner has been unbeatable in the 400 meters, and mostly likely on target to break the world record. Baylor University star runner, Jeremy Wariner, also, won the 2004 NCAA Division I indoor and outdoor 400 m titles. In 2004 he also won the national 400 m title at the USATF Championships making him the favorite for the gold medal at the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens. Wariner won two Olympic gold medals, at the 2004 Olympic Games, in the 400 m in a personal record 44.00 s and the second as the third leg of the U.S. 4 × 400 meters relay team. Following his Olympic successes, Jeremy turned pro. In Wariner’s pro career, he won the 400 m at the 2005 USATF championship with a time of 44.20 s. At the Helsinki World Championships, he won the 400 m in 43.93 seconds and later anchored the American team in the 4 × 400 m relay for the gold medal. In 2007, Jeremy Wariner had a great summer, dominating 400 m performances, which culminated with the Osaka World Championships. On August 31, 2007. he won the 400 m in 43.45 s, thereby improving his personal best to become the third-fastest of all time (only Michael Johnson and Butch Reynolds have run faster).
Jeremy Wariner: Olympics: Beijing 08, silver 400, gold 4x 400: Athens: 400 and 4 x 400m gold; and also, World Champs: 400 and 4x 400 gold 07 Osaka, and 05 Helsinki
Uncle Pat will be back to defend himself in the studio in 3...2...1...
I am so glad Rachel took the time to refute Pat Buchanan's overtly racist tirade. Also, I think setting the record straight after his appearance is the only way it could be done. Not because he would have undoubtedly shouted her down when she tried to come back at him with facts, but because it's impossible to confront conservatives like Buchanan when they tell their lies.
Sure, one can just assume everything that comes out a republican's mouth will be a lie, but countering each lie with the facts would require near-encyclopedic knowledge. Why? Because conservatives lie about anything and everything if it suits their purposes, and that's impossible to prepare for. Which, of course, is what dishonest, immoral people like Buchanan count on.
They tell lies so outrageous and out of the blue it stuns journalists as reasonable and genuine as Ms. Maddow. And unless the journalist can refute the lies told right then and there then scum bags like Buchanan are likely to get away with telling the lies. It's the very definition of dirty politics.
...regarding Pat's prior actions, (specifically the revelation of the Nixon communication)... if accurate, it reveals, in my opinion, a fascist posture which can easily be associated with an fascistic ideology. Where it's derived is of opinion; though, if one is keen enough and able enough, to combine his words, with his actions from an unbiased standpoint, I believe the true motivating factor can be garnered...accordingly.
See in part; "Instead of sending the orders out to all our agencies, --hire blacks and women --The order should go out --hire ethnic Catholics"... and ending with, "Give those fellows the Jewish seat or the black seat on the court when it becomes available".
Fascistic;
1. Often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
[AMERICAN HERITAGE TALKING DICTIONARY] windows 3.1 ;)
→ → → http://www.smartkidssoftware.com/ndsfk1.jpg
Study the symptoms not the virus...
www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2p24.html
www.africawithin.com/bios/crispus_attucks.htm
www.bridgew.edu/hoba/attucks.htm
These are just a few sites that discuss Crispus Attucks.
Comments are closed on this entry