Rachel Maddow: Pat Buchanan on Reverse Discrimination
tags:
Stumble ThisPat Buchanan: This Has Been A Country Built Basically... By White Folks!
"This is Reverse Discrimination against White Males"
"This is Reverse Discrimination against White Males"
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
Rachel Maddow,Pat Buchanan,Sonia Sotomayor,reverse,discrimination,white,minority Rachel Maddow: Pat Buchanan on Reverse Discrimination
Comments  who voted for this video MikesHL13
- NetRunner
- enoch
- EndAll
- albrite30
- JiggaJonson
- demon_ix
- kagenin
- EDD
- dystopianfuturetoday
- apans
- Duze
- MrFisk
- CaveBear
- geo321
- Duckman33
Rachel Maddow: Pat Buchanan On Reverse Discrimination Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 12. Seric
(139 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
1. White.
2. Male.
3. Christian.
4. Republican.
In that order.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Maddow-Corrects-the-Record-on-Pat-Buchanan
2. White
3. Male
4. Christian
5. Republican
Pat's points:
-Affirmative action discriminates based on race/gender.
-Appointments should be based on performance rather than race.
-Sonya's appointment was based on race over performance.
I personally think she is well-qualified for the court, but that it beside the point. Despite Pat's odd style and unfortunate history lesson (and general religious nuttery), he's basically saying that race shouldn't be considered for government positions. In essence, discriminating against any racial group is just as bad as discriminating against any other racial group. (Whether or not he believes that, it is the argument he made on the show.)
How does Rachael summarize his view? By implying he said that hispanics shouldn't even be considered for the nomination. Maybe I missed part of the interview, but I cannot find any statement by Pat prior to her summation (~6 minutes in) implying that he believes no hispanics should be considered for the supreme court.
This interview could have been a good discussion about why diversity is good for the supreme court, or if we still need legislated discrimination, but instead Rachael turns it into "Pat hates hispanics". Maybe he does hate them, but he never once said that hispanics should not be considered for this position. I had hoped Maddow had moved past such strawman arguments, especially when there is so much more substance to the issue. =\
Rachel was only slightly exaggerating Pat's position. His logic seemed to be:
Obama picked a Latin Woman, therefore Obama passed over a better-qualified person for racial reasons, and this unnamed better-qualified person would have naturally been a white male, therefore Obama's discriminating against whites on the basis of race.
Pat did do a little cover by just out and out saying that he thinks Sotomayor is deficient in some objective sense (though the "facts" he based that on were false), but that wasn't very convincing.
Maddow may have only "slightly" exaggerated his stance, but it still sucks to see her do even that. By no means is she twisting it to the degree that O'Reilly or Hannity do, but she is still modifying his message in order to make him an easier target. In essence, she's attacking a statement he never made.