Pat Buchanan called out by Rachel Maddow

[thaiboxerken]

Wow, the racism of Pat really comes out in this interview with Rachel Maddow, as well as his religious bigotry.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31952924

[Cicero]

Wow, the racism of Pat really comes out in this interview with Rachel Maddow, as well as his religious bigotry.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31952924

Funny, PB&J's well known predilection for Die Aryan Volk, his well known distaste for Israel, and his Irish Catholic sense of superiority never bothered MSNBC before. Since PB&J is MSNBC's political pundit and Maddow's " colleague," she isn't "interviewing" him.

BTW: Your avatar is still out of date. POTUS Obama is doing warrantless wiretaps, renditions and GITMO is still open for business.

[Thunder]

Oy...I got some flashbacks of MLK. This man sure can preach. Good thing he is on the right side of history.

[thaiboxerken]

Did you have an actual point to make, CCRow?

[Thunder]

POTUS Obama is doing warrantless wiretaps, renditions and GITMO is still open for business.

and if he wasn't the Republicans would be bashing him as a terrorist-loving bleeding heart anti-American.

with the GOP...Obama just can't win....so why try?

[dudalb]

Did you have an actual point to make, CCRow?

He has a point about the Avatar. Kicking a corpse gets real boring to begin with, and it ws never that clever anyway.

[Cicero]

Did you have an actual point to make, CCRow?

Yes. Isn't POTUS Obama relieving himself on the U.S. Constitution? Or does this offense depend on the urinator's political party?

[Chaos]

Yes. Isn't POTUS Obama relieving himself on the U.S. Constitution? Or does this offense depend on the urinator's political party?

Let me put it this way: is he doing anything which you criticized Bush for? Or is it simply that he is doing things which are automatically wrong if a Democrat does them... you know, like being president, or breathing.

[thaiboxerken]

Ok, Cicero, now that my avatar is changed, did you actually have a point about the thread topic?

[Ziggurat]

Why can't they both lose?

[Cicero]

Let me put it this way: is he doing anything which you criticized Bush for? Or is it simply that he is doing things which are automatically wrong if a Democrat does them... you know, like being president, or breathing.

I have never criticized POTUS Bush or POTUS Obama for warrantless wiretaps, renditions, or keeping GITMO open. But if I had an avatar that did mock Bush for these things, I would have updated it to mock POTUS Obama.

But now that thaiboxerken has a new avatar, it is moot.

[Cicero]

Ok, Cicero, now that my avatar is changed, did you actually have a point about the thread topic?

It's not clear if the SNL skit "IT'S PAT" title that appears 5:22 minutes into the clip is referring to Maddow or Buchanan.

[dudalb]

Why can't they both lose?

That's my attitude. Maddow is not quite as obnoxiious as Pat, but she is still a blind partisan willing to distort and at times out and out lie to promote her agenda.

[thaiboxerken]

That's my attitude. Maddow is not quite as obnoxiious as Pat, but she is still a blind partisan willing to distort and at times out and out lie to promote her agenda.

She's obnoxious because she disagrees with Pat's "white power" position?

[Cicero]

She's obnoxious because she disagrees with Pat's "white power" position?

What is the point of having a parade of guests that come on and agree with everything the host says as is the case with Keith Olbermann's "Countdown?"

PB&J isn't voicing his position to be the Devil's Advocate. His wacky views have long been established. The exchange between Maddow and PB&J makes for good TV. Even after their views are aired, these two are still buddies.

[David Wong]

She's obnoxious because she disagrees with Pat's "white power" position?

No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it.

It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!"

[Dr Adequate]

That's my attitude. Maddow is not quite as obnoxiious as Pat, but she is still a blind partisan willing to distort and at times out and out lie to promote her agenda. OK, so let me introduce another subject.

"Pat Buchanan called out by people who are not mentally ill."

Whatever we may think of Ms Maddow about other issues, she's got him bang to rights about this one, hasn't she? So less of the ad hominem and more with the spitting on Buchanan, yes?

[dudalb]

No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it.

It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!"


Thank you for saving be the trouble of replying to thaiboxerken's remark.

[Cicero]

No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it.

It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!"

This is SOP for liberal pundit shows. The View has on Liz Hasellbach to argue the conservative POV. While she may not share PB&J's crazy weltanschauung, she also doesn't have PB&J's gift for polemics.

[pgwenthold]

OK, so let me introduce another subject.

"Pat Buchanan called out by people who are not mentally ill."

Whatever we may think of Ms Maddow about other issues, she's got him bang to rights about this one, hasn't she? So less of the ad hominem and more with the spitting on Buchanan, yes?

That's Dr Maddow, btw

(she has a PhD in Poly Sci from Oxford or Cambridge ... I forget which one)

[Dr Adequate]

Thank you for saving be the trouble of replying to thaiboxerken's remark. Be has been saved, thank Wong!

[Cicero]

OK, so let me introduce another subject.

"Pat Buchanan called out by people who are not mentally ill."

Whatever we may think of Ms Maddow about other issues, she's got him bang to rights about this one, hasn't she? So less of the ad hominem and more with the spitting on Buchanan, yes?

Even a blind squirrel occasionally roots up an acorn.

[Dr Adequate]

That's Dr Maddow, btw

(she has a PhD in Poly Sci from Oxford or Cambridge ... I forget which one)Well I have a PhD in math, but I don't make people refer to me as ...

OK, I'll shut up now.

[Dr Adequate]

Even a blind squirrel occasionally roots up an acorn. Is this your way of admitting that she was right?

[Cicero]

That's Dr Maddow, btw

(she has a PhD in Poly Sci from Oxford or Cambridge ... I forget which one)

How many times did (or do) you refer to the former Secretary of State as Dr. Rice? Babs Boxer refers to her as "madam."

[Cicero]

Is this your way of admitting that she was right?

Read post #2

[Dr Adequate]

Read post #2 Is that your way of saying yes?

[Cleon]

Is that your way of saying yes?

I think Cicero would sooner have his arm chewed off by rabid weasels than admit that a liberal was correct.

[thaiboxerken]

No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement.
The strawman is built by you. Rachel isn't saying that what Pat says represents the republican opposition to Sotomayor. She's saying that Pat is a more extreme voice of what the republican opposition is saying. They are trying to use her race as the reason to why they oppose her. Pat's racism is just more visible. The rest of them, they seem to be raising racist points with more subterfuge.

[GreNME]

No, she's obnoxious because she has Pat Buchanan on as an example of what the other side is saying, and he doesn't in any way represent the modern conservative movement. You can disagree with what the Republicans do (and these days I often agree with you) but that scared old man who's trying to bring back 1950 doesn't represent it.

It's a form of straw man argument that talk show hosts have been using since the format began. Bring on the scariest, silliest example to represent the other side so you can say "SEE?!?!? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE FIGHTING!!!"

I agree with this. I didn't like the video because Maddow was obviously playing the partisan distortion game as much as Buchanan was. Yes, Buchanan seems to have no freaking clue what AA is or does (if the much-discussed court case says anything about AA, it's that AA ideals were upheld), and yes Buchanan is a raging bigot. However, Maddow's attempt form the get-go to make the discussion only about race (yes, I know that many senators beat the race card drum in the hearings) just shows her own political blind spot-- well, that or it was a really poor impression of Jon Stewart.

Side note regarding the hearings: I have to say that I have on several occasions been very impressed with Senator Lindsey Graham and his refreshing candor. I recall him having the same type of open, frank, yet still critical type of candor when Roberts was up for review, and I recall he did the same with Alito. I may not agree with some of his politics and I may not agree with the way he may vote in congress, but I do have to say that this is one of the guys in the Republican Party that I actually respect for his straight-forward demeanor and his fairly consistent conduct in these SCOTUS hearings. I'm glad that he's currently in office for the opposition party.

[dudalb]

The strawman is built by you. Rachel isn't saying that what Pat says represents the republican opposition to Sotomayor. She's saying that Pat is a more extreme voice of what the republican opposition is saying. They are trying to use her race as the reason to why they oppose her. Pat's racism is just more visible. The rest of them, they seem to be raising racist points with more subterfuge.

Ya gotta love semantics. That is distinctiion without a difference. The end message is the same:The vast majority of the GOP is racist and evil.

[dudalb]

agree with this. I didn't like the video because Maddow was obviously playing the partisan distortion game as much as Buchanan was. Yes, Buchanan seems to have no freaking clue what AA is or does (if the much-discussed court case says anything about AA, it's that AA ideals were upheld), and yes Buchanan is a raging bigot. However, Maddow's attempt form the get-go to make the discussion only about race (yes, I know that many senators beat the race card drum in the hearings) just shows her own political blind spot-- well, that or it was a really poor impression of Jon Stewart.

Exactly. Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are using the same tactic: Take an extreme example and then say "THis is what conservatives (Or liberals) are really like".
They also use a variation on this: Pick well spoken,intelligent spokesman for your point of view, and pick people who come off poorly on TV as the spokesmen for the opposite point of view.
What I don't get is how people can--with a straight face-- condemn a tactic when used by the opposition, but support it when used by somoene on their side.
In many cases,the underlying thought is "I know they are using cheap tactics, but any means is justified if my side wins".

[Olowkow]

Can anyone tell me what race Sotomayor is? She looks white to me. Latina is not a race. There are black, white, oriental and indian latinos. Latino just means Spanish speaking and not from Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino
In the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the term is in official use (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census) in the ethnonym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnonym) Hispanic or Latino, defined as "a person of Cuban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba), Mexican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico), Puerto Rican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico), South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_America) or Central American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America), or other Spanish culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_culture) or origin regardless of race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_human_beings%29).

[David Wong]

The strawman is built by you. Rachel isn't saying that what Pat says represents the republican opposition to Sotomayor. She's saying that Pat is a more extreme voice of what the republican opposition is saying. They are trying to use her race as the reason to why they oppose her. Pat's racism is just more visible. The rest of them, they seem to be raising racist points with more subterfuge.

She could have had any of countless Republicans as guests. She chose him.

She chose him for a specific purpose: Because it's easy to make him look like a fool.

She didn't invent the technique; they all do it. I heard Sean Hannity bring a liberal 19 year-old girl on to debate (a college student who had written an angry email or something) and Thom Hartmann loves to bring on that nutbar from the Ayn Rand institute to be the representative of what "the right" wants to do in America.

[dirtywick]

Can anyone tell me what race Sotomayor is? She looks white to me. Latina is not a race. There are black, white, oriental and indian latinos. Latino just means Spanish speaking and not from Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino

Eh, it's as much a race as any of the other race labels are.

[ProbeX]

Can anyone tell me what race Sotomayor is? [No.]She looks white to me.

Funny. I think her features kind of look Black. Then again, quite a few people who call themselves Latino have African blood or have a real blend of various ethnicities. My guess is many of us by now are probably more "mixed" than ever before, in this country.

[GreNME]

Exactly. Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow are using the same tactic: Take an extreme example and then say "THis is what conservatives (Or liberals) are really like".
They also use a variation on this: Pick well spoken,intelligent spokesman for your point of view, and pick people who come off poorly on TV as the spokesmen for the opposite point of view.
What I don't get is how people can--with a straight face-- condemn a tactic when used by the opposition, but support it when used by somoene on their side.
In many cases,the underlying thought is "I know they are using cheap tactics, but any means is justified if my side wins".

*return volley*

Again, I agree. And unfortunately this has become the face of much of US political discourse as of late. It's not so much that these types haven't existed previously, but now that the news networks are playing harder to the hype they're increasingly getting more and more air-time.

[Olowkow]

Eh, it's as much a race as any of the other race labels are.
Good point. I agree that race labels are nonsense, but if one uses words as they are intended, Latino is an ethnic or linguistic group, much like Breton, or Celt.

[GreNME]

Can anyone tell me what race Sotomayor is? She looks white to me. Latina is not a race. There are black, white, oriental and indian latinos. Latino just means Spanish speaking and not from Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino

The ethnic distinction usually is the term 'hispanic' while the cultural distinction is usually 'Latino'. They are, however, relatively interchangeable. The distinction is used more as a difference between the hispanics and Latinos in Central and South America and the more indigenous ethnicities (though there is often heavy intermingling).

[GreNME]

Good point. I agree that race labels are nonsense, but if one uses words as they are intended, Latino is an ethnic or linguistic group, much like Breton, or Celt.

No, it's not, any more than claiming Arabs can't be anti-semitic because they are semitic themselves.

[thaiboxerken]

She could have had any of countless Republicans as guests. She chose him.

How do you know who she invited or not?


She chose him for a specific purpose: Because it's easy to make him look like a fool.

And here I thought she had him on to ask him why the opposition republicans are talking so much about race.

It's easy to have Pat Buchanan on there because he's part of the same organization. I'm sure it would be easy to make any of the others who were shown bringing up race in the senate trials look like a fool.

[joobz]

Did anyone actually watch the video???
the WHOLE SEGMENT started with multiple Republicans saying that the support Sotomayor. And then brought out Pat as a descenter amongst the GOP.

Indeed, I think she did an EXCELLENT job of showing him as having his OWN NON GOP MAINSTREAM opinion. As such, this whole attack on her for interviewing him is....meaningless.

She showed a racist for having racist views. All the better for the GOP to show that they are NOT represented by him (regardless of what Pat may think).

[dudalb]

*return volley*

Again, I agree. And unfortunately this has become the face of much of US political discourse as of late. It's not so much that these types haven't existed previously, but now that the news networks are playing harder to the hype they're increasingly getting more and more air-time.

FOXNEWS really started this trend, and now MSNBC is following their lead except from the opposite polticial viewpoint. And CNN,though not quite as bad, is going heavily toward "personality" journalism.
The death of Walter Cronkite reminded me of just how far downhill American TV journalism has gone.

[Cicero]

How do you know who she invited or not?



And here I thought she had him on to ask him why the opposition republicans are talking so much about race.

It's easy to have Pat Buchanan on there because he's part of the same organization. I'm sure it would be easy to make any of the others who were shown bringing up race in the senate trials look like a fool.

PB&J is a paid MSNBC (& PBS's "The McLaughlin Group") contributor. Maddow referred to him as her "colleague." PB&J doesn't represent anyone other than himself. He is an isolationist who happens to portray himself as a conservative. He has more in common with Joe Kennedy than he does with any Republican.

[Patrick_R]

Neither of those individuals actually knows what they are talking about...

[joobz]

Neither of those individuals actually knows what they are talking about...
You are half right...

[Tricky]

How many times did (or do) you refer to the former Secretary of State as Dr. Rice? Babs Boxer refers to her as "madam."
"Madam Secretary" is the correct way to refer to a female member of the cabinet. "Doctor Secretary" would seem kind of self contradictory."

[Tricky]

Can anyone tell me what race Sotomayor is? She looks white to me. Latina is not a race. There are black, white, oriental and indian latinos. Latino just means Spanish speaking and not from Europe.
I would guess that like a very high percentage of the natives from small islands, she is of mixed race. I suppose you could call it "Polycarribean" if that sort of thing is important to you.

[Cicero]

"Madam Secretary" is the correct way to refer to a female member of the cabinet. "Doctor Secretary" would seem kind of self contradictory."

Except that Boxer didn't call Secretary Rice "Madam Secretary," merely "ma'am," a contraction of madam. Boxer reprimanded General Michael Walsh for calling her "ma'am."

BTW: When was the last time you referred to Condi Rice when she was Provost of Stamford, National Security Adviser, or Secretary of State as "doctor?"

[Tricky]

Except that Boxer didn't call Secretary Rice "Madam Secretary," merely "ma'am," a contraction of madam. Boxer reprimanded General Michael Walsh for calling her "ma'am."
You said she called her "madam" and you put it in quotes. I didn't see the incident. (I follow politics, but not to the level of listening to each speech.) I was just commenting on what you said, which you now admit was incorrect. "ma'am" is much more informal than "madam" and is widely considered polite in common speech.

BTW: When was the last time you referred to Condi Rice when she was Provost of Stamford, National Security Adviser, or Secretary of State as "doctor?"
It has been a while. When was the last time she did something that was in reference to her academic standing? I generally use her full first name or the nickname she herself uses, "Condi". I have never used a degrading nickname for her, such as you commonly use "Snipery" to refer to Secretary Clinton, so I decline to take your lectures seriously.

[Darth Rotor]

You said she called her "madam" and you put it in quotes. I didn't see the incident. (I follow politics, but not to the level of listening to each speech.) I was just commenting on what you said, which you now admit was incorrect. "ma'am" is much more informal than "madam" and is widely considered polite in common speech.


It has been a while. When was the last time she did something that was in reference to her academic standing? I generally use her full first name or the nickname she herself uses, "Condi". I have never used a degrading nickname for her, such as you commonly use "Snipery" to refer to Secretary Clinton, so I decline to take your lectures seriously.

Boys, we have been through this before. The general was being respectful. Ma'am is the proper form of address, formally, for a female who is superior in rank. The general was being respectful.

So he got crapped on.

Nice.

[joobz]

At least people have backed off the claim that Maddow was attempting to show Pat as a manline representative of the GOP.

[thaiboxerken]

So he got crapped on.

Nice.

Asking him to call her by her official title is crapping on him? :rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

Asking him to call her by her official title is crapping on him? :rolleyes:

As already mentioned, "ma'am" is a term of respect used for superiors. It is an appropriate term of address for a senator during an ongoing conversation, where "senator" becomes a little cumbersome to use repeatedly. What was irksome about her demand, though, wasn't so much the request that she be called "senator", but the way it was handled. She interrupted his statement to make the demand, and her implication ("I worked hard for that title") was that not calling her "senator" was in some way an insult to her. The respect that is due to elected public officials in a democracy derives primarily from a respect for the voters of that democracy, not the individual politicians themselves. I doubt Boxer understands that, though.

[pgwenthold]

As already mentioned, "ma'am" is a term of respect used for superiors.

In the MILITARY

[Cleon]

In the MILITARY

Pretty much everywhere, really.

[pgwenthold]

Pretty much everywhere, really.

Call me "ma'am" and I will not appreciate it much.

Shoot, call me "sir" in the context of the classroom, and I will not like it, either. Professor, or Doctor, if you will...

I'm not in the military, and you should not address me as if I were.

BTW, why is it "ma'am" and not madam?

[Cicero]

You said she called her "madam" and you put it in quotes. I didn't see the incident. (I follow politics, but not to the level of listening to each speech.) I was just commenting on what you said, which you now admit was incorrect. "ma'am" is much more informal than "madam" and is widely considered polite in common speech.

If Boxer considers it demeaning to be addressed as anything other than Senator, why would she not extend the same respect to Rice and always refer to her by her title?


It has been a while. When was the last time she did something that was in reference to her academic standing? I generally use her full first name or the nickname she herself uses, "Condi". I have never used a degrading nickname for her, such as you commonly use "Snipery" to refer to Secretary Clinton, so I decline to take your lectures seriously.

When was the last time Maddow did something in "reference to her academic training?" For that matter, when was the last time Boxer acted as Senator and not a buffoon?

"Snipery" is a term of endearment. It's Hillary's well earned nickname. As long as you are being familiar with Secretary Rice by referring to her as Condi, what's the problem with a nick for Hillary?

[Cleon]

Call me "ma'am" and I will not appreciate it much.

Shoot, call me "sir" in the context of the classroom, and I will not like it, either. Professor, or Doctor, if you will...

I recommend you stay north of the Mason-Dixon line, then. Saying "ma'am" and "sir" to people you don't know is pretty much the norm around here. It's just considered being polite.


I'm not in the military, and you should not address me as if I were.

Nobody's calling you "Ensign," are they?

I say "ma'am" and "sir" pretty frequently, and not only have I never served, I'm not a particularly polite person.


BTW, why is it "ma'am" and not madam?

Because she doesn't run a brothel, she's Chair of the Ethics Comm...Uh, on second thought, never mind.

[thaiboxerken]

As already mentioned, "ma'am" is a term of respect used for superiors. It is an appropriate term of address for a senator during an ongoing conversation, where "senator" becomes a little cumbersome to use repeatedly. What was irksome about her demand, though, wasn't so much the request that she be called "senator", but the way it was handled. She interrupted his statement to make the demand, and her implication ("I worked hard for that title") was that not calling her "senator" was in some way an insult to her. The respect that is due to elected public officials in a democracy derives primarily from a respect for the voters of that democracy, not the individual politicians themselves. I doubt Boxer understands that, though.
While I understand that "ma'am" is respectful, I really don't agree that her request to be called senator is "crapping all over" even if she did interrupt the guy. Why do you insist on finding offense where there is none?

Back on topic, Rachel Maddow refuted many of Buchanan's claims in this clip:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32016430

[thaiboxerken]

I say "ma'am" and "sir" pretty frequently, and not only have I never served, I'm not a particularly polite person.
I was enlisted in the military at one point. When people call me "sir" I ask them not to because I work for a living.

[Patrick_R]

You are half right...

Completly right, they are both demagogues who ignore facts when it suits them.