By RobertinWestbury, July 24 at 12:29 am #

<<I disagree that is not what he meant.  It’s not obvious.  How did he qualify it?  He didn’t qualify anything.>>

Then we disagree on what he meant.  I’m using the examples he gave leading up to his “built” statement to gather his meaning:

He wasn’t referring to physical construction with the word “built” anymore than I would be if I said “I built this company from scratch”.  He was referring to the fundamental underpinnings of our society which is why he cited the constitution, declaration, bill of rights, etc…  Nowhere does he refer to buildings or manual construction labor so i don’t know why Maddow would assume that’s what he meant unless she’s making a straw-man argument in order to get the last word.  And I’m pretty sure if you asked him who built the white house, he’d say “slaves”.  And I’m pretty sure if you asked him whether any blacks served in the civil war he would not deny the reality that they did.

As to the qualification - I take the word “basically” to mean “virtually”, which means “for the most part”.  Maddow ignores this and pretends he meant “entirely”.  But Buchanan is absolutely right that whites originated this society and for the most part fought the early wars.

Now the irony of Buchanan’s point is that whites also originated slavery in this country but that irony seems to have escaped both of them.

I said:
“On the idea that white men built this country and only white men died in our wars…. she is right on in her positions, and he was clearly not.”

And you replied:

“...except that he didn’t actually say that.  He said “whites were 100% of those that wrote the constitution, declaration of independence, bill of rights, died at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, and probably close to 100% of those that died at normandy.  THIS HAS BEEN A COUNTRY BUILT, BASICALLY, BY WHITE FOLKS….”

Huh?  You first line, ‘except that he didn’t actually say that,’ is simply untrue.  He did say that.  Your last line (caps mine) repeats that.  I disagree that is not what he meant.  It’s not obvious.  How did he qualify it?  He didn’t qualify anything. 

And she provided impressive stats as to how many minorities in fact paid the ultimate price in the Civil War, WWI and WWII, including Normandy. 

Nobody has claimed that his arguments aren’t his opinions.  But he states his opinions in a way that makes it sound factual.  She was right to set the record straight. 

The only time she got off course was with the 40 year old memo, and that made me laugh.  The anti-affirmative action crusader actually promoting it for Catholics.. LOL..

By RobertinWestbury, July 22 at 9:21 pm #

<<On the idea that white men built this country and only white men died in our wars…. she is right on in her positions, and he was clearly not.>>

...except that he didn’t actually say that.  He said “whites were 100% of those that wrote the constitution, declaration of independence, bill of rights, died at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, and probably close to 100% of those that died at normandy.  This has been a country built, basically, by white folks….”  He’s obviously not using “built” in its literal, construction sense and qualifies it anyway, but she rebuts by citing numerous examples where slaves provided manual labor.  This is simply a straw-man argument.  And while Maddow may not approve of his failure to include only one example of a battle in which blacks played a part, there was no factual error in the examples he gave (which is why she didn’t reference those).  And ultimately the argument is his opinion, which Maddow swore she doesn’t re-litigate.

Maddow then cites Buchanan’s opinion that he doesn’t support affirmative action by citing a 40 year old memo where she claims he suggested it.  What fact she’s correcting I have no idea.

She tries to “correct” his statement that Sotomayor got on Yale law review by affirmative action but inadvertently shoots herself in the foot when she quotes the review’s response of “that is Pat Buchanan’s opinion”.  But she’s not arguing opinion, right?  Just correcting factual errors.

Plain and simple Maddow is re-litigating the topic by arguing with Buchanan’s opinions in his absence and presenting them as factual corrections.  This is one way her bias is clearly visible and why it should matter.  O’Reilly does this all the time; the difference is he doesn’t pretend not to.

She did nail him on the U.S. Olympic track team statement though, so that should have been your example.

Again, I still think it was “uncool” of Rachael, as much as I like her program, to do this in absence of Buchanan. He should have been re-invited back on the show if Rachael was unable to make these points at the time (on the other hand Bill-O does this shit routinely).
I do think Rachael made some good points however. Specifically the rebuttal about Sotomayor having numerous review articles and about her election to the Harvard Law Review no be related to affirmative action policy. Pat’s saying “I have never read anything Sotomayor wrote” which was intended to insinuate that Sotomayor never wrote anything of significance is inexcusable. To make that statement with out having looked at the facts is an out and out deceitful statement intended only to hurt Sotomayor.  Who gives a rat’s ass whether he has not read these reviews.  It is an absurd qualifier intended to mislead his audience and score points and shows he does not care about the facts.

And I’ll respond to another comment you made initially: 

“She says she’s only making factual corrections, then she proceeds to contradict only Buchanan’s opininions, or offering facts about claims Buchanan didn’t actually make.”

She replied to each of his statements after replaying him making the statement…  What claims did she contradict that he ‘didn’t actually make.”?

“Robert - can you actually name any of the statements of fact Buchanan made that Maddow corrected?”

No need for me to.  She did a fine job of it. 

“And I really do think her tenure at Air America puts her as solidly in the “left-biased” camp as you’d accuse someone from Fox News of being in the right.”

So? 

I really don’t think it matters if someone is in the left-biased camp or the right-biased camp.  What matters is the points they make and if those points are believable or not….

On the idea that white men built this country and only white men died in our wars…. she is right on in her positions, and he was clearly not.

By RobertinWestbury, July 22 at 7:26 pm #

Robert - can you actually name any of the statements of fact Buchanan made that Maddow corrected?

And I really do think her tenure at Air America puts her as solidly in the “left-biased” camp as you’d accuse someone from Fox News of being in the right.

Maddow is the best news anchor on the air.  I can’t imagine anyone finding her annoying except a right winger… 

In any event, I think she did a splendid job in correcting statements made by Buchanan that may have left the idea in some people’s minds that anything he said was legitimate.

I think Pat is off base on this issue but I do think this was sleazy of Racheal. At the very least she should have offered Buchanan a free rebuttal without her own commentary. It may bite her in the end in terms of getting controversial guests on her show in the future. Also in the initial interview she IMO should not have become personally offended and gone into the don’t tell me what to think routine. As a viewer I would prefer to hear the guest response without the personality stuff getting in the way.

Gee, Here’s a really novel concept:  Let’s get a right-wing politico who has a history of getting ticked off by affirmative action situations, and then let’s get a former Air America host and put them on TV together to talk about race.
  Do you think they might have some differing (pseudo-entertaining) opinions ? 

How about getting Bill O’Reilly and Al Franken on the same dias again ?  Maybe for some mud wrestling ....

White males have been enjoying the fruits of ‘affirmative action’ for centuries..Legacies, of all types.
Chris Matthews ignorantly referred to this fact in his defense of the Whtie Firefighters- ‘They came from a long line of firefighters’ (also assumed they were all Irish Catholic). The White mans Affirmative action policy is so ingrained in our society, white males can’t recognize it, even when it’s staring them in the face. Gee ya think only white irish Catholics have Ever applied for a firefighter job? Ya Think the reason they are “legacies’ is because of the discrimination which was standard operating procedure for the last 200 yrs? Firefighting and Law enforcement are not genetically programmed into Irish Catholics, it was Selective Hiring which determined their ‘success’ in those fields. Hint Chris and Pat- there are fires and crimes in every country in the World and there are people in all those countries to address it.The main Export of Ireland is not their firefighters and cops.
As a descendant of Irish immigrants I am embarassed and appauld by the these two being made the archetype of Irish Heritage! If any nationality knew discrimination in Old Europe,It was the Irish!So if any White culture should be empathetic to the struggles of the Oppressed, it is the Irish.
Firefighting and Law enforcement are dangerous occupations, and the Irish were seen as expendable.The Irish were not a welcomed group either. It was not that they possessed some innate talent for these careers- just no one else wanted those jobs. So the Irish created their own ‘Fraternities’ in those arenas.To create and maintain that economic niche, they favored ‘their own’,Legacies,aka affirmative action through exclusivity.
The Greatest attribute to the Irish Heritage is their dilegence to secure freedom and justice,but to then turn around and deny it to others is an insult to our ancestors

Marshall, just why is it that you spend your time watching annoying programs? I suggest it’s you’re body chemistry addiction that results. Recent medical research proves that people get addicted to their own body chemistry and as any addict will do what necessary to trigger, subconsciously, that body chemistry mix that they are addicted to. As with other addictions the results may not be desirable just compulsion which may not be valid or reasonable.

Rachel says she doesn’t re-litigate past discussions…then she re-litigates the discussion with Buchanan.

She says she’s only making factual corrections, then she proceeds to contradict only Buchanan’s opininions, or offering facts about claims Buchanan didn’t actually make.

This woman is annoying.