Maddow issues "corrections and clarifications" of Buchanan statements on Sotomayor and race that "were not true"
July 20, 2009 10:27 pm ET
From the July 20 edition of MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
For example, he never said that the US Olympic track team was black - he said IF they were all black, let it be because they were the best for the job.
Also, did affirmative action get you that Rhodes Scholarship? Just askin'.
Buchanan won a debate he wasn't even a part of.
Buchanan is still stuck in a by-gone era that only "white folks or white males" matter in society. The way he speaks you can tell that it pains him to see the United States evolve and progress to reflect the true face of the country not the 1950's reflection that Buchanan longs for.
And how were his statements "out of context"? He was dead wrong about this country being built, "basically", by "white folks".
well, if you look at the definition of "affirmative action", it isnt specifically defined with race or color of skin. that is just a part of what it involves.
according to yahoo! dictionary, "affirmative action" is defined as:
A policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Scholarship
Anyone accepted to be a Rhodes Scholarship did so by their hard work and intellect and to say otherwise about Dr. Maddow's winning the scholarship is an insult to her and her hard work.
As if they could have done the same if only the affirmative action recipients hadn't taken away their opportunity. Meanwhile these same citizens are sitting around complaining about their lot in life instead of working hard to actually achieve something.
very true. that was a bad mistake she made. she completely took what pat said out of context. she claimed he said, "the U.S. track team in the Olympics, they're all black folks". what he really said was:
"But if I look at the U.S. track team in the Olympics, and they're all black folks, I don't automatically assume it's discrimination. I will say, 'I think maybe those are the fastest guys we got, that maybe they're the fastest guys in the country, maybe they're the fastest in the world. If they're all-our Olympic team in hockey is eight white guys from Minnesota, I don't assume discrimination.' "
she needs to correct that before she gets called out on it. as much as these kind of mistakes are few and far between with rachel and keith, they need to do all they can to correct the record, which they usually do.
Sometimes the rope you give 'em is enough. No need to tie on more.
First of all, DAWUSS's remark was pretty far off from Mr. Buchanan's actual words and in the context of this sentence he is not saying, "I look at the U.S. track team... and if they're all black folks..."
His comment is actually "But if I look at the U.S. track team in the Olympics." The "if" is refering to the verb "look".
He then goes on to say, "I don't automatically assume it's discrimination." If he was refering to a metaphorical Olympic track team, then wouldn't he have used the word "wouldn't" instead of "don't?"
yes, you are right, RK. i was going to point that out, but i felt it necessary to highlight maddow's error. i mean, id much rather find nothing wrong with maddow as i love her point of view on many issues, but some things just have to be said. but yes, DAWUSS badly paraphrased what pat stated, so he is no better than anybody else who misrepresents a quote. at least rachel corrects her mistakes most of the time, and that is what i respect about her.
it looks like he was kind of dancing around his point and trying not to directly sound racist, but still getting his point across with (i suppose) a make believe team that has a bunch of blacks.
yes, he certainly didnt win the debate. he just repeated and advanced his already racist comments and added fuel to the fire, in my opinion. however, as outlandish as pat may be sometimes, it is good to keep him on msnbc and bring him on for lively debates. i mean, lets be real here, hes no malkin or coulter. hes much better than any of the clowns on fox news and actually has the oblongs to criticize conservatives, whereas fox news conservative personalities very rarely, if ever do.
I recall that, once, Olbermann had himself in the Worst Person (Bronze, IIRC)
Mr. Buchanan made a number of foolish and easily disproved statements, all of them showing an entrenched and unapologetic racism.
I agree that Buchanan probably wasn't referring to infrastructure or to the overwhelming economic contribution of minorities. But that's the point. What he's referring to is a fiction: a country established in the mind of its European colonial framers, not the country that exists in the world.
The Civil War and D-Day references, IMO, make a broad point and suggest that African-Americans have not made significant or major contributions to what it means to be American or to the things he might argue that capture the essence/best in the American character/spirit.
None of this is true and is total nonsense.
Pat Buchanan is a racist and always have been.
All your doing here is denying the obvious.
There is no bias against white males, and Buchanan has not provided any evidence to prove that.
He is just a bigot who will not let go of his hate.
Rachel did not take anything out of context, but you did.
Writerrb
To many here, both those I usually agree with and those I don't:
Your is second person possessive. Example: "Your argument"
You're is second person of the verb to be. It's (it is)
a contraction of you and are. Example: "You're right."
The two aren't interchangeable. Even if you're typing fast, your argument is weakened, unfair as that may be, by this common error.
We the people..............................
Maddow nailed Buchanan on the "country built, basically, by white folks" shenanigans. I also found the Italian American affirmative action quote amusing. Buchanan surely is a bigot.
I'm glad she didn't try to re-emphasize the question she asked Buchanan on whether Sotomayor's nomination was necessarily a "good thing" for the country, since my contention all along was that this was a "gotcha" question that cannot necessarily be answered with a simple "yes" or "no". I actually got called "conservative" for explaining that. LOL.
If anything, she was overly cautious and wanted to get her facts straight before responding.
At least she is taking responsibility for nonsense blurted out by her guests, unlike 99% of the overpaid bobbleheads that comprise the "News" media. Chris Matthews sat there last night and let Michael Steele belch out several lies about healthcare reform and just grunted in response. I would consider that more cowardly than what Rachel has done.
Anyway, it's not exactly her fault that she didn't immediately step up to say, "Hey, Pat's wrong on this." It could have maybe been a bit tacky to interrupt mourning and remembering the passing of Walter Cronkite to say, "Hey, remember our kooky, racist 'uncle' here at MSNBC? Turns out he was wrong about a lot of stuff yesterday! Sorry I didn't catch it yesterday!"
Personally, I don't have a problem with how Rachel approached this. And I have, like, no respect for Chris Matthews. I'm waiting patiently for when they give Hardball to David Shuster.
Keep up the good work.
I found this very refreshing. She took nothing out of context, she showed the clips of him ACTUALLY saying these remarks. How does one take someone out of context when they are SHOWN saying these remarks DAWUSS?
She did the appropriate action that not too many hosts of these shows do, correcting by research and facts that Pat was wrong to say that stuff, on the air. Had Pat researched his talking points Rachel wouldn't of had to do what she did.
So good for her. She understands integrity, unlike a certain "news" channel.
yes, but in other parts of the segment, she still took him out of context. as much as i love rachel, lets be real here... she made a pretty big mistake. she claimed he said, "the U.S. track team in the Olympics, they're all black folks". what he really said was:
"But if I look at the U.S. track team in the Olympics, and they're all black folks, I don't automatically assume it's discrimination. I will say, 'I think maybe those are the fastest guys we got, that maybe they're the fastest guys in the country, maybe they're the fastest in the world. If they're all-our Olympic team in hockey is eight white guys from Minnesota, I don't assume discrimination.' "
if we want to continue having respect for (in my opinion) great commentators like rachel and keith, we need to call them out on the same things we call out the wingnuts like oreilly, hannity and beck on. the morons at fox certainly spew more lies and hate (and never correct them) than keith and rachel ever do, but as long as they are ALL kept in check, most of the time they will make sure not to make those mistakes again. if we ignore the errors, we are doing a disservice to real journalism, and they will continue that disservice to themselves.