Rachel Maddow Duels With Pat Buchanan On Affirmative Action (VIDEO)

Scroll down for video

Rachel Maddow got into a fierce argument with Pat Buchanan about affirmative action and the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor on Thursday night.

The epic battle included accusations, interruptions, and strong feelings with Maddow incredulous that Buchanan could not bring himself to admit that discrimination might play a part in the fact that 108 out of 110 U.S. Supreme Court justices have been white.

Buchanan said he considered Sotomayor unqualified and called her an "affirmative-action appointment" by Obama. When Maddow pressed him on why he was critical of affirmative action, Buchanan launched into a vigorous defense of whites who have been discriminated against.

When asked why the overwhelming majority of justices have been white, Buchanan declined to explicitly cite discrimination, but explained that "White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up and the other 10% were African-Americans who had been discriminated against. That's why."

When Maddow asked whether the reason that 108 out of 110 justice were white is because "white people deserved to have those positions," Buchanan answered: "A lot of people get up there for a lot of reasons."

An incredulous Maddow continued: "I would hope that you would see that picking 108 out of 110 white justices of the Supreme Court means that other people are not being appropriately considered... and the reason we have affirmative action is you recognize that the fact that people were discriminated against for hundreds of years means that you sort of gamed the system unless you give other people a leg up..."

When Buchanan began to interrupt her, Maddow said, "Hold on, I let you talk for a long time."

Story continues below

advertisement

Later, Buchanan compared the historically white make-up of the Supreme Court to an all-black track team or all-white hockey team, asking Maddow, "Why do you assume discrimination simply because you got one component on the Supreme Court... Where's the genius who is a woman who you think is a genius? Go for her..."

When Buchanan referenced the white firefighters who Sotomayor ruled against in a court ruling, claiming that they "are victims of that evil affirmative action," Maddow replied, "I couldn't disagree with you more."

Later, Buchanan attacked Maddow for being out of touch and seemed to slam judges who support affirmative action when he stated, "You know what they ought to do? They ought to defend the rights of white working-class folks."

Maddow cut him off and snapped, "I don't need a lecture from you about whether or not I know, what I think about working class Americans... For you to privilege race... and say that what we need to tap politically is white people's racial grievance, you're playing with fire and dating yourself."

Watch the video:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Comments

[Wayne Leng]

Good to see that Rachel pointed out Pat's lies with facts tonight on her show. I used to listento Buchanan, but those days are now over. He joins the ranks of all the other lying Repubs.

[Jaxy]

"It's Pat"? Naaaah. Change that Buchanan graphic, Stat!

"It's Rat"

"Dingbat"

"Fell Flat"

"He Shat"

[HoosierRadical]

Rachel is indeed a class act!

Like all working class people in this country, white working class people are victims, however, they need look no further than to their upper class brothers & sisters, and not African Americans, Latinos, etc. If they had any sense, they would join with others of their same economic class regardless of race/ethnicity and work for a better future.

[vcjpolitics]

Pat Buchanan has been telling us who he is for years: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553. Who are we to question him :D?

[rafaelkafka]

Rachel gagged all the time!Hilar­ious!Affir­mative action is racism!Racism never justifies reverse racism!

[gypsy508]

Pat Buchanan to Richard Nixon:

"Italian Americans, unlike blacks, have never had a Supreme Court member-- they are deeply concerned with their 'criminal' image; they do not dislike the President. Give those fellows the 'Jewish seat' or the 'black seat' on the Court when it becomes available."

Back then, Buchanan played politics. He also encouraged Nixon to become the first president to impose affirmative action in a specific case. His reasoning then was that affirmative action would make white people angry enough to split Democrats and the Republicans did gain voters.

[cobraxus]

Uncle Pat seems to forget that prior to the civil rights movement irish and italians weren't considered white people.

[Pippen]

Affirmative Action is Unconstitutional. But at this point what other choices do we have to integrate all Americans in elite jobs ? Even with Affirmative Action there is still sufficient discrimination to warrant more Affirmative Action on the bench.

[DestinationsUnknown]

since when don the do nothings care about the constitution

[LawHoo]

"This has been a country built basically by white folks, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up and the other 10% were African-Americans who had been discriminated against."

Is there no end to this man's ignorance or bigotry?

What were the slaves doing when "white folks" were building the country? What were the Chinese immigrants doing when the "white folks" were builidng our railroads? What were the latinos doing when "white folks" were harvesting our crops and building our houses? What were Japanese Americans doing when "white folks" were fighting WWII?

The fact that MSNBC continues to give Pat Buchanan a platform to propogate his hate and bigotry astounds me.

For me--a white male--this interview was the final straw. If he's on a show, the show's not on in my house!

[yoli647]

thank you..

[gaja]

I understand why you would not want to listen to Pat (Personally - I can't stand the sight of him) --but disagree that boycotting MSNBC is the answer. Rachel is exposing him for what he is - a person who is completely out of touch with ra c is t thoughts and motivations... Would you rather the general public know nothing about it? Rachel, Keith, and Chris are providing an important service. Without it, millions of people who don't really tune in to winger tv or radio would not realize what kind of hate speech and misinformation abounds there... I am really glad Rachel did address this on her show - since it is a perfect illustration of why the repubs should NOT be re-elected in 2012... If people like Pat had their way - we'd be returning to the 1950's...

[clear voice]

Rachel is a nothing as MSNBC is nothing. Their ratings are in the toilet as their watchers go.
The growing tomato channel has more viewers.
As for change goes. From bad to worse is change I guess. You're right there.

[YouCanKeepYourChange]

LawHoo - You are amazingly stupid

[DCSuburb]

The bigot train is never late, and here comes YouCanKeep­YourChange right on time

[conlawprize]

what is maddow saying? because discrimination lead to universal white supreme courts that should be a reason to discriminate now, only in the opposite direction? what exactly would be the point of that?

[smoovejef]

Posted this earlier, but HuffPo censors were afraid. Here goes:

One should have a great sympathy for people like Pat Buchanan. He is watching the world he knew disappear, virtually in front of his eyes. His indignity that a person who is not worthy of consideration for a post to the nation's highest court is prefaced on the fact that they are not what the founders of this country intended (that would be those of European descent, with wealth and owning land). He had become accustomed to a world where those who were part of the 'Old Boy Network' were virtually guaranteed to have access to the highest levels of government, industry, finance and international influence.
It is indeed a hard thing to watch as the country moves away from the acceptance of racism in our society, as it also means that the 'old guard' has become less relevant. I refer to it as 'death by irrelevancy', because those like Mr. Buchanan are literally dying out, and their world views are losing relevancy, except as historical footnotes to a time when women and minorities had little opportunity to reach the kind of potential Judge Sotomayer has achieved.
Pity the Pat Buchanans of the world, but help to hasten their end.

[gaja]

that is not her point. her point is that Pat is discriminating against Sotomayor simply because she is a Latino woman and he is not being honest with himself if he cannot admit that. as a school administrator --it is a ridiculous argument to say that affirmative action is what G A V E Sotomayor the appointment. it was one factor in her initial admission to college. there are many factors involved.

what she did with that opportunity was entirely due to her own effort. she graduated at the top of her class. where was Palin - someone that Pat regularly talks about as the "darling of the repub party." Palin barely graduated at all.. his argument has N O merit. repubs freely admit, that based on her judicial record - they have nothing to criticize her... they have spent a week trying to take a few phrases she said and twist them out of context. how sad that they spent all their energy confirming what people already suspected - that it is impossible for them to see the reality that the times have changed. openly making r a c i s t comments about Latinos or any other minority will not be tolerated. his "victim speech" was utterly ridiculous and only reveal his own bigotry in the end...

[THISTLE]

All that's missing with Buchanan are the white sheets and a hood. I don't why MSBC has this
guy on - for contrast, - why?
We all know what Buchanan stands for, it could not be any clearer. And kudos to Rachel Maddow
for going after him, on his ignorant remarks.

[luckbug]

I love how Pat B questions Sodomayer's qualifications and intelligence even though she graduated 2nd in her class and from Princeton no less, but he excitedly championed Sarah Palen, who managed to attain a degree in journalism, as a viable candidate for president. Although Judge Sodomayer might have been admitted to Princeton by way of affirmative action, she had to earn and maintain the grades to stay there. Pat Buchanan is wrong on so many levels. I read a mini biography on Ivanka Trump's fiancee today and learned that he graduated from Harvard. The bio told of how the young man had neither the SAT scores nor the grades to qualify for admission to Harvard. He was admitted after his wealthy father donated 2.5 million to the institution. I would imagine that a whole lot more wealthy kids whose academic packages don't merit ivy league admittance are allowed to attend than those who are granted admission because of affirmative action. I wonder what Pat would have to say about that.

[militarymomforobama]

He wouldn't say anything, because he believes that it is "God's" will that white men enjoy all privileges and advantages regardless of their abilities.

Poor white men. I just don't know how they manage.

[Philippe Adrien]

Let's not forget Bush"s Ivy League education was entirely based on his father's influence, not academic merit. Whie Men's Affimartive Action in action also known as Nepotism.

[yoli647]

Pat should be fired!!!!

[Robert Cantor]

yes! we must retaliate strongly against people we disagree with!

[RecentRetiredVet]

No, racist opinions should ever have a stage or an audience to spead its vile message. That is why so many died for during the 60s. If we are so blind today and not aware of this, then history will surely repeat itself.

[militarymomforobama]

I disagree. As disgusting as he is, as ridiculous as he is, as tiresome as he is--he is willing to stand up and show everyone exactly what he is. He is so so sad.

[vgirl1]

While I thought Rachel's closing comments in this debate were strong, I was disappointed in the overall discussion. I thought her question on the unbalanced historical appointments of white males to the court was dead on. However, I felt a stronger counter argument to Pat on why this was so was in order.

Rachel should have challenged Pat to address the fact that extended white men only appointments to the Court were a direct result of the fact that white men were white. As such they were given an unfair advantage of education/­preparatio­n and opportunity denied for so many years to people of color and women.

Similarly, Rachel should have challenged Pat on his false statments that white men "earned" what they got because they built this country. Pat clearly ignores the use of slave and Asian labor and Jim Crow laws that drew on forced minortiy labor to build this nation. Such closed minded, misguided perceptions of old white men like Pat that white men did it all and therefore deserve it all that causes so much of the racial friction of the day.

Pat clearly displayed the bgotry and bias he has pronounced all of his career. The sad point is that to this day. Pat is unwilling to admit his bias and on-going discriminatory position.

[nunzia]

Frank Rich's column in Sunday NY Times is excellent on this topic!!