Colbert Mocks Conservative Pundits For Claims Of Reverse Racism; Calls Buchanan A 'Reverse Civil Rights Leader' (VIDEO)

Stephen Colbert eviscerated Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh last night for claiming Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is racist and that white men are being discriminated against.

He referred to Buchanan, who has been appearing on MSNBC all week claiming Sotomayor has "a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males," as a reverse civil rights leader, and showed a clip of him saying, "White men were 100% of the people who wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg." This, of course, prompted Colbert to say, "YEAH, where were the black guys during the Civil War? Come on, I'm not saying they all should have volunteered, just three fifths of them."

He took this line of thinking to its illogical (and hilarious) conclusion saying, "Now that white people are disadvantaged, that makes us the new black people."


WATCH:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Reverse Racism
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Jeff Goldblum

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[beyobi]

The problem ain't the "ist" it's the "ism." We are all racist. To be cognizant of a person's color is racist. To act based on assumptions about that person's character because of their color is racism. Until people can admit the "ist" in themselves we will never rid ourselves of the "ism."

[NotYourAvg]

Damn I love Colbert! Always getting in the GOP's sh*t with FACTS!!!

[wltdnfaded]

As I read through these comments, it just hit me anew:

Stewart/Colbert fans are just really frakkin' smart people.

[AspenSyzygy]

It's really incredibly how many hypocrites there are in the world.

FOLKS - WHAT DO YOU THINK A "RACIST" IS?

It is a person who judges ANYBODY BASED ON THEIR RACE.

If you see a black man, and think "aha, I know what sort of worker or friend or leader or criminal" that person might be - solely because he/she is black - THEN YOU ARE A RACIST.

If you see a white man, and think "aha, I know what sort of worker or friend or leader or criminal" that person might be - solely because he/she is black - THEN YOU ARE A RACIST.

Either way.

It's incredibly to me to read someone declare that ALL PEOPLE of one race or another ARE RACIST.

That very statement is the definition of hypocrisy - blaming others for what you are yourself.

America is so obsessed with race, it's bizarre. And it's uniquely American in the modern era.

It's a financial boon for organizations who make money off of conflict.

It's utterly hilarious for someone on the outside to watch as racists accuse each other of racism based on their race - and fail to get the irony of their own actions.

And it's an disaster for your children.

[Politisizer]

Your post is 'comedy gold'. Next time you might want to check it for errors and then read it, before posting, to see if it actually makes sense. What I find particularly ironic is the error in the copy/pasted section where you left 'black' when I believe you meant to change it to 'white'.

FYI. I am against rac.ism

[AspenSyzygy]

Politisizer - great job at blathering on endlessly without saying anything of substance.

And given that my post was condemning racism, should I conclude that you SUPPORT racism?

I guess so.

OK. So I'm against racism, and you're all for it.

[NotYourAvg]

Amen to that!

[garystartswithg]

Until the War of Northern Agression is reversed and reparations are made we have every right to be bitter! Where is Abraham Lincolns birth certificate?

[umber2echo]

The Civil War was not a war of northern aggression, as anyone who has READ a history book and understood it well understands. It was a war to reverse Southern abominations against freeedom, liberty, and aggressions against the Constitution of the United States. Besides, you losers couldn't keep your slaves without the help of the Federal Government!

God, I'm tired of unreconstructed Southern white male b.s..

[Archivist1000]

Here's the thing: when someone from a 'group' (in this case, white men) accuse another group of favoritism (of some sort) simply because that group is different (than them) here is the clear implication ........ They feel ( in this case, white men like Buchanana) that any person from any group is BOUND to be prejudiced against another group ......... therefore, they themselves (in this case, white men) are ALSO bound to be prejudiced against another group.

People like Pat Buchanan, unwittingly ADMIT to their prejudices, when they take it for granted that any group practices favoritism for members of its own group. So it''s not surprising that they are quick to fear 'other groups' .... they expect 'other groups' to behave in the same way as their own group. (in this case, white men)

...... interesting insight isn't it? Think about it.

[AspenSyzygy]

Archivist1000 wrote: "when ... white men) accuse another group of favoritism ... They feel ( ... white men ...) that any person from any group is BOUND to be prejudiced against ... themselves (... white men) ... People like Pat Buchanan ... ADMIT to their prejudices ... take it for granted ... are quick to fear ... expect ... as their own group. (in this case, white men)"

When you declare that a GROUP that is ALL OF ONE RACE all thinks and acts and walks and talks and feels and admits and fears and behaves all the same way ....then you are exhibiting the classic definition of "a racist".

That is, by definition, what a racist is. There is no other definition. That's it.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Buddy McCue]

He said "people like Pat Buchanan." That's not a criticism of any race. That's a criticism of people like Pat Buchanan.

[AspenSyzygy]

First line: "white men"

Third line: "white men like Buchananan"

Fourth and fifth line: "white men"

Second paragraph, fourth line: "white men"

Geeze. You guys are wearing me out here.

[Ronju01]

"The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World by Patrick J. Buchanan. Who would try to justify this ? Only Pat ''hetic' Buchanan !!

[AspenSyzygy]

That's actually a great book.

[Rapier]

Recommended

http://ofthisandthat.org/SpeciealNews.html

[creolechild]

"All America has done is establish a flexible framework within which change could be established in a manner that was relatively more flexible and relatively more peaceful (operative word: relatively) than what had gone before them in the world.

If you knew more about what the populations of the 14/15/16/17th centuries were fleeing from in old Europe and elsewhere, you would really appreciate things a lot more."

Sounds nice...in theory but if you knew more about the time periods you referenced and early American history you'd know that the early colonists who reached these shores turned around and were just as intolerant as the people/countries they were seeking to escape...

In the name of religious freedom, you commit genocide and slaughter almost an entire race. The claim to merely wanting to live in peace wasn't an alternative that was offered to others---u­nfortunate­ly.

[blindjester]

"Racism is a system that depends on power to enforce bigotry. What you are talking about is prejudice. Different animal."

"Most white ppl disagree with this definition but its dead on!"

If you have a sentence that starts out "most white people....." you may be guilty of the very thing you're writing about.

Racism is NOT a white man's problem. It is a human problem that we all have to work on. And if we're ever going to get anywhere in the conversation, we need to get past trying to figure out who to be mad at and quit trying to decide who's the bad guy.

It's exclusive and counterproductive.

[AspenSyzygy]

blindjester wrote: "Racism is NOT a white man's problem. It is a human problem"

Bingo. Kudos.

[huffy2001]

I love listening to all these rich white guys whining about "reverse racism"! All these undeserving people of color getting ahead! Jeez...next they're going to start worming their way into the gene pool...say what? Who's Brian Kilmeade?

[DarwinsRevenge]

Indeed, let's have diversity at the top executive ranks of the Media,Hollywood and the News. The positions shouldn't all be populated by people from just one ethnic group. However, if you look, it is not "white guys" in the sense of WASPs that hold most of those positions. But nevertheless, let's have more Hispanic, Arab and Asian directors, studio heads and executives in the newsrooms.

[Xenussister]

Aw come on Stephen, have Jim Cornette on your show. It would be GOLD! Since Stewart, Maddow, Olbermann and Maher dropped the ball on this guy (why? why? WHY?), you should pick it up. Progressiv­es/Liberal­s would LOVE Cornette. He speaks to those of us who are tired of being polite to the right-wing­/Republica­n obstructionists just because we won. They're pounding, pounding, pounding on us, and we're just rolling our eyes and giggling. We should all be inspired by Cornette to say ENOUGH!

==
Listen to this awe-inspiring rant against the right-wing!
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGp043tHAc8
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/jimcornettesrant
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=234778800440

[Tavi]

That was AWESOME! I'm a fan.

[karinova]

Re: Cornette's Rant:

Wow. That was both nuclear... and epic.
Sounds like "Joey Styles" was the straw that broke the camel's back! He just let it ALL out.

[pakaal]

Actually, I don't think this is at all about the color of the people who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is about what the Constitution and Bill of Rights puts forward as principles to live by. We fought a war to end slavery (and for anyone who says that's not what it was about please explain why the seceding states ALL list continuing slavery as the reason for them seceding). We fought another battle in the 60s to enforce equality nationwide.

Buchanan wants to equate our system of governance to the color of the skin of those who came up with that system (oh, and by the way, the Iroquois Confederacy was one of the governmental structures Franklin looked at as a guide to his proposals for ours, so clearly the "whites created the US" argument is on shaky ground).

We should have an all-white, all male Congress, Judiciary and Presidency just because that's what it looked like 200+ years ago? That's just stupid.

[AspenSyzygy]

pakaal wrote: "and for anyone who says that's not what it was about please explain why the seceding states ALL list continuing slavery as the reason for them seceding"

Because that happened to be a major states's rights issue at the time. Throw this into the mix:

Abraham Lincoln said: "If I could win the war without freeing the slaves, I would."

That's written on the walls of the visitor's center inside the lower level of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC.

If the war WAS about freeing the slaves, why would Lincoln say that?

Why would he wait until the third year of the war to sign the Emancipation Proclamation - AND make the initial version ONLY applicable in the Southern States, while retaining slavery is a legal right in the NORTHERN states?

REASON: The war was not about slavery. It was about rights of the Federal government and their authority to impose their will on state governments.

That's why KARL MARX cited Abraham Lincoln as one of his greatest inspirations. An extremely strong Federal government over weaker local governments. That was the war.

[AspenSyzygy]

The Civil War started when the North came late to the industrial revolution and got upset because the South wouldn't trade with them. The South was already selling all the cotton it could produce to Europe. But the North - late to develop manufacturing capabilities - wanted that cotton for themselves.

That's why they started imposing tariffs and blockades on the South - to shut down trade with Europe.

Remember "Gone With The Wind" -? Remember what Rhett Butler did to get his wealth?

He was a BLOCKADE RUNNER. He was sailing past Northern blockades so the Southern cotton could get through. That was a real thing back then.

The slavery issue was separate. The North had slaves. I remember seeing the remnants of an old slave market in downtown Washington DC back in the 1960's - I'm sure it's gone now.

Lincoln's first version of the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South - not the North. If the war had truly been about slavery, the North would've freed their own slaves at the same time. They didn't - that came later.

[No Man]

Ummm, Gone with the Wind is a fictional novel. Couldn't you come up with another example?

[Andrew Weill]

To suggest that the Civil War started because the North needed cotton is, to put it mildly, highly dubious. It is also incorrect to suggest that the South was capable of selling all its output to Europe. Indeed, historians agree that the Confederacy made a blunder in relying on "King Cotton" diplomacy, because Britain had a surplus of imported cotton at the beginning of the war, and developed alternate suppliers (India and Egypt) that were in place by 1862.
Your analysis of the Emancipation Proclamation is also flawed. The scope of the Proclamation was limited because Lincoln considered that the only legitimate basis for emancipation by the executive branch was as a means of depriving the rebel states of a war resource. He did not believe he had the constitutional power to declare emancipation elsewhere; that came with the 13th Amendment.
Finally, to the extent you are contending that the Civil War was not about slavery, let's just say that you will have great difficulty finding reputable modern historians who would agree with you. A review of Southern editorials, speeches at the secession conventions, and a variety of other materials should leave little doubt in any reasonable mind.

[DarwinsRevenge]

I wonder if we can have diversity among the leadership positions in the media, hollywood and the news? I mean when WASPs held positions of power in various places there was a real war to take it away from them. We wouldn't almost all the power in media to be held predominantly by one group ... would we?

[Cybersquirt]

I loved this bit. I can't decide if this or his speech at the White House press corps dinner qualifies as A Most Needed Smackdown.

[JackieRSM]

Rachel Maddow gave a rebuttal smackdown the other day to Buchanan. He appeared on her show earlier getting into a heated debate with her when he made those remarks. It was great! Look up her smackdown!

[AspenSyzygy]

It was STUPID. She refuted things he never said. She waited until he was gone to do it. She's a coward and a liar.

She quoted his comment about how white men "built" the country - and idiotically said "well, slaves did! They built the buildings!"

The POINT was SCOTUS, the Sotomayor appointment, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence - the legal framework upon which SCOTUS rests and must deliberate and argue and decide.

Buchanan had said quite clearly that white men wrote and signed the Constitution and Decl of Ind, and therefore "built" the legal framework.

MADDOW KNOWS THIS. But she waited until he was gone, then carefully edited his statements to make it appear as if they were discussing plaster and roofing materials or something, and blasted the "built" comment incorrectly.

If Sonia Sotomayor were up for "construction worker", she would have a point.

She's not. She's up for Supreme Court Justice.

Maddow is a loser.

[Rebecca2233]

I can't wait until his hair grows back.

http://www.TheCommentDepot.com

[pakaal]

I think he looks great as is!