Sunday, July 19, 2009

Race Baiting Liberals Can't Handle the Truth

Maddow can't answer any of Buchanan's questions but argues in circles trying to bait Buchanan. His comments about the U.S. Military are off base as the military was segregated at the time of those battles and the soldiers, to this day, don't get to pick their battles. But, Maddow ignores history and seems to want the Supreme Court to be populated by lottery. Why she doesn't argue on gender or religious lines and solely on racial lines is mystifying, but, whatever.....
What's amazing is that the Buchanan haters have no problem with Sotomayor's racist and sexist comments about the superiority of Latin women over European American males.
Buchanan frequently has opinions on political strategies and frequently lauds the strategies of people he disagrees with. When he suggests the people opposed to Sotomayor bring up the affirmative action issue - he is discussing political strategy - PERIOD.
Affirmative action is in place to give people a good start. It is not to be used in the Supreme Court. We should not have quotas in that high office. Affirmative action DOES screw white males and gives us subpar results frequently. Buchanan is right on this.
As to Maddow's harping on the 108 out of 110 - you have to eliminate about half of those that came before the 20th century. She is playing with numbers and rhetoric and makes no valid point. Her refusal to answer Buchanan is feeble an intellectually dishonest. It's amazing that honest straightforward answers like Buchanan's are reviled while the backpedalling and squirming reasoning of these liberals is somehow acceptable.
Sotomayor backpedals (in circles).


djinn said...

C'mon. All Sotomayor said, in context, is that different people bring different life experiences to the table. The woman was originally appointed to the Federal court by George Bush and is, in all likelihood, a moderate republican who has shown no propensity at all to favor any sort of affirmative action. Why this rant?

Quimbob said...

My rant is aimed more at Maddows and liberal bias. If the president's pick had been a white male of dubious academic achievement and he had made a remark similar to Sotomayor's, the liberals would be outraged. As it is, they are using the situation to lynch Buchanan, one of the last voices of reason in the conservative camp.

djinn said...

Sonia Sotomayor graduatee summa cum laude from Princeton and was co-awarded the Pyne prize, the highest distinction given to an undergraduate. Whle at Yale law school, she was an editor on the Yale Law review, a distinction she shares with Samuel Alito.

I'm curious why you think that her academic achievement is "dubious."

djinn said...

It's not that Maddow doesn't have answers to Buchanan, she's letting him hang himself by his own rope. Let's look at the qualifications:

Books, articles, law review

Let's look at Alito. No books or articles. Similar law review experience as Sotomayor, but less distinguished as an undergraduate.

Potential "Bigot" experience? Why yes, and explicitly. He was a member of "Concerned Alumni of Princeton" They were a group opposed to women, got that? WOMEN on campus, when you look at articles sourced from the 70's. At a minimum, they wanted a cap on the number of women allowed to enroll. Isn't that explicit affirmative action for white males? Why yes, it ia. By the time Alito's nomination rolled around, the same earlier explicitly anti-woman gang now said it was just affirmative action they were against. Don't think so. Pat Buchanan never had a problem with this.

Now how about John Roberts? Hmmm...
Harvard undergrad, no honors; Managing editor of Harvard Law Review, no books or articles to speak of. Racially charged issues? While an attorney in the Reagan White House in 1982, he opposed section 2 of the voting rights act. His position was that an election system had to be designed with the goal of discriminating against minority voters, an impossible burden to reach, because how can you prove intent? It looks he still feels this way, by the way.

So, of the last three Supreme Court Nominees, Sotomayor is the most qualified, based on her stellar Princeton career; never advocated for explicit quotas as did Alito, and never came out against the freakin' voting rights act, as did Roberts.

I realize that you don't know all this stuff, but Buchanan doesn't have a single fact to stand on.