LORDS OF APATHY

July 18, 2009

RACIST REPUBLICAN FRIDAY: PAT BUCHANAN

Well, it's official ladies and gentlemen... The Republican party has stopped just short of declaring that they are unapologetically the party of narrow-minded 1950's Jim Crow-era racism. You may be thinking, "What's changed?" as far as that's concerned. Well, not a whole lot. I'm just seeing that since Obama got elected, there is increasingly less and less effort being put into their use of nuanced racist codewords or any amount subtlety in their racism. Before the election, they at least talked around it, and made the effort to try and fool people that they weren't the divisive backwards-ass racists that they have always been. It's strange to think that you can site one specific example and say that it is the official turning point as far as this is concerned, however I think this interview in particular, sheds light on exactly what the modern-day Republican party is all about: -'Rich white men uber alles. -fuck everybody else'..."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." -Pat Buchanan on why 108 of 110 Supreme Court justices thus far have been white.

13 comments:

boozin sarandon said...

wow

Anonymous said...

i hate when liberals try and question why all forms of government used to be run by all white men. Everyone whos taken public school american history knows why, Judge sotomayor is just a political move to win over the latino base so they will vote democrat, just like when bush appointed christian conservatives to win over the evangelicals . Political theater

The Daily Bench said...

rachel maddow +1

bo said...

fuck that old fuck he can suck a big rainbow cock!!!

Snickerdoodles McPoppycock said...

Re. Anonymous:
Yeah either that, or maybe maybe the ideals of this country should not exclude people based on racial prejudice... But cynically, there is a generous dose of political theatre involved also. Realistically though, democrats dont really even need to pander to latinos at this point, as the Republicans are activly going out of their way to shit on them every given opportunity.

Anonymous said...

Maddow's question about why 108 of the 110 of the SC justices were white men is a trap, as none of this has anything to do with appointing Sotomayor. You don't break the streak just to do it. The SC isn't The View. You don't add someone to get the Latin / gay / furry viewpoint. You pick the best person available. Appointing a Latin woman just to get some gender and color on the bench will do more harm than good if she is not the most qualified, so questioning her credentials or if this is just a political play does not seem racist to me. There are maybe 50 people in the country who are really qualified to be on the SC, so I have no problem putting these candidates through the wringer. We'll never really know if Sotomayor is the most qualified as Democrats are dying to put a Latina on the bench for political reasons and can suppress argument on her abilities by painting her critics as racists (even when the criticism has nothing to do with race). Buchanan, though, is probably racist so having him ask these questions taints this whole discussion.

Snickerdoodles McPoppycock said...

You make several valid points, and of course the fact that the Dems are appointing a Latina Woman to the Supreme Court is a good move politically re: garnering the latino vote. However reducing Sotomayor to token status is a huge mistake. It's not like Obama nominated his cleaning lady or secretary (ala Harriet Miers). The fact of the matter is, Buchanan, nor any other Republican has failed to mention what other more qualified (presumably white) judges Obama passed over in order to nominate Sotomayor. I heard one R. Senator (I think Lindsay Graham) mention another hispanic guy from a prior SC nomination during Bush's term, who got shot down by the Dems. I think the only reason he was even mentioned was a lame attempt to do the old "See, I wanted to nominate this other Hispanic before, so therefore I'm not racist" diversion. It's similar to the SC hearings version of "some of my best friends are black". I'd give more creedence to your points if anyone was able to demonstrate valid reasons why she was unfit, or unqualified to be a SC justice, outside of petty make-believe charges of (reverse?) racism. If you look at her judicial record, it is obvious that there is absolutely zero pattern of racial prejudice in her rulings. and unlike every current Republican-selected Justice on the bench (I.E. Samuel Alito), Sotomayor's record is not a mirror reflection of the nominating party's political philosophy.

To put it most simply, the Republican outrage over Sotomayor's nomination is almost entirely focused on issues revolving around her race, despite the fact that her judicial record shows no pattern of bias. Their assumption that she could not possibly be qualified to be a SC justice seems to be entirely based on the fact that she is a Latina woman -ergo affirmative action/ white people are getting shafted. -Bullshit.

Anonymous said...

I think Hunter Thompson had it right when he described Buchanan as a "half-crazed, Davy Crockett running around the parapets of Nixon’s Alamo"

G Code said...

My favorite part about this whole thing is when he goes on about the victimization of whites by affirmative action. The cases he sights may be true but they pale in comparison to the barriers in place by society at large against all minorities. So citing a few cases where whites got the short end of the stick is a bad argument. Yes affirmative action can be used as reverse racism but it's a blip compared to the racism that minorities face on a daily basis.

Also, people like Buchanan love to talk about how the country's problems are because of minorities and how much better the country was when everyone was white. The problem is, all the major problem we face right now are a result of a mostly white male run establishment. I'm not saying minorities didn't play a part as well but they are being used as a scapegoat for things that aren't really their fault in any way.

For example, are illegal immigrants and african americans to blame for the financial collapse, global warming and the outsourcing of american jobs? I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

illegal aliens are responsible for outsourcing of jobs, its just not called outsourcing because the jobs are staying here but being replaced by foriegn workers. and rich white men are responsible for that because they are the ones hiring them to save money instead of hiring american workers at a decent wage, in the end it is the taxpayer who gets screwed

MASACCIO GIRBAUD KING said...

Real Talk, how did the phrases "reverse racism" and "reverse discrimination" get lodged into the American english lexicon? I've been hearing those terms thrown around for 15 years and I still don't understand the "reverse" part.

Anonymous said...

Vote Libertarian?

Snickerdoodles McPoppycock said...

Fuck no... There are some good aspects of some Libertarian principles, but a lot of that is steeped in wierd Republican issues. I think Ron Paul generally makes a good case for Libertarians, but he's a racist and apparently, isn't super fond of the gays either...-(at least based on his cameo in the Bruno movie)