Saturday, July 18, 2009

Pat Buchanan on undeserving Latinos

When Pat Buchanan was on the Rachel Maddow show the other night he claimed that Sotomayor was an intellectual lightweight not qualified to be on the Supreme Court who had gotten where she was through affirmative action. Remember, he was talking about a woman who:

Coming from a housing project in the Bronx, Sotomayor ended up graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton. She also was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. Sotomayor then went to Yale Law School, where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. [the Think Progress blog]

Of course, there is no reason to believe that I am aware of that affirmative action had any role to play at Princeton or Yale in anything other than admissions. Buchanan offers no evidence that Sotomayor was not deserving of her educational achievements other than the fact that she is a minority. If graduating summa cum laude does not prove that you deserved to be there, even though you were admitted through affirmative action, what would? Obviously no level of achievement, no amount of ability and hard work, would be enough.

To black and Hispanic voters the message in this is clear, insofar as Pat Buchanan defines the Republican Party, a Republican administration would be one that thinks that minorities are undeserving per se, just because they are minorities. It is amazing to me that Republican elected officials and Republicans who aspire to be elected seem to be unwilling or unable to counter the damage that racists Pat Buchanan and Rush Limbaugh are doing to the Republican brand.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

To me, if “affirmative action” students at one of the world’s top universities can graduate at the top of their class, I’d say that Republicans ought to reverse their hateful selfish stand against programs that give the poor a more equal fair chance to prove themselves. Instead they dishonestly deny true achievement to continue their prejudice against the poor.

To me the greatest problem with Pat’s statements is their bald-faced dishonesty. We can accept and even respect that conservatives focus on different facts than do liberals. Liberals care about those facts relating to the human condition and fairness, Republicans choose to focus of the facts supporting privilege and the status quo. But, perhaps they have no facts supporting their position or agenda, for they tell lies whenever they ought to be presenting their facts.

Logically they can offer no proof for their arguments. Morally, their supposed calling card, they are bankrupt.

Vigilante said...

Thanks to Uncle Pat! Now that all the GOP's cards have been played (face up), those of us who laid down our bets years ago that 20th Century Dixiecrats would morph into 21st Century Republicants can collect our winnings and leave the table!

tacky said...

You were very kind to Buchanan and Limbaugh. They really represent the worst in us. It is sad that for the want of ratings that the major networks, newspapers and radio give them access to spread their manure around the country. Unfortunately, the rest of the world also listens and conclude that Americans have no right to criticize their right wing followers. These guys keep the memberships of the KKK, Aryan Nation and the like filled.

TheNeilinator said...

Great Blog. I agree. I really don't see how anyone can argue with Sotomayor's credentials. They are damn near impeccable. It is almost disturbing how race gets played in when ever a minority is running for distinguished office, it often takes away from the issue at hand, or in this case, the nominee or elected at hand. The only semi-rational explanation that could be posed for Republicans voting against Sotomayor is A) they don't agree with her platform (which of course is not that legitimate because ideology should not be a basis to deny someone a SC position), and B) because of the abandon she is portrayed to have in appealing the law. But even in that case the argument does not stand, because there are nine members on the SC, and more importantly judicial activism is the reason our society is shaped the way it is. Just look at Brown v. Board...or even better the Marbury case.

In any case, Pat's arguments are, quite frankly, rather...bad.