During the 3:00PM EST hour on MSNBC on Wednesday, political analyst Pat Buchanan wondered why President Obama’s short list for the Supreme Court only included women, in response, anchor Norah O’Donnell declared: "Did it ever occur to you, Pat, that maybe there weren’t any white men who were qualified?" (video here)
Buchanan replied: "No, it did not occur to me...You mean there are no white males qualified? That is – that would be an act of bigotry to make a statement like that." O’Donnell defended her remark by claiming past discrimination against women in the nominating process: "In the past there have been no women that have been qualified." Buchanan argued: "They certainly have been qualified in the past. I don’t doubt there are. But probably half of the great lawyers and judges are white males in this country. And to rule them out, why? Because of their sex and because of their race is wrong, I think. At least it’s affirmative action."
O’Donnell rejected Buchanan’s claim: "I don’t think you have proof that they did that." Buchanan asked: "How did he come down to four women?" O’Donnell simply repeated White House talking points: "He said that they were the best and that met the views that he had, the particular criteria." Buchanan summed up that "criteria": "One of them, it’s got to be a woman, and the other it got down to be, ‘hey, it’s an Hispanic,’ that’s affirmative action."
Here is the transcript of the exchange:
3:01PM SEGMENT:
PAT BUCHANAN: You got down to four women, not a single white male – all women. And then we’re going to pick an Hispanic-
NORAH O’DONNELL: Did it ever occur to you, Pat, that maybe there weren’t any white men who were qualified?
BUCHANAN: Yes. No, it did not occur to me.
[O’Donnell Laughs Loudly]
BUCHANAN: You mean there are no white males qualified? That is – that would be an act of bigotry to make a statement like that.
NORAH O’DONNELL: In the past there have been no women that have been qualified.
BUCHANAN: They certainly have been qualified in the past. I don’t doubt there are. But probably half of the great lawyers and judges are white males in this country. And to rule them out, why? Because of their sex and because of their race is wrong, I think. At least it’s affirmative action.
NORAH O’DONNELL: I don’t think you have proof that they did that. The President reportedly-
BUCHANAN: How did he come down to four women?
NORAH O’DONNELL: He said that they were the best and that met the views that he had, the particular criteria.
BUCHANAN: In other words what were the criteria? One of them, it’s got to be a woman, and the other it got down to be, ‘hey, it’s an Hispanic,’ that’s affirmative action.
NORAH O’DONNELL: Lawrence, do you want to offer a rejoinder to that?
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Well Pat, if it gets down to four, you’re suggesting that it’s an absolute outrage if the final four are women. If got down to a final four and they were all white men, would that bother you in the least?
BUCHANAN: I don’t say it’s an outrage, I just say it’s affirmative action. They were picked because she’s a woman and a Hispanic and you know it as well as I do.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Nailed!!
May 27, 2009 - 17:10 ET by allanfSounds like Buchannan nailed her. Is Norah O'Donnell related to the bomb throwing Larry O'Donnell?
Is Norah O'Donnell related
May 27, 2009 - 17:44 ET by R D Helm"Is Norah O'Donnell related to the bomb throwing Larry O'Donnell?"
LOL-Actually, I think they are the same person.
-Dave
ROFL!!
May 27, 2009 - 17:55 ET by motherbeltWiki says they are not related, but has anyone ever seen them in the same room together???
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Listening to either O'Donnell makes me want to 'vurp'
May 27, 2009 - 20:27 ET by Cape Conservative(thanks, Cool Arrow)
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise known as a RWRE!! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
Nah they're not related,
May 27, 2009 - 17:51 ET by bigtimerNah they're not related, but they sure enough are kissin' cousins politically...Norah's working her way down to Lawrence's level.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Norah and Contessa have
May 27, 2009 - 17:16 ET by bigtimerNorah and Contessa have become two of the rudest gals on television...I can't stand either one of them...and their brain-power together wouldn't be able to brighten up a wall night-lite.
They'd be lost without the telepromter and daily talking points.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Agreed, bt! And they wonder why today's 'women' get a bad rap!
May 27, 2009 - 20:30 ET by Cape ConservativeThey have taken 'rudeness' to a new level! I watch only the clips and that's more than enough for me to try to deal with ;-)
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise known as a RWRE!! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
OHH, The SWEET irony of this discussion w/ Sotomayor's ruling
May 27, 2009 - 17:40 ET by krendleron the firefighters case.
Is she really the best available (anywhere close even?), or is she simply the "correct" race and sex?
Like Obama, people seem to be really, really excited for one specific reason: Her ethnicity.
Merit, along with capitalism, has become a four-letter word with the left and the MSM.
I wonder what other countries like, say, Japan think of the never-ending freak show of political correctness and identity politics that U.S. has turned into.
"I wonder what other
May 27, 2009 - 19:52 ET by UpNorth"I wonder what other countries like, say, Japan think of the never-ending freak show of political correctness and identity politics that U.S. has turned into". Well, we've seen what North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Columbia, Russia and some other states think of our "freak show".
Until the last gun is fired
May 27, 2009 - 17:59 ET by motherbeltUntil the last gun is fired (or last dog is hung) they are going to be saying she was picked not because she is a woman, or a Latina, but because she was the best qualified.
And as soon as she is confirmed, they will switch to how wonderful it is to have an Hispanic woman on the Court at last!
Buchanan is right. To say that the four most qualified candidates were all women is laughable on its face. And to say that being a woman was NOT one of the criteria is even more ridiculous.
Sure, Norah, I believe that in this whole country, there was no one more qualified to be on SCOTUS than a judge considered by some of her colleagues to be "not terribly bright."
To mangle Mark Twain: Liars, damned liars, and hypocrites!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Pat's statement will probably make the front pages
May 27, 2009 - 20:36 ET by Cape Conservative- after all, only white males have NO right to address prejudices! My two sons (white) have endured being put at the back of the line their entire working careers!
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise known as a RWRE!! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
It seemed like Norah was working for the White House.
May 27, 2009 - 17:54 ET by superconHer lips were moving but I was hearing Robert Gibbs.
Hey Janet Napolitano...I'm proud to be a Right-winger.
Is She the First Hispanic?
May 27, 2009 - 18:24 ET by slickwillie2001Some say Justice Benjamin Cardozo was the first hispanic justice, from 1932 to 1938: First Hispanic Justice? Some Say it was Cardozo: http://www.onenewsnow.com
But we understand this game. The liberals don't really count Justice Clarence Thomas as a 'real' black man. Why would they accept Cardozo as hispanic?
→ It gets confusing
May 27, 2009 - 18:34 ET by Cool ArrowI think Puerto Rico is considered "latino" while mexican is "hispanic"
We are probably totally trashing some identities with our ignorance, but I'm sure the MSM will straighten us out in the coming days.
Then again, I didn't know Bill Clinton was black, so what do I know.
It's not that
May 27, 2009 - 21:49 ET by danebramageCA, they're using "latina" a lot in this case for a reason: to avoid the Miguel Estrada objection. If they keep talking about the "first hispanic" to do this and that, they leave the door open for conservatives to bring up Estrada. But if they exploit the gender distinction in Spanish nouns, they can talk about the "first latina" and not be subject to such objections since Estrada is not female.
Hispsnic
May 28, 2009 - 12:28 ET by SpoonHispanic is a made up race. It just means "Spanish" in Latin. It wasn't even used as a catagory until the 1970 census.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic
(I know, wiki - I hate referencing it too, but I do when it's not about ideology)
Much of the government includes "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race" as Hispanic. By this, Justice Benjamin Cardozo was the first hispanic justice. But he doesn't count, because then Sotomayor wouldn't be historic. How convenient.
So what's the deal? Cultures count, too, not just race, gender, and religion? Yay! I'm a minority! I may be a white male, but I'm also English and Dutch. I'm sure less than 50% of Americans are of English origin, and far fewer Dutch, so where's my catagory? I want affirmative action. If the next job I apply to has too many people of French origin, I should sue them?
We can't stop discrimination if we keep making up new classes of victim minorities. Every application for jobs, school, or benefits/welfare/handouts should have the 'race' section scrubbed. Hell, let's leave off gender as well.
Or how about Section A has your name, gender, race, fetishes, pets, nicknames - anything you want. Section B has your grades, work experience, degrees, etc. Separate the sections, Human Resources looks at Section B, decides who should be hired or interviewed if necessary, and then matches it up with Section A.
I know, it's got it's drawbacks. But then who could ever question if someone got where they were through Affirmative Action and not their merits?
VERY SOUND SUGGESTIONS, Spoon!
May 31, 2009 - 19:53 ET by Cape ConservativeThis comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise known as a RWRE!! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
unaware
May 28, 2009 - 03:15 ET by bknownstApparently Pat has yet to realize that white American males are the most dicriminated against segment of society. Can anyone name 1 group who does not get preferential treatment over them?
Our soldiers. White men
May 28, 2009 - 06:46 ET by ThisnThatOur soldiers. White men aren't spat upon when they come home from work, nor are they generally accused of being murderers by Congressmen.
___________________________________
Liberals constantly demand that we accept a glaring falsehood as truth; Obama's elimination of the word "terror" will make terrorist acts less terrifying
Someone wipe that smerk off the Libs Face
May 28, 2009 - 09:55 ET by UtherpendSmug looking SOB, Buchanan should of called him Robert Gibbs a a few times and watch his reaction.
"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security."
whora
May 28, 2009 - 13:09 ET by east tennessee johnWell whora, brillant analysis. I thought equal opportunity and color blindness applied to all, not just everyone but white males. "making up for past injustices" by being being unjust is what Dr. Thomas Sowell calls, racism under new management. How can you even justify this, moron. That's like saying to be a female on air news reader at MSDNC, you have to pass Bubba's training school for interns. Are you this stupid or is it an act?
Does anyone here really
May 29, 2009 - 00:18 ET by RR GOPDoes anyone here really care about the race or the gender of a possible Supreme Court Justice?
How about someone who's just qualified and as impartial as humanly possible.
I suppose that's too much to ask.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
I'm afraid you're right, RR - it's too much to ask!
May 31, 2009 - 19:56 ET by Cape ConservativeSo much for BLIND JUSTICE!
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise known as a RWRE!! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams