From Mediamatters: What would Pat Buchanan have to say to get himself fired from MSNBC? — The media debate over Sotomayor has provided a depressing reminder of what does happen to prominent white men who make racist, sexist, and homophobic comments: MSNBC, among others, puts them on payroll and trots them out to opine on matters of race and gender.
MSNBC’s history in this regard is well-known. The cable channel gave Michael Savage his own television show, and then had to fire him when he told a caller to “get AIDS and die.” It gave Don Imus a television show, and then had to fire him when he called members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos.”
But through it all, MSNBC has continued to employ Pat Buchanan, despite a long record — which he builds on frequently — of bigoted speech. Throughout his time in public life, Buchanan has engaged in speech characteristic of an era in which open prejudice was the norm. And yet no one in the mainstream media bats an eye over the fact that he continues to enjoy a position of influence and prestige on what is increasingly — though not convincingly — described as a “liberal” cable channel.
Buchanan has used his position at MSNBC to lead the charge against Sotomayor with dishonest and often unhinged diatribes against the nominee. He even offered an ugly and misleading attack on her for doing exactly what he has always claimed to want non-native English speakers in America to do: practice their English language skills. [ READ MORE ]
Senate Republicans – who espouse virtually the same views as that of their influential talk show brethren — minus the most incendiary language – have failed to denounce their hate and ultra-nationalist demagoguery. Implicit in their arguments is that the decisions by white male Supreme Court Justices have always been fair and infallible, while the continued attempts to right the nation’s wrongs – by activists or judges – constitute bias and even racism. By opposing her these past two months with inflammatory rhetoric, they have gravely poisoned relations with this expanding demographic group, ironically ensuring that the GOP will be remanded to the status of minority party for at least the next generation. Regardless of what obstacles are put in her way, Sonia Sotomayor will be the next Supreme Court Justice. If there are to be any casualties, it will be the GOP, not her.
By: Roberto Dr. Cintli Rodriguez Nine years into the new millennium and conservatives and Republicans — with straight faces – insist that it is they that should define the nation’s racial debate and that it is their views that are fair and objective and part of the U.S. mainstream. Nowhere is this fallacy more evident than in their incomprehensible opposition to Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In their upside-down world, extreme conservatives, including the entire right wing talk show universe, have gone from defending racial supremacy – from opposing integration and the precepts of “equality and justice for all” to abrogating for themselves the right to give meaning to the very words and terms of this debate. Interestingly, Senate Republicans – who espouse virtually the same views as that of their influential talk show brethren — minus the most incendiary language – have failed to denounce their hate and ultra-nationalist demagoguery.
For instance, Sen. Jeff Sessions’ questioning of Sotomayor regarding her supposed biases, and the Republican demand that she be neutral, is mind-boggling. Lest we forget (aside from his own documented extreme racial views), it is “objectivity” that permitted the U.S. Supreme Court for nearly 200 years to uphold legal segregation and discrimination. Implicit in their arguments is that the decisions by white male Supreme Court Justices have always been fair and infallible, while the continued attempts to right the nation’s wrongs – by activists or judges – constitute bias and even racism.
In addition to a history refresher course, many of these Republicans and conservatives are in need of an English dictionary. They also need to pay a visit to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website to learn who the racists are and what kinds of supremacist ideologies they espouse and carry out.
None of those that have denounced Sotomayor as a “racist” – such as Newt Gingrich – are in line to win a Nobel Peace Prize for their work on race relations any time soon. And yet, more incredible is that the mainstream media continually turn to extremist talking heads for their opinions on the topic, virtually granting them an imprimatur of impartiality and fairness.
The Republican conservative effort to keep Sotomayor off the bench seems like a bizarre murder-suicide plot. Regardless of what obstacles are put in her way, she will be the next Supreme Court Justice. If there are to be any casualties, it will be the GOP, not her. She is a twice-Senate-confirmed moderate judge with 17 years of judicial experience, not the flaming radical they project her to be. She is Boricua or Puerto Rican – part of a demographic (Latino/Latina) that is both growing and has the potential to lean either Democratic or Republican.
What GOP leaders haven’t figured out is that, symbolically, Sotomayor represents this generation’s Jackie Robinson. If they had wanted to broaden their political tent, they could have celebrated her nomination, thereby projecting a welcoming party. Instead, they have questioned her impartiality and more importantly, her integrity. By opposing her these past two months with inflammatory rhetoric, they have gravely poisoned relations with this expanding demographic group, ironically ensuring that the GOP will be remanded to the status of minority party for at least the next generation.
GOP leaders have the right to oppose her; the problem is that they have failed to do so respectfully and have failed to denounce the dehumanizing views of their extreme right wing brethren. Many Republicans/conservatives have not simply defamed her, they have also unjustifiably denigrated both the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) – respected civil rights organizations she has associated with as a professional.
In the case of the NCLR, the anti-immigrant ex-Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo has likened it to the KKK. This is both bizarre and beyond intellectually dishonest.
This attempt by extreme conservatives to redefine the meaning of terms such as “racists” either reveals an Orwellian strategy to upend the meaning of words, or it reveals complete political illiteracy and/or lunacy. The consequence is that the GOP continues to send off the message that it is the party of the past, the party of greed, permanent war, hate, intolerance and racial supremacy. Also, because many conservatives equate illegal alien with Mexican (or Latino) and who view both as vermin and subhuman – the GOP already has a huge [recruitment] problem among these groups.
The failure of its leaders to disassociate from those extreme views means that this is the way the GOP will be perceived, long after Sotomayor dons her new Supreme Court robes.
————————————————————————————————————————————————- Rodriguez columns appear at New America Media approximately the 1st and 15th of the month.
Roberto Dr. Cintli Rodriguez, an assistant professor at the University of Arizona, can be reached at: XColumn@gmail.com
[ NOTES ] – Eric Deggans: I’ve figured out what annoys me most about the media circus that has erupted in the wake of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. It’s not watching a long procession of white males — and a few females — dissect what Sotomayor meant when she said eight years ago that she hopes a Latina would make better legal decisions about discrimination cases than a white male.
What irks me most, is what happens whenever race surfaces as an issue in politics: white politicians and pundits pretend their race and culture have no impact on their sensibilities. Why does the term “identity politics” only surface when people of color voice their concerns about stereotyping and institutional bias? [ READ MORE ]
The candidates have been courting this essential voting bloc, including speeches this week to La Raza. One thing is clear: Latinos will not be ignored.
The Latino radio talk show host next to me quipped, “So they’re friends now?”
“Yeah,” I joked. “That’s how you know neither of them is Latino. We’ll hold a grudge for 500 years.”
Latinos aren’t known to forgive and forget. And that’s a problem for John McCain, who spoke Monday. The presumptive Republican nominee has put at risk decades of support from Latino voters in Arizona because of the perception he flip-flopped on immigration. Whereas once he talked about the need for a comprehensive approach that includes giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, he now calls first for securing the border.
But for many Latinos, it’s not just what McCain says that is the problem. It’s why he says it. He’s clearly attempting to placate the nativist fringe of the GOP. So the message that Latinos take away is that the Arizona senator is a fair-weather friend.
A foolhardy strategy
McCain is on a fool’s errand. The nativists detest him for, among other things, calling them nativist. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum tried to torpedo McCain in the Republican primaries by revealing that, in a private meeting with GOP senators during the immigration debate, McCain scolded his colleagues for being “xenophobic.” He told them that by being tough on the borders, many Latinos would see it as a racist attack, and he was right. Now many Latinos see McCain as bending under pressure. They want a guarantee that, if elected, it’ll be the old McCain that tackles immigration reform.
“I never ask any special privileges from anyone just for having done the right thing,” McCain said. “Doing my duty to my country is its own reward. But I do ask for your trust that when I say that I remain committed to fair, practical and comprehensive immigration reform, I mean it.” That straight talk also drew a strong crowd response. Latinos value loyalty, and many are inclined to stay loyal to McCain.
Many people around the country were probably watching to see how the presidential candidates handled their appearances before the nation’s largest and perhaps most controversial Latino advocacy group. I’d call it a draw.
The irony is that, for U.S.-born Hispanics in particular, immigration is just one issue. They tell pollsters they care about Iraq, the economy, education and health care, just like other Americans. But with the immigration debate so heated and the national mood so ugly, Hispanics are more intensely interested in the issue than they were a few years ago when the waters were calm. In fact, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a majority of Hispanics say immigration is a top issue that will influence their votes in November.
La Raza’s mission
As part of that ugliness, the candidates have been criticized for even bothering to court Latino voters. CNN’s Lou Dobbs regularly blasts La Raza as a “socio-ethnocentric organization.” Apparently, the phrase refers to anyone who stands up to fear-mongers who seek attention – and ratings – by setting off cultural alarm bells and poisoning race relations.
If anything, La Raza has been too corporate, too cautious and too co-opted by Fortune 500 companies seeking an entrée into the $800 billion-a-year Latino market. When its leaders needed to be raising hell, they were raising corporate donations and foundation dollars and steering clear of controversies that could put either in jeopardy.
President and CEO Janet Murguia, who took the reins a few years ago, has been more aggressive in defense of Hispanics. In April, Murguia informed the National Press Club that the immigration debate had turned hateful and that all Hispanics – even the 80% who are U.S. citizens or legal residents – are feeling the backlash. Murguia vowed, “We will not be demonized. We will not be scapegoated. And we will not be ignored.”
Given recent events, I’d say there is little chance of that.
About The Author: Ruben Navarrette is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group. Ruben is a fresh voice on political and social issues who challenges readers to think in new ways — His twice-weekly column offers new thinking on many of the major issues of the day, especially on thorny questions involving ethnicity and national origin….[MORE >>]
SAN DIEGO – During Barack Obama’s speech to the 
About The Author: Ruben Navarrette is a member of the editorial board of the 
