Adventures in "debating"

Rachel Maddow had Pat Buchanan on her show recently to excoriate him for opposing Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court -- oops! -- I mean, to discuss his opposition to Sotomayor's nomination, that is.

You see, in the world of the Left, excoriation is called "debating". For example, look at the heading of the linked article, which is a transcript of Maddow's and Buchanan's "debate". The heading reads, On her show recently, Rachel Maddow showed just how dated and racist conservative whining about affirmative action and "reverse discrimination" is.

Except that Maddow never shows that such is the case. "Show" -- when spoken by most competent users of the English language -- generally means "demonstrate", and nowhere does Maddow demonstrate how conservatives are whining, let alone how such alleged whining is either "racist" or "dated". Maddow asserts and implies that such is the case several times, and mocks Buchanan for claiming otherwise.

For example, Maddow tries to make hay out of the fact that over 99% of Supreme Court justices being white. When Buchanan responds that America as a country was made up almost entirely of whites during that time (to the point that, even in the '60s, whites were about 90% of the population), Maddow ridicules his response. She talks about how great it is to have nonwhites in such important positions. She never answers his factual assertion.

And then the dittoheads over at AlterNet declare her the undisputed victor.

To Liberals, apparently, this is called debating.