Limbaugh Stuck on Fail

Because it was so successful last time around, Rush Limbaugh’s doubling down on that “failure” meme that has won him so much praise, and converted so many fence-sitters to the conservative cause. (Not.)

Now he wants Sonia Sotomayor to fail too.

“Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She’d be a disaster on the court,” he said. “Do I still want to Obama to fail as president? Yeah. … He’s going to fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country.”

I don’t really understand why Rush Limbaugh and social conservatives like Mike Huckabee are so opposed to Sotomayor; you’d think they would be pleased by rulings like this:

Abortion

In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration’s implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations”. Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government “is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds”.

Jump to bottom

1160 comments
1 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:55:06pm

I've already forgotten which person first popularized the "stuck on fail" meme? Lil help?

2 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:55:18pm

She is an Obama appointee, so they have to want her to fail.

Even if McCain had been elected Rush would be leading the UBER-Right charge.

3 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:55:38pm

It was a general in the early Iraq war describing the insurgents. Right?

4 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:56:40pm

re: #3 zombie

It was a general in the early Iraq war describing the insurgents. Right?

Could have been the Generals describing Rumsfeld's post invasion strategy as well.

5 Ben Hur  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:57:27pm

Because she's a liberal and he's a conservative?

6 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:57:33pm

re: #3 zombie

It was a general in the early Iraq war describing the insurgents. Right?

Actually, that quote was "stuck on stupid."

7 SpartanWoman  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:57:36pm

I think it's Obama who's failing
1 failing to repair the economy
2 failing on the international arena
3 failing to uphold anything remotely approaching ethical standards

8 Kragar  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:57:53pm

A note to Rush and the GOP.

Quit preaching doom and failure and instead try saying what you would do and how you would fix things. Any idiot can simply say NO all the time. Try providing an alternative.

Thanks.

9 KenJen  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:58:09pm

re: #3 zombie

It was a general in the early Iraq war describing the insurgents. Right?

Are you thinking stuck on stupid?

10 Kragar  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:58:31pm

re: #1 zombie

I've already forgotten which person first popularized the "stuck on fail" meme? Lil help?

Stuck on Stupid from the General to the reporter during the Katrina recovery.

11 _RememberTonyC  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:58:47pm

Judge Sotomayor WILL be confirmed .... the GOP can't stop it and they need to understand the political trap they're falling into if they persist in attacking her.

They need to make her defend her record and probe whatever problems they find. But that is it. This game is over.

If the GOP wants to kiss off the latino vote for the next 25 years, by all means keep attacking a woman that Hispanics see as a role model.

12 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:59:01pm

re: #8 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A note to Rush and the GOP.

Quit preaching doom and failure and instead try saying what you would do and how you would fix things. Any idiot can simply say NO all the time. Try providing an alternative.

Thanks.

We had 8 years of it from the Left already, the doom and gloom and the sky is falling. Why is articulating something positive so hard?

13 Bloodnok  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:59:07pm

He sounds like a whiny brat. And I haven't heard his alternatives to failure or any desire to help (if damage to the US is such a concern to him).

14 laxmatt1984  Wed, May 27, 2009 1:59:24pm

I certainly want her to fail in receiving confirmation.

Wanting the other side to fail is inherent in American politics. You want the other party to fail to win an election. You want the other party to fail in implementing their policies. I don't understand why this is controversial.

15 shifty  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:00:04pm

I'd spew the same crap for hundreds of millions of dollars.

16 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:00:22pm
I don’t really understand why Rush Limbaugh and social conservatives like Mike Huckabee are so opposed to Sotomayor

I oppose her because she seems inordinately focused on racial politics and grievance theater, and has no problem with overtly setting policy from the bench.

I'm sure she's a decent, intelligent person, and she's qualified to be nominated, experience-wise. And if she was rejected, Obama would just nominate someone probably even further left. So, let's just swallow the bitter pill -- Obama's the president, he's gonna nominate two or three Supreme Court justices -- and that's the way to cookie has crumbled. The world will turn, life goes on.

17 Honorary Consul General  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:00:40pm

I hope my liver fails. No, wait, nevermind.
/ need I?

18 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:00:45pm

re: #14 laxmatt1984

I certainly want her to fail in receiving confirmation.

Wanting the other side to fail is inherent in American politics. You want the other party to fail to win an election. You want the other party to fail in implementing their policies. I don't understand why this is controversial.

Reagan didn't harp on wanting Dems and their policies to fail, his message was how to make America and American succeed. And lo and behold people listened.

19 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:00:51pm

Forgive me, but that does not seem like a very strong "pro-anit-abortion" ruling that Rush "should be happy about". The ruling basically seems to say, "a pres. is allowed to use public funds to favor abortion or be against it". Which mutes either argument. She also thought it government's place to get involved in the baseball strike, which is stupid.

20 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:01:01pm

re: #14 laxmatt1984

I certainly want her to fail in receiving confirmation.

Wanting the other side to fail is inherent in American politics. You want the other party to fail to win an election. You want the other party to fail in implementing their policies. I don't understand why this is controversial.

It sounds whiny. There are better ways to do what I assume Limbaugh is trying to do.

21 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:01:04pm

re: #14 laxmatt1984

I certainly want her to fail in receiving confirmation.

Wanting the other side to fail is inherent in American politics. You want the other party to fail to win an election. You want the other party to fail in implementing their policies. I don't understand why this is controversial.

And I don't understand why so many people can't see that saying you want the President to fail is disastrously bad politics.

22 quickslow87  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:01:09pm

An optimistic outlook would help the Republicans a lot.

23 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:01:16pm

"pro-anti-abortion"
PIMF

24 Mike McDaniel  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:01:18pm

Conservatives are opposed to her because she believes in the rule of laywers, not the rule of law. And has said so quite publicly, backing it with deeds.

Conservatives believe very deeply in the rule of law. The lack of it - the ceding of absolute authority to any politician who can get 50%+1 of the vote - is a recipe for disaster. Take a look at the entire Twentieth Century for examples.

25 Guanxi88  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:01:21pm

re: #15 shifty

I'd spew the same crap for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Hell, I'd do it for $20 bucks a day and expenses.

26 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:01:36pm

Don't we need a Latina's rich heritage on the high court to make rulings that are more empathetic than those of a white man?

27 bkgodfrey  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:01:42pm

re: #11 _RememberTonyC

Oppose her for whatever means, but to say to do it in order to get the Latino vote is absurd. You should turn off the cable news channels every once in a while and think for yourself. What about all the steps the GOP has done to gain the Latino/Hispanic vote, ie. running as their candidate the head of the latest amnesty push?

28 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:01:44pm

re: #6 Charles

Actually, that quote was "stuck on stupid."

Ah, that's right. And "stuck on fail" is a subsequent variation. My memory is being jogged!

re: #10 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Stuck on Stupid from the General to the reporter during the Katrina recovery.

Bingo! That's it. What was his name?

29 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:02:04pm

re: #21 Charles

And I don't understand why so many people can't see that saying you want the President to fail is disastrously bad politics.

We saw it when the Left did it for 8 years; but now that we are in the forest we can't see any trees.

30 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:02:14pm

re: #24 Mike McDaniel

Conservatives are opposed to her because she believes in the rule of laywers, not the rule of law. And has said so quite publicly, backing it with deeds.

Where did she say that?

31 Spare O'Lake  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:02:20pm

I am stuck on stupid,
'Cause stupid's stuck on me.

32 laxmatt1984  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:02:39pm

re: #21 Charles

I would agree that the rhetoric can always be improved, but the central idea remains the same.

33 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:03:06pm

re: #29 FurryOldGuyJeans

We saw it when the Left did it for 8 years; but now that we are in the forest we can't see any trees.

The left doing it resulted apparently in a leftist house, leftist senate, leftist white house, and now a leftist supreme court justice.

34 Guanxi88  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:03:09pm

re: #28 zombie

Bingo! That's it. What was his name?

Can't think of his name; Creole gentleman (no, really!); heard him speak a few years ago down in New Orleans.

35 Eowyn2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:03:11pm

re: #14 laxmatt1984

I certainly want her to fail in receiving confirmation.

Wanting the other side to fail is inherent in American politics. You want the other party to fail to win an election. You want the other party to fail in implementing their policies. I don't understand why this is controversial.

Although true, I would rather the Rep party came out with a platform that people could get behind.

"a little T&A goes a long way - No More Tax & Appropriate."

36 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:03:16pm

re: #25 Guanxi88

Hell, I'd do it for $20 bucks a day and expenses.

You sound a lot like Geo. Washington when he was President. Congress insisted on a salary when they got the expenses bill.

37 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:03:41pm

re: #21 Charles

And I don't understand why so many people can't see that saying you want the President to fail is disastrously bad politics.

Well it does sound a bit ridiculous to legitimately reject the bad policies of Obama and yet cheer him on to succeed.

38 _RememberTonyC  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:03:48pm

re: #27 bkgodfrey

Oppose her for whatever means, but to say to do it in order to get the Latino vote is absurd. You should turn off the cable news channels every once in a while and think for yourself. What about all the steps the GOP has done to gain the Latino/Hispanic vote, ie. running as their candidate the head of the latest amnesty push?


Do you know any Latinos? Are any Latinos your friends? I can answer yes to those questions. So my feelings are based on real life experiences, not some TV talking head.

39 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:03:54pm

re: #14 laxmatt1984

I certainly want her to fail in receiving confirmation.

Wanting the other side to fail is inherent in American politics. You want the other party to fail to win an election. You want the other party to fail in implementing their policies. I don't understand why this is controversial.

The problem is in the negative terminology. Yes, every side wants the other side in any conflict to "fail," but a smart politician or pundit reverses the "framing" and tries to use language that isn't so easily misconstrued.

40 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:04:29pm

re: #28 zombie

Bingo! That's it. What was his name?

Lt. Gen. Russel Honore.

41 Guanxi88  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:04:33pm

re: #36 FurryOldGuyJeans

You sound a lot like Geo. Washington when he was President. Congress insisted on a salary when they got the expenses bill.

I was sorta channeling Marlowe, but I'll take the Presidential upgrade.

42 KenJen  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:04:36pm

re: #14 laxmatt1984

I certainly want her to fail in receiving confirmation.

Wanting the other side to fail is inherent in American politics. You want the other party to fail to win an election. You want the other party to fail in implementing their policies. I don't understand why this is controversial.

If she fails confirmation (she wont) guess who gets to pick the next nominee? and the next. and the next. He's not going to pick a conservative judge. EVER. Let's just get it over with and move on. We can start to worry when O gets to replace a conservative justice.

43 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:04:48pm

re: #33 kansas

The left doing it resulted apparently in a leftist house, leftist senate, leftist white house, and now a leftist supreme court justice.

Republicans failed to provide a well articulated alternative, and spent money like they were Democrats.

44 _RememberTonyC  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:04:56pm

re: #34 Guanxi88

Can't think of his name; Creole gentleman (no, really!); heard him speak a few years ago down in New Orleans.

Russell Honore ... now works for CNN

45 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:05:23pm

re: #37 Russkilitlover

Well it does sound a bit ridiculous to legitimately reject the bad policies of Obama and yet cheer him on to succeed.

You don't have to "cheer him on," but my point stands -- it's incredibly stupid politics to wish out loud for your opponent to fail. It's a major turn-off to a lot of people.

46 bkgodfrey  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:05:55pm

re: #38 _RememberTonyC

As a matter of fact yes, several in fact. But how is opposing this woman going to hurt the GOP anymore than if they did not? They received zero credit for any of the other minorities appointed to office under Republican administrations, correct?

47 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:06:10pm

re: #43 FurryOldGuyJeans

Republicans failed to provide a well articulated alternative, and spent money like they were Democrats.

Republicans got the living shit bashed out of them by the MSM. They will never be able to provide a well articulated anything when they don't have an outlet.

48 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:06:54pm

re: #37 Russkilitlover

Well it does sound a bit ridiculous to legitimately reject the bad policies of Obama and yet cheer him on to succeed.

I want America to succeed. Wishing failure on the man who is the leader is not a sound way to achieve success for the country as a whole.

49 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:07:07pm

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Laws, laws, I don't need no stinking laws.

50 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:07:09pm

re: #40 DEZes

Lt. Gen. Russel Honore.

Thank you!

His name will go down in history as the creator of a neologism. A rare honor[e]!

51 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:07:31pm

re: #39 zombie

The problem is in the negative terminology. Yes, every side wants the other side in any conflict to "fail," but a smart politician or pundit reverses the "framing" and tries to use language that isn't so easily misconstrued.

I agree. I also think that Rush is pushing buttons here - it always gets a rise out of his detractors. I don't think there is a person - fan or not - who thinks that Rush wants the country to fail. Most people are bright enough to figure out his hyperbole on this. Well, maybe not "most" people, there is that whole 52% that voted Obama.

52 SpartanWoman  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:07:51pm

re: #21 Charles

And I don't understand why so many people can't see that saying you want the President to fail is disastrously bad politics.

Certainly helped the dems when they criticized Bush non-stop, pronounced the war a failure, and talked down the economy (while busily passing legislation to make it worse CRA). They swept to victory. Not exactly a disaster for them was it?

53 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:07:53pm

re: #47 kansas

Republicans got the living shit bashed out of them by the MSM. They will never be able to provide a well articulated anything when they don't have an outlet.

That was the case with Reagan, and yet he overcame it.

54 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:07:54pm

re: #48 FurryOldGuyJeans

I want America to succeed. Wishing failure on the man who is the leader is not a sound way to achieve success for the country as a whole.

Neither was electing him.

55 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:08:12pm

re: #49 kansas

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Laws, laws, I don't need no stinking laws.

That quote is drastically out of context. We went over and over this yesterday, but of course, it didn't matter.

56 brent  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:08:37pm

The only things that will resonate with voters here are her decisions on eminent domain and reverse discrimination - make her defend those and move on. Ask hard questions and let her talk to Americans face to face, that's going to influence some voters. Then smile and congratulate her.

If you beat her up ala Bork and Thomas, the right will lose a lot of Hispanic votes, although I can't go so far as to say all or most... I do like the image of her having to overturn her own case(s) as an early duty of being a SCJ. Just my .02.

57 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:08:43pm

re: #48 FurryOldGuyJeans

I want America to succeed. Wishing failure on the man who is the leader is not a sound way to achieve success for the country as a whole.

I want to eat 2 dozen Krispy Kremes and drink 3 gallons of beer every day and lose weight.
How do you think that'll work out?

58 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:09:14pm

re: #54 CyanSnowHawk

Neither was electing him.

Now that is a different story, really. He's in charge now, no matter what we would have preferred.

59 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:09:17pm

re: #53 FurryOldGuyJeans

That was the case with Reagan, and yet he overcame it.

I don't recall it that way.

60 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:09:33pm

Rush thinks he's the H.L. Mencken of the age. Chortle.

Father Coughlin, more like.

Wait and see.

61 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:09:58pm

re: #52 SpartanWoman

Certainly helped the dems when they criticized Bush non-stop, pronounced the war a failure, and talked down the economy (while busily passing legislation to make it worse CRA). They swept to victory. Not exactly a disaster for them was it?

Barack Obama ran on a platform of sheer positive messages. Not once did he wish for the other side to fail. You're just wrong to claim that negativity is winning strategy. One of the big reasons why Obama won was because he did NOT go negative -- ever.

62 obscured by clouds  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:10:04pm

re: #14 laxmatt1984

You want the other party to fail in implementing their policies. I don't understand why this is controversial.

It's only "controversial" if a Republican's doing it. I mean...how can anyone on the opposite side of the aisle "offer something positive" when talking about a Supreme Court nominee? Does anyone have any examples of this ever happening, historically? Just askin'.

The Democrats kicked, clawed, and scratched to thwart Bush at absolutely every turn and now they get the high ground and the Republicans are to be expected to just lie down? For fear of being "stuck on fail?" If that's the big idea count me out.

63 nikis-knight  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:10:13pm

re: #39 zombie

The problem is in the negative terminology. Yes, every side wants the other side in any conflict to "fail," but a smart politician or pundit reverses the "framing" and tries to use language that isn't so easily misconstrued.


Yeah, it sounds bad to say you want Obama to fail.

Of course, it isn't wrong to hope so, since, though commonly overlooked, Obama isn't the country. He doesn't even run the country, he runs the government.
Where his goals are counter to the good of the nation, politicians and opinion makers should work to thwart (cause the failure of) them; where his goals are not, they should work to support them.
The language one uses when discussing it, though, should be considered on a tactical level.

64 bkgodfrey  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:10:33pm

re: #55 Charles

Was her comment about using the courts to make policy taken out of context?

65 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:10:37pm

re: #56 brent

The only things that will resonate with voters here are her decisions on eminent domain......

Was she a judge in the egregious Connecticut eminent domain decision? I know her circuit covered CT.

66 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:10:38pm

re: #57 kansas

I want to eat 2 dozen Krispy Kremes and drink 3 gallons of beer every day and lose weight.
How do you think that'll work out?

Oppose the man's policies and target individual decisions, don't issue a blank condemnation of anything and everything the man does.

67 _RememberTonyC  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:10:40pm

re: #46 bkgodfrey

As a matter of fact yes, several in fact. But how is opposing this woman going to hurt the GOP anymore than if they did not? They received zero credit for any of the other minorities appointed to office under Republican administrations, correct?


In a high profile hearing, televised and watched by many Latinos, any unfair attacks on the Judge will be seen as an attack on a member of the "family." She should receive tough but fair questions. And maybe she'll even have to squirm a bit under the spotlight as she defends her previous rulings. But this game is over ... she WILL be confirmed because the Dems have the votes. Fighting a battle you can win makes sense. Fighting a battle you CAN'T win makes none.

68 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:11:22pm

re: #61 Charles

Barack Obama ran on a platform of sheer positive messages. Not once did he wish for the other side to fail. You're just wrong to claim that negativity is winning strategy. One of the big reasons why Obama won was because he did NOT go negative -- ever.

"The failed policies of the past 8 years....." Heard over and over and over and over and over again during his campaign.

69 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:11:23pm

re: #55 Charles

That quote is drastically out of context. We went over and over this yesterday, but of course, it didn't matter.

Sotomayor's own words: 'A Latina judge's voice'

By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

Liberal Democrats rushing to the defense of Sonia Sotomayor really ought to read her own words on how her gender and Latina background have affected her decisions as a judge.

Right now, Sotomayor's friends are scrambling to explain and defend her controversial comment from a 2002 speech:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

(Here is a site that discusses the speech and links to Sotomayor's 2002 speech. "A Latina judge's voice." It's good background for the coming confirmation fight.)

Two questions:

-- Was Sotomayor's by-now infamous quote taken out of context?

No, the quote -- while one of the strongest ones in Sotomayor's speech -- is not really being taken out of context by her GOP opponents.

-- Was there a deeper point Sotomayor wanted to make, one that doesn't make her appear to be so prejudiced against white males?

Yes, Sotomayor made a number of other germane points in the speech.

Many were aimed at how few judges of color and women judges were serving in the country at the time. She also talked about how judges of color and women judges likely looked at the law in different ways than white men. She criticized some decisions made by all-male Supreme Courts of the past.

All in all, the speech offers a fairly clear view of Sotomayor's thinking -- albeit from seven years ago.

Have those views changed since then? U.S. senators ought to ask that question during her confirmation.

70 researchok  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:11:44pm

Interesting look at Sotomayor's track record.

Some left leaning decisions, some that lean to the right.

71 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:12:30pm

re: #31 Spare O'Lake

I am stuck on stupid,
'Cause stupid's stuck on me.

Sounds vaguely like some song I heard in the mid or late-Fifties.

72 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:12:42pm

re: #64 bkgodfrey

Was her comment about using the courts to make policy taken out of context?


[Video]

Yes, absolutely. Just listen to the video. She immediately qualifies the statement to say that appeals courts do not make laws.

And it seems completely uncontroversial to me to say that court decisions influence public policy. Of course they do.

73 laxmatt1984  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:12:50pm

re: #61 Charles

Oh come on there's no way you believe what you just wrote.

74 nikis-knight  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:12:54pm

re: #42 KenJen

If she fails confirmation (she wont) guess who gets to pick the next nominee? and the next. and the next. He's not going to pick a conservative judge. EVER. Let's just get it over with and move on. We can start to worry when O gets to replace a conservative justice.


Yes and no. I don't believe a filibuster here would be wise or moral. It would be very good to take this opportunity to, while acknowledging the lady's hard work and success, advance before the nation the case for judicial restraint and originalism in judicial appointees, then vote nay if she seems to have otherwise. Then when voted against, live with it.
And by no means treat her as nastily as the left treated Bork & Thomas, at the confirmation and since.

75 2by2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:13:22pm

re: #14 laxmatt1984

Immigrant voice (naturalized US citizen) here:
Isn't it more American to support the President, since he is after all the elected commander in chief, and if he fails (in the real sense of the word, not just his policies failing) doesn't our country fail with him?
I don't mean that he or his policies should not be criticized or scrutinized, but to wish that he fails, seems to evoke something apocalyptic. It also makes for bad politics, I agree with Zombie on that.
So while I voted for the competition and certainly have reservations specially regarding his foreign policies, I do wish that the president does well for his and my country.

76 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:13:25pm

re: #6 Charles

Actually, that quote was "stuck on stupid."

General Honore during the Katrina Hurricane

77 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:13:47pm

re: #70 researchok

Interesting look at Sotomayor's track record.

Some left leaning decisions, some that lean to the right.

Yep. If you look at her decisions, she's anything but a "far left activist judge," as the right is trying to portray her. She seems to be pretty centrist.

78 badger1970  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:13:48pm

Yes, being an BO appointee does make Rush wish a failure curse. OTOH, Sotomayor is all over the board when it comes to her decisions and rarely backs them up with a reasonable, logical, non-empathy argument. She does feel like an affirmative action hire. No reason to wish her to fail though.

79 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:14:04pm

re: #19 bosforus

...She also thought it government's place to get involved in the baseball strike, which is stupid.

Allow me to rescind this statement. With lawyers involved, a judge will inevitably make a decision. I don't know how much she really "thought it government's place to get involved".

80 Dianna  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:14:15pm

re: #3 zombie

No, it was the general in charge of the clean up after Katrina, and his phrase was "stuck on stupid."

Well, that didn't post. Huh.

81 samjohnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:14:15pm

Frankly, I appreciate Sotomayor's honesty about the way her own experience affects her legal reasoning. The fantasy of a purely objective legal reasoning is absurd. What I object to is her view of her subjectivity as a positive, rather than as something to be aware of and to not let interfere with her reasoning. She seems to think it a strength to give free rein to her personal experience. That's what troubles me as a conservative.

82 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:14:28pm

re: #49 kansas

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Laws, laws, I don't need no stinking laws.

I think that she is a bright woman, but that was a stupid thing to say as was that the Appealate Court sets policy.
She is a judicial activist as her ruling in the New Haven Case shows.
That is not a school of thought without supporters even though I don't like it. There is no real reason not to confirm her.

83 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:14:44pm

re: #73 laxmatt1984

Oh come on there's no way you believe what you just wrote.

So go ahead and show me where Barack Obama went negative during his campaign.

84 Vicious Babushka  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:14:47pm

re: #71 pre-Boomer Marine brat

Sounds vaguely like some song I heard in the mid or late-Fifties.

Band-aid jingle

85 bkgodfrey  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:15:01pm

Back to moving/packing for me. Enjoy the debate everyone.

86 Dianna  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:15:01pm

The whimpering sound you are hearing is me, as I run and hide from the meltdowns sure to come.

87 moonstone  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:15:07pm

re: #48 FurryOldGuyJeans

I want America to succeed. Wishing failure on the man who is the leader is not a sound way to achieve success for the country as a whole.

You're assuming America will continue to succeed under Obama's policies. I don't believe that it will, so I also want him to fail.

I don't mind saying that because I, like Rush Limbaugh, am not running for office.

88 quiet man  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:15:14pm

I think Rush was correct here. She is not someone that would be good for this country on the supreme court, and when he said he wanted Obama to fail, it was wanting him to fail if he took the country into socialism.

Reid wanted Bush and the US to fail in Iraq and he is an elected leader, unlike Rush who is a conservative who thinks Liberalism is hurting the country, yet elected only in the realm of ideas.

I do not want her there on the Supreme Court and I think Obama could look at someone who believes in the constitution instead of her gut feeling and her race memory.

89 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:15:26pm

re: #82 opnion

I think that she is a bright woman, but that was a stupid thing to say as was that the Appealate Court sets policy.
She is a judicial activist as her ruling in the New Haven Case shows.
That is not a school of thought without supporters even though I don't like it. There is no real reason not to confirm her.

Was she a judge in the infamous Connecticut eminent domaine case?

90 Ward Cleaver  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:15:41pm

re: #21 Charles

And I don't understand why so many people can't see that saying you want the President to fail is disastrously bad politics.

Especially when the MSM converts it from "I want Obama to fail" to "I want the country to fail".

I just don't want 0bama to succeed into turning us into another Venezuela or Argentina.

91 turn  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:15:47pm

re: #61 Charles

Barack Obama ran on a platform of sheer positive messages. Not once did he wish for the other side to fail. You're just wrong to claim that negativity is winning strategy. One of the big reasons why Obama won was because he did NOT go negative -- ever.

He didn't have to, practically everyone else and the MSM was carrying water for him. In their eyes he really was what Rush told Bernie "too big to fail." Personally I think Rush should probably tone it down but he is really getting traction with this, it sells. In a way, it's all about him.

92 Spare O'Lake  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:16:00pm

re: #55 Charles

That quote is drastically out of context. We went over and over this yesterday, but of course, it didn't matter.

I think even many Dems would probably agree that it was a stupid statement made during a partisan political speech, but no way is it gonna be a deal-breaker.

93 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:16:13pm

I would like to see Obama fail to implement some of his policies. But I do not wan to see Obama have a "failed presidency" as that would entail a disaster for America.

94 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:16:15pm

re: #82 opnion

I think that she is a bright woman, but that was a stupid thing to say as was that the Appealate Court sets policy.
She is a judicial activist as her ruling in the New Haven Case shows.
That is not a school of thought without supporters even though I don't like it. There is no real reason not to confirm her.

I'm sorry but I have been advised that quote is drastically out of context.

95 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:16:25pm

re: #77 Charles

Yep. If you look at her decisions, she's anything but a "far left activist judge," as the right is trying to portray her. She seems to be pretty centrist.

No one could withstand the scrutiny of media ticks no matter what side of the aisle the person is on.

96 Jetpilot1101  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:16:39pm

I think the Republicans would do well to go on the record with the policies they would inpliment if and when they return to power. I think a platform of fiscal conservatism, lower taxes, limited government and personal responsibility would gain traction especially as the economy continues to tread water. People want a positive message and one well documented by facts. This shrill cry of wanting Obama to fail is doing nothing but backfiring on the last vestiges of the Republican Party. It appears childish, petty and petulant. We all want adults in Washington right? Well, now is an excellent oppurtunity for the Republicans to step up and be adults. I'd like to hear some solutions; any Republicans willing to stand up?

97 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:16:50pm

re: #73 laxmatt1984

Oh come on there's no way you believe what you just wrote.

Yes, because Charles generally posts whatever randomly comes out of his fingers without first engaging his brain.

Get lost.

98 ointmentfly  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:16:52pm

I see Rush's context like he does - long term. For Obama to succeed and given his statement about who he wants on the court, means long term damage to the country in the long run. Yeah, he might throw enough money at the recession, but at what long term cost? Liberals are the kings of unintended consequences.....

99 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:16:59pm

re: #68 Russkilitlover

"The failed policies of the past 8 years....." Heard over and over and over and over and over again during his campaign.

He needed a contrasting background for his message of Hope and ChangeTM. There may be specific instances where he got off track, but Charles is right that Obama's campaign was overall on a positive track. One can hope that will change future campaigns for the better, but somehow I doubt it will happen.

100 big steve  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:17:15pm

re: #61 Charles

Barack Obama ran on a platform of sheer positive messages. Not once did he wish for the other side to fail. You're just wrong to claim that negativity is winning strategy. One of the big reasons why Obama won was because he did NOT go negative -- ever.

He did go a little negative on Hillary but we all cheered that on.

101 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:17:25pm

re: #87 moonstone

You're assuming America will continue to succeed under Obama's policies. I don't believe that it will, so I also want him to fail.

I don't mind saying that because I, like Rush Limbaugh, am not running for office.

I don't issue blanket condemnation against anyone. I hit specific policies for my scorn.

102 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:17:32pm

re: #94 kansas

I'm sorry but I have been advised that quote is drastically out of context.

It is.

103 quiet man  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:17:41pm

He has been diving deep into negative right now with everything being Bush's fault.

Plus, he didnt need to go negative..his cronies and the leftest media were doing that job

104 Ben Hur  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:17:41pm

I'd like to hear the Rush comment in context.

His show is 3 hours long.

105 brent  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:17:44pm

I believe she was involved with the appeals of an eminent domain case, not the big pharmaceutical mfr, but the investor steamrolled by the local government and their chosen developer. The gist of it was play ball with our developer and split your deal 50/50, or we'll foreclose your properties and make the deal ourselves.

She backed the local govt and the developer in a rather brusque fashion, not a good omen for business or private ownership in my book. Walgreens was the company, some 800K property deal - smallish peanuts, unless it's your 800K.

106 laxmatt1984  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:18:06pm

re: #83 Charles

Did you see the John McCain doesn't know how to use a computer ad?

How about the radio ads in Spanish that claimed John McCain had the same position on immigration as Rush Limbaugh (which McCain emphatically did not).

How about the whole campaign theme that McCain was "out of touch".

Or just take a look at this.

[Link: marcambinder.theatlantic.com...]

107 zeir  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:18:17pm

I wish Sotomayor talked more like Rosie Perez. It would make for a better hearing.

108 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:18:23pm

re: #88 quiet man

I think Rush was correct here. She is not someone that would be good for this country on the supreme court, and when he said he wanted Obama to fail, it was wanting him to fail if he took the country into socialism.

I agree. Has it ever been any secret that Rush does not like left-leaning policies? Of course he wants them and anyone who tries to implement them to fail in their implementation. It was an easily distort-able statement that I'm pretty sure he knew would be taken out of context.

109 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:18:27pm

re: #91 turn

He didn't have to, practically everyone else and the MSM was carrying water for him. In their eyes he really was what Rush told Bernie "too big to fail." Personally I think Rush should probably tone it down but he is really getting traction with this, it sells. In a way, it's all about him.

Precisely. He is a button pusher and this one gets a rise out of a lot of people - more voice time for him on the MSM, more listeners. He knows this, so he keeps pushing the buttons. Just take a look at comments here. People who don't even listen to him get their buttons pushed.

110 gymnast  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:18:29pm

Has Judge Sotomeyor, in and by her own words advocated racism and a racialist view of jurisprudence? There is no other answer than YES!

111 medaura18586  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:18:35pm
I don’t really understand why Rush Limbaugh and social conservatives like Mike Huckabee are so opposed to Sotomayor; you’d think they would be pleased by rulings like this:

That makes her the worst of both worlds to me, socially conservative on issues like abortion, yet a redistributionist economically, or at least, affirmative-action firm believer.

112 ointmentfly  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:18:42pm

re: #83 Charles

He was negative the whole campaign toward his 400 straw men....

113 Ward Cleaver  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:18:57pm

I just wish she had said, "different", rather than "better". It sounds a little condescending. To me, anyway.

114 nikis-knight  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:19:00pm

re: #72 Charles

Yes, absolutely. Just listen to the video. She immediately qualifies the statement to say that appeals courts do not make laws.

And it seems completely uncontroversial to me to say that court decisions influence public policy. Of course they do.

I've heard the audio; I think it is potentially troubling, but overall I agree with you and would give her the benefit of the doubt unless other evidence came up that made her words seem to be more in favor of aggressively changing law rather than deciding which way to fall in cases of ambiguity.

In the end, I'm very suspicious considering the source but have no influence so I don't need to decide now. I'll wait and see over time.

115 quiet man  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:20:22pm

re: #104 Ben Hur
CNN will not be giving the quote in context, doesnt follow their template.

It is obvious he is asking a directed question.

116 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:20:22pm

re: #104 Ben Hur

I'd like to hear the Rush comment in context.

His show is 3 hours long.

You're welcome to do that. My prejudice against wasted time kicks in at about five minutes.

Sort of like with buskers. They stand all day juggling firebrands or swallowing swords or miming a guy caught in a shrinking box.

That's Rush. I only need to see/hear it once to get the idea. Then I go on my way and leave the busker to his hat and coins.

117 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:20:24pm

re: #61 Charles

Barack Obama ran on a platform of sheer positive messages. Not once did he wish for the other side to fail. You're just wrong to claim that negativity is winning strategy. One of the big reasons why Obama won was because he did NOT go negative -- ever.

Mostly Obama had the media and PAC's to do the dirty negative stuff so he could stand there and look above it all. A nice pose. He did let it slip a few times, like this one:

A pig in lipstick

118 big steve  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:20:32pm

On balance with what I have seen on Sotomeyor versus we know what Souter did, I think we are all better off with her not him.

119 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:20:38pm

re: #104 Ben Hur

I'd like to hear the Rush comment in context.

His show is 3 hours long.

Heh. Good point.

120 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:20:40pm

And for those who are so fired up against Sotomeyer maybe it is time to do the legal and constitutional thing, tell your representatives you do not want her confirmed and on what grounds.

121 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:20:50pm

re: #94 kansas

I'm sorry but I have been advised that quote is drastically out of context.

The problem is, most honest jurists would admit that the courts do set policy. Every time a case is not clearly defined by a law, the judges apply a ruling that sets policy. They may define policy from a conservative or liberal prospective, but they do it.

122 Dianna  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:20:53pm

re: #90 Ward Cleaver

I just don't want 0bama to succeed into turning us into another Venezuela or Argentina.

Just needed to see that again. And again.

123 Eowyn2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:21:47pm

re: #59 kansas

I don't recall it that way.


the press did not like Reagan. However, the people did. The press begged his 1st wife (Jane Wyman) do dish the dirt but she remained a lady to the end. There were some that tried to get the kids going with the evil step mother routine and Nancy was preggo routine.

There was still some dignity in the campaigns for president at that time.
Now it is just a free for all.

124 quiet man  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:22:09pm

re: #113 Ward Cleaver
Yes but she did say better..and she meant it. If it were reversed, and Roberts or Alito had said that, the dems would be hopping mad and demanding another candidate

125 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:22:09pm

I positively don't want her on the court :)

126 Ward Cleaver  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:22:40pm

re: #122 Dianna

Just needed to see that again. And again.

These will make a comeback.

127 turn  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:22:48pm

re: #109 Russkilitlover

Precisely. He is a button pusher and this one gets a rise out of a lot of people - more voice time for him on the MSM, more listeners. He knows this, so he keeps pushing the buttons. Just take a look at comments here. People who don't even listen to him get their buttons pushed.

Unfortunately the left is using his comments as a wedge issue to try and split the GOP, and it maybe working. you know portraying him as the head of the GOP and all.

128 SixDegrees  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:22:51pm

re: #67 _RememberTonyC

In a high profile hearing, televised and watched by many Latinos, any unfair attacks on the Judge will be seen as an attack on a member of the "family." She should receive tough but fair questions. And maybe she'll even have to squirm a bit under the spotlight as she defends her previous rulings. But this game is over ... she WILL be confirmed because the Dems have the votes. Fighting a battle you can win makes sense. Fighting a battle you CAN'T win makes none.

Correct. The smart thing to do here is to lay groundwork for the time when Republicans get to name justices again by establishing what qualities they would look for in a judge and which ones they would oppose. It's important to put forth a clear, understandable reason for their "No" votes on confirmation, and not have them appear as knee-jerk, thoughtless opposition, while keeping their own preferred policies - and not their opponent's perceived shortcomings - in the spotlight.

129 Dianna  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:22:57pm

re: #99 CyanSnowHawk

He didn't say anything! He drove me quite mad with the empty nonsense.

Obama didn't go negative, but he didn't say anything substantive, either.

Granted, that's politics. I remember listening to Reagan blathering some pretty word-picture as his final statement in one of the debates, and being very angry about it.

130 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:22:59pm

re: #121 avanti

The problem is, most honest jurists would admit that the courts do set policy. Every time a case is not clearly defined by a law, the judges apply a ruling that sets policy. They may define policy from a conservative or liberal prospective, but they do it.

Any judicial decision is argued and ultimately decided on precedent.

131 Eowyn2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:23:00pm

re: #61 Charles

Barack Obama ran on a platform of sheer positive messages. Not once did he wish for the other side to fail. You're just wrong to claim that negativity is winning strategy. One of the big reasons why Obama won was because he did NOT go negative -- ever.

I definately remember a lipstick on a pig comment and that was definately a negative.

132 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:23:07pm
133 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:23:32pm

re: #102 Charles

It is.

I fail to see how the context makes it any better.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

134 badger1970  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:23:51pm

Hope (for a better tomorrow) and Change (from the previous administration) is negative when mixed with the MSM portrayal of the Bush administration. And his superior maturity when flipping the bird was oh so positive. /

135 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:23:53pm

Obama Launches First Negative Ad

Now the Fun Starts: Obama Goes Negative

Obama Goes Negative On McCain’s Oil Money

I don't know Charles, maybe I watched a different election than you did...

136 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:24:26pm

re: #123 Eowyn2

the press did not like Reagan. However, the people did. The press begged his 1st wife (Jane Wyman) do dish the dirt but she remained a lady to the end. There were some that tried to get the kids going with the evil step mother routine and Nancy was preggo routine.

There was still some dignity in the campaigns for president at that time.
Now it is just a free for all.

OT speaking of dishing the dirt, how about a Bush-Clinton smack down for cash ?

Clash for cash.

137 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:24:27pm

re: #81 samjohnson

Frankly, I appreciate Sotomayor's honesty about the way her own experience affects her legal reasoning. The fantasy of a purely objective legal reasoning is absurd. What I object to is her view of her subjectivity as a positive, rather than as something to be aware of and to not let interfere with her reasoning. She seems to think it a strength to give free rein to her personal experience. That's what troubles me as a conservative.

You hit the nail on the head. She is signaling that she is very influenced by her own background & experience & doesn't seem adverse to bending things to suit her biases.
The law is ver sterile & sitting around briefing cases illustrates that.
We all have biases, but she seems to be embracing hers.

138 Eowyn2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:24:36pm

re: #117 Kenneth

you beat me to it.

139 acwgusa  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:24:42pm

So, Rush is now Twitter's Fail Whale?

140 Gang of One  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:24:49pm

Ummm, while Reagan was positive, he was realistic. I can't wrap my mind around Obama [or most any Dem] as being realistic.

141 midwestgak  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:24:50pm

re: #6 Charles

Actually, that quote was "stuck on stupid."


General Honore in aftermath of Katrina, calling out the media for being "stuck on stupid."

142 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:24:54pm
143 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:25:20pm

re: #116 Cato the Elder


Sort of like with buskers. They stand all day juggling firebrands or swallowing swords or miming a guy caught in a shrinking box.

I know some buskers who are very talented musicians.

144 gnargtharst  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:25:33pm

Since I am not a politican, concerned with getting votes, "turning people off", etc., I will second Rush Limbaugh on this: I hope she fails.

And I hope Obama fails, too (not that this matters -- socialism will always fail anyway, regardless of my hopes). Rather, I hope that principled opposition will advance their cause in time to mitigate his disastrous policies.

Of course, distinguishing between the nuances of "I hope he fails" for shallow partisan reasons, and "I hope he fails" for reasons of committment to political freedom, takes a little thought, which many will fail to attempt.

But really, why should we care about the opinions of those who are not able to extend their attention spans beyond 10 seconds?

145 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:25:39pm

re: #121 avanti

The problem is, most honest jurists would admit that the courts do set policy. Every time a case is not clearly defined by a law, the judges apply a ruling that sets policy. They may define policy from a conservative or liberal prospective, but they do it.

I'm pretty sure I was referring to the Latina Woman comment. The policy comment was over the top because she denied that the court made policy while using her hands to make quotation marks and make the audience laugh at her not being serious about the comment.

Having said that the guys at Powerline have a what lawyers think about her section and it looks like she might not be too terrible. But I hate these types of comments she makes.

146 big steve  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:25:46pm

The whole argument on whether Barack Obama ran negative against McCain really turns on whether one thinks that hanging George Bush around his neck was classical negative campaigning or not. I mean if you can link someone to George Bush 24/7 who needed anything else negative.

147 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:25:56pm

re: #141 midwestgak

General Honore in aftermath of Katrina, calling out the media for being "stuck on stupid."

Still waiting for them to get un-stuck.

148 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:25:59pm

re: #121 avanti

The problem is, most honest jurists would admit that the courts do set policy. Every time a case is not clearly defined by a law, the judges apply a ruling that sets policy. They may define policy from a conservative or liberal prospective, but they do it.

They are first supposed to look at the case law & only in very rare cases to deviate from precedent.

149 laxmatt1984  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:00pm

No negativity here:

150 turn  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:02pm

re: #117 Kenneth

Mostly Obama had the media and PAC's to do the dirty negative stuff so he could stand there and look above it all. A nice pose. He did let it slip a few times, like this one:

A pig in lipstick

He really had to restrain himself that's for sure, sometimes it slipped out

151 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:07pm

re: #111 medaura18586

That makes her the worst of both worlds to me, socially conservative on issues like abortion, yet a redistributionist economically, or at least, affirmative-action firm believer.

Yet it's hard not to dislike Justice Thomas for his hypocrisy as a prime beneficiary of affirmative action who now thinks it's a bad idea.

152 Ward Cleaver  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:10pm

re: #131 Eowyn2

I definately remember a lipstick on a pig comment and that was definately a negative.

Even if it wasn't meant that way, he should have known better, given Palin's "hockey mom/lipstick" comments. At the least, it sounded bad.

153 ointmentfly  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:15pm

re: #131 Eowyn2

Why would he go negative? He had the entire press corps to do his dirty work and every left wing group courtesy of the idiot John McCain (the candidate and senator- not the war hero) and his ridiculous campaign finance reform.

154 Dianna  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:19pm

re: #127 turn

I think the GOP is doing a fine job of splitting itself, what with most of the "hot" prospects being creationists - which I wouldn't care about if they simply said their religious beliefs are private, and ought to stay that way, but they don't - and their failure to repudiate bad spending and idiotic social policies.

155 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:36pm

re: #142 buzzsawmonkey

Rosie Perez = nails on the blackboard.

How did she ever get to be some kind of star?

She has, as Joe Bob Briggs likes to say, two huge talents.

156 KenJen  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:36pm

I don't have a lot of faith in Obama's nominees for anything. We are talking about a man who chose Gibbs as his White House Press Secretary. You never know what you'll get with these justices anyway. No use worrying over it.

157 Ben Hur  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:43pm

re: #151 Cato the Elder

Yet it's hard not to dislike Justice Thomas for his hypocrisy as a prime beneficiary of affirmative action who now thinks it's a bad idea.


He benefited from affirmative action?

158 Truck Monkey  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:48pm

re: #142 buzzsawmonkey

Rosie Perez = nails on the blackboard.

How did she ever get to be some kind of star?

She was quirky..... and willing to flaunt her fun bags.

159 Eowyn2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:52pm

re: #127 turn

he's been having a lot of fun with that
Keeps calling himself the 'titular head' of the party.
the other day he resigned as 'titular head of the Republican Party'

160 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:26:56pm

re: #142 buzzsawmonkey

Rosie Perez = nails on the blackboard.

How did she ever get to be some kind of star?

well there's this guy in the neighborhood named Spike...

161 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:27:00pm

re: #106 laxmatt1984

Did you see the John McCain doesn't know how to use a computer ad?

How about the radio ads in Spanish that claimed John McCain had the same position on immigration as Rush Limbaugh (which McCain emphatically did not).

How about the whole campaign theme that McCain was "out of touch".

Or just take a look at this.

[Link: marcambinder.theatlantic.com...]

The ads run by the DNC are not what I was talking about -- I'm saying that Obama himself never deviated from a positive message during his campaign. All you've shown me are political advertisements, not statements from Obama himself.

This is why none of his associations or the criticisms of his past positions on issues stuck to him enough to damage his campaign -- because he himself stayed composed and positive throughout, never lost his temper, and never personally attacked his opponents. And he certainly never said he wanted anyone to "fail."

I didn't -- and don't -- support Barack Obama. My whole point is that this FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! meme is horrendously bad politics, and it achieves nothing except to further marginalize conservatives.

162 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:27:26pm
163 jvic  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:27:44pm

re: #8 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

A note to Rush and the GOP.

Quit preaching doom and failure and instead try saying what you would do and how you would fix things. Any idiot can simply say NO all the time. Try providing an alternative.

Thanks.

They're lazy and stubborn: still feeling entitled to power. Still counting on the Democrats to return them there.

Whatever else I'd say about today's Democrats, I don't expect them to be as politically inept as the 1998-20xx Republicans.

164 moonstone  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:27:52pm

re: #101 FurryOldGuyJeans

I don't issue blanket condemnation against anyone. I hit specific policies for my scorn.

That's part of my problem. I can't think of one specific policy of his that I remotely agree with. I may agree with a (stated) goal, but never with the way he intends to achieve it.

As far as Sotomayor is concerned, I don't think it's worth a fight to oppose her. She's probably no more liberal than Souter, and anyone else he nominates would just be more of the same.

165 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:28:03pm

Obama Goes for the Kill in Pennsylvania, Negatively

Obama Goes Negative (this one is from TIME, that extreme right wing publication)

Obama Campaign Goes Negative with Gambling Game Ad

Obama goes negative in key states

Clearly, quite a few people thought Obama was going negative.

166 McJenny50  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:28:06pm

neoconlatina has a good article that rather backs up Rush's POV. In part:

By all accounts, she is a competent, albeit not particularly distinguished, jurist. In saner days, being undistinguished would in itself disqualify a candidate from consideration for the Supreme Court.

Yet it is not Sotomayor's unremarkable legal talent that makes her a poor choice, but rather her "race-conscious" and "gender-conscious" approach to the law. Sotomayor's predilection to view legal disputes through the prisms of race and gender is illustrated by three quotes published in today's New York Times.

Quote #1:
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences," she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

Quote #2:
Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality "is possible in all, or even, in most, cases." She added, "And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

Quote #3:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

The most interesting parts are neoconlatina's explanations for the three quotes.

[Link: neoconlatina.blogspot.com...]

167 laxmatt1984  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:28:09pm

re: #161 Charles

Oh lord now you're splitting hairs like some leftist explaining why they don't really support Islamists.

The computer ad, by the way, not a DNC piece.

168 Ward Cleaver  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:28:16pm

re: #151 Cato the Elder

Yet it's hard not to dislike Justice Thomas for his hypocrisy as a prime beneficiary of affirmative action who now thinks it's a bad idea.

He's said that he had a harder time finding a job coming out of law school, because of the affirmative action stigma.

169 Mad Al-Jaffee  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:28:18pm

re: #162 buzzsawmonkey

But with a face that would stop a clock, and a voice to match.

I thought she was pretty hot back in the day, but in the latest movie I saw her in (Pineapple Express), her face is really starting to show its age.

170 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:28:18pm

re: #7 SpartanWoman

I think it's Obama who's failing
1 failing to repair the economy
2 failing on the international arena
3 failing to uphold anything remotely approaching ethical standards

Ethical standards? How so?

171 researchok  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:28:21pm

re: #77 Charles

Yep. If you look at her decisions, she's anything but a "far left activist judge," as the right is trying to portray her. She seems to be pretty centrist.

Obama's choice may be very shrewd. On the one hand, she is ideologically left leaning. That will make the moonbat regiments happy. On the bench however, Sotomayor tends to be somewhat more centrist and that may smooth her approval.

In the end, ideology alone does not and ought not determine a judge's suitability for any court. That determination should only be predicated on a nominees judicial record.

There are great Democrat or Republican party judges and there are horrible Democrat or Republican party judges.

On the SCOTUS, not every decsion is on determined by ideological leanings- in fact, most are are not. Conservatives vote with liberals, and vice versa. That's just the way it is.

There will always be decisions that will upset one group of voters or another, but in the end, it's about the entire record.

172 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:28:30pm

re: #154 Dianna

I think the GOP is doing a fine job of splitting itself, what with most of the "hot" prospects being creationists - which I wouldn't care about if they simply said their religious beliefs are private, and ought to stay that way, but they don't - and their failure to repudiate bad spending and idiotic social policies.

Yeah, easier to point fingers about how the room got so messy; forget about deciding how to just clean it all up.

173 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:28:43pm

re: #156 KenJen

I don't have a lot of faith in Obama's nominees for anything. We are talking about a man who chose Gibbs as his White House Press Secretary. You never know what you'll get with these justices anyway. No use worrying over it.

I'll give you Gibbs, but a WH press secretary is a minor appointment compared to some great picks.

174 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:28:54pm

re: #127 turn

Unfortunately the left is using his comments as a wedge issue to try and split the GOP, and it maybe working. you know portraying him as the head of the GOP and all.

I think it's a non starter for the left. A lot of conservatives and Republicans have listened to Rush at some point over the years and are hip to his schtick. The left is frothing and trying to make this a bigger issue. Rush occasionally tweaks noses with continuing the "fail" meme (as seen in Charles' blog), but that is purely for his amusement - and ratings. I think that whole "head of the GOP" canard was a bust.

175 reloadingisnotahobby  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:29:04pm

re: #104 Ben Hur
I listen everyday!
I've heard it all in context!
Rush was clear,he wants the "O"s policies to fail!
If I was a German Jew would ya'll say the same if I wanted Hitlers policies to fail?
No ! I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler!
But he's taking us down the wrong road as a nation!

176 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:29:10pm
177 Ben Hur  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:29:13pm

They had to catch up with the "firsts."

178 Dianna  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:29:27pm

re: #144 gnargtharst

It doesn't take more than the attention span of a gnat to mark a ballot.

179 Eowyn2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:29:27pm

re: #136 avanti

most likely scripted.
sounds like a kind of freaky deaky thing.

180 Summersong  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:29:28pm

re: #107 zeir

I wish Sotomayor talked more like Rosie Perez. It would make for a better hearing.

Please, NO. I cannot listen to that cartoon voiced woman for more than a minute or two.

181 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:29:33pm

Under John McCain's health care plan, people get a $5,000 tax credit to buy a $12,000 health care policy, and "that's a loss for you."

Barack Obama on Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 in a debate in Hempstead, N.Y.
A major distortion on McCain's policy
False
Bookmark this story:
Buzz up!
ShareThis

In the final presidential debate, Barack Obama attacked John McCain's health care policy as a net loss for workers.

He was referring to a McCain proposal to repeal the traditional exemption on employer-provided insurance in exchange for a tax credit that will encourage workers to seek their own insurance. The credit would be $2,500 per person, or $5,000 for couples.

In the debate, Obama got some things right about McCain's policy. Critics of McCain's policy do indeed worry that it will discourage employers from offering health care without lowering premiums for everyone.

But Obama oversimplified drastically when he said, "By the way, the average policy costs about $12,000. So if you've got $5,000 and it's going to cost you $12,000, that's a loss for you."

To explain why this statement is problematic, let's get into more details about McCain's policy.

Most Americans who have health insurance, about 71 percent, get it through their employer. Usually, the premiums are split so that the employer pays part and the employee pays part. Typically, the employer pays at least half, and often more.

Strictly speaking, the part that the employer pays is considered compensation and workers would owe taxes on it if there wasn't a tax exemption in federal law. The exemption makes employer-provided health insurance more attractive to both workers and employers.

McCain wants to encourage greater competition for health insurance as a way to reduce premiums. His idea is that people should be able to go out on the open market and buy their own health insurance, and not be pushed into an employer-provided insurance plan by tax incentives.

So under McCain's plan, the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance would disappear, and people would get a tax credit to spend on any health insurance they wish. They might choose to use their employer's plan and use the tax credit to offset the new tax on the benefit, or they might go off and buy insurance on their own.

It's a complex switcheroo, but there's ample evidence to show that the plan would be a wash for most workers. Keep in mind the current benefit is not worth $12,000, which is the cost of the average family plan; the benefit is the taxes on the part of that $12,000 that the employer pays. So if the employer picks up $8,000 of a $12,000 policy, the current benefit is the taxes a worker would pay on $8,000.

The McCain campaign says only workers with "gold-plated" health programs would do worse with the new credit. An independent analysis from the nonpartisan Urban Institute confirms that: "In general, lower-income people with health insurance would receive benefits from the credit that would be well in excess of the value that they receive from today’s tax exemption. The gains are much smaller for higher-income people."

Obama's numbers are wrong. McCain's health plan does not replace a $12,000 policy with a $5,000 credit. It replaces the taxes on part of that amount with a tax credit. We rate Obama's statement False.

182 quiet man  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:30:03pm

Bush never went negative either..nor did Kerry or Gore. McCain didn't go negative either. The candidates never really go too negative..they have others for that heavy lifting

183 Ben Hur  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:30:26pm

BBL

184 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:30:43pm

re: #173 avanti

I'll give you Gibbs, but a WH press secretary is a minor appointment compared to some great picks.

Gates is the only one I could get enthusiastic about.

185 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:30:49pm

re: #120 FurryOldGuyJeans

And for those who are so fired up against Sotomeyer maybe it is time to do the legal and constitutional thing, tell your representatives you do not want her confirmed and on what grounds.

It's her stand on the 2nd Amendment that gives me problems about her. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), she was part of a panel that essentially said that the 2nd Amendment applies only to Federal law, not State law. That's disturbing. What if that was applied to say, the 1st Amendment?

186 KenJen  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:30:53pm

re: #173 avanti

I'll give you Gibbs, but a WH press secretary is a minor appointment compared to some great picks.

Great picks?

187 Dianna  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:30:53pm

re: #151 Cato the Elder

Oh, my. I don't much like the implications of that.

188 turn  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:30:57pm

re: #154 Dianna

I think the GOP is doing a fine job of splitting itself, what with most of the "hot" prospects being creationists - which I wouldn't care about if they simply said their religious beliefs are private, and ought to stay that way, but they don't - and their failure to repudiate bad spending and idiotic social policies.

That's true too. Later folks, time to walk the lab along the American (and paint turnspawn's apartment - yuck)

189 laxmatt1984  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:30:59pm

I also don't know where you get the strange idea that the negative ads run during the campaign came from the DNC and not Obama's team.

The campaigns are spending about $15m in ads per week; each is spending about $7.8 million. most of McCain's ads are paid for with both McCain campaign money and money from the RNC; 97% of Obama's ads are paid for by the candidate.

[Link: marcambinder.theatlantic.com...]

190 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:31:01pm

re: #150 turn

"Lipstick on a pig" referred to the same old policies dressed up under fancy new names. It is an old expression; I've been hearing it for years.

Those who took it as a reference to Palin may have been right, but then what does that say about their assessment of Palin?

You can do better than that.

191 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:31:07pm
192 ladycatnip  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:31:20pm

I don't have a problem with Rush or anyone (myself included) hoping Obama fails to implement his policies. Words can be parsed any which way: "I hope he fails" to "I hope his appointments fail to be confirmed", to "I hope that bill fails in the Senate", blah, blah. I for one do not want to see Obama's socialist policies or appointments succeed in their intended mission - which is to swing our American political ship toward Marxism/socialism. That would be bad for us individually as well as a nation.

When I hear conservatives express their hopes in that way I don't hear the same venom the libs spouted over Bush. It's more wishful thinking, as I certainly don't want my taxes raised any higher than they are now, now do I want to be controlled by the federal government.

Q: are we making this a pc issue? If so, then what form of dissent is acceptable?

Off to work...so I can pay my taxes and put food on the table.

193 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:31:27pm

How about some context, missing from the CNN link:

"I mean, do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She'd be a disaster on the court.

Do I still want Obama to fail as president? Yeah. AP, you getting this? He's gonna fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country."

That's pulled from transcript on Rush's site - he said it in a mocking tone.

194 Eowyn2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:31:31pm

re: #153 ointmentfly
he had no reason to go negative but the pig/lipstick was a definate insult that he was able to brush over as coming out wrong. Evidently no one checked the teleprompter.

195 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:31:46pm

Republicans seem eager to cast themselves as the Party of Fail. They are doing nothing to help the economy or improve America. I'm not seeing many good ideas coming from the right these days and they're wishing failure and doom on the country and our President. At least attempt to show some class.

196 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:31:53pm

re: #33 kansas

The left doing it resulted apparently in a leftist house, leftist senate, leftist white house, and now a leftist supreme court justice.

Was it people's perceptions of the economy and the war or was it leftists complaining that caused moderates to vote for Obama?

197 Truck Monkey  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:32:12pm

re: #176 buzzsawmonkey

It's not as though Spike Lee is that great a talent either. Hearing him periodically cry racism is a hoot; he would never have gotten where he was were it not for the race factor. He himself, of course, is a racist of the first water.


And a crackhead. Have you ever listened to him try to talk? Dude has a problem stringing the subject together with all of the other stuff you need in coherent sentences. I have talked to "baked" friends that made more sense.

198 Spare O'Lake  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:32:40pm

How long has it been since, after the candidates duked it out, the winner and the loser would shake hands and everyone would be happy and pull together until the next election?
Or are we confusing elections with that good old time-worn concept of good sportmanship which seldom makes it off the field after the final game?

199 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:32:47pm

re: #167 laxmatt1984

Oh lord now you're splitting hairs like some leftist explaining why they don't really support Islamists.

Yep, I'm just like that.

I should have known better than to try to discuss this with you.

200 nikis-knight  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:32:50pm

re: #75 2by2

Immigrant voice (naturalized US citizen) here:
Isn't it more American to support the President, since he is after all the elected commander in chief, and if he fails (in the real sense of the word, not just his policies failing) doesn't our country fail with him?
I don't mean that he or his policies should not be criticized or scrutinized, but to wish that he fails, seems to evoke something apocalyptic. It also makes for bad politics, I agree with Zombie on that.
So while I voted for the competition and certainly have reservations specially regarding his foreign policies, I do wish that the president does well for his and my country.


This has come up here before. The question boils down to one of context. When discussing the success or failure of a policy maker, are you talking about their failure to enact policy, or the failure of that policy after it is enacted?

If the former, one must use their own judgement and values to determine if the policy maker's goals with this policy line up with yours/what you view as American, AND whether it is an effective & moral means of achieving those goals even if they are right.

[Example: I think Obama's goals with the stimulis is primarily to improve the economy, and secondarily to that to fund left wing causes. I agree with the former but think it has a poor chance of doing so, and I disagree with the latter and think it will do so, so on both counts I hoped very much that he would fail to convince lawmakers to enact it, but without any hope due to democratic majority.]

As for wishing for the failure of policies once enacted, one must posit in what sense they want failure, if that is the meaning. You can hope for short term failure because you expect that it will have poor long term side effects without hoping for long term failure of the country. On the other hand, as an objective measure of the countries well-being, it would as you say be less American to hope for any failure of the country due to the actions of a policy maker just to embarrass or discredit that politican.


[For example, now that the stimulus is passed, I hope that I am wrong that it will lead to prolonged economic problems and increased dependancy on the government. I hope in retrospect wildly big government spending turns out to be a wise policy. I really doubt this is the case, so at the least I hope the stimulus fails to empower left wing social activists that thrive on government money.]

In each of the examples, my hope for failure or not is based on what I genuinely expect will be best for the country, not political gain or loss for any particular faction.

But of course Charles & Zombie's point that it is bad politics to say this as simplisticly as Rush does is valid.

201 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:33:01pm

re: #186 KenJen

Great picks?

Sure, Gates, Clinton, the new ambassador to China, Secretary of Energy, lots of great talent.

202 Eowyn2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:33:02pm

re: #182 quiet man


I had to upding you just for your name. One of my favorite jw films

203 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:33:08pm

re: #185 CyanSnowHawk

It's her stand on the 2nd Amendment that gives me problems about her. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), she was part of a panel that essentially said that the 2nd Amendment applies only to Federal law, not State law. That's disturbing. What if that was applied to say, the 1st Amendment?

Wait a sec...isn't that a complete 180 from her stance on Heller Vs Distric of Columbia [supporting the municipalities right to enact a near-total gun ban]?

204 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:33:23pm

re: #196 Flyers1974

Was it people's perceptions of the economy and the war or was it leftists complaining that caused moderates to vote for Obama?

I think it was perceptions created by the leftist media.

205 Ward Cleaver  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:33:27pm

re: #173 avanti

I'll give you Gibbs, but a WH press secretary is a minor appointment compared to some great picks.

Like Tax Cheat Timmy? Or Eric "I signed off on the Marc Rich pardon" Holder.

Uh, yeah.

206 Dianna  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:33:31pm

re: #172 FurryOldGuyJeans

Yeah, easier to point fingers about how the room got so messy; forget about deciding how to just clean it all up.

Yep. And people wonder why I'm whimpering?

207 jones  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:34:25pm

I don't want her on the SC because she seems to think Heller never won his case. She ignored the 2A and Heller to push an anti gun agenda.

No thanks.

208 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:34:40pm

re: #201 avanti

Sure, Gates, Clinton, the new ambassador to China, Secretary of Energy, lots of great talent.

Shoulda stopped at Gates....which technically wasn't his pick.

209 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:34:46pm

re: #47 kansas

Republicans got the living shit bashed out of them by the MSM. They will never be able to provide a well articulated anything when they don't have an outlet.

Then how did Bush get elected twice? And hold both chambers of congress until 2006? How does any Republican get elected with the cards stacked so against them?

210 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:35:33pm

re: #194 Eowyn2

he had no reason to go negative but the pig/lipstick was a definate insult that he was able to brush over as coming out wrong. Evidently no one checked the teleprompter.

McCain used the same phrase duyring the campaign. It's just a folksi-ism.

211 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:35:35pm

re: #194 Eowyn2

he had no reason to go negative but the pig/lipstick was a definate insult that he was able to brush over as coming out wrong. Evidently no one checked the teleprompter.

The only folks that thought that was a insult to Palin were not going to vote for BHO anyway, so it did him zero harm. He never laid a hand on Palin, he just ignored her.

212 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:35:35pm

Well, Let's imagine that you have no particular good ideas of your own. Let's imagine that you are a washed out and bitter media whore who still can't wrap his head around the fact that the party he claims to represent lost the elections for adopting more and more whacko views like his own rather than staying true to its more sensible principles, and that since those views can't possibly have any flaws in them, it must be the other guys fault. Let's further imagine that deep down the best you can muster for "debate" is calling names. The only thing you would have left is simply blustering at anything the other side does right or wrong - when not coming out as an ID loser.

If you can think like that, you get Rush and Coulter.

One could imagine that they think a bit and perhaps admit some flaws in their thought.

But that would be asking for things like thoughtfulness, maturity and wisdom. Their loyal fan base are the sorts of whackos who eschew such things.

213 Dianna  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:35:36pm

re: #174 Russkilitlover

That "head of the GOP" bit sure gave him a lovely opportunity to tweak the media - "I resign as the titular head of the Republican Party!"

214 LGoPs  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:35:55pm

re: #6 Charles

Actually, that quote was "stuck on stupid."

Late to the thread.......I thought it was Gen Honore, who was the soldier called in to deal with the Katrina mess.

215 KenJen  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:36:35pm

re: #201 avanti

Sure, Gates, Clinton, the new ambassador to China, Secretary of Energy, lots of great talent.

Talent. Yeah. They do put on a good show.

216 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:37:11pm

re: #209 Flyers1974

Diebold voting machines and all that favorable press coverage like Micheal Moore's documentary and the forged Texas Air National Guard memos, silly....

//

217 Eowyn2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:37:17pm

re: #190 Cato the Elder

"Lipstick on a pig" referred to the same old policies dressed up under fancy new names. It is an old expression; I've been hearing it for years.

Those who took it as a reference to Palin may have been right, but then what does that say about their assessment of Palin?

You can do better than that.

And the fact that it was stated shortly AFTER she made the comment about lipstick on a hockeymom?

The big question? Was it on the teleprompter and when did Obama realize it was on the teleprompter?

218 laxmatt1984  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:37:23pm

re: #199 Charles

Look, I get what your saying: a positive message will resonate better with the voters. I agree.

But you are clinging to the idea that Obama himself never went negative. That is just plain wrong.

219 medaura18586  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:37:26pm

re: #151 Cato the Elder

Yet it's hard not to dislike Justice Thomas for his hypocrisy as a prime beneficiary of affirmative action who now thinks it's a bad idea.

True. All in all though, I'd rather recipients of affirmative action turned around and realized it was a bad policy, rather than going strong in the same wrong-headed direction. His political views have also evolved a lot. I'm pretty sure I've read (or heard, in an interview) that he was a hard-core socialist in his youth. Now that he's turned around, what is he supposed to do? Give back his law degree or his post?

220 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:37:41pm

re: #161 Charles

There were several negative ads directly from the Obama-Biden campaign, and he endorsed every one of them. The "pig in lipstick" comment was straight from his mouth. What about flipping the bird at Hillary?

Meanwhile, McCain refrained from negative comments about Obama. He was criticized by some LGFers for being too gracious and not going for the jugular. His campaign certainly went negative, as did the PACs.

221 Ward Cleaver  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:37:47pm

re: #215 KenJen

Talent. Yeah. They do put on a good show.

Yeah, the "RESET" button idea was genius.

222 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:37:49pm

re: #201 avanti

Sure, Gates, Clinton, the new ambassador to China, Secretary of Energy, lots of great talent.

and where is Clinton these days, anyway?

223 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:38:42pm

re: #217 Eowyn2

And the fact that it was stated shortly AFTER she made the comment about lipstick on a hockeymom?

The big question? Was it on the teleprompter and when did Obama realize it was on the teleprompter?

Sarah Palin doesn't own the word 'lipstick'. And given that she'd already compared herself to a pit bull...

224 ointmentfly  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:38:50pm

re: #195 Killgore Trout

Well..... The democrats are in power. They refuse to hear republican ideas. They WILL however, kick some pork out to republican districts for votes. There is not much the republicans can do except give the dems enough rope to hang themselves.

225 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:38:56pm

re: #150 turn

He really had to restrain himself that's for sure, sometimes it slipped out

It was a sexist, nasty reference to Palin. The crowd got it & his smirk at least to me proves the point.

226 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:39:00pm

re: #161 Charles

The ads run by the DNC are not what I was talking about -- I'm saying that Obama himself never deviated from a positive message during his campaign. All you've shown me are political advertisements, not statements from Obama himself.

This is why none of his associations or the criticisms of his past positions on issues stuck to him enough to damage his campaign -- because he himself stayed composed and positive throughout, never lost his temper, and never personally attacked his opponents. And he certainly never said he wanted anyone to "fail."

I didn't -- and don't -- support Barack Obama. My whole point is that this FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! meme is horrendously bad politics, and it achieves nothing except to further marginalize conservatives.

I agree with the "fail, fail fail" meme as being a lousy tactic, by Rush or by anyone else.

That said, you can't separate the candidate from the party. Period. These ads mentioned above were not created and aired in a vacuum. The MSM's negative response to everything conservative were not put forward in a vacuum.

It's evident that his "composed and positive" public face worked to his advantage, but that doesn't change anything about the way his supporters went full blast attack on everything that the Republicans stood for.

It's not guilt by association, it's guilt by everything he stands for.

227 midwestgak  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:39:02pm

re: #214 LGoPs

Late to the thread.......I thought it was Gen Honore, who was the soldier called in to deal with the Katrina mess.

See #141. Your are correct.

228 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:39:30pm

re: #190 Cato the Elder

It was a very clever jab by Obama. It came a few days after Palin's lipstick quip, and Obama's audience certainly picked up on the sly inference when the howled and applauded.

229 itellu3times  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:39:49pm

I could swear this was a Jay Leno joke last night, did Limbaugh mention that?

230 jones  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:39:55pm

re: #219 medaura18586

That is one problem with affirmative action. It stigmatizes people. I think it is cruel to assume people can't make it without racism,

231 LGoPs  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:40:07pm

re: #72 Charles

Yes, absolutely. Just listen to the video. She immediately qualifies the statement to say that appeals courts do not make laws.

And it seems completely uncontroversial to me to say that court decisions influence public policy. Of course they do.

I can't listen to the video here at work but if it's the same sound bite I heard yesterday, the statement was followed by knowing smirks and laughs that indicated a thinly vieled attempt to disguise an activist agenda.

232 suntory_boss  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:40:26pm

Couldn't care int he slightest she's a liberal, as it's a given Obama would appoint one. My problem is her racists comments as a judge. No white would even be allowed to retain their current position, let alone get appointed to the supreme court after saying that. I'm tired of racist double standards.

233 laxmatt1984  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:40:48pm

re: #226 Walter L. Newton

IThat said, you can't separate the candidate from the party.

That, and the ads were not created by the party. They were not DNC ads. These were ads from the Obama campaign itself.

234 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:40:55pm

re: #218 laxmatt1984

Look, I get what your saying: a positive message will resonate better with the voters. I agree.

But you are clinging to the idea that Obama himself never went negative. That is just plain wrong.

He did go negative on occasion, but it was so mild compared to the GOP attacks that the perception was that he ran a very positive campaign. I agree that was a major factor in selling the whole hope and change thing. The voters were tired of attacks on the other guy, they wanted "change".

235 Truck Monkey  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:41:00pm

re: #209 Flyers1974

Then how did Bush get elected twice? And hold both chambers of congress until 2006? How does any Republican get elected with the cards stacked so against them?

Because it's a center right country that can get behind a conservative candidate. Johnny Mac never excited any Republican and enough sat out to give Barry the win. That being said, the republicans didn't help themselves while in charge. They spent money like sailors on leave and left the fiscal conservatives cold. They deserved to get kicked out IMHO.

236 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:41:00pm

re: #224 ointmentfly

Well..... The democrats are in power. They refuse to hear republican ideas. They WILL however, kick some pork out to republican districts for votes. There is not much the republicans can do except give the dems enough rope to hang themselves.

Actually, the Republicans have rather shown themselves to be the party of NO. After very strongly shutting out the Dems - and very contemptuously so when they had the house and senate it is rather like angry children to continue with refusing to negotiate in a meaningful way and then to whine about it. The politics of exclusion, taken to the degree it is not is a GOP invention. They are also perpetuating it.

237 LGoPs  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:41:27pm

Many tanks. A whole platoon of them as a matter of fact......
:)

238 jorline  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:41:28pm

re: #155 Mad Al-Jaffee

She has, as Joe Bob Briggs likes to say, two huge talents.

Rubber baby buggy bumpers. Rubber baby buggy bumpers.
Rubber baby buggy bumpers. Rubber baby buggy bumpers.
Rubber baby buggy bumpers. Rubber baby buggy bumpers...

239 jvic  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:41:34pm

The 'wise Latina' remark concerns me more than the 'making policy' comment. My opinion of the latter changed after I thought about it a bit:

Democratic & Republican Congresses pass bills of thousands of pages which hardly anyone on the Hill reads in their entirety. It is left to the courts to reconcile contradictory language and resolve inconsistencies with previous law.

Quite often IMO, Congress gives the courts no choice but to make policy. Sotomayor described things as they actually are. (That's not to say that the federal courts have immaculate intentions. Far from it.)

240 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:41:44pm

re: #211 avanti

The only folks that thought that was a insult to Palin were not going to vote for BHO anyway, so it did him zero harm. He never laid a hand on Palin, he just ignored her.

Avanti, I might remember wrong , but wasn't his nasty little sexist comment when the McCain Campaign was up 4 points, before the economy broke open?
Even if it didn't hurt him, do you think that what he said was ok?

241 big steve  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:41:47pm

re: #226 Walter L. Newton

That said, you can't separate the candidate from the party. Period. These ads mentioned above were not created and aired in a vacuum. The MSM's negative response to everything conservative were not put forward in a vacuum.

Agree with Walter here.....I assume that everything that comes out from the party is orchestrated by the candidate and his campaign. Does anyone think that Bush gets a pass for the Swiftboats? Unlikely even though this was officially a "separate" group.

242 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:41:53pm

re: #215 KenJen

If anyone thinks that Hillary Clinton is Sec of State for any reason other than as a sop to the women in the Dem Party, they're smoking crack. They re-cast her as a genius on international relations just like they originally cast her as a genius on health care. She's a figurehead's figurehead and wouldn't even have gotten her seat in the Senate if she hadn't been so publicly humiliated by her husband.
I saw her today doing a brief press appearance about N. Korea....."International community coming together....encourage a change in direction...live up to previous agreements, etc....." Anybody who'd ever even watched a press conference could have given the same answers.

243 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:42:02pm

re: #222 brookly red

and where is Clinton these days, anyway?

Just saw her on TV speaking about meeting with the Russians and others on the Nork issue.

244 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:42:26pm

re: #203 Fenway_Nation

Wait a sec...isn't that a complete 180 from her stance on Heller Vs Distric of Columbia [supporting the municipalities right to enact a near-total gun ban]?

Don't know her stance on Heller, but if it supports the municipality in enacting a gun ban, then it is in line with it. Her position in Maloney was that only the Federal Gov't was constrained by the 2nd Amendment.

245 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:42:49pm

correction of typo...
The politics of exclusion taken to the degree is is NOW is a GOP invention.

246 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:43:21pm

re: #243 avanti

Just saw her on TV speaking about meeting with the Russians and others on the Nork issue.

/are we dead yet?

247 KenJen  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:43:22pm

re: #243 avanti

Just saw her on TV speaking about meeting with the Russians and others on the Nork issue.

Was she wearing a big furry Russian hat?

248 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:43:24pm

re: #220 Kenneth

There were several negative ads directly from the Obama-Biden campaign, and he endorsed every one of them. The "pig in lipstick" comment was straight from his mouth. What about flipping the bird at Hillary?

Meanwhile, McCain refrained from negative comments about Obama. He was criticized by some LGFers for being too gracious and not going for the jugular. His campaign certainly went negative, as did the PACs.

It's a matter of tone and affect I'm taking about. Even Charles Krauthammer noticed what he called Obama's "calm composure," and it was one of the reasons why Krauthammer called the election for Obama early on. (And he was right, of course.)

It's that composure, and his essentially positive disposition, that let him stay above the fray and not get politically hurt by any of those things -- the finger, the lipstick on a pig comment, any of it.

Sure, there were negative ads -- it was a political campaign. None of that changes my point -- that it's self-defeating to come right out and say you want the President of the United States to "fail."

Bad politics? It's stupid politics.

249 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:43:28pm

Is Wikipedia really the best place to go through the Ricci Vs DeStefano case?

250 FabioC.  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:44:16pm

Why should Republicans vote against Sotomayor if it is a losing battle?

Maybe to make a stand on a principle - that there is no place in the Supreme Court for a "race and gender-conscious" judge. They must also explain clearly why they do so, and call the media on it if (when) their position is distorted as racist.

The whole concept of losing the Hispanic vote means accepting the mindset of identity politics; true Americans should care about the votes of all Americans, not of one race/ethnicity or the other.

Finally, it is time to worry already; not at some ill-defined point in the future. Should the defenders of a castle worry when an army attacks the outer ramparts, or only when the enemy is at the door of the king's hall?

251 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:44:18pm

re: #219 medaura18586

True. All in all though, I'd rather recipients of affirmative action turned around and realized it was a bad policy, rather than going strong in the same wrong-headed direction. His political views have also evolved a lot. I'm pretty sure I've read (or heard, in an interview) that he was a hard-core socialist in his youth. Now that he's turned around, what is he supposed to do? Give back his law degree or his post?

No one would expect that, though I can think of any number of people who would do more honor to the post, both liberal and conservative. He could make a fine living litigating against affirmative action in private practice.

My own impression of him is that he's a mediocre thinker at best. Impressive opinions closely reasoned and clearly stated have not been evident from his pen. He's a follower.

And climbing up the proffered ladder, then kicking it away for future climbers, just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, however ill-situated the ladder may have been.

252 KenJen  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:44:27pm

re: #242 Lincolntf

I totally agree.

253 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:44:46pm
254 VioletTiger  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:45:01pm

re: #221 Ward Cleaver

Yeah, the "RESET" button idea was genius.


Would have been even better if they had spelled 'reset' correctly.

255 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:45:17pm

OT

Clinton: We are preparing specific proposals for ME peace
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that the United States would present detailed plans on the peace process to the parties as part of its efforts to jumpstart negotiations.

"We are going to be putting forward very specific proposals to the Israelis and the Palestinians. That's what Senator Mitchell has been doing over the last couple of days," Clinton said at a press conference following her lunch meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit.


No actual list of those proposals other than:

"The president was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions," she said. "That is our position, that is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the Israelis, but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point."


Why don't I think these proposals will be good for Israel?

256 Eowyn2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:45:22pm

re: #223 SanFranciscoZionist

Sarah Palin doesn't own the word 'lipstick'. And given that she'd already compared herself to a pit bull...

Is there a difference between the following:

Me: "I am a bitch"
Coworker "you are a bitch"

257 JimmyTheClaw  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:45:30pm

as a white male i believe i can make better judicial rulings than a latino female
oops that was her just switched a few words i hope the communist quoting leftist fails and suffers as much as alito or better yet clarence thomas.

just my two pennies worth ok now i can read the thread

258 gnargtharst  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:45:47pm

re: #161 Charles

From Charles: "...this FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! meme is horrendously bad politics, and it achieves nothing except to further marginalize conservatives."

But *to whom* is "bad politics" (I assume your meaning there is something like "bad PR") an important issue?

What of those who want to discuss something with some sublety, instead of campaigning for the benefit of the lowest-attention-span voter?

Like somebody pointed out earlier: those who know Rush Limbaugh, know what he means. Those who don't know what Rush Limbaugh means, probably are willingly ignornant, and not likely to change their interpretation based on something like "positiveness". (Or "facts").

259 big steve  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:46:02pm

re: #248 Charles

Bad politics? It's stupid politics.


Yep....it is FAIL politics that's for sure.

260 KenJen  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:46:11pm

Nighty nite all.

261 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:46:15pm

re: #255 Kosh's Shadow

Screwed up the link
Clinton: We are preparing specific proposals for ME peace

262 itellu3times  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:46:29pm

Maybe they should set up Sotomayor in a new Court of Racial Justice.

263 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:46:38pm

I'm getting a stronger whiff of racism these days. Why does everybody assume that any successful minority succeed only because of affirmative action. I've seen many people here argue that Obama is the first affirmative action President. A lot of people here also assume that a successful Latina judge is unqualified because she's a minority and therefore benefited from affirmative action.

264 westtexasjew  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:46:39pm

Rush is right, as usual.
She will make Souter look like Adolf Shickelgruber.
And we don't have to want Obama to fail; the little putz has already accomplished that, as our dollar falls into the Marianas Trench.

265 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:46:49pm

re: #240 opnion

Avanti, I might remember wrong , but wasn't his nasty little sexist comment when the McCain Campaign was up 4 points, before the economy broke open?
Even if it didn't hurt him, do you think that what he said was ok?

It did not occur to me that using that old canard would be twisted as a insult to Palin. WTF would he call the GOP's VP a pig, it defies common sense.McCain used it, Bush used it, and I've used it.

266 itellu3times  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:47:31pm

re: #261 Kosh's Shadow

Clinton: We are preparing specific proposals for ME peace

1. Stop shooting.
2. Whatever.

267 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:47:46pm

re: #111 medaura18586

That makes her the worst of both worlds to me, socially conservative on issues like abortion,

Er... no. The cited case has nothing to do with being "socially conservative on abortion"; the court merely batted down a (pretty silly-looking) Equal Protection Clause claim against the application of the Mexico City policy.

268 TreBob  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:47:53pm

re: #14 laxmatt1984

I certainly want her to fail in receiving confirmation.

Wanting the other side to fail is inherent in American politics. You want the other party to fail to win an election. You want the other party to fail in implementing their policies. I don't understand why this is controversial.

Amen! Why is using this particular word and phrase so wrong? If you don't want something or someone to succeed, then the only other choice is for them to fail.. I don't want her to succeed in getting confirmed, therefore I want her to fail in this regard..

And when did Rush Limbaugh's job ever become anything more than selling radio airtime? What he did succeed at is getting his name and radio program mentioned on every passing television, print and radio news and editorial bites for several weeks and all for free. I wonder why he's using the same phrase regarding Judge Sotomayor?

269 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:48:04pm

As for going negative after the election, every time Obama is in a tight spot he blames the problems on the past administration. How many times have we heard him whine about "inheriting this mess"?

I will agree with you Charles that Obama was far better at projecting a positive image & message than McCain was. Given the media support, it was no trouble at all. His speeches are full of uplifting if meaningless phrases and imagery.

President Above-It-All

There Obama stands, bravely holding his flanks against straw men on all sides.

It's part of Obama's rhetorical style to appear always above it all and positive. It's a facade. This is the same president who told the Wall St CEO's "I'm the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks!"

270 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:48:08pm

re: #256 Eowyn2

Is there a difference between the following:

Me: "I am a bitch"
Coworker "you are a bitch"

No one was called a bitch. The phrase is a common one, used before in the campaign. I can't get too excited about it.

271 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:48:21pm

re: #258 gnargtharst

From Charles: "...this FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! meme is horrendously bad politics, and it achieves nothing except to further marginalize conservatives."

But *to whom* is "bad politics" (I assume your meaning there is something like "bad PR") an important issue?

What of those who want to discuss something with some sublety, instead of campaigning for the benefit of the lowest-attention-span voter?

Like somebody pointed out earlier: those who know Rush Limbaugh, know what he means. Those who don't know what Rush Limbaugh means, probably are willingly ignornant, and not likely to change their interpretation based on something like "positiveness". (Or "facts").

And Rush doesn't play to the lowest-attention-span LISTENER. Get off it.

272 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:48:28pm

On the other hand, if you want the GOP to fail, then you want Limbaugh, Beck, etc to succeed.

273 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:48:34pm

re: #261 Kosh's Shadow

Can we give her the Nobel Peace Prize yet, or do they like to have the "plan" in writing first?

274 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:48:52pm
275 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:48:56pm

re: #253 buzzsawmonkey

After that, I decided that I had wasted more than enough of my life seeking for the talent that other people seemed to divine in his works, and quit bothering to look at his films.

I actually did like Inside Man. It seemed both better-made, and more mature, than his earlier works.

276 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:49:10pm

re: #272 Jimmah

Ron Paul!

277 Kosh's Shadow  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:49:12pm

re: #273 Lincolntf

Can we give her the Nobel Peace Prize yet, or do they like to have the "plan" in writing first?

She can't get the Nobel Piss on Israel prize until Israel gets screwed.

278 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:49:48pm

re: #250 FabioC.

Why should Republicans vote against Sotomayor if it is a losing battle?

Maybe to make a stand on a principle - that there is no place in the Supreme Court for a "race and gender-conscious" judge. They must also explain clearly why they do so, and call the media on it if (when) their position is distorted as racist.

Because America has completely turned the corner on issues like race and gender> Because America affords the same laws and protections to women and minorities today and there is nothing left at all to say about it? Don't get me wrong, America has come an astonishingly long way since Dred Scot, but to assume that these issues still do not exist in this country is delusional and to say it like that only reinforces the "Republicans are racist" meme. Of course given the lurch of the party to guys like Ron Paul and songs like "Barak the magic Negro" it is not too hard to blush in shame and say that the meme has something to it.

279 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:49:52pm

re: #174 Russkilitlover

I think it's a non starter for the left. A lot of conservatives and Republicans have listened to Rush at some point over the years and are hip to his schtick. The left is frothing and trying to make this a bigger issue. Rush occasionally tweaks noses with continuing the "fail" meme (as seen in Charles' blog), but that is purely for his amusement - and ratings. I think that whole "head of the GOP" canard was a bust.

I don't know, I think the right is more properly characterized as frothing, and harder and earlier than the Democrats were with Bush.

280 itellu3times  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:50:00pm

re: #274 buzzsawmonkey

The Underwear Gnomes at the State Department:

1) Pressure Israel

2) Kiss a terrorist.

3) Peace

fify

281 2by2  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:50:02pm

re: #200 nikis-knight

thanks for that elaborate explanation,
in the context of Rush's quote it seems that he rather meant fail on a full tilt level (impeachment-military coup-death) come to my mind when I read that quote.

282 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:50:11pm

re: #194 Eowyn2

he had no reason to go negative but the pig/lipstick was a definate insult that he was able to brush over as coming out wrong. Evidently no one checked the teleprompter.

He was not on the teleprompter when he made that comment.

283 westtexasjew  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:50:13pm

I'm getting a stronger whiff of racism these days. Why does everybody assume that any successful minority succeed only because of affirmative action. I've seen many people here argue that Obama is the first affirmative action President. A lot of people here also assume that a successful Latina judge is unqualified because she's a minority and therefore benefited from affirmative action.

Well, genius, if your kid is a C+ student and he or she gets into Columbia, as Obama did, then I bet that was not due to any other factors other than racial preferences.
Affirmative Action only increases racial divisions and is unconstitutional as hell.

284 big steve  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:50:18pm

re: #250 FabioC.

Why should Republicans vote against Sotomayor if it is a losing battle?

She will be approved by the Senate for sure. However if the Republican's have even the slightest ounce of subtlety here they can use the confirmation process to score "above the fray" points. For example getting Judge Sotomeyor to explain the "better decisions" quote. Ask it nicely, ask for clarification. Her choices are to further dig the hole or to disown her own words.

285 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:50:27pm
286 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:50:41pm

re: #263 Killgore Trout

I'm getting a stronger whiff of racism these days.

I'm not surprised. The left and Dems in general are flinging the word "race" around at every opportunity. I would go so far as to say that Obama's candidacy and Presidency have done more to undermine and set back race relations than any other event(s). And it's all coming from the Left.

287 Spare O'Lake  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:50:48pm

I really hope Obama succeeds in growing a set of balls in time to stand up to North Korea and Iran.

288 Lee Coller  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:50:50pm

From what I know so far (which I'll admit isn't much) I think she's probably about the best I can hope for from this Administration.

289 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:51:00pm

re: #263 Killgore Trout

I'm getting a stronger whiff of racism these days. Why does everybody assume that any successful minority succeed only because of affirmative action. I've seen many people here argue that Obama is the first affirmative action President. A lot of people here also assume that a successful Latina judge is unqualified because she's a minority and therefore benefited from affirmative action.

That's one of the unfortunate consequences of affirmative action - it leaves the door open for racists to exploit that.

290 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:51:25pm

re: #276 Killgore Trout

Ron Paul!

I knew I'd forgotten someone!

291 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:51:47pm

re: #248 Charles

It comes from simplex populist pundit math, their first basic rule:

Barack proposes, We opposes!

they throw out the algebra of aftermaths and the calculus of consequences because those subjects are too hard for them.

292 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:51:56pm

re: #258 gnargtharst

... Like somebody pointed out earlier: those who know Rush Limbaugh, know what he means. Those who don't know what Rush Limbaugh means, probably are willingly ignornant, and not likely to change their interpretation based on something like "positiveness". (Or "facts").

zactly! I speak Rush. I know what he meant.

293 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:51:57pm

re: #265 avanti

It did not occur to me that using that old canard would be twisted as a insult to Palin. WTF would he call the GOP's VP a pig, it defies common sense.McCain used it, Bush used it, and I've used it.

You are not really trying to say that it was not a reference to Palin?
Please tell me that you aren't. Didn't you catch the crowd reaction? They got it.
Stretches credibility to think that this comment on the heels of Palins Lipstick & pit bulll comment was coincidence.
As to why would he do it, maybe he is just a thin skinned , nasty guy

294 Lee Coller  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:52:01pm

It's clear now, Limbaugh is a moby

295 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:52:06pm

re: #282 avanti

He was not on the teleprompter when he made that comment.

Point made, and not your point Avanti. As soon as the man was off the teleprompter, his true nature came out, and the "I'm so positive" mask fell off and he scrambled to pick it up and put it back on, Except for the fact that we were all watching while he tried to do this.

Didn't work.

296 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:52:13pm

re: #271 Walter L. Newton

And Rush doesn't play to the lowest-attention-span LISTENER. Get off it.

That's a laugh. Five minutes with Rush and you know his every "thought". He's a buffoon, a loud clown with a simple shtick and as much interest in teaching people the truth as Hugo Chavez.

297 n2stox  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:52:32pm

Knowing that Obama is a supporter of abortion anytime, anywhere, I am a bit baffled by him choosing a nominee who, from what I saw, had more than one rebuke of abortion activists.

This is all just distracting us from Pelosi, though. she'll come back from China like nothing is wrong and we'll all go about our business like nothing happened.

I for one do not think one in her position can level charges like she has against a government body she supposedly oversees, the provide no proof, then walk away leaving loose ends untied.

That really bothers me. But, now we have the Sotomayor smokescreen up and can't see much else right now.

298 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:52:35pm

re: #142 buzzsawmonkey

Rosie Perez = nails on the blackboard.

How did she ever get to be some kind of star?

She was good in Jarmusch's Night On Earth, because he actually took advantage of her nails on a chalkboard quality.

(Also, she was pretty hot at the time.)

299 LGoPs  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:53:20pm

re: #190 Cato the Elder

"Lipstick on a pig" referred to the same old policies dressed up under fancy new names. It is an old expression; I've been hearing it for years.

Those who took it as a reference to Palin may have been right, but then what does that say about their assessment of Palin?

You can do better than that.

I gotta give you credit. That is pretty sophisticated sophistry there. I saw the comment and the delivery was just as telling as the words themselves and the delivery clearly implied an insult to Palin. Were Obama a Republican doing that the howls of outrage most likely would have seriously damaged, if not ended, his campaign.
Nice twist to subtly turn the comment around and put it on Republican's interpretations...........
You're a master.
/

300 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:53:36pm

re: #261 Kosh's Shadow

Screwed up the link
Clinton: We are preparing specific proposals for ME peace

just as long as we can take credit for it...

301 SpartanWoman  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:54:19pm

re: #264 westtexasjew

And I'll be damned if I root for crap like expropriating bond holders, statements like "My administration between you and pitchforks", and ACORN thugs picketing (on the public dime)AIG employees to in any way succeed.

I do not want this little presidency by intimidation and expropriation to succeed and continue.

I do not think that supporting and cheering this on is wise politics.

I do not think that distorting what Limbaugh said is helpful either, but apparently it makes for theatrical talking points.

302 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:54:32pm

re: #253 buzzsawmonkey

I remember Spike Lee sitting along the sidelines of the Lakers/Celtics NBA finals last year....in a Yankees jersey. Wrong city, wrong sport...but I'm glad Beantown continues to get under his skin.

He was also one of the visitors featured in One Day at Fenway by Steve Kettmann. Kept harping on about how white the crowd was and how racist the city of Boston was ('bout 25 years too late with that one, Spikey). My personal favorite was how he claimed Boston would never win a World Series as bad karma for being the last team in the American league to roster a black player.

What a load of bullshit....everybody loves Luis Tiant and Jim Rice. The Boston Bruins also were the first NHL team to have a black player (Willie O'Ree)...who I think took to the ice before Pumpsie Green took the thei field w/the Red Sox.

Of course, Spike Lee can get away with this unmitigated bullshit because he's famous.

303 gnargtharst  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:54:52pm

re: #271 Walter L. Newton

You got my point exactly backwards. Rush is criticized because his "I hope he/she fails" quote is bad PR. My counterclaim is that the phrase is not offensive to anybody who can consider the context (and, as a correllary, why should we care about the opinion of anybody who can't consider 10 seconds of context?)

304 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:54:58pm

re: #274 buzzsawmonkey

The Underwear Gnomes at the State Department:

1) Pressure Israel

2) ?

3) Peace

I can not begin to express my anger at Hilary. There is something about State that has always hated Israel. Maybe it is something in the water fountains there.

Of course Barry is going to try to screw Israel. I hate it.

Of course he believes that if you just bear your throat others will suddenly show decency. He believes it for the US and he believes it for Israel.

This is the moonbat counter craziness that is the opposite number to the neocon idea that if we just rattle our sabre all the time, people will fear and respect us and therefore fall into line.

305 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:55:02pm

re: #271 Walter L. Newton

And Rush doesn't play to the lowest-attention-span LISTENER. Get off it.

Actually no, he doesn't. They couldn't follow his thought processes. I think we call those ppl democrats.

306 Let's Roll  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:55:14pm

I just wonder why members of the Left can write books and make movies about the assassination of a standing GOP president and everybody yawns, but a conservative talk show host says out loud that he hopes the policies of a standing Dem president fail, and he's eviscerated by both sides.

Same thing goes for the attacks against nominated conservative Supreme Court justices versus attacks on the attacks of liberal ones.

And when I say "I just wonder why" I actually mean "We know exactly why."

307 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:55:16pm

re: #301 SpartanWoman

And I'll be damned if I root for crap like expropriating bond holders, statements like "My administration between you and pitchforks", and ACORN thugs picketing (on the public dime)AIG employees to in any way succeed.

I do not want this little presidency by intimidation and expropriation to succeed and continue.

I do not think that supporting and cheering this on is wise politics.

I do not think that distorting what Limbaugh said is helpful either, but apparently it makes for theatrical talking points.

No one is distorting what Rush said, you just ain't hearing him correctly. He's a jerk.

308 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:55:29pm

re: #151 Cato the Elder

Yet it's hard not to dislike Justice Thomas for his hypocrisy as a prime beneficiary of affirmative action who now thinks it's a bad idea.

Two observations:

1) I don't know for a fact that Thomas was a "prime beneficiary of affirmative action"; and

2) Even if he was, the phenomenon you cite is not necessarily "hypocrisy".

309 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:55:52pm

re: #293 opnion

You are not really trying to say that it was not a reference to Palin?
Please tell me that you aren't. Didn't you catch the crowd reaction? They got it.
Stretches credibility to think that this comment on the heels of Palins Lipstick & pit bulll comment was coincidence.
As to why would he do it, maybe he is just a thin skinned , nasty guy

Of course it was not a reference to Palin, he'd have to be a idiot to intend that. I did notice once he said it, he may well have had a Oh shit moment because of the crowd.BTW, it's sort of a moot point, the line only had legs on the right, and he won anyway.

310 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:55:53pm

re: #299 LGoPs

I gotta give you credit. That is pretty sophisticated sophistry there. I saw the comment and the delivery was just as telling as the words themselves and the delivery clearly implied an insult to Palin. Were Obama a Republican doing that the howls of outrage most likely would have seriously damaged, if not ended, his campaign.
Nice twist to subtly turn the comment around and put it on Republican's interpretations...........
You're a master.
/

And you're a master baiter.

311 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:55:58pm

re: #295 Walter L. Newton

Point made, and not your point Avanti. As soon as the man was off the teleprompter, his true nature came out, and the "I'm so positive" mask fell off and he scrambled to pick it up and put it back on, Except for the fact that we were all watching while he tried to do this.

Didn't work.

Bingo!

312 Spare O'Lake  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:56:13pm

re: #298 Occasional Reader

She was good in Jarmusch's Night On Earth, because he actually took advantage of her nails on a chalkboard quality.

(Also, she was pretty hot at the time.)

Was it her who was so exquisitely irritating as the wife in that Nicholas Cage movie where he wins the lottery and gives half to the waitress?

313 VioletTiger  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:56:19pm

re: #289 Jimmah

That's one of the unfortunate consequences of affirmative action - it leaves the door open for racists to exploit that.

You make a great point. One of the reasons I do not buy in to affirmative action is that is tars so many with the same brush. People of different races and gender can make it on their own merit. There should be nothing stopping them but the will to succeed.

314 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:56:28pm
315 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:56:31pm

I'm no huge fan of Rush, but I can spot a person on my side.

316 ointmentfly  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:56:41pm

re: #263 Killgore Trout

Right... Only liberals calling out Clarence Thomas can get away with that.

317 Ward Cleaver  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:56:50pm

Well, it looks like the hospital in Mansfield has backed down on the American flag display issue:

Kindred Hospital to allow Mansfield employee's American flag display

Gee, I wonder if they got some phone calls?

318 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:57:14pm

re: #308 Occasional Reader

Two observations:

1) I don't know for a fact that Thomas was a "prime beneficiary of affirmative action"; and

He was, he himself says so, he's said so for years.

319 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:57:32pm

re: #306 Let's Roll

I just wonder why members of the Left can write books and make movies about the assassination of a standing GOP president and everybody yawns, but a conservative talk show host says out loud that he hopes the policies of a standing Dem president fail, and he's eviscerated by both sides.

Same thing goes for the attacks against nominated conservative Supreme Court justices versus attacks on the attacks of liberal ones.

Good observation.

And when I say "I just wonder why" I actually mean "We know exactly why."

320 anotherindyfilmguy  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:57:50pm

Personally I think she is a wedge candidate. Beyond that what is the opposition supposed to do when out of power? Play nice and roll over for everything? That is a large, large part of how the conservatives lost being in charge. The other side screamed and kicked and fought nearly everything until they had smeared and yelled their way to being in charge. Now they expect to be treated like they are God's gift to politics and their word is from on high. Just watching the whole thing play out gives me a good case of F'm-all...

321 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:58:01pm

re: #248 Charles

The phrase Krauthammer used was "steady temperament" to describe Obama. And he does have that. During the debates no matter what people through at him, he stood there looking relaxed and in command of himself. I'm no fan of Obama, but that is indeed a good trait in a president. He's unflappable. An he did project a positive image (if one was given to believe his clap-trap).

Just saying, he & his campaign did indeed go negative. He just managed to look gracious while doing it, so slick his style.

This is all a separate issue form wanting Obama to fail. I want him to fail to achieve some of his policy goals. But I certainly don't want his presidency to be a failure, as that will harm America.

I have never been a fan of Rush, btw. He's a blowhard, a hypocrite and an egotist who loves the sound of his own voice.

322 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:58:08pm

re: #296 Cato the Elder

That's a laugh. Five minutes with Rush and you know his every "thought". He's a buffoon, a loud clown with a simple shtick and as much interest in teaching people the truth as Hugo Chavez.


That's not my issue with Rush...I have never heard Rush's radio show and never will..
A few years ago Rush was hired on Sunday's to do an NFL pregame show..
I think he lasted 3 weeks before he got fired for saying something racist about a Black Quarterback..He was fired after 3 weeks from one of the largest networks in the world for being a racist. I saw the show..He lost all cred with me..I will never ever listen or follow a racist..
That's all I got to say about Rush...

323 JimmyTheClaw  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:58:23pm

re: #61 Charles

Barack Obama ran on a platform of sheer positive messages. Not once did he wish for the other side to fail. You're just wrong to claim that negativity is winning strategy. One of the big reasons why Obama won was because he did NOT go negative -- ever.

no all his supporters and puppets did look at all the people coming back from under the bus.

324 CyanSnowHawk  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:58:29pm

re: #312 Spare O'Lake

Was it her who was so exquisitely irritating as the wife in that Nicholas Cage movie where he wins the lottery and gives half to the waitress?

It could happen to you. She was a real harpy in that one.

325 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:58:33pm

re: #285 buzzsawmonkey

I don't think I even heard about it. Is that the Lemmiwinks story?

While it's true that Barney Frank sued the movie for false advertising (his attorney, Lionel Hutz, called it the worse such case since The Neverending Story), no, that's not what it's about. Stars Denzel Washington and Clive Owen(s?); about a "perfect" bank robbery, but that has some very interesting other things in the background (that begin to make it clear that, as Denzel's character says, "this ain't no bank robbery").

I'd recommend it; it was well done.

326 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:58:36pm

re: #303 gnargtharst

You got my point exactly backwards. Rush is criticized because his "I hope he/she fails" quote is bad PR. My counterclaim is that the phrase is not offensive to anybody who can consider the context (and, as a correllary, why should we care about the opinion of anybody who can't consider 10 seconds of context?)

What part of "I hope she/he fails" are you having trouble with? Rush is a jerk. Did you hear him the other day dismiss 2 years of science, and over a 100 years of other research when he said, in one sentence that the information regarding evolution and the lemur monkey fossil was bullshit.

Take that 10 seconds of content and put it through your "consider" meter.

Rush is a jerk with a total lack of critical thinking skills and any concept of logic or science.

327 Orangutan  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:58:43pm

Wise dissent can be humorous. It also has to be impersonal. For example, Dick Cheney's recent speech defending numerous policies was very well received here and elsewhere....it was NOT laced with personal attacks. Cheney's debate with Lieberman was funny and not personal - also a successful appearance where the "opposition party" made its points in a way that caused it to gain steam.

The personal edge has always been one of Rush's downfalls. He can point out misgivings in policies and philosophy without calling for heads. Gingrich also suffered from this edge. It would be more understandable if they could be contrite about it once in a while......but only more understandable.

328 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:59:37pm

Has anyone mentioned yet that Rush predicted this nomination in 1997 ?

329 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 2:59:52pm

re: #311 opnion

Bingo!

It's amazing that Avanti made the point himself and totally missed what he had just written. Scary stupid.

330 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:00:28pm

re: #309 avanti

Of course it was not a reference to Palin, he'd have to be a idiot to intend that. I did notice once he said it, he may well have had a Oh shit moment because of the crowd.BTW, it's sort of a moot point, the line only had legs on the right, and he won anyway.


You really dispute that this was reference to Palin? I suppose that you would then say using The name Hussein during the campaign was not a Muslim reference by some on the right. no?
I don't think that he had an "Oh shit" moment. he got the insult in & the crowd loved it

331 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:00:35pm

re: #322 HoosierHoops

That's not my issue with Rush...I have never heard Rush's radio show and never will..
A few years ago Rush was hired on Sunday's to do an NFL pregame show..
I think he lasted 3 weeks before he got fired for saying something racist about a Black Quarterback..He was fired after 3 weeks from one of the largest networks in the world for being a racist. I saw the show..He lost all cred with me..I will never ever listen or follow a racist..
That's all I got to say about Rush...

I vaguely remember that, but didn't see it myself. Thanks for the reminder.

332 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:00:38pm

re: #286 Russkilitlover

The Dems have their creepy obsession with race too, This is coming from the right.

333 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:00:44pm

re: #314 buzzsawmonkey


Plus everyone probably has seen an example at work, or heard of one from friends and family, where someone is not fired despite inappropriate deportment or bad work product, because the company is afraid of a discrimination suit. This many not happen as often as people say, but it happens enough times for there to be some truth to the stories.

Possibly, but I've seen enough examples going the other way--pure old-fashioned racism--to be very wary of the way people glom onto only examples that suit them.

334 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:01:26pm

re: #318 SanFranciscoZionist

He was, he himself says so, he's said so for years.

Okay. It still doesn't make his position "hypocrisy". One can be a beneficiary of a policy, and simultaneously (or later in life) believe it's a bad policy; there's nothing necessarily hypocritical, or even contradictory, about that.

335 SpartanWoman  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:01:31pm

re: #307 Walter L. Newton

No one is distorting what Rush said, you just ain't hearing him correctly. He's a jerk.


I listened to the Limbaugh quotes, and I'm hearing him just fine. He wants Obama to fail as he thinks Obama's policies will be bad for the country and he values the nation's success and its citizens' freedoms more than the "success" of Obama and his cheering section.

And I agree with that.

336 FabioC.  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:01:41pm

re: #284 big steve

That's right, but it's still possible to vote "nay" at the end.

re: #278 LudwigVanQuixote

Identity politics will not solve the problem either.

337 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:01:45pm

re: #322 HoosierHoops

I didn't hear it and I don't know what he said. But I bet he didn't say it again. One bad statement doesn't make a racist.

338 LGoPs  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:02:22pm

re: #310 Cato the Elder

And you're a master baiter.

Heh. Just call 'em like I see 'em.

339 Cato the Elder  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:02:57pm

Well, entertaining as always, folks. Time for my swim.

Later.

340 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:03:03pm

re: #322 HoosierHoops

That's not my issue with Rush...I have never heard Rush's radio show and never will..
A few years ago Rush was hired on Sunday's to do an NFL pregame show..
I think he lasted 3 weeks before he got fired for saying something racist about a Black Quarterback..He was fired after 3 weeks from one of the largest networks in the world for being a racist. I saw the show..He lost all cred with me..I will never ever listen or follow a racist..
That's all I got to say about Rush...

He did NOT say anything racist about McNabb - what he said was that the media is rooting for the black QB to succeed and will give him more credit than he's due and less blame as well. He never said anything about him personally, only about the media using race instead of stats and skill as a qualification - and it was blown out of proportion, as issues like this always are - and he was 100% spot on. So, you should really get that straight.

341 kahall  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:03:08pm

I don't see that the fail stuff is a big mistake but I have been wrong many times before. I'm not turned off by it but I've admitted before I did cringe a little the first time he said it.
Besides he turned over his position as head of the R's to Colin Powell. What he thinks about the nomination is what's important. Has anyone heard from him on this?

342 SpartanWoman  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:03:14pm

re: #323 JimmyTheClaw

no all his supporters and puppets did look at all the people coming back from under the bus.

And Obama did not have to personally go negative, because he had the press to do that for him. And they did.

343 Ward Cleaver  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:03:16pm

re: #331 Cato the Elder

I vaguely remember that, but didn't see it myself. Thanks for the reminder.

He was talking about Donovan McNabb, and his belief that the MSM wanted him to succeed only because he was black. In spite of his injury problems, McNabb has been a very good quarterback. Rush was wrong about Donovan's talent.

344 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:03:21pm

re: #332 Killgore Trout

The Dems have their creepy obsession with race too, This is coming from the right.

Well, it doesn't exactly help that her promoters (including the guy that nominated her) keep talking about her key qualification being her "life story" (wink wink), rather than her career as a jurist.

345 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:03:25pm

re: #329 Walter L. Newton

It's amazing that Avanti made the point himself and totally missed what he had just written. Scary stupid.

I won't call him stupid, but he did miss the point.

346 Lee Coller  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:03:42pm

re: #335 SpartanWoman

I listened to the Limbaugh quotes, and I'm hearing him just fine. He wants Obama to fail as he thinks Obama's policies will be bad for the country and he values the nation's success and its citizens' freedoms more than the "success" of Obama and his cheering section.

And I agree with that.

You don't give the other side sound bites, in or out of context. If Rush didn't know better before, he sure should know now. Either he hasn't learned or just doesn't care.

347 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:04:26pm

re: #330 opnion

You really dispute that this was reference to Palin? I suppose that you would then say using The name Hussein during the campaign was not a Muslim reference by some on the right. no?
I don't think that he had an "Oh shit" moment. he got the insult in & the crowd loved it

Oh, it was. I just don't care, any more than I cared when Mccain used the phrase to swipe at Hillary's healthcare proposals. Big shrug on that one.

348 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:04:40pm

re: #314 buzzsawmonkey

I wasn't suggesting that all criticism of affirmative action has a racist motive, - I'm dead against it myself. But racists will exploit it. Just as an unfortunate consequence of 'political correctness' in the UK is the exploitation of it by the BNP, who are trying to blur the line between legitimate criticism of it and racism - their 'golliwog' campaign being a prime example.

349 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:05:02pm

Clarence Thomas, according to his book (which I read years ago when he came to my hometown to speak at his alma mater) was the beneficiary of affirmative action through the Catholic Church. He'd been a seminary student down South (I can't remember where) and Holy Cross was looking to diversify their student body, so they went looking for qualified students and found him. The impression I got from his story was that his affirmative action was the result of individuals (not the Govt.) looking to right some wrongs in the days during/after the Civil Rights movement.

350 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:05:28pm

re: #312 Spare O'Lake

Was it her who was so exquisitely irritating as the wife in that Nicholas Cage movie where he wins the lottery and gives half to the waitress?

I know the answer is "yes", although I didn't see the movie (It Could Happen To You, I think was the name.) And, partly on the topic here... I can recall an earnest liberal colleague back when it came out complaining "why did the Latina woman in the movie have to be the villain?" Since, you know, all villains are White (Not Of Hispanic Origin)... everyone knows that!

351 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:06:06pm

re: #347 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, it was. I just don't care, any more than I cared when Mccain used the phrase to swipe at Hillary's healthcare proposals. Big shrug on that one.

This all started with whether or not Obama was above the fray & did not go negative.

352 Let's Roll  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:06:11pm

re: #335 SpartanWoman

As do I. One of only two things can happen: Obama can succeed with his policies or Obama can fail with his policies. I simply choose the latter. If I were hoping for the former, I'd be a uberliberal and an Obama-voter. I'm neither.

353 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:06:45pm

More on Obama's "positive" rhetorical style:

But Enough About Me . . .

Barack Obama spoke at the National Archives last Thursday on the war on terror (not that he used that term):

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words--"to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never--ever--turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

Who cares? Who cares about Barack Obama's father, his mother, or his "own American journey"? Is his journey so noteworthy that it needs to be intruded into a presidential speech on weighty matters of constitutional law and public policy, of civil liberties and national security? After all, tens of millions of other Americans have ancestors who came to these shores in search of the promise of a better life. Tens
of millions of other Americans have lived in a foreign land--and some of them were presumably awakened early by their mothers.

354 jorline  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:07:07pm

Spiting hairs...didn't something like that come up during the Justice Thomas' confirmation hearings?
//

355 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:07:17pm

re: #314 buzzsawmonkey

It's not a question of "leaving the door open for racists." Affirmative action is a mandated preference; knowing that it is in operation, it is easy to resent that mandate's existence; it is easy to assume that someone who could benefit from it does, even if that person doesn't need to; it is easy to move from that to an assumption that any person who could benefit from it has, and that the person is therefore at least less-qualified, perhaps actually unqualified.

Plus everyone probably has seen an example at work, or heard of one from friends and family, where someone is not fired despite inappropriate deportment or bad work product, because the company is afraid of a discrimination suit. This many not happen as often as people say, but it happens enough times for there to be some truth to the stories.

None of this is "racists exploiting" anything; this is simply the natural progression of resentments and assumptions that builds up when you have a mandated preference.

Mandated preferences have a huge dose of foolishness towards them. However, there is a context. Given the set up in America, back in the day, the only way to get minorities into schools was by mandating that they accept them. The only way to get minorities out of an underclass position was by allowing them to pursue education and meaningful employment. Whether or not the time is passed for AA and we no longer need to do that, is something that has a lot of room for debate and I can hear both sides.

However, consider the following fact:

With the quota systems of the fourties, Feynman had to have special letters written from his professors at MIT to Princeton to accept him for graduate school even though he was a Jew. They argued that they overlook that fact because her really was that good.

Feynman was indisputably, the greatest American physicist of his generation. He was indisputably one of the greatest ever. He is in the same league as Newton and Einstein. Yet, Princeton saw him a Jew first and came within a nanometer of not accepting him because of it.

Interestingly enough, Jews have never directly benefitted from Affirmative action in this country, though, with it came a removal of the quota systems for Jews.

I am not going to say that I think AA has never been abused. I am not going to say that there isn't room for serious and sober discussion about it and reforming it. However, I am not about to just jump up and say there is nothing to it or that it was in principle wrong from the start.

356 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:07:18pm

Limbaugh is the ideologue's ideologue. He'll fight liberals whenever and wherever they appear. Judge Sotomayor is a liberal. Liberals are bad. Therefore they must be fought, tooth and nail. QED.

In Limbaugh's unelected position as a radio talk show host, he's rallying his conservative base and listeners. He's throwing them red meat. Do I blame him for that? No.

Is this a wise political position to take on Judge Sotomayor? As a lawyer, I'd rather keep my powder dry. Sotomayor is an unabashed liberal. She's nonetheless shown herself able to work with the conservatives on the Second Circuit, including conservative Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, a personal favorite of mine.

In other words, Sotomayor is collegial. I think she's practical, pragmatic, and prudent. As a judge, she's not much of an ideologue. As a conservative, I can live with her. The other candidates proposed to Obama were worse. Under a "lesser of several evils" analysis, we can live with Sotomayor.

357 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:08:32pm

re: #353 Kenneth

More on Obama's "positive" rhetorical style:

But Enough About Me . . .

Obama's speeches remind me of a line a friend of mine likes to use: "... but I've talked enough about myself. Tell me; what do you think about me?"

Of course, the difference is, my friend is kidding.

358 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:08:47pm

Sharpton has endorsed Sotomayor...

359 gnargtharst  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:09:03pm

re: #326 Walter L. Newton

"What part of "I hope she/he fails" are you having trouble with?"

None. I understand what he meant and agree with him.

"... Rush is a jerk. Did you hear him the other day dismiss 2 years of science, and over a 100 years of other research when he said, in one sentence that the information regarding evolution and the lemur monkey fossil was bullshit."

I did not hear that, as I have not heard Rush LImbaugh in many years.

"...Take that 10 seconds of content and put it through your "consider" meter."

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Walter L. Newton; I have nothing to say in response.

360 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:09:09pm

re: #351 opnion

This all started with whether or not Obama was above the fray & did not go negative.

OK, going all the way back, I think Charles is right, in that Obama ran a campaign that was generally perceived to be highly positive. I don't think Charles meant that Obama never did anything sneaky, or never said anything even slightly nasty--this was a political campaign. But his general tone was, well, positive. McCain's was bitter.

361 debutaunt  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:09:27pm

re: #295 Walter L. Newton

Point made, and not your point Avanti. As soon as the man was off the teleprompter, his true nature came out, and the "I'm so positive" mask fell off and he scrambled to pick it up and put it back on, Except for the fact that we were all watching while he tried to do this.

Didn't work.

At the time, it struck me that he was repeating a funny inner circle joke at the wrong time.

362 JacksonTn  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:09:31pm

Michelle said she is gonna kick your ass if you don't stop talking about her man this way ... LEAVE HIM ALONE ! ... BUSH DID IT!

/I cannot help myself ...

363 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:09:42pm

re: #357 Occasional Reader

It's the narcissism, stupid.

364 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:10:00pm

re: #348 Jimmah

I wasn't suggesting that all criticism of affirmative action has a racist motive, - I'm dead against it myself. But racists will exploit it. Just as an unfortunate consequence of 'political correctness' in the UK is the exploitation of it by the BNP, who are trying to blur the line between legitimate criticism of it and racism - their 'golliwog' campaign being a prime example.

And the left will exploit US every time we mention something about affirmative action. They have set the rules, if we criticize affirmative action, we are being racist. If we mention anything about Sotomayor's remark about her advantage of being Latino, we are being racist. And it goes on and on.

I don't play their game. What ever side, black, white, latino, yellow, what ever, racist is racist, and I know one when I see one.

365 Chekote  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:10:09pm

I am a Rush fan but he needs to realize that he mispoke the first time around and stop this "fail" nonsense.

366 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:10:25pm

re: #340 tedzilla99

He did NOT say anything racist about McNabb - what he said was that the media is rooting for the black QB to succeed and will give him more credit than he's due and less blame as well. He never said anything about him personally, only about the media using race instead of stats and skill as a qualification - and it was blown out of proportion, as issues like this always are - and he was 100% spot on. So, you should really get that straight.

Something about the only reason McNabb is given a pass is because he is Black..It was not blown out of proportion and he fucking did deserve to be fired from his 2 million dollar contract after 3 weeks.. I saw it..I considered it racist or least enough to never listen to him again..
I guess he just wanted McNabb to fail...
I don't like him...

367 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:10:39pm
368 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:11:08pm
369 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:11:20pm

re: #359 gnargtharst

"What part of "I hope she/he fails" are you having trouble with?"

None. I understand what he meant and agree with him.

"... Rush is a jerk. Did you hear him the other day dismiss 2 years of science, and over a 100 years of other research when he said, in one sentence that the information regarding evolution and the lemur monkey fossil was bullshit."

I did not hear that, as I have not heard Rush LImbaugh in many years.

"...Take that 10 seconds of content and put it through your "consider" meter."

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Walter L. Newton; I have nothing to say in response.

Well, you were right, you had nothing to say. Pity.

370 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:11:38pm

re: #363 Kenneth

It's the narcissism, stupid.

"I, myself, have struggled against the forces of narcissism all of my life. In fact, my struggle against narcissism is the key, defining characteristic of our era..."

371 Drider  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:11:45pm

Hey, anyone is welcome to pipe up with some alternatives to the fiscal, economic,social disaster that this Country is headed too with the current crop of leaders we have....and after that.....feel good about yourself for accomplishing absolutely nothing.

I'm not ready to turn the leaf on capitalism and to bode success to Barry O and his Commissars would be doing exactly that.I sometimes think that people are actually thinking that we are headed back to something akin to the Carter years.

Write this down, if Barry O accomplishes half of what he wants then we will be begging for the Carter years and we will never see even that in our lifetimes, much less our kids.

Personally, I'm done with the D and the R, they are all a pack of thieves who would be right at home being the leaders of a Communist nation as much as they would a Republic.

The people are not running the government anymore, it's the other way around.

372 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:12:28pm

re: #358 brookly red

Sharpton has endorsed Sotomayor...

Poor woman.

373 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:12:29pm

re: #209 Flyers1974

Then how did Bush get elected twice? And hold both chambers of congress until 2006? How does any Republican get elected with the cards stacked so against them?

I think the media's bashing finally caught up in 2006 resulting in the Dem House and Senate and finally I give you, with a slight tingle up my leg, Barack Hussein Obama.

374 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:12:36pm

re: #353 Kenneth

More on Obama's "positive" rhetorical style:

But Enough About Me . . .

Not surprisingly, I loved the speech and his life's journey to becoming POTUS was made possible by those documents. I think the story is a nice image for all Americans. It's a hope speech.

375 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:13:15pm
“I have become a symbol of America returning to its best traditions.” - BHO

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” - BHO

“This is the moment when the rise of our oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.” - BHO

“A light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, and people will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’” - BHO

That's not just a "positive" message, that's a disturbing degree of self-regard.

376 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:13:46pm

re: #364 Walter L. Newton

I assure you: Sotomayor will get justifiably grilled at her confirmation hearing for her remark contrasting "wise Latinas" with "white males". She's going to spend a lot of time explaining that one on national TV.

377 capitalist piglet  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:13:53pm

re: #279 Flyers1974

I don't know, I think the right is more properly characterized as frothing, and harder and earlier than the Democrats were with Bush.

Bush wasn't as ideologically controversial...and honestly, I think when movies are being made about President Bush being on the receiving end of physical violence (to put it mildly), the right has a long way to go to match that level of ugliness.

378 VioletTiger  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:14:01pm

re: #365 Chekote

It was just the wrong thing to say, regardless of what he meant. Anytime you have to explain and parse and explain over and over, you should quit while you are ahead and move on to something else. Instead, he keeps repeating it over and over.

379 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:14:06pm

re: #375 Kenneth

Still waiting for that epiphany.

380 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:14:38pm

re: #379 Fenway_Nation

Still waiting for that epiphany.

Same here.

381 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:15:13pm

re: #346 Lee Coller

You don't give the other side sound bites, in or out of context. If Rush didn't know better before, he sure should know now. Either he hasn't learned or just doesn't care.

What Rush is doing with the fail comment, and what makes it so brilliant, is that he is bringing the criticism of the right onto him, just a private citizen with a radio show. He's not minority leader nor a candidate nor a politician. And, with Gibbs, etc. criticizing him, they are elevating him above his place in the debate, which shows how weak this administration is on message. As long as O is on the teleprompter, as long as the media regurgitates his message on command, then he has no opposition. And Rush's larger point is to put a strong word to those who should be opposing his policies. He pointed out after the election that the GOP wanted to give O a chance, let him get his feet wet in other words. Rush is saying Bullshit - not only do you not give someone the opportunity to wreck the country, just because he's new on the job, but you also must strongly oppose what you think is wrong so that you are presenting a clear message and a clear alternative. The GOP in DC do neither. So he's saying to them "Here's how you oppose him, and what I'll do is take all the arrows while you get your heads out of your ass and learn how to lead and deliver the conservative message." It's pretty simple.

And, what people don't like is the bluntness of the word fail. He gave a sports analogy - he's a Steelers fan, so he wanted Warner to fail in that last drive in the SB so his team would win - it's not like he wished him cancer or a career ending injury. If you like racing, you want everyone in the race to fail except your pick, because logically they all want to win, so if they don't, they fail. But people are too PC and sensitive about words, even though the fail term is exactly what you want your opponent to do. And, Rush has said on hundreds of occasions that when O does something that he agrees with, he will praise him. If he gets a conservative teleprompter, he will be O's biggest fan. But until then, he wants every single socialist/marxist policy to fail, and miserably...knowing that those policies succeeding is against all he believes in.

382 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:16:21pm

re: #349 Lincolntf

Clarence Thomas, according to his book (which I read years ago when he came to my hometown to speak at his alma mater) was the beneficiary of affirmative action through the Catholic Church. He'd been a seminary student down South (I can't remember where) and Holy Cross was looking to diversify their student body, so they went looking for qualified students and found him. The impression I got from his story was that his affirmative action was the result of individuals (not the Govt.) looking to right some wrongs in the days during/after the Civil Rights movement.

And he busted his ass to make sure everyone knew he belonged there. He is such a remarkable man and has such a remarkable story, it's absolutely disgusting how he's been treated.

383 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:16:22pm
384 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:16:34pm

Limbaugh has explained his "I want him [Obama] to fail" statement as "I want his leftist political agenda to fail". He should have made everything simple by using the second sentence instead of the first one from the start.

385 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:16:40pm

re: #368 buzzsawmonkey

They're promoting Robertson's marmalade?

Robertsons stopped using the golly in 2001. The BNP want everyone to have a golliwog, because many black people find them offensive. To that end, they're promoting and selling them.

[Link: 209.85.229.132...]

386 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:16:41pm

re: #374 avanti

Not surprisingly, I loved the speech and his life's journey to becoming POTUS was made possible by those documents. I think the story is a nice image for all Americans. It's a hope speech.

You mean us little people? The ones who need a SCOTUS justice with a "common touch"? How could we possibly share in any of The One's glory? The whole American story is the story of the Coming of Obama... we're just props, or perhaps characters along the lines of "Man in subway wearing hat". Don't you get it?

387 LGoPs  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:16:43pm

re: #358 brookly red

Sharpton has endorsed Sotomayor...

Well hell. That's all I needed to know. Now I can sleep at night.
/

388 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:17:41pm

re: #376 quickjustice

I assure you: Sotomayor will get justifiably grilled at her confirmation hearing for her remark contrasting "wise Latinas" with "white males". She's going to spend a lot of time explaining that one on national TV.

Considering how uninspiring most conservative politician have been lately, we can only hope. May not happen.

389 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:18:05pm

Good Politics:

Pelosi: Bush 'a total failure'

*

By Alexander Mooney
CNN

(CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called President Bush "a total failure" on Thursday, among the California Democrat's harshest assessments to date of the president.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says "I disapprove of Congress' performance in terms of ending the war."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says "I disapprove of Congress' performance in terms of ending the war."

"God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States -- a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an exclusive interview.

The comments came two days after the president sharply criticized Congress over what he described as relative inaction over the course of the legislative term. At the White House on Wednesday, Bush noted that there were only 26 legislative days left in the fiscal year and said Congress would need to pass a spending bill every other day to "get their fundamental job done."

"This is not a record to be proud of, and I think the American people deserve better," Bush said. Video Watch Pelosi respond to criticism of Congress from the president »

In the interview, Pelosi said the president was in no position to criticize Congress and brushed aside the criticisms as "something to talk about because he has no ideas."

"For him to be challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again -- at the end of the day, Congress will have passed its responsibility to pass legislation," she said. iReport.com: Why isn't impeachment on the table?

But Pelosi's comments come as a new Gallup poll registers the lowest level of congressional approval among Americans in the polling organization's 30-year history of conducting that survey.
Don't Miss

* Bipartisan group works on drilling compromise
* Bush: Congress blocking offshore oil

That poll showed that its approval rating had reached an anemic 14 percent, while more than 70 percent of those polled said they disapproved of the job Congress is doing.

The House speaker said she doesn't consider those numbers a negative referendum on the Democrats in charge, saying she thinks they stem largely from Congress' failure to end the war in Iraq.

"Everything I see says this is about ending the war -- 'I disapprove of Congress' performance in terms of ending the war,' " she said. "In the House, we, of course, have over and over, five or six times, sent to the Senate legislation for a time certain to reduce our deployment in Iraq and bring our troops home safely, honorably and soon. We haven't been able to get it past the Senate or the president of the United States. iReport.com: Why haven't Democrats done more?

"So, on the basis of that, count me among the 70-some percent," she continued. "But that is one measure. The other measure that I'm more interested in is the one that talks about what is their view of Democrats. And the generic, who do you prefer to run the country on all of these issues? We're in double digits in any poll that you can take."

Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant derided Pelosi's comments as "the sort of partisan politics that Democrats once decried and promised to change."

"Rather than personally critique others, Speaker Pelosi should reconsider her own out-of-touch stance against oil exploration," he said. "With Americans paying record prices at the pump and Congress in gridlock, this is no time for the speaker to only offer personal attacks."

390 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:18:07pm

Ugggg, Beck's on my radio. He almost has me convinced that the world is going to end. Oh darn, I just turned him off.

391 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:18:27pm

re: #387 LGoPs

Well hell. That's all I needed to know. Now I can sleep at night.
/

Well Sharpton endorsing Sotomayor is all I need to know. No Sarcasm intended!

392 LGoPs  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:18:33pm

re: #375 Kenneth

“I have become a symbol of America returning to its best traditions.” - BHO
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” - BHO

“This is the moment when the rise of our oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.” - BHO

“A light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, and people will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’” - BHO


That's not just a "positive" message, that's a disturbing degree of self-regard.

That is downright goddamned creepy and scary.

393 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:18:35pm

re: #381 tedzilla99

What Rush is doing with the fail comment, and what makes it so brilliant, is that he is bringing the criticism of the right onto him, just a private citizen with a radio show.

I couldn't possibly agree less.

There's nothing "brilliant" about this. Limbaugh is giving ammunition to the left, and every time he comes out with this "FAIL!" crap, conservatives all over the country give him high fives and co-sign on it. Bobby Jindal devoted a large portion of a recent speech to defending it. He's not just speaking for himself. It's just dumb to keep repeating it, and handing over more ammunition.

394 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:18:36pm

re: #381 tedzilla99

Your comment is what the upding button was invented for.

395 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:18:45pm

re: #381 tedzilla99

What Rush is doing with the fail comment, and what makes it so brilliant, is that he is bringing the criticism of the right onto him, just a private citizen with a radio show...

No, he's bringing the criticism to the party.

396 kansas  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:19:54pm

re: #395 Walter L. Newton

No, he's bringing the criticism to the party.

You think if he stopped, it would stop the criticism?

397 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:20:09pm

re: #355 LudwigVanQuixote

Good points. re: #364 Walter L. Newton

I think the left is split on affirmative action.

398 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:20:12pm

re: #390 bosforus

Ugggg, Beck's on my radio. He almost has me convinced that the world is going to end. Oh darn, I just turned him off.

I tried twice to turn off his newsletters. Maybe the third time will take?

399 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:20:27pm

re: #383 buzzsawmonkey

He couldn't stand the "Jewboy" stuff he heard in the interview, told the interviewer where to stick it,


My favorite story I heard along those same lines: A guy I knew in law school, named Juan, who was a somewhat fair-skinned Hispanic. He walked into an interview with a stuffy partner from a white shoe law firm (Cravath, I think).

"Are you Juan?" asked the interviewer.

Yes.

"[pause]... You don't look like a Juan."

Well... you don't look like an asshole.

[walked out]

400 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:20:34pm

re: #382 tedzilla99

I agree, but since he's a big enough man to rise above all the bile heaped on him by the Left, I try to do the same. His detractors, from day one of his confirmation hearings, have been the slimiest of slimeballs. Best to ignore them lest the slimes leaks over on to me.

401 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:20:39pm

re: #358 brookly red

Sharpton has endorsed Sotomayor...

My dark side appears again...

Imagine you put on pay per view... with the proceeds going directly to National Debt relief,

Sharpton, Coulter, Rev Wright, Beck, Ron Paul, David Duke, Farrakahn and all sorts of other "romantics" in a small ring that was decorated by swords, axes and maces on the walls - within easy reach...

You could place bets on how they might choose to communicate....

////////

402 moonstone  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:20:55pm

re: #366 HoosierHoops

Nope, Tedzilla is right...Rush was not criticizing McNabb, he was criticizing the media. The media were gushing about McNabb all out of proportion to his record and stats, and Rush being Rush, he gave his opinion as to why.

Given how ridiculously sensitive the topic is, it was stupid of him to say. I guess he forgot he wasn't on his own show.

However, if you hire Rush Limbaugh for commentary, you shouldn't be surprised at what you get. Kind of like hiring Imus or Stern, in different ways.

403 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:21:00pm

re: #395 Walter L. Newton

No, he's bringing the criticism to the party.

Like there's something to love about it? jeesh.

404 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:21:52pm

re: #366 HoosierHoops

That's not what he said, and I have the transcript if you're interested.

405 LGoPs  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:21:54pm

BTW. A lot seem to be exercised about Rush wanting Obama to fail, or more correctly, his policies to fail. How is that worse than major Democratic figures, for the last several years, announcing America's defeat in the middle of a war?
I think it pales in comparison.

406 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:21:57pm

re: #374 avanti

The US Constitution is not about Obama, ok?

Every American's life was made possible by those documents, not just Obama's. During the campaing Obama had the arrogance to condemn the US for the original sin of slavery and then to offer redemption if only Americans prove themeselves worthy by voting for him. It's that kind of narcissistic self-reagrd that disgusts me about him more than anything.

Tell me, please, if Obama has such a personal appreciation for the Constitution, why did he say it was fatally flawed document & why has he surrounded himself with people who have hated & opposed the US and it's founding principles? People like William Ayers, Rev. "God damn America" Wright, and the communist Frank Marshall Davis?

407 ointmentfly  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:22:49pm

re: #378 VioletTiger

I think you've mistaken Rush for a political activist for the GOP. He is a conservative and is going to stick to his message of "fail" all the way to the bank. This is just another example of removing context and adding another.

The left has been trying to nominate Rush as the voice of the GOP forever because he is a treasure trove of soundbites that they can insert their own context and thereby destroy the GOP.

What he needs to do is not to change his message, but to go after the GOP and the pack of losers that they have become.

408 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:23:15pm

Here's the part about Judge Sotomayor that Obama doesn't understand. He thinks he's scored a huge victory with "Hispanics" with this selection. He has not. There's huge rivalry among the various Spanish-speaking ethnic groups in this country, including jealousy, bad feelings, and bad-mouthing. The Cubans hate the Puerto Ricans, for example, and vice versa.

The clueless N.Y. Times sent a stringer out to interview some Cuban Americans in Miami about Sotomayor. As reported this morning, the "Hispanics" in Miami replied, "Oh, she's a Puerto Rican! That's nice!" What the stringer failed to report is that no one in that group was impressed by the nomination of a Puerto Rican.

The only "Hispanic" ethnic group that will be pleased with this nomination is the Puerto Rican community. They're already part of Obama's base, so he's accomplished nothing, politically speaking.

409 JacksonTn  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:23:29pm

The worst thing to come from the whole dang campaign to me was ... the constant ... "if you don't vote for him you are a racist" ... that was the biggest slap in the face ... from Roland Martin or Donna Brazile or Axelrod on news channels to many many Obama supporters ... that right there will never leave me ... ever ...

I do hope he succeeds in protecting our country ... I really do .. and then I hope he is defeated somehow in 2012 ...

410 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:23:47pm

re: #396 kansas

You think if he stopped, it would stop the criticism?

The criticism will stop when Rush retires. ah..prolly not.

411 Sparmageddon  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:23:53pm

re: #1 zombie

I've already forgotten which person first popularized the "stuck on fail" meme? Lil help?

I personally use SOS (stuck on stupid) kind of rolls off the tongue better.

"My computer is SOS" or "What did you just say? Oh sorry, ignore me I'm SOS!"

412 Bloodnok  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:24:08pm

re: #381 tedzilla99

What Rush is doing with the fail comment, and what makes it so brilliant, is that he is bringing the criticism of the right onto him, just a private citizen with a radio show

If you don't think that a large segment of the left (and Independents) consider Limbaugh to be "the mouthpiece" for the right, either officially or unofficially then I would like to hide where you have been hiding these last 15 years.

And yes, they're wrong about that. He is a private citizen with a radio show. But they're going to keep being wrong about that and messages like these are going to do damage.

413 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:25:41pm

re: #402 moonstone

I remember on one of those ESPN panel shows with the talking heads yammering away, they were all in an uproar over Imus' 'nappy-headed ho' comment. Someone brought up Jesse Jackson and his 'Hymietown' remark and one of the talking heads sputtered.... 'well....that's different. He's a community leader'.

The thing is, it was more or less in Imus' job description to be shocking and contreversial. But we're supposed to think nothing of 'community leaders' throwing around equally offensive remarks about someone who's Jewish.

414 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:26:04pm

Never mind the fact that Rush, like Cheney, will likely prove to have been right.

415 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:26:06pm

re: #383 buzzsawmonkey

My father's roommate (they were both studying physics at Chicago) was given a job interview with a private firm solely on the strength of his professor's recommendation. He couldn't stand the "Jewboy" stuff he heard in the interview, told the interviewer where to stick it, and walked out. The professor gave him hell, because he'd gone out on a limb by even recommending a Jew.

One of the reasons the Project had so many Jewish physicists working on it was that private industry would not hire them.

That, and if you look at their names, they are the '27 Yankees of physics and mathematics...

Bohr, Feynman, Bethe, Fermi, Oppenhiemer, Rabi, Van Neuman, Szilard etc... For whatever reasons, in that generation, the field was very Tribe Dominated.

416 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:26:21pm

re: #401 LudwigVanQuixote

My dark side appears again...

Imagine you put on pay per view... with the proceeds going directly to National Debt relief,

Sharpton, Coulter, Rev Wright, Beck, Ron Paul, David Duke, Farrakahn and all sorts of other "romantics" in a small ring that was decorated by swords, axes and maces on the walls - within easy reach...

You could place bets on how they might choose to communicate....

////////

The return of the Arena! In these days of reality TV, you never know...

417 Sparmageddon  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:26:48pm

re: #411 Sparmageddon

I personally use SOS (stuck on stupid) kind of rolls off the tongue better.

"My computer is SOS" or "What did you just say? Oh sorry, ignore me I'm SOS!"

Ooops, I didn't wait long enough to post this one, Charles already got me about 3-4 replies after the original.

418 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:26:51pm

re: #395 Walter L. Newton

No, he's bringing the criticism to the party.

I get what you're saying, but the left equates him to the party, which is simplistic, and really not accurate, so he says, OK if you're making me the "leader of the GOP" here's something to chew on. And it also shows the lack of depth in his opponents - if you want to take the word fail and not go deeper into the context of his statement, then you are engaging in simplistic rhetoric. I mean the general you, not you specifically.

419 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:27:13pm

re: #402 moonstone

Nope, Godzilla is right...Rush was not criticizing McNabb, he was criticizing the media. The media were gushing about McNabb all out of proportion to his record and stats, and Rush being Rush, he gave his opinion as to why.

Given how ridiculously sensitive the topic is, it was stupid of him to say. I guess he forgot he wasn't on his own show.

However, if you hire Rush Limbaugh for commentary, you shouldn't be surprised at what you get. Kind of like hiring Imus or Stern, in different ways.


His opinion was it's because he was black..He said it..I heard it....
And you are right..It was an incredibly stupid thing to say to 20 million fans...
Since I don't like Rush..I'm done with this subject...

420 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:27:23pm
421 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:28:43pm

re: #418 tedzilla99

I get what you're saying, but the left equates him to the party, which is simplistic, and really not accurate, so he says, OK if you're making me the "leader of the GOP" here's something to chew on. And it also shows the lack of depth in his opponents - if you want to take the word fail and not go deeper into the context of his statement, then you are engaging in simplistic rhetoric. I mean the general you, not you specifically.

It's not just the left, it's also the moderates.

422 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:28:53pm

re: #406 Kenneth

The US Constitution is not about Obama, ok?

Tell me, please, if Obama has such a personal appreciation for the Constitution, why did he say it was fatally flawed document & why has he surrounded himself with people who have hated & opposed the US and it's founding principles? People like William Ayers, Rev. "God damn America" Wright, and the communist Frank Marshall Davis?

Again, the election is over, but the constitution was a flawed document before amended and if you read the quote in context, you'd know he was talking primarily about racial issues.

423 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:29:09pm

re: #416 Jimmah

Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Timendi causa est nescire

424 nikis-knight  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:30:08pm

re: #251 Cato the Elder

No one would expect that, though I can think of any number of people who would do more honor to the post, both liberal and conservative. He could make a fine living litigating against affirmative action in private practice.

My own impression of him is that he's a mediocre thinker at best. Impressive opinions closely reasoned and clearly stated have not been evident from his pen. He's a follower.

And climbing up the proffered ladder, then kicking it away for future climbers, just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, however ill-situated the ladder may have been.


That's simply not true.

Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court

Amazon.com: One of the biggest revelations of your book is your characterization of Clarence Thomas as far more influential, even in his first year on the Court, than he's usually given credit for. Could you describe what his role on the Court has been?

Greenburg: Clarence Thomas has been the most maligned justice in modern history--and also the most misunderstood and mischaracterized. I found conclusive evidence that far from being Antonin Scalia's intellectual understudy, Thomas has had a substantial role in shaping the direction of the Court--from his very first week on the bench. The early storyline on Thomas was that he was just following Scalia's direction, or as one columnist at the time wrote, "Thomas Walks in Scalia's Shoes." That is patently false, as the documents and notes in the Blackmun papers unquestionably show. If any justice was changing his vote to join the other that first year, it was Scalia joining Thomas, not the other way around. But his clear and forceful views affected the Court in unexpected ways. Although he shored up conservative positions, his opinions also caused moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to back away and join the justices on the Left.

Link

425 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:30:47pm

re: #418 tedzilla99

I get what you're saying, but the left equates him to the party, which is simplistic, and really not accurate, so he says, OK if you're making me the "leader of the GOP" here's something to chew on. And it also shows the lack of depth in his opponents - if you want to take the word fail and not go deeper into the context of his statement, then you are engaging in simplistic rhetoric. I mean the general you, not you specifically.

When both Bobby Jindal and Fred Thompson come out and publicly defend Rush Limbaugh for saying he wants Obama to fail, why is it not accurate to say that Limbaugh is speaking for the GOP? If he's just out there on his own, why do major GOP politicians spring to his defense when he says these stupid things?

And please remember what happened when Michael Steele dared to criticize Limbaugh -- the whole GOP started yelling for him to resign, and he was forced to back down.

Sorry -- you can't deny that Limbaugh is seen to be speaking for the GOP when he says this stuff, because the GOP's own behavior shows that he is.

426 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:31:33pm

re: #381 tedzilla99

down thread someone posted this:
Nope, Godzilla is right...Rush was not criticizing McNabb, he was criticizing the media.
The spellcheck changed your Nic to Godzilla...I'm sorry..I was not being insulting...kindof funny though

427 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:31:55pm

You know what the GOP needs? More 'moderate' republicans like Colin Powell who endorsed this smarmy used-car salesman currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave instead of the candidate that fit his idea of whom the GOP should be running.

Or how about 'moderates' like Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe? They've shown that they can reach across the aisle (or in some cases, jump across the aisle) to give the government that helping hand to further devalue our currency and award $800 Billion in kickbacks....

That's exactly what the GOP needs.

//

428 VegasRick  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:32:07pm

re: #422 avanti

Again, the election is over, but the constitution was a flawed document before amended and if you read the quote in context, you'd know he was talking primarily about racial issues.

When is he not "talking primarily about racial issues"?
Oh, when he's blaming Bush, that's right.

429 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:32:19pm

re: #412 Bloodnok

If you don't think that a large segment of the left (and Independents) consider Limbaugh to be "the mouthpiece" for the right, either officially or unofficially then I would like to hide where you have been hiding these last 15 years.

And yes, they're wrong about that. He is a private citizen with a radio show. But they're going to keep being wrong about that and messages like these are going to do damage.

I agree, but the left isn't going to be swayed by him or by logic, so either they will take him out of context or they will take what he says as he gives it to them - which is the other part that's brilliant, he knows they will take him out of context, so he preempts them and uses the most inflammatory yet correct words knowing they will get full play. If he said "Gee I hope O's policies fail" that would be twisted to what he is actually saying now, but now he controls the message.

430 kellino  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:32:23pm

Have you all lost your collective minds?

Rush is 100% right.

The evidence is clear that she views the court system as where policy is made. No respect for the constitution or the rule of law. Identiyy politics and liberal agenda will become the rule of law in ways that elected legislatures could never accomplish.

She may be bright and likable and have many admirable qualities but from a legal philosophy perspective is there any doubt that she sees the Constitution much like Obama does? As a living document that they can trample on in the courts by unelected judges with no accountability?

Go read up at NRO's corner and bench memos blogs.

431 Nevergiveup  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:32:27pm

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

And coming to "fill in the blank" near you?

432 Dianna  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:32:30pm

re: #369 Walter L. Newton

Now that was nasty and unnecessary. Come on!

433 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:33:04pm
434 mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:33:14pm

Perception is reality and Limbaugh is perceived to be a spokesperson for the GOP or at least a cheerleader.

435 TheMatrix31  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:33:48pm

If another, less blunt word was used instead of "fail", would it make a difference?

I see everyone's side of the argument on this one.

436 Kragar  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:33:51pm

IRS tax revenue falls along with taxpayers' income

Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago — the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.
When the economy slumps, so does tax revenue, and this recession has been no different, says Kerry Lynch, senior fellow at the AIER and author of the study. "It illustrates how severe the recession has been."

For example, 6 million people lost jobs in the 12 months ended in April — and that means far fewer dollars from income taxes. Income tax revenue dropped 44% from a year ago.

"These are staggering numbers," Lynch says.

Big revenue losses mean that the U.S. budget deficit may be larger than predicted this year and in future years.

437 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:34:05pm

re: #433 Lokotes


Been here for all of 3 weeks, I see.

438 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:34:21pm

re: #433 Lokotes

And with that, I bid you adieu.

439 lostlakehiker  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:34:41pm

She's fated to be confirmed. But one may hope that the confirmation hearings will provide a "teachable moment" in which she can be brought to reflect upon the pernicious and unjust philosophy that holds that any standard which is used to determine who advances in rank on the job is null and void if the wrong people meet that standard.

The New Haven fire department wanted its firemen to know the basics of paramedic work, because so many of their calls involved that sort of situation. They offered advancement to anyone (ANYONE) who could study up and learn enough to pass a job-focused test on paramedic duties. Some people studied their hearts out, quit second jobs to spare time for study, and so on. Others weren't much interested, but took the test on a what-the-hell basis.

In the event, the racial mix of the people who passed didn't meet affirmative action expectations. The city voided the results, because when they said anyone, they really meant anyone with the right kind of name or skin tone, not just anyone anyone. Judge Sotomayor upheld this travesty.

She should be asked, is there any room whatsoever for merit in hiring and promotion, except as a tie-breaker in case both candidates for promotion are of the same sex, race, and economic background? If she says NO, she might not be confirmed. If she says YES, maybe she'll abide by her answer, part of the time, as she writes opinions and decides cases.

440 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:34:58pm

re: #425 Charles

When both Bobby Jindal and Fred Thompson come out and publicly defend Rush Limbaugh for saying he wants Obama to fail, why is it not accurate to say that Limbaugh is speaking for the GOP? If he's just out there on his own, why do major GOP politicians spring to his defense when he says these stupid things?

And please remember what happened when Michael Steele dared to criticize Limbaugh -- the whole GOP started yelling for him to resign, and he was forced to back down.

Sorry -- you can't deny that Limbaugh is seen to be speaking for the GOP when he says this stuff, because the GOP's own behavior shows that he is.

Because if he were speaking for the GOP, then every single GOP politician would be parroting that message, and they're not. And yes I can deny it, and I will, because Rush criticizes the GOP leadership almost as much as the left does. He said as much before he went on the fail routine that since the GOP establishment won't oppose O, he will.

441 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:35:00pm

re: #11 _RememberTonyC

Judge Sotomayor WILL be confirmed .... the GOP can't stop it and they need to understand the political trap they're falling into if they persist in attacking her.

They need to make her defend her record and probe whatever problems they find. But that is it. This game is over.

If the GOP wants to kiss off the latino vote for the next 25 years, by all means keep attacking a woman that Hispanics see as a role model.

Actually, it sounds like you have fallen into the trap was set by the media to try to dissuade the GOP from opposing her.

How did the Left's opposition to Miguel Estrada hurt them? How did their opposition to Clarence Thomas hurt them?

442 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:35:04pm

re: #427 Fenway_Nation

Yeah, we do need those sorts. Unless you are willing to go to permanent minority party, we need wins in the west and the NE if we are going to get back to even near parity in the house and Senate.

Of course we could just keep saying "fail" and rename ourselves "The Dixiecrat Homerschoolers" party...

443 moonstone  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:35:23pm

re: #412 Bloodnok

If you don't think that a large segment of the left (and Independents) consider Limbaugh to be "the mouthpiece" for the right, either officially or unofficially then I would like to hide where you have been hiding these last 15 years.

And yes, they're wrong about that. He is a private citizen with a radio show. But they're going to keep being wrong about that and messages like these are going to do damage.

For those of you who've never listened to Rush, here's the problem in a nutshell: he's probably the last public figure in America (well, maybe Charles, if he considers himself a public figure) who will allow the MSM to shut him up.

The more outcry there is about the "fail" meme, the more he will repeat it. He doesn't consider himself to be the Republican party, and I'm sure that every time the MSM complains about him, he gets a few more listeners.

Again, we're letting the left control the dialogue. They can want Bush to fail all day long, call him a miserable failure, want the war in Iraq to fail, etc. But we're being unpatriotic if we say that. I say F*** them. Instead of attributing all this importance to what they say about the right (as their readership and viewerships decline), we need to spend our energy on finding conservative leaders with a real message.

444 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:35:39pm

re: #430 kellino

Have you all lost your collective minds?

Rush is 100% right.

The evidence is clear that she views the court system as where policy is made. No respect for the constitution or the rule of law. Identiyy politics and liberal agenda will become the rule of law in ways that elected legislatures could never accomplish.

She may be bright and likable and have many admirable qualities but from a legal philosophy perspective is there any doubt that she sees the Constitution much like Obama does? As a living document that they can trample on in the courts by unelected judges with no accountability?

Go read up at NRO's corner and bench memos blogs.

Gee, you must not have been reading this thread. No one is questioning if Rush is right or wrong in regards to her policies and positions.

All the way down this thread, the issue has been the negative attention Rush brings to conservatives by his outright worthless pronouncements that Obama should fail, Soptomayor should fail.

That is what the criticism of Rush has been about. Where did you spend the afternoon?

445 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:35:42pm

re: #438 Charles

Was that fresh meat or a recycled sockpuppet?

446 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:35:42pm

re: #426 HoosierHoops

down thread someone posted this:
Nope, Godzilla is right...Rush was not criticizing McNabb, he was criticizing the media.
The spellcheck changed your Nic to Godzilla...I'm sorry..I was not being insulting...kindof funny though

Be back later, gotta go eat Tokyo! :P

447 nikis-knight  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:36:16pm

re: #281 2by2

thanks for that elaborate explanation,
in the context of Rush's quote it seems that he rather meant fail on a full tilt level (impeachment-military coup-death) come to my mind when I read that quote.

'round here its customary to hit '+' if you like something. ;)

448 VegasRick  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:36:16pm

re: #433 Lokotes

You are not too bright.

449 Dianna  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:36:29pm

I'm out.

Take care, and remember that Limbaugh is probably hugely amused by us.

450 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:36:34pm

re: #440 tedzilla99

Because if he were speaking for the GOP, then every single GOP politician would be parroting that message, and they're not.

Yes, actually -- they are.

451 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:36:37pm

re: #422 avanti

Four great-great uncles shot down wearing Union blue on the Gettysburg battlefield, July 2, 1863. They happened to be white.

Now, what part of the union created by the U.S. Constitution they died to preserve was "flawed"?

452 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:36:37pm

re: #446 tedzilla99

Be back later, gotta go eat Tokyo! :P

Try it with wasabi!

453 gnargtharst  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:36:39pm

I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I feel it appropriate to defend him in some terms (disclaimer: I haven't heard him probably since the 90s +/-, so my comments are based on quotes I see attributed to him):

Rush is consistently thoughtful and intelligent, despite his persona as a clown (I say this though I believe he's mistaken on many issues). I think radio, generally, as a medium, and Limbaugh's show in particular, is better than most television for addressing serious issues. Considering Limbaugh is primarily an entertainer, it is ironic (and ominous) that he presents most news stories in more depth than do most news shows. In discussion I've had on this topic with others, I've phrased it this way: I don't like Rush Limbaugh, but I'm glad he's there.

(By way of preventative strawman burning, here's where I stand on the biggies: I'm atheist, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-immigration, anti-draft, pro-evolution, pro-capitalism, pro-science-and-technology, and anti-Ron-Paul).

With that, I will end with a delightful video of Rush:

Rush

454 JacksonTn  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:36:51pm

re: #439 lostlakehiker

LLH ... "teachable moment" ... haha ... the woman will be there FOR LIFE ... she will not care about anything you think ...

I don't know why they made it for lifetime appointments ... can anyone tell me? ... seriously I would like to know ...

455 Bloodnok  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:36:52pm

re: #437 Fenway_Nation

Been here for all of 3 weeks, I see.

And not a second longer.

456 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:37:13pm

re: #431 Nevergiveup

And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.
....
A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform.

I find it odd that this story is making the rounds with such fury today. It was a month old statement about something that's pretty unlikely.

457 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:37:20pm

re: #440 tedzilla99

No, he only attacks moderates because he gets his marching orders from Grover.

458 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:37:55pm

Blink and you miss a deletion. Stupid work gettin' in the way.

459 ointmentfly  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:38:30pm

re: #425 Charles

I'll keep waiting for the conservative MSM (whereever they may be) to call out Pelosi on everything Olberman says.

Is there any weight to the the MSM removing context and running with the word "fail"?

460 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:38:50pm

re: #428 VegasRick

When is he not "talking primarily about racial issues"?
Oh, when he's blaming Bush, that's right.

Bush and othres talked about the errors in the constitution too. You can continue to down ding me for posting facts, but the document was not perfect as written, thus the founders allowed amendments.

* In July 8, 2003, remarks made at Goree Island in Senegal, Bush said that the "moral vision" of abolitionists "caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race." He added: "The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times."

Additionally, in an August 5, 2006, interview with C-SPAN's Brian Lamb, Chief Justice John Roberts said of the authors of the Constitution: "They never worked out what to do about slavery and just kind of shuttled that aside and decided we're not going to talk about that. And that taint in the Constitution, took a Civil War to remove." Later in the interview, he said that the Constitution's amendment process "did allow some fundamental flaws to be addressed like slavery -- abolished in the Thirteenth Amendment."
Flawed ?..

461 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:38:59pm

The time to fret over Supreme Court selections is before the Presidential election. Just a reminder to the "real" conservatives who sat out the general election because John McCain wasn't conservative enough and are now howling about Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court.

462 Bloodnok  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:39:04pm

re: #443 moonstone

For those of you who've never listened to Rush, here's the problem in a nutshell: he's probably the last public figure in America (well, maybe Charles, if he considers himself a public figure) who will allow the MSM to shut him up.

The more outcry there is about the "fail" meme, the more he will repeat it. He doesn't consider himself to be the Republican party, and I'm sure that every time the MSM complains about him, he gets a few more listeners.

Again, we're letting the left control the dialogue. They can want Bush to fail all day long, call him a miserable failure, want the war in Iraq to fail, etc. But we're being unpatriotic if we say that. I say F*** them. Instead of attributing all this importance to what they say about the right (as their readership and viewerships decline), we need to spend our energy on finding conservative leaders with a real message.

Bu-bu-but WE wanna be mean for awhile!
/

463 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:39:23pm

re: #450 Charles

Yes, actually -- they are.

Fred Thompson doesn't hold office nor a leadership position. There are many GOP politicians who want to get along with O because they don't want to be perceived as racist or whatever. Sorry, but you're wrong about it.

464 nyc redneck  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:39:59pm

re: #61 Charles

Barack Obama ran on a platform of sheer positive messages. Not once did he wish for the other side to fail. You're just wrong to claim that negativity is winning strategy. One of the big reasons why Obama won was because he did NOT go negative -- ever.

i would call giving the finger to hillary certainly negative.
iirc he did that stunt more than once,
and he had the msm doing a lot of his dirty work.
i don't think he won because he didn't go 'negative'.
it think he won because he was protected and coddled along the way and evaded
responsibility for a lot of actions that would have sunk most other candidates.

465 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:40:05pm

re: #456 Killgore Trout

I find it odd that this story is making the rounds with such fury today. It was a month old statement about something that's pretty unlikely.

..just floatin' a balloon tis all.
If one doesn't think Øbama's gonna try it, one's missing marbles.

466 SeafoodGumbo  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:40:09pm

Sotomayor's membership in the explicitly racist group La Raza is reason enough for me to not want her on the Supreme Court.

467 LGoPs  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:40:10pm

re: #425 Charles

When both Bobby Jindal and Fred Thompson come out and publicly defend Rush Limbaugh for saying he wants Obama to fail, why is it not accurate to say that Limbaugh is speaking for the GOP? If he's just out there on his own, why do major GOP politicians spring to his defense when he says these stupid things?

And please remember what happened when Michael Steele dared to criticize Limbaugh -- the whole GOP started yelling for him to resign.

Sorry -- you can't deny that Limbaugh is seen to be speaking for the GOP when he says this stuff, because the GOP's own behavior shows that he is.

I like Rush because he punches back. I am tired of of the Republicans being a punching bag and if Rush does some of the hitting back, fine.
A large part of the half asleep public, doesn't hear the details of the debates. All they hear is the punches landing and for many years the punches have been landing in one direction and on only one target. And that has an impact on the public perception. As such it's a good thing to start hitting back and showing them that there is another side to this fight. Life is a two way street.

468 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:40:50pm

re: #463 tedzilla99

I'm not wrong. Not a single GOP politician dares to differ with Rush Limbaugh. When they do, like Michael Steele or Colin Powell, you can see for yourself what happens.

469 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:40:58pm

re: #451 quickjustice

Four great-great uncles shot down wearing Union blue on the Gettysburg battlefield, July 2, 1863. They happened to be white.

Now, what part of the union created by the U.S. Constitution they died to preserve was "flawed"?

Perfect segway:

Additionally, in an August 5, 2006, interview with C-SPAN's Brian Lamb, Chief Justice John Roberts said of the authors of the Constitution: "They never worked out what to do about slavery and just kind of shuttled that aside and decided we're not going to talk about that. And that taint in the Constitution, took a Civil War to remove."

470 moonstone  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:41:05pm

re: #462 Bloodnok

Then be mean to the democrats! :)

471 BatGuano  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:41:39pm

re: #450 Charles

And Michael Steele and John McCain?

472 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:41:46pm

re: #465 unrealizedviewpoint

I think it's one of those stories designed to get conservatives all wound up over nothing.

473 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:42:09pm

re: #453 gnargtharst

...Rush is consistently thoughtful and intelligent,.../blockquote>

Yea, here's your thoughtful and intelligent Rush...

“Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.” It’s a one-foot, nine-inch-tall monkey, and it’s a lemur monkey described as the eighth wonder of the world. “The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today —” So I guess this is settled science. We now officially came from a monkey, 47 million years ago. Well, that’s how it’s being presented here. It’s settled science. You know, this is all BS, as far as I’m concerned.

474 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:42:29pm

re: #466 SeafoodGumbo

Oh cripes, is she really in that group? Hadn't heard that.

475 moonstone  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:43:00pm

re: #468 Charles

Tom Ridge, last Sunday? Colin Powell?

/definitely not trying to start the "Is he a real Republican debate" again!

476 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:43:08pm

re: #440 tedzilla99

Because if he were speaking for the GOP, then every single GOP politician would be parroting that message, and they're not.

First, that's a tall standard. Is there one single issue that every single GOP would completely agree on? You assume unity that isn't there.

Second, they could either parrot the message or simply stay quiet and not renounce it. Same thing.

477 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:43:13pm

re: #468 Charles

I'm not wrong. Not a single GOP politician dares to differ with Rush Limbaugh. When they do, like Michael Steele or Colin Powell, you can see for yourself what happens.

Colin Powell isn't a politician! And he's of the same type of GOP politician that does criticize Rush and says he doesn't speak for the party.

478 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:43:22pm

re: #456 Killgore Trout

I find it odd that this story is making the rounds with such fury today. It was a month old statement about something that's pretty unlikely.

I don't get the timing either, but if they say it's unlikley it's a done deal.

479 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:43:42pm

re: #234 avanti

And once again you conveniently forget the DNC, Code Pink, etal and FMSM attacks against McCain AND Palin that were VASTLY beyond the pale. Doctored and/or misdirected lighting photos any one?

Neither candidate personally went negative to a great degree, they had surrogates more than willing to carry the fight.

480 2by2  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:43:49pm

re: #447 nikis-knight

you got it , u p d i n g, and thx for yours

481 jcm  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:43:59pm

re: #461 Mich-again

The time to fret over Supreme Court selections is before the Presidential election. Just a reminder to the "real" conservatives who sat out the general election because John McCain wasn't conservative enough and are now howling about Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court.

That was my number one arguement with those thinking about setting our the election or voting 3rd party, the courts, especially SCOTUS.

Sotomayor is exactly what I, and other expected from BHO.
A liberal activist.

482 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:44:11pm

re: #425 Charles

Limbaugh has publicly said he's not a Republican. He's a self-identified conservative. His listeners are primarily conservatives. They have enough clout in the GOP to force Steele to back down after attacking Limbaugh.

I'd ask you the converse question: since he's not a Republican, why should anyone attack, or care about, Limbaugh? Answer: he has 20 million listeners, and can swing regional and national races by influencing them. If Limbaugh praises me to his listeners, I'm an instant conservative celebrity.

483 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:44:12pm

re: #471 BatGuano

And Michael Steele and John McCain?

Michael Steele criticized Rush Limbaugh, true -- and then almost lost his position as head of the RNC, and was forced to back down and apologize. Sorry, that case does exactly the opposite -- it reinforces the idea that Rush Limbaugh speaks for the GOP.

484 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:44:18pm

re: #474 Lincolntf

Oh cripes, is she really in that group? Hadn't heard that.

her "famous" speech was to that group...

485 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:44:34pm

re: #472 Killgore Trout

Correction- it's one of those really bad ideas that 0bama looks like he's seriously contemplating (or at least going through the motions) and he comes off looking like a genius in the MSM for backing away from what he and his staff know is a really bad and untenable idea.

487 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:44:46pm

What you find is the conservatives generally line up with Rush, and the moderates and left-leaners do not. The GOP is full of both.

488 SixDegrees  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:45:25pm

re: #439 lostlakehiker

In the event, the racial mix of the people who passed didn't meet affirmative action expectations. The city voided the results, because when they said anyone, they really meant anyone with the right kind of name or skin tone, not just anyone anyone. Judge Sotomayor upheld this travesty.

So, did she uphold the existing law? Or did she make her own law?

489 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:45:35pm

re: #472 Killgore Trout

I think it's one of those stories designed to get conservatives all wound up over nothing.

Before his 2nd term is done, and before budget demands go unmet, with bankruptcy looming, a VAT will be proposed by Øbama, and probably passed.

490 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:45:44pm

re: #482 quickjustice

I'd ask you the converse question: since he's not a Republican, why should anyone attack, or care about, Limbaugh? Answer: he has 20 million listeners, and can swing regional and national races by influencing them. If Limbaugh praises me to his listeners, I'm an instant conservative celebrity.

Right -- and if he insists on pushing a stupid "failure" talking point, he increases the marginalization and bad reputation of conservatives.

491 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:45:53pm

re: #423 LudwigVanQuixote

Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Timendi causa est nescire

Absolutely. And as we all know,

Vereor est mens iuguolo.

492 snowcrash  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:46:01pm

re: #456 Killgore Trout
It showed up because of a USA Today story reporting how tax revenue fell along with income, making Obamas budget deficit projections even larger. Got to find the money to pay the bills somewhere, just printing more doesn't help. This is just a trial balloon.

493 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:46:20pm

re: #466 SeafoodGumbo

Sotomayor's membership in the explicitly racist group La Raza is reason enough for me to not want her on the Supreme Court.

She's a card carrying member? Do you have a link?

494 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:47:27pm

re: #454 JacksonTn

LLH ... "teachable moment" ... haha ... the woman will be there FOR LIFE ... she will not care about anything you think ...

I don't know why they made it for lifetime appointments ... can anyone tell me? ... seriously I would like to know ...


Constitution has it that way, and if I remember my reading of the founding fathers one of the reasons why lifetime appointment is to remove the need to run for reappointment, a theoretical unbiased justice.

495 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:48:15pm

re: #487 tedzilla99

Rush and the conservatives were a big part of the Obama win. There was two years of steady attacks on McCain leading into the primary prior to that. Rush hated McCain, and he's a big reason Obama is president.

496 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:48:21pm

re: #490 Charles

Right -- and if he insists on pushing a stupid "failure" talking point, he increases the marginalization and bad reputation of conservatives.

Only if you want to give him the same level of influence that the left does, meaning that they can just discredit Rush as an entertainer while still making him the message bearer. It's simplistic and silly. They can say "see, the GOP doesn't have any ideas or message, they just tune into the radio guy and get their marching orders." That way they don't have to actually debate ideas. You're doing the same thing.

497 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:48:34pm

re: #484 brookly red

Ugh, my head hurts. I've known (and had business dealings with) some La Raza "community organizer" types. An abominable group with a hideously anti-American agenda. I can't believe that she isn't automatically disqualified with that association. Maybe La Raza has changed in the last 4 or 5 years, but if they haven't (and she really is a member), then we've got a lot worse than a Liberal activist on our hands.

498 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:49:18pm

Imagine the size of the Tea parties when a VAT is imposed?

499 SeafoodGumbo  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:49:24pm
500 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:49:28pm

re: #479 FurryOldGuyJeans

And once again you conveniently forget the DNC, Code Pink, etal and FMSM attacks against McCain AND Palin that were VASTLY beyond the pale. Doctored and/or misdirected lighting photos any one?

Neither candidate personally went negative to a great degree, they had surrogates more than willing to carry the fight.

I don't disagree, Palin was swift boated big time by outside groups for example.

501 HAL2010  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:49:35pm

Like I wrote in a previous thread, the GOP's situation reminds me of the conservative party in Britain after 1997, following the election of New Labour and Tony Blair.

The Tory moderates were wiped out, and those still in parliament were those from areas where you could paint a rocking horse and it would still win. As a result the party moved towards the right whilst the rest of the country moved towards the centre. The result was three election losses, and 8 years in the wilderness.

Not until the moderate David Cameron became in party leader in 2005 did the party begin to become relevant again, and it now looks like the party will win the next national election.

While people like Rush, Palin and Jindal are the faces of the GOP I fear for the party, and I firmly believe that it may loose the 2012 election in a Obama landslide if nothing radical is done soon.

My two pence (we dont have cents).

502 nikis-knight  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:49:43pm

re: #399 Occasional Reader

My favorite story I heard along those same lines: A guy I knew in law school, named Juan, who was a somewhat fair-skinned Hispanic. He walked into an interview with a stuffy partner from a white shoe law firm (Cravath, I think).

"Are you Juan?" asked the interviewer.

Yes.

"[pause]... You don't look like a Juan."

Well... you don't look like an asshole.

[walked out]

Actually, the interviewer wasn't an asshole, neccessarily. Employers have to know what slots to put people in, and if Juan was trying to fool them, they'd probably catch hell for giving a "disadvantage Latino" slot to an "advantaged white male".

503 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:49:50pm

re: #422 avanti

Again, the election is over, but the constitution was a flawed document before amended and if you read the quote in context, you'd know he was talking primarily about racial issues.

Just once I would like if you could defend your comments instead of these silly bait-n-switch tactics.

FYI: The flawed constitution quote I was referring to was from a radio interview Obama gave in 2002 in which he said the constitution was flawed because it did not guarantee a minimum income to Americans. It had nothing to do with race, you smug jerk.

Now, you said you liked his speech because it made you feel good to think Obama was elected because of the principles enshrined within the US Constitution. I pointed out the US Constitution isn't about Obama, but if he likes it so much why did he spend most of his life consorting with people who want to trash it?

Now you respond to that point, ok? That's how intelligent discussions are done.

504 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:49:53pm

re: #496 tedzilla99

Only if you want to give him the same level of influence that the left does, meaning that they can just discredit Rush as an entertainer while still making him the message bearer. It's simplistic and silly. They can say "see, the GOP doesn't have any ideas or message, they just tune into the radio guy and get their marching orders." That way they don't have to actually debate ideas. You're doing the same thing.

Ask Michael Steele just how much influence Rush has; he was nearly deposed due to saying something against Rush.

505 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:50:10pm

re: #497 Lincolntf

Ugh, my head hurts. I've known (and had business dealings with) some La Raza "community organizer" types. An abominable group with a hideously anti-American agenda. I can't believe that she isn't automatically disqualified with that association. Maybe La Raza has changed in the last 4 or 5 years, but if they haven't (and she really is a member), then we've got a lot worse than a Liberal activist on our hands.

I don't know if she is a member (kinda doubt it) but she did speak at their "function".

506 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:50:14pm

re: #456 Killgore Trout

I find it odd that this story is making the rounds with such fury today. It was a month old statement about something that's pretty unlikely.

Remember, you said that this government had a "plan" for dealing with the coming inflation. Maybe this is their brilliant plan.

507 1SG(ret)  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:50:50pm

Like Rush Limbaugh could hurt the GOP. They did a pretty good job of that, long before Rush said anything about "fail". When they return to conservative principles, I'll start giving a shit about the GOP. This country is what I fought for and what I care about, Not a political party!

Conservative I am, GOP I'm not

508 debutaunt  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:50:50pm

re: #492 snowcrash

It showed up because of a USA Today story reporting how tax revenue fell along with income, making Obamas budget deficit projections even larger. Got to find the money to pay the bills somewhere, just printing more doesn't help. This is just a trial balloon.

State and federal governments refuse to stop spending and live within a budget. New taxes? You bet.

509 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:50:56pm

re: #495 Thanos

Rush and the conservatives were a big part of the Obama win. There was two years of steady attacks on McCain leading into the primary prior to that. Rush hated McCain, and he's a big reason Obama is president.

And McCain being a terrible candidate had nothing to do with it?

510 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:51:26pm

re: #498 unrealizedviewpoint

Imagine the size of the Tea parties when a VAT is imposed?

Heh, they'd all put on pantaloons and wave "Fair Tax" signs (Paulian proposal for a notional sales tax).

511 SeafoodGumbo  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:51:34pm
In addition to her work on the bench, Judge Sotomayor is an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law and a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. She has received many honors including, most recently, an award from the National Association of Women Lawyers.

link

512 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:51:37pm

re: #493 Russkilitlover

She's a card carrying member? Do you have a link?

In addition to her work on the bench, Judge Sotomayor is an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law and a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. She has received many honors including, most recently, an award from the National Association of Women Lawyers.

[Link: www.abanet.org...]

513 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:51:39pm

re: #422 avanti

Again, the election is over, but the constitution was a flawed document before amended and if you read the quote in context, you'd know he was talking primarily about racial issues.

Ok how about in the NPR interview when he criticised the Constitution for not having an 'Econimic Justice" provision?

514 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:51:48pm

re: #505 brookly red

I'm gonna have to go look it up. All other discussion will be moot (to me, at least) if she really is a member of that noxious assemblage of extortionists and race-baiters.

515 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:51:51pm

re: #495 Thanos

Rush and the conservatives were a big part of the Obama win. There was two years of steady attacks on McCain leading into the primary prior to that. Rush hated McCain, and he's a big reason Obama is president.

Maybe so - I still think that McCain was just lousy as a candidate.

516 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:52:01pm

re: #509 loppyd

Heya loppy.....how did Smoltz look yesterday?

517 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:52:22pm

re: #494 FurryOldGuyJeans

Constitution has it that way, and if I remember my reading of the founding fathers one of the reasons why lifetime appointment is to remove the need to run for reappointment, a theoretical unbiased justice.

But I would add that they also wrote in provisions for Congress impeaching a Supreme Court justice. A majority vote in the House followed by a 2/3 vote in the Senate and the Justice is long gone. Something else to think about as the GOP watches their count in the Senate go down every election. The Left has dreamed about impeaching Scalia and Thomas for years.

518 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:52:39pm

re: #514 Lincolntf

Apparantly she is... re: #512 Walter L. Newton

519 moonstone  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:52:54pm

re: #510 Killgore Trout

Heh, they'd all put on pantaloons and wave "Fair Tax" signs (Paulian proposal for a notional sales tax).

Cool. I look really good in pantaloons.

520 Vicious Babushka  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:53:02pm

Judge Sotomayor delivered a speech at the Berkeley School of Law, and some time later, the Berkeley La Raza Journal published the speech.

I don't think this means she is a member of La Raza.

521 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:53:39pm

re: #504 FurryOldGuyJeans

Ask Michael Steele just how much influence Rush has; he was nearly deposed due to saying something against Rush.

I think that says more about the weak GOP than it does about Rush's influence. I'm not discounting his influence, but to say that the GOP waits for his message is silly.

522 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:53:51pm

re: #510 Killgore Trout

Heh, they'd all put on pantaloons and wave "Fair Tax" signs (Paulian proposal for a notional sales tax).

We've been through this Killgore. Paulian's are NOT the only ones calling for the Fair Tax. Besides, your criticism of the Fair Tax has been thoroughly debunked here.

523 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:54:14pm

re: #514 Lincolntf

I'm gonna have to go look it up. All other discussion will be moot (to me, at least) if she really is a member of that noxious assemblage of extortionists and race-baiters.

no, gumbo got the link... she is.

524 Vicious Babushka  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:54:15pm

re: #520 Alouette

Judge Sotomayor delivered a speech at the Berkeley School of Law, and some time later, the Berkeley La Raza Journal published the speech.

I don't think this means she is a member of La Raza.

Just saw Walter's link. Oopsie.

525 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:54:20pm

re: #408 quickjustice

Here's the part about Judge Sotomayor that Obama doesn't understand. He thinks he's scored a huge victory with "Hispanics" with this selection. He has not. There's huge rivalry among the various Spanish-speaking ethnic groups in this country, including jealousy, bad feelings, and bad-mouthing. The Cubans hate the Puerto Ricans, for example, and vice versa.

The clueless N.Y. Times sent a stringer out to interview some Cuban Americans in Miami about Sotomayor. As reported this morning, the "Hispanics" in Miami replied, "Oh, she's a Puerto Rican! That's nice!" What the stringer failed to report is that no one in that group was impressed by the nomination of a Puerto Rican.

The only "Hispanic" ethnic group that will be pleased with this nomination is the Puerto Rican community. They're already part of Obama's base, so he's accomplished nothing, politically speaking.

Just as Bush Sr. gained nothing politically speaking when he paid homage to the "Black seat" by replacing Marshall with Thomas.

526 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:54:28pm

re: #520 Alouette

Judge Sotomayor delivered a speech at the Berkeley School of Law, and some time later, the Berkeley La Raza Journal published the speech.

I don't think this means she is a member of La Raza.


Apparantly she is... re: #512 Walter L. Newton
527 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:54:38pm

re: #503 Kenneth

Fine, give me a link where BHO said
" The constitution was flawed because it did not guarantee a minimum income to Americans. "

The only think I can think of is the twisting of a quote lamenting that the civil rights movement should not have looked to the courts for redress and instead worked within the community. Linky ?

528 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:54:39pm

re: #509 loppyd

That had some to do with it, but the election would have gone different without the big two year diatribe against him. Now not only do we get shamnesty back, we get it at a point when Dems are in total control and the Republicans have ZERO control over the shape of it. All because they wanted to nail some RINOS.

529 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:55:08pm

re: #520 Alouette

Judge Sotomayor delivered a speech at the Berkeley School of Law, and some time later, the Berkeley La Raza Journal published the speech.

I don't think this means she is a member of La Raza.

[Link: www.abanet.org...] ... she is.

530 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:55:14pm

re: #47 kansas

Republicans got the living shit bashed out of them by the MSM. They will never be able to provide a well articulated anything when they don't have an outlet.

Republicans also had a worshipful media for years after 9/11, who ignored any number of blatant abuses. To the extent that the media turned "negative," it happened after a disastrous fail of the administration's policies.

Line from old blues song: "The sun don't shine on the same dog's a** every day."

531 ihateronpaul  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:55:15pm

re: #24 Mike McDaniel

They don't believe in the rule of law when it comes to stuff like Iran Contra. That is why Oliver North is a "hero"

532 Bloodnok  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:55:23pm

re: #510 Killgore Trout

Heh, they'd all put on pantaloons and wave "Fair Tax" signs (Paulian proposal for a notional sales tax).

Careful. Insulting the Tea Parties is a Tea Partiable offense.

533 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:55:39pm

re: #524 Alouette

Just saw Walter's link. Oopsie.

I wasn't in support in any way of this person nomination, but this clenches it for me.

Next candidate Obama?

534 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:55:51pm

re: #524 Alouette

Just saw Walter's link. Oopsie.

this link is interesting too:

535 VegasRick  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:56:12pm

re: #510 Killgore Trout

Heh, they'd all put on pantaloons and wave "Fair Tax" signs (Paulian proposal for a notional sales tax).

Drink!

536 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:56:31pm

Interesting moderate muslim website:

[Link: www.spittoon.org...]

537 HelloDare  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:56:34pm

Would Justice Roberts be on the court if he had said this?

I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life.

The Democrats wouldn't have rolled over on Bush's pick.

And putting Sotomayor's quote in context only makes it worse because there is absolutely no doubt what she meant.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

538 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:56:41pm

re: #515 tedzilla99

Keep telling yourself that, the election wasn't a landslide for Obama, not that many points in popular vote separated them.

You want to talk fail?

Here's my prediction: Rush will once again muck things up and ensure an Obama victory in 2012.

539 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:57:00pm

re: #516 Fenway_Nation

Heya loppy.....how did Smoltz look yesterday?

He threw 60 pitches over 3 1/3 innings in Portland, allowed one run on three hits.

540 ihateronpaul  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:57:06pm

re: #412 Bloodnok

The "private citizen with a radio show" argument is rather absurd. That talking point is straight out of Limbaughs mouth. The truth is he was a featured speaker at CPAC, and republicans fear opposing him in any major way because he holds a holy place among conservative politics, the "pope" of it if you will.

541 SixDegrees  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:57:15pm

re: #498 unrealizedviewpoint

Imagine the size of the Tea parties when a VAT is imposed?

A VAT will be a tough pitch for the foreseeable future. It will be at least a year before the populace begins to feel the effects of an improving economy, and there will be huge resistance to any new taxes until people have been feeling flush for a while. About that same time, as the housing market slowly begins to rebound and the impact of trillions of dollars worth of money-printing begin to fuel inflation, a VAT would be the equivalent of increasing inflation at a time when it will already be on the rise. All that, coupled with a general resistance to new taxes, will probably scotch the idea for at least two to three years, and even then it will remain a very tough sell.

542 abolitionist  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:57:20pm

re: #61 Charles

Barack Obama ran on a platform of sheer positive messages. Not once did he wish for the other side to fail. You're just wrong to claim that negativity is winning strategy. One of the big reasons why Obama won was because he did NOT go negative -- ever.

Did you miss what he said about coal-related industries and energy prices?
OBAMA WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY - Energy Prices Will Sky Rocket

543 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:57:29pm
544 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:57:37pm

re: #484 brookly red

her "famous" speech was to that group...

Both Obama and McCain spoke "to" La Raza during their campaigns. But if she is a member, then I'd be very curious to hear from everyone who says she's not a bad pick a'tall.

Deal breaker, plain and simple. "La Raza" = "The Race" They're a pretty awful group - right up there with Stormfront.

545 ihateronpaul  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:58:03pm

re: #538 Thanos

That doesn't matter one way or another. The fact of the matter is fewer people voted for McCain. Lest we forget the fact that bush barely got in the first time. We forgot that, right?

546 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:58:22pm

re: #544 Russkilitlover

Both Obama and McCain spoke "to" La Raza during their campaigns. But if she is a member, then I'd be very curious to hear from everyone who says she's not a bad pick a'tall.

Deal breaker, plain and simple. "La Raza" = "The Race" They're a pretty awful group - right up there with Stormfront.

[Link: www.abanet.org...]

547 BatGuano  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:58:39pm

re: #483 Charles

Limbaugh's only influence is with conservative voters. The politicians will decide how much weight to ascribe to Limbaugh's influence.

548 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:58:57pm

re: #522 unrealizedviewpoint

Besides, your criticism of the Fair Tax has been thoroughly debunked here.


Heh.

549 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:59:03pm

re: #543 Fenway_Nation

Will 'Economic justice' and 'Redistribution of Wealth' hack it for ya?

You beat me to it, Good link.

550 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:59:14pm

re: #460 avanti

Chief Justice John Roberts said of the authors of the Constitution: "They never worked out what to do about slavery and just kind of shuttled that aside and decided we're not going to talk about that. And that taint in the Constitution, took a Civil War to remove." Later in the interview, he said that the Constitution's amendment process "did allow some fundamental flaws to be addressed like slavery -- abolished in the Thirteenth Amendment."
Flawed ?..

I have to disagree with Justice Roberts on this one: The original constitution in no way protected or supported slavery. It took a war, and an subsequent amendment, to to stop the unconstitutional practice of slavery.

551 SixDegrees  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:59:19pm

re: #506 Russkilitlover

Remember, you said that this government had a "plan" for dealing with the coming inflation. Maybe this is their brilliant plan.

I don't see how a VAT deals with inflation. It contributes to it, at least from a perceptual standpoint.

552 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 3:59:48pm

re: #528 Thanos

That had some to do with it, but the election would have gone different without the big two year diatribe against him. Now not only do we get shamnesty back, we get it at a point when Dems are in total control and the Republicans have ZERO control over the shape of it. All because they wanted to nail some RINOS.

He deserved the diatribe if you ask me. Were commentators supposed sit on their hands while he was pushing for amnesty?

553 VegasRick  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:00:07pm

re: #512 Walter L. Newton

In addition to her work on the bench, Judge Sotomayor is an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law and a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. She has received many honors including, most recently, an award from the National Association of Women Lawyers.

[Link: www.abanet.org...]

Wow! Great find Walter!

554 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:00:08pm

re: #539 loppyd

He threw 60 pitches over 3 1/3 innings in Portland, allowed one run on three hits.

{loopyd} Portland must be a minor league team..Is he rehabbing?

555 ihateronpaul  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:00:17pm

re: #482 quickjustice

Limbaugh can self identify as whatever he wants, the truth is he simply opposes everything the democrats or moderates support. No new ideas.

556 nikis-knight  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:00:37pm

re: #500 avanti

I don't disagree, Palin was swift boated big time by outside groups for example.

If it was "swift-boating" that would imply that the likes of Andrew Sullivan were in the maternity ward with her, as Kerry's "swift-boat vets for truth" were with him in nam (at least some of them).

557 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:00:41pm

re: #554 HoosierHoops

Yep. I think Kotsay's in Pawtucket, too.

558 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:00:55pm

re: #538 Thanos

Keep telling yourself that, the election wasn't a landslide for Obama, not that many points in popular vote separated them.

You want to talk fail?

Here's my prediction: Rush will once again muck things up and ensure an Obama victory in 2012.

I personally believe it was Palin who kept McCain close - polling showed their gap closing in the month she was around, if memory serves. And sure, Rush laid McCain out, no denying it...but he did do a good job of keeping Hillary in the primary and also made a strong case to not let O get elected. I think a fair minded conservative person can see that McCain sucked but O was just horrible. My conservative friends held their nose and voted for him, but I think that many stayed home, just like in 2006. Just my opinion, mate! :)

559 FurryOldGuyJeans  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:01:00pm

re: #547 BatGuano

Limbaugh's only influence is with conservative voters. The politicians will decide how much weight to ascribe to Limbaugh's influence.

The GOP sure gave his words and opinions a LOT of weight when Michael Steele came out and tried to go against the Limbaugh "consensus".

560 HelloDare  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:01:03pm

re: #536 Jimmah

Do you know about this one?

American Islamic Forum for Democracy

It's Dr. Jasser's website. He was involved in the film, The Third Jihad.

561 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:01:17pm

re: #520 Alouette

Judge Sotomayor delivered a speech at the Berkeley School of Law, and some time later, the Berkeley La Raza Journal published the speech.

I don't think this means she is a member of La Raza.

This official biography on the American Bar Association website says she was.

562 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:01:47pm

re: #546 Walter L. Newton

[Link: www.abanet.org...]

Wowzer!

Then she's a wacked out beotch, right up there with the worst of the Vlaams Belang, Stormfront, and other rabid racist groups. Supreme Court? Srsly?

563 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:01:49pm

re: #62 obscured by clouds

It's only "controversial" if a Republican's doing it. I mean...how can anyone on the opposite side of the aisle "offer something positive" when talking about a Supreme Court nominee? Does anyone have any examples of this ever happening, historically? Just askin'.

The Democrats kicked, clawed, and scratched to thwart Bush at absolutely every turn and now they get the high ground and the Republicans are to be expected to just lie down? For fear of being "stuck on fail?" If that's the big idea count me out.

I don't recall that the Democrats kicked, clawed and scratched over Bush's Supreme Court appointments. They pretty much rolled over, and were castigated endlessly for it by their constituents. Did the Dems block a justice that I don't remember?

564 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:01:49pm

re: #545 ihateronpaul

That doesn't matter one way or another. The fact of the matter is fewer people voted for McCain. Lest we forget the fact that bush barely got in the first time. We forgot that, right?

Nope, I didn't forget that at all. For years Republicans have mounted campaigns of "50+1" to win elections. They've thrown new recruiting out, and nuked the political farm teams. 50+1 and trying to win because we can get someone fired up over some bullshit social issue that's anti-something is not going to work anymore.

I much preferred Reagan days when we were for some things.

565 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:02:06pm

re: #543 Fenway_Nation

Will 'Economic justice' and 'Redistribution of Wealth' hack it for ya?

Scarborough falsely claimed Obama said the Warren Court was "not, quote, 'radical enough' "
October 28, 2008 7:19 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
EMBED

Embed this video:

SUMMARY: Joe Scarborough falsely claimed that, during a 2001 radio interview, Sen. Barack Obama said that "the Warren Court was not, quote, 'radical enough.' " In fact, Obama didn't say the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren was not "radical enough." Scarborough also falsely claimed that during the interview Obama said "the Warren Court did not go far enough, that actually one of the great tragedies was there was no redistribution of wealth." In fact, the "traged[y]" Obama identified during the interview was that the civil rights movement relied too much on the courts in its efforts to bring about political and economic justice.

link...

566 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:02:10pm

re: #559 FurryOldGuyJeans

Hey, have you missed the news... Sotomayor is a member of La Raza...

[Link: www.abanet.org...]

Input?

567 nyc redneck  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:02:16pm

rush is smart, obviously out spoken and very courageous.
there are so many on the left who say the most angry hateful anti-american b.s
abt this country.
and rush takes them on. in a very intelligent, informed way.
he calls out the jerks like dingy harry reed who said the war was lost. and jon effing cary who said our troops were going into iraqi homes in the dead of night and murdering innocent women and children. and murtha who said the troops were guilty of murder based on a radio news report. etc, etc, etc
i admire how rush dismantles these cowards.
i think he likes to provoke the msm.
throw out lines to see them pounce like jackals.
anyone who heard the 'i want o to fail' phrase knows what he means.
the msm is still running in circles w/ this old scrap.
they would be doing it no matter what he said.
their disgusting deceitful biased reporting is a far bigger problem than rush's phraseology.

568 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:02:40pm

re: #566 Walter L. Newton

Hey, have you missed the news... Sotomayor is a member of La Raza...

[Link: www.abanet.org...]

Input?

Do you have a link to back up that scurrilous charge, sir?

569 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:02:45pm

re: #562 Russkilitlover

Wowzer!

Then she's a wacked out beotch, right up there with the worst of the Vlaams Belang, Stormfront, and other rabid racist groups. Supreme Court? Srsly?

ella & esa necesidad del grupo DE FALLAR

570 EaterOfFood  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:03:07pm

I don't see the balance of the court changing any time soon. Souter is retiring. One liberal judge being replaced with...another liberal judge. Ginsburg is terminally ill, thus when she steps down or passes away, she, a liberal judge, will be replaced with another liberal judge.

571 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:03:19pm

re: #541 SixDegrees

A VAT will be a tough pitch for the foreseeable future. It will be at least a year before the populace begins to feel the effects of an improving economy, and there will be huge resistance to any new taxes until people have been feeling flush for a while. About that same time, as the housing market slowly begins to rebound and the impact of trillions of dollars worth of money-printing begin to fuel inflation, a VAT would be the equivalent of increasing inflation at a time when it will already be on the rise. All that, coupled with a general resistance to new taxes, will probably scotch the idea for at least two to three years, and even then it will remain a very tough sell.

Well then my comment 472 may prove play out:

Before his 2nd term is done, and before budget demands go unmet, with bankruptcy looming, a VAT will be proposed by Øbama, and probably passed.
572 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:03:20pm

re: #551 SixDegrees

I don't see how a VAT deals with inflation. It contributes to it, at least from a perceptual standpoint.

I'm just digging at KT. He's convinced that this government has the economy under control and has a "plan" for all the shit that's steamrolling right at us.

"And in the beginning there was the plan. And it was good....." LOL!

573 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:03:39pm

re: #564 Thanos

Nope, I didn't forget that at all. For years Republicans have mounted campaigns of "50+1" to win elections. They've thrown new recruiting out, and nuked the political farm teams. 50+1 and trying to win because we can get someone fired up over some bullshit social issue that's anti-something is not going to work anymore.

I much preferred Reagan days when we were for some things.

Totally spot on. I personally believe that Rush is working for the same thing but I can see your view of it.

574 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:03:51pm

re: #565 avanti

You'll have to do better than media matters.

575 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:04:04pm

re: #562 Russkilitlover

Wowzer!

Then she's a wacked out beotch, right up there with the worst of the Vlaams Belang, Stormfront, and other rabid racist groups. Supreme Court? Srsly?

Of course, the American Bar Association may be lying. I give it the 48 year rule?
////////////////////

576 uptight  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:04:08pm

Rush is nearly there...he just needs a little more confidence.

Rather than wanting liberals to fail, he should know that they will.

577 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:04:17pm

re: #543 Fenway_Nation

Will 'Economic justice' and 'Redistribution of Wealth' hack it for ya?


We.ll the only answer is Obama did not say what he said.
To say that he said what he said is just racist

578 debutaunt  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:04:26pm

re: #551 SixDegrees

I don't see how a VAT deals with inflation. It contributes to it, at least from a perceptual standpoint.

Inflation reduces the value of money and a VAT increases taxes. Sweet!

579 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:04:34pm

re: #499 SeafoodGumbo

Charles,

Sotomayor is a member of a group that you have described as a "Hispanic supremacist group" and "a rabidly racist Mexican-American group with an open agenda to turn the Western states of the US into 'Aztlan?'."

Isn't that enough to disqualify her?

If I were to post those articles again, I'd be a little more careful with how I describe the National Council of La Raza. I've learned a lot more about them since then.

When the group started, they did have ties to shady causes and some pretty incendiary political positions, but the modern version of NCLR has become a pretty moderate organization, and you don't find their representatives espousing "Aztlan" or Hispanic supremacist positions any more. In fact they're a 501(c)(3) organization now, with funding from major corporations like Walmart and Citigroup, who aren't known for being involved with extremist groups.

And by the way, they deny that "La Raza" means "The Race." According to their website, it means "The People," and was originally "La Raza Cosmica," signifying all the different Latino strains.

Are they hiding their extremism? I don't know, but from the evidence I can see, they seem to have changed quite a bit from their founding years in the 1960s.

580 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:04:36pm

re: #568 tedzilla99

Do you have a link to back up that scurrilous charge, sir?

What the fuck do you think that was, chopped liver?

581 nikis-knight  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:04:45pm

re: #550 Kenneth

I have to disagree with Justice Roberts on this one: The original constitution in no way protected or supported slavery. It took a war, and an subsequent amendment, to to stop the unconstitutional practice of slavery.

That doesn't sound like a disagreement with what you are quoting--he said "allowed" not supported, and that it basically put off the issue, which is true, as there were pressing concerns with winning wars to avoid hanging seperately and all that.

582 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:04:48pm

re: #552 loppyd

He deserved the diatribe if you ask me. Were commentators supposed sit on their hands while he was pushing for amnesty?

Is the outcome now going to be better or worse? Wouldn't you have rather done it then when Republicans could put checks in place, and make it semi sane? Now we have the Dem version, steamrollering your way in June. Enjoy your successful defeat of McCain, you accomplished sooooo much for conservative causes! Yes sir, we salute you.

583 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:05:05pm

re: #501 HAL2010

Good point, but I prefer to draw the parallel with what happened to labour after their defeat by Thatcher in 1979. They really went crazy with the 'ideological purity', electing the unelectable Michael Foot as their leader and spending the next 18 years out of power and being overrun by hardened socialist backstabbers like 'Militant Tendency'.

Whereabouts in the UK are you btw? (I'm in Scotland)

584 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:05:24pm

re: #580 Walter L. Newton

What the fuck do you think that was, chopped liver?

sheesh - I thought your sarcasm meter was better than that!

585 SixDegrees  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:05:43pm

re: #552 loppyd

He deserved the diatribe if you ask me. Were commentators supposed sit on their hands while he was pushing for amnesty?

What is the alternative to amnesty? Last I heard, there were supposed to be on the order of 30 million illegal aliens in the United States. No one is going to support marching them back across the border in shackles.

Well, some might. But there are some who support gassing Jews, too.

Realistically, amnesty of one form or another is going to happen because it is the only practical solution to this problem. What ought to be demanded, however, is that the border be secured before any amnesty is granted, to ensure that we don't have to do this yet again - for the third time - in another ten or twenty years.

586 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:05:52pm

re: #566 Walter L. Newton

Hey, have you missed the news... Sotomayor is a member of La Raza...

[Link: www.abanet.org...]

Input?

Not good.

587 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:06:20pm

... and ... it's doubtful that the McCain campaign would have scheduled a talk at the NCLR conference if they were truly an extremist group.

588 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:06:22pm

re: #556 nikis-knight

If it was "swift-boating" that would imply that the likes of Andrew Sullivan were in the maternity ward with her, as Kerry's "swift-boat vets for truth" were with him in nam (at least some of them).

67 eye witnesses

589 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:06:32pm

OK, unlike 99.9% of other bloggers, I just now got off my ass and tried to do some actual investigating.

I just got back from making a little tour around Berkeley, going to the Center for Latino Policy Research, the La Raza Law Journal Offices, and the Henderson Center for Social Justice, asking if, as the co-sponsors of Sotomayor's speech at Berkeley in 2001, they had an audio or video recording of the speech on file, in their archives, or online anywhere.

The short answer to a long afternoon: Nobody knows. Nobody can find it.

I pointed out to each person I spoke to that typing up a speech transcript live, while the speech is being given, is nearly impossible, so the person who made the transcript must have been working from an audio or video recording. This elicited a "Y'know, that's true -- there must be a recording somehwere around here" answer at each place. But no dice. There's a high turnover rate in academic organizations, so the people who were there in 2001 are no longer there, and no one who's there now can find where the old stuff is filed.

So, I failed in my quest, but at least I tried. So I'm proud of myself anyway.

590 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:06:37pm

re: #377 capitalist piglet

Bush wasn't as ideologically controversial...and honestly, I think when movies are being made about President Bush being on the receiving end of physical violence (to put it mildly), the right has a long way to go to match that level of ugliness.

How was Bush less ideologically controversial than Obama? To many here he was but this is a conservative blog. And as far as movies, the jury is still out - Obama has been president for 5 months, Bush 8 years.

Hard to prove how the liberals were the first few months of Bush's presidency, but I don't recall talk of liberal states succeeding, nor any of the rabid rhetoric I'm hearing now. Actually, probably not much of a difference between each parties supporters, other than it seems the conservatives took much less time to go nuts.

591 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:06:43pm

Just got back from looking. I see Walter and a few others found it first. Thanks.
Now listen, this is very important, if ANYONE tries to tell you that NCLR is "moderate" or "pro-American" or anything like that you're dealing with a liar. I've heard their spiels, seen their literature, and watched them in (destructive) action. They are the worst of the worst, and they'll use schools, churches and even "detox" programs to press-gang Hispanics into their fold.
Call me closed-minded if you want, but the book on Sotomayor is shut as far as I'm concerned.

592 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:06:53pm

re: #567 nyc redneck

nyc redneck understands and speaks Rush.

593 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:06:53pm

re: #563 ShanghaiEd

I don't recall that the Democrats kicked, clawed and scratched over Bush's Supreme Court appointments. They pretty much rolled over, and were castigated endlessly for it by their constituents. Did the Dems block a justice that I don't remember?

The Republicans didn't nominate a card-carrying racist, either.

594 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:07:07pm

so they have to know the la raza thing is a problem... is this a throwaway nonination? do they have some else in the wings?

595 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:07:51pm

re: #550 Kenneth

I have to disagree with Justice Roberts on this one: The original constitution in no way protected or supported slavery. It took a war, and an subsequent amendment, to to stop the unconstitutional practice of slavery.

Fair enough, you disagree with BHO, Roberts, Bush and me, so I'm part of a diverse group.:)

596 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:08:44pm

re: #594 brookly red

so they have to know the la raza thing is a problem... is this a throwaway nonination? do they have some else in the wings?

She'll be confirmed.

597 SixDegrees  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:08:53pm

re: #571 unrealizedviewpoint

I would think you're correct that it won't be a viable idea until his second term. At that point, however, his lame duck status will severely limit his power, and the inevitable second-term drift to the center will already be in full swing.

The best offense against such a thing is a concerted effort to contact one's representatives and let them know you won't stand for it.

598 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:08:59pm

re: #565 avanti

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

599 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:09:12pm

re: #373 kansas

I think the media's bashing finally caught up in 2006 resulting in the Dem House and Senate and finally I give you, with a slight tingle up my leg, Barack Hussein Obama.

This is a pretty tough position for me to fight against - if the Dems win, it is because of people being manipulated by the media. If the GOP wins, it is on the merits. Its kind of like saying the Dems can never win an election fairly.

600 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:09:15pm

re: #582 Thanos

Is the outcome now going to be better or worse? Wouldn't you have rather done it then when Republicans could put checks in place, and make it semi sane? Now we have the Dem version, steamrollering your way in June. Enjoy your successful defeat of McCain, you accomplished sooooo much for conservative causes! Yes sir, we salute you.

McCain was a terrible candidate and ran a terrible campaign. He was mealy mouthed and mushy and refused to go to the mattresses to win. Had he been able to articulate his positions more clearly and not been such a sally he may have been able to pull off the win.

I would have less respect for Rush if he had come out like gangbusters in support of McCain after all of his criticism.

601 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:09:44pm

re: #589 zombie

OK, unlike 99.9% of other bloggers, I just now got off my ass and tried to do some actual investigating.

I just got back from making a little tour around Berkeley, going to the Center for Latino Policy Research, the La Raza Law Journal Offices, and the Henderson Center for Social Justice, asking if, as the co-sponsors of Sotomayor's speech at Berkeley in 2001, they had an audio or video recording of the speech on file, in their archives, or online anywhere.

The short answer to a long afternoon: Nobody knows. Nobody can find it.

I pointed out to each person I spoke to that typing up a speech transcript live, while the speech is being given, is nearly impossible, so the person who made the transcript must have been working from an audio or video recording. This elicited a "Y'know, that's true -- there must be a recording somehwere around here" answer at each place. But no dice. There's a high turnover rate in academic organizations, so the people who were there in 2001 are no longer there, and no one who's there now can find where the old stuff is filed.

So, I failed in my quest, but at least I tried. So I'm proud of myself anyway.

Good work Z, we love you.

602 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:09:59pm

re: #574 Fenway_Nation

You'll have to do better than media matters.

I know, Charles is the only one that can use media matters as a source. :)

603 Vicious Babushka  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:10:08pm

re: #589 zombie

OK, unlike 99.9% of other bloggers, I just now got off my ass and tried to do some actual investigating.

I just got back from making a little tour around Berkeley, going to the Center for Latino Policy Research, the La Raza Law Journal Offices, and the Henderson Center for Social Justice, asking if, as the co-sponsors of Sotomayor's speech at Berkeley in 2001, they had an audio or video recording of the speech on file, in their archives, or online anywhere.

The short answer to a long afternoon: Nobody knows. Nobody can find it.

I pointed out to each person I spoke to that typing up a speech transcript live, while the speech is being given, is nearly impossible, so the person who made the transcript must have been working from an audio or video recording. This elicited a "Y'know, that's true -- there must be a recording somehwere around here" answer at each place. But no dice. There's a high turnover rate in academic organizations, so the people who were there in 2001 are no longer there, and no one who's there now can find where the old stuff is filed.

So, I failed in my quest, but at least I tried. So I'm proud of myself anyway.

Or, a transcript was provided from Sotomayor's office.

604 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:10:26pm

re: #587 Charles

... and ... it's doubtful that the McCain campaign would have scheduled a talk at the NCLR conference if they were truly an extremist group.

I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that was a turnoff to many voters. It was for me. I still held my nose and checked his name off in the end, though.

605 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:10:33pm

re: #587 Charles

So, you saying it is not MS-13?

606 Typicalwhitey  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:10:34pm

re: #568 tedzilla99


From the link he provided:

In addition to her work on the bench, Judge Sotomayor is an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law and a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. She has received many honors including, most recently, an award from the National Association of Women Lawyers

LINK

607 BatGuano  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:10:59pm

re: #559 FurryOldGuyJeans

That was Michael Steele's choice. As a politician he decided not to pursue that course. Limbaugh does have a lot of influence in the Republican party. Charles said (beginning at #450) That the GOP is parroting him. I say they are not.

608 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:10:59pm

re: #591 Lincolntf

They are the worst of the worst, and they'll use schools, churches and even "detox" programs to press-gang Hispanics into their fold.

Evidence? Links? I definitely have an open mind, and I'm not defending the NCLR necessarily, but I don't see this extremism in the current organization. If you can show me that they're still extremists, I may join you in denouncing Sotomayor.

609 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:11:01pm

re: #599 Flyers1974

This is a pretty tough position for me to fight against - if the Dems win, it is because of people being manipulated by the media. If the GOP wins, it is on the merits. Its kind of like saying the Dems can never win an election fairly.

Or like the Dems saying that the GOP can only win elections because enough of the voters are stupid and/or racist (even if the 2 candidates are white).

Or the fix was in from those Diebold elctronic voting machines that the Dems wanted in the first place....

610 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:12:22pm

re: #591 Lincolntf

Got links to transcripts of those speeches? Got links to literature so we can evaluate your statement?

I belong to the tribe of the individual so joining any group based on ethnicity hits me wrong, but most Americans aren't going to see it that way unless we can show it. So bring forth the proof.

611 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:12:25pm

re: #597 SixDegrees

I would think you're correct that it won't be a viable idea until his second term. At that point, however, his lame duck status will severely limit his power, and the inevitable second-term drift to the center will already be in full swing.

The best offense against such a thing is a concerted effort to contact one's representatives and let them know you won't stand for it.

With all his absurd policies FDR had wide support through the depression. I'm not so sure he'll be a lame duck. Rush and I hope so.

612 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:12:43pm

re: #594 brookly red

Yep and the money quote was

"And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. "

i.e. don't waste time with the courts, it's not their tuff, build from the ground up.

613 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:13:55pm

re: #579 Charles

You're defending La Raza? How are they any different than Vlaams Belang, who are also trying to mainstream themselves?

614 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:14:05pm

re: #612 avanti

Yep and the money quote was

"And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. "

i.e. don't waste time with the courts, it's not their tuff, build from the ground up.

Umm....what exactly is meant by redistributive change?

615 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:14:15pm

I don't think you can toss a candidate out because they have an affiliation to The National Council of La Raza That's a bit much. La Raza is a phrase that goes back decades. I'm sure somewhere along the way some gangs used that as a slogan, but that doesn't mean the NCLR endorsed it.

616 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:14:27pm

re: #579 Charles

And by the way, they deny that "La Raza" means "The Race." According to their website, it means "The People,"

That particular talking point of theirs is horse hockey.

"La Raza" means "The Race"; that's, well, Spanish. They don't get to just make up their own language after the fact. ("The People", in the political sense of the term, would be "El Pueblo".)

and was originally "La Raza Cosmica," signifying all the different Latino strains.

The Cosmic Race! Farrrr out! And... kinda creepy, too?

617 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:14:27pm

re: #587 Charles

... and ... it's doubtful that the McCain campaign would have scheduled a talk at the NCLR conference if they were truly an extremist group.

For me, the verdict is still out. Are they mainstreamed? I'm not sure. They now deny any association with MEChA, yet just three years ago, that association was still evident...

[Link: www.humanevents.com...]

They have been asked on a number of points to deny association with certain ideals and groups, and they return with blanket statements that can be taken in more than one way...

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

I am not in any way comparing them with VB, but, once again we have a group that slides in and out of bad associations with out any defined opposition to those bad associations.

This certainly needs to be looked into, the same way we have vetted VB and other "race" groups.

618 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:14:32pm

re: #612 avanti

Yep and the money quote was

"And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. "

i.e. don't waste time with the courts, it's not their tuff, build from the ground up.

I.E. we want socialist programs.

619 Eowyn2  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:14:32pm

re: #442 Thanos

Yeah, we do need those sorts. Unless you are willing to go to permanent minority party, we need wins in the west and the NE if we are going to get back to even near parity in the house and Senate.

Of course we could just keep saying "fail" and rename ourselves "The Dixiecrat Homerschoolers" party...

That is extremely insulting.
Homeschoolers come from a variety of religions and ethnic backgrounds. It is reprehensible to take the whole "Dixiecrat HomeRschoolers" attitude when dealing with any group.
The 2008 Republican Party tried to foist Democrat Light on the conservatives and it bit them in the ass. The Republicans should grab fiscal conservatism by the balls and actually work in congress and the senate as fiscal conservatives. Instead of saying "I hope his policies fail" they should say "I want to prevent this policy from being enacted because it will cost X bazillion dollars and those dollars come from you and you and you....."

To blame the upheaval in the Republican party on homeschoolers is well, not too bright.

620 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:14:43pm

Just for the record, and to keep this grounded in reality, the NCLR has posted a lengthy answer to the criticisms at their website: The Truth About NCLR: NCLR Answers Critics.

621 DANEgerus  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:14:59pm
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor


Sonia Sotamayor is a racist-sexist-hater that puts her personal agenda above the law further illustrated by her you tube video.

"If 80% of your decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court, the best way to fix that is to become a Supreme Court Justice." -- IMAO

"The nomination of Judge Sotomayor demonstrates that identity politics not only remains alive and well, but may be accompanied by an unabashedly racialist interpretive doctrine" -- Peter Kirsanow

"She is racist, for the same reason white racists are racist; they wish to ascribe to themselves moral and intellectual and spiritual gifts that only they possess, due solely to their race and their blood." -- Ace

"...she cannot apparently conceive of any better qualification or recommendation for herself than the mundane accident of her sex and ethnicity." -- Ace

"Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights." -- Van Helsing

"Sotomayor also helped to establish our current pro-terrorist anti-terror strategy with the insane ruling that illegal combatants captured on foreign battlefields are entitled to all the rights of American citizens." -- Van Helsing

Welcome to the "living Constitution" where the limitations on Government can be tossed aside by those that "know better" who are NOT elected and can't ever be removed.

622 freetoken  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:16:05pm
I don’t really understand why Rush Limbaugh and social conservatives like Mike Huckabee are so opposed to Sotomayor;

May I suggest that the reason has less to do with Sotomayor, the person or the judge, and more to do with need to feed the hate and angst of the crowd from which the social commentators derive their (rather successful) living?

623 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:16:09pm

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

OBAMA: As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

OBAMA: I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and -- and -- and that the framers had that same blind spot. I -- I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

624 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:16:29pm

re: #565 avanti

Just stop it with the evasive maneuvers, will you? I listened to the audio recording of the radio interview myself. I don't have to read a media matters rebuttal of somebody else's quotation of a different comment. Obama said the Constitution was flawed because it did not contain income redistribution guarantees.

So if he loves it, and his election is a proof of it's goodness, why did he spend his life associating with people committed to trashing it?

625 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:16:34pm

re: #613 Russkilitlover

You're defending La Raza? How are they any different than Vlaams Belang, who are also trying to mainstream themselves?

Please see: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

626 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:16:52pm

re: #614 Fenway_Nation

Umm....what exactly is meant by redistributive change?

"Moving on up to the east side" Poor moving to the middle class for example, reducing the wage gap from rich to poor by grass roots efforts in the community.

627 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:16:55pm

re: #608 Charles

I'm going with personal experience here, no web-links to my memory banks I'm afraid.
If La Raza has changed, then I don't know how I'd ever find out. I assume they keep their sites "sanitized", but the people I saw (over the course of a year, pretty much every week) were not what I'd consider normal political activists, they were seething racists (primarily against blacks, but whites took a fair share of their crap too).
If anyone (Republican or Dem) was currently an honored member of the KKK I could hardly be more disgusted.

628 BatGuano  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:17:01pm

re: #613 Russkilitlover

Theyr'e supported by Walmart and Citigroup. It's OK.

629 Danny  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:17:23pm

re: #185 CyanSnowHawk

It's her stand on the 2nd Amendment that gives me problems about her. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), she was part of a panel that essentially said that the 2nd Amendment applies only to Federal law, not State law. That's disturbing. What if that was applied to say, the 1st Amendment?

I could care less about Rush's bloviations, but I DEFINITELY hope Sotomayor's nomination fails, and if that's a failure for Obama, well, good.

630 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:17:25pm

I was just thinking (shudder). I don't belong to any groups. I don't have any "associations." Where do these busy people find the time?

631 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:17:35pm

re: #623 tedzilla99


I posted that earlier, he is ignoring it.

632 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:17:46pm

re: #626 avanti

And by what means?

633 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:17:58pm

re: #627 Lincolntf

I'm going with personal experience here, no web-links to my memory banks I'm afraid.
If La Raza has changed, then I don't know how I'd ever find out. I assume they keep their sites "sanitized", but the people I saw (over the course of a year, pretty much every week) were not what I'd consider normal political activists, they were seething racists (primarily against blacks, but whites took a fair share of their crap too).
If anyone (Republican or Dem) was currently an honored member of the KKK I could hardly be more disgusted.

Don't anyone mention the Tea Parties.

634 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:18:11pm

re: #631 DEZes

I posted that earlier, he is ignoring it.

No worries! Maybe repetition can have a healing effect :D

635 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:18:16pm

re: #603 Alouette

Or, a transcript was provided from Sotomayor's office.

Excellent point! HOWEVER, as was pointed out to me by the nice person at the Henderson Center for Social Justice, there are bizarre factual "typos" in the speech which wouldn't have existed if the transcript was provided by Sotomayor herself.

As the most obvious example: In the original transcript, she says,

"Sort of shocking, isn't it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go."

BUT the speech was given in 2001. No on would refer to a future year in a speech as being the current year. But IF THE SPEECH WAS TRANSCRIBED IN 2002 (which is when it was published), that was a natural typo to make. Which is strong evidence that a recording was indeed made and the transcript was written up from it some months afterward -- and that Sotomayor did NOT supply the text herself.

636 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:18:22pm

re: #306 Let's Roll

I just wonder why members of the Left can write books and make movies about the assassination of a standing GOP president and everybody yawns, but a conservative talk show host says out loud that he hopes the policies of a standing Dem president fail, and he's eviscerated by both sides.

Same thing goes for the attacks against nominated conservative Supreme Court justices versus attacks on the attacks of liberal ones.

And when I say "I just wonder why" I actually mean "We know exactly why."

I'll tell you why - most Dems probably never heard of the movie you are referring to. On the other hand, Rush is probably the most important Republican since Reagan as far as long term impact on the party.

637 nyc redneck  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:18:24pm

re: #592 unrealizedviewpoint

nyc redneck understands and speaks Rush.

LOL,
i do have a soft spot for him. can't help it.
he's the first guy i started listening to after 9-11.

638 pink freud  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:18:40pm

On Sotomayor, in her own words, from my LNDT post last night:

Judge Sotomayor said this to a noncitizen drug-dealer, who had just pleaded guilty to drug-dealing: "[I]t is in some respects a great tragedy for our country that instead of permitting you to serve a lesser sentence and rejoin your family at an earlier time I am required by law to give you the statutory minimum. ... [W]e all understand that you were in part a victim of the economic necessities of our society, unfortunately there are laws that I must impose."

In sentencing Louis Gomez, who also pleaded guilty to dealing cocaine, Sotomayor said, "Louis Gomez, yours is the tragedy of our laws and the greatest one that I know. ... the one our congressmen never thought about and don't think about. ...

"It is no comfort to you for me to say that I am deeply, personally sorry about the sentence that I must impose, because the law requires me to do so. The only statement I can make is this is one more example of an abomination being committed before our sight. You do not deserve this, sir."

Sotomayor is now awaiting confirmation to the federal Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. President Clinton and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) last week succeeded in pressuring Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) to move her hearing up a week, leaving ambushed Republican senators on the committee flailing about with little ammunition. It is assumed her next nomination will be to the Supreme Court--since she "looks like America."

A few more Senate confirmations of judges like Sonia Sotomayor and America will look like the inside of a Mexican prison.

Link here and here to this post and the one preceding it, referencing a print copy of a 1997 article in Human Events Magazine.

639 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:18:42pm

re: #613 Russkilitlover

Is La Raza advocating deporting people of non hispanic background? Are they holocaust deniers? Are they trying to stop people from building houses of worship? You know I can go on and on ...

640 Lee Coller  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:18:42pm

I hope all of you who are lining up to defend Rush are falling into the trap set by David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. They set out through DNC talking points to paint Rush Limbaugh as the symbol of the Republican party, knowing what a polarizing figure he is and is only loved by the far right.

Michael Steele was smart enough to realize that (though sadly backed down when challenged). I would hope most here would realize that too.

641 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:18:49pm

re: #620 Charles

Just for the record, and to keep this grounded in reality, the NCLR has posted a lengthy answer to the criticisms at their website: The Truth About NCLR: NCLR Answers Critics.

Well.... that they defend themselves at their own website isn't exactly surprising.

And this:

We have a Spanish term in our name, “La Raza” (meaning “the people” or “community”), which is often mistranslated.

... is just utter bollocks, and doesn't exactly bode well for their veracity.

642 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:18:57pm

re: #634 tedzilla99

No worries! Maybe repetition can have a healing effect :D

Sure cant hurt. ;)

643 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:19:18pm

re: #615 Mich-again

I don't think you can toss a candidate out because they have an affiliation to The National Council of La Raza That's a bit much. La Raza is a phrase that goes back decades. I'm sure somewhere along the way some gangs used that as a slogan, but that doesn't mean the NCLR endorsed it.

& jihad means inner struggel...

644 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:19:24pm

To muddy the water a bit more the NCLR has a former Board Chair named Dr. Marta Sotomayor but it appears to be no relation to Sonia.

645 tedzilla99  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:19:31pm

re: #635 zombie

Excellent point! HOWEVER, as was pointed out to me by the nice person at the Henderson Center for Social Justice, there are bizarre factual "typos" in the speech which wouldn't have existed if the transcript was provided by Sotomayor herself.

As the most obvious example: In the original transcript, she says,

"Sort of shocking, isn't it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go."

BUT the speech was given in 2001. No on would refer to a future year in a speech as being the current year. But IF THE SPEECH WAS TRANSCRIBED IN 2002 (which is when it was published), that was a natural typo to make. Which is strong evidence that a recording was indeed made and the transcript was written up from it some months afterward -- and that Sotomayor did NOT supply the text herself.

It's probably on the shelf along with that speech that the SF Chronicle wouldn't let us see.

646 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:19:35pm

re: #627 Lincolntf

You said it -- now show us.

647 reine.de.tout  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:20:11pm

re: #511 SeafoodGumbo

link

I can't believe that actually is indeed included in her information at that abanet site.

648 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:20:11pm

re: #624 Kenneth

Just stop it with the evasive maneuvers, will you? I listened to the audio recording of the radio interview myself. I don't have to read a media matters rebuttal of somebody else's quotation of a different comment. Obama said the Constitution was flawed because it did not contain income redistribution guarantees.

So if he loves it, and his election is a proof of it's goodness, why did he spend his life associating with people committed to trashing it?

OK, this has been fun for a while, but you and I hear the same words and come to different conclusions and that's the nature of the divide. Since all this was beat to death during the election, and it's over, I'll get back to work.

649 unrealizedviewpoint  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:20:46pm

re: #637 nyc redneck

LOL,
i do have a soft spot for him. can't help it.
he's the first guy i started listening to after 9-11.

I had the great pleasure of spending the summer of 1987 in the car (sales) listening to Rush on WABC in NYC. Rush converted me.

650 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:21:00pm

re: #645 tedzilla99

It was LA times, Rashid Khalidi dinner video.

651 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:21:05pm

re: #648 avanti

OK, this has been fun for a while, but you and I hear the same words and come to different conclusions and that's the nature of the divide. Since all this was beat to death during the election, and it's over, I'll get back to work.

And with that, he walked out of our lives forever.

652 Mich-again  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:21:14pm

re: #643 brookly red

So everyone who is part of the NCLR is akin to a jihadi? Jeesh. Thin veil you're hiding behind.

653 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:21:15pm

re: #626 avanti

"Moving on up to the east side" Poor moving to the middle class for example, reducing the wage gap from rich to poor by grass roots efforts in the community.

No that's social progress. Redistibutive is taking from one to give to another.
Is your friend still off of cigatettes?

654 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:21:15pm

re: #646 Thanos

Show you what?

655 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:21:19pm

re: #555 ihateronpaul

"No new ideas?" That's nonsense. The Democrats are in power. They're pushing their agenda. With Specter's treacherous defection, the GOP can't even sustain a filibuster in the Senate.

When you're playing defense, your "new ideas" are irrelevant. Limbaugh and conservatives are the "loyal opposition" for the moment. It's fatuous to complain they have no "new" ideas. They're powerless to implement them.

Only Democratic blunders can change that. They're coming fast and furious at the moment.

656 debutaunt  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:21:19pm

re: #626 avanti

"Moving on up to the east side" Poor moving to the middle class for example, reducing the wage gap from rich to poor by grass roots efforts in the community.

To each according to need?

657 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:21:31pm

re: #640 Lee Coller

I hope all of you who are lining up to defend Rush are falling into the trap set by David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. They set out through DNC talking points to paint Rush Limbaugh as the symbol of the Republican party, knowing what a polarizing figure he is and is only loved by the far right.

Oh no! Does that mean I can't sit at the table with the cool kids in the cafeteria during lunchtime?

BTW, did Meghan McCain read that note I passed her in study hall?

658 avanti  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:21:36pm

re: #651 DEZes

And with that, he walked out of our lives forever.

In your dreams :)

659 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:21:40pm

re: #609 Fenway_Nation

Or like the Dems saying that the GOP can only win elections because enough of the voters are stupid and/or racist (even if the 2 candidates are white).

Or the fix was in from those Diebold elctronic voting machines that the Dems wanted in the first place....


Actually I agree with you 100%. The rhetoric is the same. If I have any point to make, it is that the rhetoric is very very similiar between the parties. So maybe the rhetoric is what it is - bullshit.

660 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:22:03pm

re: #638 pink freud

On Sotomayor, in her own words, from my LNDT post last night:

Judge Sotomayor said this to a noncitizen drug-dealer, who had just pleaded guilty to drug-dealing: "[I]t is in some respects a great tragedy for our country that instead of permitting you to serve a lesser sentence and rejoin your family at an earlier time I am required by law to give you the statutory minimum. ... [W]e all understand that you were in part a victim of the economic necessities of our society, unfortunately there are laws that I must impose."

In sentencing Louis Gomez, who also pleaded guilty to dealing cocaine, Sotomayor said, "Louis Gomez, yours is the tragedy of our laws and the greatest one that I know. ... the one our congressmen never thought about and don't think about. ...

"It is no comfort to you for me to say that I am deeply, personally sorry about the sentence that I must impose, because the law requires me to do so. The only statement I can make is this is one more example of an abomination being committed before our sight. You do not deserve this, sir."

Sotomayor is now awaiting confirmation to the federal Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. President Clinton and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) last week succeeded in pressuring Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) to move her hearing up a week, leaving ambushed Republican senators on the committee flailing about with little ammunition. It is assumed her next nomination will be to the Supreme Court--since she "looks like America."

A few more Senate confirmations of judges like Sonia Sotomayor and America will look like the inside of a Mexican prison.

Link here and here to this post and the one preceding it, referencing a print copy of a 1997 article in Human Events Magazine.

There is too much indication that this woman sit dangerously on the edge of letting her feeling decide law, and much of the supporting links and quotes and articles that have been put forth here on LGF back that up.

La Raza or not, this woman has enough strikes against her to suggest that she is in no way ready for the SC, or for any court in that matter.

661 marge45b  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:22:15pm

It is the policy of Obama that Rush wants to fail. Rush wants the GOP to take the Latina on. When the GOP have tried to get the Latino vote it hasn't worked.(Amnesty) The GOP has gotten away from the conservative principles Reagan followed. Reagan had land side victories with both conservative Democrats and minorities vote. Conservatism won, not the Republican party.

662 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:22:36pm

re: #658 avanti

In your dreams :)

Not really, your fun to have around.

663 SeafoodGumbo  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:22:54pm

re: #579 Charles

If I were to post those articles again, I'd be a little more careful with how I describe the National Council of La Raza. I've learned a lot more about them since then.

When the group started, they did have ties to shady causes and some pretty incendiary political positions, but the modern version of NCLR has become a pretty moderate organization, and you don't find their representatives espousing "Aztlan" or Hispanic supremacist positions any more. In fact they're a 501(c)(3) organization now, with funding from major corporations like Walmart and Citigroup, who aren't known for being involved with extremist groups.

And by the way, they deny that "La Raza" means "The Race." According to their website, it means "The People," and was originally "La Raza Cosmica," signifying all the different Latino strains.

Are they hiding their extremism? I don't know, but from the evidence I can see, they seem to have changed quite a bit from their founding years in the 1960s.

Evil groups that are smart usually put on a coat and tie after a while. Just because Walmart gives them money and Karl Rove was stupid enough to speak to them don't seem to be proof that they've changed.

If this article by Michelle Malkin is correct, I'd suspect that they've just gotten smarter about how to maneuver.

Among The Race's most infamous government-funded charter schools is La Academia Semillas del Pueblo, the Los Angeles public school that teaches "Aztec math" (ancient dot math is the new math) and the Mexican indigenous language of "Nahuatl." The ethnic separatist principal of the school, Marcos Aguilar, told a sympathetic UCLA interviewer:

"We don't want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don't need a White water fountain. . . . We are not interested in what they have because we have so much more and because the world is so much larger. And ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction."

That's the tip of the iceberg. I found dozens of other publicly subsidized charter schools sponsored by The Race and funded with our money, including:

At a very minimum, they're still a very far-left group who want to let illegal aliens vote and enjoy practically all of the rights of American citizens, and who have been opposed to security measures that make the country safe.

664 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:23:06pm

re: #585 SixDegrees

What is the alternative to amnesty? Last I heard, there were supposed to be on the order of 30 million illegal aliens in the United States. No one is going to support marching them back across the border in shackles.

Well, some might. But there are some who support gassing Jews, too.

Realistically, amnesty of one form or another is going to happen because it is the only practical solution to this problem. What ought to be demanded, however, is that the border be secured before any amnesty is granted, to ensure that we don't have to do this yet again - for the third time - in another ten or twenty years.

I support marching them back across the borders, but I know that isn't realistic. Why are we looking for ways to reward or exonerate those whose first act upon entering this country was to break the law?

All the McCain-Kennedy bill called for with respect to securing the borders was that DHS had to do little more than to document efforts underway.

665 VegasRick  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:23:31pm

re: #626 avanti

"Moving on up to the east side" Poor moving to the middle class for example, reducing the wage gap from rich to poor by grass roots efforts in the community.

WTF does that mean? Did ozero write that for you? How about getting a fucking job and going to work everyday.

666 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:23:32pm

re: #626 avanti

re: #614 Fenway_Nation

Umm....what exactly is meant by redistributive change?

"Moving on up to the east side" Poor moving to the middle class for example, reducing the wage gap from rich to poor by grass roots efforts in the community.

Downdinging you for either cluelessness or mendacity.

No, that isn't redistribution. Please.

667 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:23:53pm

re: #652 Mich-again

So everyone who is part of the NCLR is akin to a jihadi? Jeesh. Thin veil you're hiding behind.

no veil, no hiding... it's dosn't matter what the term means it matters how it is used & how others interpet it. The term "La Raza" brings up the hair on a lot of pepoles necks.

668 HAL2010  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:24:40pm

re: #583 Jimmah

Good point, but I prefer to draw the parallel with what happened to labour after their defeat by Thatcher in 1979. They really went crazy with the 'ideological purity', electing the unelectable Michael Foot as their leader and spending the next 18 years out of power and being overrun by hardened socialist backstabbers like 'Militant Tendency'.

Whereabouts in the UK are you btw? (I'm in Scotland)

Probably a better analogy, come to think of it. The GOP platform in 2012 could very well be the "longest suicide note in history".

I'm North Yorkshire.

669 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:24:59pm

re: #648 avanti

OK, this has been fun for a while, but you and I hear the same words and come to different conclusions and that's the nature of the divide. Since all this was beat to death during the election, and it's over, I'll get back to work.

And no comment about Obama's constitution hating associates?

Runaway, runaway!

670 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:25:46pm

re: #638 pink freud

On Sotomayor, in her own words, from my LNDT post last night:

Judge Sotomayor said this to a noncitizen drug-dealer, who had just pleaded guilty to drug-dealing: "[I]t is in some respects a great tragedy for our country that instead of permitting you to serve a lesser sentence and rejoin your family at an earlier time I am required by law to give you the statutory minimum. ... [W]e all understand that you were in part a victim of the economic necessities of our society, unfortunately there are laws that I must impose."

In sentencing Louis Gomez, who also pleaded guilty to dealing cocaine, Sotomayor said, "Louis Gomez, yours is the tragedy of our laws and the greatest one that I know. ... the one our congressmen never thought about and don't think about. ...

"It is no comfort to you for me to say that I am deeply, personally sorry about the sentence that I must impose, because the law requires me to do so. The only statement I can make is this is one more example of an abomination being committed before our sight. You do not deserve this, sir."

Sotomayor is now awaiting confirmation to the federal Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. President Clinton and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) last week succeeded in pressuring Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) to move her hearing up a week, leaving ambushed Republican senators on the committee flailing about with little ammunition. It is assumed her next nomination will be to the Supreme Court--since she "looks like America."

A few more Senate confirmations of judges like Sonia Sotomayor and America will look like the inside of a Mexican prison.

Link here and here to this post and the one preceding it, referencing a print copy of a 1997 article in Human Events Magazine.

Excellent digging!

re: #660 Walter L. Newton

There is too much indication that this woman sit dangerously on the edge of letting her feeling decide law, and much of the supporting links and quotes and articles that have been put forth here on LGF back that up.

La Raza or not, this woman has enough strikes against her to suggest that she is in no way ready for the SC, or for any court in that matter.

Totally aside from any MSM or paleo-conservative hysteria, I'm going to have to agree with that assessment. She lets her personal biases "inform" her rulings way way too much.

671 Gus  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:26:03pm

re: #663 SeafoodGumbo

At a very minimum, they're still a very far-left group who want to let illegal aliens vote and enjoy practically all of the rights of American citizens, and who have been opposed to security measures that make the country safe.

I'm curious. Did that article appear at VDARE?

672 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:26:11pm

re: #619 Eowyn2

No, the conservatives bad mouthed the candidate who could win two years straight going into the election. Thanks for President Obama, I had other druthers. Thanks for shooting down Rudy and Romney as well, that was good for the party too.

673 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:26:18pm

re: #636 Flyers1974

I'll tell you why - most Dems probably never heard of the movie you are referring to. On the other hand, Rush is probably the most important Republican since Reagan as far as long term impact on the party.

Did any of those Dems hear Pelosi or Reid claiming the war is lost?

674 itellu3times  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:26:32pm

re: #436 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Federal tax revenue plunged $138 billion, or 34%, in April vs. a year ago — the biggest April drop since 1981, a study released Tuesday by the American Institute for Economic Research says.

Yikes.

675 pink freud  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:27:50pm

re: #670 zombie

Excellent digging!/blockquote>

I can die happy now. :-)

Thanks, Zombie!

676 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:28:35pm

re: #550 Kenneth

I have to disagree with Justice Roberts on this one: The original constitution in no way protected or supported slavery. It took a war, and an subsequent amendment, to to stop the unconstitutional practice of slavery.

I have to agree with John Adams that the fact that they failed to properly address slavery was one of the greatest flaws of the constitution.

Between slavery and the destruction of the Native Americans, we have the two worst stains on our history.

677 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:28:37pm

re: #654 Lincolntf

You said you knew a lot of negative things about La Raza, I've got an open mind, show us the literature, show us that they are as radical as you said they were.

678 J.S.  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:28:41pm

CNN is also reporting that Rush is calling Sonia Sotomayor a "racist." Not only is Rush stuck on fail, he's stuck on stupid...(really, really pathetic of Limbaugh.)

679 itellu3times  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:28:46pm

re: #589 zombie

Good on you.

But they could have reused the tape already until it wore out or they just switched to digital.

680 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:28:49pm

Anybody ever argue with a park bench?
Or Avanti?

681 BatGuano  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:28:51pm

La Raza means "The Race"

682 reine.de.tout  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:29:01pm

re: #620 Charles

Just for the record, and to keep this grounded in reality, the NCLR has posted a lengthy answer to the criticisms at their website: The Truth About NCLR: NCLR Answers Critics.

That's good information to have, quite comprehensive.

Any association, however with MEChA is troubling to me; they downplay that association, and even admit that . . . "some of the organization’s founding documents, e.g., Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, contain inappropriate rhetoric, and NCLR also acknowledges that rhetoric from some MEChA members has been extremist and inflammatory."

But then they seem to go on to try to "balance" that with MEChA's successes. That they would try to show balance as re: MEChA is something find troubling.

683 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:29:31pm

re: #670 zombie

Totally aside from any MSM or paleo-conservative hysteria, I'm going to have to agree with that assessment. She lets her personal biases "inform" her rulings way way too much.

Yeah, but she's a Latina woman, so her judgment is superior to a white males like us.

684 SeafoodGumbo  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:29:34pm

re: #671 Gus 802

I'm curious. Did that article appear at VDARE?

It's not really an article per se, because Discover the Networks continually add new information to their pieces.

I have no idea what other sites have reprinted it.

685 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:30:02pm

re: #659 Flyers1974

re: #675 pink freudI can die happy now

Are you sure you can't stay a little longer?

686 opnion  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:30:07pm

I had a program on in the car today with two women lauding Sotomayors credentials. They kept saying that she is Latina & female.

687 Gus  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:30:08pm

re: #684 SeafoodGumbo

It's not really an article per se, because Discover the Networks continually add new information to their pieces.

I have no idea what other sites have reprinted it.

Sorry, I meant the Malkin article.

688 Vicious Babushka  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:30:26pm

re: #608 Charles

Evidence? Links? I definitely have an open mind, and I'm not defending the NCLR necessarily, but I don't see this extremism in the current organization. If you can show me that they're still extremists, I may join you in denouncing Sotomayor.

ADL which is pretty much on top of hate groups, has partnered with NCLR and obviously does not consider them a hate group.

689 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:30:28pm

re: #589 zombie

Oh, and by the way, an interesting side note:

At each place, I said to the person at the desk, "Sorry to bother you -- there probably have been dozens of reporters in here all day long asking the same question already." To my amazement, they all said (paraphrasing): "No, you're the first person to come to the office to actually look for a recording of the speech. We've had a few phone calls, but no one in person."

Is the MSM really that lazy?

690 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:30:48pm

Here's another Spanish speaker who argues that the "literal translation" of La Raza is not accurate:

The angry mail has been pouring in today from folks who take issue with our reporting that Barack Obama -- addressing the National Council of La Raza -- made the translation of "la raza" as "the people."

He was right.

But let's explain. Literally, yes"la raza" is "the race." But what it means: "my people, my community," as in "my peeps," or the Italian "paisanos." As a Spanish-speaker myself, I can attest: this is one of those phrases (think outside the box) where the literal translation isn't accurate.

"La Raza" as it is used by organizations, disc jockeys, musicians, and in common conversation doesn't translate into -- as many of the critics in my mailbox suggest -- an Arayan Nation-style racial supremacy reference.

691 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:30:48pm

re: #680 DEZes

Anybody ever argue with a park bench?
Or Avanti?

A park bench will listen to reason.

692 pink freud  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:30:56pm

re: #685 Fenway_Nation

re: #675 pink freudI can die happy now

Are you sure you can't stay a little longer?

Ok. If you insist. :-)

693 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:31:03pm

re: #676 LudwigVanQuixote

I have to agree with John Adams that the fact that they failed to properly address slavery was one of the greatest flaws of the constitution.

Between slavery and the destruction of the Native Americans, we have the two worst stains on our history.

But fortunately, thanks to 53% of the electorate for voting for the secular redeemer, Barrack Obama, the stain of slavery has finally been lifted. He said so himself. Praise be to Obama!

694 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:31:08pm

re: #670 zombie

Totally aside from any MSM or paleo-conservative hysteria, I'm going to have to agree with that assessment. She lets her personal biases "inform" her rulings way way too much.

And this is not a 48 hour rule situation, since this woman has been in the public eye as a judge for a good amount of time now, and we have direct statements by her indicating how she views policies and law.

Of course, the Democrats have the votes to put her in, but hopefully, if the listless Republicans can gardner enough balls to at least make some points during the nomination proceedings, the public will be well aware of the possible problems with this person.

I doubt the Republicans have any ability to say much at all, they have all left the "country" it seems.

695 SeafoodGumbo  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:31:17pm

re: #677 Thanos

You said you knew a lot of negative things about La Raza, I've got an open mind, show us the literature, show us that they are as radical as you said they were.

How about this: Come Study La Raza

The name of the nation’s most visible, self-defined Latino civil-rights organization, the National Council of La Raza, translates as the National Council of The Race. The official website denies it, of course, but we have dictionaries. That controversial term — La Raza — is gaining currency: Some K-12 public schools now teach something called “Raza Studies.”

Like those in Tucson, for example. The Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) has, in fact, welcomed Raza Studies in its classrooms for about a decade, but it’s been mighty secretive about the association.

What, exactly, is Raza Studies? Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne asked that question in November 2007 when he inquired if it wouldn’t be too much trouble for TUSD to send to him the Raza curricula it was teaching and the textbooks from which it taught them. Actually, TUSD replied to Horne, meeting his request would be a heckuva lot of trouble.

Then the local papers piled on Arizona’s superintendent. The first sentence of a November 26th editorial in the Tucson Citizen read, “Memo to Tom Horne: Butt out.” Another editorial, titled “Horne meddling in TUSD’s ethnic studies efforts,” this one in Tucson’s Arizona Daily Star, noted that “Students enroll in these classes because they cover information that is not offered in other classes. While U.S. history classes and textbooks do a better job than those of the past of including more about our shared history, much is left out.”

What is left out of traditional syllabi, of course, is the grievance and distortion. When Horne finally acquired the program materials he requested, they included texts with titles such as Occupied America and The Pedagogy of Oppression. And according to John Ward, a Tucson teacher who saw his U.S. history course coopted by the Raza Studies department, the Raza curriculum’s focus is “that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.”

When Ward raised concerns about Raza Studies (which is part of TUSD’s larger Ethnic Studies department) he was, despite being Hispanic himself, called a racist and eventually reassigned to another course. Ward told a reporter from the Arizona Republic that by the time he left the Raza Studies class, he had observed a definite change in the students: “An angry tone. They taught them not to trust their teachers, not to trust the system. They taught them the system wasn’t worth trusting.”

696 reine.de.tout  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:31:31pm

re: #685 Fenway_Nation

re: #675 pink freudI can die happy now

Are you sure you can't stay a little longer?

Oh, yes, I sure would like to keep her around a bit more!

697 pink freud  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:31:50pm

re: #689 zombie

Yes.

698 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:31:55pm

re: #689 zombie

Oh, and by the way, an interesting side note:


Is the MSM really that lazy?

no but they on a short leash.

699 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:32:15pm

re: #689 zombie

I dont think you're giving them enough credit: They could also be inept or just plain agenda-drivern, zombie.

700 HAL2010  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:32:29pm

re: #678 J.S.

CNN is also reporting that Rush is calling Sonia Sotomayor a "racist." Not only is Rush stuck on fail, he's stuck on stupid...(really, really pathetic of Limbaugh.)


This is how the GOP plans to win back the country?

701 itellu3times  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:32:30pm

re: #678 J.S.

CNN is also reporting that Rush is calling Sonia Sotomayor a "racist." Not only is Rush stuck on fail, he's stuck on stupid...(really, really pathetic of Limbaugh.)

I got to listen to Rush a little last friday, first time in months. he still says some good stuff, BUT is going over the edge, in this direction or that, far more often now than in most past periods.

Rush is good on people and politics, but not so good on wonkish specifics, never has been, but seems a little worse now. maybe a lot worse. just still hasn't found his right perspective yet for the obamanation.

702 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:32:37pm

re: #683 Kenneth

Yeah, but she's a Latina woman, so her judgment is superior to a white males like us.

Speak for yourself! As a rotting zombie, I have no skin left, nor genitals for that matter. Note my avatar.

703 Bloodnok  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:32:56pm

re: #688 Alouette

ADL which is pretty much on top of hate groups, has partnered with NCLR and obviously does not consider them a hate group.

Very interesting. The ADL is a very good endorsement.

704 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:33:13pm

re: #670 zombie

Mandatory sentences sound really great for "get tough on crime" politicians who want to make cheap points with an electorate who does not think through the legal ramifications of such bad law.

The point of a judge, in criminal court, in addition to seeing that the trial is fair, is to determine the most just sentence in an individual case. Taking that power out of the judiciary is a tragedy thrust on our legal system by self serving politicians. I do not know the specifics of the case you are referring to. I do not know what mitigating circumstances there were, but, it is easy to imagine all manner of cases where serious mitigating circumstances are overlooked by fiat of bad law. This is an injustice. She is right in principle.

705 pink freud  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:33:14pm

re: #696 reine.de.tout

Your digging skills can be matched to anyone's, Reine.

706 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:33:20pm

re: #702 zombie

I know, I know...

707 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:33:32pm

re: #677 Thanos

You coming over to my house with a time machine? That would be cool.

I suppose I could find some on-line reresentation of what they are (possibly "were", I suppose) really like, but it would still be just an on-line representation. You can keep an open mind all you like, and you can probably do dozens of web searches that might produce something useful, but to me it's pointless.
For me, it'd be like researching a Nazi group to see how they feel about Jews.

708 brookly red  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:34:12pm

re: #702 zombie

Speak for yourself! As a rotting zombie, I have no skin left, nor genitals for that matter. Note my avatar.

hmmmm, seems like you got some balls...

709 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:34:15pm

re: #676 LudwigVanQuixote

A friend of mine who's a conservative federal judge in Manhattan says that slavery and genocide are the pillars upon which the early American nation was built.

710 debutaunt  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:34:26pm

re: #689 zombie

Oh, and by the way, an interesting side note:

At each place, I said to the person at the desk, "Sorry to bother you -- there probably have been dozens of reporters in here all day long asking the same question already." To my amazement, they all said (paraphrasing): "No, you're the first person to come to the office to actually look for a recording of the speech. We've had a few phone calls, but no one in person."

Is the MSM really that lazy?

It seems to depend on what they're looking for.

711 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:34:44pm

re: #702 zombie

Speak for yourself! As a rotting zombie, I have no skin left, nor genitals for that matter. Note my avatar.

Brains brains brains.

712 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:34:53pm

re: #690 Charles

Here's another Spanish speaker who argues that the "literal translation" of La Raza is not accurate:

La Raza (literally "The Race") is sometimes used to denote people of Chicano (i.e. Mexican American) and Mexican descent and the Hispanic world, as well by mestizos who share Native American or national Hispanic heritage.

The term originated in the 1925 book La Raza Cósmica written by Mexican writer José Vasconcelos. He described La Raza Cosmica as the product of gradual racial mixing that was already underway in the Hispanic world. Vasconcelos believed that eventually all of the people within the Spanish Empire would be completely mixed into a new race.

Hispanic people all around the U.S. have also started using this term to identify themselves. Nonetheless, the term and idea associated with it have been mainly adopted by some Mexican people in the United States to express pride in their nation. In general usage, La Raza implies dignity and pride for these people regarding who they are and their places of origin.

-----------------

The literal translation is correct, even if it has subtle meaning to a Hispanic person. I was married to an Hispanic woman for 13 years, to her, it was "the race." The subtle differences are cultural, not linguistic.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

713 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:35:12pm

re: #682 reine.de.tout

That's good information to have, quite comprehensive.

Any association, however with MEChA is troubling to me; they downplay that association, and even admit that . . . "some of the organization’s founding documents, e.g., Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, contain inappropriate rhetoric, and NCLR also acknowledges that rhetoric from some MEChA members has been extremist and inflammatory."

But then they seem to go on to try to "balance" that with MEChA's successes. That they would try to show balance as re: MEChA is something find troubling.

Good point

714 reine.de.tout  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:35:42pm

re: #690 Charles

Here's another Spanish speaker who argues that the "literal translation" of La Raza is not accurate:

What I'm gleaning from this is that "la raza" may indeed translate literally as 'the race", but there is an idiomatic usage of this that means something more general in nature.

715 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:35:43pm

re: #673 screaming_eagle

Did any of those Dems hear Pelosi or Reid claiming the war is lost?

Yes.

716 SeafoodGumbo  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:36:13pm

re: #690 Charles

Here's another Spanish speaker who argues that the "literal translation" of La Raza is not accurate:

How to explain: "Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada"

717 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:36:15pm

re: #709 quickjustice

A friend of mine who's a conservative federal judge in Manhattan says that slavery and genocide are the pillars upon which the early American nation was built.

Tragically, there is more than a little truth to that.

My dad, an attorney, has a great line too...

He said, "America has the best justice system that money can buy."

718 itellu3times  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:36:27pm

re: #690 Charles

"La Raza" as it is used by organizations, disc jockeys, musicians, and in common conversation doesn't translate into -- as many of the critics in my mailbox suggest -- an Arayan Nation-style racial supremacy reference.

Sure, and all those innocent Germans used the term "Nazi" in a non-racist way, too.

Certainly there are Hispanic racist extremists, if happily rare, and when they use La Raza, they mean it - if only as those who are put down by Los Gringos. In that way it is not a "supremacy" thing, is it - just the opposite! But still distasteful. Unless you believe it.

719 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:36:28pm

re: #690 Charles

Being a Spanish speaker myself I concur.

720 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:36:35pm

re: #670 zombie

Z-- I must tell you that you're examining criteria that have been irrelevant in the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justices for at least 75 years. The appointments always have been political, and the Democrats have the raw power in the U.S. Senate to make this one stick.

721 callahan23  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:36:46pm

re: #680 DEZes

Anybody ever argue with a park bench?
Or Avanti?

Yes, with a German liberal/ socialist colleague 'park bench' who argued that the probable Iranian bomb versus the Israeli 'threat' were the same. Yuck, so very disgusting.

Hi DEZes, how's ya?

722 itellu3times  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:37:24pm

re: #709 quickjustice

A friend of mine who's a conservative federal judge in Manhattan says that slavery and genocide are the pillars upon which the early American nation was built.

What a happy fellow.

Is he really 300 years old?

723 reine.de.tout  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:37:42pm

re: #705 pink freud

Your digging skills can be matched to anyone's, Reine.

{pinkie}

724 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:37:56pm

re: #721 callahan23

Yes, with a German liberal/ socialist colleague 'park bench' who argued that the probable Iranian bomb versus the Israeli 'threat' were the same. Yuck, so very disgusting.

Hi DEZes, how's ya?

Next time I will argue with a chalk board.
{Callahan}

725 BatGuano  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:37:59pm

So, La Raza is like Jihad? The meaning can change depending on political expediency.

726 1SG(ret)  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:38:02pm

So we can now say the (fill in the ______) organization is no longer an extremist group if they say so, or don't seem to be that way any longer. Because it fits our current needs. We no longer look at their history!
Yeah, Right!

727 debutaunt  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:38:03pm

re: #702 zombie

Speak for yourself! As a rotting zombie, I have no skin left, nor genitals for that matter. Note my avatar.

The hardest working rotting zombie in all of the Bay Area.

728 Captain Jack  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:38:42pm

I really don't hear the other side of the story when it comes to anything Obama does so, although I don't agree with everything Rush says, I think he is important to the debate. There is a need for opposition of any kind and if Sotomyer is going to become a legislator for life then she should get some hard looks.

729 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:39:06pm

re: #727 debutaunt

The hardest working rotting zombie in all of the Bay Area.

And a damned fine one to boot.

730 MacDuff  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:39:41pm

re: #660 Walter L. Newton

There is too much indication that this woman sit dangerously on the edge of letting her feeling decide law, and much of the supporting links and quotes and articles that have been put forth here on LGF back that up.

La Raza or not, this woman has enough strikes against her to suggest that she is in no way ready for the SC, or for any court in that matter.

Thanks, Walter, I couldn't have put it better. From my, admittedly, cursory gathering of information about her, it seems that her personal identity all to often informs her opinions. IMO, she does not seem to have the makings of an objective jurist who would make decisions based on established law. It's not about her, it's about the Constitution. Period.

731 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:40:02pm

re: #707 Lincolntf

Ok so you are repeating stuff you heard or read with no attribution, you are unwilling to dig up links, so .... it doesn't make what you said weigh much. Thanks, but no thanks for the commentary.

Most of the things I've read that totally smear La Raza comes from sources that are just as radical, I can supply you with links, but most of it's garbage and suspect as it comes from Free Republic, minute man sites, and fringe stormfronters.

The MM link upthread reminded me about the school however, and the tenuous connection to Mecha that Reine posted is not appealing. But then our not as tenuous connection to Ron Paul isn't appealing either.

732 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:40:05pm

{HOOPS}

733 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:40:09pm

re: #709 quickjustice

A friend of mine who's a conservative federal judge in Manhattan says that slavery and genocide are the pillars upon which the early American nation was built.

The number of countries which never practiced war or slavery: 0

734 J.S.  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:40:42pm

re: #701 itellu3times

Frankly, I believe Rush is an enormous liability for the Republican Party (he's a complete and unmitigated embarrassment -- but, of course, I don't think he cares -- the only thing, imo, he cares about is getting attention of any form and thus keeping his ratings up...) Meanwhile, all the substantive, real issues are ignored as everyone focuses on this idiocy...

735 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:40:54pm

re: #719 bosforus

Being a Spanish speaker myself I concur.

There is NO way to translate the actual Spanish into anything but "the race." Yes, with in the Hispanic culture, the term has taken on subtle meanings, but that is due to trying the separate the actual meaning with the negative associations that it has been tagged with.

And there are Hispanics who still use the term to mean "the race" along with all the negatives that it can imply and they are proud of it.

736 Lee Coller  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:40:55pm

re: #716 SeafoodGumbo

How to explain: "Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada"

They cover that: [Link: www.nclr.org...]

737 callahan23  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:41:09pm

re: #724 DEZes

Next time I will argue with a chalk board.
{Callahan}

Yeah, I'll argue with my Vespa (scooter). She is a liberal Italian yet she's not able to talk back. ;-)

738 wrenchwench  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:41:11pm

I had Rush on in the shop yesterday. I try to be careful about that because so many of my customers are libs. Yesterday I had to change it because he was ranting about "that Hispanic woman," and one of my Hispanic women customers was in the store.

739 itellu3times  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:41:22pm

re: #725 BatGuano

So, La Raza is like Jihad? The meaning can change depending on political expediency.

"A word means what I want it to mean, no more, no less."
/humpty-dumpty

740 Egregious Philbin  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:41:47pm

Limbaugh just doesn't like any of them there edjamucated people! Rush didn't need no schooling! And he is an expert on global warming, evolution, and, evidently, pharmacology.

Talk Radio is Pro Wrestling, its all yelling and screaming just to keep you watching, throw your brain away, you won't need it.

741 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:41:51pm

re: #733 Kenneth

The number of countries which never practiced war or slavery: 0

The number of nations that never had a murderer = 0. That doesn't make it right.

742 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:42:00pm

re: #732 DEZes

{HOOPS}

What up friend..How you got tonight? Lakers or Nuggets? I'm jacked!

743 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:42:04pm

re: #690 Charles

Here's another Spanish speaker who argues that the "literal translation" of La Raza is not accurate:

I know nothing about the author, Carla Marinucci. (Well, I know one thing; hers is an advocacy piece. She refers the reader to La Raza spokesmen, as if that settles the argument.)

I speak Spanish at a highly fluent level; I am frequently mistaken for native speaker, by native speakers. I have worked with Latin America for about a decade and a half in a professional capacity. "Raza" means "race". Does it mean exactly the same thing as when the Aryan Nation says "race"? Probably not... mostly for the reason that it's a rather more slippery concept what "race" is being talked about.

Anecdote; a Peruvian friend mentioned to me once how freaked out she was that when she married a white American, some of her relatives cheerfully told her that this was good, because their children would "mejorar la raza"... which she, herself translated as "improve the race".

744 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:42:15pm

re: #725 BatGuano

So, La Raza is like Jihad? The meaning can change depending on political expediency.

That is about the most succinct way of putting it.

745 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:42:27pm

re: #737 callahan23

Yeah, I'll argue with my Vespa (scooter). She is a liberal Italian yet she's not able to talk back. ;-)

MEEP MEEP. ;)

746 VegasRick  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:42:32pm

re: #725 BatGuano

So, La Raza is like Jihad? The meaning can change depending on political expediency.

Yep. Just like the "N" word. When a black person uses it it's a compliment!
*I need a fucking rulebook.

747 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:42:32pm

re: #712 Walter L. Newton


. I was married to an Hispanic woman for 13 years, to her, it was "the race." The subtle differences are cultural lipstick on a pig, not linguistic.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

/;}

748 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:42:35pm

re: #702 zombie

Speak for yourself! As a rotting zombie, I have no skin left, nor genitals for that matter. Note my avatar.

Have you tried moisturizing?

749 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:42:53pm

re: #725 BatGuano

So, La Raza is like Jihad? The meaning can change depending on political expediency.

BINGO.

750 Fenway_Nation  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:42:56pm

re: #742 HoosierHoops

What up friend..How you got tonight? Lakers or Nuggets? I'm jacked!

Imagine the ratings for a Denver/Orlando NBA finals!

751 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:43:03pm

re: #742 HoosierHoops

What up friend..How you got tonight? Lakers or Nuggets? I'm jacked!

Beer and mixed nuts. ;)

752 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:43:37pm

La Raza Facts

15. “The Race” supports driver’s licenses for illegal aliens.

14.”The Race” demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students that are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.

13. “The Race” vehemently opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state, and federal authorities.

12. “The Race” opposes a secure fence on the southern border.

11. “The Race” joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent the feds from entering immigration information into a key national crime database — and to prevent local police officers from accessing the data.

10. “The Race” opposed the state of Oklahoma’s tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions, and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.

9. “The Race” joined other open-borders, anti-assimilationists and sued to prevent Proposition 227, California’s bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.

8. “The Race” bitterly protested common-sense voter ID provisions as an “absolute disgrace.”

7. “The Race” has consistently opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.

6. Former “Race” president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton’s Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: “U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks.” He was referring to U.S. English, the nation’s oldest, largest citizens’ action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States. “The Race” also pioneered Orwellian open-borders Newspeak and advised the Mexican government on how to lobby for illegal alien amnesty while avoiding the terms “illegal” and “amnesty.”

5. “The Race” gives mainstream cover to a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, led by Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized the organization as “a radical racist group . . . one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.”

753 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:43:40pm

re: #735 Walter L. Newton

And there are Hispanics who still use the term to mean "the race" along with all the negatives that it can imply and they are proud of it.


I believe that. However, I know of no way that anyone can be proud of their heritage or race without also opening whatever language they use to criticism.

754 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:43:52pm

re: #743 Occasional Reader

I know nothing about the author, Carla Marinucci. (Well, I know one thing; hers is an advocacy piece. She refers the reader to La Raza spokesmen, as if that settles the argument.)

I speak Spanish at a highly fluent level; I am frequently mistaken for native speaker, by native speakers. I have worked with Latin America for about a decade and a half in a professional capacity. "Raza" means "race". Does it mean exactly the same thing as when the Aryan Nation says "race"? Probably not... mostly for the reason that it's a rather more slippery concept what "race" is being talked about.

Anecdote; a Peruvian friend mentioned to me once how freaked out she was that when she married a white American, some of her relatives cheerfully told her that this was good, because their children would "mejorar la raza"... which she, herself translated as "improve the race".

DIng, ding, ding. I don't know why this is such a mystery to anyone?

755 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:43:54pm

re: #704 LudwigVanQuixote

Mandatory sentences sound really great for "get tough on crime" politicians who want to make cheap points with an electorate who does not think through the legal ramifications of such bad law.

The point of a judge, in criminal court, in addition to seeing that the trial is fair, is to determine the most just sentence in an individual case. Taking that power out of the judiciary is a tragedy thrust on our legal system by self serving politicians. I do not know the specifics of the case you are referring to. I do not know what mitigating circumstances there were, but, it is easy to imagine all manner of cases where serious mitigating circumstances are overlooked by fiat of bad law. This is an injustice. She is right in principle.

Mandatory sentencing was invented specifically for cases EXACTLY like this one: A judge giving a convicted criminal a light or suspended sentence due to the judge's personal biases or attitudes. People were growing really really tired of judges who would let this or that convict off scot-free due to some sob story the criminal told, or due to some perceived oppression he endured at the hands of the evil capitalist system. And so the voters enforced the notion of mandatory sentences to take the power out of activist judges' hands.

If someone's dealing cocaine, he's eroding society's fabric, and he needs to be removed from circulation for the benefit of all. I don't care what his sob story is, or how oppressed he is. If one wants to change the playing field and create "social justice," do it at the front end -- don't try to manipulate society by failing to enforce the law.

756 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:44:02pm
757 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:44:31pm

re: #722 itellu3times

No, but he's a a direct descendant of Aaron Burr, a Reagan appointee, and the most partisan conservative I know.

758 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:44:36pm

continued...

4. “The Race” is currently leading a smear campaign against staunch immigration-enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves — in addition to pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes. The New York Times reported that current “Race” president Janet Murguia believes “hate speech” should “not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights.”

3. “The Race” sponsors militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: “We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don’t need a White water fountain . . . ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”

2. “The Race” has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home-loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal “mortgage counseling” grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks, and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.

1. “The Race” thrives on ethnic supremacy — and the elite sheeple’s unwillingness to call it what it is. As historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: “[The] organization’s very nomenclature ‘The National Council of La Raza’ is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of ‘race’ in Spanish, not ‘the people’ — and that’s precisely why we don’t hear of something like ‘The National Council of the People,’ which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism.”

759 Captain Jack  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:45:08pm

Rush talks for 3hrs a day. It is very easy to pick out a few words he says and try to paint him as his ideological competition would like to have you believe. You simply have to listen to him for awhile for a few days to get a feel for the global argument. The mainstream media take a few words out of context and try to paint a picture. Do not be fooled.

760 pink freud  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:46:14pm

re: #755 zombie

Mandatory sentencing was invented specifically for cases EXACTLY like this one: A judge giving a convicted criminal a light or suspended sentence due to the judge's personal biases or attitudes. People were growing really really tired of judges who would let this or that convict off scot-free due to some sob story the criminal told, or due to some perceived oppression he endured at the hands of the evil capitalist system. And so the voters enforced the notion of mandatory sentences to take the power out of activist judges' hands.

If someone's dealing cocaine, he's eroding society's fabric, and he needs to be removed from circulation for the benefit of all. I don't care what his sob story is, or how oppressed he is. If one wants to change the playing field and create "social justice," do it at the front end -- don't try to manipulate society by failing to enforce the law.

Excellent points.

761 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:46:18pm

re: #720 quickjustice

Z-- I must tell you that you're examining criteria that have been irrelevant in the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justices for at least 75 years. The appointments always have been political, and the Democrats have the raw power in the U.S. Senate to make this one stick.

I know that. She'll very likely be confirmed. I'm expressing my personal opinion -- that's all. I know nothing will come of it.

I was hoping to find the original video of the speech and perhaps it had even more damaging stuff in it not included in the transcript -- but I ran into a blank wall. Can't blame me for trying.

762 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:46:25pm

re: #668 HAL2010

Cheers - always nice to see someone else from our side o' pond here.

763 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:46:28pm

re: #753 bosforus

I believe that. However, I know of no way that anyone can be proud of their heritage or race without also opening whatever language they use to criticism.

Really. If a neo-Nazi uses the term "white" does it have a different flavor to it then if you use it?

Really. If a BNP member in Britain uses the term "white" does it have a different flavor to it then if you use it?

Really. Are those people worried about the criticism when they use the term "white?"

764 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:47:23pm

re: #748 Occasional Reader

Have you tried moisturizing?

It just accelerates the decomposition.

765 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:47:25pm

re: #741 LudwigVanQuixote

My point is that the people saying that are only saying it about America. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard Europeans drone on about "American genocide of the Red Indians".

Yes, they actually use that racist slur, and yes, the complaints are especially ironic when spoken by a German.

766 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:47:45pm

re: #609 Fenway_Nation

Or the fix was in from those Diebold elctronic voting machines that the Dems wanted in the first place....

Link, please?

767 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:48:16pm

re: #750 Fenway_Nation

Imagine the ratings for a Denver/Orlando NBA finals!

Don't think those Refs aren't out there doing their best to make it a Laker-Cavs.. Come on Ref's..You need my bookie to call you?
*wink*
I was blown away by Howard in OT last night..He literally took over the game..One time he was in the paint with 3 players guarding him and Bam! Just slammed it home...Magic just manned up last night..Totally studs

768 Jetpilot1101  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:49:31pm

re: #759 Captain Jack

Rush talks for 3hrs a day. It is very easy to pick out a few words he says and try to paint him as his ideological competition would like to have you believe. You simply have to listen to him for awhile for a few days to get a feel for the global argument. The mainstream media take a few words out of context and try to paint a picture. Do not be fooled.

Rush is a businessman and an entertainer. He makes money off of high ratings and ensuring people are listening so he can sell adds. Some of the stuff he says is spot on, other utterances are borderline crazy. Either way, he's in talk radio for one reason and that is to make money. Sure he believes in conservative principles but that is secondary to his ultimate objective: money. There is nothing wrong with making a buck but when one's mouth is the key to making one's living, it is wise to question some of the verbiage being uttered.

769 cybermonk  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:49:33pm

re: #48 FurryOldGuyJeans
if Obama succedes you might not like the country he creates.

770 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:49:47pm

re: #743 Occasional Reader

I know nothing about the author, Carla Marinucci.

Carla Marinucci is a liberal attack-dog "professional blogger" at the SF Chronicle's pseudo-MSM-blog. She used to be on the reporting staff, but moved to a more aggressive "opinion blogging" role recently.

771 reine.de.tout  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:49:55pm

re: #764 zombie

It just accelerates the decomposition.

No, no, that would be exfoliation .

The moisturizing might not be a bad idea.

772 Ayeless in Ghazi  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:50:14pm

Here's a treat for UK folks, and those with 'funny' internet software -

[Link: www.bbc.co.uk...]

Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link

BBC One brings you the story behind what could be one of the most important scientific discoveries of the 21st century.

The film, written and narrated by David Attenborough, is set to change our understanding of evolution.

I'm off to watch this now. Nite all :)

773 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:50:19pm

re: #765 Kenneth

My point is that the people saying that are only saying it about America. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard Europeans drone on about "American genocide of the Red Indians".

Hell, they're not red, I'M red! At least, after about 30 minutes in direct sunlight.

774 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:50:20pm

re: #758 loppyd

continued...


2. “The Race” has perfected the art of the PC shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home-loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal “mortgage counseling” grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks, and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.

That worked out well in our economy and in the global banking system, didn't it?

775 alegrias  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:50:26pm

re: #765 Kenneth

My point is that the people saying that are only saying it about America. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard Europeans drone on about "American genocide of the Red Indians".

Yes, they actually use that racist slur, and yes, the complaints are especially ironic when spoken by a German.

* * * * *
Remind these German doofuses that millions of Germans emmigrated to the USA, and German was almost voted our country's language!

Who put the oom-pah-pah in the Texas Two Step, if not Germans?

776 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:50:53pm

re: #731 Thanos

No I'm not repeating anything I heard or read, I'm stating what I saw with my own two eyes. Get the difference?
La Raza activists spent a year vandalizing a CDC development in my hometown in order to get the non-profit to pony up cash for a "community center" to be used exclusively by La Raza. That's what brougjht me into contact with them. After months and months of this crap, the non-profit eventually did give up some of it's money to make the problem go away. And that's just their money angle. Their literature was largely about how blacks were stealing public aid money that should go to Hispanics. That's their hate angle. It was vile stuff.
Don't take my word for it, go to some La Raza rally/local office and see for yourself.

777 debutaunt  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:51:00pm

re: #771 reine.de.tout

No, no, that would be exfoliation .

The moisturizing might not be a bad idea.

I think it's a lit-tle too late.

778 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:51:03pm

re: #764 zombie

It just accelerates the decomposition.

(... hmmm, sounds like the Wicked Witch of the West)

779 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:51:05pm

re: #751 DEZes

Beer and mixed nuts. ;)

After the race on sunday..I'll stick with water and cottage cheese..
I'm not sure when I'll ever be able to look at a beer again and not run screaming..
:)
/Just typing the word beer is painful

780 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:51:07pm

re: #774 Russkilitlover

That worked out well in our economy and in the global banking system, didn't it?

I guess LaRaza could qualify as an accessory to predatory lending.

781 HAL2010  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:51:08pm

re: #762 Jimmah

Puts things in the articles in a different perspective methinks.

782 LGoPs  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:51:20pm

re: #599 Flyers1974

This is a pretty tough position for me to fight against - if the Dems win, it is because of people being manipulated by the media. If the GOP wins, it is on the merits. Its kind of like saying the Dems can never win an election fairly.

The Dems have the unabashed and wholehearted support of the entire media information complex. They are acting as the private Public Relations firm for the entire party. The only tough position here is for the Republicans.

783 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:52:13pm

re: #770 zombie

Carla Marinucci is a liberal attack-dog "professional blogger" at the SF Chronicle's pseudo-MSM-blog. She used to be on the reporting staff, but moved to a more aggressive "opinion blogging" role recently.

Ah.

I would truly love to test her on that "I'm a Spanish-speaker" proposition. I've noticed that urban liberals tend to assume that their political posture somehow confers upon them a natural ability to speak Spanish, without really having to study the language.

784 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:52:31pm

re: #763 Walter L. Newton

Really. If a neo-Nazi uses the term "white" does it have a different flavor to it then if you use it?

There are millions of Mexicans like me (if "by me" I mean a normal upstanding citizen which is, I assume, how you meant it when you said "then if you use it") that use the phrase La Raza.

785 alegrias  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:52:34pm

re: #769 cybermonk

if Obama succedes you might not like the country he creates.

* * * *
How about that new tax proposed by Rahm Emanuel's brother, known in Europe as the Value Added Tax--taxes added to everything we buy?

Pres. Obama promised to LOWER taxes on 95% of Americans, those SUCKERS!

786 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:52:37pm

re: #773 Occasional Reader

Hell, they're not red, I'M red! At least, after about 30 minutes in direct sunlight.

You're a deep pink, at most.

/

787 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:52:38pm

re: #779 HoosierHoops

After the race on sunday..I'll stick with water and cottage cheese..
I'm not sure when I'll ever be able to look at a beer again and not run screaming..
:)
/Just typing the word beer is painful

You will learn moderation Padawan. ;)

788 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:52:42pm

re: #755 zombie

Mandatory sentencing was invented specifically for cases EXACTLY like this one: A judge giving a convicted criminal a light or suspended sentence due to the judge's personal biases or attitudes. People were growing really really tired of judges who would let this or that convict off scot-free due to some sob story the criminal told, or due to some perceived oppression he endured at the hands of the evil capitalist system. And so the voters enforced the notion of mandatory sentences to take the power out of activist judges' hands.

If someone's dealing cocaine, he's eroding society's fabric, and he needs to be removed from circulation for the benefit of all. I don't care what his sob story is, or how oppressed he is. If one wants to change the playing field and create "social justice," do it at the front end -- don't try to manipulate society by failing to enforce the law.

I could not disagree more strongly. For every case that you feel erred on the side of mercy, there are dozens where the mitigating circumstances were swept away and produced a miscarriage of justice.

Mandatory sentencing and "no tolerance" policies are exactly the reason you see school children expelled for using aspirin and other such foolishness. This kind of thinking rules out the ability to use common sense by appealing to the fears and basest desires of vengeance of the masses. In criminal court, the stakes are vastly higher.

You have automatically assumed that the Judge was biased in a bad way and that no such mitigating circumstances were there as you boldly assert that she must have made a bad call based on her racial loyalties. That in of itself smacks of racism. Perhaps you are correct in this case. However, to boldly assert that must be the case is unfair and wrong. Perhaps there really were mitigating circumstances and perhaps, just perhaps, the mandatory sentence was too severe for the case at hand.

In the general case though, do you think that making certain the bad guy "gets it" to the full measure of your sense of vengeance is more important than perhaps being merciful to those who deserve to have their stories heard? The point of a trial is to have your story heard. The point is to be treated as an individual. Mandatory sentences take that away. It is wrong.

789 SeafoodGumbo  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:52:59pm

re: #736 Lee Coller

They cover that: [Link: www.nclr.org...]

Thanks. I had missed that link before. I still don't think they're telling the truth. As others have mentioned, the word can probably have different shades of meaning and they're exploiting that.

790 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:53:03pm

re: #286 Russkilitlover

I'm not surprised. The left and Dems in general are flinging the word "race" around at every opportunity. I would go so far as to say that Obama's candidacy and Presidency have done more to undermine and set back race relations than any other event(s). And it's all coming from the Left.

Uh, I don't think "Macaca" or "The Magic Negro" lyricist would agree with you on that.

791 kynna  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:53:42pm

I'm coming so late to this, so this may already have been mentioned.

Regarding Obama going negative. I recall an investigation that showed Axelrod's involvement with very negative astro-turfing. As I remember it we were basically counting as related anti-Palin and anti-McCain videos disappeared from youtube. As a prominent member of Obama's campaign, I'd say Axelrod qualifies.

The Obama campaign went very negative. He's a mean, nasty, bully with a pretty smile. Just because he doesn't look you in the eye and say "I hope you fail" doesn't mean he's not negative. He makes extensive use of cat's paws and that's been documented.

792 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:53:46pm

re: #784 bosforus

There are millions of Mexicans like me (if "by me" I mean a normal upstanding citizen which is, I assume, how you meant it when you said "then if you use it") that use the phrase La Raza.

Some of which happen to be good friends of mine. But they are not Mexican, they are Argentine.

793 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:53:51pm

re: #786 OldLineTexan

You're a deep pink, at most.

/

Code?

794 callahan23  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:53:58pm

re: #745 DEZes

MEEP MEEP. ;)

She actually talks back in as much as she needs to be kick-started 'cause her starter won't work. ;-(
But my Vespa is a beauty to drive around town due to her agility around bends and driving her allows me to never worry for parking spaces.

795 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:54:21pm

re: #765 Kenneth

My point is that the people saying that are only saying it about America. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard Europeans drone on about "American genocide of the Red Indians".

Yes, they actually use that racist slur, and yes, the complaints are especially ironic when spoken by a German.

That, I hear clearly.

796 alegrias  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:55:22pm

re: #780 loppyd

I guess LaRaza could qualify as an accessory to predatory lending.

* * * * *
Or we could just write off those billions as having gone to "foreign aid".

Certainly the US taxpayer bought some nice houses for folks who couldn't do it themselves.

797 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:55:35pm

re: #776 Lincolntf

You have proof, documentation? Did you call the police ? Should there be a police report? How do you know it was La Raza? You are making a lot of allegations with zero proof, asking us to trust you when you've been less than honest on other things in the past. I'm not buying unless you pony up proof. You don't have much cred here.

798 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:55:36pm

re: #794 callahan23

She actually talks back in as much as she needs to be kick-started 'cause her starter won't work. ;-(
But my Vespa is a beauty to drive around town due to her agility around bends and driving her allows me to never worry for parking spaces.

I had a car that talked back.
It would turn the key on a cold morning and it would say.
Leeeveeemeeeealoooone.

799 Gus  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:55:49pm

Found this at the National Council of La Raza website from 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jun 8, 2004

STATEMENT OF RAUL YZAGUIRRE, NCLR PRESIDENT, ON PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN

Washington, DC – The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) extends its condolences to former First Lady Nancy Reagan, the Reagan family, and the millions of Americans who today are mourning the death of our 40th President, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan’s boundless optimism and his unshakable faith in what this country is – and what it could be – resonated deeply with many in the Hispanic community. After all, Ronald Reagan was responsible for the first Hispanic Cabinet member in our nation’s history, when he appointed Lauro Cavazos as Secretary of Education in 1988.

Hispanics also appreciated that President Reagan’s vision of America as a beacon of hope and opportunity for all included immigrants, millions of whom he helped to become Americans. Not only did he sign the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) – which included two highly- controversial legalization programs – into law in 1986, his administration worked diligently to implement these programs.

It may not be widely known but the nation’s largest and most successful antipoverty program – the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) – was also created in tax reform legislation signed by President Reagan. After a subsequent major expansion successfully promoted by President Clinton, the credit is now worth more than $1,800 to the more than one-third of low-wage working Hispanic households who benefit from the EITC.

But my main memories of President Reagan are about the man himself. He was always courteous, even “courtly,” in his dealings with people from all walks of life. In this sense, he exuded respeto – respect – in a way that connected powerfully with the Latino community. Many of those involved in the highly partisan, divisive debates that characterize all too many issues today might benefit from following his example.

We may not have always agreed with the Reagan Administration’s policies, but there is no question that President Reagan had a profound influence and impact on the American political process, the nation, and the world. May he rest in peace.

800 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:56:39pm
801 HAL2010  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:56:50pm

re: #769 cybermonk

if Obama succedes you might not like the country he creates.

Which is why he should be convinced through rigorous debate to change his positions on a number of issues.

Wishing he fails is petty. Say he fails, who would it benefit?
The people of the United States?

Really?

802 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:57:25pm

re: #784 bosforus

There are millions of Mexicans like me (if "by me" I mean a normal upstanding citizen which is, I assume, how you meant it when you said "then if you use it") that use the phrase La Raza.

All you are doing is proving my point. To you it has a certain meaning, to me, my ex-wife to other Hispanics, it may have a different meaning, it's actual literal translated meaning "the race."

To my ex-wife and myself, it had a racist meaning. She has been in public health care for over 25 years and most of the patients she has dealt with are Hispanic. She heard the racism of the term over and over, and still does I suppose.

And it can mean something very ugly at times.

803 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:57:29pm

re: #664 loppyd

I support marching them back across the borders, but I know that isn't realistic. Why are we looking for ways to reward or exonerate those whose first act upon entering this country was to break the law?

All the McCain-Kennedy bill called for with respect to securing the borders was that DHS had to do little more than to document efforts underway.

I'm not sure if the point is to reward bad behavior or to "reward" at all. The point is to do what is best for the country (whatever that may be) given the facts that exist. In the immigration debate people seem to be stuck on unfairly rewarding illegals. No one questions that entering the country illegally is illegal, but let's not pretend the illegals are committing a MORAL transgression on par with stealing or assault, etc... . These people are trying to feed their families. That doesn't mean we are obligated to them, but it does mean that rewarding an illegal is different from rewarding a person who commits an assault. If we are not going to remove them (and I've not heard anyone say that we will) what is the detriment of "amnesty?" And by granting those here amnesty, the politicians will then be able to strengthen and enforce laws prohibiting employers from hiring new illegals. Amnesty would give business time to prepare for a future with no more illegal workers.

804 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:57:31pm

re: #797 Thanos

WTF are you talking about?
Tell you what, you just keep thinking that everyone is out to deceive you and I'll just keep knowing that La Raza is a racist organization.

805 SeafoodGumbo  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:57:45pm

La Raza with the PLO.

If a group starts off as a hate group wouldn't they have to go to extraordinary measures to prove that they no longer were? La Raza has never apologized for its past, only learned what works (put on a tie, write grant proposals, hide your ideology mostly).

Lots of evil groups do good works also. That's a part of the strategy of the smart ones.

806 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:58:07pm

re: #788 LudwigVanQuixote

I could not disagree more strongly. For every case that you feel erred on the side of mercy, there are dozens where the mitigating circumstances were swept away and produced a miscarriage of justice.

Mandatory sentencing and "no tolerance" policies are exactly the reason you see school children expelled for using aspirin and other such foolishness. This kind of thinking rules out the ability to use common sense by appealing to the fears and basest desires of vengeance of the masses. In criminal court, the stakes are vastly higher.

You have automatically assumed that the Judge was biased in a bad way and that no such mitigating circumstances were there as you boldly assert that she must have made a bad call based on her racial loyalties. That in of itself smacks of racism. Perhaps you are correct in this case. However, to boldly assert that must be the case is unfair and wrong. Perhaps there really were mitigating circumstances and perhaps, just perhaps, the mandatory sentence was too severe for the case at hand.

In the general case though, do you think that making certain the bad guy "gets it" to the full measure of your sense of vengeance is more important than perhaps being merciful to those who deserve to have their stories heard? The point of a trial is to have your story heard. The point is to be treated as an individual. Mandatory sentences take that away. It is wrong.

By that logic, minimum and maximum sentences are also unjust.

807 nyc redneck  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:58:11pm

re: #686 opnion

I had a program on in the car today with two women lauding Sotomayors credentials. They kept saying that she is Latina & female.

that is so annoying. i don't care one way or another abt. her being a latino female. it should not matter. it reeks of affirmative action.
it is racist and sexist to focus on her gender and nationality. and actually demeaning and counter productive,
either she is qualified to serve on the scotus or she is not,
based strictly on her knowledge, experience and intelligence.
and of course her commitment to upholding the constitution.

808 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:58:25pm

re: #787 DEZes

You will learn moderation Padawan. ;)

We'll I started here early sunday morning blogging about how excited I was..We left around 10 or 11..had already drank a six pack..Drank at the track all day long in the heat..Came home late at night just totally jacked up..And blogged about the race...Dang that beer was good.. I may never drink again...LOL
Well maybe next year at the Indy 500...

809 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:58:31pm

re: #797 Thanos

You have proof, documentation? Did you call the police ? Should there be a police report? How do you know it was La Raza? You are making a lot of allegations with zero proof, asking us to trust you when you've been less than honest on other things in the past. I'm not buying unless you pony up proof. You don't have much cred here.

That's for damn sure.

810 alegrias  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:58:51pm

re: #784 bosforus

There are millions of Mexicans like me (if "by me" I mean a normal upstanding citizen which is, I assume, how you meant it when you said "then if you use it") that use the phrase La Raza.

* * * *
Why aren't you using these words that aren't race-restricted, since so few people in the New World are mono-cultural?

el pueblo
la nacion
los hispanoparlantes
los mejicanos

811 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:59:03pm

re: #800 Iron Fist

Maybe Sammy the Bull

Hey, "La Cosa Nostra" just means "the people", you racist!

812 Kenneth  Wed, May 27, 2009 4:59:44pm

re: #773 Occasional Reader

I recall a particularly pompous British twit droning on about the "a-bom-na-ble treatment of the Red Indians".

When I pointed out to him my grandmother was a "red Indian" and if she were here she would punch his fat red nose for using such a racist slur to describe her people, his jaw just dropped and sputtered.

813 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:00:19pm

re: #297 n2stox

Knowing that Obama is a supporter of abortion anytime, anywhere, I am a bit baffled by him choosing a nominee who, from what I saw, had more than one rebuke of abortion activists.


Anytime, anywhere? Link, please.

814 alegrias  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:00:30pm

re: #801 HAL2010

Which is why he should be convinced through rigorous debate to change his positions on a number of issues.

Wishing he fails is petty. Say he fails, who would it benefit?
The people of the United States?

Really?

* * * *
It's also useful to just say no at the ballot, as Californians did last week.

815 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:00:31pm

re: #796 alegrias

* * * * *
Or we could just write off those billions as having gone to "foreign aid".

Certainly the US taxpayer bought some nice houses for folks who couldn't do it themselves.

Ha!

IIRC the housing bill gave money to La Raza.

816 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:00:50pm

re: #802 Walter L. Newton

All you are doing is proving my point. To you it has a certain meaning, to me, my ex-wife to other Hispanics, it may have a different meaning, it's actual literal translated meaning "the race."

To my ex-wife and myself, it had a racist meaning. She has been in public health care for over 25 years and most of the patients she has dealt with are Hispanic. She heard the racism of the term over and over, and still does I suppose.

And it can mean something very ugly at times.

Ah, I can definitely agree with that.

817 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:00:52pm

re: #804 Lincolntf

You continually mouth off, and never back up what you say. That's what I'm talking about.

818 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:00:55pm

re: #803 Flyers1974

Reagan's amnesty did nothing to stem the flow of additional illegal aliens.

819 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:01:14pm

re: #805 SeafoodGumbo

La Raza with the PLO.

If a group starts off as a hate group wouldn't they have to go to extraordinary measures to prove that they no longer were? La Raza has never apologized for its past, only learned what works (put on a tie, write grant proposals, hide your ideology mostly).

Lots of evil groups do good works also. That's a part of the strategy of the smart ones.

What was the term I heard around here? Entryism? La Raza is trying to mainstream itself, plain and simple.

820 zombie  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:01:32pm

re: #788 LudwigVanQuixote

The mandatory sentencing movement was in response to a wave of more and more judges giving more and more overly light sentences to criminals for all sorts of reasons. A "push-back" response. I'd be open to giving judges leeway if so many did not abuse the privilege to promote some personal agenda. They (as a group) went overboard, so the voters imposed "group punishment" on the judges by taking away their right to let criminals go free.

I stand by my assertion that there has to be a "bottom line" in society, and the way to mitigate "social justice" disparities is pre-emptively, for the future. But if we stop enforcing the law as it is currently written, it only encourages more law-breaking. I am (unfortunately) related to some criminals, and believe me, they know full well the ol' sob-story-to-the-soft-judge trick, and the "Don't blame me, I was oppressed" trick. They all pull it whenever they can.

Give everyone the opportunity to become law-abiding members of society, but if they fail, we must have some consistency in applying the consequences.

821 debutaunt  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:01:58pm

re: #811 Occasional Reader

Hey, "La Cosa Nostra" just means "the people", you racist!

"Our thin' - right? Our thin people.

822 callahan23  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:02:03pm

re: #798 DEZes

I had a car that talked back.
It would turn the key on a cold morning and it would say.
Leeeveeemeeeealoooone.

For my Italian Vespa that would roughly translate to "con tutta calma". Which is exactly what's happening on cold mornings. ;-)

823 wrenchwench  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:02:07pm

re: #804 Lincolntf

WTF are you talking about?
Tell you what, you just keep thinking that everyone is out to deceive you and I'll just keep knowing that La Raza is a racist organization.

It is a common practice to ask for a link or other evidence to back up a claim. If you can't back up your claim, just say so.

824 quickjustice  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:02:12pm

re: #763 Walter L. Newton

I'm also fluent in Spanish, and I lived in Miami for ten years. Almost all of my employees were Cuban balseros, refugees from communist Cuba who escaped by raft over the shark-infested Florida straits.

Because of Castro, they're all conservative Republicans. Once you've had a taste of communist tyranny, your enthusiasm for it wanes.

As for "La Raza", my impression is that it started out as an extremist Mexican-American labor organization out West that has presented itself as more moderate in recent years. (Think Caesar Chavez and the grape boycott). As between the two organizations, I'll take La Raza over CAIR any day.

825 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:02:24pm

re: #810 alegrias

* * * *
Why aren't you using these words that aren't race-restricted, since so few people in the New World are mono-cultural?

el pueblo
la nacion
los hispanoparlantes
los mejicanos

If not liking Islam can be called racism then those words don't stand a chance at being free of racial criticism.

826 Typicalwhitey  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:02:56pm

re: #801 HAL2010

Which is why he should be convinced through rigorous debate to change his positions on a number of issues.

Wishing he fails is petty. Say he fails, who would it benefit?
The people of the United States?

Really?

Have you ever listened to Rush?
He said he wanted Obama's POLICIES to fail.
And yes, the American people would benefit from that!

827 Gus  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:03:43pm

re: #805 SeafoodGumbo

La Raza with the PLO.

If a group starts off as a hate group wouldn't they have to go to extraordinary measures to prove that they no longer were? La Raza has never apologized for its past, only learned what works (put on a tie, write grant proposals, hide your ideology mostly).

Lots of evil groups do good works also. That's a part of the strategy of the smart ones.

That's a group from La Raza Unida Party. No relationship to NCLR.

Just a note but that site, creepingsharia, also links to Gates of Vienna and Atlas Shrugs.

828 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:04:17pm

re: #810 alegrias

And as far as why I don't use those words... I don't use La Raza to refer to myself since I am not of that race and I don't use those words because they are in Spanish. My day to day life calls for English.
/snark off

829 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:04:21pm

re: #782 LGoPs

The Dems have the unabashed and wholehearted support of the entire media information complex. They are acting as the private Public Relations firm for the entire party. The only tough position here is for the Republicans.

Talk radio and Fox are not members of the media? And the other news stations never critisize Democrats? And what about blogs? This is not the 1960's after all where the evening news was highly trusted and there were few alternative sources of news. I just hear this constantly whenever the GOP loses. Maybe I'm too partisan to see the light here, but the media argument just sounds fishy.

830 Russkilitlover  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:04:22pm

'Goodnight all.

831 SeafoodGumbo  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:04:30pm

re: #800 Iron Fist

She's in La Raza? For real? Yeah, that would disqualify her. Couldn't they find someone with a less, well, anti-American past? Maybe Sammy the Bull, or a Hell's Angel or something. People in organized crime have a special sense of knowledge that someone who is merely a member of a racist hate group just doesn't understand.

Hehehe. Your post has me picturing Hell's Angels wearing the white powdered wigs judges used to wear.

832 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:04:47pm

re: #803 Flyers1974

I'm not sure if the point is to reward bad behavior or to "reward" at all. The point is to do what is best for the country (whatever that may be) given the facts that exist. In the immigration debate people seem to be stuck on unfairly rewarding illegals. No one questions that entering the country illegally is illegal, but let's not pretend the illegals are committing a MORAL transgression on par with stealing or assault, etc... . These people are trying to feed their families. That doesn't mean we are obligated to them, but it does mean that rewarding an illegal is different from rewarding a person who commits an assault. If we are not going to remove them (and I've not heard anyone say that we will) what is the detriment of "amnesty?" And by granting those here amnesty, the politicians will then be able to strengthen and enforce laws prohibiting employers from hiring new illegals. Amnesty would give business time to prepare for a future with no more illegal workers.

Not all of them. Not by a long shot.

I can give you a tour of some cities in MA which would dispel this notion quickly.

833 alegrias  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:04:56pm

Where was the love for ALBERTO GONZALEZ, the former US Attorney General for El Presidente Busho de Texas?

Remember how loved he was by the left? (Bill O'Reilly)

834 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:05:17pm

re: #805 SeafoodGumbo

La Raza with the PLO.

If a group starts off as a hate group wouldn't they have to go to extraordinary measures to prove that they no longer were? La Raza has never apologized for its past, only learned what works (put on a tie, write grant proposals, hide your ideology mostly).

Lots of evil groups do good works also. That's a part of the strategy of the smart ones.

Well that would work if it were the same group, but it's not. That's La Raza Unida aka RUP, not NCLR

835 Lincolntf  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:05:20pm

re: #817 Thanos

Mouth off? Give me a break.
I post about things that I actually DO, not just things that I see elsewhere on the Internet, which probably prevents the web-links, don'tcha think? I'm sure that the dozens of articles that do exist that point out the racism of La Raza are all fake, right?

836 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:05:45pm

re: #828 bosforus

I don't use La Raza to refer to myself since I am not of that race

Um.... I thought you said it wasn't a "race".

837 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:05:58pm

re: #819 Russkilitlover

It's not the same group.

838 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:06:27pm

re: #806 OldLineTexan

By that logic, minimum and maximum sentences are also unjust.

Minimum sentences are the ones made mandatory. Of course I oppose them. There needs to be room for mitigating circumstances.

Maximum sentences in principle, are constructed by imagining the worst possible case and asking what is appropriate for that. It is a different sort of thinking that goes into it because, you already are at the worst, or some place less in any given case.

The question comes down to a notion of how you think justice should work overall. Would you rather be thought of as the hanging judge type - Sharia is a great exammple, or would you rather be the sort who tries to actually be just?

Since no system is ever perfect, would you rather have the system that was harsh to those who did not deserve it, perhaps executes the innocent and perhaps punishes in completely arbitrary manners, or would you rather have the flawed system that sometimes let's the guilty off a little easier than they deserved or even sometimes lets them go?

At the end of the day, if you believe in things like justice, mercy and personal freedom, this is a no brainer. It is better for society to let 100 guilty go free than to imprison one unjustly.

839 LGoPs  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:06:32pm

re: #765 Kenneth

My point is that the people saying that are only saying it about America. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard Europeans drone on about "American genocide of the Red Indians".

Yes, they actually use that racist slur, and yes, the complaints are especially ironic when spoken by a German.

I also wonder when those same Europeans who cheered us for electing a minority will STFU and elect say....an Algerian for French President. Or perhaps a Pakistani or Indian as English Prime Minister. Or perhaps a Turkish German Chancellor........hmmmmm?

840 screaming_eagle  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:06:37pm

re: #798 DEZes

I had a car that talked back.
It would turn the key on a cold morning and it would say.
Leeeveeemeeeealoooone.

I had a car that smoked.

841 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:06:56pm

re: #833 alegrias

Where was the love for ALBERTO GONZALEZ, the former US Attorney General for El Presidente Busho de Texas?

Remember how loved he was by the left? (Bill O'Reilly)

Or Miguel Estrada....

842 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:07:06pm

re: #818 OldLineTexan

Reagan's amnesty did nothing to stem the flow of additional illegal aliens.

I couldn't agree with you more. Politicians would have to stand up to business, i.e., the agriculture industry, the poultry industry, etc... in passing tougher regulations against hiring illegals and the means to enforce these laws.

843 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:07:09pm

re: #836 Occasional Reader

Um.... I thought you said it wasn't a "race".

Retén 22.

844 ShanghaiEd  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:07:19pm

re: #593 Russkilitlover

The Republicans didn't nominate a card-carrying racist, either.

Your opinion. And pretty weak tea. Link?

845 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:07:25pm

re: #835 Lincolntf

Naw you just make unfounded allegations and criticisms and never back them up. Charles also asked you to back up what you are saying -- I see you are ignoring him.

846 [deleted]  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:07:37pm
847 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:07:50pm

re: #840 screaming_eagle

I had a car that smoked.

Mine still does. ;)

848 HAL2010  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:08:00pm

re: #826 Typicalwhitey

Have you ever listened to Rush?
He said he wanted Obama's POLICIES to fail.
And yes, the American people would benefit from that!

That is not what he said, he explicitly stated that he hopes Obama fails:


If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.
849 bosforus  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:08:15pm

re: #836 Occasional Reader

Um.... I thought you said it wasn't a "race".

What words of mine lead you to that conclusion?

850 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:08:36pm

re: #716 SeafoodGumbo

How to explain: "Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada"

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

NCLR responded to Norwood's conditions apology in a point-by-point press release defending its policies, which it claims have never been racially or ethnically exclusionary, never supported and does not endorse the notion of a “Reconquista” or “Aztlán,” has never used, and unequivocally rejects, the motto “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada"...

851 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:08:54pm

re: #841 loppyd

Or Miguel Estrada....

What does Ponch have to do with anything?

/

852 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:09:24pm

re: #838 LudwigVanQuixote

Now you have the rule of judges, not law.

Completely dependent on the individual judge.

You and I commit the same crime under the same circumstances, in different locations, and end up in front of different judges.

You "get off", and I get slammed.

This is the justice you describe?

853 Charles Johnson  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:09:37pm

re: #805 SeafoodGumbo

La Raza with the PLO.

If a group starts off as a hate group wouldn't they have to go to extraordinary measures to prove that they no longer were? La Raza has never apologized for its past, only learned what works (put on a tie, write grant proposals, hide your ideology mostly).

Lots of evil groups do good works also. That's a part of the strategy of the smart ones.

That is not the same group. It's La Raza Unida --different from the NCLR.

854 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:09:43pm

re: #820 zombie

The mandatory sentencing movement was in response to a wave of more and more judges giving more and more overly light sentences to criminals for all sorts of reasons. A "push-back" response. I'd be open to giving judges leeway if so many did not abuse the privilege to promote some personal agenda. They (as a group) went overboard, so the voters imposed "group punishment" on the judges by taking away their right to let criminals go free.

I stand by my assertion that there has to be a "bottom line" in society, and the way to mitigate "social justice" disparities is pre-emptively, for the future. But if we stop enforcing the law as it is currently written, it only encourages more law-breaking. I am (unfortunately) related to some criminals, and believe me, they know full well the ol' sob-story-to-the-soft-judge trick, and the "Don't blame me, I was oppressed" trick. They all pull it whenever they can.

Give everyone the opportunity to become law-abiding members of society, but if they fail, we must have some consistency in applying the consequences.

Which is not the case and can never be. No two cases are identical.

Suppose the mandatory sentence for stealing a loaf of bread were three months prison. Do you give the guy who just thought he could get away with it and did it for "the thrill" the same sentence as the mother who was desperate, poor and fed her kids? Do you take her away from her kids for three months?

Is it possible that the two cases are different?

What is justice?

855 SeafoodGumbo  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:10:10pm

re: #827 Gus 802

That's a group from La Raza Unida Party. No relationship to NCLR.

Just a note but that site, creepingsharia, also links to Gates of Vienna and Atlas Shrugs.

D'oh. I thought that was the same La Raza. As for the site where the pic is hosted, let em pay for a little bandwidth then...

856 callahan23  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:10:12pm

re: #851 Occasional Reader

What does Ponch have to do with anything?

/

Oohh, isn't that Mr. Tightpants?

857 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:10:53pm

re: #842 Flyers1974

I couldn't agree with you more. Politicians would have to stand up to business, i.e., the agriculture industry, the poultry industry, etc... in passing tougher regulations against hiring illegals and the means to enforce these laws.

Actually, horror of horrors, we would have to actually enforce those laws (get ready for the cries of racism) and manage our borders before any "amnesty" would be less than a huge joke.

858 Gus  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:11:03pm

re: #846 Iron Fist

I have to admit I am somewhat shocked to see people here defending La Raza. They don't particularly disguise their agenda, or their position on race in America.

I'm more than shocked. I am appalled.

I see NCLR as just another irritating liberal advocacy group. Some of their corporate sponsor from their 2008 report include:

CHEVRON CORPORATION
Principal
Carole Young
General Manager, Global Diversity
Liaison
Vacant

MILLERCOORS
Principal
Cornell Boggs
Chief Responsibility and Ethics
Officer
Liaison
Joedis “Joe” Avila
Corporate Relations Manager,
Hispanic Markets
Liaison
Jose R. Ruano
Manager, Corporate Relations

859 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:11:04pm

re: #849 bosforus

What words of mine lead you to that conclusion?

Your #719, for instance (concurring with the San Fran writer who was claiming that "race" was a mistranslation.)

860 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:11:22pm

re: #832 loppyd

Not all of them. Not by a long shot.

I can give you a tour of some cities in MA which would dispel this notion quickly.

I'm sure a very high percentage of them are sending the money back home. And if you are suggesting that many are up to no good, which is a legitimate point, remember, illegals with a criminal record (aside from possession of very small amounts of weed, and a few other MINOR crimes) are not eligible to get greencards, amnesty or not.

861 Gus  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:11:30pm

re: #855 SeafoodGumbo

D'oh. I thought that was the same La Raza. As for the site where the pic is hosted, let em pay for a little bandwidth then...

Roger.

862 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:11:44pm

While I am completely late to these threads and this is the first chance I have had to sit down in the last 72 hours, my take on the Sotomayor nomination is this:

1) this isn't a stellar candidate, but she ain't Harriet Meyers either

2) she was picked by the "post racial" president precisely to put his opponents on a footing that they are lousy at defending. With the controversy this creates on the right, Obama gets to be "post racial" while blatantly engaging in identity politics.

3) By getting those least able to delicately argue the nature of reverse-racism to oppose her as a "bigot", Obama simply lets the critics paint themselves as the bigots.

4) The path to persuasively opposing her is to simply point out that she is a mediocre jurist of little accomplishment and then simply ask why such a gifted president with such a great knowledge of our constitution and who sees rehabilitating our image as a lawful country as urgent would pick Sotomayor. Why? Why when there are so many more brilliant and capable liberals that he could appoint? Then let her supporters use her race and gender as "reasons" - let them introduce it. Then deconstruct it.

Rush is doing what he does best - sell airtime. He isn't creating the doubt needed to defeat Sotomayor. Instead he is making opposing her seem boorish when all that can be argued is just "I can accuse her of being a bigoted sexist based on these quotes" and "there is a double standard"

No shit that there is a double standard. But you have to let your opponent explicitly introduce and argue for their double standard if you hope to nail them for it.

863 Digital Display  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:12:10pm

re: #854 LudwigVanQuixote

Which is not the case and can never be. No two cases are identical.

Suppose the mandatory sentence for stealing a loaf of bread were three months prison. Do you give the guy who just thought he could get away with it and did it for "the thrill" the same sentence as the mother who was desperate, poor and fed her kids? Do you take her away from her kids for three months?

Is it possible that the two cases are different?

What is justice?

Ding! Nice

864 Randall Gross  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:12:31pm

re: #846 Iron Fist

Who's defending them? I'm smacking down people who are being non objective. Hyperbole doesn't work as good as honesty.

La Raza:
Radical ? Yes.
Left? Yes
Probably opposed to most of what we stand for? Yes.
Widely accepted as a legitimate ethnic political lobby across the US: Yes

Extremists? Probably not so much.

865 alegrias  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:12:48pm

re: #841 loppyd

Or Miguel Estrada....

* * * * *
Si!

The audacity of leftists treating GOP or conservative Hispanics and Black Americans as pariahs and "uncle Toms" is sooooo revolting & predictable.

What the leftists did to Clarence Thomas, or Michael Steele (throwing Oreo cookies at Lt. Governor Steele) (or Dr. Rice depicted wearing a head rag like Aunt Jemima) is predictably racist and tells me a lot about them.

Anyone who doesn't tow the democrat party line talking points, and goes off the democrat ideological plantation, gets treated to racist slurs.

866 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:13:14pm

re: #846 Iron Fist

I haven't really been following the thread but McCain gave a speech to them too so I don't think anyone can really claim that this disqualifies Sotomayor for anything.

867 Occasional Reader  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:14:32pm

re: #856 callahan23

Oohh, isn't that Mr. Tightpants?

Peruvian highway motorcycle cops have uniforms that are almost identical to CHiPs... it's quite funny.

(Also, at least in the 90s, they had an anti-terrorism national police tactical group, whose name was Servicio Unitario Anti-Terrorista... or SUAT, pronounced SWAT in Spanish. What a coincidence!)

868 Flyers1974  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:14:34pm

re: #857 OldLineTexan

Actually, horror of horrors, we would have to actually enforce those laws (get ready for the cries of racism) and manage our borders before any "amnesty" would be less than a huge joke.

I'm not sure if anyone would cry racism if employers were being targeted for hiring illegals. It happens now in fact, just on a small scale. The government doesn't want to enforce the laws, and I don't blame them. The consequences would be too unpredictable. Start such a program after amnesty is granted and few businesses will complain - they would then have time to adjust to a new reality.

869 JammieWearingFool  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:14:45pm

I guess Rush is supposed to just roll over and not have anything to say about about a hack appointee. Dissent is no longer tolerated in America. We must all bow down and make nice to Obama now.

BTW, he called it 12 years ago. Can't say anyone else in America did.

Talk about being ahead of the curve.

870 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:14:46pm

re: #852 OldLineTexan

Now you have the rule of judges, not law.

Completely dependent on the individual judge.

You and I commit the same crime under the same circumstances, in different locations, and end up in front of different judges.

You "get off", and I get slammed.

This is the justice you describe?

You are wrong. Mandatory sentences do not remove judicial capriciousness. They only set a minimum bar. It only insures that all get slammed while some still get slammed worse.

I am tired of the notion of Judicial activism as a talking point of the right. There are checks and balances. If some judges should not legislate from the bench, then for certain some congress critters should not adjudicate from the Hill. It is also such a hypocritical motto. You never hear about legislating from the bench from the Republicans if the Judge in question wants to be draconian or anti-abortion, or any other thing the GOP agrees with.

871 Gus  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:14:49pm

re: #866 Killgore Trout

I haven't really been following the thread but McCain gave a speech to them too so I don't think anyone can really claim that this disqualifies Sotomayor for anything.

Remarks of Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman at the 2005 NCLR Annual Conference

872 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:14:50pm

re: #862 karmic_inquisitor

Bush appointed a bunch of people from different races too. This isn't really anything outrageous. Is Obama's white house more diverse than Bush's? Maybe but not by much.

873 DEZes  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:15:09pm

re: #856 callahan23

Oohh, isn't that Mr. Tightpants?

I never watched that show, and cant even recall the name.
Oh well.

874 pink freud  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:15:46pm

re: #832 loppyd

Not all of them. Not by a long shot.

I can give you a tour of some cities in MA which would dispel this notion quickly.

Louisiana too, especially New Orleans where the Latin Kings and MS-13 flourish.

875 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:16:29pm

re: #871 Gus 802

Not surprising. They might be a lousy group or the might not be. Either way, politicians show up and give speeches.

876 alegrias  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:16:42pm

re: #866 Killgore Trout

I haven't really been following the thread but McCain gave a speech to them too so I don't think anyone can really claim that this disqualifies Sotomayor for anything.

* * * * *
McCain also cluelessly pandered to the Confederate Flag contingent at one point.

877 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:16:55pm

re: #863 HoosierHoops

Thanks!

878 OldLineTexan  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:17:09pm

re: #868 Flyers1974

I'm not sure if anyone would cry racism if employers were being targeted for hiring illegals. It happens now in fact, just on a small scale. The government doesn't want to enforce the laws, and I don't blame them. The consequences would be too unpredictable. Start such a program after amnesty is granted and few businesses will complain - they would then have time to adjust to a new reality.

Already happened more than once at at least two chicken processing plants, one loaded with Somalis IIRC. When you raid/fine the company for hiring illegals, you de facto relieve the illegals of their jobs at the same time.

879 loppyd  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:17:12pm

re: #860 Flyers1974

I'm sure a very high percentage of them are sending the money back home. And if you are suggesting that many are up to no good, which is a legitimate point, remember, illegals with a criminal record (aside from possession of very small amounts of weed, and a few other MINOR crimes) are not eligible to get greencards, amnesty or not.

Many are. Trust me. I see it often in my profession. And don't get me started on the driving related offenses.

880 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:17:36pm

re: #869 JammieWearingFool

From what I can tell she's more qualified than a lot of the previous nominees.

881 Vicious Babushka  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:17:47pm

re: #759 Captain Jack

Rush talks for 3hrs a day. It is very easy to pick out a few words he says and try to paint him as his ideological competition would like to have you believe. You simply have to listen to him for awhile for a few days to get a feel for the global argument. The mainstream media take a few words out of context and try to paint a picture. Do not be fooled.

Rush used to be very entertaining back in the day. Now he's just boring. He is on opposite Dennis Prager in my area, and I prefer to listen to Dennis.

882 JammieWearingFool  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:18:04pm

When Obama proposed filibustering Alito and Roberts and voted against them, was that Obama being stuck on fail?

883 Walter L. Newton  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:18:17pm

re: #875 Killgore Trout

Not surprising. They might be a lousy group or the might not be. Either way, politicians show up and give speeches.

And you just described a major problem, politicians will normally do anything for votes, sans a firm moral compass.

Yech!

884 callahan23  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:18:20pm

re: #873 DEZes

I never watched that show, and can't even recall the name.
Oh well.

I can't either, so lets stick to Mr. Tightpants.
Those 70's were a time of sometimes dreadful fashion.

885 JammieWearingFool  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:18:30pm

re: #880 Killgore Trout

From what I can tell she's more qualified than a lot of the previous nominees.

Outside of Harriet Myers, who in particular?

886 Killgore Trout  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:18:41pm

re: #876 alegrias

* * * * *
McCain also cluelessly pandered to the Confederate Flag contingent at one point.

And Obama sent a wreath to a confederate memorial the other day. These things happen.

887 pingjockey  Wed, May 27, 2009 5:19:10pm

re: #879 loppyd

No shit!