This just in: Mass Outbreak of Sanity on Capital Hill!

We now return to our previously scheduled wailing, gnashing of teeth, and tearing of flesh, already in progress.

The GOP

“The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill,” said a top Senate Republican aide. “If there’s no ‘there’ there, we shouldn’t try to create one.”

works for me

is this news?

Sotomayor is not the hill to die on.

Block her won't change the the balance on the court. The fight would cost to much for too little gain.

I'd don't like it, but that's the way it is.

I'm definitely not going to say, "I told you so."

Nope. Not gonna say it.

I would still like to know what's up with that "wise latina" nonsense.

re: #5 Charles

I'm definitely not going to say, "I told you so."

Nope. Not gonna say it.

Go ahead...

She is replacing Justice Souter...who did we expect? Obama nominating Judge Dredd? Judge Bork? Judge Judy?

This is exactly why people need to stop trying to whip up false controversies about her. Her confirmation is inevitable.

re: #8 Desert Dog

She is replacing Justice Souter...who did we expect? Obama nominating Judge Dredd? Judge Bork? Judge Judy?

Judge Reinhold

I am NOT a RINO.

Standard Poodle, maybe.

re: #4 jcm

Sotomayor is not the hill to die on.

Block her won't change the the balance on the court. The fight would cost to much for too little gain.

I'd don't like it, but that's the way it is.

It's like that, and that's the way it is.

I'm not ready to hug her yet. I've yet to finish looking into all the ramifications of her membership in NCLR.

I also am not going to work myself into a rabid frenzy trying to convince myself that she believes firearms ownership is "unconstitutional."

re: #13 Last Mohican

I'm not ready to hug her yet. I've yet to finish looking into all the ramifications of her membership in NCLR.

I also am not going to work myself into a rabid frenzy trying to convince myself that she believes firearms ownership is "unconstitutional."

That is exactly the right tack to take. May the Lord guide the GOP onto that sane course.

Charles - so you think the pick if just fine right? NO problems?

I'm not sure what to think, that statement sounds almost...reasonable!

Isn't this just replacing one lib Justice with another?

I'm not exactly thrilled with the pick, but it's more or less a break-even pick for the Dems.

I was never of the impression this was going to be a circus to begin with.

re: #15 ArrowSmith

Charles - so you think the pick if just fine right? NO problems?

I'm going back through the archives trying to find the part where he said that.

It would be hypocrisy for them to mount opposition after 8 straight years of saying "only qualifications count". Meanwhile if they did mount opposition it's exactly what the Dems would want. It would expend a lot of political capital on something that's going to happen anyway. If by some miracle they got the Sotomayer nomination halted, then the follow on nominee would be even more liberal.

The President gets to nominate and the Senate gets to approve. It would be extremely stupid on the Republicans part to put up an ugly fight over this future Justice. However, I do hope they grill the living crap out of her before say "OK".

re: #12 Dark_Falcon

It's like that, and that's the way it is.

[Video]

The way it is...

re: #19 Last Mohican

I'm going back through the archives trying to find the part where he said that.

I'm just saying that Charles seems to be spending more time on the feeble GOP response to Sotomayor and less on her qualifications.

re: #10 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The judge from Night Court?

re: #17 Fenway_Nation

Isn't this just replacing one lib Justice with another?

I'm not exactly thrilled with the pick, but it's more or less a break-even pick for the Dems.

'zactly.

Spend political capital for little gain. Even if she's not confirmed Obama just appoints a similar judge.

Hold fire till it's one of the 5 retiring.

re: #24 Fenway_Nation

The judge from Night Court?

Judge Roy Beam

re: #23 ArrowSmith

I'm just saying that Charles seems to be spending more time on the feeble GOP response to Sotomayor and less on her qualifications.

AS ... she is a hispanic female ... what other qualifications do you want ...

/double campaign debt paid ... hispanic /check ... female/check ...

re: #24 Fenway_Nation

The judge from Night Court?

No, the actor

I think you have to pick your fights, and this one is not worth the energy.

re: #29 Floral Giraffe

I think you have to pick your fights, and this one is not worth the energy.

FG ... you are so right about that ...

re: #1 Dark_Falcon

Sanity? Mayhaps, but temporary, fer sher...

I could be totally wrong in my assumption here, but I think Lani Guinier was the only candidate the Republicans really pushed back on with any significance.

But I admit up front, I could be wrong.

It just seems to me, the Democrats have been the real clowns when it comes to the whole dog & pony shows for bench nominations.

re: #29 Floral Giraffe

I think you have to pick your fights, and this one is not worth the energy.

Fine, but isn't it important to get on record that she's a racist and hates the Constitution?

re: #8 Desert Dog

She is replacing Justice Souter...who did we expect? Obama nominating Judge Dredd? Judge Bork? Judge Judy?

Judge Roy Bean

This anomaly is quite simple really , the GOP is busy trying to win votes that they will never win by acting like democrats.

In my non racially divided mind, There is no such thing as the Black , Hispanic or Asian vote ...people simply vote for a candidate based upon a unified message , their historic experience and abilities.

The GOP is being very stupid indeed , and their reward for stupidity will be seen in 2010.

Well meaning Centrists and moderates are just gonna love America under a single party , they will come to know a new America , the partisan leftist and fascist government who as is already evident is bent upon destroying the free market and caving in the economy and ultimately changing the U.S. into something it is not ..

If Jimmy Carter in fact ran as a conservative as he claims he did , no Centrist should feel safe in the knowledge they are centrists or moderates ,

They are just people who can't make up their minds on the real issues.

With luck the damage will reparable , our Children will realize the mistake we have been making .

re: #26 Desert Dog

Judge Roy Beam

Jim Beam's son?

re: #34 Racer X

Judge Roy Bean

Judge Andy Napolitano?

re: #36 Racer X

Jim Beam's son?

Jim Bean - Roy BeaN freudian slip?

re: #23 ArrowSmith

I'm just saying that Charles seems to be spending more time on the feeble GOP response to Sotomayor and less on her qualifications.

I just checked. Two threads on her qualifications. And now, counting this one, one thread on the GOP's response.

But who knows, maybe he's still a secret RINO. We'd better hog-tie him, throw him into a tank of water, and see if he floats.

/s

"Here Comes The Judge"

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

We now return to our previously scheduled wailing, gnashing of teeth, and tearing of flesh, already in progress.

The GOP

If you want to see tearing of flesh, check this out:

What Jeff Killed

Please accept my apology.

She was nominated for Asst. Attorney General.

re: #39 Last Mohican

I just checked. Two threads on her qualifications. And now, counting this one, one thread on the GOP's response.

But who knows, maybe he's still a secret RINO. We'd better hog-tie him, throw him into a tank of water, and see if he floats.

/s

Prepare...THE COMFY CHAIR!

Just more proof that it's not the GOP that has lost its sanity, it's the pundits who used to side with the GOP.

And the media is only too happy to ignore the Republican politicians who don't try to block the Democrats out of pure spite, focusing entirely on howling loons like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Ron Paul.

re: #11 ggt

I am NOT a RINO.

Standard Poodle, maybe.

I always viewed myself as Heinz 57.

re: #6 Pawn of the Oppressor
I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it again:

I think if you read the entire context for those remarks, you'll find she's making an uncontroversial point: we are affected in our judgments by our personal experiences.
By the way, John Yoo made similar comments about the experience that Clarence Thomas would bring to the bench.

I realize that this is the current talking point--"She's a racist!" -- but she there is no reason to think that she is one, and smearing her as one is not a good idea.

She's qualified, she's going to be confirmed, (barring some unforeseen scandal popping up) and she's not even that liberal. Attacking her over made-up issues is going to piss off the Latino community, women, and all those middle of the road/independent voters who already think the GOP is the "Party of No."

re: #44 tatterdemalian

Just more proof that it's not the GOP that has lost its sanity, it's the pundits who used to side with the GOP.

And the media is only too happy to ignore the Republican politicians who don't try to block the Democrats out of pure spite, focusing entirely on howling loons like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Ron Paul.

Spite has nothing to do with pointing out Sotomayor is a bad pick. Did the Dems hold back on Bork? Yeah, I consider her as bad as him.

re: #20 Thanos

It would be hypocrisy for them to mount opposition after 8 straight years of saying "only qualifications count". Meanwhile if they did mount opposition it's exactly what the Dems would want. It would expend a lot of political capital on something that's going to happen anyway. If by some miracle they got the Sotomayer nomination halted, then the follow on nominee would be even more liberal.

A handful of Democrats ought to "express doubts" just to get the Republicans to think they might have the votes and fight this thing. The GOP leadership is silly enough to fall for it.

re: #48 Bloodnok

A handful of Democrats ought to "express doubts" just to get the Republicans to think they might have the votes and fight this thing. The GOP leadership is silly enough to fall for it.

So the GOP should just rubber stamp anything Obama wants. In fact they should not even raise a peep?

re: #44 tatterdemalian

Just more proof that it's not the GOP that has lost its sanity, it's the pundits who used to side with the GOP.

And the media is only too happy to ignore the Republican politicians who don't try to block the Democrats out of pure spite, focusing entirely on howling loons like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Ron Paul.

I wouldn't call Limbaugh a loon, he's just being pig-headed. Coulter, maybe. Luap Nor is Bark-At-The-Moon crazy.

She thinks that owning a firearm is against the constitution!

She wants to outlaw the name "Leonard"!

She has a secret tattoo of Leon Trotsky on her ass!

re: #45 Idle Drifter

I always viewed myself as Heinz 57.

So you voted for Kerry? ;)

re: #47 ArrowSmith

Spite has nothing to do with pointing out Sotomayor is a bad pick. Did the Dems hold back on Bork? Yeah, I consider her as bad as him.

Can you name 3 things you didn't like about Bork? (not counting his beard)

The Dems sat there and let Bush pick his guys (Harriett aside, of course). The Republicans have to sit through this. But, like I said above...ask her some HARD questions and let her elaborate on her legal positions...then, say "OK"

re: #48 Bloodnok

I actually think that goes on quite a bit. In all actuality, probably not a bad set up when you think about it.

re: #51 Last Mohican

She wants to outlaw the name "Leonard"!

She hates Star Trek?
Why that's Un-American!

///

re: #49 ArrowSmith

So the GOP should just rubber stamp anything Obama wants. In fact they should not even raise a peep?

Or they should lose political points fighting an unnecessary battle? Your choice.

re: #49 ArrowSmith

That is not what he was saying.

re: #53 Opilio

Can you name 3 things you didn't like about Bork? (not counting his beard)

What I mean is she is as bad as the Dems perceived Bork to be. I have no idea if Bork was good or bad, I was too young for that.

re: #33 ArrowSmith

Fine, but isn't it important to get on record that she's a racist and hates the Constitution?

There is no reason to believe that either of those things are true.

I just don't see how it gains the GOP anything by not even bringing up the "wise Latina" thing during the confirmation hearings. Why should they stay silent on that? Make her squirm.

re: #33 ArrowSmith

Fine, but isn't it important to get on record that she's a racist and hates the Constitution?

Sure, that would be important if it weren't a ridiculous, overheated fantasy.

She's made several statements that show she has a lot of respect for the Constitution. It's completely false -- and ridiculous -- to say she "hates the Constitution."

*sniffs air*

*faint moby odor*

re: #61 ArrowSmith

I just don't see how it gains the GOP anything by not even bringing up the "wise Latina" thing during the confirmation hearings. Why should they stay silent on that? Make her squirm.

It gains by not losing.

re: #49 ArrowSmith

“Anyone can be angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, in the right way — that is not easy.”

– Aristotle, “Nicomachean Ethics”

It's stupid to get mad or spend time on the inevitable. We need to focus on the battles we can win, we are behind enemy lines so we've got to pick the battles, hit and run. Not oppose them everywhere on everything. This kneejerk reaction of getting insanely mad over everything the dems say or do is non productive and highly ineffective. It's taking our eyes off the ball, and losing us cred.

re: #63 Racer X

*sniffs air*

*faint moby odor*

That's it exactly. It's just throwing things at the wall now.

I saw a newspaper headline today that said "Obama picks Hispanic justice." No mention of what her name even was. Just "Obama picks Hispanic justice."

I saw another article somewhere that said Republicans probably wouldn't question her very harshly, because they don't want to risk losing the Hispanic voters that they've worked so hard to attract.

Have we really reached this point in America? The point at which it doesn't matter what someone's name even is, just what their race is? Where people automatically side with everyone of their race, and against everyone who criticizes someone of their race? Is it really this bad?

Now I'll answer my question. During the 2008 election, there were threats that African-Americans would stage violent riots and randomly attack people if a non-Black person was elected president. Yes, it's pretty much that bad.

I don't care what is politically prudent I live in Sotomayor's "Circuit". The New Haven Firefighters and Kelo are scary, absolutely FUCKING SCARY decisions. Now this crap is going to SCOTUS. Bust your ass to better yourself but someone of a different ethnic group doesn't and you get screwed (of by the way one of the firefighters thrown under the bus was a latino). Bust your ass to buy a home and the court will give it to some scumbag corporation who never does anything with it (no, they still have not built on the Kelo properties and the plans are dead in the water). I don't care what her ethnicity is, her "uplifting" personal history is, her judicial positions just piss me off. If you think the 9th if fucking insane you haven't seen anything yet.

re: #65 Thanos

It's stupid to get mad or spend time on the inevitable. We need to focus on the battles we can win, we are behind enemy lines so we've got to pick the battles, hit and run. Not oppose them everywhere on everything. This kneejerk reaction of getting insanely mad over everything the dems say or do is non productive and highly ineffective. It's taking our eyes off the ball, and losing us cred.

I'm not saying to get insanely mad, it's just a total waste to not bring up the "wise Latina" thing in the hearings.

Bill O'Reilly calls out Free Republic and Hot Air for the extremist comments on Sotomayor, and Amanda Carpenter can't find a single "right-wing" blog that doesn't hate her.

re: #61 ArrowSmith

I just don't see how it gains the GOP anything by not even bringing up the "wise Latina" thing during the confirmation hearings. Why should they stay silent on that? Make her squirm.

Does the GOP gain something if she squirms? Other than the raw hedonistic joy of saying "hah hah, made you squirm!"

re: #33 ArrowSmith

Fine, but isn't it important to get on record that she's a racist and hates the Constitution?

Do you have links for those? I'm sure the GOP leadership would be glad to get them.

re: #6 Pawn of the Oppressor

I would still like to know what's up with that "wise latina" nonsense.

that's what the metrosexuals call 'cultural pride' reserved exclusively for minorities only. :)

I have to say that the No Way to Run A Railroad linked in the blogroll on the upper left is a little disappointing.

Not once is a railway mentioned. Plus CAFE-like emissions stadards for locomotives would be both stupid and overbearing from the White House.

/Not that that's stopped them before.

re: #67 Last Mohican

Yes.

I hate this type of politics.

Balkanization.

re: #52 Dark_Falcon

So you voted for Kerry? ;)

No, though where I voted in the 2004 election it didn't matter if I voted for Kerry or not. It's an old joke to hyphenated Americans. I'm not Polish-American or Italian-American or even German, French, Irish, or Scottish-American. I'm Heinz 57. Trust me they don't like when you place Heinz 57 in the "Other" box on many forms.

re: #63 Racer X

*sniffs air*

*faint moby odor*

Maybe. But I was thinking that thing about "hating the constitution" had a Paulian aroma to it. Oh well, I think we'll find out pretty soon. I'll try to stay up a little later.

ArrowSmith
(Logged in)
Registered since: May 24, 2009 at 3:58 pm

As has been discussed on the (at least) 2 previous threads. This is a liberal nominee to replace a liberal justice. It will not change the balance of the SCOTUS.

re: #74 Fenway_Nation

I have to say that the No Way to Run A Railroad linked in the blogroll on the upper left is a little disappointing.

Not once is a railway mentioned. Plus CAFE-like emissions stadards for locomotives would be both stupid and overbearing from the White House.

/Not that that's stopped them before.

Fn ... I have been mad at the railroads ever since they got rid of the caboose ... wtf is an end of train? ... I hate those things ... when I was a kid we loved to watch for the caboose ..!

re: #73 mrclark

that's what the metrosexuals call 'cultural pride' reserved exclusively for minorities only. :)

Exactly. Ann Althouse was trying to spin it today unsuccessfully. No one was buying it. I guess because I'm a white male I'm just supposed to take racism from anyone else right?

re: #74 Fenway_Nation

I have to say that the No Way to Run A Railroad linked in the blogroll on the upper left is a little disappointing.

Not once is a railway mentioned. Plus CAFE-like emissions stadards for locomotives would be both stupid and overbearing from the White House.

/Not that that's stopped them before.

Hey, hook enough Pinto's together you'll be just fine...

re: #70 Charles

Bill O'Reilly calls out Free Republic and Hot Air for the extremist comments on Sotomayor, and Amanda Carpenter can't find a single "right-wing" blog that doesn't hate her.

[Video]

How many leftwingers cheered when Bush nominated Alito or Roberts? I do not remember KOS or any of the other lefty blog reacting with anything but the usual vitriol and hyperbole.

re: #79 JacksonTn

Fn ... I have been mad at the railroads ever since they got rid of the caboose ... wtf is an end of train? ... I hate those things ... when I was a kid we loved to watch for the caboose ..!

LOL!

This should fix you up...

re: #61 ArrowSmith

I just don't see how it gains the GOP anything by not even bringing up the "wise Latina" thing during the confirmation hearings. Why should they stay silent on that? Make her squirm.

It gains because then the GOP doesn't look like a bunch of desperate, obstructionist, negative freaks who make up stuff.

On the other hand, I'm a liberal, so if that's what you want the GOP to be, go for it.

Seriously, they should do their jobs and have a normal confirmation hearing, verify that she's qualified (which she is) and hold their fire for when Obama wants to appoint a liberal in place of one of the conservative justices or when he wants to appoint someone who isn't qualified.

re: #79 JacksonTn

Fn ... I have been mad at the railroads ever since they got rid of the caboose ... wtf is an end of train? ... I hate those things ... when I was a kid we loved to watch for the caboose ..!

According to my dad that thing is called a Fred...I don't know why. i was sad about cabooses too, when we were kids living in Omaha we played at trying to guess what color the caboose would be on the trains we saw. but some of them ended up as campers in nat'l parks...we got to stay in them a couple of times...fun

re: #82 Desert Dog

How many leftwingers cheered when Bush nominated Alito or Roberts? I do not remember KOS or any of the other lefty blog reacting with anything but the usual vitriol and hyperbole.

To be fair, they vitriol and hyperbole is their standard response to anything.

re: #9 iceweasel

This is exactly why people need to stop trying to whip up false controversies about her. Her confirmation is inevitable.

Well there is something to calling a spade, a spade. Call it the responsibility of a free people. Not to do so and to pretend to 'play nice' is merely being politically correct and that does no good for anyone. Its always a good idea to let your opposition know that you know they're trying to pull a fast one, but that (as someone else already said) this isn't the hill to die on.

re: #29 Floral Giraffe

I think you have to pick your fights, and this one is not worth the energy.

Absloutely. Save the ammo for the bigger fights just over the horizon.

The real scandal is that she is a mediocre jurist while Obama is supposedly a constitutional scholar on a mission to restore the righteousness of America.

As it has played out he is shown to be a Democrat who plays racial politics well up against Republicans who are powerless and aren't going to put their table scrap share of the pork at risk for an opportunity to stand on principle.

The more the world changes, the more it stays the same.

I doubt she will ever be asked to write a majority opinion unless the majority wants to communicate a vague "meh".

Another "win" for Obama. Another loss for those who want to live in interesting times.

weet dreams all!

re: #86 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

To be fair, they vitriol and hyperbole is their standard response to anything.

yep

re: #84 iceweasel

If it was a white male nominee and he made a "wise White" comment, you think a single Democrat would let him get away with it? I just can't believe how many people are rolling over on this. It's outrageous to me.

Smile everyone. It's the Church of what's happening now.

re: #90 ggt

weet dreams all!

nite ggt, thanks for the name idea!

re: #71 Last Mohican

Does the GOP gain something if she squirms? Other than the raw hedonistic joy of saying "hah hah, made you squirm!"

It shows that they have some balls at least.

re: #92 ArrowSmith

I sense you are a typical white woman...

/

The Dems will love it if some R Senator gets on a highhorse and grills her mercilessly. We see nothing but highly edited snips of the grilling for weeks accompanied by analysis and criticism of how sexist, racist, and mean R's are. Get real, that's not going to happen. You might hear a question or two on it, but you are not going to get a grilling.

re: #59 ArrowSmith

What I mean is she is as bad as the Dems perceived Bork to be. I have no idea if Bork was good or bad, I was too young for that.

I'm old enough to remember the Bork days very well. Short version: he was one scary dude. Do some research, and it'll curl your hair.

In fact, I think Bork was the beginning of a very unfortunate trend in the GOP when it was really feeling its oats: do things for spite, to piss off the liberals, without regard to whether or not it's best for the country.

We dodged a bullet, with Bork.

re: #93 WindHorse

Smile everyone. It's the Church of what's happening now.

LOL! Haven't heard that phrase in a while!

re: #61 ArrowSmith

I just don't see how it gains the GOP anything by not even bringing up the "wise Latina" thing during the confirmation hearings. Why should they stay silent on that? Make her squirm.

A bit of context surrounding the "wise Latina" line:

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.

Read the whole thing here.

re: #96 WindHorse

I sense you are a typical white woman...

/

Actually I'm Jewish and I despise identity politics of any kind. That is a real sore point for me.

re: #92 ArrowSmith

If it was a white male nominee and he made a "wise White" comment, you think a single Democrat would let him get away with it? I just can't believe how many people are rolling over on this. It's outrageous to me.

What if it was a white female?

re: #61 ArrowSmith

I just don't see how it gains the GOP anything by not even bringing up the "wise Latina" thing during the confirmation hearings. Why should they stay silent on that? Make her squirm.

They will ask her about it. She probably already has an answer that will placate people.

One thing for sure, if Justice Roberts had said the following he would not have been confirmed no matter what his explanation.

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.”

re: #79 JacksonTn

Fn ... I have been mad at the railroads ever since they got rid of the caboose ... wtf is an end of train? ... I hate those things ... when I was a kid we loved to watch for the caboose ..!

The caboose is still around, albeit in a very diminished capacity. Your best bet for spotting them would be on locals where a lengthy reverse move is required, a high-dimension extra freight (something like an electric transformer or windmill assemblies being carried on a heavy duty or articulated flatcar), transfer runs or trains across an international border (the last two to save the conductor the trouble of walking the length of the train and back at the border crossing or tying up a busy line feeding into a yard or interchange area).

re: #97 Thanos

The Dems will love it if some R Senator gets on a highhorse and grills her mercilessly. We see nothing but highly edited snips of the grilling for weeks accompanied by analysis and criticism of how sexist, racist, and mean R's are. Get real, that's not going to happen. You might hear a question or two on it, but you are not going to get a grilling.

I would dig up the same questions the Dems asked Bush's nominations and use those. Then, if someone speaks up...just tell them they used the same ones as last time, what's the problem?

re: #100 Opilio

Read the whole thing here.

Sorry but no context can justify it. Like I said, if it were a white male he'd be crucified already.

re: #98 ShanghaiEd

I'm old enough to remember the Bork days very well. Short version: he was one scary dude. Do some research, and it'll curl your hair.

In fact, I think Bork was the beginning of a very unfortunate trend in the GOP when it was really feeling its oats: do things for spite, to piss off the liberals, without regard to whether or not it's best for the country.

We dodged a bullet, with Bork.

Absolutely. Robert Bork is a religious fanatic with theocratic tendencies, and of course a creationist as well. This country dodged a bullet when he wasn't confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Sen. Moynihan picked her and Bush 41 sent her name forward... the fix was in a long time ago.

re: #104 Fenway_Nation

The caboose is still around, albeit in a very diminished capacity. Your best bet for spotting them would be on locals where a lengthy reverse move is required, a high-dimension extra freight (something like an electric transformer or windmill assemblies being carried on a heavy duty or articulated flatcar), transfer runs or trains across an international border (the last two to save the conductor the trouble of walking the length of the train and back at the border crossing or tying up a busy line feeding into a yard or interchange area).

What about Hobos? Are there still Hobos? Those are as good as the caboose!

re: #104 Fenway_Nation

Aha, I found it, the flashing thing is called a Fred for "flashing rear end device" catchy huh?

Flashing rear end device

re: #108 ASU86PE

Sen. Moynihan picked her and Bush 41 sent her name forward... the fix was in a long time ago.

Is it any wonder Bush 41 is not well thought of.

Dammit. Every time I get busy at work a bunch of crap happens.

Sotomayor has some problems... in a normal world. The GOP is in no position may any hay about it nowadays.

Taxes? Check.
Nannies? Check.
SC Justice? Check.

Moving on.

re: #105 Desert Dog

If you don't see the problem in the fact that the other side has a bigger bullhorn than we do and are currently more popular than we are in how that would end, I can't help you friend.

re: #92 ArrowSmith

If it was a white male nominee and he made a "wise White" comment, you think a single Democrat would let him get away with it? I just can't believe how many people are rolling over on this. It's outrageous to me.

Wrong ground to fight on.

Blocking Sotomayor won't change the balance on court, a knock down drag out gains nothing.

We can choose the ground we fight on.
This is not the ground.

I don't remember anyone here saying she wasn't going to be voted in. That the GOP doesn't have the balls to even ask one question about what she's said on record is also not surprising. But just because the GOP are craven doesn't mean she should have been nominated or have the gig.

And as I've said before -- it could be worse. He could have nominated Jamie Gorelick.

re: #107 Charles

Absolutely. Robert Bork is a religious fanatic with theocratic tendencies, and of course a creationist as well. This country dodged a bullet when he wasn't confirmed to the Supreme Court.

I didn't get that vibe from him in Slouching Towards Gormorrah. Where did he take a wrong turn?

re: #110 srb1976

Aha, I found it, the flashing thing is called a Fred for "flashing rear end device" catchy huh?

Flashing rear end device

If you're gonna click that, turn your cookies off first, and make sure your kids aren't watching.

re: #110 srb1976

"Flashing rear end-"

Say...that reminds me of this one time when I was on Bourbon Street.

re: #115 kynna

I don't remember anyone here saying she wasn't going to be voted in. That the GOP doesn't have the balls to even ask one question about what she's said on record is also not surprising. But just because the GOP are craven doesn't mean she should have been nominated or have the gig.

And as I've said before -- it could be worse. He could have nominated Jamie Gorelick.

Well it's why I am not a registered Republican. Any party I belong to must posses cojones.

how about if a GOP Senator asks Judge Sotomayor about her views of Meritocracy and Property Rights (eminent domain). Ask her why she has ruled regarding these issues as she has and where in the United States Constitution she has found the basis for her positions. How about if the Senate actually does its job for once? Don't ask her how she will rule ask her how she came to the rulings she has made.

re: #85 srb1976

According to my dad that thing is called a Fred...I don't know why. i was sad about cabooses too, when we were kids living in Omaha we played at trying to guess what color the caboose would be on the trains we saw. but some of them ended up as campers in nat'l parks...we got to stay in them a couple of times...fun

Believe it or not, FRED stands for, wait for it,...

FLASHING REAR END DEVICE

What I would hope to see from my side, is a legitimate question and answer session.

No grandstanding. Tough, legitimate questions with no room for spin.

Be fair, be professional. Leave the theatrics alone.

re: #107 Charles

6 out of 9 will be Catholics. HUM...creationists. Sorry ol'boy, time to fish in another pond.

re: #92 ArrowSmith

If it was a white male nominee and he made a "wise White" comment, you think a single Democrat would let him get away with it? I just can't believe how many people are rolling over on this. It's outrageous to me.

yeah, I realize this is the talking point. Newt tweeted that earlier today.

Read the context of the quote. She's not saying what you think she is.

Well, this is yet another issue I'm going to have to swallow my outrage on. I'm not religious, but if I were I'd believe God were testing me with one blow after another.

re: #120 Rexatosis

how about if a GOP Senator asks Judge Sotomayor about her views of Meritocracy and Property Rights (eminent domain). Ask her why she has ruled regarding these issues as she has and where in the United States Constitution she has found the basis for her positions. How about if the Senate actually does its job for once? Don't ask her how she will rule ask her how she came to the rulings she has made.

Upding for that.

re: #123 ASU86PE

6 out of 9 will be Catholics. HUM...creationists. Sorry ol'boy, time to fish in another pond.

Um, the pope says catholics aren't creationists, or at least that's what my catholic friends tell me

re: #95 TheMatrix31

It shows that they have some balls at least.

Do you remember when the Democrats were doing a moderate grilling of Alito during his confirmation? His wife cried, and the Democrats were vilified for weeks. Can you imagine beating up on a female appointee?

re: #110 srb1976

Aha, I found it, the flashing thing is called a Fred for "flashing rear end device" catchy huh?

Flashing rear end device

Don't you be mooning me!

///

re: #123 ASU86PE

6 out of 9 will be Catholics. HUM...creationists. Sorry ol'boy, time to fish in another pond.

You haven't been paying attention.

re: #120 Rexatosis

how about if a GOP Senator asks Judge Sotomayor about her views of Meritocracy and Property Rights (eminent domain). Ask her why she has ruled regarding these issues as she has and where in the United States Constitution she has found the basis for her positions. How about if the Senate actually does its job for once? Don't ask her how she will rule ask her how she came to the rulings she has made.

That would be fine and very welcome.

re: #129 Dark_Falcon

Don't you be mooning me!

///

You know you want to click it...just admit it = )
//

re: #114 jcm

Wrong ground to fight on.

Blocking Sotomayor won't change the balance on court, a knock down drag out gains nothing.

We can choose the ground we fight on.
This is not the ground.

I agree. This is not the place to spend the energy.

Doesn't mean I'm going to applaud this decision or not be bothered by the willful blindness in regard to her past remarks. And those things should be brought up. She should explain herself as any other candidate for the SC would have to. Won't happen.

re: #123 ASU86PE

6 out of 9 will be Catholics. HUM...creationists. Sorry ol'boy, time to fish in another pond.

Maybe you missed the memo, but Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church are not creationists.

re: #93 WindHorse

Smile everyone. It's the Church of what's happening now.

Mediocrity is the new black.

Excellence is passe.

re: #130 Bloodnok

Or paying too much? It appears Catholics swing both ways.

re: #120 Rexatosis

If she has rulings on them, I think that is fair.

I just hope if that is the case, it is done professionally. I hate the idea of a rubber stamp, but I also hate how some the most recent nominations were just political hazings.

re: #115 kynna

I don't remember anyone here saying she wasn't going to be voted in. That the GOP doesn't have the balls to even ask one question about what she's said on record is also not surprising. But just because the GOP are craven doesn't mean she should have been nominated or have the gig.

And as I've said before -- it could be worse. He could have nominated Jamie Gorelick.

I do not think that either "balls" or "squirming" is important here. Republican senators should look into her past and her qualifications. They should look into NCLR, and ask her about it. They should ask her if she feels a person of a certain race should be more wise than someone of another race, and if not, then why did she say what she said. Not just to cause trouble or make her squirm, but to ensure that she's worthy of the job. And, frankly, if she does turn out to be an unqualified person who's going to get the job anyway, then to highlight, for the record, that Obama screwed up. But I don't care if Judge Sotomayor squirms or not.

re: #128 ShanghaiEd

Do you remember when the Democrats were doing a moderate grilling of Alito during his confirmation? His wife cried, and the Democrats were vilified for weeks. Can you imagine beating up on a female appointee?

One of the things that most turned me off to the Dems was their despicable treatment of Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings.

re: #123 ASU86PE

6 out of 9 will be Catholics. HUM...creationists. Sorry ol'boy, time to fish in another pond.

I posted that earlier, as a quote from Christopher Hitchens on the Hugh Hewitt show. I don't know what to think about it. Certainly NOT all Catholics are creationists. I was leaning towards an "abortion" drift, myself.

re: #136 ASU86PE

Or paying too much? It appears Catholics swing both ways.

ASU86PE ... ass ...

re: #128 ShanghaiEd

Do you remember when the Democrats were doing a moderate grilling of Alito during his confirmation? His wife cried, and the Democrats were vilified for weeks. Can you imagine beating up on a female appointee?

you mean 'can you imagine how the media will spin the nomination process into the beating up on a female appointee of color?' {beg your pardon but it was too good to pass up} :)

re: #136 ASU86PE

Or paying too much? It appears Catholics swing both ways.

Wrong.

Pope Bashes Intelligent Design:

A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.

re: #134 Charles

And oppose birth control also. Yada..Yada..Yada.

re: #133 kynna

I agree. This is not the place to spend the energy.

Doesn't mean I'm going to applaud this decision or not be bothered by the willful blindness in regard to her past remarks. And those things should be brought up. She should explain herself as any other candidate for the SC would have to. Won't happen.

It doesn't take much energy to ask a few pointed questions. Simply rolling over is spineless, gutless.

re: #136 ASU86PE

Or paying too much? It appears Catholics swing both ways.

What are you talking about? Do you even know? Check #134.

re: #87 mrclark

Well there is something to calling a spade, a spade. Call it the responsibility of a free people. Not to do so and to pretend to 'play nice' is merely being politically correct and that does no good for anyone. Its always a good idea to let your opposition know that you know they're trying to pull a fast one, but that (as someone else already said) this isn't the hill to die on.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but making up stuff to smear Sotomayor with is not a good idea. Negative politics are not working any more the way they once did.
Until the GOP catches on to that, they're going to remain the minority party and become further marginalized.

re: #145 ArrowSmith

It doesn't take much energy to ask a few pointed questions. Simply rolling over is spineless, gutless.

AS ... are you talking about Hillary? ... yeah, I know ... total bend over ...

I wonder if Sotomayor paid her taxes or if she has an illegal immigrant housekeeper? For some reason, that would be worse than her "white male" comment. Strange.

re: #147 iceweasel

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but making up stuff to smear Sotomayor with is not a good idea. Negative politics are not working any more the way they once did.
Until the GOP catches on to that, they're going to remain the minority party and become further marginalized.

Amazing though how well smear politics works for the Democrats...

re: #122 formercorpsman IN THE US SENATE? are you kidding...

re: #123 ASU86PE

6 out of 9 will be Catholics. HUM...creationists. Sorry ol'boy, time to fish in another pond.

The Catholic church officially recognizes evolution. Also officially repudiates the Intelligent Design movement.

re: #144 ASU86PE

Sounds like someone's got their head stuck up their caboose.

re: #151 gtrs

I thought I said hope.

We'll see.

re: #144 ASU86PE

There are many more statements from the Catholic Church endorsing evolution by natural selection. I suggest you try to keep up.

Fire Safety - Fail!

re: #144 ASU86PE

And oppose birth control also. Yada..Yada..Yada.

Don't mock Charles like that. He'll ban you if you insult him, don't think he won't. It's his blog: You are a guest, and are expected to act like one.

re: #153 Fenway_Nation

Sounds like someone's got their head stuck up their caboose.

You mean like a FRED -- Flashing Rear End Device?

//

re: #113 Thanos

If you don't see the problem in the fact that the other side has a bigger bullhorn than we do and are currently more popular than we are in how that would end, I can't help you friend.

She is going to get the approval of the Senate either way. But, asking her some hard questions will harm the Republican how? I think rolling over and rubber stamping her without as much as a whimper would be worse for the Republicans. She is up for a seat in the highest court in the land, what is the problem with asking her some questions about her legal opinions in the past and possible decisions in the future? Last time I read the Constitution, the Senate had the task of giving advise and consent for nominations to the SCOTUS.

So, in the interest of not ruffling any Hispanic feathers, the Republicans in the Senate should ask her what her favorite color is? If she prefers the Jets or the Giants? And then say "SURE, why not! SHE's in!"?

Alright folks, the boy is asleep (finally) and I have to get that way too..
Good night all

re: #152 kynna

The Catholic church officially recognizes evolution. Also officially repudiates the Intelligent Design movement.

Yeah, but no true pope would recognize evolution. That guy doesn't know anything about Catholic religious doctrine.

/s

Goodnight.

re: #153 Fenway_Nation

Enjoyed watching the Bo-Sox loss to the Mariners twice. Let's do it again.

re: #134 Charles

Maybe you missed the memo, but Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church are not creationists.

That puts most Republican politicians just 138 years behind the Catholic Church. Great.

re: #160 srb1976

Alright folks, the boy is asleep (finally) and I have to get that way too..
Good night all

re: #162 formercorpsman

Goodnight.

Sleep well you two.

re: #159 Desert Dog

She is going to get the approval of the Senate either way. But, asking her some hard questions will harm the Republican how? I think rolling over and rubber stamping her without as much as a whimper would be worse for the Republicans. She is up for a seat in the highest court in the land, what is the problem with asking her some questions about her legal opinions in the past and possible decisions in the future? Last time I read the Constitution, the Senate had the task of giving advise and consent for nominations to the SCOTUS.

So, in the interest of not ruffling any Hispanic feathers, the Republicans in the Senate should ask her what her favorite color is? If she prefers the Jets or the Giants? And then say "SURE, why not! SHE's in!"?

What has pandering to the Hispanic vote gotten for the GOP? Nothing.

re: #156 Racer X

Fire Safety - Fail!

ROFLMAO!

*okay, only a firefighter or former firefighter would find it that funny*

Galactic center of the Milky Way rises over Texas

Cool!

re: #166 ArrowSmith

What has pandering to the Hispanic vote gotten for the GOP? Nothing.

Yeah! Let's dump the Hispanics too! Good riddance! RINOs!

Woah, time for me to get sleeps.

Because the Night

re: #139 solomonpanting

One of the things that most turned me off to the Dems was their despicable treatment of Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings.

How about their continued despicable treatment of Justice Thomas? Harry dumbass Reid actually had the nerve to question Thomas's intelligence. Free pass all the way.

And regarding Alito's wife crying -- I believe it was a Republican senator who apologized on behalf of his fellow senators for the treatment of her husband and the media tried to make him out to be the bad guy. Sure, what he said prompted the tears, but they were about what the dems had done. Nobody remembers that but Republicans anyway.

re: #164 HelloDare

That puts most Republican politicians just 138 years behind the Catholic Church. Great.

Yep, that about says it, doesn't it?

re: #169 Charles

Yeah! Let's dump the Hispanics too! Good riddance! RINOs!

There is a difference between just presenting your ideology on the issues and pandering to an ethnic group.

re: #147 iceweasel

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but making up stuff to smear Sotomayor with is not a good idea. Negative politics are not working any more the way they once did.
Until the GOP catches on to that, they're going to remain the minority party and become further marginalized.

forgive my ignorance on the totality of Sotomayor's record, but was there something about her record that was 'made up'?

I'm privy to two comments (1) the one about a wise Latina and (2) the one about judges making policy from the bench. Were there more that were out right lies? TIA.
Tough questioning of any candidate is a necessity for advancing to the Supreme Court. American citizens deserve no less...even for an Obama nominee.

re: #168 Racer X

Galactic center of the Milky Way rises over Texas

Cool!

WAAY COOOL!

re: #155 Charles he must be from the tancredo wing...

re: #163 ASU86PE

Enjoyed shopping for all that Red Sox World Series championship memorbilia! How's your Mariners World Series collection coming along?

Oh...wait...this is awkward.

But hey...how about those 'Sonics?

Oh...shoot...

Train wreck a coming.

re: #159 Desert Dog

You always want to shove words in my mouth. I said "grill" you can ask very hard questions without "grilling". I do that all day long.

re: #178 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Train wreck a coming.

I shouldn't watch. Yet I can't look away.

re: #178 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Train wreck a coming.

I hope it's soon. I'm getting really tired. Gotta go to sleep soon.

re: #176 gtrs

Nope, just not a Catholic.

re: #87 mrclark

Well there is something to calling a spade, a spade. Call it the responsibility of a free people. Not to do so and to pretend to 'play nice' is merely being politically correct and that does no good for anyone. Its always a good idea to let your opposition know that you know they're trying to pull a fast one, but that (as someone else already said) this isn't the hill to die on.

What "fast one" are "they" trying to pull?

re: #173 ArrowSmith

There is a difference between just presenting your ideology on the issues and pandering to an ethnic group.

True. We need to question her closely but keep from being nasty. We need to get her views out in the open. Our questions should be fair; Designed to get information, not score gotyas. If we play smart, this confirmation won't hurt us and it might help us a little.

re: #172 Charles

Yep, that about says it, doesn't it?

By the way, does the Republican party have a position on heliocentrism?

scary suggestion time. How about if the GOP Senators do their job for once and ask pertinent questions about Judge Sotomayor's decisions as a judge, how she came to those rulings, and where in American Jurisprudence she found the legal basis for those rulings? How will such questions if asked firmly but respectfully be harmful to the GOP? Maybe it is time to cut loose the political consultants and just do the job of "advice and consent."

Death Star destroys the Starship Enterprise.

LOL!

I like the fistbump at the end.

re: #179 Thanos

You always want to shove words in my mouth. I said "grill" you can ask very hard questions without "grilling". I do that all day long.

Perhaps it's semantics, Thanos. And, I do not recall putting any words in your mouth. I am not for making a scene for the sake of making a scene like the Democrats have done in the past. I am saying they should ask her some hard questions. What is wrong with that?

re: #168 Racer X

Galactic center of the Milky Way rises over Texas

Cool!

That was very cool. Thanks for posting it!

re: #184 Dark_Falcon

True. We need to question her closely but keep from being nasty. We need to get her views out in the open. Our questions should be fair; Designed to get information, not score gotyas. If we play smart, this confirmation won't hurt us and it might help us a little.

Here's a simple intellectual exercise. Would the Democrats show any restraint over a white man's "wise Latina" type comment and ask for context?

re: #177 Fenway_Nation

I surrender. I did enjoy "Fever Pitch" for the timing and humor. What a moment that must have been. And then to have a movie to replay it to, not bad.

If I may be so bold as to quote Slim Pickens in "Blazing Saddles":

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is a-goin' on here?"

Charles, the only unreservedly good news you've posted today was the sentencing of that HLF goon. For everything else, I'm feeling a bit like General Cornwallis must have felt at Yorktown. The redcoat band played "The World Turned Upside Down." I think we need to find out if iTunes has that song.

On a related note, I found this little gem on The Atlantic's website, of all places (emphasis mine):

[O]ne should expect the GM bankruptcy proceedings to go exactly like the Chrysler proceedings: very well for the unions and very badly for bondholders. Hedge fund manager George Schultze was on CNBC earlier arguing that bond investors are going to be very wary about funding unionized firms, given GM will likely shake out just like Chrysler did. That led me to this gem from Bloomberg last week. In it, Schultze is quoted about lessons learned by bondholders though the automaker bankruptcies:

The obvious one is: Don't lend to a company with big legacy liabilities or demand a much higher rate of interest because you may be leapfrogged in a bankruptcy.

The comment I left there is this:

It's fairly obvious that President Obama and his people are not fans of Ayn Rand. She described this very situation 52 years ago.

In the place of General Motors and Chrysler, substitute Reardan Steel and Taggart Transcontinental.

Who is John Galt?

Bets that they won't get the reference?

re: #181 Last Mohican

I hope it's soon. I'm getting really tired. Gotta go to sleep soon.

The suspense is terrible... I hope it'll last.

re: #177 Fenway_Nation you forgot the seahawks...

re: #186 Rexatosis

wow... in the day of TOTUS? What are you smokin'...?

re: #187 Racer X

Death Star destroys the Starship Enterprise.

LOL!

I like the fistbump at the end.

LOL!

USS Vandenberg being sun for artificial reef.

re: #190 ArrowSmith

Here's a simple intellectual exercise. Would the Democrats show any restraint over a white man's "wise Latina" type comment and ask for context?

No, but they have different, much looser rules. We try playing like they do, the MSM will tear us to ribbons. I don't like that but those are the rules of the game. We always play with a handicap.

re: #194 gtrs

you forgot the seahawks...

and the Seattle Pilots aka Milwaukee Brewers too

re: #184 Dark_Falcon

True. We need to question her closely but keep from being nasty. We need to get her views out in the open. Our questions should be fair; Designed to get information, not score gotyas. If we play smart, this confirmation won't hurt us and it might help us a little.

We could certainly do that.

On the other hand, f*ck it. Let's call her "Sonia Suckamayor," right to her face, and claim that one time, in a term paper at Princeton, she said that the entire state of Delaware was unconstitutional. That bitch.

re: #166 ArrowSmith

What has pandering to the Hispanic vote gotten for the GOP? Nothing.

Let's make a list -- hypothetically speaking:

Atheists
Agnostics
Asians
Blacks
Darwinists
Evolutionists
Gays
Hispanics
Moderates
Muslims
Secular Humanists
RINOS
Women

//Who's left?

re: #201 Gus 802

Let's make a list -- hypothetically speaking:

Atheists
Agnostics
Asians
Blacks
Darwinists
Evolutionists
Gays
Hispanics
Moderates
Muslims
Secular Humanists
RINOS
Women

//Who's left?

Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin!

re: #201 Gus 802

Let's make a list -- hypothetically speaking:

Atheists
Agnostics
Asians
Blacks
Darwinists
Evolutionists
Gays
Hispanics
Moderates
Muslims
Secular Humanists
RINOS
Women

//Who's left?

Ron Paul?

re: #201 Gus 802

But dude, it's the mark of a weak, RINO-ish party that it wants votes. We don't need no stinking votes!

/s

re: #84 iceweasel

It gains because then the GOP doesn't look like a bunch of desperate, obstructionist, negative freaks who make up stuff.

On the other hand, I'm a liberal, so if that's what you want the GOP to be, go for it.

Seriously, they should do their jobs and have a normal confirmation hearing, verify that she's qualified (which she is) and hold their fire for when Obama wants to appoint a liberal in place of one of the conservative justices or when he wants to appoint someone who isn't qualified.

Agree. The GOP has been squealing about Democratic opposition to nominations for years, claiming they should stick to the qualifications and leave everything else out of it. Time for the GOP to practice what they preach, and rise above partisan nattering and grandstanding along the way.

re: #204 Last Mohican

But dude, it's the mark of a weak, RINO-ish party that it wants votes. We don't need no stinking votes!

/s

A winning strategy!

//

re: #201 Gus 802

Let's make a list -- hypothetically speaking:

Atheists
Agnostics
Asians
Blacks
Darwinists
Evolutionists
Gays
Hispanics
Moderates
Muslims
Secular Humanists
RINOS
Women

//Who's left?

I'm not a Christian, so you're digging under the wrong rock. Do you support ethnic pandering/identity politics?

re: #206 Gus 802

A winning strategy!

//

What's the point of winning elections if you've thrown away any principals?

re: #183 ShanghaiEd

What "fast one" are "they" trying to pull?

excuse me...

'fast one' seems like they're doing something underhanded in nominating her. Actually, they're not hiding anything about her...they're actually 'rejoicing' in the idea that they can promote someone to the Supreme Court on her exceptional ability to divine 'truth and justice' because she's a double minority.

That's actually very forthcoming. Now if only Americans will realize that is not what Supreme court justices should be using to decide Constitutionality of lower court rulings.

Let's just say, the loyal opposition has every right to bring to light the ideas and beliefs of America's Supreme Court nominees... At least they have just as much right to do so as Democrats had in probing previous Boosh nominees.

Agreed?

.

Re: 195 WindHorse

Just drinkin' a couple of Hook and Ladders...

so never mind about sleeping, not gonna work out just yet!

re: #201 Gus 802

Brilliant Gus, brilliant. You left somebody out. I haven't figured out who yet, but I'm sure... I'll get back to you.

Oh.. uh... nevermind.

On the previous thread Mr. Beumont just performed Bloodnok's "The Wielding Of The Stick" upon 'westtexasjew'. The Paulian troll is no more (and good riddance).

re: #201 Gus 802

Let's make a list -- hypothetically speaking:

Atheists
Agnostics
Asians
Blacks
Darwinists
Evolutionists
Gays
Hispanics
Moderates
Muslims
Secular Humanists
RINOS
Women

//Who's left?

People who don't hate Colin Powell.

I mean principles.

re: #208 ArrowSmith

What's the point of winning elections if you've thrown away any principals?

Hey Gus. New one for you.

Educators

re: #208 ArrowSmith

Like I've said... uhhh... many times before... uhhh...

Hang on... Hang on...

What?

-uhhh...

re: #207 ArrowSmith

I'm not a Christian, so you're digging under the wrong rock. Do you support ethnic pandering/identity politics?

My point had nothing to do with whether or not your were Christian. Does pandering and identity politics work? Not really. But casting groups of people because of a fear of those two aspects will only lead to ruin and further alienation.

re: #173 ArrowSmith like to old white men with guns who don't like immigrants?...

re: #216 Bloodnok

Hey Gus. New one for you.

Educators

Yeah, could be a long list.

re: #150 ArrowSmith

Amazing though how well smear politics works for the Democrats...

Yeah, that whole negative campaign Obama ran is why he won.

Despair! Status Quo! No we can't! = who wouldn't win with slogans like that?

I really think you're just yanking everyone's chain here, but if you genuinely can't see that the political climate has changed and that a large measure of Obama's success was due to eschewing negative campaigning...well, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

re: #218 Gus 802

My point had nothing to do with whether or not your were Christian. Does pandering and identity politics work? Not really. But casting groups of people because of a fear of those two aspects will only lead to ruin and further alienation.

So you are saying the GOP should engage in identity politics because not doing so "risks further alienation".

re: #221 iceweasel

Yeah, that whole negative campaign Obama ran is why he won.

Despair! Status Quo! No we can't! = who wouldn't win with slogans like that?

I really think you're just yanking everyone's chain here, but if you genuinely can't see that the political climate has changed and that a large measure of Obama's success was due to eschewing negative campaigning...well, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Oh Obama simply laid back and let his operatives do all the smearing. Brilliant.

re: #222 ArrowSmith

So you are saying the GOP should engage in identity politics because not doing so "risks further alienation".

No, to engage, period. And expand on the engagement.

re: #208 ArrowSmith

What's the point of winning elections if you've thrown away any principals?

If the GOP hadn't thrown away most of its principles over the past 10 years or so, it wouldn't be so overwhelmingly out of power now. To claim it's failing because it's holding too tightly to principle is a fantasy.

re: #224 Gus 802

No, to engage, period. And expand on the engagement.

Define how the GOP should "engage" ethnic groups.

Good night.

Bloodnok

Good night all

re: #201 Gus 802

Zen Buddhists?

/Zen - the dark side of Lesbianism.

re: #207 ArrowSmith

I'm not a Christian, so you're digging under the wrong rock. Do you support ethnic pandering/identity politics?

We're all very big on ethnic pandering around here. Actually last year LGF won a webbie for "best ethnopan blog."

re: #223 ArrowSmith

Oh Obama simply laid back and let his operatives do all the smearing. Brilliant.

Yes, it was. We need to concentrate our fire on Obama's helpers for now. We can't make too much practice against BHO himself right now, but if we can take out some of his support we can even the odds. I say we aim our fire at ACORN itself, instead of Obama's association with it.

The GOP lost sight of it's principles over the last ten years. OK, I guess.

Instead of trying to get them back, they're going on a purity purge of those who don't hold those principles instead of promoting those principles for all.

Swine Flu - causing panic since 1976.

re: #232 BigPapa

The GOP lost sight of it's principles over the last ten years. OK, I guess.

Instead of trying to get them back, they're going on a purity purge of those who don't hold those principles instead of promoting those principles for all.

It could start by not engaging in pandering politics. I really, really despise that.

re: #226 ArrowSmith

Define how the GOP should "engage" ethnic groups.

I can't give you an answer now; that's a tall order. It's more than just ethnic groups of course. Simple dialogue is usually the best route. Not alienating groups helps. Expanding the voter base and attracting new candidates.

I maintain the principles of a smaller Federal government. A strong defense. Fiscal conservatism. Liberty for all. Etc. No identity politics.

re: #229 freetoken

Zen Buddhists?

/Zen - the dark side of Lesbianism.

I thought that was Girl Scoutism?

//

re: #174 mrclark

forgive my ignorance on the totality of Sotomayor's record, but was there something about her record that was 'made up'?

I'm privy to two comments (1) the one about a wise Latina and (2) the one about judges making policy from the bench. Were there more that were out right lies? TIA.
Tough questioning of any candidate is a necessity for advancing to the Supreme Court. American citizens deserve no less...even for an Obama nominee.

My point is that her record so far hasn't yet been the center of the attacks and it should be. As you say, that's the subject. That's what confirmation hearings are for.
So far these madeup controversies (she's a racist! she hates the constitution! ZOMG she pronounces her name funny!---that last one is up at the Corner, btw) have all been the center of the debate, and shouldn't be.

And what did any of you expect? Really...?

Did you expect crazy ass senator positions on the republican side going bat shit crazy? Does that usually happen during confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court on the Republican side?

No it doesn't.

Libs go bat shit crazy when a Republican President nominates a supreme court justice...

Not the other way around.

re: #234 ArrowSmith

It could start by not engaging in pandering politics. I really, really despise that.

Ok now give your definition of "pandering". If everything a party does to broaden appeal is "pandering", then you probably need to pander a little. = )

re: #236 Gus 802

Is there a difference these days?

/

re: #233 Racer X

Swine Flu - causing panic since 1976.

I'm hog wild about it

re: #226 ArrowSmith

Define how the GOP should "engage" ethnic groups.

Five words: "Make your own sushi" party.

re: #240 freetoken

Is there a difference these days?

/

No according to World Nut Daily. ;-)

re: #243 Gus 802

Not according to World Nut Daily. ;-)

PIMF

re: #233 Racer X

Swine Flu - causing panic since 1976.

Obviously, the shots worked. There have been very few deaths in 33 years.
//

re: #239 srb1976

Ok now give your definition of "pandering". If everything a party does to broaden appeal is "pandering", then you probably need to pander a little. = )

That's so accurate in its irony. (Or is that sarcasm.) Could you imagine? A political party that doesn't pander. That would in fact be a first.

re: #234 ArrowSmith

No shit. Pandering politics are hollow. The Left is better at it than the Right.

It's bad enough to see it done: it makes me cringe to see the GOP do it because they're horrible at it.

re: #239 srb1976

Ok now give your definition of "pandering". If everything a party does to broaden appeal is "pandering", then you probably need to pander a little. = )

Be for smaller government. Strong on national defense. That's all I need.

Time for me to head to bed. Good night all.

re: #248 ArrowSmith

Be for smaller government. Strong on national defense. That's all I need.

Fiscally conservative.

re: #249 Dark_Falcon

Time for me to head to bed. Good night all.

Later DF.

Sotomayor was in fact summa cum laude at Princeton, and was of course the product not of the NYC public schools, but rather of a Catholic school education. It seems that she's very bright, and a nice enough person that Republicans have not had any problems appointing her to things before now.

So ask the hard questions, from a strictly professional point of view - pretend you're looking at a new Roberts - and start her thinking, especially if she hasn't been inclined to think too deeply about why her instinctive politics/policies might not be well founded. Of course she'll have some pat answers ready, but a smart questioner can get her into uncharted waters with a little luck. It will be a growth experience for her too.

Having to debate Roberts and Alito, even Justice Thomas, is not something the average minority liberal has to do very often. She may actually learn from the experience, unlike the minority liberals who go into politics as opposed to law.

Discrimination Case Could Pose Problems for Sotomayor

I doubt it.

re: #242 Last Mohican