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.