Conditioned Response Over Sotomayor

When the bell rings, some people just can’t stop themselves from salivating, despite the warning that Joe Klein mentions below. And that is why Democratic pollsters and strategists are smiling this afternoon.

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor has caused two general reactions among Republicans: Elected officials, who know all about the demographic Hispanic boomlet that imperils their party, have been extremely cautious. They are, in the words of Jay Newton-Small, walking softly and carrying a big magnifying glass. Ideological activists, on the other hand, have begun slobbering all over the airwaves with all sorts of identity-politics based attacks–every one of which are likely to harm their electoral hopes.

Rush Limbaugh promptly called Sotomayor “a reverse racist,” and “an affirmative action case extraordinaire,” who has “put down white men in favor of Latina women.”  The Committee for Justice issued a statement today claiming that the “only plausible explanation for Sotomayor’s selection is that the President was boxed in by demands from Hispanic and women’s groups that he pick one of their own.” The Judicial Confirmation Network offers this web-based ad, which is extraordinary for the narrowness of its attack: Sotomayor’s statements about the merits racial and gender diversity.

The complexities of affirmative action are certainly something to debate. (I would recommend Hunger of Memory by Richard Rodriguez to anyone who sees the issue as a simple one.) And there is no prohibition on reopening the wars over multiculturalism and discrimination that dominated the 1960s, 70s and 80s. But there is no credible political strategist you can find who works nationally with either party who will argue that doing this, with this nominee, will help the Republican Party in coming elections.

The reason is numbers: 24 percent of voters in the last election were black, Hispanic or Asian, up from 15 percent in 1988. In the same period, the percentage of voters identifying as Hispanic doubled from 3.6 percent to 7.4 percent. What’s more, these voters are have been trending Democratic in big ways; whereas George W. Bush got about 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, John McCain only got 31 percent.  As Andres Ramirez of NDN points out, four of the eight states that flipped from Bush to Obama had large Hispanic populations. “The rapid growth of the Hispanic-American population for instance could soon cost Republicans the entire southwest if we don’t recover our previous share of the vote,” Steve Schmidt, the former top strategist for John McCain recently announced. And Obama’s advisors see the same thing. It is no accident that Obama has already made two visits to Arizona, a heavily Hispanic state that John McCain barely held onto in 2008, largely because it is his home state.

Needless to say, the crude format of the identity-politics arguments I mention above–take a look at the red-state view of pastoral “America” at the end of the JCN ad–do not exactly appeal to this emerging, ethnic powerbase. Elected Republicans know all of this. So do elected Democrats. And that’s why the Democrats are so giddy. They rang the bell. And the salivating began.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Soooo are you saying that Democrats control the sexism and racism inherent in some of the GOP’s leading voices? Nobody MADE these ass holes jump the shark whether it was predictable or not. And I think you absolve them of their bigotry by making it seem like they just couldn’t help themselves. But then again maybe you are really just calling them dogs, then I would probably agree with you.

  • darius3

    Soooo are you saying that Democrats control the sexism and racism inherent in some of the GOP’s leading voices? Nobody MADE these ass holes jump the shark whether it was predictable or not.
    .
    I don’t think Scherer’s saying the Dems forced Repubs to act like a bunch of bigoted jerks; rather, they merely provided the rope for the Repubs to hang themselves.
    .
    Speaking of which, Newt Gingrich comments, “Latina woman racist”.

  • textee

    Why would the Republicans object to a lawless, political activist and militantly race-obsessed race baiter who chose to post a quote from Nornam Thomas, the six-time (six-time!) presidential nominee of the Socialist Party of America, in her 1976 Princeton yearbook and who said: “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”?

    http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/05/sotomayors-socialist-yearbook.html

  • darius3

    Why would the Republicans object to a lawless, political activist and militantly race-obsessed race baiter who chose to post a quote from Nornam Thomas, the six-time (six-time!) presidential nominee of the Socialist Party of America, in her 1976 Princeton yearbook
    .
    This is hilarious. You’re attacking her based on her yearbook quote? Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?

  • kryptik1

    Via ThinkProgress, we get this little gem from the National Review.
    -
    Writing from the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian basically takes people to task for pronouncing Sotomayor’s name correctly, because the pronunciation is “unnatural” in English, and thusly compares it to “adapting to a newcomer” rather than forcing a “newcomer” to adapt to us. It’s not even really subtle enough to be called dog whistle politics.
    -
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzkwYzY3ZTc4NTkwZjRiMjM3OGVlMzlmNTZjYmY2ZDI=

  • Cliff

    Elected Republicans know all of this. So do elected Democrats. And that’s why the Democrats are so giddy. They rang the bell. And the salivating began.
    .
    Good call.

  • spob

    The question, Mr. Scherer, is whether we want to have a judge who talks in terms of ethnicity making a better judge. You minimize the problematic nature of linking race to the quality of judges. Wasn’t Pickering attacked on similar, narrow grounds? And Mr. Scherer, if you were in a dispute with some member of a politically correct group, would you want Ms. Sotomayor judging your case? Or what about your kids?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    At risk of engaging in some overgeneralizing myself, I think a lot of what we’re seeing is simply the result of the difference in attitudes between urban and rural dwellers. A large but shrinking proportion of the population still live in areas that are still quite homogenous in their racial make-up. People who have few aquaintances who don’t share their background are not likely to see the downside in alienating people who differ.

  • bbpdx

    When I hear this “identity politics” attack from the Right, I ask myself: “what would satisfy them?” Only if every nominee, appointee and cabinet member were a white man? Does anything less mean that “identity politics” are being played?
    .
    Is it ever possible in the eyes of the right that a woman or minority might be best person for the job? Does that EVER happen in their opinion? Or is it always “affirmative action”?
    .
    Needless to say, I don’t remember a lot of moaning from the right wing over “identity politics” when Condi Rice became Secretary of State.

  • Ivy_B

    Well, as a white female of a certain age, I would far rather have her judging questions than most of the white males and the one African-American currently on the bench.
    .
    And, as some here choose to ignore, the phrase about a Latina female was about 6 seconds of a 40 minute speech. Really dumb to blow that up.

  • billiecat

    Oh, textee, girlfriend, I think you should read to the end of that story you linked to:
    .
    perhaps the White House planted it there knowing that it’d send the wingnuts into a hysterical frenzy, thereby distracting the sane wing of the party, what little there is left of it anyway, from forming any sort of cogent opposition to Sotomayor, making them all look like rabid fools in the process, just as they have each and every time they’ve tried to throw the socialist card on Obama in the past?
    .
    Satire is dead.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    In the background behind all the debates of political correctness is an undercurrent that is significantly uglier than anything that makes it’s way into comment threads like this.
    .
    For example:
    .
    http://dequalss.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/obamas-air-force-1-tail-number3.jpg
    .
    We can pretend we’re all being high-minded but Rush’s actual audience doesn’t even put up the effort.

  • Ivy_B

    I had the tv on for a few minutes trying to deal with a cable problem and saw Pat Buchanan and Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC. Buchanan insisted that this was obviously an affirmative action appointment and therefore really bad because Obama only chose among four women. O’Donnell asked if he thought that only white males were appropriate and got a bit of bluster. Obviously that’s what he does think.

  • pierogielunaire

    But Michael, it’s not about political strategy. Movement conservatives are standing on principle! In Rushbo’s case it is the principle that he can sell lots of advertisement if he makes nonsensical arguments to his niche audience.

  • textee

    darius3 Says:
    Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 4:30 pm
    “Why would the Republicans object to a lawless, political activist and militantly race-obsessed race baiter who chose to post a quote from Nornam Thomas, the six-time (six-time!) presidential nominee of the Socialist Party of America, in her 1976 Princeton yearbook”

    .

    “This is hilarious. You’re attacking her based on her yearbook quote?”

    -

    It must be safe now for students to post, adoringly, quotes from Hitler, William Ayers, Osama bin Laden, Jeremiah Wright, Ted Kennedy ….

  • stuartzechman

    spob:
    .
    The question, Mr. Scherer, is whether we want to have a judge who talks in terms of ethnicity making a better judge.
    .
    What did you think of Sam Alito’s statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee?

    U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito’s Nomination to the Supreme Court
    .
    U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life?
    .
    ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.
    .
    ALITO: I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
    .
    And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
    .
    But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
    .
    And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
    .
    And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
    .
    But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”

    Can you really –honestly– say that Sam Alito’s point is substantially different than Sonia Sotomayor’s?
    .
    Aren’t there serious grounds on which to disagree with Sotomayor’s nomination, spob? Or are you truly contending that Alito’s sensibilities are different than Sotomayors?

  • gysgt213

    Michael-Don’t want to burst anyone one’s bubble who wants to think this thing is a lock and there is no way to screw it up. But this is the democratic party we are talking about here. No one should misunderestimate that particular party’s lovable ability to screw up a perfectly good wet dream.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Can you really –honestly
    .
    No.
    .
    This has been another edition……

  • Cliff

    And Mr. Scherer, if you were in a dispute with some member of a politically correct group, would you want Ms. Sotomayor judging your case? Or what about your kids?
    .
    Well, at least you’re not calling her stupid yet.

  • gysgt213

    By the way I know the Judge has to have eaten some type of food the GOP doesn’t approve of. Can’t wait for that scandal to break.

  • spob

    yes, SZ, I can. Alito’s position states the obvious proposition that you cannot be oblivious to the results of your decisions. Judging cannot be done in a vacuum. But it’s a leap to say that a wise Latina judge is going to be better than a white male. And Alito, of course, stated that the law was going to be followed.
    .
    Cliff, Sotomayor is not stupid. She’s no Scalia in the brains department, but she’s not stupid. Probably brighter than Souter and Kennedy.

  • spob

    And SZ, what about her comments about “group needs and values”. Good god . . . .

  • trifecta55

    The White southern racist party is in a demographic nightmare. I truly pity them. Dare I say, I even feel their pain.

  • Cliff

    Out of curiosity, what’s your measuring stick for SCOTUS intelligence?

  • jcapan

    “They rang the bell. And the salivating began.”
    ~

  • darius3

    It must be safe now for students to post, adoringly, quotes from Hitler, William Ayers, Osama bin Laden, Jeremiah Wright, Ted Kennedy ….
    .
    Wow. Two posts in, and you’re already resorting to Hitler and Osama bin Laden comparisons. That’s just sad.

  • gysgt213

    We now hate people who can spell. This better.
    .
    ROVE: When I was talking to people about the 2nd court of appeals — for example, look, as you know, justices circulate opinions and — to their colleagues to get their feedback and to act as, you know, sort of a prompt for discussions when they meet in chambers. Well — in conference, excuse me.
    .
    What she would do is she would mark them up like she was your English school teacher and — with your typos and misspellings and other words that she wanted to have changed and send it back to her colleagues. Not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself with your colleagues. Rather than say, “Oh, I thought you had an interesting legal argument here and I’d like to talk to you more about this here,” she was acting like sort of a schoolmarm.
    .
    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/27/rove-sotomayor-grammar/

  • gysgt213

    Everyone calm down Pat’s on the job and will make sure the white man finally has a chance to speak.
    .

  • jcapan

    OT, for those not living exclusively for Sotomayor (or pistolwhipping spob):
    ~
    Felix Salmon discussing a Brad DeLong post:
    ~
    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/22/why-academics-make-better-bloggers-than-journalists/
    ~
    DeLong: “Journalists act differently. They try to make their readers as ignorant as they can about where the information is coming from. In my view, this is both unethical and ineffective: it tends to lead to great suspicion of American journalists, and a discounting of what they write.”

  • Ivy_B

    OT, but since it’s all Sotomayor all the time around here, hard to find a spot.
    .
    PA news – from TPM, Sestak will run against Specter.
    .
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/exclusive-sestak-intends-to-run-for-senate.php?ref=fpa
    .
    More PA news, State Senator Daylin Leach has introduced a bill for gay marriage in PA.
    .
    http://tinyurl.com/qj3dda

  • rustyreturns

    I will say one thing; Sotomayor certainly knows how to create a “buzz” among the far left liberals and their accusations that the conservatives are going to bust a gut trying to stop her nomination from going through.
    .
    Hate to break it to you all, but this is not the fight the Conservatives are going to fight. Sure, there will be token statements from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Buchannan, but it is only fluff.
    .
    Conservatives should and must recognize that this nomination is purely a trade-off for Souter (name spelled right this time). I truly believe she will end up more conservative on most issues than Souter happens to be.
    .
    Sotomayor will alienate more Hispanics than she will others. The reasons are her complacent belief in Catholic ideals, coupled with her high degree of arrogance that is very difficult to miss. Once she is forced to come down on the side of abortion, she loses all respect of the majority of Hispanics. I say let her go ahead and move her Mont Blanc pen into her new Supreme Court desk.
    .
    Thanks for the update Ivy_B. I shall be writing my State Senator to vote “no” on the gay marriage bill in PA.

  • pafro

    Last time I checked, James Imhofe was an elected official. His racist threat that Sotomayor better not show that she is a woman, minority, or Democratic nominee; because only white conservative males are bias-free is right up there on the saying-stupid-things scale.

  • sacredh

    In a perfect world another aging liberal justice will step down next summer and Obama could nominate another woman (maybe Hispanic) to the Supreme Court. Another C & E christian would be nice. Obama being pro-choice certainly turned off most Hispanics. He only recieved 2/3′s of the Hispanic vote in 2008. He has undoubtedly killed any chance the democrats have with that demographic by nominating the 1st Hispanic to the SC. The man is clueless when it comes to politics.

  • 53_3

    “But it’s a leap to say that a wise Latina judge is going to be better than a white male.”
    .
    Ok. Maybe then, what the Republicans need to do is to move to a 63 state strategy.
    .
    That way, they can overcome the the loss of influence in those 8 states that MS points out.
    .
    After all, something oughtta work for you guys. With consumer confidence up, torture out, diversity in style, health care reform in the wind, and Sotomayor headed for the bench, just what issue will be left that the GOP isn’t on the wrong side of?

  • bobcn1

    ‘Writing from the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian basically takes people to task for pronouncing Sotomayor’s name correctly, because the pronunciation is “unnatural” in English, and thusly compares it to “adapting to a newcomer” rather than forcing a “newcomer” to adapt to us. It’s not even really subtle enough to be called dog whistle politics.’
    .
    One of the other blogs (I forget which one) pointed out that if Mr. Krikorian thinks people’s names should not be pronounced correctly, then that makes him Mr. CrackWhore’n. I wonder what House Minority Leader John Boehner thinks of Mr. CrackWhore’n's pronunciation theory.

  • spob

    Well, what about criminal-coddling liberal judge? The shoe fits. Sotomayor thinks that states don’t have the right to disenfranchise prison inmates. I had forgotten about that one. Now I can officially say she’s a left-wing lunatic.

  • spob

    53_3, funny how it now becomes “Nyah nyah, we won.” But the reality is that judges who make comments linking the quality of judging to race are problematic, and if you cheerlead that, then you cannot complain if a white judge acts in the same way.
    .
    And I am sure everyone thinks that felons ought to vote, just like your princess, Sotomayor. What a liberal hack.

  • sacredh

    MS: Obama flipped 9 states, not 8. Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and Virginia.

  • kbanginmotown

    Touché, Krikorian! Do not delay to inform your readership platoon of this dispute as it will prevent the cartel to pronounce words in which the stress is beyond the first report, so that a new debut will replace the doyen from Vermont.
    .
    Douch-BAG.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.”
    .
    Yeah, that pesky reading the plain language of the law instead of targeting desired result screws things up yet again.

  • spob

    PD, you really are stupid aren’t you? Felon disenfranchisement laws don’t deny anyone the right to vote on account of race, but on account of criminal activity. Thus, it’s very difficult to make a plain language argument in the first place.
    .
    She’s a liberal criminal-coddling hack. And by the way PD, there would be serious doubt about the federal power to require states to allow felons to vote.
    .
    You clown yourself. And so did this stupid hack judge. I guess she shows her “empathy” for criminals. What is it about Democrats and criminals?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I didn’t say hers was necessarily the correct result. But Sotomayor thinks that states don’t have the right to disenfranchise prison inmates is nothing but a deliberate lie on your part. Her opinion simply noted that the text of the VRA and that of the New York state law were in conflict. That speaks nothing about the ‘rights’ of states in general and you know it.
    .
    You just love to lie.

  • spob

    No, it’s not a “deliberate lie” (nice redundancy, you idiot). If a state action conflicts with a federal law (assuming said federal law is constitutional), it doesn’t have the right to take that action. A lot of people who post in here seem to have gotten dropped on their heads as babies.
    .
    Additionally, dummy, like I said, which you don’t deny, it’s difficult to make a plain language argument, since no one is being denied the right to vote on account of their race.
    .
    Come on guys, defend this hack judge’s conclusion that states cannot disenfranchise prison inmates. Come on.
    .
    So on the Sotomayor threads, I continue to pile up wins.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Here’s the VRA:
    http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=100&page=transcript
    .
    Here are the relevant opinions.
    .
    http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/muntaqim/Hayden_v_Pataki_2d_Circuit_Opinion_May_4_2006.pdf
    .
    Here’s the full body of our Soon to be seated Justice’s opinion:
    SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
    .
    I join in Judge Parker’s dissent, and write this separate opinion only to emphasize one point. I fear that the many pages of the majority opinion and concurrences—and the many pages of the dissent that are necessary to explain why they are wrong—may give the impression that this case is in some way complex. It is not. It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all “voting qualification[s].” And it is equally plain that § 5-106 disqualifies a group of people from voting.These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to its coverage. The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. The majority’s “wealth of persuasive evidence” that Congress intendedfelony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny under § 2 of the Act, Maj. Op. at 25,includes not a single legislator actually saying so. But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congresswould prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it. I respectfully dissent.
    .
    I’ll just add what I said earlier. Self-evaluation is always suspect but in this case, it’s downright comical.

  • spob

    and PD, that opinion is indicative of what?

  • 53_3

    “But the reality is that judges who make comments linking the quality of judging to race are problematic, and if you cheerlead that, then you cannot complain if a white judge acts in the same way.”
    .
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
    .
    I could write your arguments, spob. I could even teach you how to use your strategies even better.
    .
    I would venture to guess that your credibility is rather low on matters of race…

  • 53_3

    I think to cram this all in a nutshell, spob, it’s simply this:
    .
    The city is legally entitled to decide whether that test was biased or not.
    .
    I could dot i’s and cross t’s, but that, in a nutshell, is entirely it.

  • spob

    “The city is legally entitled to decide whether that test was biased or not.”
    .
    God, are you really that stupid? Guess you never heard of “pretext”.
    .
    The “you’re a racist” stuff is weak. You approve of Sotomayor’s linking of the race of the judge to the quality of the work, and I’m the one with the Southern Strategy? You are a clown.

  • spob

    And what is simply amazing, none of you oh-so-smart, oh-so-enlightened twits can answer a simple question–how is the treatment of the firefighters consonant with Obama’s ballyhooed speech on race?

  • ogliberal

    “It must be safe now for students to post, adoringly, quotes from Hitler, William Ayers, Osama bin Laden, Jeremiah Wright, Ted Kennedy ….”
    .
    textee, are you seriously putting Ted Kennedy (Chappaquiddick…yada, yada, yada…we know, you think he’s a drunken commie murderer) and Norman Thomas in the same category as Hitler and UBL? Further, are you seriously putting Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright in the same league as Hitler and UBL? Come on…you can’t be that ridiculous.
    .
    Did you read the quote from Thomas that Sotomayor put in her yearbook? “I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won.” Wow, that’s highly inflammatory and offensive. Why didn’t she just say that she wants to exterminate the Jews and sent all conservatives to the gulag? (Btw, that Thomas quote is inscribed on a plaque at the Norman Thomas Library at Princeton, but then you probably think Princeton is a breeding ground of baby killing fascists…and folks like Sam Alito.)
    .
    Thomas, for your information, was an anti-Communist. Leon Trotsky, the hero of many of the old-school neo-cons before they moved to the right, actually questioned Thomas’ socialist credentials. The guy was about as mainstream socialist as they come. Of course, in your scared, ignorant mind, socialists are just one step away from Nazis, so I can understand your fear and loathing.
    .
    All of you wingnuts are taking the bait and going off the deep end on this one. Good luck winning over Latino and women voters (or any sane human being) with that strategy.

  • spob

    Ayers and UBL. Yeah, we can do that. Ayers was just a rank amateur.
    .
    Wright is just a huckster. He reminds me more of Jim Bakker than anything else.

  • 53_3

    “God, are you really that stupid? Guess you never heard of “pretext”.”
    spob, spob, spob…
    .
    This is too easy. It is only your opinion that any “pretext” was involved. QED*
    .
    Next, making the most of that particular point, you must then, be for an activist judge, as apparently, she didn’t feel there was pretext.
    .
    It’s so wonderful to watch you kick your own ares so resoundingly…
    .
    spob 0, 53_3 18…

  • 53_3

    *and no, I don’t mean quantum electrodynamics, spob.
    .
    You’re dumber than a warm rock on a windowsill…

  • towandavt

    Oh yes, now we know, a Princeton graduate with a Yale Law JD who graudate at the top of her classes from high school onward is an affirmative action case? The wingnuts from Buchanan to Limbaugh to Gingrich…the utterly undistinguished big mouths are on a rant. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa punctuated with a Bronx Cheer! It’s the new world order … get over it!

  • towandavt

    One added note…the views expressed are those of a white person and 30-year resident of an extremely rural area who has had the opportunity to see daylight on occasion and has traveled widely! Not all of rural America is intellectually or culturally impoverished! Ignorance comes in many varieties from many geographic quarters!

blog comments powered by Disqus