|
Post by webrunner on May 25, 2009 19:51:55 GMT -7
If McCain had run the same campaign he ran when he ran against Bush, believe it or not, I would have found in him a viable option against the primary runners Clinton and Obama. But his decision to buy into the "Rovian" mentality and run his campaign accordingly is what lost me over and above his choice of a running mate. And this is kind of the same mentality I'm objecting to in commenting on this piece by the RNC. And can I expect you to call the left out on this same "mentality" when they display it as well?
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 25, 2009 19:54:12 GMT -7
But I disagree with your latter statement if, inclusive in that is the assertion that by virtue of his time in capture, you're saying he could lead any better (or worse, for that matter) than the others who were with him. I happen to think of all of them as heroes, to be honest. I don't credit him with special regard because in staying when he could have used privilege to leave, he did the right thing. He did the right thing, and was brave and honorable in so doing. The truth of the matter is, we don't know what others would have done, and that includes those who derided him for having broken under torture when they didn't. I do not nor would I ever attempt to devise a scale for heroism in such circumstances. McCain, by the testimony of his fellow prisoners, stood out for his perserverence, organization and the comfort he offered others. Even after he himself "broke" and was forgiven. The truth of the matter is we DO know what others would have done and did do. There are countless accounts from countless wars of the actions of men and woman in capticity. The answer is their responses to theses circumstances are as diverse as the people placed in them. And you should give him special regard for staying. Not many would have, including me - I would have left in a heart beat. Agreed, Snil.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 26, 2009 5:05:06 GMT -7
If McCain had run the same campaign he ran when he ran against Bush, believe it or not, I would have found in him a viable option against the primary runners Clinton and Obama. But his decision to buy into the "Rovian" mentality and run his campaign accordingly is what lost me over and above his choice of a running mate. And this is kind of the same mentality I'm objecting to in commenting on this piece by the RNC. And can I expect you to call the left out on this same "mentality" when they display it as well? sure--the PUMAS do it a lot; Hillary Clinton threw down some pretty low insults during the campaign as I recall
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 26, 2009 21:57:02 GMT -7
the emotional tug all ready for Memorial Day--nice move, Web You have your notions of heroism and I have mine. soldiers are one kind of hero, yes. and they shouldn't just have one day from us to recognize this, should they? In fact, I'd ask a lot of questions from the previous and current administrations as to why they keep cutting into their benefits...but, I'll leave that for another time there's been a lot of press about Rush's supposed hold on speakers and critics within the Republican party, look it up... Look it up? I asked you what you meant by your assertions. Who should be silencing Rush Limbaugh? Why? Is Colin Powel above criticisim? You must not be one of those libs that believe he misled folks about Iraq. if he's not a spokesperson for the RNC or the party, somebody better tell the left and the right in the media who keep speculating, especially when they bait Cheney into answering questions regarding whom he'd "prefer" Rush or Powell... You think Rush and the RNC can control what the liberal media says about them and how they're characterized? Hell, I wish they could. Besides, why should we be surprised or indignant about Cheney’s answer? Powell supported a very liberal Barrack Obama for president. Of course Cheney would prefer Rush over that. as to the thing about Sandra Bernhard, you have to realize that you are elevating the attacks of a woman who, to me, hasn't much decency to begin with. I’m not elevating anything. I’m pointing to a common feminist double standard. When the target is a conservative woman, she can go to hell and nothing said about her will be condemned or challenged. When the target is a liberal, even an extremely fleeting reference to a James Bond movie is the end of the world. The one thing I agree with here is that the more pointed attacks on Pelosi's cred shouldn't be dignified with trashy talk from pundits, which includes the "pu**y" references, sorry, it's implicit and there's no getting around it. It’s implicit at best. I make no concessions here, I say it’s non-existant. The RNC had no need to produce that trash in the first place, given the well-placed criticism that you quoted within this article But we don’t want to spend any time on that part of the article do we? Rosa, she’s accusing the CIA of lying to her. That’s a very serious charge she’s leveling against them. She’s the one that’s lying here. The criticism of that RNC ad is nothing more than a diversion from the left. if they're gonna produce trash like this, then why not talk to Politico? That's the level they're putting themselves at to begin with RNC owes Politico nothing. the mainstream media has such a stranglehold on the way we view the "news", and this came up in a recent discussion twice, amongst some more to the left than I. These are people who don't really pay that much attention to attacks from the likes of Bill Mahr or Sandran Bernhard... or trash from either extreme. . Then they’re in a rare minority. Two points were made: they didn't like the way the media skewed the focus away from issues like Pelosi's culpability in acknowledging what she knew and when, and I agree. And they didn't like the focus the media gave to the hecklers at the recent Notre Dame graduation, especially when one considers that, listening to the streaming, it seems the graduates-to-be, with their "We are N-D" or whatever it was they were chanting, were pretty much able to take care of the problem themselves. But you wouldn't know this from the slant the media gave to the story... my deal is this: if the RNC wants to take a critical look at the real issues, then why not do so? There's enough sh*t flying around from punditry as it is, and the left is absolutely no better, you're right. Thank you, but I wonder if you recognize it so readily when it comes from the left. But junk like this isn't necessary, it detracts from the good voices whose reason and logic get drowned out in the din. It's no more necessary than the junk that comes out of Limbaugh's mouth. Let's not forget, on this Memorial Day, that when we juxtapose the two men Limbaugh and Colin Powell, who served his country honorably and who hasn't. Haven't you heard? Limbaugh says Powell is no longer a Republican, because he supposedly pandered to race in backing Obama. Powell has other things to say, but is anyone listening? I actually don’t believe Powell pandered to race, he’s always been a bit of a liberal Republican, I’m wasn’t any more surprised when he backed Obama than I was when Arlen Spector switched parties. Speaking of trash coming from the mainstream media, whose bright idea was it to ask such a question comparing these two individuals in the first place? I dunno, but I will point out that in a comparison between Rush and Powell you’ll laud Powell’s honorable military service record but when it’s McCain’s record versus Obama’s, eh, it was nothing special. I don't give him special regard in staying Web I understand your issue with Obama's limited record of service, especially when it's lauded over that of McCain's record of military service. But when I think of McCain's record, inclusive in that is his entire record, not just the time he spent in captivity....as well as his public service and his rise to power in his home state, subsequent to his retirement from military service. I'm happy you understand my "issue." Now how do you reconcile it? Limbaugh vs Powell = Limbaugh bad for not serving. McCain vs Obama=Obama better for not serving? *BTW I think McCain's time in captivity, "short" as it was relatively speaking (bet it sure felt longer than 5 years), is the type of experience that can be quite defining.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 27, 2009 4:12:16 GMT -7
hmmm
Rush and Powell--look it up, I'm not gonna do it for you. Limbaugh and his rhetoric are splitting the party and it's all over the place. Even Newt Gingrich is beginning to ask for "peace" and moderate voices, in the name of party unity. Powell served, he did so with distinction and he received one hell of a lot of criticism for toeing the line on Iraq. And he's still around, a moderate voice within the Republican party, asking that the hard right reconsider, especially in the face of such a resounding split in core issues.
I'm not placing people like Limbaugh and Powell on the same playing field and I don't think anyone else should either. That's why I juxtaposed them in the first place. Limbaugh avoided serving, he's a loudmouth who goes out of his way to offend. Neither Powell, Obama or McCain pull these stunts, they don't espouse hate and get paid for it. But Limbaugh does.
It's trite to parse it to: Limbaugh="bad" for not serving. What I am saying is this: Limbaugh gets paid to preach to divisiveness, hate and acrimony, on top of which, he's entitled to his opinions, but he's hardly in any "informed" position to harshly criticize those who served, saw action and are now active in governing roles. Why? Because all he brings to the table is his mouth, his hate and his hypocrisy.
I think that both Powell and McCain have some good ideas when it comes to inviting various voices to sit at the same table in the name of reconciliation. People like Rush Limbaugh demand total submission to hard right ideals that are no longer working for the party, and when leaders like Powell and McCain dispute these, their party "loyalty" is at once suspect. They shouldn't be dismissed by the likes of Limbaugh, who, I note (and you don't) actually took some shots at McCain before he targeted Powell. I'm not going to "reconcile" your issue with me on this. You do it...I don't have a problem with it. You do.
There's no comparison between Obama and McCain when it comes to military service or achievement-why go there? Obama didn't serve, and of course McCain's time in captivity, in and of itself, underscores his record of service. Hell, as far as I am concerned, the fact that he survived, does. Obama's limited record of service as compared to McCain's is well, a matter of record; who said McCain's record of service was "nothing special"? Frankly, given the criticism he earned over the years for his privileged status while serving, he silenced that criticism with his conduct during his captivity.
It seems to be very troubling that I can't hold McCain's conduct during his captivity above that of his fellow prisoners, that I believe they all served with distinction-including those who didn't survive. I don't think his record is more "laudible", if that's even the proper term, simply because he went into politics after his retirement from military service.
The voters who lauded Obama are the ones you need to tilt at. Stating a preference for his ideas and leadership over those of McCain isn't necessarily the same as "lauding" his record of public service to me, but yes, I prefer Obama to McCain. In spite of the fact that McCain was a prisoner of war.
As offensive as it seems to you, I include McCain's entire record of service in referencing his military service. No doubt his time in captivity was quite pivotal...are you sure you want to go there in suggesting that it was more "defining" than that experienced by the others who survivied? Why is he more special....his service more laudible?
He was lucky too-time, experience, social status and (I'm sure) intellect placed him in a unique position, and he built a political record whereas the others pursued other paths. And so, after having made a career of politics, what kind of judgment did he show in his second campaign for the presidency?
He allowed for Rovian tactics (the very same that decimated his first try at the presidency), he flipped and flopped on issues to which he'd previously held firm, and he picked an abysmally unqualified running mate. In other words, he made it clear to the country that in spite of all of his experience, his years in the military, his representation in the senate....he couldn't take hold of his own campaign, help devise a winning strategy and a presence that clearly indicated that HE, not Karl Rove, was "in command".
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 27, 2009 6:02:34 GMT -7
Okay then, I will look it up, just as soon as I figure out what "it" is. Why is it when I bring up military service Obama vs McCain, it's a non-issue and I shouldn't go there but pitting Rush vs Powell (which you did first), now that's a reasonable comparison. Could it be because, in that case, the more liberal of the two is the one that compares more favorably?
Anyway, you accuse McCain of a flippin' and a floppin' and I'll ask you oh Obama supporter, is that really where you wanna go? You say you prefer Obamas's ideas and leadership to McCain? I have to ask, where's the leadership and how do you know which ideas are Obama's (as opposed to market researched sound bytes)?
Finally, the McCain/Obama/Rush/Powell military thing is only one part of my last post. Can I assume that your failure to address everything else is a concession? ;D
BTW Nancy Pelosi's lying (didn't want that point to get lost in all this).
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 27, 2009 6:45:21 GMT -7
what you can conclude (or assume, if you wish) is that the rest doesn't matter to me, so call it a failure, or whatever else you want I think people like Limbaugh are harmful to the Republican Party and I'm still comfortable there. Limbaugh places himself in the heat of every available opportunity to bash and denounce anyone who disagrees with him, even when this includes people who have served such as Powell and McCain and you're still stuck on the "comparisons". Clearly, you don't think this is worth addressing, so we're even as far as I'm concerned I don't think juxtaposing Limbaugh and Powell in the same context as I do McCain and Obama....it seems that you want Obama to figure less favorably and I'm saying he doesn't figure in at all, hence it's a non-issue because to me, they don't compare. McCain served and Obama didn't. Furthermore, both have deomonstrated a capacity to work together on issues, in spite of their differing political stances--both have strongly criticized the other, but when the election was over, McCain demonstrated maturity and statesmanship in resuming his role as senator. As such, he's gone back to representing his state, and when the need calls for it, working together with those he's had previous disagreements with WHEREAS Limbaugh does little other than cry foul at every available opportunity...to date, he's divisive and controversial and hangs his hat there. Powell, on the other hand is working with previously devisive opponents, one whom I've already named, in trying to find common ground out of concern for the Republican Party. I see McCain in the same light...working toward what's best for his party. Limbaugh works toward what's best for himself. If you want to prod at Obama's lack of leadership to date, hell I'll join you. But when he was running, he had the presence of mind to display strength when McCain couldn't. So, yeah, I'll "go" there, assuming that in fairness, you'll join me in critically examining McCain's weaknesses as heartily as you do Obama's. You cannot gurarantee that, given the way McCain allowed his candidacy to go astray (at the bidding of others) that he would have been any stronger once in office.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 27, 2009 7:25:44 GMT -7
If I was unable to present my position on the rest of it in a way that was worthy of discussion in your mind then I accept your term "failure."
You want me to address Rush's role in "denounc(ing)" those who disagree with him? Rosa, that's his job. You think he makes his bread and butter through exploiting division and controversy? Hell I will concede that but no, I don't agree that he's bad for the GOP because he's not the GOP. I guess I just don't take him as seriously as you do. Is it just possible, you think, that you don't like him because you don't like his conservativism? When Limbaugh's liberal counterparts in print and TV bashed and derided McCain and Palin during this past election, were you equally as indignant?
If I may point out something interesting though, you bash Limbaugh for bashing McCain while at the same time you call me on the carpet for failing to bash McCain. Which is it? Should he be bashed or not?
And actually what I want to prod Obama for is his flip flops (since you see that as such a character flaw in McCain). Will you join me in that as well?
And all due respect, I have a feeling that my notions of what's best for the Republican party are different than yours. I don't want it to look exactly like the Democratic party.
Nancy Pelosi is lying.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 27, 2009 15:45:23 GMT -7
Nobody is suggesting that the RNC should look like the Dems, Web. Rush isn't the GOP but he puts up a fairly decent pretense of "representing" the truth in Repub values, and though I'm certainly no conservative, I hardly think that the man could spot "truth" if it bit him on the butt. And to clarify, I disagree with you all the time, you're a conservative and I like you. So, there goes that bogus theory-i.e. that I don't "like" conservatives or Republicans. I don't like Rush because he's a fool, a hypocrite, a liar and the worst representation of "conservatism" who is, I might add, vying for power within your party. If you opt to ignore this, or to support him, I'll certainly respect your choice, but I think it's a fool's errand. The man is pompous and he's ignoring solid efforts by fairly respectable folks, including John McCain, to bring unity to your party. The Dems, Web? Nobody wants or expects another party like them-they make enough trouble in their own right. I "bash" Limbaugh for bashing McCain, Powell and other conservatives who want to get Republicans back to a place where some of the more divergent conflicts can be resolved. Limbaugh is a hindrance, and hopefully, you're right in saying he's not representing the party.... and the party will step right around him and resolve some of its inner conflicts in spite of his efforts to maintain the divisiveness. I called you on the fact that you point to liberals when you want to bash, you insist that I'm rather partial in my efforts to do same. This is kind of funny when you openly state your desire to go after Obama for his reversals, as though he's the only one who does this...and in the face of McCain's during the campaign? Get serious. I said I'd join you once you played fair. Where I see some efforts at unity-in your party, Web, you insist on seeing division. Rush's "job" ought to be, in part, seeing to the welfare of the party he claims to care about. He's not doing that. But he's said that he hope's Obama's efforts fail, as though this somehow would validate his attacks. Perhaps he wants his own party to fail as well? So he can "show" the country how "right" he is? And Web. I know Pelosi is lying. I don't make it a habit to stick to party lines when I decide someone is lying.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 27, 2009 15:51:40 GMT -7
As a reminder, if you want to rehash Palin's record, and where I find her to have been a questionable choice at best, I'll be very happy to oblige. That said, let me remind you once again that when she ran, I was among the women who objected to the fact that, in my view, she enabled the gender-oriented bashing she got....even so, I still objected to the sexist and more derogatory attacks that were celebrated amongst her more vile critics. Including Sandra Bernhard.
The difference then and now: I didn't demean myself by suggesting that those who opposed Palin were "jealous" of her, as does the commentator you used in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 28, 2009 7:31:21 GMT -7
Sarah Palin enabled the attacks on her? Isn't that coming kinda close to blaming the victim? If I had said something like that in that stalking thread you started (ex: well sure, it's sad but she did enable the stalker after all) you would have lit me up and rightfully so. And look, I did support her during the campaign (because, as you say, I also wasn't ecstatic about McCain but I thought him the better choice than Obama), but I don't consider myself a supporter any more. I think her policies regarding the aerial hunting of wolves is reprehensible. There, there it is, the flaw in my conservative armor. Rosa, I think you're cool too, for real. It's just a little hard to accept, I guess, in my own cynical mind that someone on the left wants to "help" (can't think of a better word right now) the Republican party and further, I would expect that "help" would come in the form of counsel that we need to be more "moderate" which I interpret, be more liberal, and I disagree with that. We cannot out "liberal" liberals or Dems and we shouldn't want to. I think that's what we tried to do in this past election and that played right into the strengths that the Democrat party has. We need to return to our own roots where our strengths are. Am I making sense? You think I'm unfair to Obama, you're right. Another concession from me. I wish he hadn't won. I don't like Biden either and in my mind he gets a pass from the press where Bush would have been skewered for saying the things Biden does. I can try to see beyond my partisanship (which is something I have never denied). Let's see. I liked Obama's handling of that situation with the Somali pirates and I agree with stepping up the efforts in Afghanistan. I was not bothered by the gift of the I-pod that he gave the Queen of England (I would sure like that more than the signed photo she gave him). I have no problem with his choice for Supreme Court. That's it, that's all I got. To me, the rest of his administration has been about weakening our country militarily, hurting our ties with our allies while at the same time bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia. Taking over private companies, endless bail-outs and flip-flops, and making a tax cheat the treasury secretary. I could put more here, but I think you get my point or I hope that I have at least explained a little better where I'm coming from.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 28, 2009 7:52:36 GMT -7
Sarah Palin is not a victim. She dressed, spoke and behaved inappropriately at times. Yes, she enabled some of the attacks she received, and even then, I still thought of them as inappropriate. Like many other women, I wanted the debate to stick to the issues, and found it difficult to stay there myself....every time someone suggested to me that I was "jealous" of Palin, the way she dressed and looked
as if this had any more to do with her capability or her character than it does when people tear into Michelle Obama. Am I the only woman around who gets sick of hearing how the public expects the first lady or other female leaders to be fashion trend setters? Who the hell cares?
I don't want to "help" the Repubs, Webrunner, and I'm not presuming to suggest that I could. But this doesn't mean that I like seeing the crap going on either--I've never said or suggested that the Dems have cornered the market on good sense, ethical activity or even productive dialogue. That said, if you've done any reading lately from the left, you'll note that many of us are mighty unhappy with Obama and his regualr back-peddaling. The dissent from moderate lefties is notable for same
but none of this touches the stuff I see from the hard right lately, and I think it's disgusting. It's almost as though "dissent" necessitates gutting your opponent and it's difficult for me to see the productivity in this. Paticularly given the increasing number of cheap shots and insults being lobbed around. Looking at common ground in no way suggests that they would have to become "liberal", and the moderate voices I'm hearing aren't demanding concessions, or ultimate rule over conservatism
I guess one of the real questions I have relates to those "strengths" you've mentioned. I think your argument makes a lot of sense, actually. The only question I have is, in trying to "return" to what those might be, I can recognize the efforts from the extreme to regain lost ground. The problem is: if theirs was a position of such great "strength" then why did they lose that ground?
The hard right got to decide for a while what those roots were and yet, there are so many who are now trying to re-define this....
I'm not asking for anyone to "like" Obama. That said, I have to say I appreciate the effort you're making. Now, it's too da*m bad there isn't more of this going on at higher levels.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 28, 2009 16:12:09 GMT -7
And I appreciate that you appreciate my efforts but, to be honest, it actually feels a little like you're patronizing me. I think it also proves what I was trying to say yesterday, to be viewed as conciliatory requires concessions. It's those concessions that we would need to make to be looked upon favorably by the left or left leaning that make me nervous. And here I'll say it outright, I am suspicious when "lefties" tell me what my party needs to do for it's own good. Usually those things require looking more liberal (can you think of an example where that's not the case?). Wouldn't you be suspicious of my motives, Rosa, if I told you what the Democratic party needed to do to fix itself (I know, I know they need no fixing, it's a hypothetical)? You should be. About Rush, can't you just admit that you don't like him because you strongly oppose his politics? You said it yourself about the "hard right," they're, what's the word you used, "disgusting". I don't like Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman (and I think they're a bigger problem than Rush because they are supposed to be "mainstream" media as opposed to the entertainer that Rush is) but I also don't think they're a problem that the DNC needs to solve. About Sarah Palin, I think it's interesting that you call me out for calling Pelosi (who's lying btw) a "hag" yet, at the same time, you say Palin deserved what she got because of how she dressed? You actually surprised me with that one. Besides, I don't know what you mean. Are you sure you were looking at Palin and not Tina Fey? ;D I thought she always looked professional. Did I miss the speech she gave wrapped only in a towel? I also think it's interesting that you speak of Michelle Obama as if she's the victim of public perception as opposed to seeing her as having a role in perpetuating the expectations herself. You grant Palin no such deference. Hmmmm wonder why. What is the principle difference between these two ladies? One is liberal and one is, c'mon, say it with me. . . The strengths that I think my party still has is notions of self-reliance and personal responsbility. That government doesn't facilitate progress, it hinders it and the best thing our leaders can do for us is to get government out of our way. Why have we lost ground? Because the Republican leadership lost sight of all that, started spending like drunken sailors in a wh*re house and thinking that govt. was the solution to everything. In other words, we became indistinguishable from the Democrats.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on May 28, 2009 18:46:08 GMT -7
"...but I also don't think they're a problem that the DNC needs to resolve" neither does the DNC, Web...and of course I'm not partonizing you saying that I think Rush Limbaugh is worthless isn't an admission, Web. His "politics" are the politics of the self absorbed, the bigot and the hypocrite. a recent example of "disgusting" behavior from the hard right: Pat Buchannan recently implied that Obama's supreme court nominee wasn't very bright...this is from Salon, but give it a read anyway... Wednesday May 27, 2009 06:27 EDT Buchanan on Sotomayor: "Not that intelligent"
Let's take a moment to acknowledge the history made when President Obama chose 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court. The Latina standout from the Bronx, beloved daughter of a widow who worked two jobs to put her children through the best schools, is a woman who also happened to graduate Phi Beta Kappa and summa cum laude from Princeton; who ran the Yale Law Journal; who worked as a prosecutor and a civil litigator before being appointed to the federal bench. She has more judicial experience than any of her other eight would-be colleagues did when they joined the court.
In short: She's got an American dream story, she makes women and Latinos proud, and she's also supremely qualified. It doesn't get any better than that for Democrats.
And it can only get worse for Republicans if they're going to hit Sotomayor the way MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan did debating me on "Hardball" today. (Actually, Mike Huckabee may have sunk lower than Buchanan. Earth to Mike: Calling Sotomayor "Maria" is not going to win you Latino votes in 2012.)
On "Hardball" (video below) Buchanan tossed me some weak softballs about Sotomayor. It was the same handful of charges that make up the key, easily refuted GOP talking points: that she claimed in a speech that appellate judges make policy (she did not); that she voted to discriminate against white men in the New Haven firefighter case (she merely upheld a lower court's ruling); that she said her gender and race would influence her court rulings, improperly, according to Buchanan (I'll deal with that one later). Amazingly, Buchanan's final shot was the widely derided and debunked Jeffrey Rosen piece in the New Republic that let anonymous sources trash Sotomayor, mostly to call her "domineering and dumb," in the words of Rebecca Traister. "She is not that intelligent," Buchanan insisted, a ridiculous assertion given her educational and professional accomplishments.
Unbelievably, Buchanan compared Sotomayor to Harriet Miers, President Bush's personal attorney who was, in fact, not at all qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Ever notice it's the Republicans whose "affirmative action" picks aren't qualified (as in Miers and Clarence Thomas)?
Where do I begin? First of all, if Republicans are going to be tin-eared enough to attack Sotomayor on her intelligence and qualifications, they are going to wind up an even tinier minority party than they are now. Acting as though Obama had to lower his standards to appoint the first Hispanic justice is offensive to more than just Hispanics; it exposes a profound prejudice and lack of knowledge about the vast talent pool in our country. Certainly Sotomayor will face tough questions on her judicial philosophy from liberals and conservatives, and she should, but to insinuate she's merely an affirmative action pick is wrong and repellent. The irony is that Sotomayor is more centrist than some of Obama's other possible appointees. She disappointed abortion rights advocates by failing to strike down the Bush administration's global gag rule, which prohibited organizations that received U.S. family planning funds from counseling abortion. She's been criticized for upholding a school's decision to discipline a student for differing with school officials on her private Live Journal account. The American Bar Association termed her a "moderate," not a liberal. Glenn Greenwald, while praising the choice of Sotomayor, has already noted that Diane Wood might have been a more reassuring pick to those concerned about Obama's assertion of executive powers; Sotomayor hasn't left a record in such cases.
I happen to think that at her confirmation hearings, she might want to explain and elaborate on one much-criticized sound bite. Taking issue with the famous notion frequently attributed to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases -- she said instead: "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." Even I might quibble with the use of the term "better conclusion"; certainly Justice Harry Blackmun's work on abortion rights is as important to women as the many decisions of Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We'll see what Sotomayor has to say about that quote, and her philosophy about diversity, during her confirmation hearings, I'm sure. But it would be silly to deny the possibility that a court made up of individuals with diverse backgrounds may well draw different conclusions than one made up of nine white men.
I find the reliance on old racial and gender stereotypes, when it comes to debating the Sotomayor pick, extremely depressing. Buchanan also said she's known as a "bully" on the bench, and I never got to ask him and Chris Matthews: Why is it that strong women are so often called bullies and ballbreakers, while strong, opinionated men are often called, simply, Justice Scalia. But this time, I don't think it will work. If Pat Buchanan and other right-wing pundits want to savage the pride of the Bronx's Cardinal Spellman High School, I'm sure Democrats will say "bring it on." Joan Walshactually, you bring up an interesting point about Obama and Palin-there shouldn't be a distinction, both are "earning" public perception...and in some ways, I think you're right. Ordinarily, I couldn't care less who wears what, but having said that, there were times during the campaign when I didn't think that Palin dressed or acted "professionally". You may suggest that I am/was "jealous" but the truth is, my idea of professional differs from Palin's. I know Pelosi is lying. Self reliance and personal responsibility aren't unique to either party, neither is bad behavior, in my opinion. And Rush Limbaugh has no place in calling on others when it comes to "personal responsibility".
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on May 28, 2009 20:07:53 GMT -7
Uncool. I've really tried here to show some openess but you just want to bash the right. You realize when you do that you're bashing me, right? I'm sorry, I'm not Rush. I'm sorry you hate him so bad (and I'm sorry that I don't) but I'm not his keeper. You say you want the different voices in the GOP to all be heard (or something like that) yet you want to repeatedly beat me over the head for what one or two shock jocks (and that's really all they are) say and that's unfair. I have been admonished by the mods before that the thing to do is walk away if I do not think I can maintain my civility so that is what I will do now.
|
|