WaPo's Cillizza Claims Sotomayor Gives GOP A Winning Election Issue

Chris Cillizza, writing for the Washington Post, believes that he has discovered the pony for Republicans in opposing the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor:

Given the difficulties inherent in an all out attempt to block Sotomayor, is this nomination already a lost cause for Republicans? Not by a long shot.

If the ultimate goal for Republicans is to defeat Obama in 2012, then the Sotomayor pick presents them with a golden opportunity to cast the president as a traditional liberal -- far from the post-partisan figure he was able to present to the American public in the 2008 election.

Matt Yglesias calls this contention "a big stretch," and I just could not agree more. As Matt and Nate Silver point out, the successful confirmation of Supreme Court justices does not traditionally cause ripples within the electorate. But more to the point, it's just absurd to suggest that it's Sonia Sotomayor that gives the GOP -- at last! -- a chance to paint Obama as a liberal. They've been doing that all along. I seem to recall, for example, that Obama's been termed a "socialist." Maybe I've missed something.

In truth, the GOP has the same problem today that they did during the election: they must jump-start their own support while attempting to depress Obama's. So, they'll fire up their own base by pointing out how Obama's the "most liberal" at something (during the run-up to Obama's uneventful appearance at Notre Dame, for example, it was often said that Obama was the most radically pro-abortion president in history), while simultaneously suggesting that Obama's nothing more than a clone of Bush (the Bill Kristols of the world are fond of pointing out instances where Obama breaks with/angers/disappoints the "left-wing" of the party -- military commissions and the release of detainee photos have been recent examples).

But let me just demystify this nonsense for you. Yes, the idea of "post-partisanship" was a concept that Obama campaign put out during the 2008 campaign, and one they suggested would define their governing philosophy. Even still, in 2012, there will be nobody -- outside of the Beltway class of pundits, journalists, and political insiders -- who will be at all interested in assessing how "post-partisan" the Obama administration is or was, or holding them accountable for it. How do you think a normal person would react if asked, "Do think the Obama administration was successfully post-partisan?" My guess is that a normal person would give their interlocutor a strange look, and go right on persisting in their belief that the entirety of the political press corps is made up of idiots from Mars.

Fundamentally, "post-partisanship" is a nonsense word that the media is obsessed with, and the actual human beings that will decide the election will more likely base their decision on whether or not the economy has become a bigger or smaller crap sandwich. The end.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[RFBorjal]

Does anybody really think that voters will judge candidates in 2012 by the performance of any particular Supreme Court justice?

Last I looked, the voters in November 2008 cast their votes on the bases of the candidates' own records, platforms of government, and performance in the public debates. I haven't met or heard of a voter who cast a vote because Justice So-and-So penned a particular ruling.

Linking Sotomayor to the fortunes of 2012 candidates is balderdash.

[benman]

I tend to agree, but I think a lot of us helped form an opinion of George H.W. Bush based on his ridiculous choice of Clarence Thomas. Bush actually governed from the center more often than not and was a fundamentally decent guy, but the Thomas pick showed him to be dangerously subject to manipulation by the fanatics. The difference is that Sotomayor is a moderate, not a tormented loony like Thomas.

[DRaymond]

Republicans have been trying to paint Obama as some sort of super-liberal since he became the frontrunner. One of the reasons why some Liberals are a little disappointed, because they bought the Republicans' line. Obama never presented himself as anything other than a centrist consensus builder.

Moreover what is going on about Sotomayor has absoltuely nothing to do with Sotomayor. That may seem like a strange statement but it is true. Republicans have spent most of the last two decades scaring evangelicals and social conservatives with the tale that you can't possibly allow a Democrat in the White House because they would nominate activist-liberal judges to the Supreme Court who would destroy America. Now having built this story for the last two decades they are going to say 'well it turned out not to be true, Obama made an OK choice after all'. Of course not. Sotomayor could be as conservative as Alito, Roberts, and Scalia combined and they would still have to call her an activist-liberal who would destroy America.

Which brings us to what post-partisanship is. It isn't about not having a political viewpoint. It is a matter of not building every issue as an us-versus-them conflict. Just compare how Obama approaches issues and presents proposals compared to a hyper-partisan like Sarah Palin. Obama doesn't need the Republicans to become post-partisan too. Their remaining hyper-partisan makes Obama's style seem more and more desirable.

[taddles]

This might be true if Sotomayor was a real lefty liberal, but she's not and the centrist Repubs who are going to support her prove that.

[flowie]

Cilliza comes over as a closeted rethug.

[BuzzingAlong]

So how come what passes for the press in this country is not all over the news showing the republicans rebuffing every effort made by the President?

Lets stop pretending that we don't know what this post-partisanship nonsense is about. Lets stop pretending that we don't know what anythin the press is doing is about.

Because most of the media can't stand to see a black man in the WH, they are trying to undermine the President through nonsense like this.

Anyone who has watched how the network and cable gasbags allow their republican and right-wing guests absolute free reign to say anything and everything about the President day and day without any pretense of reporting the news know the press is about.

What has happened to journalism in this country? How could such a noble profession have sunk so low to now be populated with such miscreats?

[kayatarms]

Hmm must be his twin that appeared on Countdown a hour ago?

[grdavis1019]

Have you lost your right wing mind? Rhetorical question. In denial like the rest of the sheep.

[Moxo]

Pointing out to Hispanics that Obama is a Liberal is bound to scare them.
What a brilliant strategery!

[BigAl72]

As a Liberal married to an Hispanic (who I blame changing me to a Lib) I can say that most Hispanics today, that I know, are more open and left-leaning than they are conservative.

[youknowwhat]

I think the big wheels who run the media have talked to Rick Sanchez and Chris Chilliza. These two have changed their reporting a bit and it seems now they're reporting with a right wing bias. Seems the same thing happened to David Gregory.

[BuzzingAlong]

No, DG has always been a shill for the republicans.

[chlllfactor]

I've noted that, too. Rick Sanchez is th only CNN program I watch but I have noticed he is shifting more and more to the right. Follow CNN's hard right leans or you will not have a progrram for long! And, Gregory? He is a repug with half a brain - always has been.

[garymc8]

By 2012 Sotomayor might be the head of the court after Alito and Roberts are removed due to appointment by a CONVICTED WAR CRIMINAL. Thats what I'm talkin about!

[SethBLiNK]

By 2012, voters will judge Justice Sotomayor by her three year record, not by the silly truncated sound bites opponents are trying to characterize her by now.

I can't read the future, but I will be surprised if she turns out to be any more liberal than the three Justices now on the court who were nominated by Democratic presidents or more liberal than the President himself makes not secret of being. There isn't a single person who will be swayed away from Obama by this nomination who wasn't already opposed to him. Though I can imagine a small number of people who voted for McCain in '08 who might be more friendly to Obama in '12 partially because of his choice of Sotomayer.

As for this destroying the notion that he will be bi-partisan, are we forgetting that made this announcement within a week of naming Republican Governor John Huntsman as his Ambassador to China. I think those two appointments, seen in tandem (and seen in the context of an administration that has retained Robert Gates as Sec of Def among other varied appointments) will prove out his claim to at least attempt bi-partisanship.

[jade7243]

Cillizza on Olbermann... has changed his tune? So now this is not a winning issue? Yes, he's flipped on an opinion that flopped.

[jade7243]

Shorter and improved Cillizza analysis:

Republicans play race card for royal flush (right down the toilet.)

[Budokan]

Next time he needs to put water in the bong or he'll crack the glass.

http://kennethmarkhoover.com

[norkas]

I know seveal Republicans very wemm and each one of them live with so much hatered for other cultures and all people unless they have the same blind hate and ignorance as they do.

I speak with them all the time and they do get imberessed and often clam up when i show them how foolish there arguments are.

They will never change because it is truly a mental problem and i wish there was a planet called HATE AND WAR so these poor sould can be haapy till the endof there lives

[darthmaul]

If anything the appointment will have the opposite effect. Obama's appointment will show that he supports Latino's and women. Any attempt by the republicans to attack the appointment will have serious blow back, and they will be seen to be anti-Latino and against women. It's a lose-lose for the republicans, and a birilliant pick by Obama.

[vgirl1]

Keep thinking, writing and talking this way as you and your Republican cronies wander further and further into the wilderness.