Mitch McConnell Refuses To Condemn "Racist" Accusations

Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, refused on Sunday to condemn controversial comments made by Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh calling President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "racist."

Facing repeated questions, McConnell insisted he had "better things to do" than "be a speech police" for his fellow conservatives.

McConnell stood in contrast to two other influential Republican senators who said on Sunday that they disagreed with the racism allegations made by fellow conservatives.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the highest-ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee that will oversee Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, called on Republicans to stop calling Sotomayor racist during an appearance this morning on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham did express concern about Sotomayor's comments regarding the ability of a female Latina to reach a better conclusion than a white man, and called on her to apologize for the remarks, but nonetheless disagreed with Gingrich and Limbaugh:

No, they interject themselves into the debate. They've got an audience to entertain. Newt's a political commentator; I'm a United States senator... I don't think she's a racist.

Comments

[Whitley2009]

Isn't it rather difficult for the Republicans to say anything about racism?

[OptimusMaximus]

Astounding to read these posts by people who (IMO) consider themselves "progressives" while considering conservatives in general as "racists".

Let's review world history briefly. Until the establishment of the USA, in most countries and areas of the world, your advancement in life was determined by your bloodline (to whom you were related), your gender, and your "tribe".

America's constituition established the USA as a true progressive nation, where your advancement depended on your accomplishments, a meritocracy, the first in the world to enshrine those principles into law.

Today's so called "progressives" would have us retrogress back to a society where advancement is determined not by your achievements, not by the content of your character, not by your accumulation of wisdom, but strictly on a "quota" system of tribalism. This is not progressive, but a return to truly the oldest system in the world.

But none are so blind as those who will not see. You call black white, up down, and prove George Orwell incorrect only in the date chosen for the title of his book "1984". It took us 24 years longer than he thought it would to arrive at the place he so correctly described.

[DivergentMary]

And just this morning on Washington Journal, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham has changed his tune from expressing concern "about Sotomayor's comments regarding the ability of a female Latina to reach a better conclusion than a white man" to repeatedly saying that she said that she is "better" than other people, without adding the "reach a better conclusion" part.

He came across as a typical blow-hard Republican who drops the words that don't suit his purpose in order to give an entirely different impression about what she originally said . . .

[Joan Jacobs]

Mr. McConnell may not be the "Speech Police", but EVERYONE has the responsibility to stand up and puch back against hate, bigotry, and hate speech when it rears it's ugly head - even if that head is sitting on Rush Limbaugh's shoulders. I bet it took Mr. McConnell longer to explain why he wasn't speaking up against these comments than it would have taken him to say that the comments themselves were wrong.

Whether or not any of us approve of the President's choice, name-calling is not going to advance the dialogue one little bit. Is it not possible in this country to have a difference of opinion without it dropping back to the behavior of the school yard?

[OptimusMaximus]

I would certainly hope so, but see few lib posters on this site advancing your hope.

In fact, I would say that an overwhelming majority of the lib posters do not debate at all, they simply insult conservative posters, or conservative subjects of the various HuffPost articles.

These are generally serious topics worthy of serious debate.

Name calling may have worked for them in grammar school, but most of us are all grown up now.

[OptimusMaximus]

(four of four)

Also, I would argue, to change the constitution by judicial fiat instead of by the amendment process, is a breaking of the existing contract with the citizens, as the citizens have no input on the change in contract.

Supreme Court nominess take an oath, as do our elected Federal representatives, to uphold and protect the constitution. We should hold them all to that oath. Empathy for either of the litigants before the court has absolutely no place in deciding a matter of law. Otherwise, we will continue to move down the path of being a nation under the rule of men instead of being under the rule of law. That path has always led to tyranny.

[OptimusMaximus]

(Three of four)
The reason Supreme Court nominees have become more and more hotly contested over the last 50 years is because there are two major camps pushing those nominees. One camp believes the constitution is a "living document" to be readily molded to fit changing morals and public opinion. The other camp believes the constitution is indeed a contract with the people and shoudl be interpreted according to original intent, and wants to stop the continuing accumulation of power by the Federal government. This camp believes the amendment process, established by the founders to ensure input from the people, is the only legal way to change the constitution's clear limits on government power.

As you might guess, I am in the latter camp. By allowing judges to "interpret the constitution" so as to legalize or make illegal pratices that were clearly legal or clearly illegal under our system of government for the first 100 years or so, is insane. You are abrogating your responsibilities as citizens, giving up your right for input to the amendment process, and turning us over to rule by 9 people in black robes. IMO there is no logical reasoning that would suppose 9 people have the same amount of collective wisdom as 50 state legislatures with input from all registered voters to members of those state legislators.

(continued)

[OptimusMaximus]

(Two of three)
Was the original constitution perfect? No, but it was a brilliant compromise that laid the foundation of freedom that we all enjoy today. It was a document fashioned by men that earnestly studied all previous forms
of government, took into account the nature of man and his desire to accumulate power, and devised an ingenious set of checks and balances to attempt to offset accumulation of power by one branch over another.
It took us another 80 odd years to abolish slavery, and another 100 years after that to squash discrimination under the law. But we did accomplish those things, and were one of the first nations in the world to do so.
I'm sure a majority of us wished we could have accomplished those items much more rapidly. There are very few, if any, better examples in the world today of equality under the law than the USA.

The citizens voted to adopt the constition, to voluntarily give up some of their exisitng state powers, under the constitution as written. It is veritably a contract with the American people.

We have been silent much too long as the Federal Government has usurped powers it was never granted, and never intended to have. What part of the 10th amendment [The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.] is so difficult to understand?
(Continued)

[OptimusMaximus]

(One of four)

A majority of the commentators to this article are prime examples of the abysmal failure of our educational system to impart the basic concept of this counrty's founding princilples to their students.

The constitution was written in the 18th century, and was easily understood by the citizens that voted to adopt it. It was only adopted after the Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments were added.

This document was unique to the world, as it "bound the powers of the government by the chains of the constitution" so that this nation's citizens could enjoy unprecendented freedoms and opportunities
and attempted to guarantee the powers of the government so formed were limited, and that the citizens could maintain their inalienable rights in perpetuity.

The uniqueness of the document was that it "bound the powers of the government by the chains of the constitution" so that this nation's citizens could enjoy unprecendented freedoms/o­pportuniti­es.
It attempted to guarantee the powers of the government so formed were limited, and that the citizens could maintain their inalienable rights in perpetuity. It became known as a limited government because the Federal government ONLY had the powers granted to it under the constitution. It was expressly prevented from doing certain things under the Bill of Rights, as a doubling down on the limited nature of the government. It was never intended to be able to invent more powers for itself out of thin air (thus the "chains of the constitution".
(continued)

[pons1595]

Incompetent, ignorant and representative of some older white males of this country. I am a white man, 66 years of age, and I have been around these yahoos all my life. Their racism has not gone away, but gone somewhat underground. Their heroes like Rush and Hannity trumpet the racism and they follow --all the way to Congress. They're pathetic, but not at all worth pitying. Attrition will eventually solve this problem, but don't hold your breath.

[jjgg5]

Mr. McConnell is an incompetent, self serving politician who is promoting racism in America. The slogan for the State of Kentucky: 11 million people and 9 different last names.

[overcat]

Can't denounce your philosophical masters Limbaugh and Gingrich? Limbaugh, the racist. Gingrich, the guy with his whetted political finger to the wind.

You republicans deserve whatever you get.

[Mister Wu]

Obama is a racist, Rush? Which race, the human race?

[munki]

It must have been difficult to pick the right word to say...

NO MORE RL, NO MORE talk of racism or racist...
Bet they are qualified in that catagory...

[libslayerguy]

Seriously Mr. McConnell. You look like the personification of a Klanner. Wouldn't be surprised if their were a couple of grand cyclops dragons in the old family-tree, Mitchy. Not at all.

[medici]

And probably sheets on hangers in Mitch's closet.

[joeyfoto]

Mitch McConnell has no ideas; a rapidly shrinking party and limited leadership ability. If only he has some integrity, he could probably get by. As it is, he is allowing buffoons to disgrace the GOP with offensive and ill-founded comments that will only cause revulsion among the very people the party needs to reach. If you believe in the future of a one-party system, I guess that's a good thing. We'll see...