Powell Whacks Limbaugh And Republicans For Calling Sotomayor Racist

Colin Powell, who hails from the same Bronx neighborhood as Sonia Sotomayor, said on Sunday that the Supreme Court nominee was of a "liberal bent of mind," but not so much that it would be "disqualifying" to her confirmation prospects.

In his appearance on CNN's "State of the Union," the former Secretary of State saved his sharpest jabs for the Republicans who have painted Sotomayor as a racist.

"She ought to be asked about everything from both the left and the right," said Powell, who endorsed Barack Obama towards the end of the presidential campaign. "What we can't continue to have is to have somebody like a Judge Sotomayor, who is announced, and based on one simple, tricky, but nonetheless case that the Supreme Court has now decided, have her called a racist, a reverse racist, and she ought to withdraw her nomination because we're mad at her."

Powell expressed relief that the GOP senators who sit on the Judiciary Committee, "after a few days of this kind of nonsense," decided to drop the Sotomayor-as-racist frame. But he would go on to argue that the Republican Party still had a major problem when it came to reaching out to minority voters. In the process, Powell took what seemed clear to be a jab at radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh for some of his more inflammatory rhetoric.

"If you look at the results of the election last fall, and make a judgment on the basis of how the party did with respect to the Hispanic vote and the African-American vote, realizing that President Obama, candidate Obama had a significant advantage with those constituencies, we haven't done well enough," he said. "And when you have non-elected officials, such as we have in our party, who immediately shout racism, or somebody who is quite prominent in the media says that the only basis upon which I could possibly have supported Obama was because he was black and I was black, even though I laid out my judgment on the candidates, then we still have a problem."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[DonRoberto]

GOP success in the 1980s and 1990s was based on a new strategy --- instead of tailoring policy to meet the facts, they would tailor facts to meet the policy. Conservatives loved this; they could continue to hold on to the old days and the old ideas, and were no longer pressured to believe that racism was bad, greed was unChristian, etc.

The GOP had great success with their new strategy, but it came with a price: their policies (and even their "facts") had less and less correspondence with the real world. Causes like states' rights become counterproductive in a competitive world where trade is negotiated at national and multinational levels; nineteenth century "family values" made little sense in a world where educated women make up almost half the workforce; and railing against Big Government is silly in a nation of 310 million people.

While I can appreciate General Powell's remarks, the GOP's problems run much, much deeper than Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachmann, and the rest. The GOP's basic premise is flawed, and has been since at least 1980. Saving the party would require a return to reality, which in turn would mandate the abandonment of their core constituency.

[hyjanks]

Very good summation. They definitiely WOULD be caught in a Catch 22 situation if the hierarchy decided to reform. It would be mighty hard to give up that sure thing base of Southern racists and bigots, guys with an erection for Palin and the neo-con men.

[DM]

Really well put ... and probably a better place to put the comment I entered above so I'll put it here as well. I think a lot of the problem is not the Republicans but the choice available:

I think (of all people) Bill Maher got it exactly right a couple of weeks ago. There is a party which represents corporate moneyed interests to the detriment of most of the population. It sides with Big Oil, Big Banking, Big Insurance and the military industrial complex. It is dominated by the Israel lobby and the Batista Cubans in Florida. Most of its prominent representatives are firmly embedded with the moneyed establishment and have demonstrated time and again that they are keen on getting more money out of 99% of the population to give to the other 1%. They are also keen to continue wars anywhere as this gives them opportunities to strip money out of the general population even faster.

That party is the Democrats.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are extremists who only seem to make sense if you assume the Rapture is going to happen in the next few months so to hell with even a medium term outlook ...

[DonRoberto]

Not sure I agree entirely about the Democratic Party. There certainly *is* a very large penetration of corporate interests into the party, but I don't think that indicates a conscious alignment of the Democratic Party with those interests, or any pro-corporatist agenda overall.

The problem is that publicly-held corporations are basically amoral --- they exist to maximize profits while minimizing risk, and all other considerations are secondary. Individual officers who take a moral stand against the natural direction of a corporation are easily replaced, and the corporation continues onward on its own path. The simplest way to minimize risk is to influence the rules by which the game is played, hence lobbying, backchannel decision-making, bribery of officials, etc.

Senators and Congressmen need not be corrupt to act in the best interests (as they perceive it) of their own constituencies --- in fact, within the boundaries of the US Constitution, they take an oath that they *WILL* act in their constituencies' best interests. Those shortterm, narrowly-defined interests do not necessarily coincide with the longterm best interests of the republic, and therein lies the rub.

There ARE crooked politicians in both parties, but I don't believe they are the majority in either party. The challenge is that many in the GOP actually *believe* much of their own PR and so lack that correspondence with reality I wrote about in my previous post in this thread.

[Whitley2009]

Gen. Powell is rowing his boat in the strange and choppy waters of Republican madness without a glimpse of reason on the horizon. When we look over the past 6-7 months of Republican crashing, the words of Milton come to mind:

"Demonic frenzy, moping melancholy,
And moon-struck madness."

Paradise Lost, XL 485-486

[Gregor53]

Powell is to good for the Republican Party. He is a man of Honor. I admire him. We differ on our political thoughts, but I still respect him. That is something I can not say about the Republicans in Congress..­.

[treadway123]

I'd vote Republ again if Powell was in there, in any way. Good man indeed!

[ProfessorDuh]

Yes, lying the nation into war, that's my definition of "honor."

[smithonpolitics-com]

"Colin Powell...[­cast her in a] "liberal bent of mind," but not so much that it would be "disqualifying" to her confirmation prospects.­"

This is what I don't understand. Why is a liberal POV of the judiciary explosive, whereas a far right wing interpretation of laws the norm? Democrats need to finish rebranding themselves as the norm of the nation; we are. Right-wing extremists are still winning the branding war, at least in the judiciary. We've done OK on the electoral front, but we can't ignore the courts.

[DM]

You may have confused the Democrats with a party which is not extreme right wing ... they are in bed with major corporates, the military industrial complex and seem to favour more violence and more empire if it fills the corporate coffers.

The Democrats are no more in favour of judges who would decide cases on their merits and the law, without a slant towards corporate interests, than anyone else.

... if they are then I'll believe it when they prove it by even considering such a person.

[DM]

Oh ... and I thought a "far right wing interpretation of the laws" would be very much in favour of individual rights at the expense of community interest.

What I see is both parties promoting is corporate interests at the expense of both individuals and the community.

[MESGAIN26]

powell is the one with the problem he belong to the wrong problem

[maigesheng]

zhigga-whaa???? huh??

[raker]

The Republicans don't really have a problem with race. Virtually the entire Republican worldview is based on racism. For them, it's no problem.

[Whitley2009]

Spot on.

[discourse jockey]

Exactly.

[wanda665]

.agree

[MsYellowDog]

Me,too!

[gs425]

And again the toss of the race card like a good Democrat should.

[raker]

Since you don't refute the observation that racism defines the Republican Party, I take you agree.

[listentome]

And the whole choir can say Amen on that!

[NSeagle78]

AMEN from Georgia.

[Tom95134]

Powell would be a tough one for Obama to beat in 2012.

[JessWonderin]

Based on his "leadership ability" in the Republican Party and his flawed decisions in the Bush Administration . . . I doubt it . . .

[loveobamas]

LOL.
How you figure that??

[weatherwaxx]

Not really. Powell supported Bush's lies even when he knew they were lies. He may have regretted it, but he can't take that back.

[KYlawyer]

Are you joking? With Limbaugh calling him everything but the n word, and the virulent r@cists who occupying the GOP, there is no way in he11 Powell would ever have a chance at getting the GOP nomination.

[youknowwhat]

Powell has valid arguments. But what he doesn't realize is that the principle leaders of this party whether it's Limbaugh or Newt or whoever, wants the repub party to be exactly as it is now. A far right leaning political party that accepts no compromises.

[colorao46]

The GOP that General Powell belonged to no longer exists, and it will never exists again.
As a prior writer commented,the GOP made a conscious decision, to woo White southern Democrats and blue collar Catholics, who no longer felt comfortable with the Democratic Party's move towards a civil rights agenda, in the late 60s. Then wooed the Evangelicals who used to "hate" Catholics, for most of the last 150 years of our history, to remake their party. The children of the blue collar Catholics, and other Catholics have returned to the Democratic Party, for civil justice reasons, and the Republican Party, has painted itself into the corner. Also, when Republicans are voted into the Presidency, they spend as much, or more than Democratoic Presidents, e.g., Nixon, Reagan, Bush 2. I invite my Bronx "compradre" to join the party of civil rights, enviromental protection and inclusion.
Leave the GOP, it has lost its way.

[research]

Powell, how can you believe the GOP dream of plutocracy is better than democracy?

[skippy20008]

IF the Republicans want to win again, they'd listen to Powell. How can they not be aware of the demographics of the US?

How does giving the finger to Latino voters help them WIN Latino voters?

They don't have to embrace Sotomayor, but they could've opposed her without attacking her race and sex.

[Whitley2009]

They really just can't help themselves.

[GreyHairandGreyMatter]

FILIBUSTER Judge Sotomayor as UNQUALIFIED

Republican Senators:

Why am I taking time out on Independence Day to write to you? It's because I place God, country and the U.S. Constitution before personal interests, and especially because I feel so passionately about and disenfranchised by Judge Sotomayor's recent Supreme Court nomination and impending confirmation process. FILIBUSTER Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sotomayor, due to the fact that she is UNQUALIFIED to sit on the Supreme Court. Why?

Judge Sotomayor has a terrible record as a Circuit Court judge, of being reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court over and over again. Indeed, OVER HALF of her decisions as a Court of Appeals judge have been STRUCK DOWN. Her fellow Clinton appointee on that bench, Jose Cabranes, even objected a recent decision of hers contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case!"

The reason is clear why she's always reversed: Judge Sotomayor is a judicial activist who allows her ideology to dictate her decisions, rather than the plain facts of each case. "Legislating from the bench" ISN'T what's needed on the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court and her fellow judges and clerks think this woman is WRONG -- how could the Senate think she's right? We DON'T need a judicial activist sitting on the bench. Please, do the RIGHT thing -- FILIBUSTER Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sotomayor, due to the fact she's UNQUALIFIED to sit on the highest court in the land. Thank you.

[CaldwellYoung]

The comment above is apparently the Republican play line this time around. It's dumb. Read the statistics: a lot of Court of Appeals judges are reversed more often that Sotomayor has been. The Supreme Court often reverses cases in which the majority of the judges voting below were, retrospectivey "in the wrong." It doesn't decide cases by tabulating the number of judges who voted on one side or the other.

There have been cases in which the last appeals court voted by a one vote majority one way, and nearly all the judges starting with the trial judge who made the decision in the first place, voted the other way.

The rest of the above writer's comments are equally uninformed as the statement about reversals. This is why we can't stand Republicans. Someone in the party propaganda machine decides on the part line and the loyal idiots who votes so wisely to bless us with George Bush follow along, blindly.

[mjl422]

She had 3 cases overturned by the Supreme Court out of the 5 that went before the court. 3 out of the 232 cases that she tried is an excellent record. Stop listening to Rush and do some research.

[helonias]

And tell us how shrub was qualified to be pres.

And the right wing justices don't legislate from the bench or appoint Bush as Prez

[Bude]

Imagine how goofy this guys gonna be after 7-1/2 more years of Obama. I love it.

[RickTheScribe]

What I find funny is the fact that the conservative majority in the recent Hartford firemen decision were the ones who were actually the "judicial activists" here (as is so often the case). Sotomayor and the 3-judge panel merely upheld a lower court ruling that was based on existing civil rights laws. It was the conservatives who actually changed existing law with their decision. It may very well have been unfair to those 20 firefighters to have things changed after the fact, but the lower court and the appeals court were merely upholding the law as it existed until the Supreme Court changed it.

[mcvet]

You have to have 41 votes to sustain a Filibuster! LOL The Confederate Party doesn't have the votes.

[GreyHairandGreyMatter]

We're all soon gonna find out!

[pfc1369]

Powell spent so many years climbing up the military political ladder that he is not capable of a clear, single, simple declarative sentence.

Didn't he ever read Grant, Lee, or Sherman?

[RobertGrae]

[rationalpolice]

Well sorry her comments about wise latina women reaching a better conclusion than a white male is racist. If it were in reverse and a white male had said that he never would have been considered. Her decision on the New Haven firfighters also let us in on her way of thinking by showing that if it is white males that come out on top then the system must be biased. Once againg flip the script and a white male would never even be considered. Her resume is undeniable. She is qualified for the job, but her past statements and actions on the bench leave a huge question mark as to her ability to remain impartial.

[Pleneras]

Why would being 100% liberal disqualify anyone? Are 100% conservatives disqualified? How many of those have we sitting in the Supreme Court right now?

Utter nonsense!

[Whitley2009]

For the Repunks, a 100% dogma is desired to flog a less than 100% opponent.