That's All You Got? The Attacks on Sotomayor Come Across as Desperate
I'm not in the habit of giving advice to the Republican Party, which is just as well, because they're not in the habit of accepting it. But in the spirit of bipartisanship, I offer the following: Drop the lame attacks on Sonia Sotomayor, because they're not going to work.
I say this as a member of the Hispanic demographic, which as you know, is one of the 13,000 groups that Republicans are supposedly trying to win back. I also say it as an American citizen with common sense, which is one of the groups the GOP lost a long time ago.
Yes, we know that the Supreme Court nominee has one controversial ruling (the "reverse-discrimination" firefighter case) and that she mouthed off about Latinas making better decisions than white men. But Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh's claims that she's a closet bigot are simply not resonating. And unless pictures emerge of Sotomayor wearing a t-shirt saying, "I hate white people," that isn't going to change.
To my Republican friends, I say back off while you can. The first reason you can't stop her is a factual one.
Sotomayor is a well-qualified judge with years of experience. The anonymous allegations that she is dim simply don't add up (the woman was summa cum laude from Princeton... sounds like a moron to me).
In addition, she offers a well-known compelling story (The Bronx, diabetes, "Perry Mason," and so on). Sotomayor had to earn her way into the Ivy League, where she excelled. She wasn't some rich kid who got in because of family connections and then barely squeaked by with mediocre grades (ahem... where was I?).
This is a chance for Republicans to stop rebuking their own philosophy. You know the one I'm talking about: "Anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and not let their circumstances keep them back."
Yet whenever someone actually does that - like President Clinton, President Obama, and Sotomayor - they wind up despised in conservative circles. Then the GOP goes with the son of a president or the son of an admiral to carry their standard. In truth, the last Republican I recall who actually came from dirt was Alberto Gonzalez, and we all (especially mortified Latinos) know how that one turned out.
Republicans should be thrilled. Here is a woman who actually did what they claim everyone can do: Raise up to greatness from lower-class origins. Weirdly enough, they don't seem pleased see her.
Mike Huckabee couldn't even be bothered to know her name.
In any case, the second reason for Republicans to cool it is a purely political one.
Do they really want to piss off the fastest-growing block of voters, who by the way, just rejected their presidential candidate by a factor of two to one? Is telling the first Latina ever nominated for the Supreme Court that she's not good enough truly the message they want to send to Hispanics like me?
And I'm not even talking about the many women who would be furious, all of whom would rightly ask, "So Clarence Thomas is ok up there, but not another woman?"
Speaking of Thomas, I find it interesting that Republicans talk a great game about picking only the best and ignoring racial considerations. Eighteen years ago, Thomas was considered by many to be a lightweight who only got in because Thurgood Marshall was leaving, and Republicans wanted credit for appointing an African American to replace him. They denied this, of course, and said Thomas would go on to greatness. Two decades later, we're still waiting for the guy to ask a question, author a memorable opinion, or be anything other than Antonin Scalia's sidekick.
In any case, people like George Will come across as oblivious when they denounce "identity politics," as if John Roberts' upbringing as a straight white male has had no impact on his tendency to vote for the establishment.
Still, if all these reasons aren't enough, let's look at the basic math.
Democrats have 59 votes, and may even have a filibuster-proof 60 if the Minnesota mess ever gets figured out. Many of the Republican Senators are moderates who are not terrified of a left-center Latina. So what chance do the 20 to 30 hard-right conservatives have to stop her confirmation? The numbers just aren't there.
But let's say that Republicans derail the Sotomayor nomination. Then what happens?
Well, Obama just picks someone else they despise. And eventually, this person gets confirmed, giving us the same court we have today. If anything, such a court might be even more liberal than Sotomayor would have made it. Oh, and there's also a whole lot of angry Hispanic and female voters now.
But go ahead, Republicans, don't listen to me. You never have before.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
the worst was the clip Olbermann played of Limbaugh when he whispers her name as if it is too evil to even speak! They have tried everything they can think of all the way down to what she eats. actually I would have a big issue with that myself if what they said about that was true, but not enough to disqualify her from the supreme court.
i am not terrified of a latina...but I terrified of a left of center judge.
nothing would thrill me more than a left from center judge!
These attacks are laughably stupid.
Majority has been Independents. I think a new party may be breaking out. A grass roots one. People are sick of the whole 2 party thing. What's up with we only have 1 Independent representing us? I bet that could change big time in the new election coming up.
Why do they always have to use the reverse racism card? As is if the only really qualified candidates could only come from the dominant culture...
She upheld a decision made by the state.
Exactly. She followed the law and precedent. To rule otherwise would have been "making law" and being an "activist judge". But that only counts against you when the GOP doesn't like the way you rule.
I read John Roberts has sided with the establishment 100% of the time since becoming a SC judge. WTF?!? How can the GOP criticize anybody when G.W. Bush's nominee always picks Goliath to win? It is like when Homer Simpson used the bird toy that drinks water from a glass to push the 'y' button for his computer job. Obama should be able to say he picked an empathetic judge to simply vote against John Roberts.
I think the GOP needs to keep up this inanity much longer, before the leadership vacuum is a tempting enough opportunity to anybody of real talent. The question, that anybody intelligent to compete against a Democratic or Green Party opponent would ask is "why would I want to associate myself with the GOP's foolish obsession with wedge issues, when the environment and human rights are such important issues, and so much more intelligently addressed by the competition?" The only reason a talented person would be attracted to the GOP is the lack of competition, and only marginally talented people think that way.
GOP: Unhinged R us.
Well put. My problem with this pick is it was GW Bush's pick first. Half the cabinet are bushites & lobbyists, oh yes, and Czars.
Czar's, the boils of Russia. The coldest, meanest, terrible leaders of Russia. What does that say for America & Americans?
The Independent party has been the majority fr some time now. And we have one (1) Independent rep & 50 blue dogs who may as well be Republicans. I have less than 14 people I trust on the hill so far today. I'd like to eliminate all the ones I know sold out to lobbyists. I'd like to make lobbying illegal, in fact, I swear Obama said he ws going to eliminate it. It's bribery, pure & simple.
Still counting votes for Franken? This Democratic process has become a joke. Why ca'nt we just walk in, fill out a form in triplicate, take a copy with us, then let the counting begin? Simple, error proof, cheap, &saves time, money, & argueents. Time is money & we could pay our debt down fast if we were efficient.
I've never seen so much poor efficiency as I have since I started to get into politics. If you ran a business this way, you'd be bankrupt in a year.
Republicans on Sotomayer- verdict first, trial later.
What have Republicans done in the past two years that hasn't been mean, petty, ugly or desperate?
Sotomayor's rejection of the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation doctrine signals that the woman lacks the ability to uphold and defend the Bill of Rights for ALL Americans. That's a pretty big deal.
No Liberal can defend that, but who said Obamacrats were Liberals? An Obamacrat, like the one above, rushes to defend Sotomayor without any reservation. Only an apologist would do that.
Liberals have core principles, which logically lead them to be staunch supporters of the total incorporation of all rights guaranteed to individuals by the constitution. Sotomayor would prefer to pick and choose what rights can be abridged by the states.
Uh oh. We have four out-of-the-closet right wingers on the Court already, and the more I hear about this pick the more I see political party building at the expense of any real change.
Gender? check. Race? check. Principles? just wait and be patient. Uh oh.
Desperate? How about childish, delusional and irresponsible too? I'd add them to the list. This is pure madness.
Applause ! Applause ! The best article written on Sotomayer.......I'm not Latino, but I'm an American woman and you summed it (my point of view) up perfectly !!!
I agree with the writer here, Daniel Cubias. The Repubs should back off and just let Obama have this one, and earn themselves some brownie points and goodwill, both of which they need. After all, Obama is a constitutional scholar -- you gotta figure he knows a good Supreme Court judge nominee, just as you should listen to Donald Trump if he recommends a men's hair spray.
Whatever happened to dissent is good for America??? Ohh thats right. It is only good when it is the Dems dissenting. When it is the Repubs dissenting, it is reffered as Hatred of America. What a joke!!!
Heres a question for ya. What self professed liberal EVER credited govt welfare or social program for their success???
How about some reasonable, rational dissent based on facts? Your dissent is so cloaked in self serving greed and hypocrisy it is hard to take seriously.
You are so quick to defend a white man against reverse racism but remain silent to racism that affects many more minorities everyday.
Just get a little real with your dissent instead of throwing out all this double speak, sentimental garbage.
thanx...i couldn't have said it better myself....
I don't remember it being dissent being "good" the last 8 years. I think we were called Anti-American, America haters, terrorist lovers and pretty much anything else you can think of.
Hey, but thanks for your worthless opinion anyway.
"Ohh thats right. It is only good when it is the Dems dissenting. When it is the Repubs dissenting, it is reffered as Hatred of America. What a joke!!!"
Were you even minimally conscious at any point in the last 8 years?
When Dems dissent, there are reasons, arguments, discussion.
When Republicans dissent, it sounds like, "I hope she fails."
That isn't dissent, it's insult and pettiness.
Hey conserv47--it's folks like you who need to remember this fact: ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NO ONE makes it to the top in America today without some form of help from the government, be it loans, contracts (e.g. Dick Cheney), tax write-offs (G.W. Bush), property condemnation (G.W. Bush again--remember when he was part owner of the Texas Rangers?), or corporate welfare.
And that's the truth!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
