The Plan Behind the Sotomayor Attacks

UPDATE: May 31,2009 - GOP's Sessions walks into phase II of Soto-Strategy. On MTP when asked about Rush and Gingrich's attacks Sessions said "I am not going to use any such words"..... "people on the outside can say what they choose to say"

..........................................................................................................................................................................

While the racist statements about Justice Sotomayor from Rush, Tancredo, Hannity, and the rest of the GOP front men may seem slip shod a closer look reveals that they have a clear cut direction. The right has clearly decided that a wedge issue that will work for them in the 2010 election cycle is affirmative action and this is the opening salvo for yet another mean spirited divisive GOP campaign cycle.

In 1994 Newt Gingrich delivered the House to the GOP after 40 years in exile based on what was then referred to as the "angry white male vote". The 2009-10 GOP game plan is beginning to look a lot like Newts 1994 strategy. Here is a walk through:

Phase one is to paint Justice Sotomayor as a crazed hot headed Latina that hates white guys. Obviously this is a nasty divisive, explosive, and dangerous phase that has potential for blow back. Keeping that in mind the suits in the official GOP have outsourced the hate to the talk radio and right wing cable circuit. GOP Senators that are in States with significant Latino populations will put on blue suits, white shirts with red ties, and denounce Rush and his cast of mini-me's in front of TV cameras. All the while the hate speech against Sotomayor will continue.

Phase two will be administered by GOP members of the Senate. After weeks of distancing themselves from the racism and sexism of their top spokesmen GOP Senators will take Rush Limbaugh's talking points, edit out some of the nastier adjectives and use them as the basis for their questions in Sotomayor's confirmation hearings.

The Repub Senators goal will be to distill all of Sotomayor's years of judicial experience to one case: the Rici case. The Rici case has the drama and divisiveness that the GOP has in past election cycles driven to victory. Rici involves Anglo and Latino firemen suing New Haven after the Connecticut city came to believe that an employment test that plaintiffs had nailed was discriminatory.

GOP Senators having laundered racist attacks on Sotomayor through their hate radio cartel will be free to focus on Rici, one opinion of Sotomayor's of over 300, out of "concerns" they will claim they have based on "reports".

Phase 3 is the where the real goal emerges: the 2010 reelection campaigns. Having framed the Obama Administration and the Democratic Senate as an Anglo-male hating institution Newt's old GOP playbook is ready for a return to prime time. The problem is that it is ready for primetime 1994. The 2009-10 audience demo has changed which leads us to:

The predictable outcome -GOP losses in any states that have marginally significant Latino voting populations at all levels of government.

I hate Newt's GOP playbook but I have to admit it pays off for Latino Democratic outreach.

Mario Solis-Marich is a talk show host that can be heard over the air AM 760 in Denver , KTLK AM 1150 in Los Angeles and worldwide at www.GoToMario.com.

Comments

[pons1595]

The Rethugs don't have any new ideas for America. All they have are ill-conceived ideas, ones that tap into America's basest and most negative thoughts and prejudices. Their latest is best explained by a famous quotation by Frank Dane [Chief Legal and Financial Officer; Corporate Secretary and Treasurer; Human Resource Executive; Faculty Keller Graduate School of Management]: "Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." This divisive strategy will surely backfire on them; America has “grown up” over the last few years. The best example is religion. From my perspective, we've come to believe what President Lincoln believed: “When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.”

[Shellly]

In over 100 supreme court justices only 4, if you count Clarence Thomas, have been non-white male. What is the problem now???

[oncethere]

There is something bizarrely inverted about the Republican approach to racism. First, there was Clarence Thomas who grew up a victim of racism and came to identify with the racists; now, there is Sotamayor who Republicans are accusing of reverse racism. With Republicans, there is never a pick who has been a victim of racism and, yes, is angry about it and wants to improve social conditions. Its always some victim who they use to show how great and benevolent America is.

[Danigirl1968]

This frenzy circling the nomination of Latina Appeals Judge, Sonia Sotomayor, is not even unbelievable anymore. The "white man shock" over her 'taken out of context' statements from an 8 year old speech is laughable.

It's crazy to think that ANY judge would NOT be affected by their experiences, race, gender, religion, etc. when dealing with their interpretation of the law and how it effects the case at hand.

Ok so we now have a woman, a Hispanic of humble beginnings, a judge who is not afraid to speak freely about her ideas and influences! It's OK to be HUMAN and that is exactly what I got out of hearing her 8 year old speech (in full). She's recognizing that certain influences may HELP not HINDER her ability to UNDERSTAND in a broader sense the people within any case at hand.

I'm sorry but WHITE MEN no longer are the sole representation of this country. In most lines (grocery store, bank, library, post office, etc) you see a rainbow of faces and hear multitudes of languages.

Justice Sotomayor is a representative of the fabric of this nation. She represents the American dream. She came up and succeeded and deserves this nomination and the seat!

She's HUMAN as every Justice is. She may even make mistakes (shhh don't tell anyone).

When we look for perfection we are met with disappointment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-solismarich/the-plan-behind-the-sotom_b_209106.html#
It's time to stop the madness...

[kjstjohn]

It's a plan and it's a replay of the welfare queen move.

They are going to use a female minority (this time a person instead of a symbol) to tap into a deep well of white, male, lower-middle-class resentment.

Ladies, are we going to let them get away with it this time???????

[Citizenofreality]

No, I've had it with their destructive divisiveness. I fully support Judge Sotomayor. I am not a Latina but I want Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. She is educated, intelligent and well qualified.

[ThinkCreeps]

OK. It's a plan - but these guys need a cunning plan, not just any old plan.

[maxfax]

Sessions is protecting himself politically, it has nothing to do with "doing the right thing."

[AMpoke]

Mario -
You are so right on as usual. The attacks by the Republican leaders and FOX commentators are reckless. I know with the Senate hearing process coming up, it wouldn't be wise for Sotomayor to defend herself. But, Im worried about the damage the right is stirring up in it's most extreme base, Isn't it racist on the part of the Newt's and Limbough's and FOX NEWS to take snippet comments from Sotomayor; And then say the statements are racist, for the solitary purpose to corral their base, a racist act? It just seems to me, that the "Old guard right wing extreme Republicans" that takes the bate are the biggots. Young and moderate Republicans can see Newt's, Limbought and FOX's strategy. Rush Limbough said it all in a statement last week; "if Obama Wins we Lose", Most commentators said he was talking about America, but I think he was talking about the Republican Party.

[tom928]

I think Sotomayor should be confirmed, but this debate being forced by the Republicans is a good one for Democrats and liberals in general to have.

For the past thirty years or so, the Left in academia has developed a very strong postmodernist skeptical stance toward the ideal of objectivity and a parallel conviction that we must all admit prejudicial preference for our own. This is sometimes called the 'philosophy of difference' and you can hear it in Sotomayor's controversial comment. While it is an good intellectual exercise within academia to subject ideals of neutrality to skeptical inquiry, the result in the concrete world of realpolitik is a Left that is deeply skeptical about its own roots in the ideals of secular liberalism and universal fairness.

This is the Left that can be so cynical now as to support the seeds of tyranny and fascism so long as they are being sown by ethnic groups that declare themselves anti-Western, anti-science, anti-modernism, etc. Case in point is the support of the 1979 militant Islamic revolution in Iran by the supposed Left-wing critical theorist Michel Foucault. Foucault's hatred and desire to overturn the Western liberal tradition outweighed his care of the consequences for women who would have to live under the brutal regime he cheered on.

[ElTommo]

Blah blah, more nonsense, blah blah.

[tom928]

Do you think Foucault's support of militant Islamicism is "nonsense" that the Left doesn't need to think about? I say this as a Leftist concerned about the soul and ideals of the Left.

[ThinkCreeps]

Thankfully, critical theorists don't make policy.

The expression of ideas is good, even when the ideas are crazy. Any ounce of pragmatism would appear at the point of the impact of the ideas on one's own life. Note that Foucault did not go to live in a theocracy.

[kjstjohn]

"point of impact of the ideas on one's own life"

Fabulous phrasing.

[kjstjohn]

I don't think Republicans and Democrats are going to be having the debate you envision.

I think Republicans are going to be laying thought eggs like "bias," "emotional female," "identity politics," "activist judge," "affirmative action," "reverse discrimination," "illegal immigrant," etc. Then in the next election cycle they are going to throw those eggs in a skillet, turn on the heat, and see if they can cook an omelet that angry white men will find tasty.

[kjstjohn]

I have reread your post and it makes a little more sense on the third go-around. (Sorry I was such a cad in my earlier post.)

I believe that what you say in your first paragraph is correct. I believe that Roe v Wade, Bush v Gore, and the Lilly Ledbetter case have exposed the craft of judging for what it is. And cognitive linguistics will not allow us to return to our former state of naivete on that matter.

What I see happening in the future is that universal empathy will replace universal fairness as the ideal.

Thanks for your provacative post. I have fanned you in an attempt to make up for my impertinence.

If you do not mind writing again, I would like for you to flesh out the idea in your second paragraph. I do not see how Foucalt relates to Sotomayor.

[JRAM]

Yes, the demographics are different today than they were in 1994, or in 1965. Furthermore, they will be different in in 2053, when Latino, Afro-American, Asian and all the other "sub-groups" listed on the census survey will become the majority in this country. These politicians who are currently belittling afirmative action may be well served to take the long view. One day their children's children may need such a program.

[WritusMaximus]

So I guess we should all sit back and enjoy the spectacle of Repubs digging their own grave as they attack Sotomayor.

[incognito-ergo-sum]

We can discuss the minutia of the Republican efforts endlessly, but what I really like seeing is how the conservative Republicans throw everything they have at anything the President does. A whole day on mustard!

They are trying to kill flies with a shotg un. It must be very wearing to give it your all and lose again and again.

If something really big comes along, who is left to care what they say? They have criticized her food, her name and probably her jewelry. It is pathetic and oh so long overdue, this GOP meldown.

[Mugzi]

Yes, they were already talking filibuster before they even knew who it would be!

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Loved the article.

The GOP is stuck back in 1994. They just don't get that there was a tremendous amount of diversity surrounding the Obama vote. Blacks. Latinos. Gays. Catholics. Muslims. Jews. Whites. To me the greatest accomplishment of the Nov. 4 election was that diversity.

Their ignorance and bias will doom them. Further, they do not realize that the Internet allows for a much more involved and informed populace than in 1994.

[lafrance]

Though you come close, you missed an important ingredient in your assessment of the noise factory and the selling of hate.
In 1994, Angry white males was a new thing and people thought about that. It's been 15 years now and the old angry white males were in power for just about all that time. The time has come and gone for the angry white male thing to move people now.
Most have heard the rants, over the top, hyperbolic accusations, blaming the victims of their hate, and the continuing feeling sorry for themselves. The act has grown old and annoying to the majority of the people.
Especially since many of them now are part of the growing majority of minorities and it simply doesn't play anymore.

[jill2468]

Why is it only "hate" when Republicans or Conservitives speak out against something or someone they think will do no good for the country? I am not to worried about Sotomayor's nomination, she has had some REALLY bad decisions and some pretty good ones. Did you all screem fowl when the Democrats shredded Judge Thomas and Judge Borke? And I also think it is a danger to start lunping all Latinos into one big pile. They are thinking discriminating people and I don't think they walk lock step with the Democrats. I beleive that they have principles and alot of them just got caught up in the whole "how great thou art" movement for Obama. Another thing, just to make a short mention of the Rici case. These Anglos and Latinos studied hard and spent their own money to study. Because they took the extra steps to make sure they did well, they were punished because no Blacks could pass the test. Is that right? No.. One more thing, is your talk show "mean spirited"? I bet you don't hink so, but I would. Freedom of speach is wonderful. If I still lived in MY, I would simply listen to Mike Rosen.

[Herb1843]

If Obama wins a second term, odds are good that he'll appoint at least one more justice.

But I can't help imagining what the Limbaughs, Becks and Hannitys will have left to resort to if Obama names a judge who leans even halfway to the left as much as Scalia or Thomas lean to the right.

What in the world could they have left in reserve? It's humanly impossible to scream louder, and now that G. Gordon Liddy has attacked the uterus (Presumably it leans left, unless you're Ann Coulter) it would seem impossible to sink lower.

Personally, I think they're deliberately waging junk-yard dog politics: They'll foam at the mouth, bark and bite at ANYTHING resembling a Democrat that comes near.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: If Obama could walk on water, the Limbaughs and Hannitys would say it proves he can't swim.