Sessions' Hate Speech

Much of the progressive blogosphere is aghast at the embarrassing Republican strategy of putting Senator Jeff Sessions, a man with a history of racially insensitive statements, as the central interlocutor of a Hispanic woman. Could they really be that stupid -- again?

Stupid? No. More like strategic. There is a subterranean agenda here has nothing to do with the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice, and subterranean agendas are what the GOP is always about.

Just as torture was not about getting information but about intimidating our foes and exacting false confessions to justify an Iraq-al Qaida link, just as attacking ACORN was not about investigating voter fraud but about intimidating people from going to the polls, and just as questioning science was not about embracing Creationism but about discrediting climate change so polluting corporations could continue their global plunder, Sessions going after Sotomayer's non-existent "bias" is not about vetting a potential Supreme Court justice.

It's about making you afraid.
It's about making the media afraid.
And it's about making the Obama government afraid.

The point of putting a "racially insensitive" white man up to question a Latina has nothing to do with bad GOP planning and everything to do with intimidation. Republicans know she's getting confirmed; what they really want to do is intimidate the White House, the media, and me and you from embracing progressive views.

So, if you're going to embrace affirmative action, feminism, equal rights, economic fairness, civil rights, -- Jesus, even empathy -- you stand warned you will be attacked. It has nothing to do with defeating Sotomayer and everything to do with discrediting what most Americans believe and intimidating us from expressing it. It's also a signal to their dwindling base -- disenfranchised, uneducated whites -- that the GOP is still the party of the cluelessly and inarticulately disgruntled.

Hence economic fairness is "a special interest," universal healthcare is "socialism," and believing in a right to privacy is "judicial activism;" all of it bullshit, but all of it useful.

That's the goal here; keeping ignorance alive so you can cajole it to the ballot box, the streets, in front of David Letterman's studio, at the local Board of Ed meeting or the commencement at Notre Dame.

Or outside Dr George Tiller's women's health clinic or the Holocaust Museum -- carrying a gun.

 

 

Comments

[RIConservative]

Gilroy..you call that a Hate Speech???? What's the matter, you can't find enough real racism to protest so you have to make it up? This article is ridiculous.

[blucollarman]

This reminds me of when I was in the 6th grade, over forty years ago. I sat in the second to the last desk from the back, the school bully sat behind me. The teacher, "Peg Leg" Stewart, used to pick me up out of my chair by grabbing my sideburns and lifting me up! Ole Peg Leg was the meanest damn teacher in the school and sitting right behind me was the biggest BULLY in the school district. This guy was huge, and he was ugly too! So I didn't have a chance whenever the the biggest, ugliest, dumbest BULLY had to ask me for the answers to nearly everything put before us in class. I'd get in trouble for getting caught responding to the BULLY when he needed attention. Well one day I finally snapped and on that particular day I jumped out of my desk seat and just starting swinging with everything I had. We went to the floor... the BULLY still in his seat attached to the desk... and I did not stop until Peg Leg pulled me off. I was applauded by all the other students in the classroom.

I never had a problem with that BULLY after that moment.

[medicinecat]

The difference between Jeff Sessions and Judge Sotomayor? Judge Sotomayor is a credit to America, and Mr. Sessions is not. Remember, the world is watching.

[RIConservative]

Why is Sotomayor a credit?
Obama said "Get me a minority woman" and they picked her out of a hat.

Yeah, that's a truly inspirational story.

[onepotatotwopotato]

Questions for judge Sotomayor:

Do you believe that the Bill of Rights in its entirety, the first ten Amendments to our Constitution, is incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth or any other Amendment to the Constitution or by any other binding legal precedent?

Do you accept the finding of the Court in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the rights of all citizens of the United States include but are not limited to the following, as redacted from the decision of the Court:

"the right to enter every State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, AND TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT." [emphasis added]

The Court was of course enumerating rights it deemed could be denied to Black Americans. Today those and other rights must be applied equally to all citizens of the United States.

[Polichick66]

I agree with this post, and that the GOP is rallying the "disenfranchised, uneducated, whites" with this approach.
However, I know plenty of educated, non-violent Republicans, and what bothers me is that they too are buying into this "race" issue. They might not pick up a gun and shoot somebody, but the predjuces are there and being exploited by the message the GOP.

Where are the reasonable Republicans???

[Narrowminded]

Polichick66,

Your willingness to adopt the stereotypical view of White Conservatives as "disenfranchised, uneducated, whites," certainly explains why you fail to recognize the blatant racism in Sotomayor's remarks. If you hold such narrowminded and bigoted opinions it is not a mystery as to why you also support her nomination to the Supreme Court.

If similar remarks had been made by a White man he would be excoriated as a racist and run out of public life. Bigotry and racism have no place on the Supreme Court, and it makes no difference whether the bigot is a White man, a "wise Latina", or any other category of race, ethnicity, gender or background you care to name.

How very hypocritical you supposedly open minded liberals are.

[Polichick66]

You are making the point for us. Thanks!

[macweenie]

'If similar remarks had been made by a White man he would be excoriated as a racist and run out of public life.'

Funny. I heard the same thing about how Republicans get rid of their representatives that cheat on their spouses. Or maybe that was Ann Coulters Liberal twin talking about the 'Democrat' party, because I see no sign of Ensign or Sanford being rushed to the door. Speaking of Rush, I guess your party is very forgiving of illegal drug use - for rich white Republicans anyhow. But back to the exact point you made, Sessions himself has spouted some particularly vile racist garbage and yet THERE HE WAS, grilling Sotomayer. Not run out of public life. Can you explain?

Ho very deceptive and ignorant of the facts you supposed members of the master race are. But then you have the Family there to justify even the most heinous of actions as necessary to advance the cause of the rich, white, men.

[DakotaMinnesota]

I'm glad you see the connection with the Letterman/Palin spat. The whole point of that was to intimidate Letterman, who had just inherited a larger amount of Leno's conservative viewers, who had shifted over to Letterman as the next-most-­establishe­d sure thing to sit your @ss on the couch in front of at night. It'll take another generation before they catch of to the speed of that wierd Conan guy.

But anyway, INTIMIDATION is why that all of a sudden went down in June after Letterman had been doing cracks like that since the day we were introduced to Mrs. Palin. Conservatives weren't going to cede a chunk of their audience over to Letterman without a shot across the bow that he better watch his manners.

F a s c i s m is the politics of intimidation.

[OswegoKayaker]

Well Letterman doesn't shut up on command like so many. He held his own and more. I still miss the George Bush moment of the day segment which always made me laugh. He was polite to the whole Palin family, he said he was sorry, very sincerely TWICE and was rebuffed. So now he is going to keep running with this like he did with McCain. He obviously doesn't intimidate easily. Good for him.

[DakotaMinnesota]

"Republicans know she's getting confirmed; what they really want to do is intimidate the White House, the media, and me and you from embracing progressive views."

You are right on the mark with this.

Somebody should remind conservatives that the blue states are the original American states. They act like blue state views are not welcome in this country.

Bullies abusing our open society.

[ECB]

Yoda ?

[roch20]

Agree! Great post; one more thing, her last name is SOTOMAYOR, please!

[roch20]

Great post; one more thing, her last name is SOTOMAYOR, please!

[Suzanne525]

Great article. I've been saying (for years) that the GOP chooses their words carefully to make the greatest impact on the public's fear. We need to take that weapon away from them.

Our current admin is playing with words also, in a way I don't like. Toxic assets have become 'legacy assets'. I know there is more, but can't think of any at the moment.

[Narrowminded]

The War on Terror is now an "over seas contingency operation."

Soldiers die, but the administration just doesn't have to say the words War on Terror.

[roller]

KUDOS.
Never (well, hardly ever) has SO MUCH been insightfully said with so FEW and pithy words.
Brilliant Analysis!

We need to combat the insipid and insidious sub-rosa agenda of the Goopers, and NOT get distracted by their many, many, many shiny objects thrown our way.

[btdenver]

It isn't working.

Instead of intimidating anyone, they just look like juvenile racists. If anything, they are driving more people and further inoculating the public against the GOP virus. Most of the guys on the committee are from states that will continue to reward their nonsense. But they are tarnishing Republicans everywhere.

[FloaterBall]

Great post. Observant and articulate. And enjoyable, thanks!

[catrst]

There is a ruthlessness about what is described in this article that chills people's resolve. I saw it happen leading up to the war in Iraq. Personally I have no public presence but I have started speaking out to friends, family and even casual acquaintances when I might have taken a more passive approach in the past. Neighbors have shunned me, family members disconnected but I have continued. I respect other people's right to their opinion but I do not shy away from disagreeing anymore. Martin Luther King is the best role model for this. Public rebuttal is immensely important but so is the guerilla marketing of voice upon voice denouncing wrongdoing.

[Suzanne525]

Good for you! I don't always speak out in situations where I fear it will affect my employers' business if I'm writing letters, etc. I want to not be afraid of losing my job (this small office is owned by and populated with rightwingers). I do stand up to anyone who brings up an issue, but feel I should speak out to a wider venue. I'll keep your actions in mind. Thank you.

[Suzanne525]

I thought I would fan you, but went to read your other comments first, so I'd have a sense of who you are, and was amazed at the depth of understanding and intelligence demonstrated in your comments. While there are many smart people reading & commenting on HuffPo, you stand out. I am most definitely a fan!

[Polichick66]

You bring up something that has always bothered me. Why do the Republicans own the right to always be on the offensive, while the Democrats or Liberals always have to be on the defensive? Why do we feel afraid to voice are opinions? Even with family members and friends?
Has it always been like this, or is this the result of 8 years under Bush, with the touchiness of 9/11 and the Iraq war? Is ti because of the mainstream media? Are we just more apathetic?
I just don't get it.