Friday, June 5, 2009
On the Controversial Sotomayor Quote
I think we all need to try and cut through the bull-crap here. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, when Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, said that, in her opinion, a wise Latina woman would reach a better decision than a white man, she was in fact being stupid. At the very least, she was being extremely impolitic. But, come on, folks (my conservative friends, especially), it was just one statement. And as the President pointed out, if you go as far as to look at the totality of her speech, you'll see that even this was mediated somewhat - her admission that she, too, had prejudices that needed to be held in check, etc......................................................................If the Republican party and conservatives wanted my advice (not that they ever would, of course), I would tell them to knock it off with this shit. I mean, it's not like she doesn't have an actual record or anything. Focus on that, for Christ. If Republicans find her opinions objectionable, fine, vote against her. But to try and play gotcha with ten year-old quotes and demonize her with them, I don't know. I'm thinking that they just might want to reconsider that - all those unelected Republicans, especially.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The was a great opinion piece in Salon about the "crackpots" on the right, like Buchanan, Rush, Newt, the unelected and unelectable. The question is why do they get a lot of play on shows like Hardball? So this notion that Sotomayor is racist is ludicrous and projection from these old white men who see things changing and they don't like change. They have been advantaged by their gender and the color of their skin. They see power slipping away and howl racism. Howl on you pathetic bastards. It's a new day.
And thanks for making me laugh about ripping off my toenail. First laugh today.
I have mixed feelings about Buchanan (the other two I definitely don't care for). While certain of his views over the years have clearly been bellicose, he can also be affable and insightful and even make for good television at times. I guess alot depends on where you're coming from politically.
"she was in fact being stupid"
NO Stupid is taking that PART of a sentence out from the rest of the sentence and then saying she was being stupid.
"I have mixed feelings about Buchanan"
Well being that Pat is a mixed bag of nuts himself.
If one is honest about Buchanan it's easy to see him for the self serving A Hole that he is.
1138, I admitted that the "right" had been taking her out of context, and that the rest of her speech did in fact mediate what she had said. Still, when you say that one group is "better" than another, you gotta expect a little bit of blowback. I also said that I would personally vote for her. A little bit too much nuance, maybe.
I'd say not enough nuance.
At least not on what I criticized.
Experience is a qualification - and that includes personal racial and sexual discrimination experience.
I have no problem with what she said.
You don't have to have a problem with what she said. Everybody's sensibilities are different. Me, I just personally have a problem pitting groups up against each other. And like the judge herself ALSO said, sometimes a negative experience can make a person see LESS clearly. But let me repeat myself here, I WOULD vote for her (as I would have Roberts and Alito, too).
"I WOULD vote for her (as I would have Roberts and Alito, too)."
The last two making it all the clearer that Sotomayor, is probably a bad choice.
Based on the first 200 years of our history, all three of these nominees are/were qualified.
I didn't say any of them were not qualified.
Hell! I'm qualified and you probably are too.
Post a Comment