Limbaugh: “I can see a possibility of supporting…”

June 3, 2009

Ok it’s gone full circle.

Judge Sotomayor (2001 “racist” statement), Rush (”reverse racist”), Newt’s tweets (new racism = old racism), barry (”would’ve restated it“), Republican video highlights, Gibbs (word choice poor), Sotomayor (poor choice of words), Newt (her words are unacceptable, barry and Gibbs agreed I shouldn’t have said racist) and then Rush(it was definitely a racist statement but I may be able to get around if she’s pro-life enough).

I have to think Judge Sotomayor being pro-life is the cause of these pink-faced men’s conversions. Who knows. it’s all political theater. When has barry not gotten what he wanted? Who besides Germany has said no to him?

And it’s barry’s MO to have someone test the waters before he even makes a verbal stand. Did he ever react to North Korea’s missile launch? I can see Sen Feinstein being the one. Roe v Wade has about as much chance of being overturned as Brown v The Board of Education. Even Roe hasn’t been able to make headway.

Anyway. Rush has seen the light…a halo to be exact….and it’s not barry’s.

LIMBAUGH: I can see a possibility of supporting this nomination if I can be convinced that she does have a sensibility toward life in a legal sense.

I don’t know that it will ever happen, but if you know, the opportunity to get somebody like her, she’s a Catholic, she’s a devout Catholic, she’s a Hispanic Catholic, Puerto Rican, they tend to be devout, she hasn’t got a record on this. Normally liberals do have a record.

And about the Twittering Newt?

LIMBAUGH: I didn’t know why he retracted it. What is it? It’s racism, reverse racism, whatever, but it’s still racism, and she would bring a form of racism and bigotry to the court. But as I said yesterday, folks, I’m — I’m — I may look past that.

Newt reconsiders original tweets re: Sotomayor

June 3, 2009

Judge Sotomayor capitulated through a third person that she “made a poor choice of words” and now Gingrich is backing off from his initial position made known through a coupla tweets. They both meant what they said. She didn’t know it would matter when she said it and Gingrich got the response he wanted…relevance.

They are simply doing what passes for bipartisanship – it’s always just a matter of who goes first.

NEWT GINGRICH: from op-ed in conservative Human Events.

Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s now famous words: ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,’” he wrote.

My initial reaction was strong and direct — perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.

Doesn’t that sound straight out of barry’s teleprompter?

And then Newt says, see, I was right – time to rehabilitate myself until next time….

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word ‘racist’ should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).”

That is the exact distinction of the Double Standard. In one direction, the words are racist and the person saying them is a racist. The other way it’s unacceptable and of course they’re not a racist.

President Obama and White House aides said Sotomayor’s choice of words was a poor one, but immediately fought back against critics who branded the judge racist.

I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said last Wednesday.

Newt got to be relevant, then he got to watch barry squirm, then he got to apologize, and then he got praised…and the cycle will start anew when he gets lonely again…..

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee:

I’m very glad he backed off. I think that’s unusual, that commentators do that, and I think it was very good that he did. I think that will… help us. I think that will help us have a real good discussion about the serious issues that the nations faces and the court faces.

Did barry leave his teleprompter behind?

Newt’s tweets on Sotomayor’s “racist statements”

May 20, 2009

First Rush Limbaugh then Newt Gingrich comment on Judge Sotomayor’s “racist” comments.

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Gingrich brings up the very real issue of The Double Standard.

His tweets:

Imagine a judicial nominee said “my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman” new racism is no better than old racism

9:24 AM May 27th from TwitterBerry

White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.

9:34 AM May 27th from TwitterBerry

Is there a special way to denote tweets?

ROBERT GIBBS press briefing May 27th:

Q And are you familiar with — switching topics for a moment to Sotomayor — are you familiar with Newt Gingrich’s blog — (laughter.) You are not?

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q Okay. Well, he apparently — I’m told it is on his blog that he said, “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latino woman.’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latino woman racist should also withdraw.”

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation. I think we’re satisfied that when the people of America and the people of the Senate get a chance to look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker –

Q He also tweeted us. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: — that they’ll come to the same conclusion that the President did: that judicial experience that exceeds any nominee — federal judicial experience that exceeds any nominee for a hundred years, strict adherence to precedent — I think when people get a chance to look at her record, I feel certain that partisan politics will take a backseat to common sense and open-minded decisions based on a full examination of the record. And I think that’s what every Supreme Court and every judicial nominee deserves.

I think if you look at — again, I mentioned this yesterday — this is somebody who was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton, approved by the Senate in each occasion. So I think she is somebody who is highly qualified, of keen intellect, and somebody that’s going to be a great member of the Supreme Court. I’ve heard a lot of people in the last couple days, they’ve mentioned intellect. I’m not entirely sure where people that make that argument — I’m not sure what number they graduated in their class at Princeton, but my sense is it’s not second.

Then he is pushed on the racial and gender aspects and he launches into his usual sarcasm. He is really unprofessional as are the rest of the frat boys who sit and laugh with him and at the person he’s making fun of. It’s not worth putting the whole exchange here – this is enough.

Q In all fairness, a follow to that — it’s not just a racial dimension, but it’s a gender dimension. And do you at least acknowledge that she did say these words? You’re asking us to look beyond.

MR. GIBBS: I can confirm that it appears likely that she intoned both of those sentences, yes.

Newt Gingrich: Tax Day Tea Party

April 10, 2009

Newt Gingrich is jumping on the Tea Party publicity. Here’s an email message from him that was forwarded to Orly Taitz by Col Riley - one of the plaintiffs in the Quo Warranto.

Subject: On Constitutional Emergency: Newt Gingrich Pushing TEA PARTY
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:40:42 +0000 (GMT)

A message to all members of Constitutional Emergency

Lest we forget, TAX DAY TEA PARTY is just the start………

Dear Col Harry,

On April 15, Tax Day, those of us who believe in free markets and limited government have an enormous opportunity.

This opportunity is the Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.

American Solutions is proud to be a part of a coalition of grassroots groups that are helping to organize and promote Tea Parties all across the country. In fact, we’ve confirmed over 500 events in all 50 states and we’re still growing.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans of all political stripes will be hitting the streets to protest high taxes and fiscal irresponsibility.

To find a Tea Party in your area go to www.AmericanSolutions.com/TeaParty.

Our goal must be to put a stop to the excessive debt, spending, and centralization of power by cynical politicians, and to put forth a clear and decisive alternative.

We’ve put together a Toolkit for Tea Parties that you can print out and take with you.

You can download it right here: www.AmericanSolutions.com/TeaParty.

It includes, among other items, our 12 American Solutions for Jobs & Prosperity, which is a clear and decisive alternative to the big government, big bureaucracy, big spending policies of President Obama.

Thank you, and we hope you will join us for a Tea Party.

Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
General Chairman
American Solutions

Visit Constitutional Emergency at: http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com

Warning: Tea bags threat to Senate