July 13, 2009
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s opening statements – Day 1 Senate confirmation Hearings.
Sotomayor’s background. Video/text of announcement of nomination.
VIDEO of statement: Politico44
Also noted at Politico: Norma McCorvey aka Jane Roe [as in Roe v Wade] was one of four people arrested for “shouting anti-abortion slogans”. Wonder of Fr Weslin was there too. Have to do a follow up on Notre Dame.
TRANSCRIPT of statement: The Washington Post
————–
SEN PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Judge, now we will administer the oath, and I’ll let the two senators step back, if they’d like, if we can. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
SOTOMAYOR: I do.
LEAHY: Thank you. Please be seated. And I thank my two colleagues from New York for the introduction. And I — I appreciated it, because I know both have known you for some time. Judge, you’ve also introduced a number — members of your family. And now the floor is yours.
SOTOMAYOR:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to thank Senators Schumer and Gillibrand for their kind introductions.
In recent weeks, I have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting 89 senators, including all of the members of this committee. Each of you has been gracious to me, and I have so much enjoyed meeting you. Our meetings have given me an illuminating tour of the 50 states and invaluable insights into the American people.
There are countless family members and friends who have done so much over the years to make this day possible. I am deeply appreciative for their love and support. I want to make one special note of thanks to my mother. I am here, as many of you have noted, because of her aspirations and sacrifices for both my brother, Juan, and me.
Mom, thank you.
I am very grateful to the president and humbled to be here today as a nominee to the United States Supreme Court.
The progression of my life has been uniquely American. My parents left Puerto Rico during World War II. I grew up in modest circumstances in a Bronx housing project. My father, a factory worker with a third-grade education, passed away when I was 9 years old.
On her own, my mother raised my brother and me. She taught us that the key to success in America is a good education. And she set the example, studying alongside my brother and me at our kitchen table so that she could become a registered nurse.
We worked hard. I poured myself into my studies at Cardinal Spellman High School, earning scholarships to Princeton University and then Yale Law School, while my brother went on to medical school. Our achievements are due to the values that we learned as children, and they have continued to guide my life’s endeavors. I try to pass on this legacy by serving as a mentor and friend to my many godchildren and to students of all backgrounds.
Over the past three decades, I have seen our judicial system from a number of different perspectives — as a big-city prosecutor, as a corporate litigator, as a trial judge, and as an appellate judge. My first job after law school was as an assistant district attorney in New York.
There I saw children exploited and abused. I felt the pain and suffering of families torn apart by the needless death of loved ones. I saw and learned the tough job law enforcement has in protecting the public.
In my next legal job, I focused on commercial instead of criminal matters. I litigated issues on behalf of national and international businesses and advised them on matters ranging from contracts to trademarks.
My career as an advocate ended, and my career as a judge began, when I was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As a trial judge, I did decide over 450 cases and presided over dozens of trials, with perhaps my most famous case being the Major League Baseball strike in 1995.
After six extraordinary years on the district court, I was appointed by President Clinton to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On that court, I have enjoyed the benefit of sharing ideas and perspectives with wonderful colleagues as we have worked together to resolve the issues before us.
I have now served as an appellate judge for over a decade, deciding a wide range of constitutional, statutory and other legal questions. Throughout my 17 years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have not been made to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interests of impartial justice.
In the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. Simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make law. It is to apply the law.
And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress’s intent, and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and by my circuit court.
In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand. The process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the parties to the litigation are understood and acknowledged.
That is why I generally structure my opinions by setting out what the law requires and then explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is accepted or rejected. That is how I seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our judicial system. My personal and professional experiences helped me to listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case.
Since President Obama announced my nomination in May, I have received letters from people all over this country. Many tell a unique story of hope in spite of struggle. Each letter has deeply touched me. Each reflects a dream — a belief in the dream that led my parents to come to New York all those years ago. It is our Constitution that makes that dream possible, and I now seek the honor of upholding the Constitution as a justice on the Supreme Court.
Senators, I look forward in the next few days to answering your questions, to having the American people learn more about me, and to being part of a process that reflects the greatness of our Constitution and of our nation.
Thank you all.
June 11, 2009
A little flashback to prove it’s not just white comics trashing Gov Palin. Here’s a “joke” by Wanda Sykes at the White House correspondent’s dinner about Gov Palin that was not only despicable it was completely unnecessary. And Bill Maher’s limited vocabulary bimbo and bimbo. Chris Rock is too classless to waste breath on.
RoachRadio
I know Gov. Palin, she’s not here tonight. She pulled out at the last minute. You know, somebody should tell her, that’s not how you really practice abstinence.
And her joke about Rush Limbaugh as a strung out terrorist and a traitor who deserved to be waterboarded by Herr Olbermann and then die from kidney failure was visibly enjoyed by barry. Then, as usual, the White House refused to comment only saying that jokes about 9-11 are in poor taste. And who questioned barry about his laughing at the 9-11 joke? Check him out see if he thought it was in bad taste, especially his chuckle when she said she hoped Limbaugh’s kidneys failed.
HotAirPundit
June 12, 2009
How does that strike you?
Hysterical ain’t it?
And if Dave had so those words? Would he still be working?
Do you have a different reaction to those words?
Racist, you say?
Why?
Is a white former VP candidate and mother of five children being called a slut different than black college athletes being called nappy-headed ‘hos?
Why?
Why should one person lose their job and the other go unsanctioned?
If you reacted in a different way than to Letterman’s similar comments about Gov Palin, ask yourself why.
What crossed the threshold for you?
Was it because of Gov Palin’s political party? Because of her religion? Because her oldest teenage daughter was “knocked up”? Because she has, as NEWSWEEK’s Jonathan Alter referred to Trig, a DISABLED INFANT?
Because of the way she talks? Because her skin is white? Because “slut” in your mind has a different meaning than “‘ho”? Because you feel it’s apt?
Are they not both women? Mothers? American political figures known on the world stage?
Is not disrespecting one woman, disrespecting all?
Or is disrespect and sexism ok for some and not for others?
Say, perhaps, ok for Secretary Clinton and Governor Palin but not for First Lady Michelle Obama?
Is sexism specific to skin color or ethnicity?
So why is it you reacted differently?
What exactly was the deciding factor?
I am truly curious because I cannot understand some of the comments folks are making out there. What goes on in their small bigoted minds.
No. I did not vote for Gov Palin or anyone else. This site is not affiliated with, nor endorsed by, any candidate, political party or organization.
Here is just a sampling – the majority appeared to be written by women.
FOUL LANGUAGE that is as was posted. All but two identified themselves – either in the post or on their website – as Obama supporters. The other two had nothing political on the home page.
I hate her.
She’s a dumbass BITCH!!!
She’s just whining.
She’s still a cunt.
Chill out – they’re just jokes.
She’s just using it to get publicity.
She’s still a MILF (Mother I’d like to fuck)
He wasn’t talking about the younger one. Duh!
Why doesn’t she just shut up and go away.
How long before that one gets knocked up, too?
What’s the big deal? She IS a slut.
SHE’S A FUCKING CUNT!!!
She’s a worthless whore and so are her daughters.
Why doesn’t she just stay home with the retard?
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.
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:
Did barry leave his teleprompter behind?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.
Judge Sotomayor is a barry clone. She goes through intermediaries (who can claim to have “misheard” or “misunderstood) instead of going on the record. She still refuses to address her “racist comments” head on and it appears Sen Dianne Feinstein has volunteered (been chosen) to be the mouthpiece.
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.
CNN: Sen Dianne Feinstein for Judge Sotomayor:
“She said, ‘Obviously it was a poor choice of words if you read on and read the rest of my speech you wouldn’t be concerned with it but it was a poor choice of words.”
And Sen Feinstein is putting out the good word on abortion as well. Though I’m not clear on what Feinstein is intimating.
Feinstein, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, added that she and Sotomayor “generally” discussed the issue of abortion, and that the judge believes strongly in legal precedent.
“I believe she has a real respect for precedent and … if that is really true then I will agree with her and I believe it is,” the senator said.
That makes me believe she is pro0life but as far as the law will abide by precedent. Gibbs was pushing the same word the other day: “strict adherence to precedent” So he knows her stand already.
Wasn’t one of barry’s promises to only pick a Justice who believes in Roe v Wade aka a woman’s right to choose?
Source: NBC 5’s MARCUS RILEY.
Obama just loves refried beans.
Sign in front of RICHARD TISCH’s Will County Loan Company in Lockport, which is clearly in reference to barry’s appointing of Judge Sotomayor. But it’s not a special occasion. He’s put up other signs, which he refers to as “political satire”. When Bill Clinton was in office it was:
Hillary’s Health Plan: Free Condoms for Wild Bill
June 2008:
My choice for President? Dr. Condoleeza Rice
October 2008, when Sen McCain raised the issue of border security with Mexico:
John McCain just loves refried beans.
What do his customers think?
People read the signs, but they never forget the ones they don’t like. It’s not against the Mexican people. It’s only if you choose to read it that way.
Perhaps someone should clue him in that Sotomayor’s parents are from the Spanish-speaking area of Puerto Rico – not Mexico.
TISCH, obviously not a barryfan, has no problem pointing out that barry is once again pandering to a demographic – this time the Hispanic vote. That barry is trying to “buy the Mexican vote” because “she’s not the best qualified person to do the job.”
Racially motivated?
Some people, for instance the sign that’s up there today, like to put a racial issue there. That’s not what it’s intended to do. I’m simply saying that Barack Obama is probably the smartest politician to hold the office, but he made a decision based on politics and not what’s best for the country.
Chicago-based folks clearly see that barry’s MO consists of one thing and one thing only: political expedience.
He is always looking forward – in this case, reelection – when he hasn’t even started to govern. And it’s because he doesn’t know how – just like he didn’t know how to legislate and never would have made it to the US Senate without Emil Jones sending legislation his way.
How many swing states has he been to? As the polls shift, so does barry’s position. What hasn’t he changed his mind on? Abortion? And if Judge Sotomayor is a real Catholic, as in pro-life?
She is just as good as him at hiding her personal beliefs. After all the years she has spent on the bench nobody knows her views. He was actually going for a twofer – a bog box and a little box: women and Hispanics. But if it turns out she is pro-life, which I would bet she is, it’s going to be the last strike for the Hillary people. And it would be just rewards for NARAL’s gassy-eyed Ms Keenan.
The only group barry hasn’t bothered to pander – and has actively dissed – is the LBGT community because there is no pay off. They aren’t about to vote Republican – so by not pandering he’s trying to capture some of the Bible belt.
Tisch is right. barry’s true political genious has nothing to do with all that lofty not based in reality messiah complex ramblings about Change! and team of rivals and shifting the oceans I will never lie to you because I am The One we’ve been waiting for telepromptering. It has to do with how he gets away with saying it and not doing it. I still can’t figure out if folks – including the barrymedia – don’t care or if they are really that ignorant.
Don’t look at barry’s words – they mean absolutely nothing. Just like his ridiculous fairy tale on Iraq that folks bought at face value when his actions did not in anyway follow his politically expedient “speech”. When it came to action – when he finally had to act and set a timetable – it wasn’t at all like he promised (and won the nomination on). He ended up basically following Bush’s timetable. And it’s the same as FISA, military tribunals, release of torture photographs and will be with Guantanamo Bay.
If you really want to know what barry will do – look at the polls and figure out what would reap the biggest political reward and then put your money down. If you need proof – look back on his “refining of policy positions” throughout the primaries, before the convention, the general election, the transition and since he has become president and compare his words and actions. It’s all right there.
What is it going, folks?
Overturning Roe v Wade?
Limbaugh is going after Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Surprise. barry ought to love this. Limbaugh is specifically focused on a speech Sotomayor made in 2001 at Berkley. He called her a “reverse racist”. What in the hell is that? “Racism” is color coded? I know it seemed that way this election cycle. All the whiteys were racists and black pundits could speak from a whitey’s standpoint but whitey’s couldn’t possibly imagine what goes on in a black church, etc. The Double Standard of racism was made perfectly clear as barry took a step towards a More Perfect Union. Whiteys were racist if they voted for barry’s opponent (aka against barry) but 95% of blacks voting for barry was not racist.
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.
Here you have a racist – you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist.
And the [liberals] of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one.”
She’s not the brain that they’re portraying her to be. She’s not a constitutional jurist.
She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire, and she has put down white men in favor of Latina women.
Robert Gibbs’ comments.
barry’s comments.
Newt’s tweets
Source: CNN
May 30, 2009
Funny how barry was quick to come to Judge Sotomayor’s defense about her racist comments when he has yet to amend any of his or defend his disgusting “joke” about the Special Olympics. He usually leaves the dirty work to others. Here’s Gibbs’ comments, Rush Limbaugh “she’s a reverse racist” comments and Newt’s tweets.
SOTOMAYOR’s comments:
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.
I’m sure she would have restated it, but if you look at the entire sweep of the essay she wrote, what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through that will make her a good judge.
And his personal thoughts?
When is someone one going to actually push him to answer a question?
May 27, 2009
Robert Gibbs comments on Judge Sotomayor during his May 26th press briefing. Rush Limbaugh called her a “reverse racist”. Racism is racism. barry’s comment and Newt’s tweets.
Q What does the President think is her greatest quality for the job?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President picked Judge Sotomayor largely based on three criteria, the first being experience — and when I say that, experience as a prosecutor, experience as a litigator, and then experience as both a circuit and an appellate court judge. In fact, we’ve pointed out that she will bring more experience on the federal branch then anybody that’s been appointed to the Supreme Court in a hundred years.
I think, secondly, obviously the President believes strongly in her approach to judging, following precedent and the rule of law. And I think, lastly, obviously the President believes that her life story is a compelling one, and that her voice will be an important addition to the Supreme Court.
On Sotomayor’s comments:
Q And just to get your reaction of one statement that seems to get a lot of attention, a quote she has from 2001 saying, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
I just wonder — I presume the President was aware of that statement, and what is his reaction? Did he agree with it?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think if you look at the context of the longer speech that she makes, I don’t — I think what she says is very much common sense in terms of different experiences that different people have.
Obviously the President has looked at any number of these issues and believes that Judge Sotomayor is well qualified and will be a great justice for the Supreme Court.
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.
May 26, 2009
Judge Sonia Sotomayor sounds impressive.
Editor of the Yale Law Review –
What are the chances they don’t already have everything she’s written?
Has Juvenile Diabetes –
What are the chances they aren’t in the process of getting her medical records?
And what is known about the man who appointed Sotomayor?
Here is yet another chance to see how the media (mis)treats powerful women and how they treat each of the women differently: Former First Lady and now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton…Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi…First Lady Michelle Obama…First Lady Laura Bush…Governor Sarah Palin and Judge Sonia Sotomayor. And then there’s Caroline Kennedy and Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
Race was not the enlightenment of this election – unless you want to talk about 1/3 of eligible black voters who couldn’t bother to register and how the whiteys are racists black pundits avoided the issue.
barry’s making it 100% about race was not news – it was the only way he could win.
How is 95% of one – any – demographic group not identity politics?
95% of his voters were not voting for his opponent.
Voters that the week previous had been behind his opponent.
Voters that in the interim hadn’t heard a change in barry’s policies.
How many black blue collar workers were voting for Clinton?
How many white blue collar workers were voting for barry?
A lot more than 5%.
And “hardworking” is some type of racial code word but Donna Brazile’s “Jane and Joe Six pack” isn’t?
Or Roland Martin telling Joe the Plumber to “Go fix a bathtub!”?
barry used race until he finally had to admit to it (after the usual three denials) and then switched to the “Kill Him!”accusations, which were disproved by barry’s own Secret Service, who were in attendance and heard nothing…no one did…but the reporter.
And what did concerned citizen reporter do after hearing terroristic threats on the POTUS’ life?
Did he immediately alert the Secret Service or the local police?
Nope.
They found out about it like everyone else — in the unfounded accuser’s post in a paper that had endorsed barry.
No, the enlightenment wasn’t race — it played out as planned and as implemented.
The enlightenment was the reality of sexism.
How at the core nothing has changed. How accepted and acceptable it is.
Still.
Younger men have tolerance in regards to race, religion and sexuality, but not toward women.
Sadder still, are the young women who think “Girls Already Rule!”
Not even close.
Look at the women in the above list. Take what was said and written about Secretary Clinton and insert a different name.
Imagine if First Lady Michelle Obama were referred to as “It”.
Just “It” as in “It” cried.
And if Glenn Beck were to say the same about Judge Sotomayor?
Would he still have his job?
And Rush Limbaugh is talking about “reverse racism”.
What has been made perfectly clear over the last two years is the Double Standard and the hierarchy of isms.
Will Judge Sotomayor be treated deferentially because she is a minority?
Or will she be attacked with the same old garden variety sexism?
Will she be mercilessly assaulted on all fronts like Secretary Clinton and Governor Palin or coddled like First Lady Michelle Obama?
DL Hughley interviews Rep Ron Paul (R-TX). The “Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican Party” debate continues.
HUGHLEY: Why is his name Steele? You should call him aluminum.
HUGHLEY to Paul: You talk sensibly, you’re very reasonable, you’re very pragmatic in your approach…Is Rush Limbaugh the Republican Party Leader?
PAUL: Philosophically, he has a lot to do with it but technically, no, he’s not that leader. He’s not an elected leader. But philosophically he’s filling a void. I think there’s a void in the Republican Party and somebody is filling it. There are philosphic influences and that’s what Rush Limbaugh does.
HUGLEY: If the word conspiracy is gonna be used let the black guy do it.
HUGHLEY to Paul: You don’t seem like a Republican to me - like that I’ve ever heard. You seem so reasonable…You seem to make sense, which I don’t attribute to too many politicians.
Paul says he’s a “strict Constitutionalist” but he didn’t have the nads to go to the wall with barry and his birth certificate.
HUGHLEY: You are too human to be Republican….You make too much sense - you can’t be a Republican.
Both interviews - Steele and Paul - Hughley remarked that they didn’t seem like Republicans, revealing his own generalized thinking.
What if someone were to say to Hughley: You don’t seem like a black person to me - you seem too reasonable - too human - you make too much sense.
Would it be considered worse than *articulate*?
HUGHLEY: Next we’ll find out if Jesus was a Republican…
I find this hysterical. Mr Transcender of Race decided to come forward and pretend he really intended to Unite! As usual, he waited to see the fallout before he commented.
Was there a poll re: Holder’s comments?
barry appointee Atty General Eric–I forgot to mention I dealt with impeached governor Rod Blagojevich–Holder made his thoughts known that “in things racial we have always been and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”
He was speaking to a rapt audience at the Department of Justice marking Black History Month.
He had the barry obamanating thing going on though: I believe…too many ways…essentially. He didn’t even have the moral fortitude to come right out and say: ‘I believe we have always been and still are a nation of cowards.’
Then he could at least garner some respect.
As was - he covered his bases, saying what was expected, while leaving himself some qualifiers.
That was February 19th.
My post then (with video).
March 6th is when barry decides to speak out and only because he was with Holder in Ohio.
What is going to happen to those officers when the money runs out next year? Will he go back to take credit for that, too?
And haven’t we had enough of these made-for-documentary campaign moments?
Anyway. CNN:
BARRY: I think it’s fair to say that if I had been advising my attorney general, we would have used different language.
I think..it’s fair to say…if I had been…attorney general. Never any definitive statements and he made sure not to mention Holder’s name.
I think the point that he was making is that we’re oftentimes uncomfortable with talking about race until there’s some sort of racial flare-up or conflict, and that we could probably be more constructive in facing up to the painful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination.
And I’m not somebody who believes that constantly talking about race somehow solves racial tensions.
Only when he needs the votes.
I think what solves racial tensions is fixing the economy, putting people to work, making sure that people have health care, ensuring that every kid is learning out here.
I think if we do that, then we’ll probably have more fruitful conversations.
We’ve made enormous progress and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.
So much so, 8 million eligible black voters couldn’t be bothered to register to vote for barry.
***
Rev Lowery: “When white will embrace what’s right”
John Ridley: “Are you black enough to be part of all this?”
DL Hughley: “The Republican Convention looked like Nazi Germany”
February 28, 2009
Republican National Committee Chairman Micheal Steele was on DL Hughley discussing the two parties and the black community. Selected quotes - see transcript for the whole show.
HUGHLEY: I really do. I think you’re a really bright guy. And they hired both of us because we have a black president.
STEELE: That’s right.
HUGHLEY: You don’t have to go any further than the Republican National Convention. It literally looked like Nazi Germany. It literally did.
[...]
HUGHLEY: You, me, Bobby Jindal, we’re all working because of the brother in the job.
STEELE: That’s right. All the brothers in the same room, right?
barry is responsible for the accomplishments of two high-ranking Republicans? It’s goes beyond ludicrous to demeaning.
HUGHLEY: A lot of the things I see Republicans do specifically are reactionary. They’ll go, you know what, they don’t like Hillary? Let’s give them Sarah Palin. They voted for Obama. Let’s give them Michael Steele. And the other guy who we don’t know who he is yet. It is always so plastic, that you go, wow, is this what they think? They think that — they’re missing the entire point of what happened during the Obama transformation. They missed the entire point.
The “Obama transformation”??
STEELE: There was a Michael Steele before there was a Barack Obama. The reality of it is, I had established — I was the only black lieutenant governor in the country at the time. I was the only statewide black elected official when I was governor of Maryland from 2003 to 2007. And then Obama got elected from 2005. So that wasn’t about, oh, geez, let’s do this because of Obama.
Note: Burris was Illinois’ first statewide black elected official (Comptroller) in 1979 making the way for barry, who is now totally snubbing Burris.
Steele was also was the first to be named Chairman of the Republican Party in any state (2000) and he did the GOP rebuttal to barry’s DNC speech (2004). So his being named as RNC Chairman was not based on barry.
Gov Jindal has been around the national seen as long as barry and he’s 10 years younger. They were both sworn in in 2005 - Jindal as a US Representative and barry as a US Senator. Jindal was elected governor all by himself and to somehow say it was because of barry diminishes Jindal’s own hard work and talents. He was a Rhodes Scholar and was accepted to both Harvard Medical school and Yale Law school and chose politics instead, getting his PhD from Oxford. And instead of just talking about ethics reform he is actually doing something.
It’s like Spike Lee saying time will be marked: “before Obama and after Obama”.
Hip-hop legend Chuck D then joined the discussion and brought up the “articulate” reference that is supposed to be a racial code word. In reference to Hughley and Steele’s conversation:
CHUCK D: It was so exciting, just eloquence across TV.
HUGHLEY: He’s an eloquent man. I don’t know that I necessarily agree with him but I can honestly say that I never heard — never heard the Republican agenda articulated so accessibly.
Then Hughley disses Steele to his face.
HUGHLEY: Like Rush Limbaugh, who is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
STEELE: No, he’s not.
HUGHLEY: I will tell you what …
STEELE: I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party.
[...]
HUGHLEY: You know what, there’s no doubt that you’re worthy of respect. But this does seem like a common situation when you get in trouble, always bet on black men. You know what I’m saying! You know what I’m saying. I’m just saying. Hey, Michael, hey, listen, they didn’t just do it to you. The whole country went, we’re in trouble. Let’s get a black guy. Always bet on black. We’re in style now, baby!
STEELE: Wait a minute, D.L., when you bet on black, don’t you win?
HUGHLEY: Absolutely! You better come to our side. Michael Steele, Chuck D.
Then Hughley showed a snippet of Alan Keyes’ made for videotape tirade about barry being a “radical Communist” and he remarked:
If you’ll excuse me, I hear the Massa calling me. This cotton won’t pick itself.
Then he proceeded to posit that the white man sitting next to Obama during the Stevie Wonder’s Lifetime Achievement Award performance at the White House - somebody he doesn’t even know or even name - somebody who is doing nothing but sitting there - is thinking:
HUGHLEY: Eight more years of this. Jesus, when did the White House turn into “Soul Train”. ‘When did the White House become Soul Train.’
And then he goes back to Gov Jindal.
GOV. BOBBY JINDAL (on videotape): Some are problem the government will rescue us from the economic storms raging all around us. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina. We have our doubts.
HUGHLEY: For the last time, no, I’m not the kid from “Slumdog Millionaire”!
Why are these ok?
Comparing the people in the Republican Convention to Nazi Germany? Automatically assuming that the white man can’t enjoy Stevie Wonder and that because he is white he is thinking derogatory comments? What does that say about Stevie Wonder’s music?
Hughley was making snap judgments solely based on the color of the man’s skin.
How is that not racist?
Will anyone be calling for his firing tomorrow?
Imagine if it were the other way around.
And the most curious part is how the black community continues to take credit for barry being in the White House when 8 Million eligible black voters couldn’t be bothered to register to vote for barry. That means 1/3 of the eligible black voting population did not find it important to get out and vote for progress in America. Only 2% more black voters came out after 8 years of Bush to vote for the first biracial president in history.
Where was that discussion?
The black vote made the difference in the primary because barry used the race card at every turn. In South Carolina - where barry had already prepared a memo painting ‘The Clintons’ as racists - barry’s policies suddenly became enticing? The same policies that were not attracting black voters at a >95% rate up until that very moment?
No. barry made it about race - the man who claimed to Unite! and Transcend Race! used race to win.
How was that not identity politics?
So why would 95% of white people voting for Senator McCain be considered racist?
Because it’s the Double Standard.
And until it is addressed and abolished, race relations in America will remain the same.
You can’t have it both ways.
It can’t be ok to be racist in one direction and not in the other. There cannot be an exception for one skin color over the other.
Prejudice is prejudice.
Bigotry is bigotry.
Small mindedness is small mindedness.
Making snap judgments based on the color of a white man’s skin is just as unacceptable as making comments about black basketball players’ hair.
Either both are ok or neither.
***
Rev Lowery: “When white will embrace what’s right”
Eric Holder: “[The USA] continues to be essentially a nation of cowards”
John Ridley: “Are you black enough to be part of all this”
