The Race to the Bottom

What a bunch of white men (and one white woman) are saying about Judge Sotomayor.



The oppressed class, gender, or race cannot be accused of the "ism" that has been perpetrated on them. It is a fallacy and a way for the (in this case) racist to continue being a racist. By accusing Judge Sotomayor of being a racist, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, et. al., continue to inject race into the discussion and in fact make race the discussion and avoid any substantive conversation or having to back up any of their claims.

Fortunately, they are making a terrible mistake and (finally) the Republican leadership is beginning to realize that enough is enough. Today, John Cornyn, Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee said, "I think it's terrible... This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent."

Perhaps others will begin to listen to Senator Cornyn. Or, as is more usual, we will hear Senator Cornyn begin to take that back in about 1-2 days or face attacks by Rush.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Not a surprise that Obama chose Sotomayor, although I'm not convinced she is the best choice, although certainly not the worst. It could be that having her name out there for so long and being slammed by the right for so long made it impossible for him not to choose her, although I would hate for that to be a factor and I think Obama is wiser than that. Considering that there were better choices - still female - though, I think that is was at least a consideration.

I am surprised, however, at the reactions from the "mainstream" media as they appear, without exception, to be accepting the Rosen assessment at The New Republic. He said, some time ago,:

"I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths."

But went on to quote "anonymous" sources who didn't like her and said that she was too temperamental, vain, and stupid to sit on the Supreme Court. The article then, became the basis for a smear campaign that has been waged since it appeared on May 8, and although it settled down somewhat in the past week or so when the attention appeared to be shifting to other candidates, after Obama's announcement of Sotomayor, has been quoted extensively all day by not just Fox and Limbaugh, but by CNN and MSNBC.

It will be interesting to see how supportive Obama is of this nominee if the heat continues.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Cheney: "I'd Have to See" (Being Above the Law and All)

I took the weekend off for mother's day (hope yours was great!) and just had a chance to watch Cheney's performance on yesterday's Face the Nation. What a guy. Rush Limbaugh, in the Christian Science Monitor pays Cheney back for his shout out (Cheney said that he preferred Rush over former colleague Colin Powell since Powell voted for Obama) by saying of the interview, here:

"He doesn’t need the money,” Limbaugh said. “He has no further political ambitions. He is not hot for interns. He is not a torture freak. He knows that he is toxic and despised by the drive-by media and the Democrat party and the left in this country.

“What motivation does Dick Cheney have to go out and say these things?” he asked. “Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by national interest? Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by love of and for his country? Is it possible that Dick Cheney is speaking from his heart and is not speaking politically?”

No Rush. Cheney is motivated by fear. Fear drove him for the past 8 years, and fear is driving him now. A different kind of fear, but fear nevertheless. Then, it was fear that al Qaeda would get him, and now, it's fear that his crimes will out.

Cheney continues to bash Obama's release of the OLC torture memos, ending the use of 'enhanced interrogation' techniques, and adds to previous complaints by adding that cooperating with foreign governments' prosecution of Bush administration officials who worked with us to operate these programs add to "...that whole complex of things that I find disturbing..."

Cheney complains at length and quite vehemently that if the debate is going to occur, the entire constellation of information must be debated. He states that, "... 6 weeks ago I requested 2 memos written by the CIA that lay out the successes of those policies ... they [the Obama administration] have no qualms putting things out that can be used to be critical of Bush policies ..." but not things that will be supportive of their side. Two whole memos. Wow. Out of 7 years and how many reams and reams of paper? Two. We all know the government. Everything in triplicate. They live on paper, and Cheney can remember two whole memos to support his belief that 'enhanced interrogation' techniques saved us from further terrorist attacks. Okay.

When asked if he truly believes that we are more vulnerable now without these programs, that so many others say that it isn't true, he says, in effect, that if we don't use these programs, then we're willing to sacrifice American lives rather than run an effective interrogation program.

Excuse me? Exactly how many American (and Iraqi and Afghani and Pakistani not to mention all of our allied nation's citizens) lives have already been sacrificed?

Cheney is asked if he has any regrets. He says that on Jan 20, 2001 when he took the oath of office and said that "we're going to protect and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, this was exactly what was needed to be done."

I've heard him say this part several times. "Protect and defend the United States." The only problem? That isn't the oath that he took. It isn't the oath that President Bush took. They promised to protect and defend the Constitution. Instead, they raped it.

When asked if he would talk to Senator Leahy's committee, he said yes. When told that Senator Leahy expected him to appear under oath, Cheney said, "Well,I'd have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent that we'd be setting."

And doesn't that just say it all? "I'd have to see." And that's what he and Bush did for 8 years. They cherry-picked our Constitution. Two frightened little boys who had done everything they could to avoid Vietnam and who came close to being attacked on 9/11 and were terrified that they might be again. Two little boys who had all these big boy toys. I bet that they were both bullies when they were little. They had no idea that the Democrats would win the White House and Congress and let loose their secrets.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Jeffery Beauregard Sessions III

Well aren't we lucky. We've increased the number of (supposedly) Democratic senators by one, and in exchange, have gotten Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III as the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not only does this committee hold hearings to confirm the next Supreme Court Justice now that Justice Souter has retired, but it also is responsible for civil rights cases. Joy.

Why do I say supposedly when referring to Arlen Specter, our newest Democratic senator? After crossing the aisle last week to join the Democrats, Mr. Specter was reported to have told President Obama that he was a loyal Democrat. This was reported by the Washington Post and by George Stephanopolous. Four days later (an extraordinary amount of time to let such a statement go unchallenged in Washington) Mr. Specter appeared on Meet the Press this past Sunday claiming "I did not say that. I did not say that I was a loyal Democrat." hmmmm. I see problems ahead. Where does that fit into this post? We'll get to that.

Anyhoo. Mr. Sessions. Twenty-three years ago, Sessions appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as an appointee to a Federal Judgeship under President Reagan. Unfortunately for Mr. Sessions (extremely fortunately for the rest of us as these judgeships are lifetime appointments - think Jay Bybee) he was not confirmed.

Sort of an interesting turn of the circle that Sessions went on to become a Senator and then this week to be appointed to this committee, right? Actually, although committee assignments are all about seniority, this one is all about history. The Republican leadership received a massive amount of pressure (although they certainly didn't need it - they saw the exquisite irony of this appointment) to appoint Sessions to the Senate Judiciary Committee, so they did. The deal? He sits on the committee until 2010, at which time he gives up the seat to Chuck Grassley who would normally have taken the seat. Neat huh? Just long enough to seat a new Supreme. And Specter? At some point, the full Senate votes on whomever the Committee has confirmed. So, will Specter be a Democrat or a Republican?

So why wasn't Sessions confirmed as a Federal Judge? Think racist. Extreme racist. His issue (they all have an issue) was voting rights. At the time, he had prosecuted 3 men for voter fraud in the 1984 election - 1 of whom had been an aide to Martin Luther King Jr. This after finding 14 possibly fraudulent ballots (out of 1.7 million cast) and hours spent interviewing black voters in predominantly black counties. (By the way, all three were acquitted after 4 hours deliberation - that jury wasn't stupid. They knew how hard he had to search to dummy up a case). He referred to an African American Assistant US Attorney as "boy." He claimed that the NAACP was un-American and communist inspired. He called a white civil rights attorney a "disgrace to his race" for litigating civil rights cases (remember, the Senate Judiciary Committee is responsible for civil rights cases). I could go on, but I have other stuff to do this week.

A couple of interesting points. Many articles are being written all over the blogosphere and in the mainstream press (and the not so mainstream press) about who President Obama might choose to replace Justice Souter. Many articles are being written about Senator Sessions and many, many talk shows are discussing both of these issues. You have to do a little digging to find out the details of Session's history.

MSNBC's "First Read" penned by White House political reporters including Chuck Todd would - you would expect - go into some depth, right? Today, the article posted is called SCOTUS POLITICS: Meet Jeff Sessions which you can read here which barely references this controversy, simply stating that "...Sessions had once called the NAACP an ‘un-American’ group, while another raised issues about remarks Sessions made about the Ku Klux Klan.” Not a thing about his direct, racist comments to others which are a little more potent than third hand, watered down remarks that really don't give any depth to the issue of his racism.

As a senator, Sessions was one of only nine to oppose Senator McCain's anti-torture amendment. He supported Vice-President Cheney's proposal to exempt the CIA from any anti-torture legislation. When the bill to repeal the estate tax was failing, he wanted to use Hurricane Katrina as a push-back, saying that businesses who had had a death might now be more likely to support the bill. What a delightful guy. He scores the lowest on immigration, environmental protection, global warming, and of course, civil rights. When the Republican party in the form of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talk about the purity of the party, this is who they mean.

Want to find out more? Here are some links.
The Senator Who's Worse Than Lott
Profile of Sessions by CQ Politics
Looking for a Corpse to Make a Case

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Apology Tour? I Think Not

In an interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked about the prevailing (conservative) view of President Obama that he has been going around the world apologizing for (and thus weakening) America. For someone who was Defense Secretary under President Bush, this is an amazing statement.

"Well, I like to remind people that, when President George W. Bush came into office, he talked about a more humble America. And, you know, you go back to Theodore Roosevelt and his line about speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.

"I think that acknowledging that we have made mistakes is not only factually accurate, I think that it is unusual, because so few other governments in the world are willing to admit that, although they make them all the time. And some of them make catastrophic mistakes.

"And in speeches myself, I have said that at times we have acted too arrogantly. And I didn't feel that I was being apologetic for America, I just was saying, because the next -- I was just saying that that's the way we are in terms of being willing to recognize our own limitations, and when we make a mistake to correct it.

"Because I think the next line that I always use is, no other country in the world is so self-critical, and is so willing to change course when we feel that we've strayed from our values, or when we feel like we've been too arrogant.

"So, I think -- I have not seen it as an apology tour at all, but rather a change of tone, a more humble America. But everybody knows we still have the big stick."

The likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the cheerleaders for the "he's weakening America" meme of course will ignore anything that might weaken their argument. If Robert Gates had said during the Bush administration that Bush's aggressive tone was weakening America by alienating our allies, that Guantanamo was the #1 recruitment tool for Al Queda - what would the talking heads of Fox News said then?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k