Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Wingnut Wednesday

IT IS NO ACCIDENT that President Obama's tapping of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace the retiring David Souter represents the quintessential "rock and a hard place" conundrum for the right wing. That's what makes the choice such an inspiring one, and quite possibly Obama's single best move of his young presidency.

The beauty of the selection lies in the simple logic that the harder Republicans fight the nomination, the more likely they will continue to be seen as the anti-minority, anti-women, anti-progress bunch. And the more inflammatory the rhetoric, the less likely it becomes that Hispanics -- the fastest-growing voting block in the U.S. -- will want anything to do with the party that already has done so much for them on issues like immigration.

Granted, Sotomayor is no Harriet Miers when it comes to legal experience or jurisprudence -- who is? -- yet leading Democrats are confident of her eventual confirmation. Chuck Schumer even warned Republicans that they oppose the nomination "at their own peril."

And so with the lines drawn, the race was joined to see which leading right-wing figure could slander the nominee most irrationally. As expected, professional bigot Rush Limbaugh broke out well ahead of the pack, followed closely by warped hatemonger Anne Coulter and tiresome charlatan Newt Gingrich. The trio took turns branding her a "racist" based on an out-of-context soundbite from a 2001 speech she made to a Hispanic group:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Gingrich actually used his own Tweet account to urge Sotomayor to "withdraw" from consideration for the Supreme Court vacancy: 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. And former Congressman Tom Tancredo -- never one to pass up an opportunity to slander a brown person -- just had to throw his own white hood into the fray. Readily admitting he had never even glanced at a single word of Sotomayor's legal rulings or opinions from 16 years as a federal judge, the deranged crazed zealous anti-immigration lunatic advocate nevertheless used an MSNBC appearance to weigh in:

"I’m telling you she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context. That’s exactly how we would portray it and there’s no one who would get on the Supreme Court saying a thing like that except for a Hispanic woman and you’re going to say it doesn’t matter. Well, man. Where are you coming from? How can you possibly say that? There’s plenty of stuff."

But when it comes to politics, no part of the nation reliably brings the crazy like the Loon Star State.Could anyone have been surprised to learn that David Carney is an advisor to Texas Governor and recent secession advocate Rick Perry?

Apparently untroubled by poll after poll showing the number of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans shrinking to near-record lows, Carney still was having none of that Big Tent approach advocated by softies like Colin Powell. Times may be tough for the GOP, but as Carney told the Dallas Morning News on May 16, “that doesn’t mean you take your principles and throw them out the door and become a whorehouse and let anybody in who wants to come in, regardless.”

Any more talk along those lines, and David Carney may find himself slapped with a "mental anguish" lawsuit -- what with prostitutes, whores and streetwalkers polling higher than Republicans these days. After all, stranger things have happened inside an American courtroom.


John Salmon said...

Interesting that you say nothing about SS's qualifications. Why should we believe that she is the best choice? BHO himself certainly isn't trying to make us think she rates above any other possible choice.

This is all political manuevering on Obama's part-a payoff for a crucial constituency.

Any evidence for your claim that Limbaugh is a racist?

The Warden said...

All Supreme Court nominees are political picks. What, Clarence Thomas was not a political pick -- read his bio, even he didn't think he was the most qualified choice! On the whole, Roberts and Alito pretty much got a free ride; sure, some tough questioning, but nothing commensurate with the hysteria in conservative media and right wing blogs.

As far as Rush, there's the time he told a black caller to take the bone out of his nose for starters.

Mustard Relics said...

Socrates would have said that the best choice would be the person who wants it the least and good luck getting me on the supreme court. I couldn't agree with you more about them all being political picks, a very high profile pick at that (as much or more than some of the more "important" cabinet positions). She seems pretty laid back like she would fit into a lifetime position. My personal pick would be Judge Judy.

As far as Rush now there's a character. I don't follow him closely enough any more to think of him being a racist but I'm going to take your word on that Warden. At the very least though his tirades remind me fascist speeches, labeling all opposition heretics and traitors. he would have been a high ranking official at any historical inquisition. The guy is scary in his lunacy and any follower of his is just that, an easily manipulated follower. Idiocy! Now to look into this John Salmon character.

Mustard Relics said...

Okay checked the JS site. Sort of a bizzaro world to the Warden's World but I think you mentioned that in one of your earlier articles. He's got Jerry Seinfeld in his hall of shame and that just won't do for me :-)

a Tart said...

The fact that we're talking about this woman's race at all shows that we, as a country, can't deal honestly with our racist past. For Gingrich, a privileged, white, man who holds tremendous power in our culture to even equate the status of white man with Hispanic woman is offensive, ignorant of history, and meant to be inflammatory.

Now why would this Republican mouthpiece want to inflame the dialogue between Democrats and Republicans regarding this appointment? I would argue that it is done in order to continue to perpetrate the dishonesty and avoidance of an authentic dialogue about our history.

Never forget that their are thousands whose wealth is a direct result of horrors of slavery. Owning up to that and making amends for it is an impossibility for them.

Great post, Warden, thanks you xoxox