-
What Obama Should Have Done During Subsequent Debates
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Just Another Casual Conversation About Voter Fraud
October 26, 2012 | 0 comments
-
CNN: Obama’s plan not “significantly new,” just same old stuff repackaged
October 23, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Acts of Terror, etc.
October 16, 2012 | 15 comments
-
Devastating RNC ad captures Biden laughing at the issues
October 11, 2012 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I’ll be on MSNBC Live with David Shuster today at 11:10 (or sometime thereafter, given cable’s quirks). We’ll be discussing the Sotomayor nomination and whether she’s actually Hispanic, whether she’s actually qualified, and whether Antonin Scalia, somewhere back in the family tree, may actually be Mexican.
Ari has a post on Kos here indicating a desire to elevate the discourse, which I’m happy to try to help on, but frankly, how do you get an elevated discourse on having someone come on on the basis of their ethnicity, moreso than their qualifications? No really, I wonder, where does this leave the opposition?
View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by J.P. Freire
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/29/debating-sotomayor-with-shuste
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 5.29.09 @ 10:22AM
Debating Sotomayor with Shuster and Melber — ButAsForMe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Murphy| 5.29.09 @ 12:38PM
Mr Freire:
You write: "We'll be discussing the Sotomayor nomination and whether she's actually Hispanic, whether she's actually qualified, and whether Antonin Scalia, somewhere back in the family tree, may actually be Mexican. "
I'm going to assume much of this passage is said with tongue-in-cheek irony -- perhaps as a satire of the emphasis upon Sotomayor's biography.
Because otherwise it would make you sound very nearly demented.
Sotomayor's qualifications are beyond doubt; her education was first rate; she's served on the federal bench for eleven years.
Lacking any substantive means of criticizing her, conservatives are delving into her speeches -- always a sign there's nothing much to worry about.
This practice generally includes ripping things out of context and then repeatedly looping them, creating the illusion that the controversial statements are opinions the person repeats wherever they go whenever they can.
All of this is foolishness. If conservatives want to spend the summer beating up a woman who climbed out of a Bronx housing project, attended Princeton and Yale, worked as a prosecutor, was appointed to the bench by George H W Bush, and is now going to be a Supreme Court Justice, they're welcome to. The Democrats will celebrate.
But you might consider using this as an occasion reasonably and temperately to articulate your judicial and political philosophy.
Attacking Sotomayor, claiming, like Beck and Gingrich and Limbaugh, that she is a "racist," would be weak and cynical and laughable.
Murphy| 5.29.09 @ 12:53PM
One other thing, just to clarify:
I think the way Justice Thomas was treated by Democrats was disgraceful. In my lifetime, it was the worst behavior I've ever seen politians engage in. I think, too, that conservatives have legitimate complaints in how Bork was treated, although I think the issues at stake were more complicated. Further, as someone here reminded me yesterday, I think in general Senate Republicans have been far more fair, and far less likely to make a huge political rompus out of nothing when it comes to the nominees of Democratic presidents.
Having said all this, as much as it pained me, I think we need to go back and consider whether "advice and consent" is permission to have months of political grandstanding or fillibustering.
Unless a nominee has obvious failings or documented incompetence, he or she ought to be approved. By all means, let the opposition cry out in pain on CSPAN for a few minutes, but this whole idea that these nominations are supposed to rehash general elections is nonsense. And YES I will say the same thing when it's a Republican making the nomination. In fact, I think the Roberts hearings were a good model.
Oldefarte| 5.29.09 @ 1:28PM
This BS ["...All of this is foolishness. If conservatives want to spend the summer beating up a woman who climbed out of a Bronx housing project, attended Princeton and Yale, worked as a prosecutor, was appointed to the bench by George H W Bush, and is now going to be a Supreme Court Justice, they're welcome to. The Democrats will celebrate..."] is all thanks to MY TAXPAYER POCKETBOOK as well. Oh, I'm sure that this sort of LETS FORGET THE WHOLE THING MENTALITY AND SHOVE HER DOWN aMERICANS' THROATS PHILOSOPHY ["....Unless a nominee has obvious failings or documented incompetence, he or she ought to be approved. By all means, let the opposition cry out in pain on CSPAN for a few minutes, but this whole idea that these nominations are supposed to rehash general elections is nonsense. And YES I will say the same thing when it's a Republican making the nomination. In fact, I think the Roberts hearings were a good model...."] was heard loud and clear from the fair-minded Democrats BEFORE Sessions, Bork and Estrada was burned at the congressional stake, right? Amazingly, the stupidity of SAY AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO mentality that liberals always wish to excrement into the atmosphere!!!!!
Daphne| 5.29.09 @ 4:02PM
Don't get too close to Shuster--the guy's a mean little pimp.
Pete| 5.29.09 @ 4:12PM
Let the spin begin:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House says Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor acknowledges she made a poor word choice in a 2001 speech in which she said that a Latina judge would often reach a better conclusion than a white male judge who hasn't lived the same life.
That's according to presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs. He says he has not talked directly to Sotomayor about it but has spoken to people who have.
Critics have singled out the 2001 comment by Sotomayor for criticism. She was describing how personal experiences can affect judging. She said a "wise Latina woman" with her experiences would more often than not reach a "better conclusion" than a white male.
I am surprised she just didn't pull the oldest liberal trick in the book and just deny ever saying it. Poor word choice, eh? She knew exactly what she was saying and meant it - the messiah's people must have gotten some poll results that say her reverse racism won't fly so they figured they had to do something.
Murphy| 5.29.09 @ 4:33PM
Pete --
Rule of Politics #1:
If your opponents are ransacking videotapes and recording and transcripts of speeches made in front of interest groups or contributors to find your nominee's gaffes, you've already won the contest. Just sit back and relax.
Rule #2
Given today's electorate, if your opponent wants to spend all summer explaining to the American people what it means to call a hispanic woman a "racist" and a "bigot," wish them God's speed. And enjoy your summer!
Pete| 5.29.09 @ 5:11PM
Rule #1: If you were enjoying your summer, you wouldn't be trolling here - but then this is probably your job.
Rule #2: Despite your insistence to the contrary, it is quite significant that the administration that runs itself like a popularity contest chose to validate this issue by responding to it. If it were really insignificant, as you imply, why would they bother?
Whoever crafted your talking points for you today needs to go back and think a bit more.
That said, I am not saying she will get blocked (as she should), but things are looking promising for exposing her for what she is (and by extension, further exposing your messiah for what he is).
Eliza| 5.29.09 @ 6:09PM
Bork the broad!
Oldefarte| 5.30.09 @ 12:24PM
Murphy, your declaration ["Rule #2 Given today's electorate, if your opponent wants to spend all summer explaining to the American people what it means to call a hispanic woman a "racist" and a "bigot," wish them God's speed. And enjoy your summer!"] is imbicilic. As proof, consider the following dictionary-definitions of "racism":
'.... According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups. The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others.' Now, do you want to reconsider your moronic attitude about Sotomayor NOT expressing a racist view in her Berkley commentary?????
Murphy| 5.30.09 @ 1:41PM
It is a distinctive mark of weakness to base arguments on dictionary definitions. Dictionaries, if they're good, are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, Fart, they won't do your work for you.
biniki| 9.1.09 @ 9:58PM
bikini
bikini swimwear
micky&vicky; | 9.4.09 @ 3:22AM
ghd Hair Straightener
classic ugg boots
micky&vicky; | 9.7.09 @ 2:17AM
ghd Hair Straightener
Bose headphones for sale
kui;io | 3.9.10 @ 9:51PM
your arctical is so amazing,keep on it!