WashTimes , please define "both sides" | Media Matters for America

WashTimes, please define "both sides"

May 28, 2009 5:29 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

According to the Times, the rhetoric surrounding the Sotomayor fight has become ugly on "both sides" [emphasis added]:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Wednesday called Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor a "racist" for remarks she made in 2001, joining an emerging conservative line of attack and enflaming both sides of the battle as interest groups fundraise over her nomination.

Slight problem. While the Times details the unhinged "racist" rhetoric from the right, the newspaper never even hints that similarly enflamed lines of attack have been unleashed from the left. (Either from liberals defending Sotomayor or questioning her record.) That's because there haven't been any such attacks.

The news is that the right-wing has already gone completely ballistic over the Sotomayor nomination, but the Times wants you believe everyone has.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All

- by 0u812 (May 28, 2009 7:33 pm ET)
  
  And to tell you the truth, the whole lot are a bunch of two faced leftists. If a white guy said something like that, you would want them tarred and feathered...and you know it. This woman is in no way qualified for this position. BO just wants to push his agenda down the throats of the American people when he is in fact not even qualified for the position he is in. Going from a community association member to a state senator to the presidency shows that the democrats are in NO way capapable of coming up with a true leader...all the left wing has are major egos and you know what that means...Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. But guess what The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery-Winston Churchill
  Cicero said: "A nation can survive its fools, even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within … for the traitor appears not a traitor. … He rots the soul of a nation … he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist."
  
  Reply Report Abuse
  - by NiceguyEddie (May 29, 2009 10:13 am ET)
    
    If s/he'd said "I'd hope a WHITE judge would reach a better conclusion" then yes, I would 'tar-and-fether' her/him. But I would have no problem with someone claiming that their "Irish" or "Italian" upbringing (for example) give them certain values taht made them a better judge, I would have no problem with that at all. Being pround of your heritage, and it's values, is NOT racist. She didn't say "my color is better than your color" and you either KNOW IT or you never read her speech. (Or you're just an idiot.)
    
    As for her qualifictaions...? What is required that she lacks? (I'll save you the trouble: NOTHING.)
    
    Here's a cup. Go fill it with STFU and take a nice long drink.
    
    Reply Report Abuse
  - by Patti (May 29, 2009 3:11 pm ET)
    
    SPEAKING OF EGOS, TREASON AND ROT...
    
    Reply Report Abuse
- by mma10661 (May 29, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
  
  What I find sad about the current Republican party is their ignorance of the changing demographics in America -like it or not!
  Worse yet is their reliance on the extreme right wing talking heads to "hold the base". In a few more years that base will not elect a dog catcher outside the South .
  
  Reply Report Abuse

WashTimes, please define "both sides"

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds


	Username or Email Password Forgot your password? or Create An Account Email Username (required, for posting on forums) Zip Code Click here to subscribe to Media Matters action alerts and newsletters. or Log in to an existing account

WashTimes, please define "both sides"

Most Popular Tags

RSS Feeds

Connect & Share