About us Login Get email updates
Jamison Foser
Print

Suddenly it's OK to call a judicial nominee a racist

May 29, 2009 3:33 pm ET

When the nation learned in 2005 that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito had belonged to a Princeton University alumni organization that advocated a cap on the number of women and minorities allowed at Princeton, the news media quickly circled the wagons to protect the Bush nominee.

When Alito was asked by Senate Democrats about his membership in the organization -- which he touted while applying for a job in the Reagan administration -- the media denounced them for going too far. The merest hint of a suggestion of an implication that Alito was a member of a racist organization was shouted down as an unfair slander; Democrats were pilloried for making Alito's wife cry with their inappropriate questions (though Mrs. Alito didn't actually start crying until Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham took to the microphone).

Gloria Borger, for example, said that the pertinent question was not whether Alito agreed with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton's clearly racist and sexist stance on university admissions, but "whether the Democrats took this a step too far today." Katie Couric added: "Too much to take: Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's wife driven to tears after Democrats question his integrity. Did they go too far?" The media consensus that Democrats went "too far" in questioning Alito continues to this day. Fox News' Megyn Kelly recently claimed that during Alito's confirmation hearings, his wife was "crying hysterically after Ted Kennedy made her cry."

So it seems the news media treat even a suggestion that a Supreme Court nominee might be guilty of involvement in a bigoted organization as a vile slur. Even if the nominee touted his membership in a group that sought to limit the number of women and minorities accepted into his alma mater. Even then, such questions are treated as inappropriate and abusive scrutiny that have no place in civil discourse.

As long, that is, as the nominee in question is a conservative white male, nominated by a conservative white male president.

But as we learned this week, if the nominee is a progressive Latina nominated by a progressive African-American president, you can just come right out and call her a racist -- based on nothing more than a distorted quote and a ruling nobody has read -- and the media will take you seriously. They will amplify your complaints. Far from denouncing you for going "too far," they will pretend that your false descriptions of her comments are accurate.

Eight years ago, Sonia Sotomayor said that she would hope that in judging cases involving discrimination, a Latina woman would reach a better decision than would a white man who hasn't had her experiences. Past Republican Supreme Court nominees like Samuel Alito have said similar things, and it really isn't particularly controversial.

But if you change what Sotomayor said a bit -- drop a word here and there, change a few others -- to pretend that she said Latinas are better than white men ... well, that's racist!

And that's just what the right wing did. Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and other conservative media figures quickly insisted that Sotomayor is a racist and a bigot. They even compared her to David Duke. (Now, at first, you might think that if Rush Limbaugh is calling someone a racist, he must mean it as a compliment. But if you listen to his tone of voice and the full context, it's clear he means it as an insult.)

And the media, particularly cable news, took their complaints seriously. They quoted them, and they adopted the right's inaccurate shorthand version of Sotomayor's comments in order to explain why the conservatives were upset. News reports that explained that conservatives are distorting Sotomayor's comments were few and far between; reports that noted that conservatives have said similar things in the past were even rarer.

Just a few years ago, the mere suggestion that Samuel Alito should explain his membership in an organization that sought to limit the number of women and minorities at Princeton was met with outrage by the media. How dare the Democrats! They've gone too far! But now, with conservatives explicitly calling Sotomayor a "racist" based on manufactured evidence, the media can't even be bothered to point out that they are distorting her comments. Instead, the conservative complaints get taken seriously, as though they are a reasonable and fair interpretation of what Sotomayor said.

So it seems that lying about a Latina in order to call her a racist is just fine, as far as much of the media is concerned. Just don't you dare question why a white male belonged to an organization that sought to keep women and minorities out of his college. That's over the line.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 29, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
      9 1
      Yeah - real liberal media we've got here, huh?

      And watch some clueless con miss the point completely and ask, "Why are you guys so upset? You did the SAME THING to our nominee!" (Uh... no. No, we didn't.)

      Great column as always, J.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pointofview (May 29, 2009 5:59 pm ET)
        2 13
        So nice to see the White House do damage control.

        White House: Sotomayor Says She Choses Words Poorly in 2001 Remarks

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/29/white-house-sotomayor-says-choses-words-poorly-remarks/

        Guess MMFA has been wrong all week in their attacks of those who knew right away this was a racist thing to say!!!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by carlileb5935 (May 29, 2009 6:13 pm ET)
          11 1
          I'll remember to always get my news from FOX now. No spin, right?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by LuvLuLu (May 29, 2009 7:12 pm ET)
          11 2
          Saying that you chose your words poorly is not equivalent to the smears about what she said that have been coming from people on the right.

          So no, MMfA has not been wrong all week. But you are once again wrong.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (May 29, 2009 8:04 pm ET)
          9 1
          Ahh, I see you are once again defending racists making racist comments against minorities. You know what we call people who defend racists?...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (May 29, 2009 8:12 pm ET)
          9 2
          Actually, the White House is wrong. Her comments were right on the money.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by seeryer (May 29, 2009 10:20 pm ET)
          5 1
          The White House called her a racist? I missed that. The White House didn't get the memo that she was talking about discrimination cases. She is a woman and a minority. A white man is neither.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by my4cents (May 29, 2009 10:23 pm ET)
          8 2
          "Guess MMFA has been wrong all week in their attacks of those who knew right away this was a racist thing to say!!!"

          If choosing words poorly exactly equals she was a 'racist' then you are right.
          Tell me, is she a racist or a reverse racist?
          You guys (current day Republicans) live in your own imaginary world and want the sane public to live in the same. No wonder FoxNews is still in business and not laughed out of the park.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by my4cents (May 29, 2009 10:26 pm ET)
              1
            By the way, MMFA's new web site presentation sucks.
            If you take time to compose your thoughts (> 60 secs), the post hangs and never submits.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by LuvLuLu (May 30, 2009 12:54 am ET)
              2  
              I have never had that problem, so I am not sure you should blame the website's changes.

              I often write long posts.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (May 30, 2009 8:57 am ET)
              1  
              I've never had that problem either. If you're not using Firefox, maybe you should try it and see if it helps.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by my4cents (May 30, 2009 10:27 pm ET)
                  1
                I am an Internet Engineer. I implement web sites like this, for my living.
                May be I being too sensitive. I will wait a while before I click 'save'.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 29, 2009 11:41 pm ET)
            12  
            Got any evidence this is true? Any of it? Got evidence this site is funded by Soros? Of course you dont you are just regurgitating what you were TOLD to think. Got some evidence Soros is a criminal? You are just sad. Even your lies are old and cliched.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (May 30, 2009 8:13 am ET)
              8  
              Evidence?

              Didn't you see that the statement was typed in BOLD LETTERS?

              That's what passes for evidence in wingnut circles these days.

              Maybe NH should have also underlined the sentence to add even more proof.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by thelittlethings (May 31, 2009 12:18 am ET)
                1  
                lol
                Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (May 30, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
                4  
                From your blog link, dated March 4th, 2005:

                "After initially claiming on Dec. 1, 2004 that "neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated," the group is no longer disavowing any connection with groups "affiliated" with Soros."

                As of the date of the blog entry, this statement is FALSE.

                The last documented denial of Soros funding that I can find on MMFA's website is October 12th, 2007.

                I'm wondering if that's because the right-wing professional liars are no longer making the accusation, or if the accusation is finally true.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 5:29 pm ET)
                3  
                You are a nut. Your Soros is the devil ranting is just ludicrous he OWNS the Democratic party? Increase your mediation. You are brainwashed and your posts are purely delusional. I admit I forgot about the insider trading thing I have heard about it before. Sharp business practices. Unethical for sure but France is only saying he will get a fine they arent even TALKING about jail time so while technically criminal it isnt like he, I dont know, TORTURED PEOPLE. The rightwing screechmonkeys that do your thinking for you have programmed you to demonize Soros so be my guest. You still didnt cough up any evidence this site is funed by Soros or that he is anything more than a reckless bussinessman making money with the lack of ethics that is unfortunatly so common. Your brainwashed delusions do not define reality
                Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 30, 2009 12:05 am ET)
            12  
            Are you actually trying to argue MMFA's arguments are invalid because Soros is associated with MMFA? You realize that guilt by association is a logical fallacy don't you? Solon is correct. You are making a fool of yourself. Try some critical thinking for once.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (May 30, 2009 12:58 am ET)
            5  
            This attempt to smear MMfA and George Soros has nothing to do with the subject being discussed, so I have flagged the post.

            That being said, I have read this accusation before. He has funded lots of things, but not Media Matters. He is not a criminal. He is as successful businessman (remember, most successful businessmen are Republicans) and like most businessmen, he has done some things that benefitted him and may have cost others - but no evidence has ever emerged that he's a criminal. He's behaved just like most powerful businessmen have. That's not a crime.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NH (May 30, 2009 11:52 am ET)
              1 13
              Scared of the truth eh, LuvLuLu?

              Sad that this country is being run by some euro-trash convicted international criminal who made $1.2B by his own admission on this phony "crisis".

              Things are getting worse in the fascism department. Seems that we're having a redux of property confiscation not just in the form of our bank accounts, but by the fact that GM and Chrysler dealers owned by those who voted 'GOP' are being taken away and given to others who donated to liberal causes.

              http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/dealergate_update_corrupt_dem_donating_auto_group/

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (May 30, 2009 12:12 pm ET)
                3  
                Soros is running the country?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by armadillo (May 30, 2009 12:16 pm ET)
                5  
                NH, you are the typical gullible winger.

                "There is just one problem with this theory. Nobody has bothered to look up data for the control group: the list of dealerships which aren't being closed. It turns out that all car dealers are, in fact, overwhelmingly more likely to donate to Republicans than to Democrats -- not just those who are having their doors closed."

                Actually, it's a conspiracy that Obama is trying to keep republican-owned dealerships open. Read the statistics and the whole story here:

                http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans.html

                Research, then post. If you don't, you look even more foolish and gullible.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 30, 2009 2:05 pm ET)
                4  
                Do some reading before you make such ridiculous posts. You make all Republicans look like idiots.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
                2 1
                Get help. FAST
                Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (May 30, 2009 9:17 pm ET)
                4  
                Seems that we're having a redux of property confiscation not just in the form of our bank accounts, but by the fact that GM and Chrysler dealers owned by those who voted 'GOP' are being taken away and given to others who donated to liberal causes.

                Oh, there's a lie right there. It was revealed that over 80+ % of dealerships are owned by registered republicans who contribute to republican causes. It's only logical (well, to us logical people, that is) that most dealerships closed would be owned by a republican. There, debunked. What's your next lie?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by mrhebert74 (May 30, 2009 2:28 am ET)
            6  
            Actually, Media Matters is funded by a consortium of Hitler, Darth Vader, Ted Bundy, Satan, and NAMBLA.

            But it doesn't really matter, because all Media Matters does is tell you exactly what people said or wrote, why it is incorrect or suspect, and precisely which objective facts prove it.

            So, N00b Hack, which information sources do YOU take seriously? Please, tell us. Please? Give us a laugh?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NH (May 30, 2009 11:54 am ET)
              1 10
              Just the kind of silly answer I would expect.

              The information is widely known to be true and easily found anywhere, and predictably being denied here.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mrhebert74 (May 30, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
                3  
                Just the kind of faux-serious non-answer I would expect. Thanks for coming back, though -- it was funny. But just to clarify, my question isn't "Where can the information be found," but rather, "Which information sources do you take seriously?" I know, it's hidden deep within my 6-line post. Sorry. I'll put it in bold letters so you can find it:

                Which information sources do YOU take seriously?

                Surely not the two you posted above that other posters have debunked in less than an hour (with objective facts, not baseless smears)?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 01, 2009 12:20 pm ET)
                1  
                You, sir, are an idiot. RW information is spewed everywhere, that much is true, but it's objectively debunked here. There's no 'denial,' just proof. I'm not surprise that you don;t recognize PROOF, since you've never tried using it (or any actual EVIDENCE) yourself.

                Now gow SPAM some other board, you mental midget. You're wasting our time here.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by retiredinsf (May 31, 2009 4:35 am ET)
              2
            A sane voice on this rediculas leftist site. Atta boy NH.....
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 01, 2009 10:14 am ET)
              2  
              And an illiterate thinks NH makes sense. I'm not surprised.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 30, 2009 12:09 pm ET)
          2  
          POV,Try watching something else besides the FALSE NEWS CHANNEL every once in a while. It would definitely do you some good.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 30, 2009 2:02 pm ET)
          2  
          Good to hear you admit that Samuel Alito is a racist, pov. I mean, you can't think that Sotomayor is and not Alito. That would make you a pathetic, partisan hypocrite. Right?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by thelittlethings (May 31, 2009 12:15 am ET)
          2  
          Just because it comes from Faux news doesn't mean it's the truth, no matter how much it panders to what you already believe.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by jpeagle21 (May 29, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
      1 17
      Here is the difference, you idiot. In the Alito case it was democrat elected officials who were citing his affiliation with a "racist" organization. The people calling Sotomayor a racist are conservative talking heads. None (zero) of the names you mentioned are elected republican officials. In fact, republicans have been rather quiet altogether on the nomination, which is probably why the media is making such a big deal out of Limbaugh and Gingrich. They are looking for a story. When a republican elected official gets up there and calls her a racist, then we have a comparison. Until then, you are just like the rest of the media.....trying to make a story out of a non-story in an effort to smear republicans.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (May 29, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
        4 1
        Gingrich and Pat Buchanan were both republican elected officials.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (May 29, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
          6 1
          So was Tancredo.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jpeagle21 (May 29, 2009 7:35 pm ET)
            1 12
            Again.....get back to me when an elected republican official calls her a racist. Former representatives do not speak for the republican party. Neither does a radio talk-show host.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pete592 (May 29, 2009 8:00 pm ET)
              11 1
              Get back to me when you find an elected Democratic official who called Alito a racist.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by loonz (May 29, 2009 8:14 pm ET)
              7 1
              They're out there representing the republican party.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by roundhouse (May 29, 2009 8:32 pm ET)
              7 1
              Bullcrap. Republican voters ARE the Republican Party. Unless, that is, you're telling us that yours and other Republican voices count for nothing in your party.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by spooky3 (May 29, 2009 10:17 pm ET)
              7 1
              Was I asleep when the Sotomayor hearings started? According to the Foser post, the questioning of Alito occurred during the hearings. If the hearings had started for Sotomayor, I have no doubt that the Republicans would raise similar questions. They may not once the hearings actually begin, though, since the damage is done by the paid shills.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by coach777b (May 30, 2009 11:25 am ET)
              4  
              The leader of the republican party is not an elected official - Rush Limbaugh. Tancredo, Gingrich and others are former elected officials who lost elections because of their rigid, racist and corrupt practices. In fact there are soo many FORMER elected republicans, they could start their own party.
              Sotomayor is no racist but Limbaugh is. Coulter is. Tancredo is.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (May 31, 2009 3:15 am ET)
                2  
                They have started their own party. It's called News Corp. It's the Republican Party's own 'SS'.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by carlileb5935 (May 29, 2009 5:23 pm ET)
        9 1
        When a republican elected official gets up there and calls her a racist, then we have a comparison.

        Sorry, that's quite a bridge you've set up for them to cross, because no Democratic representative ever called Alito "a racist." At best they questioned his membership-- which the MSM considered to be totally out of line.

        But this same Press is going frantic over Sotomayor's background. It's a double standard-- but really no surprise, because the media is dominated by rich White guys.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jpeagle21 (May 29, 2009 7:41 pm ET)
            11
          And, no republican representative has ever insinuated that Sotomayor is a racist. You are correct, the press is going frantic over the racist Sotomayor talk, because they love when they can bring up stories that make republicans seem like they hate minorities. The more they can make people think that republicans are slamming the poor Hispanic lady, the better for getting democratic votes from Hispanics.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (May 29, 2009 8:08 pm ET)
            11 1
            "The more [the press] can make people think that republicans are slamming the poor Hispanic lady"

            Gingrich, Buchanan and Tancredo are doing that themselves.

            Granted, the press is providing them the podium to do so, but they are not holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to do interviews or to brand Sotomayor a racist. These former Republican officials are doing that of their own free will.

            If the Republicans really wanted the Hispanic vote, they would be doing more to earn it, like telling their former colleagues to shut the hell up or at least not use derogatory terms when talking about Sotomayor.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NH (May 29, 2009 11:08 pm ET)
              1 16
              Who gives a darn about the RACIST hispanic vote? We only want fair hispanics who believe in equal rights for everyone, not ones that belong to latino separatist groups like LaRaza.

              Sotomayer opened her mouth and let her true feelings out and now she will pay for it like anyone else.

              That's equality -- be women and men enough to live up to the responsibilities of it.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (May 29, 2009 11:37 pm ET)
                11  
                By baselessly screaming "RACIST! RACIST!" at just about everything you disagree with, you are only making yourself irrelevant. Even some Republicans like Rollins and Scarborough have had enough of that crap are surprisingly starting to see how stupid and damaging it is to the conservative cause.

                I hope you continue making a fools of yourself on these issues, personally. Eventually the Republican party will wise up and kick out the unserious Palinite wing of the party and become relevant again.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by NH (May 30, 2009 11:55 am ET)
                  1 11
                  By baselessly screaming "RACIST! RACIST!" at just about everything you disagree with, you are only making yourself irrelevant.

                  So now that the shoe is on the other foot....
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (May 30, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
                    4  
                    If you had legitimate gripe, no one here would be supporting her nomination but you don't. It's projection by a party which is pretty much universally white and male dominated.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
                    2  
                    No the baseless assertions, smearing and basic brainwashed insanity is on the same foot it is usually on the RIGHTWING foot
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by open_mind (May 30, 2009 10:19 pm ET)
                    2  
                    So you admit being disingenuous again. This is all some stupid game to you guys. Thanks for the confirmation of your irrelevance.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by mrhebert74 (May 30, 2009 2:29 am ET)
                3  
                Actually, the in thing for wingnuts is "Who gives a darn about ANY vote?"
                Report Abuse
          • Author by my4cents (May 29, 2009 10:47 pm ET)
            3  
            "And, no republican representative has ever insinuated that Sotomayor is a racist."
            You could have written
            ""And, no republican representative has ever SAID that Sotomayor is a racist."
            "stories that make republicans seem like they hate minorities"
            where are the stories that said republicans HATE minorities?

            You are the current day Republican, leaving wriggle room behind your words, not having the guts to defend in plain terms what you believe in.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 30, 2009 2:12 pm ET)
            2  
            The MSM made Limbaugh call her a racist? Are you actually claiming now that Limbaugh is neither a Republican nor represents the voices of many Republicans?? You guys really have to reach pretty far to defend what is left of the Republican party, don't you?
            Report Abuse
        • Author by CountChocul8 (May 29, 2009 9:22 pm ET)
             
          That last line is an offensive stereotype. There is no race that has a corner on the market on goodness. We all seem to have one for the opposite though. But it is true that the media is certainly dominated by money and advertising. The love of money will turn most people of any race, any sex into a corrupt vile creature that will serve its own base needs over the needs of anyone daring to get in its way. It is interesting to note how how you look at the MSM as Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck etc, and the other side sees the MSM as CBS/NBC/ABC.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by NH (May 29, 2009 11:14 pm ET)
          1 14
          Are you kidding? They even called Clarence Thomas a racist!!!!!! And worse...

          Shameful.. do as I say not as I do... that's this bunch.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 29, 2009 11:43 pm ET)
            7 1
            Please provide a quote where a Democrat called Thomas a racist before or during his confirmation. I have heard him called some terrible things, but never a racist. Not sure what that has to do with the topic.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by creeksneakers2 (May 29, 2009 11:53 pm ET)
            11 1
            I followed the Thomas nomination closely and don't remember anybody calling him a racist. The closest complaint I can think of was that
            Thomas benefited from affirmative action but was against any other black benefiting from it. That was an attack on his hypocrisy, not his racial views.

            There was plenty about sexual harassment and adult videos though. There was also a sensational amount of lies about Anita Hill that came from the RW.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 01, 2009 10:22 am ET)
              1  
              Thomas not only cheerfully, willingly, and greedily climbed the Affirmative Action ladder, he pulled it up after him to try and make sure that no one else would be able to use it after him.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (May 29, 2009 5:34 pm ET)
        11 1
        How come you call the Republican Party by the name they have chosen for themselves, yet you call the Democratic Party the "democrat" party, which is not the name that group calls themselves? What makes you think that you can choose their name versus them choosing their own name?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jpeagle21 (May 29, 2009 7:42 pm ET)
          1 9
          I'll send the "Democratic Party" an apology letter when I have time.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 29, 2009 9:39 pm ET)
            12 1
            Do you think being a jerk is clever? Do you think repeating the Limborg brainwashing you have been programmed with makes you look like anything besides brainwashed? Little petty jibes that you have been TOLD to regurgitate and do on demand make you look like the sheeple you are.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by my4cents (May 29, 2009 10:53 pm ET)
              5 1
              When then cannot be jerks any more, they hide behind the skirts of the same lawyers they profess to hate.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by NH (May 29, 2009 11:16 pm ET)
              1 17
              A word about brainwashing -- when you Soros-money-infested Democrats can wean yourselves from NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN, which comprises of 90% of the TV-Obamacontrolled media, then we'll listen to you when you cry 'brainwashing'.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 29, 2009 11:45 pm ET)
                12 2
                You do understand you are just embarassing yourself dont you? The only think you are accomplishing is making a fool out of yourself.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mrhebert74 (May 30, 2009 2:32 am ET)
                  5 3
                  That's the "thing" he's accomplishing. He's not accomplishing a "think" at all.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (May 29, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
                7 1
                MMFA has cited each of your examples multiple times for forwarding conservative misinformation. Your argument appears to be based on a false premise. What a surprise.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by NH (May 30, 2009 11:57 am ET)
                  2 11
                  Not misinformation at all.... but your reputation here is for deleting comments so... it is to be expected when you can't face the truth.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (May 30, 2009 12:31 pm ET)
                    3  
                    The only reason why those media outlets appear left-wing to you is that you and others like you are so far to the right. None of those media outlets express the views we espouse here nor do they bash conservatives like we do.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
                    4  
                    You are paranoid and insane. Exactly how would a poster like Open Mind delete comments? Adjust your tinfoil hate, take your meds and for goodness sake keep ranting your insane rants. I look forward to people like YOU taking the GOP the way of the Whig party
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by rtwmd1230 (May 30, 2009 7:47 pm ET)
                    1  
                    And change your underwear (it's Saturday).
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by ted92114 (May 31, 2009 1:13 am ET)
                      2
                    Yes I had my consrvative comments deleted when I included that I was a Black-man. Shame on MMFA
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 01, 2009 10:28 am ET)
                      2  
                      Prove it. Document that the reason your posts were deleted was because you said you were black.

                      By the way, I'm an Armenian woman who is also a dwarf, and my right arm is 12" longer than my left arm. I also have seven toes on my right foot.

                      And the above statement is just as true as anyone claiming (knowing that the claim can't be verified) to be a member of any race or group. It isn't provable, and you have no reason why any posts you may have made were or were not deleted.

                      Maybe your "consrvative (sic) comments" were deleted for being illiterate or off-topic.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 01, 2009 10:29 am ET)
                        2  
                        Also, people who really are black don't hyphenate "Black-man." Maybe your post was deleted because it was full of lies.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 3:20 am ET)
                    2  
                    are you serious, the left can't face the truth. what cold hard facts have you brought to this discussion? taking haLF a statement or half of an event and manipulating it to the point off heresy is what fox and right wingers have become experts at. show me some truth that has some concrete proof to baCK it up!
                    p.s.
                    your comment was probably deleted because of some hateful namecalling or inapropiate language. I seriously doubt much thought goes into your statements.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 30, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
                6  
                NH, You obviously, are completly clueless.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by pzazz1953 (May 30, 2009 5:09 pm ET)
                1  
                Of course, you're 100% correct. Frank Luntz would call it a 'right front lobal baptismal event.' Who cares if all you've listed have military contracts that subsidize their media divisions.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by thelittlethings (May 31, 2009 12:48 am ET)
              2  
              Ha! "Limborg!" I love it! It's very fitting. "Resistance is futile." lol
              Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (May 29, 2009 10:22 pm ET)
            3  
            How white of you...
            Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (May 30, 2009 1:02 am ET)
            4  
            Since jpeagle seems to have trouble answering questions, I will ask it again.

            How come you call the Republican Party by the name they have chosen for themselves, yet you call the Democratic Party the "democrat" party, which is not the name that group calls themselves? What makes you think that you can choose their name versus them choosing their own name?

            I don't care if you apologize or not. I asked why you think you get to choose what their name is?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 30, 2009 2:16 pm ET)
              3  
              Sadly enough - it is what this once proud party has left. The Republicans are so far in the wilderness they can only achieve petty, childish name-calling. It really is sad because I still believe this country is better served when there are 2 strong political parties. Well, I would like about 5, but right now I would settle for 2. Not the party of adults and the party of children.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (May 29, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
        8  
        You saw the part about how the Democratic senators' question was fully justified, right? You also saw the part about how the republicans' accusations are completely unjustified, right?

        Those differences are what stand out to me. But then, I can read for comprehension.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (May 29, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
        9  
        And you think an organization that demands caps on admissions for women and minorities isn't racist and sexist by definition?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jpeagle21 (May 29, 2009 7:46 pm ET)
            11
          I think they are just as racist and sexist as organizations that have quotas on how many minorities that they MUST allow....regardless of qualifications.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (May 29, 2009 8:09 pm ET)
            10 1
            ahh, the regardless of qualifications thing. I guess in your world it's preposterous that someone may actually rig a test to favor one group of people over everyone else. No grey matter there...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (May 29, 2009 11:50 pm ET)
              5 1
              In his world "qualified" and "white" appear to be synonyms.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 29, 2009 9:41 pm ET)
            6 1
            When you find one of those let us know. I mean outside your imagination.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (May 30, 2009 1:08 am ET)
            3 1
            We have decades of civil rights legislation that has helped, but not fully remedied, past injusticies.

            Why would you want to stop when the job of remedying those past injustices is incomplete?

            The test in New Haven did not allow minorities to compete fairly for those jobs. There were several blacks and hispanics that 'passed' the test, so they would have been qualified. The score on that test was weighted too heavily and the test was clearly biased against the minorities.

            Why would you want the city to hire people based upon a biased test? If the test had only had minorities at the top of the heap, it would be wrong to accept those results too because they'd be biased towards the minority.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by mrhebert74 (May 29, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
        3  
        I object to calling J-Fos an idiot, jpeagle, especially in light of some of the blithering you've proudly posted here.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by creeksneakers2 (May 29, 2009 7:12 pm ET)
        13 1
        Limbaugh is the head of the GOP.

        The GOP also gets away with letting Limbaugh do all their dirty work while they reap the benefit and stand around acting innocent. If the GOP elected officials don't want to be associated with Limbaugh, they should denounce him.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NH (May 29, 2009 11:02 pm ET)
          2 15
          Limbaugh is the head of the GOP? Hahahah. YOU WISH.

          Saying it doesn't make it so no matter how much you want a target for your sick Alinsky tactics of targeting and ridiculing.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 30, 2009 12:01 am ET)
            8 2
            It's like you are completely unaware of what Republicans have been doing for the last twenty years or so. Simply amazing to read your posts.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by LuvLuLu (May 30, 2009 1:10 am ET)
              4 1
              Even longer than that - Rush will celebrate his 21st anniversary soon on nationwide radio, and there were plans to plant the false seed of a liberal-slanted media well before he got that platform.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (May 30, 2009 1:53 am ET)
                4  
                I was writing above mainly to the strategy of ridicule that Limbaugh built his entire career on.

                You are correct that conservatives have always hated the media in a self-serving effort to get their followers automatically not to trust anything that is written that conflicts with conservative doctrine.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by NH (May 30, 2009 11:58 am ET)
              1 12
              Well maybe that shows that the 'leaders' you have chosen are not that at all...? Could it be? Hmmm...

              Maybe you are totally unaware of the fantasy world you live in or who really runs your candidate.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
                4  
                HA, the projection from you is comical. You LIVE on Planet Wingnut havent been within MILES of reality with your basless assertions and brainwashed cliched talking points devoid of reality and you are talling someone else THEY live in a fantasy world? Your post are nothing BUT delusional fantasies
                Report Abuse
              • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 3:36 am ET)
                2  
                fantasy world? are you saying you actually think the right is relying on reality to help them regain power. shoot man, they sold a war on fantasy and convinced americans that they could walk all over the constitution by using false information and fear tactics. I bet you watch glenn beck, he's a good example. two weeks after 9/11 he stated" it took me a couple weeks to start hating the families of the 9/11 victims" and now he's got something called the 9/12 project which is supposed to bring americans back to that day when we all had our heart out to the victims and their families and most rednecks and right-wingers buy all this crud coming from FOX. fantasy ,lies, corruption that will be the first thing that comes to peoples minds when they think of republicans for years to come.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by creeksneakers2 (May 30, 2009 12:08 am ET)
            3  
            Does being associated with Limbaugh feel like you are being targeted? Why? Don't you like Rush?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NH (May 30, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
              1 11
              It is typical of the Alinsky method to pick a target, a leader, and then ridicule them to cause guilt by association.

              Because the GOP right now doesn't seem to have a particular 'leader', and the left is dealing with angry grassroots people of all types, we get the Napolitano report and such. It's probably frightening to them that they cannot pinpoint the source of the reaction to the rising fascism that is this administration's bent.

              I've only heard of this RL controversy fleetingly since I don't listen to Limbaugh and I find it quite like something kids on a playground would do. No one cares what you think about a talk show host. It's rather amusing.

              I don't feel associated with Limbaugh in any way except that his freedom of speech as a citizen, like mine, is in danger of being curtailed..

              Threatening to flag posts that are perfectly civil and factual on this website are glaring proof of what I'm saying.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (May 30, 2009 12:38 pm ET)
                4  
                Rush Limbaugh is your emperor. The republicans worship him and wouldn't dare cross him because of backlash from his rabid and sheep-like audience. Any criticism of him by anyone in your party is swiftly followed by an apology. Your party is choosing him over more sane candidates.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by creeksneakers2 (May 30, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
                5  
                Are you trying to associate me or the left with Saul Alinsky? You say you don't listen to Limbaugh, but the Alinsky assoociations are part of his silly propaganda. Where else did you get such a silly notion, if not from the leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh?

                I've never read the Alinsky book. Have you? Probably doesn't even say what Rush says it does.

                Nobody is going to take away Limbaugh's freedom of speech either. That's another hoax people who listen to Limbaugh have fallen for.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 5:43 pm ET)
                4 1
                Ridicule and guilt by association are the mainstay of rightwing propaganda. Wright? Ayers? Try to let at least a BIT of reality into your cramped brainwashed existance. Alinsky? An obscure radical who wrote a few tracts in the 60's? Yeah you came up with THAT one on your own its just a coincidence that Rush keeps talking about him. You are a joke and couldnt even RECOGNIZE factual if it burned down your garage. Here is a clue. You just SAYING something doesnt make it factual just because that is the Modus Operandi of the rightwing bloviating screechmonkeys that do your thinking for you
                Report Abuse
              • Author by thelittlethings (May 31, 2009 1:01 am ET)
                3  
                Omg, shut up! Bush made it illegal to say anything contradictory to him. He made it to where the GOP and conservatives would call anyone questioning him "unpatriotic." THAT'S when our liberties were in danger. You have nothing to worry about. Calm down and shut up already. It's like you completely forgot about Bush and his infringements on civil rights.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 01, 2009 10:33 am ET)
                2  
                NH said "Alinsky!"

                I WIN WINGNUT BINGO!
                Report Abuse
          • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 3:24 am ET)
            1  
            newt gingrich is'nt the head of the gop neither is karl rove,Cheney or any other prejudice voice coming from the right. but thats the only voices we here or faces we see .
            Report Abuse
          • Author by thelittlethings (May 31, 2009 8:31 pm ET)
            2  
            Actually, we really wish Limbaugh wasn't the head of the GOP. I know you probably aren't going to want to admit this, but it's not exactly breaking news. He himself has said he's the head of the GOP, and that he's proud of it.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 29, 2009 9:31 pm ET)
        10 1
        Did you call someone ELSE an idiot? You are dumber than the hair on a barbershop floor. Tancredo is an elected GOP offical and he called her a racist directly. Do you EVER know what you are talking about or is this kind of idiocy really the best you can do?
        Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 29, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
            10 2
            OK, now we know you can spew delusional fantasies and the bilge you have been TOLD to beleive by the screechmonkeys that do your thinking for you. You have made a fool out of yourself and assured no one in their right mind will EVER take you seriously. Good luck with that.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NH (May 30, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
              1 10
              I'm not sure who you are referring to as "screechmonkeys", but I can assure you no one TOLD me to say or think anything over the last 60 years. Unlike many of you here who are accepting of the fascism, I can SEE clearly what is going on and can react to it, correctly, myself, thank you.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (May 30, 2009 12:41 pm ET)
                6  
                Fascism was occurring when your leader Bush was in office and he wrecked America. Now Obama has to fix up the mess and you're accusing him of what Bush did. Classic projection.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 5:34 pm ET)
                3  
                Sure you came by the same talking points being shouted by the rightwing hateradio bloviators all on your own. You dont see ANYTHING correctly you are brainwashed and your idiotic Soros obsessed ranting is foolish at BEST
                Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (May 30, 2009 9:26 pm ET)
                3  
                No sir, they did tell you what to say and do. You and your little fascist jackrabbits have been goosestepping to Limbaugh for way to long, projecting your fascism onto Democrats to cover your hatred. You will never find one example of a "liberal" college banning college republican groups from campus, but we can point to liberty college who just banned college democrats from the campus - just like the good little fascists the right is, trying to get rid of freedom of speech. No sir, you can't see clearly at all. In fact, I can only assume by your ignorance that your eyes are brown with all the s##t you're full of.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by thelittlethings (May 31, 2009 1:09 am ET)
                2  
                Omg, you're so dumb. A 3% tax increase on the rich is HARDLY fascism. Stop overreacting. There was a time in our American history when the tax on the rich was 90% but the conservatives want you to forget that because it will actually make Obama look not that bad. Also, we are going from 36% to 39%. We were at 39% not too long ago, we're just returning to it. Nothing bad is going to happen.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by isabellakate (May 31, 2009 11:05 pm ET)
                    2
                  A 3% tax on the rich is not Fascism, I agree. However changing the hierarchy of creditors in bankruptcy and arbitrarily closing privately owned car dealerships by White House fiat is an unjust appropriation of property without compensation.

                  It is unlawful in the United States and it is a hallmark of Communism, National Socialism and Fascism.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 01, 2009 10:38 am ET)
                    3  
                    Wow. I don't think I've ever read a post which proves in so few words that you don't even have a inkling of where the key to the clue cabinet is.

                    You do, however, know precisely where the ignorant GOP talking point stockpile is, and you have taken way more than your fair share.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 3:41 am ET)
                2  
                so echoing the same baseless prejudice comments as the other rightwing bloggers and talk radio jerks doesn't = screechmonkey?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 3:38 am ET)
            2  
            dude,you should of taken the red pill. ignorance must be blissful for you though.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by ted92114 (May 30, 2009 1:39 am ET)
            2
          She is a racist. She is a member of La Raza...THE race. Get it?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (May 30, 2009 8:18 am ET)
        5  
        Did you ever think that the reason elected,Democratic officials cited Alito's membership in a racist organization, was the fact that he was a member of a racist organization?

        And the story isn't about the media's efforts "to smear republicans" but with republican's attempts to smear Judge Sotormayor.


        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 30, 2009 8:33 am ET)
        6 1
        So no Republican is going to bring this up in questioning? I find that pretty difficult to believe.

        I think it's pretty easy to argue that conservatives are the ones who have been trying to make a story out of a non-story with the racism charges to begin with. If that's a "smear", then they shouldn't have mounted all the phony outrage themselves.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (May 29, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
      8 1
      And the media, particularly cable news, took their complaints seriously. They quoted them, and they adopted the right's inaccurate shorthand version of Sotomayor's comments in order to explain why the conservatives were upset.

      It's even worse than that, because the liberals who are defending her aren't even getting her context right-- they make it sound like she is indeed saying that Latinas might have more to bring to the court in general, when in fact she was referring to gender and ethnic cases only. Only MMFA is right-on here about what she was getting at.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jpeagle21 (May 29, 2009 7:54 pm ET)
          14
        "when in fact she was referring to gender and ethnic cases only."

        Regardless of the context, if a white man had made any type of statement about how he could make a better decision than a minority in any way, shape, or form....or in any context whatsoever, he would be drawn and quartered by the media. Everyone knows this....even the white house, based on their newest smooth-over coments that they have put out.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (May 29, 2009 8:18 pm ET)
          7 1
          If a conservative white male said he had a better understanding of the trailer park crowd than would a minority, I wouldn't disagree.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (May 29, 2009 8:55 pm ET)
          4  
          It would depend on how he said it. If he were to say something like "white men are superior to all other races and sex's", while getting a medal from Rush Limbaugh, yeah, he'd be drawn and quartered...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 29, 2009 9:45 pm ET)
          8  
          BALONEY. If he was saying his experience in THIS area would make him a better judge of specific cases than those without that experience no one would have said a thing. You just think things become true because you say them
          Report Abuse
          • Author by ted92114 (May 30, 2009 1:41 am ET)
              2
            That's not what she said. She said she would be a better judge (period) than a white-male BECAUSE she is a Latina woman.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (May 31, 2009 11:51 pm ET)
              2  
              Sorry, no.

              "Second, 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...Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown...However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench."

              She did not say anything close to what you did. She clearly was talking about discrimination cases, and also said she "would hope" that a wise Latina woman "would more often than not" reach a better conclusion in those specific cases. Try doing some reading yourself instead of being spoon-fed lies, you might find it rewarding.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by mrhebert74 (May 30, 2009 2:17 am ET)
          6  
          "Regardless of the context" is a perfect phrase with which to introduce the absurd argument that begins "if a white man..."

          Because that argument depends completely on a disregard for the context (that Sotomayor is not a white man.

          This argument reminds me of a second-grader screaming "no fair!" because some other student didn't receive exactly the same treatment as he did. Grow up, wingnuts.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by pbg (May 30, 2009 1:58 pm ET)
          6  
          The quote begins "I would hope that..."
          That is NOT what you say when you are stating what you believe to be a fact.
          That Sotomayor was setting up a hope, a desire that she would like to see fulfilled by a wise Latina woman, would be obvious to someone who'se first language was English and not troll.
          If you read I would hope that a wise Latina woman would make a better decision" and say that what that means is that Latina women are smarter than white men, is willfully misreading a simple English sentence.
          She's not even talking about Latina women! She's talking about wise Latina women! You know, Latina women might not be better than white men--but maybe WISE Latina women are!
          Of course, she didn't even say that.
          If you're driving to a dinner, and you say to your wife, "I would hope that Bill has the good sense to turn off the Playboy channel before Grandma shows up," does that mean you're confident that's what will happen? That this is a statement of fact?
          I would hope that you had better sense than to believe that.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by rtwmd1230 (May 30, 2009 7:53 pm ET)
            2 1
            EXCELLENT post. The qualifiers that Sotomayor carefully included in her statement have been completely ignored in the frenzy over her unremarkable comments.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by thelittlethings (May 31, 2009 1:14 am ET)
          2  
          You're saying context doesn't matter? So if I just strung a few of your words together with a few "..." in between them, saying you actually said something like "I...hate...minorities..." you wouldn't care about context?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 29, 2009 9:44 pm ET)
        4 1
        What are you talking about. We have been saying EXACTLY that all along
        Report Abuse
    • Author by HispanicDidi (May 29, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
         
      Republicans are using commentators and former officials to advance their ideas in all media. I believe this is a lot worse than having their current officials say these things because more of their base will rather get their information through these filters than actually look for the facts themselves. It's convenient, entertaining and perpetuates their own worldviews without challenge. This is why whenever I find myself trying to reason with people who still call themselves Republicans, they will send me links to sites that are complete manufactured opinions or recommend books by people with no professional backgrounds. As long as it says what they believe on the headings or their table on contents, then it's a good enough source for them.

      I am appalled by the lack of real journalism in the MSM. Outrageous claims go unchallenged, lies are not called out, context is suppressed and airtime is given to those who scream the loudest about their patriotism.

      Sotomayor's nomination is testing all media, and so far, they are failing. Except for Media Matters, of course!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dmhack (May 29, 2009 8:46 pm ET)
      1  
      I think the fringe right is capably putting yet another nail into the coffin of the Republican party. The GOP should be very worried about how the fringe's insane reaction reflects on the party and their hopes for electoral success in the future.
      Forget the party's base for a moment because they'll be there cycle after cycle and think about the majority of voters who straddle the right and left---the people each party needs to succeed.
      Do the Republicans seriously think that these voters will want to associate themselves with a party that seems to be dominated by lunatics and lairs? Will calling a female nominee dumb (in spite of her academic credentials) and questioning her 'temperament' play with women who have dealt with similar slurs in their own lives? Will immigrants or the children of immigrants embrace a party that seems to sneer at ethnic pride and call it racist? And will generous and forgiving Americans want to vote for a party that finds fault with everyone but itself?
      While a few Republican politicians have started to speak up and challenge the fringe's assertions, there are so many still cowering in the corner. This is the time---right now---for them to take back their party from the failed politicians, the self-promoting media millionaires and the book-peddling bobbleheads. These people don't care about the party, they don't even care about the party's base... all they care about is themselves.
      This is the tipping point for the GOP. The people who will decide if and when you get back into power are watching to see if the Republican Party is a party they can support or a party with loons for leaders.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by zamfir273114 (May 29, 2009 10:22 pm ET)
      1 9
      Attorneys are trained from lL of law school to start using their words carefully and in exactly the way they want those words to be accepted. Sotomeyer meant what she said back then and still feels that way. It is very sad to see people use racism but for a judge to be racist is a travesty of meaningful justic.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 29, 2009 10:43 pm ET)
        9 1
        Nothing she said was racist. You can keep calling it racist in the vain hope that if you repeat it often enough it will magically become true but in the reality based universe it doesnt work that way. What she said wasnt racist. It WASNT RACIST. I dont care if you say it was one million times it wont become TRUE. Repititon might be fun but it doesnt ADD to the quality of your argument what she said WASNT RACIST.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NH (May 29, 2009 11:00 pm ET)
          1 13
          It should and will be repeated over and over just like you folks do when you want to indoctrinate the public.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 29, 2009 11:51 pm ET)
            7 1
            Increase your medication immediatly. If you EVER travel off the confines of Planet Wingnut and visit us here on planet Earth perhaps you can get back to us. Nothing you have posted as of yet is within a parsec of reality. Your delusional fantasies are laughable. Just keep repeating them over and over though. I am eager for the rightwing to be so totally discredited that they arent taken seriously ever again. People like YOU can make it happen and I am pulling for you
            Report Abuse
            • Author by LuvLuLu (May 30, 2009 1:16 am ET)
              9 1
              Getting liberals to all repeat the same talking points is like herding cats. It doesn't happen.

              You have a disease called "projection". You are genetically predisposed, it seems, as a Republican to spew false talking points, and disregard facts that disprove those talking points.

              Since that failing is so familiar to you, you think that everyone suffers from that character defect.

              We don't. Your group is the one that repeats stupid talking points.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by NH (May 30, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
              1 7
              Increase your medication immediatly. (sic)

              I should not be so amazed at the personal attacks that are launched when you have no comeback for FACTS, but it's just so childish and weak, all this name-calling and "I"m going to tell on you, neener neener".

              Amusing.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (May 30, 2009 12:45 pm ET)
                5  
                No facts were presented by the poster (zamfi never presents any); it was an opinion based on deliberate right-wing spin of her comments.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 5:49 pm ET)
                3  
                What FACTS? It is obvious you dont even know what a fact IS. What it isnt is any stupid thing you choose to SAY. Your posts are nothing BUT rude and insulting characterizations of liberals the left but it is SO mean when we treat YOU with the contempt you treat US with right? I am sure you THOUGHT that God gave YOU the exclusive franchise on being rude or more likely this is another of the Limborg cliched talking points you have been programmed with. That liberals make personal attacks the kind you somehow MISS in your posts.

                Did you think perhaps that THIS wasnt a personal attack?

                Maybe you are totally unaware of the fantasy world you live in

                You are a hypocrite
                Report Abuse
              • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 3:45 am ET)
                2  
                what's one fact you have for this comment board , please humor us with these fantasy facts floating around in your head.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 29, 2009 11:56 pm ET)
            8 1
            I think that is the clearest case of projection I have ever seen.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 3:43 am ET)
               
            code orange, code red ,code irony . seek truth not opinion.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by ted92114 (May 30, 2009 1:44 am ET)
            2
          Keep on saying that she isn't a racist enough times and see if magic can work.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (May 30, 2009 8:21 am ET)
        9  
        And who knows more about racism than you?

        by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 9:19 pm ET)
        ...I want racial quotas in basketball so that there is an equal number of non-black athletes. Am I going to get any of those things? Didn't think so.

        by zamfir273114 (April 09, 2007 11:33 pm ET)
        People are still people. When people talk before they think, they can say stupid and derogatory things. To cite every incidence as "racism" is overreaching.

        by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:14 pm ET)
        Savage has a point. Every neighborhood that illegals have migrated to has gone down the tubes. My birthplace of Van Nuys, CA is like "little Mexico" now. Shootings, rapings, pillaging, drive-by's, grafiti, prostitution, drugs, (you know, all the things that go along with the Mexican-illegal population. Even the African-American neighborhoods are in awe!

        by zamfir273114 (August 05, 2008 9:27 pm ET)
        Then why is it that every one of these Mexican populated areas crime-ridden? Really, all P.C. aside, can you tell me why the real estate prices decrease in these areas? One more thing, why are the prisons filled with Mexicans? P.C. aside. See, nothing ever gets done because everybody is afraid to talk about these things.

        by zamfir273114 (February 15, 2008 12:38 am ET)
        I don't have to agree with someone in order to value free speech. Sure, Imus et. Al. say some nasty comments; however, unless you can diminish his listenership or his value, your barking up the wrong tree. If Hillary were black, you could resort to using Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Unfortunately, they only come running when black folk are ridiculed. Hmm, that seems a little "racist" in and of itself.

        by zamfir273114 (February 14, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
        That is Mr. Hussein's, I mean Obama's, name. Coulter only speaks what millions of American's think. The American people have a right to know who they are voting for. Barack Hussein Obama.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (May 30, 2009 11:45 am ET)
          7 1
          Lol. That was hilarious. It also demonstrates a good point. These conservatives who are so quick to see racism often have a similar history of engaging in it much more deeply and unambiguously themselves.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (May 30, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
            5  
            I've never seen such hypocrisy. Zamfir has always been a racist, concern troll and now he's trying to call out someone else for what he perceives as racism.

            This is the second time I've posted this in response to his accusations of racism. I know I could search and come up with more instances of his racism.

            Feel free to cut and paste this in response to his accusations in any other thread.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by coach777b (May 30, 2009 11:41 am ET)
        8 1
        Please, please, read her ENTIRE statement in context. If you have any amount of brain matter, you will see nothing racist in her statement. She was discussing discrimination cases and the approach that a minority judge would take. You don't have to be a law school graduate to ascertain the truth. But if you you continue to scream Racist! Racist! Racist! it just shows your ignorance and your allegiance to the rightwing part of your party.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 01, 2009 10:44 am ET)
        2  
        Attorneys are trained from lL of law school to start using their words carefully
        Could you tell me precisely what the non-existent "IL of law school" is? I Googled it and didn't get a single hit.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 01, 2009 10:49 am ET)
          2  
          Did you mean 1L or Illinois? Sotomayor went to Princeton and Harvard, so the only point you present is still located on top of your head.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by NH (May 29, 2009 10:59 pm ET)
      1 17
      Sotomayer belongs to a latino separatist group called LaRaza. It is the latino KKK.

      She even made the comment that because she is latino she is better than white men.

      We don't expect anything better --- after all --- the president comes from a black supremicist church.

      Discrimination doesn't discriminate...and latinos and blacks are just as guilty when they do it.

      Sadly liberals follow a double standard that exposes how phony they really are when they use this issue as an excuse for just about everything. Now that the tables are turned, they don't much like it.

      Hah.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (May 29, 2009 11:59 pm ET)
        11  
        You are delusional and your post is a bunch of lies. La Raza is the largest Hispanic civil Rights group in the US. It is NOT a hispanic KKK which is just another thing that rightwing screechmonkeys have brainwashed you with. Sotomayor NEVER said she was better than white People and the Trinity United Church is NOT a seperatist church it HAS WHITE MEMBERS. This is all old debunked propaganda and it is obvious you NEVER know what you are talking about. You are uninformed and spew only silly propaganda. When you can no longer differentiate the voices in your head from the voices on the radio its time for some help. Get help fast.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NH (May 30, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
          1 9
          LaRAZA is a documented hate group.

          You are delusional...
          is more name-calling.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (May 30, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
            8  
            >>LaRAZA is a documented hate group.

            Wow! You might want to check out one of the MMFA blogs that shows the commentator who made this statement mixed up the group Sotomayer with a 60s radical group. The group Sotomayer belongs to is a civil rights group.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by funnymanpants (May 30, 2009 12:32 pm ET)
            7  
            Actually, it was talkingpointsmemo that showed how Tancredo mixed up a 60's slogan with the group La Raza.

            "The motto Tancredo's referring to seems to be a mistranslation of a slogan of sorts from the 1960s...As it turns out, NCLR doesn't even have a motto"

            linkYour text to link here...
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 30, 2009 2:28 pm ET)
            4  
            You are a fool and continue to make one out of yourself. Sadly, you take all Republicans down a notch with you.

            Read something for yourself. Stop believing everything you hear the right wing nuts tell you on the radio and TV. It is clear that you were lying to us about not listening to your radio thinkers. This statement you made is patently false and has been proven so. LOOK IT UP, please. For your own sake. You lower the entire discourse of the nation when you continue to present proven falsehoods as facts just because you allow some lunatic on the radio to think for you. Please - do it for the good of your country. Learn something about LaRAZA before you begin calling it a hate-group. You look ridiculous.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 5:51 pm ET)
            3  
            No it isnt. YOU are delusional is a plain statement of FACT. A lot like when YOU told another poster that THEY lived in a fantasy world. I guess its ok when YOU do it though. La Raza is the largest hispanic civil rights group in America. The screechmonkeys that do your thinking for you are LYING to you.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (May 30, 2009 9:30 pm ET)
            3  
            You are delusional... is more name-calling.

            And you are a racist... is apparently becoming a fact.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 3:49 am ET)
               
            documented where " banned from the UK michael savage" some racist opinion blog board ,WHERE?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 30, 2009 8:24 am ET)
        10  
        That's amazing. You're actually providing an excellent example of how "flipping" doesn't always logically work. Obama's church isn't "supremacist" because it supports the black community, because doing that is an effort to gain equality. But idiots say "well what if it was a church that pledged itself to white values..." White people have the power already. The only cause there could be there would be to maintain the imbalance.

        By the same sort of reasoning, flipping Sotomayor's phrase to "what if it was a white man saying it..." doesn't work either. White men are not often the victims of unfair discrimination, so a white man saying it would more reasonably be argued to be racist.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 3:47 am ET)
        2  
        and what makes laraza = to the kkk, any facts to back that statement up. we're still waiting on these mysterious facts you seem to be with-holding.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by night-n-day (May 30, 2009 12:43 am ET)
      5 1
      It says quite a bit than when a Republican wants to demonize a progressive and compare her a notorious racist, he picks a Republican KKK member (David Duke) as the worst of the worst. On top of the fact that the person making that laughable accusation is someone who lost their job for making a blatantly racist comment on TV (Rush Limbaugh).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by twseattle (May 30, 2009 10:51 am ET)
        3 1
        The new scandal in the right-wing world is going to have to be about how Rush is dissing the Klan so much. When the white-sheeted goons burn a giant piniata in his driveway we'll see how fast he runs for the ACLU.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by SMTDL (May 30, 2009 11:11 am ET)
      6 1
      In the context of the total speech and the venue(conference purpose),etc..it is a reach to call it racist.The snippet being used makes it sound worse when used by itself .Of course this is typical for partisan attacks from both sides.Republicans as usual go farther in the attack all the way to saying its racist and then making comparisons to David Dukes and the KKK which have ,long and storied, obvious racist history makes it way over the top when there is no other evidence offered other than the snippet!!!.The Democrats only questioned Alito on why he was a member of an organization advocated a limit to diversity athe school.I never heard anyone say he was a racist.That former elected Republicans came out this way so quickly speaks volumes about the party base!!!Hopefully more than 3 or 4 elected Republicans will speakout against the attacks AND not apologize for them later on
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NH (May 30, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
        1 9
        Let us remember that is it the Democrats who have the history of electing your "approved" racists to the Congress... Robert Byrd was a Grand Wizard of the KKK was he not? Where is the outrage? I don't see him being kicked to the curb anytime soon.

        Further, what makes you the end all be all judge and authority of who can be a racist and who is not?

        The faulty arguments and name-calling here and lack of knowoledge of the background of your own propaganda-fraught and Soros funded movement is breathtaking..

        Thank you for confirming it for everyone who reads this "regressive" website.



        Report Abuse
        • Author by SMTDL (May 30, 2009 12:22 pm ET)
          4  
          Nice try ..but Robert Byrd has nothing to do with the point here!!Declaring someone as bad as David Dukes or the KKK based on 2 sentences and no check of actions or evidence to support the charge is reprehensible!!!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by funnymanpants (May 30, 2009 12:44 pm ET)
          6  
          >>Further, what makes you the end all be all judge and authority of who can be a racist and who is not?

          That is a self-defeating argument. If you don't think anyone has the authority to determine if someone is a racist, then why do you reserve such authority for yourself?

          >>The faulty arguments and name-calling here and lack of knowoledge of the background of your own propaganda-fraught and Soros funded movement is breathtaking.

          I guess your irony meter is broken? By the way, MMFA is not Soros funded.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by armadillo (May 30, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
          7  
          What you conveniently left out, of course, is that Byrd is repentant. You also leave out all the OTHER Dems who left their party for the segregation-friendly Republican party when the Democratic Party's platform came out for freedom for all. See also "Southern Strategy."
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Whispers (May 30, 2009 2:32 pm ET)
          6  
          Get real.

          Who passed the civil rights' legislation in the 60s? Who invented the "Southern Strategy" specifically to appeal to Southern racists?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 30, 2009 5:56 pm ET)
          4  
          Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms. None of THEM appologized publicly, loudly and repeatedly for THEIR racism. You really DO need to increase your medication. You just think things become true because you SAY them. You add nothing but fantasy, delusions and brainwashed rightwing cliched talking points to the discussion. You are sad.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 3:51 am ET)
          2  
          what about nixon, sessions, george w., cheney.......
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (June 01, 2009 10:55 am ET)
          2  
          Let us remember that is it the Democrats who have the history of electing your "approved" racists to the Congress...
          And in 1964 and 1965, after the Civil Rights Laws started to pass, almost all of them began switching to the Republican Party where their racism was much more welcome.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by frenchdm4132 (May 30, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
      3  
      "And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

      Rush Limbaugh and the Republican owned press didn't call Clarence Thomas a racist for these clearly racist remarks. But, they will rush to calling a Democratic nominee a racist for much more nuanced comments. Clarence Thomas has made far more aggressive remarks against white men than Sonja Sotomayor and yet Rush Limbaugh had Clarence Thomas officiate one of his many weddings.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by isabellakate (May 30, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
        3
      "....Sonia Sotomayor said that she would hope that in judging cases involving discrimination, a Latina woman would reach a better decision than would a white man who hasn't had her experiences".

      You say that her remark is not racist but don't justify your assertion. You say the Right doctored it, but I quote it as you wrote it. No doctoring here. I also do not accuse her of saying that Latinas are better than white men.

      Her remark is racist. It assumes that only people of the same ethnic/racial group can understand or empathize with people of that racial group. It is racist regardless of who said it.

      We need judges who treat all Americans equally regardless of race,color or ethnic group. Judges who sanction different treatment for people depending on their race are guilty of misbehavior and should be removed from office.

      In the pre-civil rights era some judges turned a blind eye to ill-treatment of black people. Others judged blacks more harshly than whites. That is what we will return to if Sotomayor believes what she said and acts on it.

      If she stands by this remark, she will have to recuse herself if a case involves white or black non-Hispanic people because, on her own admission, being Latina, she cannot judge whites or blacks as well as a white/black judge. Obama should ask her to withdraw.


      Report Abuse
      • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 11:07 pm ET)
        2  
        COME ON MAN, Sotomayer said "reach a BETTER decision then a white male who hasn't had her experiences" not "reach the only "just" decision". I mean would you rather climb mount everest with an experienced everest climber or some guy who read about it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (June 01, 2009 12:03 am ET)
        3  
        "Her remark is racist. It assumes that only people of the same ethnic/racial group can understand or empathize with people of that racial group. It is racist regardless of who said it."

        "I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown...However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench."

        "We need judges who treat all Americans equally regardless of race,color or ethnic group."

        "In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times. In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee...In the 50 cases, the panel was unanimous in every one. There was a Republican appointee in 38, and these panels were all obviously unanimous as well. Thus, in the roughly 45 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor never dissented."

        And;

        "I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by thelittlethings (June 01, 2009 11:39 am ET)
        2  
        The criminal justice system is still, and has always been so far, racist and sexist. If you take any criminology class (if you take ALL of them) you will learn that every semester. There has never been true "blind justice" yet. Of the 111 SCJ we've ever had, 107 of them have been white males with relatively the same backgrounds (little, if any, discrimination). How is that "balanced?" No person in their right mind can claim that we've ever had blind justice.

        As far as letting ONE sentence from a person's ENTIRE life dictate how you view here, that's just lunacy. You should look at her rulings, her opinions, her entire speech, the context of the speech, and give her the benefit of the doubt. If someone used ONE sentence out of your entire life againist you, I'm sure you would want the same benefit of the doubt and I'm sure you would want someone to look at everything you've done your whole life, not just judge you based on 1 sentence.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by thelittlethings (June 01, 2009 11:52 am ET)
             
          Typo: second paragraph, first line: "dictate how you view her*"
          Report Abuse
    • Author by welterwill998306 (May 31, 2009 3:08 am ET)
      3  
      Sotomayor was simply saying that somebody who has been subjected to sexism and racism would understand cases that dealt with that better than somebody who hasn't been a target of a sexist or a racist.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by isabellakate (May 31, 2009 10:54 pm ET)
          2
        Many,even most Americans, female and male, black,white,Hispanic or Asian,have been subjected to sexism. I am not black or Hispanic, but I am often subjected to racism.

        I don't need to have a loved one murdered,or to be raped, to know that each is a horrible crime or to be able to judge such a case fairly. Fairness requires some attention to the feelings of the murder victim's family or victims of crimes.

        The crucial factor is common humanity. It exceeds race,color, class, religion or any other difference you can dream up. It is something you either recognize and honor in the way you live and behave, or you don't. Unlike the common experience of race or ethnicity, it excludes no-one.

        Those of us who grew up in the 1960s were so horrified by the events of the pre-Civil Rights era that we vowed never again to allow such a situation to arise.

        Equal Rights requires that the law be applied to all Americans equally. There is no place in the Constitution or law for any judge who might consider his/her own ethnic/racial group differently from any other group.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (June 01, 2009 7:38 am ET)
          2  
          There's no evidence that she's considered anyone from any ethnic group differently from any other. This nomination isn't going to throw us into a world of racism all by itself, especially since there's no basis for the charge to begin with. Relax.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by isabellakate (June 01, 2009 11:26 am ET)
              1
            The first words of her statement say otherwise and that is all most people will read.

            We need people who will be "good" (as in pure of heart) enough to actively put considerations of race and ethnicity aside and judge Americans... not hyphenated Americans. We should ban the hyphenated American from public life.

            I believe that most American judges strive to do justice for everyone regardless of race or ethnicity, but every time a person of influence makes a remark like this it reinforces the sense of victimhood in minorities and raises a question in white American minds that this person would, perhaps could not give them fairness vis a vis minorities. It creates new barriers to social harmony.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by thelittlethings (June 01, 2009 11:43 am ET)
              2  
              Ugh, they really don't. They're SUPPOSED to, but they don't. Just take a few criminology courses.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (June 01, 2009 11:45 am ET)
              2  
              "The first words of her statement say otherwise and that is all most people will read."

              I'm sorry, earlier you said that her comment was racist. You were making a declaration about the actual nature of the comment, not about how many people would take it out of context.

              I don't see you addressing the point that she obviously has not had her objectivity compromised. There should be no question regarding her fairness given the study of her discrimination case history. Do you disagree?
              Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotx (June 01, 2009 1:58 am ET)
      2  
      Still waiting for the evidence that Dem senators during the Thomas hearings accused him of being a racist.
      On another note it is truly amazing to hear obvious bigots such as Limbaugh and Beck call someone a racist. I can also understand where judge Sotomeyer was coming from as well as MIchelle Obama when she made her statement about being proud of her country for the first time. The fact is that people of color in this country typically have more nuanced and multidimintional views than the average Anglo-American. We know your perspective on everything, Brian Williams, Ted Koppel, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, ect. all white males. How many white people read Black, Latino, Asian or Indigenous newspapers? Listen to Black, Latino, Asian or Indigenous talk radio? Watch..........you get the point. We not only know the feelings hopes and desires of our own people but we also know theirs. So in essence judge Sotomeyer was correct. I know all about you while you know nothing about me. This is what Rev. Wright was trying to say but instead of trying to listen to a perspective that is never heard they automatically went into "if a white male said this" mode without even attempting to see his point of view. Nothing new. Just wait until Obama's next SC pick when he chooses a Black female. All hell is going to break loose.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by isabellakate (June 01, 2009 11:52 am ET)
          3
        Rev Wright preaches a fairly primitive form of Marxism with a distinctly un-Marxist, racist element. It cannot be Christian when the point is to arouse hatred of others and disrespect for America as in "God Damn America". I think he is a negative influence on his congregation regardless of age.

        I do get the point. I try to listen to black speakers and read black journals, but they are often dismissive and insulting about people of other races. Some use black English which the rest of America does not understand. However, there are now a multitude of black hosts on regular television programs which perhaps indicates that they do not regard their perspective as any different from that of other Americans.

        I also sometimes listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and Olbermann. I have to say I have never heard Limbaugh or Hannity express disrespect for other races whether you agree with their views or not. Olbermann is vicious towards everyone who does not agree with him, regardless of race.

        A black female American judge is no different from any other American judge as long as her history does not show bias towards blacks or against other races. I doubt Limbaugh, Hannity or anyone else would object.


        Report Abuse
        • Author by SMTDL (June 01, 2009 12:49 pm ET)
          3  
          The problem with racism claims against Rev Wright and Judge Sotomayor is similar in that it takes out of context sentences and tries to show the comment and the person in the worst light possible.What actions by Rev Wright or Sotomayor actually showed racism to backup this charge?Rev Wright pointed out ugly aspects of US history and some that can't deny the truth of it just claim racism.It was more a case of saying America(and whites) should practice what they preach(and have preached since the founding of the country ..land of the free????).As an educated citizen that overcame humble beginnings and racism; who served his country and worked to better his community ,he had every right to criticize where America is not perfect.Sotomayior was only saying that white men are not always the best judges for discrimination cases.As a
          Latina woman and accomplished jurist,she has earned the right to make that comment.It could have been worded better so explore it during confirmation but claiming racism is over the top.
          If you have not heard racist/disrespectful comments from Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity I'm afraid you must not know one when you hear it..they do it almost daily ..esp Limbaugh who just last week referred to Native Americans as those clowns......Do you think Barack the Magic Negro was disrespectful to the President of the US or racist ??How about him telling a black caller to take the bone out of his nose and call back!!?
          As John McEnroe would say"You can't be serious!!!!!!!"
          Report Abuse
        • Author by thelittlethings (June 01, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
          3  
          First off, that's not what he's doing. Second, people have been using Christianity as an excuse for hating certain people for hundreds of years. Christians to this day hate anyone who contradicts their religion. That is NOT love and it is NOT open-minded.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by thelittlethings (June 01, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
          3  
          If you really listen to Hannity and Limbaugh, you're not paying attention. They spread nothing BUT hate. And Limbaugh himself has said that all his friends think exactly like him, that he does not surround himself with a diverse set of friends, that they're all conservatives. If he has no liberal friends, how can he know what a liberal is? Also, "Olbermann is vicious towards everyone who does not agree with him, regardless of race"... It's not true, he calls people out on their heartlessness. Limbaugh doesn't even KNOW anyone who disagrees with him. Your attention skills are lacking.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by pilotx (June 01, 2009 3:27 pm ET)
          2  
          Having grown up listening to Rev. Wright and have many friends and family who attend his church I have yet to meet one person who has been negatively influenced by him. But you seem to make his point and mine, you don't understand "Black English"? What the hell is that? Also you refer to "regular" media, as if Black or other ethnic media is "irregular". I'm guessing that by regular you mean majority white? Just curious. I disagree that Hannity or Limbaugh would object to a Black female judge because almost reflexively they have to object to any female or person of color to codify their audience. Their audience is mainly undereducated white males who feel oppressed by the system while women and people of color get ahead at their expense, which is absolutely untrue but it makes them feel better about themselves. You seem to easly use racist language without even knowing it. Funny how Limbaugh and Hannity like to suggest we should only see Americans and not color but they bring up color and race more than anyone else. I can't even listen to their shows without feeling uncomfortable. I do however feel comfortable listen to the good Rev. Wright.
          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Connect

  • Email

    Receive Jamison's column by email.