Major newspapers disappear Sessions' alleged history of racial insensitivity
SUMMARY: On July 14, five major newspapers reported on Jeff Sessions' opening statement at the confirmation hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor without noting that, in 1986, Sessions' nomination as a U.S. district court judge was rejected following allegations that Sessions had a history of making racially charged comments.
On July 14, the nation's five major newspapers reported Sen. Jeff Sessions' (R-AL) opening statement at the confirmation hearing of Judge Sonia Sotoamyor without reporting in that day's print editions that, in 1986, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Sessions' nomination as a U.S. district court judge following testimony that reportedly included allegations that Sessions had a history of making racially charged comments. In addition, as noted by the Associated Press, Sessions' "nomination originally drew fire from civil rights groups because of his [1985] prosecution ... of three west Alabama civil rights activists on vote fraud charges. The three were acquitted by a federal court jury, prompting civil rights leaders to charge that the prosecution was an attempt to intimidate black voters."
Media Matters reviewed the coverage in the July 14 print editions of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Wall Street Journal.
In a June 6, 1986, report about the Judiciary Committee's rejection of Sessions' nomination, the AP described the allegations:
All eight Democrats on the committee voted against Sessions on both motions, as did Sen. Charles Mathias, R-Md. Another Republican on the panel, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, voted against recommending the nomination favorably but voted for sending the nomination to the full Senate with no recommendation.
[...]
The nomination originally drew fire from civil rights groups because of his prosecution last year of three west Alabama civil rights activists on vote fraud charges.
The three were acquitted by a federal court jury, prompting civil rights leaders to charge that the prosecution was an attempt to intimidate black voters to help ensure Denton's re-election.
Sessions denied those charges and defended the prosecution during his first appearance before the Judiciary Committee in March. But he soon faced new allegations that he had made a series of racially insensitive statements.
Witnesses accused Sessions of calling a black lawyer a "boy," of describing church and civil rights groups as "un-American," of agreeing with a statement that a white civil rights lawyer was a "disgrace to his race," and of saying he thought the Ku Klux Klan was all right until he learned members smoked marijuana.
Sessions returned to the committee last month and vigorously denied making any of the statements attributed to him. He insisted that his racial views were exactly the opposite of what his opponents had told the committee.
The 38-year-old prosecutor urged the committee to examine his record and the statements of support for his nomination from both black and white officials with whom he has worked.
Below are examples of these five newspapers' July 14 reporting on Sessions' opening statement. Each noted parts of Sessions' statement -- a statement that touched on issues of race and prejudice -- but none of them mentioned the allegations that reportedly were leveled against him during his own confirmation process, although some of these newspapers have reported on those allegations recently.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the committee's ranking Republican, praised Sotomayor's statement as "from the heart and direct," but earlier he had made clear that Republicans will challenge her speeches about how life experiences can form a judge's view of the law, and Obama's statement that understanding the real-life consequences of a decision is a necessary tool for a judge.
"I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, anyone who will not render justice impartially," Sessions said. "Call it empathy, call it prejudice or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it's not law," he said. "In truth, it's more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the courtroom."
[...]
Sotomayor, dressed in black with a royal blue jacket and casting aside the crutches she has used for weeks because of a fractured ankle, was incidental to much of the action yesterday. After Sessions and the committee chairman, Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), escorted her to the witness table, she listened for hours as the senators discussed her, the president and the court, each with a seemingly different pronunciation of her name (it is "Soto-my-yore," according to the White House).
[...]
Sessions was careful not to strike too barbed a tone in his opening statement, saying that the hearing would be "respectful" and would consist of "a thoughtful dialogue and maybe some disagreements."
Four of the panel's seven Republicans invoked the "wise Latina" reference to criticize her, with one, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, saying, "my career would have been over" if he had said something like that.
The ranking Republican on the panel, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said: "Call it empathy, call it prejudice, or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it's not law. In truth it's more akin to politics. And politics has no place in the courtroom."
Senators get to question Sotomayor today. Republicans led by Alabama's Jeff Sessions told her they'll focus on her judicial philosophy. Even so, all paid tribute to her trailblazing role before a standing-room-only audience that included the judge's 82-year-old mother, Celina Sotomayor.
"I would hope that every American is proud that a Hispanic woman has been nominated to the Supreme Court," said deputy Senate Republican leader Jon Kyl, an Arizonan whose constituency is nearly 30% Hispanic.
"Unless you have a complete meltdown, you are going to get confirmed," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told the judge.
Republicans focused on statements and rulings that they said suggest Sotomayor's bias in favor of minorities. "Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another," said Sessions, the panel's top-ranking Republican.
The opening statements by senators on the Judiciary Committee featured frequent clashes between Democrats and Republicans over the proper role of judges and "empathy," the characteristic President Barack Obama has said he is seeking in his court nominees.
"No senator should vote for an individual ... who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the panel's ranking Republican. "Call it empathy, call it prejudice or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it's not law."
[...]
Mr. Sessions suggested that Judge Sotomayor might seek to build "a brave new world where words have no meaning and judges are free to decide what facts they choose to see."
The Los Angeles Times:
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said Sotomayor's mostly uncontroversial judicial opinions were "not a good test because those cases were necessarily restrained by precedent and the threat of reversal. . . . On the Supreme Court, those checks on judicial power will be removed and [her] philosophy will be allowed to reach full bloom."
Sessions said her speeches, in which she talked about how a "wise Latina" would reach a "better conclusion than a white male," were "shocking and offensive."
"I will not vote for -- no senator should vote for -- an individual ... who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision," he said.

















Especially if your name is Robert C. Byrd (DEMOCRAT) WV
Which is worse, being ignorant in order to slander someone for something he renounced 65 years ago, or lying in order to slander someone for something he renounced 65 years ago?
I'll give Sickens the benefit of the doubt. He's too ignorant to know he's wrong, and too stupid to know he's lying.
First sentence. I know the TRUTH hurts. You just need to be reminded daily of the hypocrisy of the left.
Deocratic Senator Robert C. Byrd starts chapter of KU KLUX KLAN
Easy you can stick your head in the sand all you want, but it wont change the fact that the lion of the democrats is a racist. Don't believe me, take a look-see Here! Wow...what a piece of work.
I get the feeling you wouldn't be so forgiving of a Republican who said that...
I also notice you studiously avoid mentioning one David Duke, who was an actual grand Wizard of the Klan, is still a member of the klan, and is still a Republican. You never seem to rebuke him for those same traits. That's because IOKIYAR to be a bigot. Bigotry has been in the party platform at several of the most recent national GOP conventions.
Everything you cite Byrd for was repudiated by Byrd himself 65 years ago.
Your double standards are typical of ignorant GOPers who meed to make points other than those on the tops of their heads, and will tell half-truths and lie by omission to do it.
I notice you didn't address Grand Dragon Byrd's little racist "N" word quip that happened this decade. I guess that's OK because he apologized for it when he saw the firestorm that ensured.
Just to tighten you up on Duke also. His first couple of runs for LA state house seats he was elected as a DEMOCRAT. Just keeping your progress in evolution moving forward! You might make it out of the stone age on of these decades. :)
The article wonders why Sen. Sessions past was not discussed. My question is...why should it? He is still a sitting senator, correct? He was elected by the people of Alabama, correct? He is doing his job as a senator, correct? Should he not question a SCOTUS candidate? What would make the writers of this site, and bloggers, happy?
He should question the nominee, but the known facts revolving around those questions and the potential motivations for those questions should be mentioned. The absence of his history is conservative misinformation. It does not give the listener/viewer a full-enough picture of the questioner.
Intent and motivation only apply to the defendant. In fact, it is often a burden to prove intent and/or motivation.
isn't it just like a reichpublican to hit a single and then brag to everyone about making a home run? There's just this teensy weensy problem, which is the underlying facts pretty much blows your main argument out of the water.
Byrd? As stated again and again, he renounced the KKK and vowed to leave that past behind. We've taken him for his word and to date he has lived up to his vow, so like good christians we've forgiven.
Duke? A perfect example of what we've discussed about dixiecrat racists who bolted the party en masse after Johnson signed the civil rights laws. He's all yours now, you own him pal.
Hypocricy would be claiming to be against racism while continuing to vote racists into office. Racists like Sessions, who is the subject of this thread. Or Randy Gray (nice picture!).
Or my favorite, the racist from wasilla, Sarah Palin!
That was her lovely response about our esteemed president beating hillary in the primaries. See, that would be hypocricy, complete with examples.
So congratulations on your single, it's just too bad about what happened when you tried stumbling to 2nd:
He didn't bolt the democrats until 1989. That's twenty five years after Johnson. What accounts for him sticking around all those years?
He is our cross to bear now, but he was all yours for many years.
Please though. Keep defending Byrd. Shameless.
Strike three, you're out.
Home run!
I did the work yesterday but could only find page after page of left wing wacko sites...not ONE, NOT ONE, credible source or news agency carried your Palin smear story. The election is over. Your side won. Why keep piling on?
Oh I did find several of your left wing loon sites that refutes your assertion. Here are a few for your perusal.
Left wing site says Palin smear is bunk
#2
#3
It took me 30 seconds to be "educated" that this nothing more than a hit, but hey, I've come to expect nothing less out of the left.
How long is it going to take you to find a credible source? Good luck. You're going to need it!
Oh, BTW. You're kicked off the team until you can start to either post credible links or stop lying like the other head cheerleader. Clean it up doggy or crawl under the porch.
I know reading comprehension isn't your forte, but he's saying that journalist who used this as EVIDENCE are OVER THE TOP, without NAMED CREDIBLE WITNESSES.
Still waiting for either of you to LINK a credible source. You two oafs understand CREDIBLE right?
I've asked a couple of you to post CREDIBLE LINKS. I'll say it real slow for you because you just don't seem to get it. Credible links, you know, CNN, ABC, AP, heck even the liars at CBS won't touch it because there is nothing there.
You see when all you have is hearsay with no named witnesses, you don't have a story. I know that is lost on you.
For the last time. Find a credible link to prove your point. You wont, you can't, don't fall on your sword over this. It hurts your cred.
Barbra Boxer's condescending racial remarks
I love how he smacks her on nose and she is just at a loss for words. I mean, she's a dem, you CANT be a racist, can you?
Even the head cheerleader Snoop Dog knew when to bow out of a losing hand. I'd love to play poker with you!
And nothing shameless in defending a man who renounced racism. But we do recognize that reichpublicans will never forgive. That's why y'all are proponents of the death penalty. It's the only judgement that will make you feel safe.
Prisoner: "I apologize for my crime of stealing from big business."
Reichpublican: "I forgive you." (pulls switch)
Prisoner: (flails around in agony and dies a slow death because reichpublican purposely did not put water on the conductor of the electric chair)
Reichpublican: "Now rot in hell, you miserable SOB!"
You keep ludicrously insisting that there is some kind of double standard when democrats don't treat David Duke and Robert Byrd the same, as if there is no difference between the still grand wizard of the clan and someone who has long renounced his racism. Republicans tend to ignore context when they are on the warpath.
Furthermore, I have trouble believing the sincerity of Republicans who have a faint-fest over Robert Byrd's past when they pretty much celebrated Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. In fact, I pretty much think Republicans are using Robert Byrd to obscure that most southern fled to the Republicans in the twenty years after the civil rights movement. The one dixiecrat who fully renounced his past is the one that didn't go to the Gop.
Oh and by the way, you are correct that Duke ran his first couple of campaigns as Duke ran as a democrat, then switch to the GOP in the 80's.
I would love to hear you anwer this question: What do you think this indicates about where the modern GOP has been headed?
Essie Mae Washington-Williams doesn't agree with your assessment of Strom Thurmond either. If we're in the forgiving mood, Ol' Strom did eventually come around and voted for the extension of the Civil Rights Act and recognizing Rev. King's birthday as a holiday. He was the first senator to hire the first black aid in ALL OF THE SENATE, R's or D's. He was a highly decorated WWII soldier who was in the Normandy Invasion if that means anything to you. He also supported and loved his bi-racial daughter for 75 years, when he could have turned his back on her especially in the light of the times.
You ask about the modern GOP. I think it's fair to say they are at their lowest point since Watergate. I don't see a promising candidate on the horizon, but that's not to say one could not bubble up soon. I love how all the cheerleaders on here are celebrating the demise of the GOP but ignore the history of politics. The GOP rose like a Phoenix after Watergate in only six years. Anyone like to place bets it can happen again? As one of your deplorable spin doctors said one time, "it's the economy stupid".
Doesn't sound like a racist to me.
Please, keep defending this dinosaur! You dig, I'll hand you the shovel!
I do not have particularly strong feelings the man either way. But focusing on one word, no matter how vile, and ignoring what he actually was saying is dishonest and repubs know full well that they don't give a damn, they're just using it as a stick beat him with. So go ahead and howl into the wind, no one will care.
I'm all for forgiving just as long as we forgive ALL who have stumbled in the past. The problem is if they have an (R) after their name, they're scarred for life. As is evidence on this forum, your side is quite forgiving of sins of your fathers.
I was well aware of this particular video. And while Byrd should be scorned for using the n-word, it is quite clear that he is not attacking anyone for their race. He was actually engaging in a (and I'm sorry to describe it this way) senile effort to denounce racism. He immediately apologized for it, and it really does nothing to detract from my point that he has renounced his past.
Secondly, my point about Strom Thurmond was not that he was a racist to the end (I have no idea), but that, as I said, the prescence of him and
others in the republican party makes me doubt the sincerity of radio gasbags who never fail to mention the kkk when discussing Byrd.
And as for the future republican prospects, while I'm certainly not one to beat a man while he's down, I must say that at least the post-watergate malaise was related to only one event and did not rub off on the rest of the party. The current downtrend for repubs is strongly tied to hard issues and demographic trends. They are losing members in every category except white evangelicals (a cahort whose numbers are shrinking fast as a % of the pop, btw) and they show NO signs of wanting to change this. The way things look, if we can get even a below average performance from Obama, it will be very difficult for repubs to rise again in this generation.
Besides, he long ago renounced his Klan past, and I believe he is sincere in that-even if he retains some of the old Dixiecrat manners of speech and attitude refective of his era. Anyway, he will be dead soon and probably be replaced by a racist Jeff Sessions clone, although judging from your post and obsession, the right wingers are probably hoping he will live forever.
But the Dems will confirm her, and we will suffer the consequences of their folly for at least one generation, if not more.
Oh wait, Sotomayor can't be a racist, she's not an Anglo. She can't be a sexist, she's not a male!
All the hearings have done so far is demonstrate to the American public that Sotomayor has real integrity problems. And that she is willing to say anything to be confirmed.
Enough said.
I would have been surprised if he was supportive of Sotomayor.
I note how you use a racial stereotype to do so.
Gotta love liberals.
MMfA running with a lead about ALLEGATIONS? Come MMfA, you're better than that.
What they mean to say is they have no PROOF about Session's but they need a smear to try to raise the level for the Sotomayor hearings. If they had PROOF they'd have linked to it.
If you have PROOF, please link us up...and oh yeah as always, no left wing crackpot sites that dominate the first five pages of "the google"!
Sickens, too bad you're not better than that.
If he cops to THAT, it's not difficult to imagine what he said that he doesn't admit to...
No they're not. This is the classic left-wing smear. Did you hear all the Dem Senators singing like a Greek Chorus in a lockstep smear of Chief Justice Roberts on Monday?
The left is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
The right is intellectually retarded. The party of STUPID.
Note that it quite clearly says these were "accusations" from un-named "witnesses."
Note, also, his response, as well. I wonder if Sen. Sessions is experiencing a sense of Deja Vu?
Let's put it this way, Sen. Sessions stated:
By golly, he's sticking to his guns on his anti-empathy stance! (Otherwise, he'd remember his own ordeal of being accused of racism and might actually stick to more germane issues...)
Jeff Sessions was elected by the people of Alabama. He is not on trial.
It is not hypocritical (cuz I know that's the coming response). And, it does not benefit the argument to point at others who have shady pasts and compare. The fact is, politicians from both sides of the aisle are equally guilty of bad decisions.
And, can we please stop with the "conservatives are racists" crap? Where did that originate? What basis does that have, other than a chorus of wingnuts chiming in on blog sites? It has never been a conservative policy to promote race, gender, sexuality, etc...
And no, we can't stop the "conservatives are racists" crap. And to correct you, it would be "right wing conservatives are racists" crap. It started when the dixiecrats bolted the democratic party after Johnson signed the civil rights laws, and contrary to your claims, daily statements by Buchannon, Limbaugh, Coulter, elected officials like Sessions, Thurmond and others proves that contrary to your claim it is precisely a conservative policy to promote racism, sexism, sexual orientation etc etc etc. I find it extremely hilarious that republicans are ok with neo nazi's serving in the military but balk at the idea of gays serving their country. Let the moderate republicans take the reichpublican party back if you want the vision of what republicans have become to change...
But...the fact remains, Sen Sessions is an elected, sitting senator of the United States. Therefore, he has an obligation to question candidates for the SCOTUS. Period. His background is irrelevant during the course of his duties.
As for the racism stuff...I understand it differently. It was a democratic senator that led the "Southern Bloc" in a filibuster. Johnson was believed to say, "We have lost the south for a generation", referring to his own party (Democrats in case you wondered).
And I would love to see proof of Limbaugh or Coulter being racist. That's a heavy charge to level with zero proof. And, what crazy blog did you read that says conservatives are OK with neo nazis? We are not. Not in the military, not in society. Period. Their beliefs are founded in hate, and there is not ONE SINGLE shred of evidence that proves otherwise.
But...either way...the conservative doctrine does not include racism. Period. It stands for individual rights. Freedom. It is the complete opposite of the "slave to the state" mentality that many bloggers on this site reflect.
I know Johnson's statement, and we don't have a problem with it. It was the best thing he ever did for the democrats, making all the dixiecrat racists bolt.
You come to this site, you have all the proof you need of racism from the right, be it limbaugh, coulter and anyone else. I've always been amazed how when confronted with racist statements from high level republicans the fawning base will look like deer in the headlights.
Nazi's in the military are a fact, and the CIA just recently told us they don't want to investigate it. I have yet to hear a single republican denounce it and call for an investigation, so contrary to your claims, tacit approval says otherwise.
So now you know, today's conservative doctrine is steeped in racism. Racist republicans are in control, and as a result, blacks won't vote republican, hispanic votes are in a freefall, asian votes are in decline, nobody but white racists want to be a republican today. Enjoy your small tent party! And on your next trip to redstate, be sure to add another comment about how it was really a liberal plant who called an 11 year old daughter of the president a whore and wondered when she was gonna have an abortion.
I've been on this site. Citing an extreme left-wing blog that uses bias as its premise does not constitute proof. Your argument is as sad as saying that Newsbusters or Michelle Malkin says Obama is a marxist. Do you have any actual proof? Taking statements out of context does not qualify. I contest that there are an equal number of racists in both parties....because racism works both ways. La Raza, ACORN...
Not only are there nazis in the military...but also gays, aliens, felons, sexists, you name it. There are nearly 3 million people active or in the reserves. And guess what...the FBI hasn't gone after any of them. Now what? And yes, ANY Republican will denounce racists and fascists, such as nazis. BUT...We were discussing conservatives, not political parties. Conservative does not equal republican. George Bush was not conservative.
So no...conservatives have no racism. The conservative principles do not condone racism nor sexism. Period. Just because some communist bloggers on a web site say so, does not make it true.
Hispanics have only recently moved to the democratic party, due mainly to illegal immigration. Libs pander to them, giving up our countries borders. Blacks have been sold a lie from groups like ACORN. Conservative values are held by the majority of Americans. Look on gallup. And the number of blacks in the Republican party is growing each year. Say what you want...
I guess that you have determined that this alleged person who called the pres daughter a whore is a conservative racist republican? And, that he/she speaks for all? Does Dave Letterman speak for you? Do you believe that Sarah Palins daughter of 14 is a whore?
Denying the actual copies of their statements because the site in question does not automatically mean racism on the right was not proven. Your denial of the actual posted racist statements is however quite telling.
As for the military, only the gays are routinely searched for and routed, with republican blessings. Oops.
NOW you disavow G.W.B. Only after warshipping him for eight years, which coincidentally is just about the same amount of time the third reich lasted.
Keep telling yourself that the country is a majority conservative. The last three elections proved it, right? Welcome to another 40 years in the desert...
How many blacks joined the republican party last year? You got like <10% of the vote last year? Oooh, proved me wrong again! The gallup poll pretty much says republicans are on the outs. Try reading it...
I guess you have determined that it was a liberal plant who called the presidents daughter a whore? Of course you did.
And the fact that redstate still refuses to denounce it, and now that it is on the national stage, the republican talking heads also refuse to denounce it, that doesn't mean y'all tacitly support it, reich?
And I have a whole slew of commedian jokes about Palin and family from other than letterman, but of course, as has been proven over and over, not a single cry of outrage from the right because the commedians in question either don't support candidates openly or are avid republican supporters.
Now, would you care to denounce redstate for calling an 11 year old girl a whore and wondering when she will have her 1st abortion? (quite a racist statement, that, thinking that underage minorities just like to get knocked up and abort babies)
I do not deny it because of the site...I'm stating outright that sites like this take quotes out of context to move a liberal agenda, and are not based in fact. Conservative sites do the same thing...and yet I do not believe that Obama was born outside the US. You have to use common sense and a little bit of research OUTSIDE your comfort zone.
Gays are not "routed" out. You can provide ZERO evidence of that. It should be easy, in this time of transparency *cough*...Give me one legitimate source that says gays are hunted.
If you pay attention to the conservative message, you would already know that many of us did not like W's policies. He spent enormous amounts of money on things like Medicare PD (total waste), and refused to build a border fence. He did protect our country from terrorists...but did little more.
For the racial issue...please take note: I did NOT say Republicans!! I said CONSERVATIVE. Go to gallup.com, look at the poll that is titled: "Conservative the single-largest ideological group" for proof. I do NOT align myself with a party...Republicans do not always adhere to conservative values...
I will say it for you clearly: "I do NOT agree with anyone calling an 11-year old anything". Period. The abortion quote is because her FATHER, the president, said he does not want his girls "burdened" with a baby, and would approve of an abortion. That does not make it OK for anyone to say anything about the children. Not one single conservative voice has agreed with the statement. Many have denounced the statement.
Now, its nice to know that you have more Palin jokes. It is a political tactic (of both sides) to tear down those they fear.
Which they do by providing the entire clip in question... Yeah, another win for you, short stop...
Don't ask, don't tell. Oops, is there another policy called don't ask me if I'm racist, I won't tell? No? And then you say I said gays are hunted...
AGAIN, I am not dissing conservatives. Can you at least recognize that? I went to high school at Marine Military Academy, I attended the Citadel, and graduated from Texas A&M University. I don't have a problem with conservatives. I have a problem with the racist right. Unless you are a member of the latter, you shouldn't have an issue here.
Jesse Helms
Strom Thurmond
Trent Lott
David Duke
More facts for you:
In 1964, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina voted Republican for the first time since 1876.
Similarly, all of the southern states either voted for Nixon or Wallace (who had disavoewd the deomcratic party) in 1968. The Republicans swept the south in 1972, 1980 (except for Georgia), 1984, 1988, took all of the south except for georgia, tennessee, and louisiana in 1992, took all of the south except louisiana and florida in 96 and Bush swept the south in 2000 and 2004. If Republicans were truly the "party of equality" would you agree that this shift is based on everyone being equal? Keep in mind before LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, the south had not voted Republican since 1876.
True. This is a tried and true tactic of the left. The Politics of Personal Destruction. When you don't like the message, attack the messenger. The clinton's perfected this, and Rahm "they're dead" is taking it to another level.
I don't link personal attacks but you would test a saint.
Still waiting for your credible link refuting the Palin smear. I see you'd rather call me a liar than PROVE me wrong. Your assertion doesn't cut it around here. PROOF will set you free.
What's next? Jindal Indian jokes?
Jeff Sessions thinks deregulating banks for 28 years, was a good idea -
Jeff Sessions thinks preemptive war on Iraq, was a good idea -
Were the situation reversed, and the media reported the alleged remarks, I am pretty sure MMFA would be complaining that the media is spreading unconfirmed rumors.
However, I am sure that if the situation was indeed reversed, the media would have brought up those allegations...
Yeah, that's the ticket, that's why he was rejected for a judgeship, because all the accusations were unfounded, right?
You do know what ACCUSATION means don't you? I guess not...
Isn't this the exact thing that media matters (for very little) is complaining about?
Sotamayer is saying that she was adding a flourish to her speech to inspire. Sessions denied ever saying those things and actually asked the Senate to look at his recommendations from both blacks and whites. I wonder if they even bothered to check those out. (If only he would have asked a wise latino woman to also speak on his behalf!)
I do not believe that Sotomayor is racist or that her comments were racist. Also, the media has reported this issue horribly, completely stripping the comment of context. However, I still believe that everyone who supports the thrust of this MMFA item would be upset if the media reported on mere allegations of wrongdoing from a Democrat.
I know this to be true because the media reports on such allegations all the time and MMFA flags all those instances.
Truly a double standard. Just look at the Boxer comments I posted above. They will be pushed under the rug, even though they are highly offensive.
MSNBC. They are both showing mostly GOP senators hoping for a vicious attack, and as Candy Crowley calls it, "the money bite."
I went back and forth for about two minutes while both channels either had replays of Sessions or interviews with Sessions. Methinks Americans should be more and more afraid of the national media.