About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Major newspapers disappear Sessions' alleged history of racial insensitivity

July 14, 2009 8:54 pm ET

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.

108 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.

The Washington Post:

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."

The New York Times:

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."

USA Today:

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 Wall Street Journal:

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (July 14, 2009 10:08 pm ET)
      6 1
      You don't keep getting re-elected in Alabama if you don't have at least some racist tendencies...particularly if your name is Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 15, 2009 1:49 am ET)
          15
        And you don't keep getting reelected in West Virginia if you don't have at least some racist tendencies, Oh like starting a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan!

        Especially if your name is Robert C. Byrd (DEMOCRAT) WV
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 3:10 am ET)
          7  
          The only difference being democrats renounce, reichpublicans pronounce...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (July 15, 2009 5:58 am ET)
          6  
          Yeah and 30 years ago Micheal Savage was a rabid socialist. Got anything THIS millenium?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 15, 2009 8:27 am ET)
          5  
          First they say Byrd was a Grand Dragon (which he wasn't). Now T-Bone Sickens is saying he started a chapter of the Klan (which he didn't).

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 15, 2009 10:27 am ET)
              9
            Easy. Wrong again. I don't even have to work to prove you WRONG. Make it a challenge at least! Every time. It's EASY TO REFUTE LEFT WING WAKOS!

            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...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 15, 2009 11:02 am ET)
              5  
              OK, Byrd did those things almost 70 years ago. And almost immediately regretted them, and has worked his whole life against the tenets of the organization you like to cite.

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 15, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
                1 4
                I see you've come around on calling Duke just a Republican and not an elected member of congress as you once claimed. Maybe you're making progress but as the rest of your rambling post, with nothing to prove your assertions by the way (which are wrong, he only repudiated it with his book this decade), proves you haven't quite grasped the concept. Duke is a racist that should receive all the scorn heaped upon him. Byrd should receive the same treatment from us but you people keep defending him on here! Unbelievable!

                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. :)
                Report Abuse
                • Author by congero6189599 (July 15, 2009 2:45 pm ET)
                  4 1
                  It really amazes me that you and your conservative friends despite tons of proof will still twist and turn and defend statements and actions by conservatives that are indefensible. You have a computer and just a cursory check of sessions will divulge a ton of information of his racism,yet you ask for proof? Truly amazing and dishonest. It shows that you really have no logical argument just blind alligance ,and you rely just like Hannity, O'liely, Beck, and your idol Limpbaugh on distortions and lies. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/senator-who-praised-segregationist-judges-will-lead-opposition-to-obama-nominees.php . Now STFU and go back into your hole trolls.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (July 15, 2009 2:52 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Oh I forgot this article : http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102 . Anyway the MMFA post was questioning why this history had disappeared from major media news sources.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by jstephens005 (July 15, 2009 7:32 pm ET)
                      2 1
                      I am not the first conservative to say that it does not matter your party affiliation; if you are a sleeze, you are a sleeze. Republicans do it. Democrats do it. Independents do it. That is not the debate.

                      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?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (July 15, 2009 7:52 pm ET)
                           
                        A reasonable point. The fact he is a racist doesnt change his obligations as a Senator and he is representing his ideology questioning the Senator. I personally think his motivation for hostility can be questioned considering his past but I can see your argument
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by LuvLuLu (July 15, 2009 9:38 pm ET)
                        1 1
                        Okay, we will go over this again. Intent and motivation matter. They matter in murder cases. They matter in questioning of a Supreme Court nominee.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by jstephens005 (July 15, 2009 10:09 pm ET)
                          1  
                          What about the fact that it was all alleged? Is he presumed guilty until proven otherwise? And, should we have history on every senator and their alleged behavior before they are allowed to question? The senators are not being vetted...

                          Intent and motivation only apply to the defendant. In fact, it is often a burden to prove intent and/or motivation.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by congero6189599 (July 16, 2009 11:52 am ET)
                               
                            They were alleged under oath, and this does not even include the phony cases he brought against civil rights workers. He has admitted in the links I provided to saying racist things about the NAACP, read the links if you want proof. The allegations given under oath were enough evidence to deny his judgeship so in the committees eys they were true, and his history reinforces it!
                            Report Abuse
                          • Author by congero6189599 (July 16, 2009 11:53 am ET)
                               
                            They were alleged under oath, and this does not even include the phony cases he brought against civil rights workers. He has admitted in the links I provided to saying racist things about the NAACP, read the links if you want proof. The allegations given under oath were enough evidence to deny his judgeship so in the committees eys they were true, and his history reinforces it!
                            Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Tbone, Tbone, Tbone,

                  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!).

                  [http://michiganmessenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/mimsg_randygraykkkrobesourmidland-300x208.jpg]

                  Or my favorite, the racist from wasilla, Sarah Palin!

                  "So sambo beat the b%^ch!"


                  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:

                  [http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:js67CGfPdAMnCM:http://www.phoenixsol.com/BB_Umpire.jpg]
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by puppienrainbows (July 15, 2009 6:13 pm ET)
                    1 2
                    That's a picture of a homeplate umpire calling a strike. I don't see how this ties in to a runner attempting to get to second base, which, in most cases the runner is either safe or called out by an infield umpire. Facts are important.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 6:32 pm ET)
                      1  
                      You should congratulate yourself, that was probably your first single!
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 15, 2009 7:12 pm ET)
                      1
                    Snoop doggy dog. You just can't get your time line right can you?

                    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.


                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 15, 2009 7:14 pm ET)
                        1
                      Oh, and please provide links to the supposed Palin smear.

                      Strike three, you're out.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
                        1  
                        Do your work for you again? Even a moron could cut and paste it into google. Just fix the letters I had to edit. Take you all of 30 seconds or less to be educated...

                        Home run!
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 16, 2009 9:19 am ET)
                             
                          Snoopy take your mitt and go home. You've been kicked out of the game for lying again.

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by congero6189599 (July 16, 2009 12:08 pm ET)
                               
                            Tbone there is no way around it, you are a liar! You researched the quote attributed to Palin and you say the smear is bunk from a left-wing site? Nope! This is what the left of center site said ;"... She may very well have utterred the classless, ALLEGED “Sambo” remark, hard to prove without NAMED witnesses, of course, but that doesn’t mean all Alaskans call black people “Sambo”." Site #2 Is a "Stop smearing Sarah Palin" site hardly convincing. After those two lies you told I've concluded you have no case. Your a liar who stretched and distorts to make your points which proves you have none to make!
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 16, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
                                 
                              You two goobers didn't read this from the first link:

                              As an EXTREME opponent to many of Sarah Palin’s political points of view, I, as a man who grew up in the Great State of Alaska, alongside of both Sarah and Todd Palin BOTH as former classmates, I say bash extreme-right-wing ideas all you want, but this is just over the TOP:


                              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?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by congero6189599 (July 16, 2009 4:27 pm ET)
                                   
                                The point was that the site you posted in no way said that the "Sambo" comment was bunk! You provided sites that didn't prove your point."...She may very well have utterred the classless, ALLEGED “Sambo” remark, hard to prove without NAMED witnesses, of course, but that doesn’t mean all Alaskans call black people “Sambo”." She may very well have uttered the classless remark." Explain how a site you post to refute a remark and doesn't shows how I need reading comprehension. You failed and lied. Provide the link that debunks it!
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 17, 2009 1:09 am ET)
                                     
                                  Are you really this dense? The whole point of the article was to point out to idiots like you that there is nothing there!

                                  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.
                                  Report Abuse
                              • Author by congero6189599 (July 16, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
                                   
                                He also said that she may have said it, and took exception to the labeling of all Alaskans as racist. Your too funny dude! Hey how about Michael Steele's "fried chicken and potatoe salad" comment glad you agreed that was racist.
                                Report Abuse
                          • Author by snoopy (July 16, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
                            1  
                            Looks like that was the worst 30 seconds you've ever spent, because like a good little reichy you lied about what you read! That's what I like about you - you've never met a fact that you couldn't distort. Looks like you're busted flat in baton rouge again. Now please don't throw the bat and have another temper tantrum, we wouldn't want to see you ejected for unsportsmanlike conduct too.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 17, 2009 1:12 am ET)
                                 
                              Wow. Another closet DEMOCRAT RACIST! How low WILL you people stoop?

                              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?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by congero6189599 (July 17, 2009 1:53 am ET)
                                   
                                Your too dumb to even know how stupid you are. You provide links to support a claim about Palin that doesn't say what you want and then accuse me of not being able to read and then you jump to BB? Dude lay off the juice!
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 17, 2009 8:03 am ET)
                                     
                                  Still having trouble finding a credible link to YOUR LIE I see.

                                  Even the head cheerleader Snoop Dog knew when to bow out of a losing hand. I'd love to play poker with you!
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by congero6189599 (July 17, 2009 11:57 am ET)
                                       
                                    I never made the allegation knucklehead that she said it. I was responding to the links that you said proved she didn't say it and YOUR links didn't back you up. Infact in one of the links YOU provided it said that she may have said it, but that it didn't prove ALL Alaskans to be racist! Learn to read and follow the conversation. Then you jumped to BB with a black CEO financed by big oil who claimed to be speaking for the "black" community who called her a racist. Again your link failed to establish that accusation. As far as playing poker I wouldn't play with someone who changed the rules to fit whatever hand they had! Hows that Michael Steele quote working out for you? Hahaha typical wingnut!
                                    Report Abuse
                              • Author by congero6189599 (July 17, 2009 2:37 am ET)
                                   
                                That link fails again, it in no way proves BB is racist or made a racist statement, and I say that as a 57yr old Afro-American man. All the links you provided failed to prove your points from Sarah Palin to this. It's really funny how you can defend J.Sessions statements and actions yet call this BS video proof of BB's racism. Get back on your medication or lay off the juice,either way your elevator is not reaching the top floor.
                                Report Abuse
                    • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 7:26 pm ET)
                      1  
                      Oh, I'm sorry, were you of the impression that they all bolted at the exact same time? But no worries, we don't own him anymore. Not our problem, he's yours, so what's your point? We don't want him back, you can keep him...

                      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!"
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by internet soldier (July 15, 2009 9:00 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Tbone,

                  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?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 16, 2009 10:04 am ET)
                       
                    No sir, I haven't stated there is a double standard, I've have been clear that both men should be scorned. If Byrd "renounced" his racism, then why did he utter this to Tony Snow a few year ago? If you want to fast forward it comes in around 1:15 in the clip. EVERYONE has dodged that question here. So has Byrd "really" renounced his racism? Do you honestly believe that zebra changed its stripes? As I tell the others, please, keep defending this man.

                    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".
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Disputed Zone (July 16, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
                         
                      Robert Byrd, as reported on CNN.com:

                      "I apologize for the characterization I used on this program," he said. "The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society."

                      "As for my language, I had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone of another race," he said. "In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have offended people."

                      "Unfortunately," he added, "there are people in every race who would rather attack others simply because of ill-conceived, false stereotypes based on skin color. People who do this are obstacles to positive race relations and become the stereotypes that they despise. But by working together and continually improving the understanding between the races, we can overcome these narrow-minded people and the obstacles that they represent."


                      Doesn't sound like a racist to me.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 16, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
                           
                        OK, I see. The left gets to drop the "N" word ("articulate strongly held feelings"-Grand Wiz Bryd), then the next day issue a statement and all is forgiven?

                        Please, keep defending this dinosaur! You dig, I'll hand you the shovel!


                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by internet soldier (July 17, 2009 12:13 am ET)
                             
                          I see you are in full faux outrage mode. Like I said before, he should be strongly ridiculed for what he said. But it should be clear to anyone he is not targeting anyone in particular with that word. That was why he was able to keep his job. That's why the chairman of the NAACP let it go.

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 17, 2009 1:18 am ET)
                               
                            I wonder if the chairman of the NAACP would have let Strom Thurmond off as easy? My guess, NO.

                            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.


                            Report Abuse
                    • Author by internet soldier (July 16, 2009 2:55 pm ET)
                         
                      Tbone,

                      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.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by Hillary1 (July 15, 2009 11:19 am ET)
                 
              LOL, right wingers love to point to Byrd as evidence of how racist the "Deocrats" are, but of course they can't see the forest for the trees. The fact is, the nearly hundred-year-old Byrd is a political relic of the 1950s, when "Southern Democrat" meant "separatist" (see: Thurmond, Strom, and Wallace, George). Were Jeff Sessions running for office in the '50s instead of the 2000s, he would likely have run as a Southern Democrat as well, and were Byrd just starting his run in the 2000s instead of the '50s, he would probably have run as a Republican in the Jesse Helms mode. The fact that he has remianed a Democrat all these years speaks more to tradition than to the direction either party has taken over the decades.

              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.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (July 15, 2009 3:12 pm ET)
              3  
              What the hell does Robert Byrd have to do with this article? Distraction and obstruction of honest debate is your MO. Stick to the issue at hand or do you even know what it is?
              Report Abuse
      • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (July 16, 2009 11:16 am ET)
          1
        If Sessions were as racist as say, Robert Byrd, it still would not impact the suitability of Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice. MMFA loves to engage in character attacks, as if proving that someone else is a low-life makes their low-life a better person. Racists and sexists have no place on the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, by her own words, is demonstrably both.
        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (July 16, 2009 11:44 am ET)
             
          Your tin foil hat is on waaaayyyy to tight! The conservatives haven't proven anything but their own hyprocrisy, that's why they have stuck to character attacks instead of looking at her record as a judge. We all know that white males have no biases or experiences they bring to the court right? Tell me if Alito who admits he thinks about his background(Italian-American)was influenced by it in his vote on Ricci? She will be confirmed as only the third minority and female ever on the bench,but we all know the absence of a female or person of color throughout the years had nothing to do with race or gender discrimination and justice has always been blind right? The world is changing, get on board on get the hell out of the way or be run over. She will get Republican votes too!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by my4cents (July 14, 2009 10:10 pm ET)
      7  
      Jeff Sessions, Republican, Alabama.
      Enough said.
      I would have been surprised if he was supportive of Sotomayor.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (July 14, 2009 10:15 pm ET)
        5  
        Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL), to be more exact...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (July 14, 2009 10:17 pm ET)
      8 1
      The only blacks that white people in Alabama like are the ones who play on their football teams. Trust me, I've been there a lot...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 12:42 am ET)
        5  
        Me too. The only place I've seen worse is a little town just north of Dallas.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (July 15, 2009 7:45 am ET)
        4  
        Remember they only like the blacks WHILE they are playing football.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (July 15, 2009 9:21 am ET)
        1 7
        It is so liberal of you folks to declare all those who belong to the party of Lincoln and whites in the whole state of Alabama as racist, based on the "insensitive" remarks long ago of one Senator.

        I note how you use a racial stereotype to do so.

        Gotta love liberals.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (July 15, 2009 9:37 am ET)
          6  
          I am basing my remarks on my own personal and extensive experience and familiarity with the State of Alabama and its residents...and I stand by what I said. Obviously, 100% of Alabama's white residents are not racists, but hang out in Alabama for a while and it's hard to find white people who aren't racist to some degree.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 15, 2009 10:29 am ET)
              8
            Says a lot of the company you keep maybe?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by vhw28672478 (July 15, 2009 10:42 am ET)
              5  
              Session is a joke
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 15, 2009 11:00 am ET)
                1 7
                Sessions' nomination as a U.S. district court judge was rejected following allegations that Sessions had a history of making racially charged comments.


                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"!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 15, 2009 11:04 am ET)
                  6  
                  MMfA running with a lead about ALLEGATIONS? Come MMfA, you're better than that.
                  Sickens running with a lead about allegations when I'll bet he doesn't even know what they were? And that they were true?

                  Sickens, too bad you're not better than that.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Hillary1 (July 15, 2009 11:40 am ET)
                     
                  Actually, the proof came from Sessions himself, who admitted to being racially insensitive, stating, for example, he had made jokes about the KKK being ok as long as they didn't smoke pot, and the NAACP as being a Communist organization. But, of course, he said it was a private conversation and balck people were in the room when he made the statements, so all should be forgiven.

                  If he cops to THAT, it's not difficult to imagine what he said that he doesn't admit to...
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by Cheney2012 (July 15, 2009 1:11 pm ET)
                  1 6
                  MMfA running with a lead about ALLEGATIONS? Come MMfA, you're better than that.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (July 15, 2009 1:34 pm ET)
                    5 1
                    Typical wingnut post. That is ignorant.

                    The right is intellectually retarded. The party of STUPID.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by congero6189599 (July 15, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
                  2  
                  T you failed to note that he was rejected not by MMFA but by the committee investigating him. The proof of his rejection???? WTF that is a fact! LOOK IT UP!
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 15, 2009 11:49 am ET)
          3  
          Oh yeah, excuse me all to hell. Alabama is SOOOO progressive these days. GMAFB!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 15, 2009 11:50 am ET)
          3  
          Oh yeah, excuse me all to hell. Alabama is SOOOO progressive these days. GMAFB!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ny2nc (July 15, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
          2 5
          I gotta agree with anotheramerican's comment concerning knee-jerk stereotyping. Enough with the dog-piling, folks.

          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.


          Note that it quite clearly says these were "accusations" from un-named "witnesses."

          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.


          Note, also, his response, as well. I wonder if Sen. Sessions is experiencing a sense of Deja Vu?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by LuvLuLu (July 15, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
            7 1
            Yeah, that's the ticket, that's why he was rejected for a judgeship, because all the accusations were unfounded, right?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (July 15, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
            5 1
            I agree about the broadbrush for the State of Alabama. Sessions however has shown his true colors and deserves the criticism leveled at him
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ny2nc (July 15, 2009 3:20 pm ET)
              1 2
              My own gut-feeling is that your assessment of Session is probably correct. Even MMfA pointed out these were "allegations." Now, one can make a case, as did LuLuLu did, that his rejection is "proof" of these allegations.

              Let's put it this way, Sen. Sessions stated:

              "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."


              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...)

              Report Abuse
              • Author by congero6189599 (July 15, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
                3  
                I listed links you can look it up for yourself! These were more than allegations, more like reasons he wasn't confirmed! Testimony given under oath!
                Report Abuse
            • Author by jstephens005 (July 15, 2009 7:29 pm ET)
              1 1
              The focus of this story was that MSM did not cover a Senators background. But...please tell me why this should change the vetting process? It does not. It ABSOLUTELY does not change the validity of the questions.

              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...
              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 8:27 pm ET)
                1 1
                I think the public deserves to know the context behind a person's actions. His background is important to understand some of the questions he's asking.

                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...
                Report Abuse
                • Author by jstephens005 (July 15, 2009 9:07 pm ET)
                    3
                  If the public needed to know the context behind every politicians actions, then it would apply across the board. Obama and ACORN. Barney Frank and Fanny Mae. The list goes on for days.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 9:18 pm ET)
                    1 1
                    It has applied - across the democratic board. Republicans? Not so much.

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by jstephens005 (July 15, 2009 10:01 pm ET)
                      1 1
                      Ah...so you are implying that the racists embedded within the Democratic party left to become Republicans? Give me one reference to validate that.

                      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?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 10:58 pm ET)
                        1 1
                        No, I am not implying it, I am stating it as a fact, the dixiecrats left the democrats to join the republican party. Already provided references.

                        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)
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by jstephens005 (July 15, 2009 11:31 pm ET)
                          1 1
                          No, you did not provide references for racist democrats are not republicans. I have reviewed your postings, and you provide no reference at all. You "stating a fact" is meaningless.

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 11:57 pm ET)
                            1 1
                            Yes, I did. You are just too lazy to click on other links I provided throughout this thread.

                            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...


                            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.

                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 11:04 pm ET)
                           
                        P.S. I made damn sure to indicate it was right wing republicans who I call racist. Nice attempt to switch the meaning of my statement so you could lump the rest into your victim status mentality.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (July 16, 2009 1:09 pm ET)
                           
                        You conservatives really do have a problem with race. I think it's very telling that Sessions would equate "empathy" with discrimination against someone else. empathy doesn't mean that all, it means putting yourself in someone elses shoes; unserstanding is the word that comes to mind not discrimination. Sessions though see it otherwise, which I think speaks more to his bias than anything else,futhermore the allegations made were under oath and his histroy(Sessions)confirmwed them which is why he was rejected. Now your accusations about ACORN and Obama show what? What do they prove? Blacks have been sold a lie by ACORN? What lie? Blacks in the Republican Party is growing? You make me laugh! La Raza the largest Latino organization in America is racist? Proof please! Your good at regurgitating tired on Republican talking points and your attacks on ACORN and NCLR only confirm what Sessions and this article allege,your party is a narrow band of tired old white racist conservatives!
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 16, 2009 6:57 pm ET)
                           
                        Racists that bolted to the Republican party:

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 16, 2009 10:28 am ET)
                1 1
                Jeff Sessions was elected by the people of Alabama. He is not on trial.


                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by congero6189599 (July 16, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
                     
                  Do you do anything other than spew tired old talking points? The politics of personal destruction? Really tactic of the left?!?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 17, 2009 1:19 am ET)
                       
                    Yep. The left invented it, refined it, and use it to full effect today.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by congero6189599 (July 17, 2009 2:08 am ET)
                         
                      UH huh! You get caught red handed lying about a link that didn't say what you said it said and then when called on changed the subject to someone else. You've lost all creditability, your a proven liar that distorts and uses selective reading of the facts to fit your narrow view of the world. I even gave you a quote from Michael Steele (RNC chairmen)and you called me racist?!?! Your not worth the distraction!
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 17, 2009 7:59 am ET)
                           
                        Idiot. How can I lie about a link that YOU'RE LYING about in the FIRST PLACE?!

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by congero6189599 (July 17, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
                             
                          Snoop made the comment about Palin you provided 3 links that you claimed debunked Palins "Sambo" comment. After linking ontwo of the links the second one not credible and the 1st one you claimed to be from the "left" in which THEY said that she may well have said such classless comment, but that it didn't mean ALL Alaskans were like her I stopped linking becuase neither of the two links proved what YOU claimed they proved. It showed me that YOUR not credible! I was responding to YOUR links chucklehead,not making the accusations that she said it. Another wingnut case of selective reading! I don't care if she said it or not but the links YOU provided didn't back up your claims. GOT IT! Try and stay on subject this article is about J. Sessions and you've tried everything to derail that conversation.
                          Report Abuse
        • Author by blk-in-alabam (July 15, 2009 2:14 pm ET)
          4 1
          Cut the bull about republicans being party of lincoln,freed the slaves,yada yada.If you want to put things into historical perspective,talk about the conservatives during Lincoln.He sure did.This is nothing but a bunch of conservative(republican),implied message bs.Ya'll black folks owe us something just like y'all feel like y'all owe the democrats.That's why y'all should vote republican.I live in Alabama,and I will you what I see a lot more of than racism.There is more DUMB in Alabama than racism.If we can get rid of that a lot of racism would disapear.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (July 15, 2009 2:59 pm ET)
          2  
          It's been a long time since it was the Party of Lincoln and with ideas for recruitment of Afro-Americans like that of "I'll bring the fried chicken and potatoe salad" Steele it will be a cold day in hell before it is again.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 16, 2009 10:37 am ET)
               
            Racism at its best.

            What's next? Jindal Indian jokes?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (July 16, 2009 10:58 am ET)
              1  
              I was quoting Michael Steele head of the RNC...glad you agree it was racist! That was my point exactly!
              Report Abuse
    • Author by Nquest (July 15, 2009 3:19 am ET)
      5  
      Robert Byrd, Jessie Helms, Strom Thurmond, Jeff Sessions... proof that Lindsey Graham's juvenile statement that "if [a white man] had said" what Sotomayor did that his career would be over. That's a lie that spits in the face of the reality.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by SMTDL (July 15, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
        3  
        Excellent point.Same for Graham's bogus temperment argument from yesterday.I didn't see anything but hearsay comments on the bullying accusation..who was bullied ..based on what?/On the other hand his buddy MCain's temperment is well documented but not a problem at all.Double standards and hypocrisy all around....Alito's comment on his personal experience not a problem!!!Oh yeah ..he's a conservative white male!!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by defyingdogma (July 15, 2009 1:19 pm ET)
         
      He is very bigoted, small minded and ignorant. He has the views of a man from the 19th Century..... He will give Sarah Palin a run for her money in the Republican Primary. He should just follow the model of Reagan. When you show your bigotry just do it with a joke and a smile.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MikeW67 (July 15, 2009 1:22 pm ET)
         
      Jeff Sessions had no problem with Bush illegal wiretapping & waterboarding programs - Sessions = clueless stooge of failed GOP
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MikeW67 (July 15, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
         
      Jeff Sessions thinks cutting taxes on upper crust for 28 years, lifted all boats -

      Jeff Sessions thinks deregulating banks for 28 years, was a good idea -

      Jeff Sessions thinks preemptive war on Iraq, was a good idea -
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rafanetx (July 15, 2009 8:41 pm ET)
      1  
      I think that MMFA is stretching here a bit. It was alleged he made those comments. He denied making those comments. It is a he-said-she-said situation.

      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...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LuvLuLu (July 15, 2009 9:44 pm ET)
           
        Second verse, same as the first.

        Yeah, that's the ticket, that's why he was rejected for a judgeship, because all the accusations were unfounded, right?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 16, 2009 10:39 am ET)
             
          Just because he was not appointed based on ACCUSATIONS, doesn't mean he was guilty of what he was accused.

          You do know what ACCUSATION means don't you? I guess not...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (July 16, 2009 11:05 am ET)
               
            I provided the links of testimony given under oath. The cases he brought against civil rights workers is not an allegation. Twist and turn, put your hands over your eyes does not change the facts! He wasn't confirmed from allegations made under oath. They were credible enough for him to be rejected by the committee, in the eyes of the committee HE WAS GUILTY of them!
            Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 9:46 pm ET)
           
        How is MMFA stretching it a bit when the title of MMFA's article clearly says "alleged history of racial insensitivity"?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by proudconservative (July 15, 2009 10:10 pm ET)
      1 2
      Major newspapers disappear Sessions' alleged history of racial insensitivity.

      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!)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by truthseeker77 (July 15, 2009 10:21 pm ET)
        2 1
        So you want the media to report on the alleged racism by Sotomayor but not to report on the alleged racist history of Sessions?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (July 15, 2009 11:05 pm ET)
             
          zing!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by rafanetx (July 16, 2009 6:13 pm ET)
          1 1
          There is one crucial difference, however. There is no record of Sessions using racially-tinged language, just the word of "witnesses." Sotomayor's comments, on the other hand, are part of the written record.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Tbone Slickens (July 17, 2009 7:53 am ET)
              1
            You hit the nail on the head. If it's a dem using racially charged words it's passed off because well they're a dem. They just CAN'T be racist. If it's a Republican, even if it's ALLEGED, it MUST be true.

            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.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (July 17, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
                 
              Wrong again about their being no record:http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/senator-who-praised-segregationist-judges-will-lead-opposition-to-obama-nominees.php . and http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102
              Report Abuse
          • Author by congero6189599 (July 17, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
               
            Wrong again about their being no record:http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/senator-who-praised-segregationist-judges-will-lead-opposition-to-obama-nominees.php . and http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102
            Report Abuse
    • Author by rsinebada7366 (July 15, 2009 11:07 pm ET)
      1  
      7/15/09 - Watched both days of Sotomayor hearings. When C-span went to congressional sessions, I alternated between CNN and
      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.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.