Another conservative urges restraint

Posted: Friday, May 29, 2009 12:37 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Courts, Republicans

From NBC's Savannah Guthrie
Another conservative -- joining Charles Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan -- appears to be calling for an end to the incendiary rhetoric on race and intellect surrounding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. This morning, Wendy Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network and a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, posted an item on National Review Online urging that the debate focus on her judicial philosophy.

"Somehow, this important debate is turning into an argument about race and identity politics," Long wrote. "Many of us in the conservative movement believe that Judge Sotomayor is intelligent, and that, at least on paper, she has professional qualifications that are certainly sufficient for occupying a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court."

Nevertheless, Long continues to believe Sotomayor's judicial philosophy is "very troubling" and that her comments in 2001, in which Sotomayor stated that a Latina woman may reach a wiser judicial decision than a white male, are fair ground for debate. Long also cites Sotomayor's 2005 comment that appellate courts "make policy" as cause for alarm.

Of course, Long herself was one of the early voices raising the race issue. On the day of the Sotomayor announcement, Long told NBC's Pete Williams, "Imagine if a white man said, 'I think a white man would make a better decision than a Latina or a black woman.' We would justifiably be completely outraged. And I think the outrage should be completely the same when it's coming from her side."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Isn't Long contradicting herself? "Let's not talk about race, but let's take Sotomayor's comments out of context and see what we can spin!"

ujw, ny (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:44 PM)

In my experience women of any race always think their wisdom is greater than men of any race. Women are from Venus....not that there's anything wrong with that.

Reno Will (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:45 PM)

The issue of race and gender came up first with the speculation on who a nominee might be. Sotomayor was a leading contender because she was a Latina, and qualified.

The media, the Democrats and Sotomayor herself introduced the racial and indentity politics. The proof is in Sotomayor's own words.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:47 PM)

Oh, and how about a little restraint from Liberals and Democrats?

Richard, Washington State (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:48 PM)

I love how Sotomayor's comment continues to be taken out of context. If you do some research you'll find it's along the same lines as those of Justice Alito.

They both believe that their background (and discrimination against them and their families) give them a better perspective. And it probably does.

JustThinkin (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:49 PM)

Could you guys quote the entire statement that Judge Sotomayor made instead of that one snippet. Look, I realize you get a lot of mileage out of watching the conservative punditry make fools of themselves and watching the GOP flail about like a fish out of water, but, c'mon. She didn't imply anything racist at all in the statement.

D Ray (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:49 PM)

Since today seems to be shout out day around here (thanks Mark & Domenico – nice to take a break once & awhile)…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feisty, your comments are right on, you sound intelligent and educated and you don't take cr@p from anyone. All prerequisites for me to be attracted to a woman. Clara, you're not far behind, it's just that Feisty has red hair.
Matthew, Houston, TX (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 10:17 AM)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks Matthew… and yes.. I’m a women… surprised you couldn’t tell from my feminine ‘touch’ with my comments! LOL!!! You do a hell of a job yourself around here!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fiesty Red head - I have been following you, Nashville_fan and others on here for quiet a long time. I usually post at another site, love giving Tapper he@@! I hope you don't mind I borrowed your list of Bush faux pas, I did give you credit. Hope no harm was done. Keep up the great work!
Try the truth Rochester, NY (Sent Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:47 PM)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can borrow ‘my’ material anytime (well it’s really not mine as I found it on another site)! It’s an honor! You should hang around here more often… when things really start to ‘heat up’! LOL
I think you’ll agree that the women around here, Nash Fan, Clara, Anita, Cindy, Pat, Joyce, Indie Woman in Denver, Dottie, Gail, Anna Molly, Bethie, Barbara, Jody and all the rest… manage to keep the whack jobs on their toes!! Group hug for the girlzzz ( )!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And one last thing… what’s going on around here today? First we have talking hamburgers & now I see that J Merle has left and is flying over the Bermuda Triangle? Hey with any luck…
Cant’ wait to see what’s next! (Snark intended!)

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:49 PM)

Boy, and I really dislike Krauthammer !!
Even HE'S jumping out of the Far Right Fruitcake ???

Tired Of Double Standard PC Democrats: '... Did YOU graduate from an Ivy League school summa cum laude ? 'Phi Beta Kappa ?
MSierra, SF (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 11:48 AM)
---------------------------------------------------
No, MSierra. Although I am qualified, I could not get in to an Ivy League school because I am a white male and they had to set aside a number of applications to meet racial quotas....'

And yet, George Bush managed to get into the Ivy League thanks to his family's big bucks

How do you know you were 'qualified' ?

Did you graduate summa cum laude from Barber college ?
Did you graduate ??

Stop being a VICTIM
Don't blame quotas for YOUR SHORTCOMINGS
You control your destiny
Don't be an 'Angry White Male' (sic)

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps
Sonia Sotomayor did, YOU CAN TOO !!

PS
Thanks Pat, Boston
WAAAAAY back in 1967, I was stationed at Ft. Devens in Ayer (what happened to that base?)
I remember taking a bus ride to Montreal and seeing the leaves turning gold and red and orange on the trees as I passed thru VT, NH and ME
What a beautiful area !!
(to say nothing of Montreal)

MSierra, SF (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:50 PM)

From an earlier post
---------------------------------------------------
TG Briggs, Albany NY: "If a white man was selected as a nominee to the Supreme Court, and said the racist things Sototmayer has said, he wouldn't last a day until he had to withdraw. But if a woman does says the same racist comments, the Left in the coutnry celebrate her."
-----------------------------------------------------

Sadly, this is yet another grudge the wingnuts love to nurse that has already been debunked. A white man did say almost exactly what Sotomayor said. It was Bush's Supreme Court appointee Samuel Alito who said at his confirmation hearings that he would take into account the experiences derived from his ethnic background (Italian) when ruling on cases involving bias and discrimination. And nobody called him a racist for saying it.

Houston (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:51 PM)

Someone talk me down. I'm starting to smell a Trojan horse here.

Anna Molly (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:52 PM)

I love the 'qualified' support. Again, as someone else pointed out, the elected officials are either provoking or in silent support of the negatvie, 'whisper' (in this case SHOUT) campaign about racism. The transparency is palpable. These folks are living in a pre-"W" mentality where the masses just didn't pay attention to politics. They haven't adapted to the post-"W" era where we can see with our own eyes that their emperors have no clothes, and really some of them should just never be naked! (innuendo intentional).
------
Feisty, you crack me up! I had the opposition call me out two weeks ago for misusing the term ditto head, I never did figure that one out. Whatever, making the right wing squirm is my new favorite past-time! It's an honor to share the board with you (and the complaints!)

Clara Kansas City, MO (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:53 PM)

Wasn't this the lady on ED the other day who didn't have any kind words for Sotomayor? Pretty sure it was.
I am glad some on the right are speaking out re race, even tho the ones named are idiots in my book. To bad they can't muzzle Flush, Newtie and the Dick!!!!

cindy, las vegas, nv (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:54 PM)

In the year 2009 the GOP is being asked to use restraint on blatant racism. Yet we continue to see these jerks all over tv.

What's worse, their remarks or the hosts who continue to assume these people have something important to say about our country?

We are becoming one unlikeable country. Really unlikeable. And it is the Gringrich's and Limbaughs and the rest of the right wingers in this country who are to blame.

They are awful. But in the end, they're going to lose the fight. And they know it.

Thank goodness for Keith and Rachel and Ed and David S. and Lawrence and Jonathan and Eugene and Richard and Howard and Chris Hayes/Cillizza and Arianna and Daily K., etc. We'd be screwed without them.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:56 PM)

[Long told NBC's Pete Williams, "Imagine if a white man said, 'I think a white man would make a better decision than a Latina or a black woman.' We would justifiably be completely outraged. And I think the outrage should be completely the same when it's coming from her side."]
--That does seem like a just point from Long. We should strive for more equality in what is termed socially acceptable comments. I white judge would rightfully be excluded from consideration for such a comment. I realize that might not be the intent of her comment, but it was a poor choice of words, inappropriate and should be acknowledged.

The problem comes from the conservatives who are being careless with language, calling her racist and whatnot. (btw, I love how I ended a sentence about carelessness and language with the word 'whatnot'). I think a line was crossed when they accused her succeeding based on race alone. Race is a sensative topic for our nation, that's a fact. I think the average person does not like the racial inequality in our system, that is changing, nor does the average person enjoy being termed a racist when he or she looks for equitable solutions.

Nicholas: Minnesota (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:56 PM)

"Many of us in the conservative movement believe that Judge Sotomayor is intelligent, and that, at least on paper, she has professional qualifications that are certainly sufficient for occupying a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court."
===================================================
I somehow feel this statement is offensive as well.
Time to start back-pedaling slowly....slowly..
===========================================
Long told NBC's Pete Williams, "Imagine if a white man said, 'I think a white man would make a better decision than a Latina or a black woman.' We would justifiably be completely outraged.
==========================================
I try ,myself, not to get too upset over things that are taken out of context. Maybe we should all quit trying to make mountains out of mole hills.

dan Austin, tx (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:58 PM)

Long was the one to invoke 9/11 during her race baiting.

"And I think the outrage should be completely the same when it's coming from her side."

Then where was her outrage when Alito said the SAME THING. Or when Scalia said the same thing about lower courts making policy?

Hypocrites.

BL, Cincinnati OH (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:58 PM)

Words are important. "may reach" is not the same as "would make".

& "may" is always countered with "may not"

garry, Metairie, La. (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:00 PM)

Agreed that the focus shouldn't be personal. That being said, she needs to clearly explain what she means. Yesterday Robert Gibbs appeared awkward and foolish trying to defend Ms Sotomayor's words quoted here. Reporters were clearly annoyed by his evasiveness. Evidently the administration only touts "transparency" when it's convenient. Her comments don't automatically disqualify her, but they do need to be explained. I would hope that fair-minded liberals could even agree with that.

Clear explanation needed (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:03 PM)

Yawn...gosh I'm so glad to see a reasonable republican or two, even if they are wrong again...after years of blatant identity politics by the bushleague its time the other side got its licks in...no white male racist neonut went unrewarded under the bushies

Mr. bill (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:04 PM)

Wendy the hyopcrite should save her breath.

Ever heard of Pavlov's dog? The bigots can't help

themselves. They've been played.

Obama is brilliant.

Rove sought party domination for a generation through

dirty tricks, I hope Obama will achieve it by being

decent.

proud dem (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:06 PM)

The thing that is missing here is called "perspective".

And context.

This is the "controversial" statement made by Judge Sotomayor:

"First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

And this is a statment separated by only one sentence from the very same speech:

"I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.... As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v. Board of Education.]"

Got that?

Judge Sotomayor stated PLAINLY that she would "not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group."

Clearly she is NOT saying that her Latina judgement is BETTER than a white man's.

Read for yourself, then judge.

http://womensissues.about.com/b/2009/05/27/the-racist-uproar-over-sotomayors-wise-latina-comment.htm

Nashville_fan (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:06 PM)

This is the kind of reporting we get when the reporters are not willing to call out these lieing swaggs.The story they keep referring to has been debunked,the repubs only used the part of the tape,and left the rest of what she said out,and since Miss Guthrie was afraid to ask the noe nanny why she would keep up the rants about what she said when all they got was the repubs view. There seems to be a pattern here,why do reporters let the repubs lie and spew when they know that this is not the story?

jesse St.Paul Minnesota (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:08 PM)

Surely not Wendy Long. Too late you guys, first impressions in the mind of potential supporters are lasting impressions, they should have exercised better judgement before they listened to the misguided leader of the party.

Anita, Birmingham, Alabama (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:08 PM)

Unfortuneately the unelected mouthpeices of the republicans are not going to listen to this common sence appeal. They are only concerned with radio ratings, their legacy and 2012. I venture to say that that the republican bloggers won't get it either.

Anutkraker, TX (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:09 PM)

Whether it's the "Barack the Magic Negro" CD or the "Reverse Racist" attacks, the GOP can't keep it's core bigots quiet.

Time to choose sides America, Freedom for All or Racial Purity.

Republiklan (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:10 PM)

Whether it's the "Barack the Magic Negro" CD or the "Reverse Racist" attacks, the GOP can't keep it's core bigots quiet.

Time to choose sides America, Freedom for All or Racial Purity.

Republiklan (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:12 PM)

I think this post is missing the point. People claiming she chosen based on race should restrain that rhetoric.

Sotomayor claiming a latina women can make a better decision than white male is a position the nominee has taken. Her decision in the Firefighter case was also a position she has taken.

I don't doubt her credentials, and I have no doubt that anyone regardless of race has it within them to rise to highest court of our nation. Because of this belief she should recieve the same fine tooth comb review. This a life term. We are stuck with her for many years. So I am all for her being critisized for ANY questionable decisions or positions she has taken in regards to the judiciary.

Jonathan Flint, MI (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:13 PM)

Nobody has printed the entire speech that this one oft quoted line is taken from. If you look at the entire speech, what she is actually saying is far less controversial.
This is what is wrong with the media - they can be used so easily by anyone with an agenda. Print the whole speech and then let people decide what they think.

ann, portland oregon (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:14 PM)

Question: Why does MSNBC give Pat Buchanan a forum to spew his racist remarks? When is enough, enough?

Pat Boston: I completely agree that the Queen should have been invited to Normandy. Faux pas of this magnitude are not accidental. I wonder if the French PM wants all the spotlight with our President? I can think of no other reason.

My view is that women should have four or five seats on the Supreme Court. If Ginsberg retires for health reasons, Obama will likely pick another woman, and perhaps a third woman. That will be a hard pill for crusty old men (like Pat Buchanan) to swallow!

Ron Indiana (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:15 PM)

Let's see how long before all these conservatives have to eat their words and apologize to the almighty Rush Limbaugh. Another week in which I feel moderate Republicans like myself are being tempted to leave the party. Luckily for the party, people like Colin Powell and Charlie Crist keep me clinging on.

Proud Member RepublicansforObama.org

Izzy Buffalo, NY (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:17 PM)

Long is just a typical right wing hypocrit.

eagle1776 (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:20 PM)

Surprise, surprise. Another batch of hypocrisy from the conservative base on the Sotomayor issue...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

matt (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:21 PM)

Thank goodness for Keith and Rachel and Ed and David S. and Lawrence and Jonathan and Eugene and Richard and Howard and Chris Hayes/Cillizza and Arianna and Daily K., etc. We'd be screwed without them.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 12:56 PM)

No wonder you never anything constructive to say.......LOL @ the examples you stated....

IntheMiddle, TX (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:22 PM)

Nashville_fan:

Thanks for the references. It only prompts one question?

Why are Libs/Dems so interested in context all of a sudden?

Assuming, at least, that they're as interested in it as you are?

Richard, Washington State (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:22 PM)

Feisty:
Boy it surprises me at the number of Reppers that are out here in defense of Rushes leadership skills. LOL

Anita, Birmingham, alabama (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:28 PM)

I really wish that when quoting candidate for SCOTUS Sotomayor that they would use her whole quote.

To translate for those of you who don't read and just listen to Fixed news:

She would be better at understanding situations that pertain to females and or people who grew up like she did in situations that required that understanding.

Being a white man, I agree with this... and sensibly if I do understand what's like to be female, or latino...then I have an identity crisis because I never grew up as either of those.

Now some of you are probably thinking, "well gee whiz, if we are treated equally, then race shouldn't matter"

And that's the gotcha. We all aren't treated equally. We all don't receive the same treatment. Courts rule on their perception of the law. There was a point in time that some justices thought that lynching a man of color was totally legal. Or that a womans place was in the home and she couldn't vote, therefore a woman not needing to vote was constitutionally legal.

We as voters voted for different people in office, and these people would put people in the SCOTUS that would interpret the laws based on all americans needs.

Let's get off the reverse racism b.s. and come to grips that we don't understand other cultures like we believe we do, and that it takes listening...not bickering to do so.

GP NW Indiana (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:29 PM)

Pat , Boston, don't forget to "thank goodness" for NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, MTV, BET, CNN, The washington Post, The New York Times, The LA Times etc...Those evil republicans only have FoxNews and A.M. radio. Thank goodness for that.

Polly Styrene, NY<NY (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:32 PM)

Nashville_Fan:

An afterthought:

Would you agree that a white male with equal qualifications could be as free of myopia as Judge Sotomayor appears to be?

As I've stated before, unless there is really something of substance that could derail, I believe Sotomayor should be confirmed with only a proportionate amount of discomfort applied, no worse than Roberts and Alito.

I'm taking the word of our president that she is qualified. And her confirmation is as inevitable as Chuckie Schumer commandeering the nearest press camera.

I have no problem with a white male Souter being replaced by a latina. I don't anticipate much in the way of difference in philosophy or what role she will fill on the court. Seems like an equal trade to me.

But in this nomination, race and gender issues were initiated by the president and the nominee themselves. Obviously, their actions have generated a great deal of response. But let's not forget who initiated it.

Obama, as a basketball player, has obviously learned the tactic of committing an foul and getting the opponent's response called. It's a pretty standard part of his repertoire.

Not to mention the "through the lookingglass" mentality that has managed to characterize a response to him as an attack.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:36 PM)

The liberals and Democrats haven't been plying the race care, the republicans have. They started this crap and now they won't to back away from it because they don't want to smell their stench.

Typical, just plain typical. Didn't their leader Rush just call the woman every nasty name that he could think of?

Anita, Birmingham, alabama (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:36 PM)

Thanks for the shout out and the hug Feisty! I feel honored to be included with such an excellent group of ladies (and men) here on First Read!

P.S. I also want to acknowledge all the wonderful posts from Anita in Birmingham . . . my old stomping grounds . . . love how you weave your personal experiences into the topic of the day . . . kind of what Judge Sotomayor was trying to say I think! :)

Nashville_fan (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:38 PM)

If the Republicans think Sotomayor is a bigot or racist.

She may be by the time she is confirmed; simply because these conservative idiots are so evil and dirty.

Trying to slander a well educated person - just because she's not a far right conservative is - seriously flawed.

The Republicans will never learn.

Pay backs a bish - remember that GOP.

Thank you and GOD BLESS AMERICA

The - Democrat Soldier (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:43 PM)

Here is the dirty little (non)secret. Rush, Newt and the rest of them say worse racist things in private. They just don't do it with a microphone around. Someday they will slip up. She was making an observation with no malice behind the remark. Can we truly say the same about some of the comments that have come out of Rush or Newt lately (or some of the Democratic politicians)? I don't think so.

Dave (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:43 PM)

I wonder if Noonan, Krauthammer and Cornyn have finally started to get through to the thick-skulled Republicans...or has a marching order been sent down from someone to back off Judge Sotomayor.

Whoever is responsible for toning down the rhetoric on this issue is the real leader of the Republican Party.

Gail, TN (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:43 PM)

Hey wakeup people. If the women is qualified and Obama has decided on her why the hell do we have to have so much debate over retarded garbage. I happen to agree that she probably has a unique perspective on lots of issues versus a white male. She isn't one afterall and couldn't say she has walked in those because guess what she hasn't. That is totally fine. I'd like to know why an intelligent hard working individual like this has to put up with this S#$%#.
If you walked in a persons shoes you can speak to the quality of that life but right now we should be focused on her judicial ability and record. Which is intelligent and complete for the position she will take. I applaud this wise decision by the President and hope we will quit the nonsense and get back to the business of fixing America for us now and our children.

James Dumbledore (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:47 PM)

This is so interesting, to see the Repubs (George H.W.Bush) appointed her first! Try to spin snippets of statements to suit their G-NO-P attitude about everything. I have never seen a party of sore losers as bad as this in all my years. HOPEFULLY THEY'll KEEP DOING WHAT THEY ARE DOING (NOTHING) and the country will slowly but surely get back on its feet.
They are just like Hannity, still mentioning Rev. Wright every chance he gets. GET OVER IT!!!!

vmac, Las Vegas, NV (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:50 PM)

Those comments came from a symposium related to Diversity , Latina Females in the Law. The topic was directly related to sex and gender discrimination issues. I am mad at the media like Fox (of course) but also NBC, CNN for not putting forth the full circumstances of the comments. That scripting editorial cutting of context is what causes these controversies. Americans can understand things better if full contect is relayed. The arguements incited by the Right Wing are just racial taunts as usual. I love the perversity of Revverse Racist arguements, becasuse it concludes that racial experience suddenly does not matter. It goes to show that under the pretense of equality is this boil from the old white guard.

B Meredith, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:51 PM)

Richard you are more intelligent than that, did you not understand the context of the speech those words were lifted from. Don't let us down.

Cjake (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:51 PM)

Obama is all about race. He has divided this country more than ever.

Al S. (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:57 PM)

Tired Of Double Standard PC Democrats
Big Al in Chicago, Vote early and vote often (Sent Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:11 PM)

So you decided to remove Dr. King’s name off of your misguided comment--wise move, but not so wise to list your other aliases though…explains a lot!, LOL

How ironic…you of all people have the audacity to spout laws that “had” to be written to protect the disenfranchised. What say you? Now you want to pull those laws up and throw them around as if you were throwing around free money in a cheap brothel? You are “almost” laughable sir, but instead I pity.

You insist on speaking of a laws and rights that you’ve had the privilege of never needing and in reality--that were written and ironically offers “further protection “of your rights to have a chance to earn a fair and honest wage, to live in a decent neighborhood to raise your family so that children and grandchildren attend good schools-- You have double indemnity coverage sir.

You have no idea, what you are speaking on, no laws are changing, what is changing is a face of recognition for the Hispanic community, what will change is a voice of understanding and fair, sound reasoning. You people are running like scared rabbits as if Sotomayor alone will control the entire bench…get real.

Anita, Birmingham, alabama (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:58 PM)

Great posts, Nash and Pat!

Context is vital when interpreting someone's point of view. There will be plenty on context in the confirmation hearings so everyone will know a lot more about Judge Santomayor's opinions in the next few months.

Again, note that most GOPers focus in tactics and ad hominem attacks (def from Wiki- consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

At the same time the President and his team think strategically and long term. On Countdown last eve Howard Fineman pointed out the the WH was VERY organized and working hard to bat back the GOPer substantitive attacks, whiles the GOPers were caught off guard (again) with the announcement while Congress was in recess.

Today, the Obama political are reached out to supporters (like me :)) with a new email and setion of BarackObama.com to support the nomination

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/standwithsotomayor/

The WH is more than happy to have Limbaugh and the other non-elected GOPers speak for the other side.

Until and unless the GOPers begin to think longer therm than a sound bite, they will remain on the losing end.

Change is going to wash away the stench of the last 8 yrs! It will take sometime, but the momentum is building.

Yes We Will!

Ed, FW, TX (Sent Friday, May 29, 2009 1:59 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1947395