Anti-intellectualism is alive and well (and thriving) in the GOP
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
- 
Boy howdy, those Republicans just never know when to quit, do they? They continue to shoot themselves in the foot with the toxic spew that comes out of their mouths nearly every day of the week. I’m sure they see themselves as stalwarts who will fight for the Republican ideology. That’s great. But the fact is that this is not the Republican party of our fathers. This is the all-new, bigoted, lying and dimwitted GOP. You know, many of the Republicans who helped craft this nation were some of the greatest thinkers of their time. It’s too bad that the GOP can’t model themselves after our founding fathers instead of morons like Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe. And, please, all you conservative bloggers who hover over this site, do not bother to write that this present crop of Republicans are thinkers. They are the anti-intellectuals who have come to rule the GOP. We saw just how far that cancer has spread with the selection of Sarah “I can barely speak English and I know absolutely nothing about the issues either” Palin.
Here’s their mouthpiece, a self-described great patriot:
LIMBAUGH: Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes! She’d be a disaster on the court. Do I still want Obama to fail as President? Yeah. AP you getting this? He’s going to fail anyway, but the sooner the better.
What a man, huh? Al Franken was right. Rush Limbaugh (or as we call him in my house, Lumpy) is a big, fat idiot. And the GOP is damned proud of it. However, Limbaugh got this one wrong. It’s the GOP has failed. It’s the party of “No!” They do not care about what is good for America; they only care about hanging on to their un-American ideology. Good luck getting back into power. Take a look at the nationwide polls. Nobody’s buying it. But please, keep at it, because we don’t want you back.
I also love that guys like Karl Rove and Pat Buchanan are questioning whether or not Sotomayor has the intellect for the job. Hahahahahahahahaha! Oh, please, Karl Rove never even completed college. Intellectual? For the record, a lack of character combined with the penchant for evil-doing does not equal intellect. Pat Buchanan, a man who is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and an admirer of Robert E. Lee, is no critical thinker either. Let’s not go there.
Oh, wait! I almost forgot James Inhofe, another bright light. He’s questioning whether or not Sotomayor can rule “fairly without influence from her own personal race, gender or political preferences.” You know, where were these brilliantly critical thinkers when Sam Alito came up for confirmation? Remember Clarence Thomas? Did anyone ask that question of either men?
Should we assume that, because they are white men and not emotional Latina women, the boys club of Alito, Breyer, Scalia, Souter, Kennedy and Roberts are not influenced by their race, gender and political preferences? That’s pure bullshit, I’m afraid. No. What is clear here is just how bigoted the GOP is. The whiter, the better. More men, no women. It’s time to eliminate these intellectuals in 2010. (Might not take much effort; they’re doing a pretty good job making a case for not having a job.) Then, maybe we’ll be able to get this country back to where it belongs: On the side of rational conversation and critical thinking.
As for looking into her qualifications, please do so. That’s the reason there are confirmation hearings to begin with. However, gender and race are not “qualifications.” I suggest that the Republicans not go there. I suggest they stay on topic if they do not want to continue to alienate themselves from the American public. The twenty million Americans who listen to Rush Limbaugh will not get you back into power. Do the math.
Comment by Joker on 30 May 2009:
Rational converastion and critical thinking are about as far removed from you Deb as merit is from affirmative action.
You keep talking about all the hate and vitriol from Republicans, but I see more of it from you than anyone else. Where do you get off calling people morons just because you don’t agree with them? Pat Buchanan is an extremely intelligent and well-educated man. I don’t entirely agree with everything the man says, but he’s certainly not devoid of intelligence. Since you’re such a feminist, one would think you’d love a strong, self-made, successful woman like Sarah Palin. Sorry she doesn’t agree with infanticide Deb, but that makes her smart and moral, not barely able to speak English. I’d put my money on her against you in a game of Scrabble any day, not to mention she looks much better in a pair of Jimmy Choo’s than you would.
You only weaken your own point when you continue the name-calling and labeling you claim to be so much against. You can’t beat the drum for an America free of hate and labeling and name-calling, when that seems to be all you are capable of. You cannot deny this; it’s in every post you put up. You make Ann Coulter look like a wallflower.
In terms of Sotomayor, I wouldn’t question her intellect at all. Clearly since so many intellects are also far-left kooks, college degrees are no representation of either character or common sense. Since you, Snark Twain and Richard Cochrane have all raised the issue of her nomination, I’m copy/pasting in my comments from Richard’s blog below.
I’m thoroughly tired of this “first” crap. The “first” African-American President, the “first” female Speaker of the House, the “first” Hispanic woman on the High Court, blah, blah, blah. It’s clear the first two “firsts” have been disasters, and I predict the 3rd “first” will be even worse, because she’ll still be lending her racist opinions to the rule of law in this country long after the other two are gone.
Who was the first Italian on the Court? How many Italians have there been? Greeks? Poles? How about Eskimos? Does it matter and who really cares?
The more emphasis we continue to place on ethnic and racial “firsts,” the more we contribute to the type of identity politics we need to move away from if all of us are ever to be thought of as “equals.” I don’t have a problem with a woman or a Hispanic on the Court. I do have a problem with the selection being about as far-Left a moonbat as one could find. Hispanic, female, liberal, and gee, no indication of a husband. What other group can we think of that will be catered to here? Hmmmmm. That’s a tough one. The only thing she doesn’t bring to the table is a handicapped parking permit. Watch for Obama’s next appointment to be the “first” wheelchair-bound Justice.
Let’s not pay any mind to the prior judicial record of any of these people, let’s just keep going for “firsts.” Never mind that Sotomayor declared that her experience as a Hispanic woman would more often allow her to reach a “better conclusion” than a white male. Let’s not consider her role in ruling against white New Haven, CT firefighters who were clearly victims of reverse discrimination. Granted she was only one of three judges, but her support for the lower court’s decision against the plaintiffs does serve as a look into her thought process. In my mind, these two examples show her to be a racist.
Now, having said that turn it around. Let’s have a white male nominee from a Republican President who says that his experience as a white man would more often allow him to reach a “better conclusion” than a Hispanic or black woman. Bring out that he ruled against blacks in a case that was clearly about racial discrimination by whites. Are there any of you out there who think that nominee would have a chance of being confirmed?
Why is it that only white men are recognized as potential racists? When is “affirmative action” going to be recognized as the blatant racism that it is and be done away with? The answer is not anytime soon if Sonya Sotomayor sits her expansive Hispanic buttocks on the SCOTUS. But hey, at least we’ll have another “first.”
You are correct that Rush’s 20 million listeners will not get us back into power. The government taking over private companies like GM will. The ridiculous tax and spend agenda that is the basis of the Democratic party will. A true conservative leader emerging over the next few years to take us away from the RINOS who have ruined the party will. More than anything else, Jimmy Carter’s second term will.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 31 May 2009:
Joker, tax and spend? Democrats? How about a Bush administration that put us in the most incredible financial hole ever with his absurd spending on two illegal wars. He never put the damned money in the budget — he went back and asked for it on an “emergency” basis. Don’t talk to me about tax and spend. George Bush was — sorry for lack of a better word — pissing $12 billion dollars a month out the window on two wars going nowhere. And, as far as Barack Obama is concerned, I’ve made it clear that I’m not excited about him. However, if the choice is McCain or Obama, you can bet I’m not voting to give Bush a third term by voting for McCain.
Comment by joker on 31 May 2009:
My Dear Deb, of all the issues spoken of here, all you can hit me with is how much Bush 43 spent? Sorry, but the most incredible financial hole ever is courtesy of Mr. Obama. His spending makes Bush’s deficits look like chump change.
Now it’s 2 illegal wars? I know you consider Iraq all over “lies,” but what is the 2nd illegal war? I hate to say this but if a loved one of yours was turned into a crispy critter in one of the twin towers or on one of those airplanes, would any war against terrorism be “legal” in your blind eyes?
Going nowhere? Is the right to vote for people who lived under a dictator “nowhere?” Is the right of women (remember, YOU are a feminist) to be educated in school and have civil rights something you oppose all of a sudden? It must really make you ill that George W. Bush is responsible for giving an oppressed people the right to vote, and women who were previously no higher on the food chain than dogs the right to an education. Suck it up - it’s reality. The man you so hate is a liberator to those people over there. History will record it as such, and by then, nobody will give a shit how much it “cost.”
McCain a Bush third term? Wow. The weed must be really strong shit out there in Northampton. McCain is Chief Engineer on the RINO express. You and yours would have done just fine under McCain, in fact better than Obama. You would have gotten a liberal for the value meal price. Instead, now all you have are cold chicken nuggets that you paid filet mignon prices for. Enjoy.
You can rant on all you want. You know as well as I do that the deficits the Obama administration has given us make it look like W was on the budget plan. I know you hated W, but leave your emotions out of it for a change and look at the numbers. Once again, I’m right, but I’ve suffered through it all these years and have gotten used to it by now. No need to be concerned.
Comment by FemmeFatal on 3 June 2009:
Deb, how do you deal with this? “leave your emotions out of it” - gee that isn’t a comment on your gender or something is it? I can see how writing and responding to the slightly askew minds of the “True Republicans” can be trying.
Mr Joker (I think I can assume that) - Let’s talk about dope smoking (perhaps it is you out of Hampshire College): GWB a “Liberator” - you have got to be really, really high.
I think at this point they may even want SH back as a bigger liberator. I suppose it is wrong for Obama to try diplomacy with other “non-democratic” nations? The GWB years of “watch out or you may be our next war” have been SOOO productive don’t you think? We are feared by so many nations of Islam and in no way are we fueling the fire of extremism right? Never mind that we may have supported dictatorships in the past to serve our own needs (sort of destroys that argument of “oh, we work for democracies only” argument).
Also, I find the “firsts” refreshing - look how good it has been to have the First Grumpy Sexual Harassing Black Man on the bench. That was truly a Fabulous First and our country should be proud of it! Anyone who thinks they are not a product of their environment and that it does not influence their decision is just plain misguided and arrogant. If we want unfeeling, logical, beyond human judges then I am sure that Bill Gates can get a Microsoft product done: “Supreme Justice 1.0″. It need never rely on humans and certainly will not learn from past mistakes. Why does this Founding Fathers Idolatry exist? The constitution is a set of words written by men (since women weren’t allowed to think or at least get credit for it) in a time and a place. Best to keep in mind: they were humans (yep, not supreme beings from an alien planet). Every judge in the land that is smart looks at that in combination with their own personal set of circumstances and what they interpret the law to have meant then and how it applies to our current world. Those that think they don’t are more than a bit deluded. If this wasn’t the case, we would still be following the Talmud. A recipe for daily living - how charming.
Comment by joker on 4 June 2009:
Femme: Thank you for responding. Deb often goes “silent” when she knows she can’t refute my arguments. You may offer a better challenge if you can do it without name calling and the same tired leftist phrases and slogans she uses.
As I try to tell Deb in vain, let’s go with the reality here. I don’t care how much either one of you hates GWB. If you’re going to try and tell me that a free Iraq is a bad thing, then I don’t know what it is you want. How can you put down the freedom Iraqui women now have - BECAUSE OF BUSH - and then a few paragraphs later complain about women not being allowed to think in Colonial America? Do you want all the women over there back in Uday Hussein’s r^pe rooms? Do you want those women still living a life where they are not allowed to think and are denied education? If you do, then you’re not much of a feminist. FACT: Before Bush went in there they were not free. Now they are. That is liberation. End of subject. Next….
It is not wrong to try diplomacy. I can’t say I agree with the other extreme of kissing everyone else’s ass and apologizing for America when we have nothing to apologize for. I love you liberals with short memories. One of my old friends is Irish, and Irish libs may be the worst there are. He always throws that one at me, that we’re making it worse and antagonizing all these muslims by our military actions. Fear not my idealistic and unrealistic new lady friend, welcome to Professor Joker’s Terrorism Refresher 101:
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan’s inauguration. Now this occurred under the watch of President Cardigan Sweater Nobel Peace Prize. I guess hammering a few nails in for a photo-op at a Habitat for Humanity house didn’t impress them enough to like Mr. Carter.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims’ families.
I guess all this stuff went on because of Reagan’s “watch out or you may be our next war policies. Or maybe the muslims were against the Contras. I’d prefer to remember Mr. Reagan’s military action resulting in Libya finally behaving itself - which coninues to this day, and for ending the cold war and liberating East Berlin. But, I’m sure you hated Reagan for “ignoring AIDS” and you’d prefer the former Soviet Union was still in power. That would fall in line with anyone crazy enough to think Iraq wants “SH” back. Forget the weed - you must be on OCs, but I digress.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
Hey! Remember that one??? Betcha forgot. No doubt they were trying for a part owner of the TX Rangers for all the pissing off of muslims around the world he’d done and got misdirected somehow.
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
Kind of hard to process all this happened on the watch of our “first” black President. Amazing what a friend he was to the blacks as long as they were voting for him. Absolutely shocking to see his true racism surface as soon as one of them got in the way of the power aspirations of his barracuda wife. Another rose in the garden of famous Democrats, LOL! I guess he was too busy sexually harrassing women young enough to be his daughter and slashing our military budget as the attacks just kept coming. Of course, it’s easy to go out on high approval when you do absolutely nothing to protect the security of the United States in 8 years except drop a few bombs on Kosovo. Yeah, our policy of not doing anything in response to ongoing terrorist attacks was SOOO productive, don’t you think?
As far as Clarence Thomas goes, oh I know how much you people hate a conservative black man. If he had been a liberal, the allegations of Anita Hill would have been dismissed as a “right-wing smear campaign.” What’s this? A black man who went out and got what he wanted by his own intelligence and merit, instead of following Jesse Jackson around with his hand out stamping his feet and screaming “I’ve been a victim!” When Clinton committed perjury and got impeached over sexual harrassment, you liberals all say it was “his personal business,” or “didn’t matter,” or “was all over a blow job.” Since there were also those who testified on Justice Thomas’ behalf and refuted Anita Hill’s claims, I’d say using him for your argument is a poor example.
As far as our backgrounds/upbringing/environments influencing our decision process as adults, guess what? I finally agree with you to a point. EXCEPT…as soon as a white man appointed by a Republican president makes a public statement that he as a white man is likely to make better decisions than a hispanic woman, and he IS NOT placed on a spit by the Left and publically immolated, then I’ll completely agree.
Fact: If the words uttered by Sonia Sotomayor were uttered by a white male in that circumstance, he’d stand a better chance of seeing God than getting confirmed to the SCOTUS.
Fact: As long as YOU, Deb, and ANYONE ELSE supports this obvious, prejudiced, unfair DOUBLE-STANDARD, than I say that it is YOU who are more than a bit deluded.
I’m sick of victim and identity politics. I want fairness for everyone, including white men.
Comment by joker on 4 June 2009:
Oh yes, one more thing I forgot to touch on: Deb’s quote: “What is clear here is just how bigoted the GOP is. The whiter, the better. More men, no women.”
Let’s take a look at the “bigotry” of the GOP:
Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. I do believe she is a woman. Granted I’ve not personally verified this, but I’ll take her word for it.
Appointed by: Ronald Reagan, Republican
Justice Clarence Thomas. The last time I checked he was black. Of course I know liberals don’t think that counts because he is a conservative. Maybe we can come up with a new one: BISO. Black in Skin Only.
Appointed by: George H.W. Bush, Republican
So, here we have a white woman and a black man, both appointed by Republicans. Of course I know that’s not enough for you Deb. I guess the fact that there are more white men in the position of long tenure as sitting lower court judges than either women or blacks would have nothing to do white men being the majority on the Court. Nope, it’s obviously a bigotted, “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Since we’re discussing the track record of appointments of “white men only,” let’s look at that closer too, in order of our former Democratic Presidents:
Clinton: One White Male: Justice Stephen Breyer
One White Woman: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Carter: None (thank goodness), but it would have been Shirley M. Hufstedler
LBJ: One White Male: Justice Abe Fortas
One Black Male: Justice Thurgood Marshall
JFK made two appointments, both White Males, and of course we all know that prior to that, they were all white males.
What’s interesting here is that even though women and blacks have been appointed by both parties, and that the dreaded “white men” have always been the majority of Justices, we still see America sliding more and more to the Left. Roe v. Wade still happened under all the “white guys,” and Justice Harry Blackman wrote the decision. He was appointed by your other “great Satan,” Richard Nixon, and the rest of the Majority were white men, with the exception of Justice Marshall.
Once again, the black and white (pun intended) facts have debunked your narrow-minded, self-centered, and fact-devoid rant.
Anything else you’d care to discuss?
Comment by Murray on 4 June 2009:
Joker:
I appreciate your efforts to set the record straight. But, it is a waste of time to try to educate the uneducatable; unreasonable, and hatefilled.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 4 June 2009:
Joker, I’m not silent. I have nine blogs to update daily. This is just one of them. I will not deal with name calling. Writing a post about post that simply calls people un-American or God-hater is not refuting any facts. It is simply name calling. I will not respond to that. I have other people to banter with who do not do that. And, for the record, I do not insult you folks. If I insult a politician, that’s life. They put themselves out their, often open their big mouths without thinking — and that’s on both sides of the aisle.
Read Femme Fatale very carefully. She’s not complimenting you. She’s asking you how I put up with the likes of you. My response is, I don’t when it comes down to baseless name-calling.
Oh, yeah, thanks for the above education. I don’t care who appointed Clarence Thomas and I don’t care what color he is. He is not an asset to the Supreme Court. He’s the complete antithesis of what kind of person should be on the supreme court but, hey, what’s a little sexual harassment among the boys in DC, right? Sandra Day O’Connor? I was not a fan of Sandra. Sorry. With regards to both of these people, I would not have opposed two white males. I prefer the right person be picked.
Oh, and Murray, your comment of today is exactly what I’m talking about: Baseless insults. What facts exactly are you refuting with that? I’m quite easy to educate and I’ve had a good one. I don’t need you to educate me. What you are trying to do is show me how great conservatism is. You’re not getting that across with posts that simply call names. What you’re doing is reaffirming my thoughts about conservatives.
Comment by joker on 4 June 2009:
Ha! I did not call you un-American or a God-hater above. SHOW ME THE QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT. How many times do I have to say I agree with you that God should be left out of these discussions before you acknowledge it?
Thanks so much for the enlightenment about Femme’s post, but I was quite well aware that she wasn’t complimenting me. I’m holding out hope she may choose to engage on the points I made and not just keep calling me a right-wing spewer of hate.
I know it must be dreadful for you to put up with the likes of people like me who do not name call, list facts, and are right where you are wrong. Your response to Thomas/O’Connor is a great example.
You said the GOP was bigotted and all about white men and no women. I QUOTED YOU. You DID NOT say that the GOP has nominated a black and a woman you did not particularly care for. Read MY COMMENTS VERY CAREFULLY. What I was doing was pointing out you were WRONG, and you were. Qualifying it now with “I don’t care” doesn’t cut it. What you said about the GOP was not factual, and I demonstrated that. Sorry to have to show you up in front of everyone again.
Murray: Thanks for the support. I realize that I’m wasting my time if I expect Deb to admit she’s wrong about anything, but I can’t help but enjoy the process of exposing her in public for her inaccuracies. She will never admit it, but as long as you and I can see it, and maybe a few other folks out there, that’s all that matters. Just look at all the facts I listed. What is her response? “I won’t respond to name calling.” Translation: I have no answer, because I refuse to acknowledge the facts, so I’ll just rant on more about hate, name calling, blah, blah. As I’ve said many times before, liberals hate and detest documented facts more than anything, because they most often disprove their personal beliefs.
Nice to see I’m not the only one who won’t let her slide by peeing on your leg and telling you it’s raining.
Comment by Murray on 4 June 2009:
Joker:
I said “hatefilled.” Justified. Like I say its is a waste of time. Convenienced truth is a disease of the decietful.
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 15 June 2009:
Sorry Joker, that I didn’t respond to your comments above about Sandra Day O’Connor and Clarence Thomas. Let’s set the record straight, I’m not about just appointing women and people of color just for the sake of appointing women and people of color.
If that were the case, I’d have respect for the likes of Sarah Palin and Michael Steele. I don’t have respect for either of them.
I’m not a fan of Sandra Day O’Connor or her positions or politics. As for Clarence Thomas, you are talking to the wrong person here and he’s the wrong example to hold up for me. I don’t care what color he is. He has a low opinion of women and he’s not all that intelligent, frankly. Neither of them are an asset to the Supreme Court.
Comment by joker on 15 June 2009:
Deb: That is wonderful to hear! If you’re not about just appointing women and people of color just for the sake of appointing women and people of color, then that must mean you are against Affirmative Action. That is a decidedly conservative position I didn’t think you could possibly have in you.
That being said, I guess you must question the appointment of a Hispanic woman who obviously supports Affirmative Action, just for the sake of appointing a Hispanic woman. We are finally in agreement that a person like that would not be an asset to the Supreme Court. Who would have thought?
Comment by Deb Della Piana on 15 June 2009:
Joker, don’t get too excited, here. The fact is that both O’Connor and Thomas are too conservative for me. If they were both white men, they’d be too conservative for me. Doesn’t matter about the black or women thing.
As for Sotomayor, I happen to support her nomination. I may be ambivalent about affirmative action, but that’s not the only position I evaluate when I decide who I support and do not support. There are many other positions I agree with. I am looking forward to her confirmation.
As for calling Pat Buchanan a “moron,” I wish I could say I stand rebuked, but I don’t. I find him neither intelligent nor interesting. As for my writing isn’t any more ‘hateful’ than any other blogger. Perhaps you don’t visit many other blog sites. Maybe this is it. And I notice, my friends, that none of you have a problem when it comes to criticizing the liberals, so have at it.
Good night.