Of all the reasons to oppose Sonia’s Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, the most important one is that she has led an incredibly politically incorrect life.
Here’s the evidence:
She comes from an island that is a monument to U.S. imperialism. It was the manufactured and politically incorrect war on Spain that led to Puerto Rico becoming a U.S. Commonwealth. If that hadn’t happened, Puerto Rico would probably be just a poor as its neighbor the Dominican Republic. I would have a lot more respect for her if she had illegal Dominican roots, rather than legal Puerto Rican roots.
Her mother Celina came to the U.S. as part of the evil U.S. army. Enough said.
Sonia was apparently brainwashed with all kinds of family values propaganda early on. Her mother was married to her father, but her father died young. She lived in the hard knocks areas of the Bronx, but Celina found a way to monitor Sonia’s friends and be the type of “tough love” mother who keeps her daughter in line. Obviously, Celina needed to have read some of the politically correct pop psychology that would have shown her that her daughter needed “space to develop her own personality.”
Celina worked hard all her life and then had the audacity to go to school and start a second career as a nurse. The lady is practically a super woman. Why is she trying to make other people with less of a work ethic look bad?
Celina does a lot of volunteer work. What is wrong with her: doesn’t she know that is the government’s job?
Celina apparently “never complained” about her situation. Doesn’t she know she was a victim of the racist, capitalist culture that oppresses the poor like her, grinds them down to nothing until they have no self esteem and nothing to offer society?
To sum up: some people say Sonia Sotomayor is a symbol of the American dream come to life, an example of how somebody can, through hard work, lift themselves up from the poorest ghetto until they make it to the Supreme Court. But I say she is just blithely unaware of how oppressed she has been all her life and she should have spent a lot more time asking for government help and letting the many people who have her best interests at heart tell her how she should have lived her life. It’s a good thing we have people in control of government now who know how to really help people like Sonia Sotomayor. I know they are ready to help Clarence Thomas in the same way, if only he had different opinions and could be convinced to think like them.
Rough day Geoff?
Pretty good day so far. The only thing bothering me is all those writers using the crutch of sarcasm to get their points across.
She must be good if both the left and right are attacking her. Btw, I hear that other judges hate it when she sends back their opinions with complete with copy edits! 🙂
At least we know she and Vice-President Biden can relate. 😉
“The only thing bothering me is all those writers using the crutch of sarcasm to get their points across.”
This is just a straw man caricature of the left’s argument. Are we just a bunch of complainers? This sounds too much like Dan the Good Democrats recent treatment of the right.
“Celina apparently “never complained” about her situation. Doesn’t she know she was a victim of the racist, capitalist culture that oppresses the poor like her, grinds them down to nothing until they have no self esteem and nothing to offer society?”
Maybe she was a stoic (and smart) and realized that if she complained she would just some day be mocked for not be a well behaved peasant.
“Celina does a lot of volunteer work. What is wrong with her: doesn’t she know that is the government’s job?”
As if the two ideas (a decent social welfare state and volunteerism) are exclusive of each other.
Arggh. I still love ya man, but we really see the world in such different ways.
Chris H, sorry, I wasn’t clear: that first comment was aimed at me. My entire post was, in my wife’s words, “dripping with sarcasm.” So that was my not-very-effective way of being self-deprecating.
As for your other comments, well, let’s just agree to disagree.
Question for you: why is it that almost nobody knows about Clarence Thomas’ up-from-poverty story (a tougher story in many ways than Sonia’s)? The reason is that the media spent all of its time finding ways to destroy him because he dared to be an uppity black guy with opinions different than the liberal intelligentsia.
For the record, I actually think Sonia Sotomayor is about as good a judge as we can expect from Obama, so I don’t have any major problems with her. It would be nice if we would get the most qualified judge, regardless of gender or ethnic background, but that’s not going to happen with Obama, so Sonia is about as good as you’re going to get. And by all accounts she is better than average, so I’m OK with that.
My main point is that with the new socialism we are getting from Obama there will be fewer and fewer people like Celia, people who make it on their own and don’t expect government handouts and bailouts. And that is a shame because it also means fewer potential judges like Sonia.
“but that’s not going to happen with Obama”
Come on now.
I actually wish he had pick one of his far-left intellectual academic friends. Associate Justice Cass Sunstein would be awesome.
I heard a lot about Thomas’s upbringing when his book came out a few years ago (I heard Justice Thomas speak in person on the day I got my mission call. My mom wanted me to come home and open the letter. However, I had to attend a Federalist society meeting in Washington, DC first).
“My main point is that with the new socialism we are getting from Obama there will be fewer and fewer people like Celia, people who make it on their own and don’t expect government handouts and bailouts.”
I have not seen any proposals really aimed at helping poor people yet, just plans to bail out banks and car companies. I will let you know when the socialism come. I am anxiously hoping that it will come. For now, let us enjoy agreeing to disagree.
Let me guess: white, of northern European ancestry, recipient of a tithe-payer-subsidized education at BYU…no wonder you use the crutch of sarcasm.
Jeff, no, there’s some other blood in there. Never went to BYU. Any other substantive thoughts to add? No, I thought not.
Jeff, better the crutch of sarcasm than the crutch of a government (taxpayer-funded/Chinese-bond-holder/heavily borrowed) subsidized life.
Given the criticism launched by both the left and the right against Sonia Sotomayor, I think we may have someone who could actually turn out to be…*gasp*…a MODERATE judge!! SHOCKING!!
I’m willing to withold judgement on Judge Sotomayor until I have had a chance to review her legal opinions. With just a cursory review of her record, I have not found anything that gives me cause to oppose her nomination.
Geoff B.,
That Obama (undoubtedly) looked at Judge Sotomayor’s gender and ethnic background doesn’t, I think, significantly detract from the rightness of her nomination. There are a wealth of people qualified for the Supreme Court, both on the right and on the left. From everything I’ve read, Judge Sotomayor is one of those supremely qualified (even ignoring her upbringing, Princeton and Yale? State prosecutor? Other lawyerly things? Lots and lots of years on the bench both at the trial and appellate level? Originally appointed to the district court by a Republican president, then moved to the Court of Appeals by a Democratic president? Seriously, what’s not to love, experience-wise?)
That is to say, I don’t see gender or ethnicity as being the motivating factor in her nomination. You couldn’t find a person of either gender or any race with significantly more experience (although you can quibble with the details–should we have an Associate Justice with transactional rather than litigation experience? or is it more important to finally have somebody who has experience at the trial level, and not just the appellate level?)
I have no doubt that Obama considered her gender and ethnicity in making his choice, but even as a blind choice–just the resume–I can’t see how he could choose a more qualified person.
That said, I did laugh when I read your post. Thanks.
Sam B, thanks, one nice comment, and you made my day!
Geoff,
Dripping with sarcasm is right! I had to go wash my monitor. 🙂
While you and I disagree on many political topics (socialism? please…), we can agree on this one. She seems to be a moderate. I like moderates. I’m a moderate. We need a lot more moderates in politics right now to push down the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. I would love to see both Olberman and Rush toned down to a dull roar instead of a couple of frothing madmen screaming at each other.
Of all the horrible things I have seen on the bloggernacle (anyone see the things that DKL said about me a few weeks ago), to accuse somebody of attending BYU (#8) is below the belt.
Go Utes.
If you look at the court, the Democrats have largely appoint moderates (Breyer and Ginsburg are not even close to Brennan or Marshall). The most liberal member of the court, Stevens, was appointed by Gerald Ford (before I was born). Whether she is liberal or moderate, she will be part of the liberal voting block on most cases. This is not any real surprise.
However, since I am hoping that she is a leftist, I wish that you all would stop with all this moderate talk. It is upsetting me.
So what do the Sotomayor supporters make of her racial comments? They seem to me anyway to be right out of the pre-civil rights era. She essentially says that as a Latina she makes better decisions then a white male. This is the very definition of racist. if Alito or Roberts had a made a similar public comment they would not have been nominated or confirmed.
Was she vetted? She will probably have to apologize or take back the comments either before or during her con. hearings.
I also think she is about to get overruled on the Ricci case. Plus she was at least at one time a member of La Raza.
Put the three together and it apears to me that reasonable people can think she has racist leanings.
I still think she will be confirmed but she is politically stained by her own comments, rulings and associations.
I actually do think that her being a Latina will lead to her making better decisions than white males (and I am a fat white Mormon male). Not because of the Latin part (though I like that she is a New Yorker) but the woman part. I want a justice who can empathize with the human experience and I tend to trust that woman will do a better job of that than men. If anything the quote is taken out of context and those so upset about is should likely lighten up.
Come on, Alito belonged to a Princeton alumni group that opposed, and still laments, Princeton’s decision to allow woman to attend the University. Yep, I just checked and he is on the Supreme Court.
Complaining about La Raza is like complaining about a black person having once belonged to the NAACP.
Politically stained? Yikes.
Chris,
The quote is clearly taken in context. I have read her entire speech. everything from the audience to the subject matter lines up with the quote.
Yesterday the WH press corp savaged Gibbs over the quote. Politically she is most likely going to have to to have to take ownership of the comments and apologize. Its all over at http://www.politico.com Take a look.
🙂
As is the case with most political attacks from both the right and the left, this particular comment was taken waaaaay out of context. Here’s the part of Sotomayor’s speech that immediately follows the “wise Latina” line:
“Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case.”
Also, the conversation occurred as part of a panel on women and law. Although I’ll definitely agree that her words could have definitely been much better chosen, it is obvious to me that she was simply stating that a person’s background influences how a judge makes decisions. And that, for example, a male judge who had not been a young girl would find it extremely difficult understanding how a 13 year old girl would be completely devastated and terrorized by being strip-searched in an airport.
Doesn’t sound racist to me – it sounds like common sense. But I’d have to say all of the “reverse racist” and other attacks on her by extremists like Tancredo sound pretty d**m racist to me.
Here is the speech at a LA Raza event. The quote is clearly in context and reflects a major theme of her speech that Minorities esp Hispanics bring a special racial touch to the Law.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml
Judge for yourselves if you would be comfortable with a SC justice with racist views. The Ricci case is where I see her views playing out
If racism means that we acknowledge that there is race, the bbell would be correct. But if we are talking about hateful use of the state (and other social forces) to oppress others, then this is silliness. To see this as racism is a desperate attempt to paint minorities as the real racists. I did not know that this tactic was still in use.
Each of us bring a special touch because we all have unique backgrounds and experiences. This is not a claim to superiority.
I love having 59 Democrats in the Senate. It is good to the majority.
bbell,
Is this the line that so offends you?
“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.”
Because it clearly does not say, in or out of context, that she believes Latina women make better decisions; what she says is that she hopes that Latina women would make better decisions. And she says it in the context of some bad decisions made by white men.
But that is not the point, unless one deliberately misreads what she’s saying; essentially, she is saying that she hopes that she, or someone like her, would be wiser than other people. And, frankly, who wouldn’t hope such a thing?
Ultimately, her speech that you linked to is anything but racist/sexist, and it takes a certain amount of mental gymnastics to make it so. Accusing her of racism based on this speech would be roughly equivalent to accusing Judge Griffeth of being a religious bigot because he speaks to a group of Mormon law students and talks about how their religious background can help them be better judges.
I’m certain there are legitimate objections to Judge Sotomayor, but throwing baseless soundbyte accusations at her muddies the water without adding anything to the public discourse.
“Aspirational.” That’s the word I was looking for. The line is aspirational, not descriptive.
@Chris H.
I don’t view Sotomayor as racist, but her comments are troubling politically nonetheless. As bbell pointed out, Alito and Roberts would not have been confirmed if they had made simillar comments. Such comments would surely have been labled as racist/sexist. Do you disagree?
Ok. I re-read it. And I still have a completely different conclusion to the same speech. Which pretty much adds credence to her point in the speech: a person’s background will cause them to have different conclusions to the same data. I was brought up to believe that America’s strength comes in part from our diversity and different perspectives throughout the country. I believe that the differences of race, sex and any other statistic is absolutely essential for our political, social and national unity. And I believe that the country is still far, far short of the ideal of treating women and minorities with the dignity and respect they deserve.
Sorry, last comment. Also, the La Raza group to which she was speaking was a law school affinity group. I belonged to the J. Reuben Clark Law Society when I was in law school, and we brough local LDS attorneys to speak to us. At my law school, there was an African-American law group, a Jewish law group, a Catholic law group, an Asian law group, a gay/lesbian law group, I believe there was a women’s law group, as well as plenty of other affinity groups. There’s nothing even remotely controversial, in and of itself, about her speaking to the Berkeley Law School La Raza group.
@Sam B.
Oh, come on, Sam! I’ll bet I could goad you into one more comment. 🙂 Hmmm…let me see if I have any good lawyer jokes handy. 😉
Brian,
Consider me goaded (but you owe me the lawyer joke). 🙂
I’m not convinced that Roberts, for example, couldn’t have gotten away with something similar. I’m pretty sure he could have spoken at a St. Thomas More Society meeting and discussed how his Catholicism influenced him as a judge, and how he hoped a Catholic would make better decisions than a non-Catholic, and have been confirmed.
(I realize it’s not exactly the same thing–if Judge Sotomayor is confirmed, there will be, IIRC, 6 Catholics on the Supreme Court, so he’d have trouble keeping a straight face saying that Catholics were underrepresented on the Court, but if you’ll suspend that much disbelief, I think it holds.)
Sam,
I don’t know any “good” lawyer jokes, only the same tired lawyer jokes you have probably heard too many times. Count me as one who holds the profession, in large part, in high regard.
I’m not convinced that Roberts could have received a pass on comments regarding his race vs. another race. Religion, perhaps? But certainly not race among Democrats in a confirmation hearing. He would be shark bait.
Don’t misunderstand me, I do not think Sotomayor is a racist. That said, I think her comments deserve scrutiny and an explanation by Judge Sotomayor.
Brian,
On the fact that he would have probably had significant problems if he’d commented on his vs. another’s race, I agree, which is why I used Catholicism instead.
At the same time, in our society, there wouldn’t be the same outlet for it–there are no white law school groups of which I’m aware. That may or may not be a good thing (I, for one, would not be interested in the Caucasion Law Student Society), but overall, I can’t see a context where Chief Justice Roberts would have made a similar racial statement. But I can see where he could have said a Catholic (or an Indianan, or Hogan & Hartson attorney) should make better decisions than non-Catholics (or -Indianans or -Hogan & Hartson attorneys).
Sam,
I don’t disagree.
My currently favorite lawyer joke comes from a national commercial for a firm that includes the line “They were more than lawyers. They were human beings.” I’m glad we’ve established that hierarchy.
I think the comments at play are going to need to be answered as part of the hearing process. I don’t think they will come anywhere close to torpedoing this nomination, and I don’t think anybody anywhere is seriously saying that they will. They were not examples of a wise Latina speaking, and I believe they will be owned and apologized for. Had she said something like “I would hope that adding a wise Latina perspective and voice to the mix in the judiciary will enrich the product of the judiciary” I would strongly agree with that. Had she said “I hope that I will be able to avoid some of the stupid choices made by others who have sat in these chairs and worn these robes due to my particular background,” I wouldn’t have had a problem with that either. And I think both of those are somewhat close to what she meant when she said that.
I’m frankly more concerned about her comment about how appeals courts make the policy (or changes, or whatever) in this country. That sounds like someone who sees the Supes as the way to make policy changes that can’t be made through legitimate legislative process, and that’s a greater concern to me than someone who made an unintentionally racist comment in a racially organized setting.
Blain, good point.
Indeed, well said, Blain!
Now folks, here is the number concern with Sotomayor:
She is a member of La Raza “The Race”! That’s right, that pro-illegal immigration, pro-amnesty, take back South Western USA for Mexico, gadianton robbers organization.
Dave C, I live in Arizona, so I am brushing up on my Spanish for the reunification with Mexico. 😉
Dave C, I actually know a lot about La Raza, being a small part Mexican, speaking Spanish and spending much of my life in Mexico and the rest of Latin America. I got to know some of the members during college. It is certainly pro-amnesty. It is certainly pro-Chicano and pro-Latino. It is an ethnicity-based power group that pushes causes popular among Chicanos in the southwest. These are certainly for the most part leftist causes. There is also a racial nature to its name (The Race), and you need to know a little about Mexican history to understand it. Mexico is an Indian country that was dominated for centuries by a small Spanish upper class. Various Mexican movements, both violent and non-violent, have celebrated the overthrow of the Spanish oligarchy and the institution of a “new race,” the mestizo (mixed Indian and European blood). Mexican politics are intimately tied to the promotion of this “new race,” but this is not just a racial movement in the same way that, say, black nationalists in the U.S. pushed African superiority. It is tied to the Mexican mestizo’s entire way of being.
La Raza’s politics are clearly anti-gringo, but they are not necessarily “take back the Southwestern U.S.A. for Mexico.” Instead, they are really an attempt to fight many anti-Hispanic laws and discrimination in the U.S. Although Chicanos may mumble a bit about “this used to be Mexican land,” the reality is that they are glad they live in the U.S. because of the opportunities here. (Otherwise, they’d go back to Mexico and apply for citizenship).
Many other Hispanics don’t really have anything in common with La Raza. Your typical Cuban or Argentine or Colombian is coming from an entirely different experience — they would never understand the “La Raza victim culture.” Many Puerto Ricans also reject it, so it is interesting that Sonia Sotomayor joined the group. That DOES say something about her politics that cannot be ignored, in my opinion.
Like all pressure groups, La Raza does some good things (point out and prevent discrimination against Hispanics, push for more sensible immigration laws) and a lot of bad things (push for typical leftist programs that will hurt Hispanics more than help them).
Regarding Sotomayor’s statement that a wise Latina woman would make a better decision on the bench than a white man, Obama’s press spokesman said today that her choice of words was “poor.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/05/gibbs_sotomayors_word_choice_p.html
The white house finally admitted it was a bad statement, maybe some of the liberal lovers here can do the same thing…
NOYDMB,
Nope, I do not take marching orders from the administration. Sorry to disappoint. Long time no see.
Sotomayor’s initial judical appointment was the result of an agreement between New York’s Senators and George H.W. Bush for him to appoint judges which they recommended. I doubt H.W. Bush would have appointed Sotomayor if it had not been for that agreement.
Though keep in mind the U.S. Senators from New York during the George H.W. Bush administration were the fairly conservative Republican D’Amato and the Democrat Patrick Daniel Moynihan.
Geoff,
I did. I opposed him on ideological grounds. Don’t care if he is black or white, male or female. I care for the ideology.
As for Sotomayor, her record speaks quite well for her qualifications, and she is, in my opinion, worthy of the bench. So was Samuel Alito. John Roberts wasn’t though. I don’t want a perfect person on the bench. In fact, I look forward to a little sass to counter Scalia’s ramblings.
Brian,
Indeed. I think people on both the left and the right seem to forget, Barack Obama is very much a moderate centrist kinda guy. Always was, always will be. He’s not a socialist like Geoff claims he is. I really like him. He’s right in the middle where I expect a president to be. He’s gonna piss me off with a few things here and there (not prosecuting Bush officials over torture, not quite ending the war in Iraq as quickly as I would like) but he is generally doing what I expected of him when I voted for him.
Obama is not a moderate (within the American political spectrum) by any stretch of the imagination. If you place Ronald Reagan on the right and Ted Kennedy on the left, where do you think Obama is going to end up? I suspect you would have a hard time distinguishing the voting records of Obama and (Ted) Kennedy.
If you want an honest to goodness moderate try Arlan Specter or Olympia Snowe. Or perhaps Jim Matheson.
“Because it clearly does not say, in or out of context, that she believes Latina women make better decisions; what she says is that she hopes that Latina women would make better decisions. And she says it in the context of some bad decisions made by white men.”
And how’s that working for Mexico? 😉
Yup, the most liberal voting record in the Senate is a “moderate.” Thanks Mark D for bring some common sense to the discussion.
If I could add, the search for a “moderate” — and the subsequent praise for somebody for being a moderate — is a fool’s game. Moderation all depends on the perspective of the person looking at it. Compared to Lenin, Trotsky was a moderate. Were there moderate Nazis who were in favor of killing 1 million Jews rather than 6 million?
Judges of Sonia Sotomayor’s ilk who see the courts as a place to legislate, rather than adjudicate, are not “moderate” — they completely misunderstand the role of judges and should not be allowed to be on the bench. That is my opinion as a conservative, and I’m not a bit moderate about it. However, whether it is a worthy effort to vilify Sonia Sotomayor personally and oppose her nomination when such an effort is certain to lose, and when Obama is likely to appoint somebody even worse, is another question entirely.
Obama was and always will be a moderate. That conservatives claim otherwise does not change that fact. They will continue to wail against him because they don’t know how to do anything else. They’ll call him a fascist (Glenn Beck). They’ll call him a socialist (Geoff B.). They’ll call him everything on the earth to try and bring him down. But they will not be honest about who he is because they are so afraid of being labeled as agreeing with him, or accepting him as not the boggeymonster they attempt to make him be. If he is a moderate, that would mean he’s not a socialist. If he is a moderate, there ain’t much you can say nasty about him. So for conservatives, Obama will never ever be considered a moderate.
With that kind of categorization, you could name anyone to whatever platform or ideology you wish. Where would you place Obama between Rush and Cheny (not on the chart: it’s too narrow) or between Reid and Kennedy, or Pelosi and Scalia. It’s completely arbitrary and subjective and proves nothing.
Obama is the most liberal in the Senate according to what source? I’ve heard that quote before, of course. But it’s always been on Faux News or a right-leaning blog or another otherwise heavily slanted source. Give me a reasonably objective source that isn’t ditto-heading what a slanted source said and I’ll believe you. And if you bring up the fact that he voted 97 percent of the time with his party, then duh – he’s a Democrat. Give me a Republican that doesn’t vote with his or her party on most issues. Even the centrist Republicans (if any are left) tend to vote most often with their party. The 97 percent record does not prove Obama is not a centrist.
To be a tad snarky about it, I’d say the most obvious example that he is a centrist is that he’s ticking off extremists on both the right *and* the left. If Obama wasn’t angering the Democrat extremists, then I’d say you might have a point with your Socialism or idiotic fascism arguments. But think about it. He is ticking off the *real* socialists in the government. That’s a good thing, in my view.
James, my prediction is you still won’t believe this objective source, but it’s worth a try. Please read about the National Journal and how they do rankings before replying. Thanks.
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/
The National Journal ratings are a sham. They don’t explain how exactly they came to those conclusions. What the metrics actually mean. Simply voting party-line vote means nothing. The National Journal weighed certain votes more than others just so, so that the numbers would be tweaked to show Obama—the real threat to win in November 2008—was the “most liberal” Senator on the planet! It’s pretty funny, really. In 2003 Kerry was named the most liberal senator by this same journal. Funny how that works out that way.
Note for example in 1999 John Kerry ranked 16th. Their graph for 2000 is odd, so you can’t really tell the rankings, but compare Kerry’s numbers to any other “liberal” senator and he’s nowhere close to the top. In 2001 he seems to move up a bit, to #12. Suddenly in 2002, he’s shot up to #1. But if you read their piece, you’ll note that they mention his aspiration to be a presidential candidate. And then amazing how in 2003 both John Kerry and John Edwards were the two most liberal senators! How odd that just the previous year, Edwards was touted by this very journal for being a centrist Democrat. Funny that. In 2004, they were unable to monitor Kerry and Edwards because the two of them missed more than half their votes.
But look at that! wonder of wonders, in 2005, Kerry suddenly is no longer the most liberal senator. He’s dropped to 8th! DOH! In 2006, he’s dropped back down to 12th. I can’t seem to find the 2007 list, so I can’t tell you if he dropped back down to 18th.
The whole idea of a linear political spectrum is flawed beyond repair. I am pretty sure, however, that Bernie Sanders (the only socialist in the Senate) is to the left of most no matter what the year. Of course, Sanders is my favorite Senator hands down (this is partially because of his sense of humor).
I tend to think of Obama as a moderate because of his style and not because of his policy positions. I tend to view Geoff B as a moderate because of his friendly style, though he is obviously a conservative.
Chris,
That would make me an ultra-hardcore-extremist eh? 😉
Chris H, that was kind of the point I was trying to make with the whole “moderate” vs. “liberal” thing. It all depends on your viewpoint who you see as a moderate. Just as an example, when it came to government spending, I saw W. as a liberal, not even a moderate. But such a statement is likely to make liberals’ heads explode, and that can get kind of messy, so I try not to assert it too often.
So Geoff, if you think the whole “moderate” “liberal” “conservative” think is pointless, why do you use that to judge a politician? I mean, you use the National Journal which obviously doesn’t shy from using those labels wherever they want, but then you want us to think you’re above the fray.
I was wondering why there were bits ‘o brains on my wall… 🙂
Yeah, I’d have to agree that W. was a bit of a spender, to put it mildly. At the moment we have spent over $863,691,500,000 on both wars since 2001. Obviously the bulk of that was during W.’s reign. Yet when Obama attempts to spend money *inside* the US borders for once in the last eight years, he’s labeled as a wild-eyed-throw-money-at-’em-spending-crazed lunatic. Where were these tight-pursed, anti-spend tightwads before the last election? Oh wait, I forgot. They belonged to the “fiscally responsible” Republican party.
Sorry if that sounded harsh, but if there’s anything that ticks me off more than extremists, it’s hypocrites.
I’m not calling anyone here a hypocrite BTW, I’m talking about the “tightwads” mentioned above. The people in power and calling the shots, not your average Jane or Joe. I actually think the conversation here has been fairly respectful considering our differences, and I really appreciate that.
Geoff B,
George W. Bush could best be described as a member of the old school Northeastern Republican party who flirted with neo-conservatism. Neither Northeastern Republicanism and neo-conservatism are heavily opposed to government programs or government spending. However, their approaches to spending and government are still more conservative that of the Democrats. Given his approach to things like foreign policy (sort of the neo-conservative element), abortion, gay rights, and the judiciary, it is hard to see him as a liberal. He is just a different version of conservative, one which you might not agree with (though on things such as immigration you and Bush agree).
My feeling is that the terms “liberal”, “moderate”, and conservative are woefully inadequate and often less than useful. We need to be more specific than the labels.
Dan (#54),
I do not know where you stand ideologically. One know where you stand on torture for sure, but even there your argument is a rule of law, American political tradition argument rather than one about human rights.
While I know that you are a partisan Democrat who does not like Beck or Fox News, I do not get a sense of your philosophical roots.
Extremist? Not really, more obnoxious.
The linear political spectrum thing works well in a relatively narrow context, such as the two party politics of one country. One might well consider that the ACU and ADA ratings for congressional representatives are anti-correlated – in other words over time they reliably measure the same thing, just from different perspectives.
In 2007 the American Conservative Union rated Obama 7, McCain 80, and Kyl 100. Specter was an ACU 40.
By comparison for the same year, Americans for Democratic Action rated Obama 75, McCain 10, Kyl 5. Specter was an ADA 60.
Typical scores for both ratings are about 80 for members of the ideologically inclined party and 20 for the members of the ideologically opposed party.
If you peddle is generalizations and oversimplification, such ratings and the linear political spectrum work great. They obviously work well for you Mark.
The two party system is the very thing that requires us to view these thing are more complex.
BTW, I have a very good ADA rating.
Chris H., I never claimed that the ACU/ADA ratings were the last word on anything. I claim that they are useful, and that they measure something that is real and generally reliable. Taking the opposite position is tantamount to claiming that temperature is imaginary because it is nothing other than a statistical average. Not only imaginary, but useless. Ban the weather stations!
Global warming – it is a figment of your imagination. If all you peddle is generalizations and oversimplification, such metrics and a linear spatially averaged temperature scale work great. In the real world, such figures are meaningless, etc…
Flirted? He was their poster boy! That’s like saying an alcoholic only flirts with his whiskey.
I don’t think I’m too far off the mark to say that the Neo-Conservative movement is one of the main reasons the GOP is in it’s current situation. As soon as the Republican party gets rid of it’s ideologues and extremists, and returns to it’s roots of true conservatism, I’d be grateful and happy to vote Republican again. I want the real party of Lincoln again instead of the Neo-Conservative party of my-way-or-the-highway, damn everything but the bottom line, money is the end all be all of existence power hungry millionaires.
And don’t think that the Left is any less in danger of going extreme like the Right did. It is possible that the pendulum could swing all the way from one extreme to another. The Democrats own almost all of the power in Washington now and that causes the perfect conditions for taking advantage of that power for their own gain. That’s why I’m liking Obama so far: He’s actually reigning them in.
Unlike what Faux News and our friend Glen Beck tells you, we are nowhere near the extreme Left right now. But that doesn’t mean we won’t go there in the future. And so Geoff and the others? Please keep your eyes out for that. But keep your mind open too. Turning off Faux News will help.
Come to the political center. We have cookies. 🙂
Chris,
I’m generally a centrist. I mix in some liberal thoughts with libertarian thoughts. I think, for example, that religions should get back to controlling marriage and the state should get out of that business. I think our foreign policy needs to be more level headed, robust and mature than what we have seen these past 30 years. Foreign interventions here and there, selling weapons to BOTH sides of a war (Iran and Iraq), basing action on ideology rather than fact, those kinds of things get us into major trouble when we really should be the rock of the world, the calming force to slow the storms of war, rather than vice versa. Our actions abroad should be based on more realistic calculations of cause and effect. If we were to bomb North Korea’s plants (as Bill Kristol salivates), are we ready to accept the consequences? Taking such calculations carefully (which was not done in the previous administration) is key. We never should have intervened in Somalia, for example. I thought Reagan was a decent president, but I’ll say that the way today’s Republicans deify him, makes me want to turn against him. George H W Bush was fairly good. McCain would have made a good president in 2000. Probably better than Al Gore, though it depended on how much McCain remained a maverick rather than the sorry man he was in 2008, flitting and floating this way or that way, never on sure footing like he used to be. I thought Clinton was a very good president. He got Israel and Jordan to sign a peace treaty. With the Republicans in Congress, he was able to balance the budget and pass welfare reform. Sadly, on foreign policy he had many screwups, including Bosnia, Rwanda and of course Iraq. He let the neoconservatives dictate America’s policy on Iraq, and of course that led us to major failure. I think abortion should remain legal, and that religions and other interested groups should just simply do a better job at providing women alternative ways to deal with unwanted pregnancies (including preventive education). The current strategies are too viscerally hateful for my tastes (including of course using terrorism against abortion doctors). There are a lot of issues for which I just don’t care, like gay marriage. I don’t care either way. I don’t mind the rich having a higher tax burden to bring down our national debt. Cutting taxes right now (or heck even back in 2001) was just simply not smart. Better to bring down our debt first and THEN give back the money to the rich! 🙂
So, from my perspective, those thoughts put me fairly close to the center. Others will still think I’m a socialist terrorist loving commie.
The big difference between George W. Bush and a typical northeastern Republican (like his father) is that he didn’t talk like one at all. He talked like a southern, evangelical Texas Republican – which he was, just more moderate (“kindler and gentler”, status quo domestic policy) than most.
On foreign policy he was certainly a neo-conservative poster boy. Woodrow Wilson and JFK combined, make the world safe for democracy, etc. Lots of ordinary conservatives were not so enthusiastic.
I know an individual who pleaded and was sentenced in Sotomayor’s court. He was dismayed by her dismissal of any attempt of his counsel to present evidence that would support his case. And, when the Federal prosecutors started going after his family, he plead guilty rather than have their property confiscated on RICO charges. I now wonder if her comments about latina’s had anything to do with her attitude and actions towards my financially successful, white, male friend? The incident really takes the nomination out of the realm of political theory.
I just had to delete about 10 comments on this post. Guys, please play nice. A good rule to follow is that if you would not like it said to you in a certain way, don’t say it to another person in a certain way.
And even if you don’t mind the rough-and-tumble of insulting each other back and forth, I do, and I’m the moderator, so tough cookies.
We’re explored this issue about as much as we can. Everybody please have a good Sabbath.