Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
July 16, 2009
POLITICS: Race To The Bottom

Leon Wolf rounds up here and here the latest battery of incidents reflecting how white Senate Democrats - the same people who blocked Miguel Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit out of fear that the GOP would put a conservative, highly qualified Latino on the Supreme Court - really think about African-Americans. Combined with this, the overall picture is an ugly one indeed. The logical inference here is that they feel essentially immune from the possibility of consequences, serene in the confidence that anything racially divisive helps solidify their political position, no matter how ghastly the underlying attitudes it reveals.

PS - On the second of the two Durbin exchanges, I love Sam Brownback's utter incredulity at what Durbin was saying.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 5:01 PM | Politics 2009 | Comments (24) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

"...they feel essentially immune from the possibility of consequences, serene in the confidence that anything racially divisive helps solidify their political position, no matter how ghastly the underlying attitudes it reveals."
---------
It does, because Americans are stuck in a two-party country. The only other option is a party led by an unabashed racist like Limbaugh, and the proud racially ignorant like Sessions, et al.

Crank,
I keep telling you the problem with national politics is the 2-party system which offers zero representation to the citizens. When are you REALLY going to join the fight and use your megaphone (this site) to push for change?

Posted by: Berto at July 16, 2009 6:30 PM

You say you want a revolution, Berto, but what I'm doing by my involvement at RedState is working for change within one party. And we do do quite a bit of that.

Posted by: Crank at July 16, 2009 6:42 PM

I've visited RedState in the past. Boy do you ever have your work cut out for yourself. Those guys are still pushing the failed ideology of corporations over the citizens. Talk about your slow learners.

Posted by: Berto at July 16, 2009 6:50 PM

Crank,

It appears the Red State is a welcoming place, unless you have the audacity to challenge the received "wisdom."

Posted by: Magrooder at July 16, 2009 10:42 PM

Magrooder, that's true of Red State, but it's also true of any liberal site I've ever visited.

Incidentally, I've noticed that several places that have previously considered it racist to imply anything about Barack Obama by using his full name have now begun to refer to the Senator from Alabama as Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

Posted by: Jerry at July 16, 2009 10:59 PM

We made a collective decision some years ago at RS that the site is not an open forum for left-right debate. It's not hard to find places on the web to do that if that's your bag. It's a conservative community, we tolerate a few liberals who are reasonably polite guests and recognize that they are guests in someone else's home, but that's not what the place is about.

Posted by: Crank at July 16, 2009 11:06 PM

... incidents reflecting how white Senate Democrats ... really think about African-Americans.

Perhaps not as bad as the purported racism of the specific Senate Democrats mentioned by Wolf, but Crank, isn't lumping ALL Senate Democrats together for the words or actions of a few kinda sorta the same wrong thing to do, on general principles?

Also, I thought calling 'racist' was a thing conservatives didn't like ... no?

As for the particulars. Durbin seems at a loss in that exchange with Brownback, so point to the Republican senator. I don't see how an inability to marshal his argument well makes Durbin a racist though.

On affirmative action really being very, very racist indeed because it's race-based and not socio-economically based - I'd say we're approaching that point but maybe haven't quite crossed over to it. I'd also say that the 'spoils system' nature of much of affirmative action policy is far more explanatory for its excesses than saying its supporters think black and Latino people are inherently stupid. It is encouraging to see that Leon Wolf believes that government has a pretty important role to play in assisting the economically disadvantaged.

On Ginsberg - very poor choice of words on the part of the judge. But Domenech there argues in bad faith, since he doesn't at least raise the possibility that Ginsberg, instead of meaning 'minority populations' ... 'that we don’t want to have too many of', might mean 'poor and underprivileged populations' (a return, plausibly I think, to the socio-economic concerns of Wolf). Entirely aside from one's support or non-support of abortion rights for women, it's quite a bit less controversial to hope for less children born into poverty than to wish for less children born to minorities ... can we at least agree on that?

Posted by: D. Aristophanes at July 17, 2009 1:12 AM

Also, using Occam's Razor, I'd suggest that what the Dems' opposition to Estrada (coupled with their enthusiastic support of Sotomayor) suggests, rather than an unwillingness to have Latinos on the Supreme Court, is an opposition to having *conservatives* on the Supreme Court. Apply backwards to GOP senators, Sotomayor and *liberal* judges.

Posted by: D. Aristophanes at July 17, 2009 1:42 AM

'd suggest that what the Dems' opposition to Estrada (coupled with their enthusiastic support of Sotomayor) suggests, rather than an unwillingness to have Latinos on the Supreme Court, is an opposition to having *conservatives* on the Supreme Court.

Except leaked memos showed Democrats talking specifically about his ethnicity and the problem of the Republicans being the first to nominate a hispanic judge.

Posted by: Agent W at July 17, 2009 6:13 AM

Jerry,

You are right; there are idiots on both sides. But, it seems to me that to focus on them as one's point of argument is pointless, unless the point of your existence is to live in an echo chamber where the validity of thought is never tested because dissent is forbidden.

But, as Crank noted, if that is your bag, . . . .

Posted by: Magrooder at July 17, 2009 10:00 AM

Eh, most regular RS commenters, and certainly most of the contributors, get around the web a lot. Keeping the site a congenial place to hang out with like-minded people doesn't mean that we're not exposed to hostile fire elsewhere. And of course, it reduces the frequency with which we get things written in the comments that would be embarrassing to the site.

Posted by: Crank at July 17, 2009 2:03 PM

Like facts, for instance.

Posted by: Berto at July 17, 2009 2:10 PM

That's right, Berto, which is why I am sure Crank appreciates the fact that you never resort citing any.

Posted by: Will at July 17, 2009 2:52 PM

Thanks for the explanation, Crank.

Posted by: Magrooder at July 17, 2009 3:13 PM

Isn't it odd how unreconstructed racists--as liberals insist all of us are--can go for so long without tipping our hands? We have to run Trent Lott out of the party for claiming an old man was right about some unspecified stuff. That's how slim the pickings are for those searching for our "true feelings on race". Damn but we're good at masking our pointy hats under our hairpices.

Meanwhile, liberals unabashedly support the Kleagle, eugenics, crap education for minorities and give their guys a pass for blatantly racist, blockheaded comments like Durbins. It's almost like the liberal aversion to racism is a myth, if you can concieve of it. Like they only care about racism if they can use it to club a conservative.

I know, crazy talk, right?

Posted by: spongeworthy at July 20, 2009 1:36 PM

The Sotomayer hearings were awesome. Nothing better than watching a bunch of white men come to the realization there rule of the land is over, and lashing out in a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable.
Can't wait for the foot of latino women to stand on the neck of these guys. Justice (in both senses) baby!

Posted by: Berto at July 20, 2009 3:19 PM

To quote the Joker, "these guys are schemers. They've always got their plans." Okay, I screwed up the quote, but the point is, democratic senators didn't want the repubs to beat them to nominate a hispanic judge. They are schemers. It isn't about whether or not he'd have been a good judge, or a sane one. It was about what gets played on he nightly news. A pretty crappy way to govern to be sure, but that is not their primary objective.

That being said...

Show me how it is different when the roles are reversed.

Spare me hypocrisy. They're all hypocrites, charlatans and liars.
Spare me the crap about republicans being different than democrats. There are a-holes in each at probably the same rate.

Posted by: Zufall at July 20, 2009 9:16 PM

Berto, you take comment idiocy to a new level. Don't you think the rest of us might remember Justice Thomas' confirmation hearings? Or did you forget about that yourself?

Granting your very shaky premise of this unwelcome epiphany for old white men, don't you suppose that epiphany may have happened at that point? Justice Thomas is a very dark man--I doubt anybody missed the fact that they were confirming outside the "old white man" box.

You really should spare yourself the embarassment of commenting here.

Posted by: spongeworthy at July 21, 2009 8:19 AM

spongeworthy,
Those who opposed Sotomayor thought she might help speed-up the move of power away from white men.
NOBODY was stupid enough to think Thomas would come anywhere close to such actions.

"You really should spare yourself the embarassment of commenting here."
And let you spout your bullshit with no pushback? Let me think about for a second before I answer.Fuck no.

Posted by: Berto at July 21, 2009 3:25 PM

Christ you're an idiot. "Power away from white men" means non-white people in power positions. Justice Thomas is about as non-white as it gets, and the Supreme Court is about as powerful as it gets.

You should crawl away in shame that I have to explain that to you.Usually I just laugh at you--this time all I can do is shake my head and pity your parents.

Posted by: spongeworthy at July 21, 2009 4:56 PM

spongeworthy,
Old white men don't care if Thomas is black. They know he was put in his position to keep the status quo.
Can you cite the case where Thomas sided with those not in power or non-elites?

Posted by: Berto at July 21, 2009 5:27 PM

You're kidding, right? Why don't you show me the case where Thomas didn't decide the case within the law, Corky? After all, he isn't paid to look out for the little guy, he's paid to get it right.

You're FOS here, and to prove your point you need to tell me where he disregarded the law to side with the white, powerful interests. But you won't waste your time and we both know it.

You're way out of your league here, Corky.

Posted by: spongeworthy at July 22, 2009 9:29 AM

It's not hard to find examples, defending on your definitions. Berto uses his own definitions of everything, but just to pick some significant examples that pop to mind, Thomas' dissent in Raicht sided with local marijuana growers against federal power, his majority opinion in Swierkiewicz sided with employment-discrimination plaintiffs, his opinions on the Dormant Commerce Clause and punitive damages have run against business interests, as have his opinions on reliance and proximate cause in RICO cases.

Posted by: Crank at July 22, 2009 9:44 AM

There's Thomas' dissent in Kelo also, but none of this matters to Berto. He's right because his cartoon of Thomas is indelible, just like his cartoon of conservatives cannot be in any way challenged.

This is the blessing of the simple-minded--they are given no challenges they cannot ignore or run away from. Where many of us might see a disconnection between our cartoons of others and reality, they simply plod on as if their reality is the controlling one. It's so much easier and less taxing on the weak intellect. This is their blessing.

Posted by: spongeworthy at July 22, 2009 11:30 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg