Where’s the outrage?
Another embarassing Democrat memo that addressess judicial nominations:
They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.
So, is this quote racist? Or is it that the Dems would rather be the party to nominate a latino? I’d guess the latter was the intent but it has racist over tones.
November 17th, 2003 at 3:09 pm
Seems pretty thin if you ask me, especially when you consider the source. Even if you assume the Latino remark wasn’t taken out of context (which it almost certainly was), it still marks the opinion of one Democratic staffer for a relatively obscure senator.
It would be as if one of John Cornyn’s assistants wrote something that could be vaguely construed as racist, and I started saying “see, the Republican party is racist!”
November 17th, 2003 at 3:11 pm
vaguely racist? Like trent lott’s bout with idiocy?
November 17th, 2003 at 3:13 pm
Nah, any more than the Rpeubs saying that one of Jindal’s stenegths was the fact that he was Indian-American. By nominating a latino, the Republican party is clearly setting up to use – and has laready used – the argument that the Dems are racist if they vote agaisnt him, the way they did with Thomas. Thats all.
I mean, really, Uncle, you have to really, really really want to see racism in that memo to see it.
November 17th, 2003 at 3:17 pm
SU
Okay, no more fscking apologies for Trent Lott. Lott had an ongoing relationship with the CCC – a racist organization – and he said that if a man who ran on an explicitly racist campaign had won the presidency, none of our “problems” would exist. Lott had a history of racism, and to excuse it because you want to score cheap rhetorical points against Democrats is beneath you.
November 17th, 2003 at 3:24 pm
Yes, vaguely racist. No, NOT like Lott’s remarks. Here’s a hypothetical:
Republicans nominate minority candidate for his conservative views, specifically because his minority status will make him harder to block. Democrats identify this tactic as dangerous. Who’s really playing the race card here? Hint: It ain’t the Democrats, not in this case.
As Kevin points out, and as you well know, it’s the same ploy the Republicans used (successfully) with Clarence Thomas. Thomas lied his ass off at his confirmation hearings, and you honestly blame the Democrats for being wary of the tactic? Please…
By the way, if the Washington Times really had something damning, they would have printed (or at least linked) the whole memo, rather than grabbing a few out-of-context quotes. You really need to stop paying attention to the Washington Times; it’s a Rev. Moon propaganda rag. It would be like me sourcing Yellow Times.
November 17th, 2003 at 3:27 pm
I don’t defend lott. He’s an idiot. Anyone who would say something that stupid needs to be shot down. However, even though his comment was stupid, i’m inclined to believe he was pandering to an old man and likely didn’t have any racist intent.
Both parties pander to race there just seems to be less outrage when it’s democrats.
And how do I have to want to see it when it leaps out at you?:
They also identified Miguel Estrada as especially dangerous, because … he is Latino…
November 17th, 2003 at 3:31 pm
And you’re right about Rs pandering. In 2004, you’ll hear a bunch of them saying: s/he stalled a black/woman/hispanic judicial nomination.
November 17th, 2003 at 3:50 pm
i’m inclined to believe he was pandering to an old man and likely didn’t have any racist intent.
This ignores Lott’s history of racist ties.
And how do I have to want to see it when it leaps out at you?
Well, first you have to consider what those dots represent. It means that they deleted text there. What did it say before they edited it? Second, I already told you. Who’s got the racist intent in my example? The Democrats are merely being reactionary.
In 2004, you’ll hear a bunch of them saying: s/he stalled a black/woman/hispanic judicial nomination.
Which is exactly how the Republicans planned it. If the nominations are confirmed, they get the extremists they want on the bench. If they aren’t confirmed, they can cry racism.
The question is whether there’s any truth to it. How many minority nominees didn’t get blocked? That’s the real question. The vast majority of the candidates Bush has nominated, minority or otherwise, have been confirmed without any fuss. So cries of “racism” ultimately ring hollow here.
Where’s the outrage? There isn’t any, because even a cursory examination of the facts proves that there isn’t any justification for it.
November 17th, 2003 at 3:55 pm
Uhm, estrada is not an extremist. Period. He received high marks fromt the ABA, a far cry from a right wing group.
November 17th, 2003 at 4:37 pm
I withdraw the use of the word extremist, at least as it pertains to Estrada. “Highly partisan” would have been a much better term to use.
Frankly, we wouldn’t know what to expect from Estrada, since he gave evasive (Clinton-esque?) answers whenever questioned.
And let’s not forget, Estrada’s own supervisor called him too much of an idealogue to be a good candidate for the bench.