How to Handle Sonia
Republicans have been given fair warning.
Should GOP senators treat Sonia Sotomayor as contemptuously as Democrats treated Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, they should expect Hispanic hostility for a generation.
The chutzpah of this Beltway crowd does not cease to amaze.
They archly demand that conservatives accord a self-described "affirmative action baby" from Princeton a respect they never for a moment accorded a pro-life conservative mother of five from Idaho State, Sarah Palin.
Pundits here gets hoots of appreciation for doing to a white Christian woman what would constitute a hate crime if done to a "wise Latina woman." But, as no Republican who followed the script of the mainstream media ever won a national election, why should the party pay them mind?
The imperative of the GOP is not to appease a city that went 93-7 for Obama, but to win back its lost voters.
In 2008, Hispanics, according to the latest figures, were 7.4 percent of the total vote. White folks were 74 percent, 10 times as large. Adding just 1 percent to the white vote is thus the same as adding 10 percent to the candidate's Hispanic vote.
If John McCain, instead of getting 55 percent of the white vote, got the 58 percent George W. Bush got in 2004, that would have had the same impact as lifting his share of the Hispanic vote from 32 percent to 62 percent.
But even Ronald Reagan never got over 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. Yet, he and Richard Nixon both got around 65 percent of the white vote.
When Republican identification is down to 20 percent, but 40 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives, do Republicans need a GPS to tell them which way to go?
Why did McCain fail to win the white conservative Democrats Hillary Clinton swept in the primaries? He never addressed or cared about their issues.
These are the folks whose jobs have been outsourced to China and Asia, who pay the price of affirmative action when their sons and daughters are pushed aside to make room for the Sonia Sotomayors. These are the folks who want the borders secured and the illegals sent back.
Had McCain been willing to drape Jeremiah Wright around the neck of Barack Obama, as Lee Atwater draped Willie Horton around the neck of Michael Dukakis, the mainstream media might have howled.
And McCain might be president.
McCain soared a dozen points when he picked Palin, who seemed to Reagan Democrats to be "one of us." They came roaring back, but left for good when McCain declared the economy fundamentally sound and rushed to D.C. to persuade Republicans to vote for a huge bank bailout opposed by Americans 100 to 1.
How, then, to handle Sotomayor?
As Republicans have never brutalized a Supreme Court nominee—Ruth Bader Ginsburg got 96 votes and Stephen Breyer 87—they need no lectures on decency or decorum.
What they must do is expose Sotomayor, as they did not in the case of Ginsburg, as a political activist whose career bespeaks a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males to the degree necessary to bring about an equality of rewards in society.
Sonia is, first and foremost, a Latina. She has not hesitated to demand, even in college and law school, ethnic and gender preferences for her own. Her concept of justice is race-based.
Testifying to Democrats' awareness that America does not want liberal justices for whom affirmative action is holy writ, Sotomayor is being promoted as a practitioner of judicial restraint who faithfully follows the Constitution and the law.
Yet here is a judge who ruled that New York state, by denying felons the vote, violated their civil rights.
How so? As there are disproportionately more blacks and Hispanics in prison, denying convicts the right to vote has a disparate impact on minorities.
The New York law does discriminate, but not on the basis of race, but whether or not you raped, robbed or murdered someone.
Even if Sotomayor is confirmed, making the nation aware she is a militant supporter since college days of ethnic and gender preferences is an assignment worth pursuing. For America does not believe in preferences. Even in the blue states of California, Washington and Michigan, voters have tossed them out as naked discrimination against white males.
As Sotomayor would be a colorful personality in a bland liberal lineup of Ginsburg, Breyer and John Paul Stevens, she would stand out, like the co-ed-chasing "Wild Bill" Douglas in the 1960s and 1970s.
And if Republicans, in 2010 and 2012, can point to the court and say Sotomayor is their kind of justice, and Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas are our kind of justices, that will not be all bad.
Justice Douglas, Ramsey Clark and Jocelyn Elders, after all, did a whale of a lot of good for the Republican Party in days gone by.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
"Had McCain been willing to drape Jeremiah Wright around the neck of Barack Obama, as Lee Atwater draped Willie Horton around the neck of Michael Dukakis, the mainstream media might have howled"
More to the point, had McCain taken the stance that Obama isn't a native born citizen (or even a US citizen at all), Obama may well have failed to gain his party's appointment as a candidate. Of course, McCain was also disqualified under the same rule, having been born in Panama, so that strategy would have doomed McCain's own bid for candidacy to failure.
What might make a little more sense in a "would-coulda-shoulda" discussion of the most recent sham presidential election might be asking the following question: Why on earth would the GOP insist on making a crack brained liberal like McCain their candidate?
Sotomayor won't be lambasted by any GOP politician or pundit on the actual merits of her lack of qualification for the Supreme Court, mainly because GHW Bush gave her her first appointment to a federal bench.
Really, Mr. Buchanan, cognitive dissonance should have set in on you by now in regard to your support for the party of Lincoln. The GOP's entire grand strategy consists in propping up the falsehood that there are actually two opposite parties in US electoral politics.
Good post -- but Pat remains too nice to the GOP, which will sell out in the end as it always does.
@1, "Why on earth would the GOP insist on making a crack brained liberal like McCain their candidate?"
I'm not sure how much of it was a central decision, the will of the people or messed up political machinery. I got involved with the caucus process this last election for the first time in my life. I also watched very carefully the way the media handled state results before the main election. This past election showed me that under certain circumstances, there can be an even wider gap than normal between the will of the people and the political result.
McCain was singularly decalared "the Winner" in this or that state with often times no mention or importance given to how the vote was distributed across all the candidates. In most cases I remember, he didn't even win a majority of votes, yet was granted all the electoral votes from that state.
Furthermore, with so many candidates, a preference poll where you rank all the candidates rather than just vote for one would have given a much better result. Of course, there weren't a lot of other great options on the stage, but the press is fundamentally lazy and jsut wanted to jump up and declare a winner, not report. Similarly, the quality of the "debates" was atrocious.
At the local, caucus level, the meeting was run by a bunch of really nice, honest, normal people. A lot of us got the feeling something crooked happened the farther up the chain you went.
The mechanics of politics can be nasty and stupid.
"Had McCain been willing to drape Jeremiah Wright around the neck of Barack Obama, as Lee Atwater draped Willie Horton around the neck of Michael Dukakis, the mainstream media might have howled.
And McCain might be president."
Yes the media would have howled and no McCain would not be President. For he would have been declared a racist by said media and he would have backed down from attacking Wright in order to keep currying its favor. Bush I did not care what the media thought of him and even if he did, he had a natural aristocratic view that politics was a dirty, disgusting game that had to be played and who better than Atwater to do so? And, as we have found out, Steve Schmidt is no Lee Atwater nor is Barack Obama Michael Dukakis.
Once again we have a column that fails to take into account that we live different country and different world than 1988. It may very well be that whites make up 74 percent of the electorate (and falling) but to think that Republicans can somehow can capture 60 or 70 percent of that electorate is wishful thinking, especially when said Democrat did quite well to capture pretty much all-white New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Washington and Oregon and could have added Montana too on top of that. Hilary's victories in Pennsylvania and Ohio were due largely to the fact that said primaries were limited to Democrats. When independents and Republicans were added to the mix in November, Obama won them both easily, Reagan Democrats not withstanding.
If 40 percent of the electorate is conservative according to the Gallup Poll, all it means is that conservatives are a minority. And what possibly could being a conservatism mean when many within that group would go to the wall to defend Social Security or farm subsidies? It means nothing, which is why Democrats still have a "conservative" wing, smaller to be sure but still significant. In fact conservatives may well be wiser to run as Democrats nowadays given this current situation.
Perhaps this link (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/134750.html) could provide the loyal opposition a better, more effective way of questioning Judge Sotomayor than engaging in another Pickett's Charge of ID politics.
To answer why McCain won the GOP nomination when supposedly every conservative hated his guts (McLame, McInsane, McPain, yeah I know all of catcalls), let's take a look at the key GOP primary of South Carolina. McCain won the state with 33 percent of the vote. That means 67 percent of Republicans wanted someone else. The problem was nobody could agree who that somebody else should be (Huckabee 30%, Thompson 16 percent, Romney 15 percent, Paul 4 percent, Guliani 2 percent) So McCain wins, and with his win comes 75 percent of the delegates in the GOP's allocation scheme. Now repeat this in several of the crucial early states and you have your answer as to why McCain won. Such wins gave him a momentum that messrs. Romney and Huckabee decided not to take on all the way to the convention even though they could have (Probably because they knew they both would cancel each other out and since they both hated each other, neither would defer to the other). So Republicans got McCain. They fell neatly into line behind him as he led them up the hill and got slaughtered. Oh well, they were warned.
As for Sarah Palin, I would say she made a difference only in that it prevented Obama from winning Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Georgia, maybe even South Carolina too. Yeah, McCain was that bad. And him supporting the bailout was par for the course. Given who he was and his background, it was inconceiveable for him not to do so.
Mr. Scallon is right. The political world of the Age of Reagan, when Dutch trounced Walter Mondale by sixteen points in Vermont and won nearly two-thirds of the white vote nationwide, is over and consigned to history. Three big changes have altered the Republican dominance of that time. First, the West won the Cold War. Republicans can no longer flog the Democrats on being weak on communism. Second, the tax issue has waned as Democrats have largely surrendered on their old passion of tax hikes for everyone. Hitting the rich will do. Third, the Left dominates the culture as never before. Consider that not only was homosexual marriage a fantasy of a few hairbrained wierdos twenty-five years ago, so was the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy towards homosexuals in the military. The Reagan Administration actively rooted out homosexuals in the military back in the 1980s with hardly a whimper from the Left.
If I could add to Mr. Scallon's second post on why McCain was able to stumble to a victory in the 2008 GOP primaries, I would maintain that one of the politically potent segments of the Republican base is the military, active and retired. To the detriment of the Republican Party, the military Republicans not only backed McCain heavily and put him over the top in the South Carolina and Florida primaries, they were a bulwark of support for the failed Iraq policies of the Bush Adminisration, the main source of the Republican political debacles of 2006 and 2008. Military Republicans are good people but they can be bullheaded. Their love of country makes them easy targets for master manipulators like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and especially the neo-conservatives.
I'm glad you pointed out the military/veterans angle Derek. In many of the states McCain, such voters (soldiers, sailors, airmen, veterans, dependents, military-industrial) made the difference for McCain. It had nothing to do with ideology. They supported one of their own. I would also throw in the states of California, Virgina and New Hampshire as well where such support made a big difference. It will be interesting to see how this bloc of voters accounts for itself in the future.
Sean,
I appreciate your analysis. Derek mentioned another run for Pat Buchanan in 2012 or Ron Paul. Is it safe to say that after those two dinosaurs retire to the tar pits from which they evolved, the democrats will have the presidential field to themselves and we can finally sing the Dies Irae over the old money grubbing oligarchs in the Republican party? I think you make a good case for conservatives to run as democrats but in order to do that, don't they need to go ahead and drive a stake through the heart of the republican party, give the corpse to the neo-cons and fumigate the old smoke filled rooms where plots were designed and hatched to neuter the old right forever?
The whole game is rigged, sort of a good cop bad cop type deal. That is why the GOP seems to buckle when it is time to "throw down" the gauntlet.
With his usual vigor, my fellow parishioner, Derek Leaberry, has made most of the necessary points about the abject failure of the GOP to solidify its base in 2008. I add, however, that I believe McCain's failure to break with Bush on dealing with the increasingly serious illegal alien problem was more important than is normally conceded. But to Buchanan's article...
He writes:
Sonia is, first and foremost, a Latina.
But Sotomayor was not born in Latin America, but
in Puerto Rico, and by that event, a citizen of these United States. It is telling - to me, at least - that she has taken refuge in identity politics because such posturing in today's academic and governmental climate is a much surer climb up the ladder of success. And what greater prize is there for a judge than to sit with the other Supremes?
As a Justice of the US Supreme Court, I predict that she will continue to champion the cause of affirmative action. In that regard, she reminds me of Colin Powell, who never saw an affirmative action program that he didn't like, but, "if the past is prologue," her legal mind set is already formed, and if anyone believes she will change that appoach, I have a bridge to sell you.
Finally, it is beyond cavil that the Obama administration knew all about Sotomayor's views on their pet issues long before she was nominated; that is given in most nominations to the Court. True, people and justices change over time, but not, I fear,in this case. You have my word on that.
The old right died out with Robert Taft. Buchanan in 2012 would be a joke, as would Paul. Mr Scallion said it best. Pat thinks it is still the same poltical landscape as in 1988. That was the first year I could vote, and my has the nation changed over that time. It is almost as if Pat doesn't believe the content of his own books!!! Ron Paul has it right about the Fed and the economy, but is dreadful as a candidate. He is way too old, and his whiny voice comes off as him being a weakling, not presidential. That leaves the GOP with second tier has beens like Gingrich, flavors of the month(possibly Palin), or the dull mainstream guys in Romney and Huckabee. Not really much of a choice there considering that these guys were destined to just follow the Bush Doctrine, etc, which in reality is all that Obama is doing, just with an added smile.
Too much credit is being given to "the media." Newspaper circulations are in the tank to the point that some of them --including minority-owned radio stations -- are going cap in hand to the feds for bailout money. TV network news is watched only by consumers of Geritol, purlpe pill, and Cialis. And it was their bias and calumny that did them in. I hope and pray they all go broke.
"TV network news is watched only by consumers of Geritol, purlpe pill, and Cialis. And it was their bias and calumny that did them in. I hope and pray they all go broke."
Me too. Is Bob Dole still doing Viagra commercials or has he finally acccepted Geritol as his only hope? I lost my televison a few years back and don't miss it accept for watching Pat Buchanan from time to time. Do they still bring Christopher Hitchens and Bill Kristol on at times to advocate for hate and discontent as the necessary principles for expanding freedom? I saw in an airport news stand last February that Chris Hitchens was writing as a religion editor for Newsweek. I thought to myself, heck the next thing you know Obama will be giving the commencment address at Notre Dame.... You really can't make this stuff up.
The factors that made the difference in tho 08 campaign were
(1) A Democrat candidate with movie-star appeal, with no track record to judge him by, with a facility for speaking in good-sounding generalities, with no MSM opposition and plenty of MSM support, with a guaranteed racial block of support, with a savy Alinsky-trained campaign team.
(2) A Republican candidate with none of the above.
Real ideas or ideology didn't figure in the mix except that many conservatives stayed home.
Very true, Polemicscat. And most political gains in a democracy are achieved when the governing party is perceived to have failed in a way that galvanizes its political enemies and has turned off those in the mushy middle. Rarely does a positive political program propel the out party to the majority all by itself. Ronald Reagan would never have been elected if it wasn't for the disasterous presidency of Jimmy Carter and the dismal presidency of George W. Bush led the way to Barack Obama. Today's Republicans will make political gains only when Barack Obama and the Democrats crash.
Derek Leabeery, in comment 15, is exactly right, as usual.
Correction, that should be Derek Leaberry. Sorry for the typo.
Well said Pat.
Now here's a question I'd like to hear a Republican senator ask Judge Sotomayor:
Judge, if you were hearing a discrimination case against a company that openly admitted to hiring only white males and management defended their hiring practices by stating that in their view a white male would make wiser business decisions then a black or Latino woman, would you view this response as a valid and legitimate defense against any charges of racial discrimination?
The current Beltway Follies are merely Blue payback to what they regard as Red excesses. Their hope is to pack the Supreme Court with their brethren and sisteren, and to enact enough crushing taxation and regulatory legislation that their foes are properly ruined and chastised. When I first looked at that 2000 election map in USA Today, I realized that this country was at least as badly polarized as it was in the 1850's. It has only gotten worse. What really struck me was that the breakdown was obvious as it was color coded by county. Most election analysis seems to be done on a statewide basis, and that is far too coarse to see proper details. What we are facing here is a sharp set of differences that pit the coastal elites, their minions, and urbanites against Southern, Midwestern and largely Western rural peoples. States rights is not sufficient to defuse this political and cultural divide. How would states rights have made peace in Missouri before and during the Late Unpleasantness? No the problems are more fundamental, and that is going to require a return to a more localist political order. My fear is that the blues will push too far, and trigger another armed conflict. Red American has been arming itself, and this has caused an incredible run on ammunition, reloading components, and firearms. If you read blogs, from both perspectives, the impression one takes away is that there is not only polarization, but strong hatred festering in many hearts. The mass media, interstate highways, and nationalized education were supposedly amalgamating American society away from locality and regionalism. I think that is starting to reverse, and if blue excesses continue, things will get rather ugly.
Steve,
I think the analysis is correct but we are a ways away from armed conflict. Southern, Midwestern and largely Western rural peoples have perhaps a misplaced confidence in national elections but they still believe in it and its possibilities. But I do agree that the divide is growing and may already be too broad and deep to bridge. It would help if there were other voices like Pat Buchanan and Chronicles in the "public square" but right now the main effort is like that of Mr. Frum and the neo-cons to stifle debate by the use of calumny, character assasination and mass media crowd noise to cram instructions down traditionalists throats that they consider poisonous. Something must give or collapse and neither side is going to give in at this point which is too bad for paleocons because the meek really do inherit the earth in the long run and all the forces of organization,manipulation and propoganda are in the hands of their perceived enemies and they cannot win under those terms without tactical retreats and local inititiatives which at this time they believe to be quaint, sentimental and of no effect. Turning off the TV, subscribing to Chronicles, looking around home for something good to read and healthy to do would be a good start but again they want to fight on the enemies ground and that kind of effort is worthless ---now and "for heaven and the future's sake" as Robert Frost noticed in his poem, Two Tramps in Mudtime.
Here's why I agree with Steve Berg (#18): If Obama had been nominating when Justices Roberts and Alito were named to the Court, there would currently be no right for individuals to own and bear arms (the affirmation of second amendment right passed by only one vote). From now on, Obama's appointments will be seated.
I think what most people are concerned about is not a war between the governments and themselves, but a conflict along the lines of Lind's Fourth Generation Warfare. This is why I mentioned Missouri in my previous posting. Bleeding Kansas would be another example of fighting based mostly in ideological grounds between non-governmental forces. The inability of most police forces to subdue street gang activities demonstrates the problems people are starting to arm themselves against. They are seeking to be able to protect their families against a threat where the authorities have been largely impotent. I think there may also be a realization that the Federal government is tottering, and this might also lead to significant local unrest. The most incredible thing I have seen in my lifetime was the implosion of the Soviet Empire. In a matter of a few weeks, one of the most powerful military empires in history, backed up by a police state that would make even Dick Cheney envious, simply collapsed. At least they had enlightened statesmen at their helm. We may not be so lucky.
"The inability of most police forces to subdue street gang activities demonstrates the problems people are starting to arm themselves against. They are seeking to be able to protect their families against a threat where the authorities have been largely impotent."
Agreed. Your insights are accurate. There are parts of our cities today, that are simply not patroled except in extreme emergencies and then only with a reluctant and large show of force. In other words they are not really our cities in the traditional meaning of the word, rather they are occupied territories. T'is true, T'is true.
Pat's nailed it.
Here's a question I'd like to hear a Republican ask Judge Sotomayor:
Judge if you were deciding a discrimination case brought against a company by a minority member would you consider the company's defense that its management simply believes that a wise white male will make better business decisions then a black or Latino woman, as valid and legitimate and lawful?
Robert, it really doesn't matter who of the current possible candidates wins the GOP nomination in 2012 because barring the unexpected they will be crushed by Obama. What matters in the context of the Republicans is that whoever wins it (Pat's shot his bolt and Paul might have one good one left in him. Gary Johnson anyone?)can transform the party into an effective opposition focusing on localism and decentralization in the face of colossus government. If this cannot be done then hopefully some new party can take the GOP's place as they fade away.
re. #12
"TV network news is watched only by consumers of Geritol, purlpe pill, and Cialis. "
If only that were true. The American population is the most TV addicted set of dimwits in the world today. I have tried having conversations with my fellow Americans many times, and have had to give up in disgust. No matter what political party an American supports, there are several core myths that every TV addict seems to believe fervently. Among these myths, a few are paramount:
1. The attacks of 9/11/01 were planned and carried out by Saddam Hussein in league with Osama Bin Laden.
2. Weapons of mass destruction were indeed found in Iraq. No details of what these WMD were is available, though.
3. The Global War on Terror has prevented further terrorist attacks on the mainland US.
These myths were hammered home repeatedly by network TV news programs, while being referred to as irrefutable fact in all other TV programming, including drama, comedy, sports and games.
Americans are mesmerized by TV. Since giving up TV watching 15 years ago, I have become increasingly out of step with my fellow citizens and have learned that it's useless to try to offer any view other than one sanctified by network TV. People become angry and confused when told that the myths they cherish aren't universally recognized as gospel truth by everyone in the world.
Hi,
Just curious, do you just not like me or is there a some compelling reason you are censoring my posts? Just thought I'd join the discussion (subscribed to Chronicles Mag for over 10 years and this is the first time I've tried to post a response online). Don't get it.
Cordially,
Wes Prussiing
Palm City, Florida
wespruss@yahoo.com
@23 Ed
I should edit my spelling mistakes before posting I meant Purple Pill.
Anyway, TV addiction is equally bad in the UK, and quite possibly in France and Germany also. You know things are bad when the least dishonest cable news channel offered in my county is Novosti's Russia Today.
With regard to 1,2 and 3, there were other issues floated by the guttersnipe press. Saddam had loaded his nukes on to trucks where they still sit across the border in Syria. That didn't fly very far. Move on to #2 -- Slag Hans Blix for not telling the elite the lies they wanted to hear. And finally #3 trash Bush with the Plame spy affair, a real non-story to divert attention away from the phony yellowcake/Niger connection which by my reckoning was a Mossad-planted lie to keep the ink flowing on slow news days. And if Cheney's right-hand stooge Irving "Liebovitz" Libby could be implicated and earn a few months in country-club slammer Danamora, so much the better.
The misspelling wasn't bad enough to detract from the good sense in your post. I agree wholeheartedly with your hope for the demise of the TV news. It's telling that Pravda is now much more likely to contain truthful articles than the so-called "free press" outlets in the US.
It's also almost comical how many of the issues harped upon in the old John Birch Society magazine have turned out to be valid, though the mainstream always dismissed the old Birchers as the lunatic fringe. From Israel's undue influence on US foreign policy to the criminality of poisoning public water supplies with flouride, their "lunatic fringe" journalism of the 50s and 60s has turned out to be prophetic.
It's too bad that the New American has been defanged and brought to heel for the sake of respectability.
July 18 update. AP reports:
"GOP Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Senate's most senior Republican, Mel Martinez of Florida, its lone Hispanic Republican, and Olympia Snowe of Maine all announced they'd vote for Sotomayor, praising her qualifications and her testimony at four days of Judiciary Committee hearings this week."
As I wrote in an earlier post on this article, the GOP would sell out. They are.
I remember back in the mid-1980s, when the Philippines was undergoing its People Power "revolution/" Lugar headed the Foreign Affairs Committee and went over to observe the situation, and P.J. O'Rourke noted that everyone was calling Lugar "the Stepford Senator."
Nothing changes.