Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Race is everything.

By

Race is everything.

by Kevin Sowyrda

We’re living in a crude time of racial centric politics.  Nothing new, you say?  Then check out the recent news concerning judiciary appointments in both Washington and Boston.

Everything is race.  The only thing that matters in Obama era politics, in governing, in policy making, in political appointments and in the media is your race.  And for the first time in history, it’s not Caucasian imperialists who are directly reaping the benefits of their light skinned complexion.  But in a more cunning, indirect way, it’s the liberal establishment – the still mostly white, modern day power brokers – who are using the race of minorities to squelch the Conservative opposition and achieve the progressive agenda.  It’s as effective as it is Machiavellian.

Case in point, this week’s presidential nomination of New York Judge Sonia Sotomayor for a seat on the Supreme Court.  Sotomayor wasn’t picked because she’s the reincarnation, in female visage, of Justice Brandies or because her intellect overshadows that of Stephen Hawking.  She was picked because she’s a Hispanic woman and Barack Obama, who remains in perpetual campaign mode, is sufficiently brilliant to realize that he can have all the liberal sycophants his appetite desires if he picks the presently in fashion, once out of fashion, brand of color.  

That’s because anyone who opposes this new color du jour must be a racist.  

If you bring up Sotomayor’s almost surreal ruling in Ricci vs. DeStafano, where in a painfully oblique edict she obliterated the test results for a group of Connecticut firefighters because an insufficient number of minorities were able to score high on the test, you’ll be branded a racist quicker than Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow can coordinate their talking points with Rahm Emmanuel at the White House.

If you querie Sotomayor about her ruling that convicted felons should be able to vote, you’ll definitely see Chris Matthews getting the wrong type of tingle up his leg and suddenly you’re shish kabob on the Peacock Network.

If you dare to ask Sotomayor if she was being a little bit too polarizing when she said, “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”, the Washington Post is going to call you Hispanic Hater of the month and quote an anonymous source that you use the “spik” word while imbibing at South Boston taverns.  They’ll hit you with the sexism charge in the Sunday edition.

So the nomination process will be as smooth as silk.  We’ll hear the usual suspects on the senate judiciary committee gush, with tear filled eyes, about Sotomayor’s up from the boot straps story.  That one always resonates when it’s about a liberal nominee.  Sadly, we can’t talk about up from the boot straps stories of more conservative jurists like Clarence Thomas, who grew up in impoverished Pin Point Georgia and was homeless as a little boy after a fire burned down his family home.

And it’s even a twofer.  As political scientists on both sides of the aisle predict that the Hispanic vote will only continue to swell, a savvy politician like Mr. Obama is not going to be outflanked by Republicans, who have previously forged cordial relations with Hispanic Americans because of the G.O.P.’s historic position on Cuba.  Those policies are as moribund as Fidel himself, and Obama knows that a quota system for Hispanics is the new route to that growing demographic and a key ingredient for his 2012 prospects.

Locally, the racial centric trend is no less intense and obvious than on the national stage.  Carmen M. Ortiz has just received the papal blessing from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to be the new U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts.  The panel that recommended her clearly intimated that Carmen, one of three finalists, was actually second in qualifications to prominent local jurists Michael Keating and Martin Murphy, but that her status as a Latina gave her the edge.

Atleast they were honest.

 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. If you querie Sotomayor about her ruling that convicted felons should be able to vote, you’ll definitely see Chris Matthews getting the wrong type of tingle up his leg and suddenly you’re shish kabob on the Peacock Network.

    <

    p>Sheesh.  Could the standards for the “loyal opposition” be any lower?

    • Could the standards for the “loyal opposition” be any lower?

      <

      p>Yes.

      <

      p>They’re working on it.

  2. Latino or Latina is a descriptor for an ethnic group, not a race.  So you’re off to a running start right there….

  3. This piece of writing is more interesting, I think, as a sign of what certain very resentful (and very white) parts of the GOP are thinking than it is as a contribution to a dialog. Some of the leaps of logic are breathtaking. Here are some things I note:

    1. The use of “papal”. It is odd that two Senators are giving a papal blessing since, post Avignon, there has been only one Pope at time. What I find striking, though, is the hint of nativism.
    2. Reading Red Mass Group, I often run into an explanation that runs sort of like this: Democrats have figured out how to stay in power by paying off various populations. Their policy prescriptions constitute a system of expensive, taxpayer-funded bribes. There are a number of things wrong with this theory and I have a number of thoughts as to why it’s so popular. Our diarist definitely subscribes to a version of it.
    3. Another striking thing about this diary is the casualness about facts. Maybe Republicans everywhere learned from the Iraq War (or maybe the Lewinsky scandal) that casualness about facts had a big payoff. For example, there’s certainly no evidence that the Obama Administration has embraced quotas, or that they have not appointed white people to offices of trust. Our diarist takes on a demagogic style of merely assuming what he needs to be true is what “we all know”. Glenn Beck has taken on a lot of this tactic.
    4. Finally, it does seem to me as if a FAQ on the Sotomayor appointment would be useful. The diarist raises a number of points answered elsewhere. A central repository of myth refutation would prove useful.

     

  4. which will obviously get skewered here. I think you make some good points that this nomination by Obama will be labeled “brilliant” by all the Kool-aid drinkers and any opposition will be cast as racist.

    <

    p>If we take some of her remarks and transpose some of the racial/ethnic groups and maybe change her sex to male… she would not only be missing from the nomination but would probably be disbarred for it…

    <

    p>

    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman white man with the richness of her his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male black male who hasn’t lived that life”

    <

    p>Can’t you hear the screams of condemnation now. And how would they react to the defense of “you have to understand the context of her remark…” The hypocrites are holding hands in unison supporting the next “legislating from the bench” judge.

    • of Sotomayor’s “legislating from the bench,” I’d be delighted to see it.  ‘Til then, spare us the talking points.

      • and she’s gone on the record noting that’s what she has done.  That’s just how courts work.  You can’t have a ruling without creating or following a precedent that is enforceable by law.  The question is just how judges use that power.

        <

        p>For example, take the prop 8 ruling.  The judges could have chose to strike down the law based on their personal views of gay marriage.  They ruled for it, however, because the point of the ruling and the question given to the court was over the procedures in California law, not whether gay marriage should be allowed or not.  

        <

        p>So yes, she and every other judge “legislates from the bench”.  Fact of life.  What to be looked at is how this power is used.  That is the conversation and investigation that will provide insight as to whether or not she should be on the SCOTUS or not.  

        • Of course, at that point the term has lost all meaning, and is completely useless as a criterion for assessing a judicial nominee.  Which, frankly, is fine with me — it’s always been a stupid talking point that is used mindlessly against nominees by Democratic presidents by conservatives who either don’t understand what they’re talking about or are being intentionally misleading.

          <

          p>As for her now-famous comment about the Appeals Courts being “where policy is made,” taken in context what she said is obviously accurate, as everyone who understands how the federal courts work recognizes.  She’s not talking about “policy” in the legislative sense.  She’s talking about the day-to-day work of applying legislative enactments and constitutional principles in thousands upon thousands of real-life cases, thereby filling in the gaps that Congress and the drafters of the Constitution have inevitably left in what they wrote.  That’s what courts do.  Her point is that most work of that kind gets done in the appeals courts, whose decisions bind all the district courts in their circuit (as well as subsequent appeals court panels), not at the Supreme Court, which hears only a few dozen cases a year.

      1. Where are the poster’s links to his claim that if someone opposes her nomination, he’ll be branded a racist?  

      <

      p>I mean, it’s one of those claims that should be able to be proven yes or no, agreed?  But there are no links.  

      <

      p>Or, if he’s arguing that (since the nomination just happened), once someone DOES go on the record opposing her, he/she will be branded racist on cable talk shows and major newspapers?

      <

      p>So there’s a test case.  

      <

      p>Today Senator Pat Roberts said he’ll vote against her.  (Wow, he made up his mind pretty quickly).  

      <

      p>What do you think is a fair length of time to see if cable TV hosts or newspaper editorial boards call the Senator a “racist”?  

      <

      p>2. John, do you agree with Newt’s characterization, that the judge is racist?  

      <

      p>I’ve always hated that some liberals are super-quick to throw that term around, often with astounding unfairness and inaccuracy, not to mention eye-roll-inducing sanctimony.  Including sometimes on BMG.  

      <

      p>Now conservatives?  

      • could make this quote…

        <

        p>

        “I would hope that a wise Latina woman white man with the richness of her his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male black male who hasn’t lived that life”

        <

        p>And still be confirmed for the SCOTUS… depending on the “context”? I will argue outright that any white man uttering this quote would NEVER even be considered for nomination.

        <

        p>Can you honestly argue they would even with the right context?

        • …this were a country where white men were the disadvantaged group.  In the real world, not so much.  Once again you’re trying to find consistency where it doesn’t exist.

          • all disadvantaged groups starting with gays, blacks, hispanic, women, disabled, non-christian… judges since these people can all reach better conclusions than white men who haven’t lived that life?

            • I also tend to lean away from demographic characteristics as being the key factor.  I personally would have been fine with another white man if he were determined best for the job.  I also realize, however, that white men are well-represented, as is the more advantaged perspective.  As is so often the case, you fail to see the context (willingly, I wonder) and your talking points in this regard are becoming more discredited by the day.

              • I realize it’s hard to keep an open mind with so many other “angry” liberals repeating the talking points (yes, talking points are not exclusive tot he right as many would believe on this site).

                <

                p>I would hope you could admit that demographics was “exactly” what this choice was all about. Four women made up the short list (one white)… coincidence????

                • There are people on this site that will probably tell you I’m not angry enough.  Yes, it appears that demographics were considered, but it’s not as if Obama chose someone UNqualified.  Like I said, a qualified white man would have been fine with me.

  5. As I was reading the entry, it cracked me up.  The responses make for great interaction and predictability of opinions.  Thanks, especially to KBusch and JohnD for brightening up a dreary, rainy day. Never a dull moment–the way life should be!

  7. …I wish Obama’s first nomination HAD been a white man.  As Dan Kenendy keeps saying, white men have ethnicity and gender!

    <

    p>But really – I’d have given anything had he done it, just to screw with the Meet the Press types who have been shrewdly handicapping WHICH woman – not IF a woman – ever since Ruth Ginsburg’s sickness became known.

    <

    p>Identity politics is just so damn predictable.

    • So Joe Biden was…what then?  Tim Geithner?  Tim Kaine?  Tom Daschle?  Or do only certain nominations count?

        • How many white men would Obama have to nominate for various positions before you would be satisfied?  Or did Holder and Hillary blow the whole deal in your mind?

          • After that the Bob Schieffers are off on the next ‘issue’ – Obama could nominate Vulcans and warthogs for all the attention second nominations get.

            <

            p>It’s like when Vice President ‘announcements’ get made – about 48 hrs. before the announcement, Sunday Morning guys begin with the shrewd ‘insider’ analysis, completely gutting the impact of the actual announcement.  The closest anyone came to foiling these smart money types was McCain, and even that leaked out early, although they were caught somewhat flatfooted after all their research to make ‘off-the-cuff’ remarks about Mitt, Mike, Charlie, Bobby, etc.  (Hey, Chris, didn’t Jindal play lacrosse lefthanded back in the ’60’s?  Why, yes, Keith, I believe you’re right…odd that you should recall that…)

            <

            p>As I said – since the announcement that Ginsburg was sick, these clowns have been intimating their inside track on WHICH woman Obama would nominate.  I only wish he had foiled them, but the choice is his, and their comeuppance must wait.

            • Watching Republicans contort themselves to try to defend this particular line of attack is nothing short of hilarious.  I haven’t heard weaker arguments since Mitt  et al tried to make opposition to gay marriage “about the children.”

              <

              p>Put another way: Appointing a Latina is identity politics? Are we supposed to have forgotten Kerry Healey’s parking garage ad?

      • …since before he took office.  PP is a GOP aparatchik and attacking “identity politics” is clearly the party line.  ‘nuf said.

          • Unfortunately, searching for “porcupine + obama” gives hundreds and hundreds of hits.  I glazed on the 20th page. Man, do you dislike that guy.

              • Even limiting it to a two month span, wading through PP’s comments about Obama is mind numbing.  I haven’t given up, yet.

                • Let me save you some trouble.  PP never said he nor his administration was a failure.  

                • I may never recover from the emotional toll of finding it.  All those “everything in the subject line posts.”   All those hit and run attacks on Democrats (NEVER on Republicans).  All that pointless referring to herself in the third person (Porcupine thinks).  Truly mind-numbing.

          • On 10 January bostonshepherd posted an article entitled The Failed Obama Administration which referenced a Jay Severin show on the subject and a 1993 Dave Barry piece on Bill Clinton.  Frank Skeffington objected Obama hadn’t even taken office yet… and you jumped in to defend Jay and bostonshepherd.  True to form, you even added some factually inaccurate snark.

            <

            p>

            One other difference between Dave Barry and Jimmy Severnio… (6.00 / 3)
            Clinton was in office for two weeks before Barry wrote his piece.  Severnio bought the “Impeach Obama” domain name BEFORE Obama was even elected.
            by: FrankSkeffington @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:26:45 PM EST
            [ Reply |   ]

            You reap what you sow, Frank (0.00 / 0)
            The Office of the President Elect was in operation for 6 weeks – press conferances, even an official seal – before Obama actally BECAME President Elect on Dec. 15 (ever heard of faithless electors?  If Obama had been on tape agreeing to a cut of the take from Blago, he might not have BECOME President Elect as the electors were not bound to vote for him!).

            Two weeks vs. Six weeks – timing is about right.

            Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican
            by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 13:29:15 PM EST

            <

            p>

Archives