Posts
There are several very disturbing things about Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor. For example, there is her seemingly casual reverse racism, there is her belief that the Second Amendment is not binding on the states, and there is her pro-plaintiff orientation that she takes the plaintiff's side even in cases where the law is so clear that her decision is overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court. These are serious. But we will never get to them - and never have a chance to explain them to the public at large - if the idiots are let loose to make ad hominem attacks on Judge Sotomayor.
Case in point - at the top of Memorandum today, sucking the air away from everything that really matters, is an entry by Think Progress memorializing talk show host G. Gordon Liddy's attempt at humor, saying of Judge Sotomayer.
Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.
This is the type of ad hominem attack I would expect out of the left. It is not what I would expect out of the right. It is puerile and counterproductive in the extreme. Let's hope someone smacks some sense into Mr. Liddy in the near future - and indeed, all on the right who are exaggerating the case against Judge Sotomayor. I have previously commented on the non-issue of her statement saying that appellate courts make policy - they in fact do, and that is not coextensive with judicial activism. And see No Oil For Pacifists, who takes on today those on the right who are exaggerating the attack on Judge Sotomayor in other ways. If we don't clean this up and focus on what matters, it will allow the left to effectively discount all of our arguments.
4 comments:
The problem, GW, is that you can't control everything that everyone says, especially when it comes to talk radio, where everyone needs to have their own schtick to create the competing audiences.
Was it an infantile, stupid comment? Uhhh, YES. Do I oft times cringe at comments Mark Levin or Limbaugh make? You betcha. But if I were to count the cringes against the "aha's", it would not be close.
Rather than criticize our own when they err, we would be much better off trotting out soundbites of Ted Kennedy at any one of a half dozen conservative nominee hearings. The Dem's get to say whatever they want and get away with it. I, for one, am through playing this game. Rules for us, but not for them. I can and will control myself. You, the same, can write respectfully and intelligently as you do. But neither of us should waste any time criticizng our own. These times, as you have pointed out, are much too serious and ominous. We have bigger fish to fry.
We will have to agree to partially disagree on that one. You might want to see the post directly above this. I guess the way I see it is that there I have a set of rules I will play by, but I refuse to play by the hypocritical rules the left wants to impose upon me. Indeed, exposing the hypocrisy of the left needs to be job one - or two at least - between now and election day 2010. Failing to criticize their own or hold them accountable is one of the greatest sins of the left, I think.
Were I in charge of questioning Sotomayor at the hearings, my first ten minutes would be to tell the story of Miguel Estrada and question Sotomayor on what she thought of his treatment. The next ten would dwell on her own statements that can only be interpreted as reverse racism, shortly thereafter to trot out the firemen whose complaint of reverse racism she dismissed without even deigning to comment on their complaint.
Our entire goal has to be to educate the public as to what is really going on with the left and their racist identity politics that is destroying our country. But the target audience will tune out before we ever get to it if the left has spent the entire run up to the hearings screaming about the puerile musings of Liddy et al. That is how I see it at least.
I read the article by York this morning,GW. It's more icing on the cake for my rational. Yes, we must educate ourselves and everyone we speak with on our point of view. And yes, we must be ready to attack and counter attack the libs with their own words (kinda Saul Alynsky style, if you get my drift). But I also recognize the solidarity of the Dems and see that as a prominent strength that the Republicans lack. We are out of power. By criticizing every perceived misstep of those on our own side, we only weaken ourselves further.
Your approach to the hearings is excellent. Tough, smart, pointed, revealing, tutorial, but don't be obnoxious, impolite, nor attack her character. That is, as long as she is of esteemed character, which I assume is the case.
>>Failing to criticize their own or hold them accountable is one of the greatest sins of the left.>>
Hold them accountable for what? As far as they're concerned, there are no rules except those that will place them in power. If one of theirs breaks _our_ rules, well then, tough taffy. If we have the political power and will to make it stick, fine - we should do so. If we don't have the political force to hold them accountable, we might as well suck it up, because they do _not_ have the will to prosecute or hold their own accountable.
Except behind the scenes, I'll bet. Wrongdoing on their sides just means they have something to hold over someone's head. "Do as we say or else...!" Wrongdoing on our side is a way for them to get rid of one more conservative.
It's a double bind. Criticizing our own is - imo - what we should do, but at the same time, it weakens us and does the Dems dirty work for them.
Post a Comment