Pages Menu
Categories Menu
  • Still a brilliant pick by Obama – on both practical and tactical platforms.

    If only people would stop with the “she’s got to explain her ‘wise latina’ comment” idiocy. She already explained the comment – it’s called context and it’s something just about everyone with an opinion on the matter has failed to read.

  • Just curious, what does “Even in San Diego” mean? Is there some reason why the debate wouldn’t touch San Diego in particular?

  • DLS

    The choice is practical, not brilliant. Any opposition to her will be seized on by the “identity politics” crowd (neurotically obscessed with race, ethnity, sex, etc. more than any racists or sexists are) as “racist” or “sexist” [sic] and used as a club to whack the “racist, sexist” [sic] Republicans. Obama knew what he was doing. Her statements are disturbing to decent, normal people but far from the worst kinds of activism on the bench itself, the thing better people fear and loathe the most, and she has the kind of experience (on the bench, not as a politician or celebrity, which may dismay some liberals) that qualifies her. The GOP only looks dysfunctional (again) if it conducts a vigorous opposition to her being seated.

    * * *

    “what does ‘Even in San Diego’ mean?”

    San Diego is not “above” the intelligent debate concerning Obama’s selection, nor so hopelessly and mindlessly liberal that it is in silent, obedient, robotic lock-step with Obama and Congressional Dems.

  • Something tells me that’s not what it meant, DLS. San Diego is notoriously conservative, far, far from liberal. And the powers that be down there pretty much hate the Latino community altogether.

  • casualobserver

    Gandelman is a former San Diego Tribune obit writer. I think he just wanted to put a little hometown reference into his blog today.

  • The pick was win/win for Obama and liberals in general, lose/lose for Republicans and their more conservative base.

    Downgrade the choice to sub-brilliance if it makes you feel better DLS, but under any honest analysis Obama made a very smart political move with Sotomayor’s nomination.

  • DLS

    “San Diego is notoriously conservative, far, far from liberal.”

    When I lived there, the young people called it “Slow Death” for obvious reasons.

    “Downgrade the choice to sub-brilliance if it makes you feel better DLS, but under any honest analysis Obama made a very smart political move with Sotomayor’s nomination.”

    Oh, without a doubt. There’s no really valid criticism of her and any criticism that is given will be used to skewer the Republicans (mainly dishonestly, but nevertheless effectively). Plus it appeals to multiple Dem special-interest quota-clamoring groups at once. I’ll just wonder aloud for a moment why politics should take such importance with a choice of a Supreme Court justice. (The answer is, decades of liberal judicial activism _plus_ special-interest-related “identity politics” these days.)

  • I don’t know that skewering Republicans for calling Sotomayor a “racist” based on quotes pulled from context qualifies as “dishonest.”

    And then there’s the dishonest nature of “judicial activism” and “identity politics,” both phrases which have become cliche and are as poorly understood by those using them as charges of “socialism” end up being on deeper examination.

    In other words: lots of irony to be had in your commentary DLS.

  • DLS

    “the dishonest nature of ‘judicial activism’ and ‘identity politics,'”

    There’s nothing dishonest or incorrect about how I use these terms. The real question, an honest issue, on the other hand, is why some would object to their correct, honest use. Why does that bother them, or what are they afraid of, actually? That’s as disturbing as the revealing agitation expressed by defenders of these practices, especially judicial activism.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :