Arkansas Blog

So now the left is going to use the old Republican defense of "but he did it first"?

I say we should push the positives of the Obama nominees instead of searching every obscure utterance of Bush, Bush and Reagan nominees. The neocons will come off as petty and childish if we remain composed.

We can't hope to force the right to act grownup if our response is infantile. One of the best results of the Obama administration so far in my oppinion is that he refuses to be dragged down into the gutter by his opposition.

The only place where white supremacists from the East, North, Beltway , and occassionally from the West, still feel entitlement is at SCOTUS. That began to crumble when the first Jew stepped foot into that hallowed bench some 75 years ago. Then came another and finally Thurgood Marshall was appointed. Then Sandra Day O'Connor. Now Sotomayor.
So the white supremacists hierarchy is
Jew
Black
Female
HIspanic
and next what? American Native or Asian?
.

If stupidity were poison, all Republicans would have long since suffered painful deaths.

When we deal with them, we must remember that our mothers taught us that it is not proper to kick cripples.

How dare anyone suggest or even hint hypocrisy and Republicanism are synonymous!
(Larry Flynt proved that a decade ago....but it dealt with sex, not race)

In his 2007 book, The Conscience of a Liberal, Paul Krugman made the point that the way Saint Ronald brought "movement conservatives" (as he styles them) to power was by showing them a way to tap white backlash nationwide and turn the "solid South" solidly Republican without being expressly racist. He announced his candidacy in Philadelphia, Mississippi, talking about "big government" -- and white southerners knew what he meant. He told anecdotes of doubtful authenticity about "welfare Cadillacs," -- and bigoted people knew who he meant had them.

Krugman is convincing on that, and it does appear that the coalition of the religiously and ethnically bigotted with anti-regulation, anti-labor investors is falling apart on the issue of immigration. So I don't think it is getting down in the gutter with them to point out that heirs to the late Republican hegemony effected by Ronald Reagan are hypocritical to charge anyone else with racism.

I have an easy answer for why "a young person whose success in life was virtually assured by family wealth and academic achievement to enlist in a political campaign designed to deny opportunities for success to those who lack his advantages". That's almost as easy as "where does the sun come up". The reason that Roberts and many others with that same background don't want opportunities for all is that it might decrease opportunities for the rich white males. If we all compete on a level playing field, then certainly some person of color, some chick or some other "not exactly like him" might show him or his buddies up and they'd lose a little position or prestige.

Just like it's way too easy for some folks to pull back their white hoods and call Judge Sotomayor a racist. No one, not me, not Chief Justice Roberts, not Scalia, not the President makes decisions in a vacuum. No one makes decisions without the influence of the life they've led. That's not a bad thing, it's the way humans were made. If we wanted completely impartial decisions, we'd have a computer, not a Supreme Court.

Supreme Court justices are not the open-minded men and women seeking the truth we expect them to be. They are opinionated people who have the power to change society, for better or for worse, by interpreting laws to suit their preconceived notions. Justices have the advantage over beer-drinking Americans by being eloquent and can refer to more than 200 years of opinions to support their preconceptions. That's the only advantage.

why is it that when a Republican pres nominates a judge,the left all get up in arms over Roe-v-Wade and such,and not only oppose the nominee,but try to destroy them;Allito,Thomas,etc. But when a democrat nominates someone who has been overturned several times and been scolded by her democrat colleagues for missing the point of the cases she decided,we are all just supposed to shut up ?as to the repubs being racists what party was George Wallace?Bull Connor?Andrew Jackson,the founder of the democrat party was the most anti-Indian,Pro-slavery politician ever as pres he tried to stop aboltionist mail (mostly from northern repubs)from being delivered down South,of course,y'all wont deal with facts point by point,you'll just call me names and say a bunch of mean things.Heres an idea,why dont i give your pres the same respect you gave mine for the past 8 years

I read an article earlier this week by Jeffery Toobin on John Roberts. In it he said:

"After four years on the Court, however, Roberts's record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party."

Which may be due to the fact that he has not only lived and worked among the of wealthy of Washington, but also came from an easy, privledged life...he has never been the "little guy". Hell, he may not even know any of the "little guys" unless they are cutting his lawn or taking care of his kids.
We all are a reflection of our experiences no matter what they are. It just seems that among Republicans the only "empathy" that counts is the kind that comes down on the side of the white male privildged class over the rest of us.

Luckily this nomination has brought the ugly underbelly of the Conservative movement right to the top. We all knew they hated anyone who was not a white dude....now we can just see it more clearly.

Full article on Roberts at the blue name.

I'm sorry truck, I can't find a way to make myself respect Dick Cheney.

I love it when the GOP becomes more and more the party of angry white southern males.

Sure, it's OK for conservatives to give Obama the same respect that liberals gave Bush -- as long as you accept that you're a traitor and hate your country. Because that's what you said about us back then. I got tired of being told I should leave the country if I didn't vote Republican.

When you change your name from truckmetal23 to traitor23 and start posting from another country because you left this one, like you told us to do if we didn't agree, then your point will be accurate.

>>Heres an idea,why dont i give your pres the same respect you gave mine for the past 8 years<<

Well, well. Someone whose sorta willing to stand up and claim 43. Since we're on the topic of
Supreme Court nominees we can extend you that respect.

Just do as Demos were told to do back then and give President Obama an "Up or Down Vote"
on this SCOTUS nominee. Hopefully you realize Demos have a majority in both Houses of Congress.

.""why is it that when a Republican pres nominates a judge,the left all get up in arms over Roe-v-Wade and such,and not only oppose the nominee,but try to destroy them;""

What was it that yo boy Huckabuck was trying to do last week when he couldn't even spell the nominee's first name? Then he went on to disparage her in untruthful ways.
Even your fellow rightwingers didn't think much of his ways. click on eLwood.
.

Not that my opinion counts for much, but I quit all that respecting the office of the President crap a long time ago. It IS what a President does that earns our respect. I would gladly honor and respect a Republican President as long as he wasn't just a puppet put forth by old Nixon men bent on world domination. I voted for Jerry Ford over Carter. At the time I respected Nixon and was sorry when he was hounded out of office.....and boy, is that hard to type in 2009, but it's the truth.

I have no respect for anyone who served in a high ranking position in the Bush administration...because they were CROOKS. And a series of investigations will back up my charges in all areas. If President Obama acts like a crook during his time in office I'll gladly remove my respect and call him every name in the book. All I ask from any elected official is honestly.

You're argument can be as wrong as rain and I'll respect it. But I will not respect criminals, I will not be party to a charade such as was pulled on this country by those who pretended George W. Bush was the President during his 8 year long crime spree. Dishonesty and greed have about killed America. If Obama isn't doing all he can to correct those two problems, our country will die. Just that simple.

"as to the repubs being racists what party was George Wallace?Bull Connor?Andrew Jackson, ..." TruckMetal23

TM23- your post kind of disproves your point. Let's see, you mentioned George Wallace who had to switch to the American Independence Party and that was some 40 or more years ago. Bull Connor? That good ol' boy was voting Republican long before he dropped his party affiliation. And Andrew Jackson? Gosh, Andy died 164 years ago. How special of you to be so current!

Maybe the point is that the Republican Party seems collectively proud of its racism and blocking large numbers of Americans from the American dream, while a handful of folks who claimed to be members of the Democratic Party were not so welcome when their racism became public.

And you gotta admit George W. Bush is pretty dense. He can't even speak 1 language, for heaven's sake! Maybe the first clue was him being a cheerleader in college- a male cheerleader. And all that drinking and reported coke snorting didn't help by cutting down what few brain cells he had to begin with. Just saying.

Same-sex marriage may kill America.

Most but not all Arkansas Blog Razorbabies here and around the country are opposite-sex Americans like Carrie Prejean.

So we don't get how same-sex equality is this close to killing America.

Here's how - and why.

Religion - particularly the unlikely Catholic / Mormon / Evangelical cartel -- is determined to control civil law for the rest of us. Determined, in fact, to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and Amendments based on their religious dogma. Determined to legally establish America as a "Christian" nation. That's unconstitutional.

And it's stealthily succeeding. If, in fact, it hasn't already.

The trained sheep have been taught it's not "nice" to talk about others' religion. So let's go . . . .

Since Eisenhower's warning against "the military industrial complex," and long before, religion's gradually insinuated itself - through passive-aggressive coercive "prayer" breakfasts, "faith-based" events - into education (school boards, Creationism battles), politics, law enforcement and the military.

The Air Force Academy Christian proselytizing scandals, revelations of military officers and chaplains proselytizing the troops, et al., were the tip of the iceberg.

It's pervasive. Like last week's soldier's comment that serving the Army was one "24 / 7 [anti-] gay joke."

Razorbabies, for millennia the Religio-Political "complex" has used every weapon in its considerable arsenal - including genocide - to acquire and maintain power, wealth, control and conformity.

Same-sex equality is Religion's last-ditch watershed in America.

The Catholic / Mormon / Evangelical cartel spent over $83 million in California last year to ensure passage of the horrifically discriminatory Prop. 8 that sets precedence for altering the Constitution to allow a religious majority to deny equal rights to a demonized minority who disagrees with their Carrie Prejean "faith" dogma.

The rise, through attrition, of younger generations - including religious ones - who are PRO-same-sex equality and increasingly LESS religiously orthodox - younger generations informed by the internet, asking questions, getting answers outside the proscribed envelope - the states and nations including countries like Catholic Spain who've successfully side-stepped their own religious Talibans and instituted full same-sex civil rights - the astonishing decline in religious attendance in Western Europe - the child-abuse horrors in the Catholic Church around the world, most recently exposed in a decades' long report last week in Ireland - all that and more begs one question:

"Why the hysteria? Why the lies and vicious propaganda? Why the $83 million? Why hate on Ellen and Portia? What's really at stake, here, for Religion?"

Here's what.

It's now or never for religious fundamentalists obsessed with turning Washington, D.C. into Tehran West.

Religion ENTIRELY controls civil equality and Constitutional rights for same-sex Americans in 2009 and for the foreseeable future, unless the 14th Amendment is upheld, which it was not in the recent California decision. Prop. 8 directly violates the U.S. Constitution's Amendment 14. That violation was UPHELD by California's Supreme Court!

Will the same violation be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Five current Supreme Court Justices are Catholic. Sotomayer will be the sixth Catholic out of nine Justices. Their religion shouldn't matter, except it does. Religious affiliation is HUGE in politics. The Catholic religion (just 23% of American religious) will control two-thirds of the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you think that's an accident, or coincidence, or that religious fundamentalists are not determined to control women's reproductive health decisions (by reversing Roe v. Wade) and prevent full Constitutional equality for same-sex Americans by writing religious discrimination into our Constitution - if you don't think this is carefully crafted over decades, and capable of destroying America and our Constitution for decades to come - if you don't think things are "really" that bad, or that it's only a "few religious extremists," if you think Justices won't legislate their religion (when they already HAVE) you're naïve about contemporary history, politics and religion.

LGBT Americans aren't trying to change anybody's religion. Legal marriage and its 1,100-odd attendant rights doesn't require ANY religion. Atheists can marry. The truth, as usual with religionists, is the opposite of what they say: religionists are trying - and succeeding - at forcing religious dogma on American Constitutional law.

The United States Supreme Court just this week significantly ruled AGAINST our Constitution's Sixth Amendment - the right to legal counsel - with Catholic "conservative" Alito writing for the majority 5-4 opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/opinion/30sat3.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

For a discussion of the religious right's current trajectory:

http://blog.buzzflash.com/interviews/156

THAT'S why all this is so vital to the religious right. If they can't take over America NOW, they never will.

If religion DOES take over now, THAT'S why same-sex marriage will kill America.

Citizen1,
" . . . We can't hope to force the right to act grownup if our response is infantile. . . ."

I don't want to force them to any position. Let them think and come to their own conclusions. That does require adults, but to judge by the contrarion posts, lack of spelling and grammatical skills and inability to reference facts and sources other than blog diatribes (like "Bungalow Bill's Conservative Wisdom Blogspot" or http://www.theamericanparty.org), maybe juveniles are all that is left.

truckmetal23,
". . . Heres an idea,why dont i give your pres the same respect you gave mine for the past 8 years . . ."

Gee whiz, truckmetal! I thought you already were! But, just to correct one misconception of yours, Bush, the Younger, and Obama are both OUR Presidents. I did not have to like what Bush did, nor do you have to like what Obama does. We are not required to give them fealty or necessarily respect.

dbi,

Don't feel bad. I voted for Nixon in '72. I was fooled by the Creep tricks. I had a different viewpoint on "Nixon being hounded from office" and Ford versus Carter.

I was on active duty in the Navy in Europe from 1974-76, returning a few weeks before the election. My news sources were the Herald Tribune, Corriere della Sera, Le Figaro, BBC, Italian Television, L'Unione Sarda and whatever television and radio tapes the ultra-conservative Navy allowed us to hear and see. For example, I had never heard of Led Zeppelin and never heard "Stairway to Heaven" until I started graduate school and was listening to a girl's record collection while sipping wine one night.

The movie "Good Morning, Vietnam" censorship of music was like listening to the Head Banger's Ball in comparison to what the Navy had D.J.'s like Charlie Tuna and Long John Silver put on tape for shipboard rock and roll entertainment.

However, over there I did not feel Nixon was "hounded out of office," just that he didn't wnt to face the music of an impeachment trial because of fear for what it could reveal that wasn't out yet. Nixon's characterization of Ford on the Watergate tapes transcripts and Ford's joining the cover-up by pardoning Nixon made it impossible for me to even consider voting for him.

eLwood,
I would say of your heirarchy following an Asian and Native American, that hopefully by then, the bulk of the white boys will "get it." But then again, I thought in the 60's that full civil rights would be achieved in a generation.