Democrats Who Targeted Thomas And Estrada Weep Over Sotomayor's 'Diversity' And 'Story'

Start Thinking Right ^ | June 1, 2009 | Michael Eden

[Michael Eden]

The quintessential defining characteristic of liberalism is hypocrisy. In a world in constant flux, that is the one thing that is always the same.

Democrats warn Republicans to oppose Sonia Sotomayor at their own peril. Because, if Republicans stand behind conservative principles and oppose Sotomayor, they will be branded as "racists" by the party that has essentially made demagogic and racist "race-baiting" part of their platform.

Democrats claim that the fact that Sotomayor is a Latina makes her nomination beyond reproach. They weep over her "diversity." Did they take that approach with Miguel Estrada? No, they filibustered him for two years until he finally withdrew rather than put his career in limbo forever. And do I even have to remind anyone of the "high-tech lynching" Democrats used against Clarence Thomas?

Why didn't "diversity" matter when an African-American and a Hispanic were publicly destroyed and torpedoed by liberals?

Democrats weep over Sotomayor's "story." And she certainly has a story, rising out of the housing projects in the Bronx to attain to the highest courts in the land.

But, surely, you know that these same Democrats utterly and brutally ignored Miguel Estrada's and Clarence Thomas' "stories."

Miguel Estrada immigrated to the United States as a teenager and spoke almost no English when he got here. And yet, in an obviously incredible story of intelligence, dedication, and hard-work, he went on to graduate magna cum laude from Columbia University before going on to earn his law degree from Harvard.

And Democrats rewarded his incredible "story" by literally blocking him forever with a filibuster, vowing never to allow his nomination to come up for a vote. After two years, he got the message and withdrew his nomination.

Not only did Sonia Sotomayor not weep over Estrada's story, but she was a member of a radical Hispanic group that sought to kill his nomination.

What about Clarence Thomas? He grew up in abject poverty as the child of a single mother who labored as a maid. The family depended on church assistance to make it month-to-month. His community lacked a sewage system or even paved roads. When he was seven years old, Clarence's mother was forced to remarry because the family's house burned to the ground - and Clarence and his brother were sent away to live with his grandfather.

Is that enough of a story for you?

It certainly didn't matter to Democrats, who savagely attacked him.

BOTH of these "stories" are more impressive and more touching - and certainly more desperate - than the story of Sonia Sotomayor. But the same people who used every tactic to oppose - including the worst kind of vicious personal destruction - are now telling us that we have to support Sonia Sotomayor or be branded as "racists."

My God.

I remember coming across a terrible black joke:

How do you stop five black men from rape? Throw them a basketball.

This is among the worst of all racist portrayals of black men: out of control beasts unable to control their lewd sexual appetites. And it was precisely how Democrats chose to attack Clarence Thomas.

All the Democrats basically did was replace "basketball" with "coke can." The same underlying point remained: he's a black man; you have to know he won't be able to keep his snake in his pants."

There is no racism like the racism of the left, especially when they are opposing a conservative of color. He or she is an Uncle Tom or an Aunt Jemimah. A race traitor. An "Oreo Cookie" (or a "Twinkie" for a "white-acting" Asian, or a "coconut" for a "white-acting" Hispanic). You had better damn well tow the liberal ideology and be the kind of black or Hispanic that liberals want you to be or they will come after you.

The woman who made the accusations against Clarence Thomas had followed on his coat tails during his rise. Anita Hill followed Clarence Thomas from the U.S. Department of Education to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. According to her own testimony, she acknowledges that she chose to follow Clarence Thomas - in spite of the fact that she was a career employee whose job did not depend on Thomas - AFTER she alleged that he sexually harrased her. And she waited until the statute of limitations for a sexual harassment charge had expired SIXTEEN TIMES OVER to try to torpedo him.

Hence Thomas' characterization of a "high-tech lynching." By Democrats. Against a candidate who brought "diversity" and had an incredibly compelling personal "story."

The term "Borking" describes the introduction of the politics of personal destruction by Democrats.

And the politics of racial identity - perpetuating racism by endlessly focusing on and politicizing race - is at the heart of the Democratic agenda.

Sonia Sotomayor is a true believer in identity politics. In her public statements and in her legal decisions she has ripped the blindfold off of Lady Justice and made race a centerpiece of her judicial philosophy.

Sotomayor's ruling have been overturned by the Supreme Court five of the six times a case she has ruled on has appeared before them - including one decision that was so horrendous that she was overruled 8-0. And in the ONLY case that they DIDN'T overturn they said her reasoning was atrocious. And the Supreme Court is likely to see her racial bias against white firefighters and overturn her decision yet again.

Obama and his liberal allies are saying, "Stop drawing old battle lines" against my Supreme Court pick. Obama loves to present himself as taking a lofty position above the lowly political divisions that lowly non-messiahs create.

But, this again is a measure of flagrant and blatant liberal hypocrisy: Obama voted against Roberts and Alito and sided with those who wanted to filibuster. Obama filibustered Bush's picks on ideological grounds, and then has the "audacity of hope" to condemn Republicans for doing what he himself did?

I'm not urging Republicans to follow in the footsteps of Barack Obama and filibuster his nomination the way Obama hypocritically filibustered Bush's nominations. But I AM arguing that Republicans should make it absolutely clear that Democrats are the most craven and cynical of hypocrites, who use race like a club to attack any opposition to their nominees who will pursue racist identity politics even as they've absolutely destroyed nominees of color.

Republicans should retell the stories of Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada over and over again, and demand Democrats answer why "diversity" and "compelling personal story" only matter when the candidates are liberals. They should confront Sotomayor with her statement that female Latina judges come to a "better conclusion" than a white male and ask why - given that no white male could survive such a statement - she believes there should be a racially-biased double standard. They should ask Sotomayor to account for the fact that the Supreme Court has overturned her decisions at least 83% of the time (and growing), and ask her if it has been she or the Supreme Court which has been incompetent. They should ask Sotomayor why she thinks judges should be able to "make policy," such that she places her "Latina feminist" perspective over the Constitution.

They should ask Sotomayor why she feels that her being a Latina woman gives her a better understanding of the law than a white male, but why she campaigned to destroy the nomination of the Latino judge Miguel Estrada. Why does she claim that ethic perspective in her case, but not in Miguel Estrada's case?

They should ask Sotomayor to describe her "empathy" in light of her decision - fortunately overturned by the Supreme Court - which would have costs Americans billions more in energy costs. How did siding with "extreme environmental groups" constitute "empathy" for ordinary Americans?

They should make it clear that the Democrats who argue that Sotomayor made a "poor word choice" and "would have phrased herself differently" if given the opportunity were the self-same Democrats who destroyed Senator George Allen for the single word "macaca" (which no one YET understands). Why should George Allen have been driven out of public life for a single word, when Sotomayor offered a full-bodied racist statement?

They should raise all of these issues and more, and they should keep pressing until they get answers that the American people can hear and understand.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

Why didn’t “diversity” matter when an African-American and a Hispanic were publicly destroyed and torpedoed by liberals?

Because it wasn’t “diverse left”.....

[Kudsman]

quintessential defining characteristic of liberalism is hypocrisy.

You've got to understand that it is only to us that it appears to be hypocrisy. To them it is regarded as consistency. Oppose anything that doesn't further "progress".

[RexBeach]

The Democrats are very good at differentiating “good stories” and “inappropriate stories.”

But then, it is politics. Don’t forget that. It will help keep your blood pressure down.

[SMM48]

Has anyone mentioned yet that upChuck Schumer is a steaming pile of excrement? I just felt like saying that.

[rockrr]

Thanks for the article. The mention of her affiliation and activism in the group PRLDEF which campaigned to scuttle the Estrada nomination just adds another stone around her neck.

The woman is completely inappropriate for the job!

[Michael Eden]

The Democrats are very good at differentiating “good stories” and “inappropriate stories.”

But then, it is politics. Don’t forget that. It will help keep your blood pressure down.

It used to be that politics and the rest of reality were largely disconnected from one another.

But now, "only politics" involves literally bankrupting the country and imploding our entire way of life within a very few short years.

And that DOES have my blood pressure up a bit.

[Michael Eden]

You've got to understand that it is only to us that it appears to be hypocrisy. To them it is regarded as consistency. Oppose anything that doesn't further "progress"

Thanks for helping bridge the "Delusional Fool-to-English" dictionary. I often need help with understanding liberalism.

Hypocrisy is "consistent" as long as liberals do it all the time in every single case. Gotcha. Should have realized.

[Kudsman]

But by all means we must continue shouting that it is indeed hypocrisy because not all recorders of history are Liberal. Yet. ;-P

[Michael Eden]

But by all means we must continue shouting that it is indeed hypocrisy because not all recorders of history are Liberal. Yet. ;-P

Thank God. Because I hate that damn "Delusional Fool-to-English Dictionary."

One day we will be hunting liberals down with dogs.

In the meantime we must fight to keep from being placed in re-education camps.

[RexBeach]

Step outside and go for a nice walk.

At some point all of this is gonna hit a wall and splatter.

It’s at that time that the adults get control of government back in their hands.

I am confident of it.

[4Speed]

Ping

[Michael Eden]

Step outside and go for a nice walk.

Well, you offer good advice.

How about if I go halfway with you?

I'll step outside and run around screaming, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

I truly think we are heading into a depression that will make the one in the 1930s look tame. First we'll become "Greater Zimbabwe" as our dollar devalues to nothing, and then the bottom will REALLY drop.

I don't think the United States is eternal. I don't think we can never be defeated or destroyed. Rather, I see us rushing toward our doom and imploding ourselves to such an extent that we never recover in a world that would never let us regain our preeminence if we ever go down.

Hence all the high blood pressure and 'Chicken Little' stuff.

[Michael Eden]

Thanks for the article. The mention of her affiliation and activism in the group PRLDEF which campaigned to scuttle the Estrada nomination just adds another stone around her neck.

Thanks for the nice note.

My goal is to provide documentation for what I'm saying, so that people can have the resources to back up what they're saying as they argue around the water coolers and coffee tables.

Why does Sotomayor's "diversity" matter, such that we should make her a judge over us, when she herself determined that Miguel Estrada - who shared that same "diversity" - should be torpedoed?

[RexBeach]

If it makes you feel better, go right ahead!

We’ll be OK, and so will you and the nation.

Keep smiling.

-Rex

[Michael Eden]

Well, YOU’RE a cheerful fellow, aren’t you?

Can’t stay too gloomy and doomy around a guy like you :)

I’ll try to take a couple of deep breaths and look away from all the dark clouds rolling in.

On my Christian theology, I’ll be okay no matter what happens to the economy or the country. So I’ll go ahead and find my “happy place.”

[STE=Q]

"macaca" (which no one YET understands).

Spanish for mushugina?(Yiddish)

STE=Q