Estrada filibuster may galvanize Latino voters

The Detroit News ^ | Tuesday, April 29, 2003 | Ruben Navarette

[BOBTHENAILER]

After several failed attempts by Senate Republicans to break a Democratic filibuster, it's starting to look as if Miguel Estrada may never make it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The controversial Bush nominee may have to settle for the strangest of consolation prizes: his name plastered on bumper stickers in the 2004 election.

[syriacus]

Early on the Democrats claimed Estrada isn't Hispanic enough. In other words, to them, he is the wrong kind of Hispanic.

This is from a year ago.

Posted on Fri, May. 03, 2002 A fine judicial nominee (Miguel Estrada)

Rodolfo F. Acuña argues in his April 26 Otherviews column that Miguel Estrada, President Bush's nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, would be a poor choice because he is ''not representative of Latinos.'' [snip]

• ``Estrada does not identify with the struggles or aspirations of most U.S. Latinos. He appears not to have experienced discrimination or unequal educational experiences.''

[votelife]

I have major doubts as to whether nanny is a conservative. He seems like a disruptor, though I could be wrong.

[votelife]

I am done responding to nanny. If he insists on thinking the way she does about Estrada, then let her.

But I bring up a quote of Reagan's:

"I urge you to beware the temptation of pride - the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil."

This is from http://www.presidentreagan.info/speeches/empire.cfm
a speech to the National Evangelical Assn
This line is basically a statement against moral relativism. In the midst of the cold war some were saying the soviets are doing bad things, but so is the US, so it's all a big misunderstanding. Moral relativism is basically the refusal of moral truths, right and wrong. Reagan called his audience to support the US as opposed to taking the "can't we just get along stance"

[FITZ]

I think his ethnicity is like Clarence Thomas's ---it won't change minds of people who want to vote for democrats because they like more socialism ---but if he's a good guy to have in the office, he should be there. Clarence Thomas should be on the Supreme Court but not because he made a difference in the number of blacks voting for Republicans ---it didn't help at all but he's the right guy for the job regardless.

[nanny]

Please I know I have hit a nerve because I pointed out something despicable the Republicans are doing. I have that right - but there is no way you can deny it. You can say it is OK - or they have to resort to this - or whatever - but you can't deny it.

You know and I know that you do - this has been pushed forward as a Hispanic issue. You have read the posts.

Now I will repeat this- He as been nominated -partly because he is Hispanic - I didn't make that up - he has been characterized that way. You can't deny it now that we have been bombarded with the wonderfulness of it and how man Hispanics will come into the party ang how the President is reaching out to the Hispanics and how he is showing minorities he cares- blah, blah, blah.

This is vile racial politics.

The really sad part is some Republicans now have the audacity to say the Democrats are using racial politics because they are blocking him.

Now you may try to justify the actions - you can't. There is never justification for using a person's race for anything - anything.

But most of all - there is no way you can deny that race entered into this - race was used to defend it (as in attacking the Democrats) and that the President didn't use racial politics to get rid of Trent Lott. It's there for all to see - it is despicable for the DEmocrats -it is despicable for Republicans.

Instead of attacking me ( I am just one little old lady on a posting site for goodness sakes.) Those of you who have any influence might suggest to others that this is not the best way to present the Republican party. Unless of course, it doesn't matter how the party behaves as long as it wins - not sure what it wants to win or what it will have when it wins.

[nanny]

Now stick with me here - we are not questioning Mr. Estrada's political beliefs or his qualifications. That doesn't enter into what I am saying.

When reading posts on this board and quotes from party spokespersons - all I see is that he is a poor little Hispanic boy who came here and made good and now the dastardly democrats won't confirm him because he isn't liberal enough - and therefore they are racists. Another - The President is nominating the first Hispanic judge to the bench and the dastardly Democrats won't confirm him and therefore they are racists. Another -The nomination of this HIspanic will show the monorities that President Bush will put them in high places (Powell, Rice). Another - The nomination of this Hispanic will bring the Hispanics to the Republican party.

Now I haven't made those up - I haven't - the Republicans are playing racial politics.

They did also with Trent Lott. They are using it when it suits them and that is wrong - just plain wrong. It is wrong when the Democrats do it - it is worse for me when the Republicans do it. It takes away the last hope this country has of ever getting out of the quagmire of racial politics in this country. If we can't be above it, there is no one left to carry the banner of just how horrible it is.

Now attack me all you want - tell me what a wonderful man Mr. Estrada is (I have no doubt) - send me reams of his greatness - but you cannot disprove what I am saying. The Republicans are not above using racial politics and that is a very, very sad thing.

Now truly I am wondering why you are attacking me so. Do you not mind that if this continues, there will be no one left who has any credibility to point out the damage of racial politics? That doesn't bother you? It bothers me - but then of course, my primary aim is not keeping George Bush in office, or any Republican - my aim is in a better country. Republicans come and go and all they leave behind is what that have done or not done to this country - I don't like the latest tactics of racial politics - it's stench will linger for a long time.

[nanny]

This is a well-orchestrated plan by the Democrats, who hope to ensure that only liberal Hispanics will dare to aspire to those high positions.

Well that's a shocker - actually what it says to me is the Democrats want to ensure only liberals period will be passed. There is no way you can whitewash the Republicans on this - no way at all.

You know, goodness, I have just been treated to reams of this - yet no one has denied that President Bush has/is courting the HIspanics and please don't every try to tell me his ethnicity had nothing to do with his nomination. There were little whispers here and there - just a dropped line (back when I had TV) before his election that he would most probably get to nominate one or more Supreme Court Judges and he would most likely be nominating the first Hispanic to the court.

Now you can talk all around it - you can scream, rant, attack me - send me a veritable blizzard of pages of his qualifications - but you can't - you just can't deny that the President is playing racial politics - you just can't. "Everybody does it." A reason - but no excuse.

[syriacus]

Please I know I have hit a nerve because I pointed out something despicable the Republicans are doing.

Well, I'd guess you don't know, because you missed by mile.

You haven't answered my post about the author's apparent interest in Latino issues and in bias against Latinos. Is Ruben Navarette a Republican? I don't know.

I know I am not a Republican. I am not as nice as most Republicans. I was very liberal for many years and still haven't gotten rid of all my bad habits.

I do get het-up by the Democrats' tendency to smear pro-life people, which is why I left the Democratic party.

You know and I know that you do - this has been pushed forward as a Hispanic issue. You have read the posts.

Of course I've read them. And I think it's legitimate to say that, when Estrada (finally) gets his position on the Court, it will be a "first" for a Hispanic.

Estrada seems like an honest, hardworking genius to me and to many others. You don't seem to notice all the times people say he has many, many good qualities (see my list of a few examples up above, in post 137). You keep focusing on the race issue.

Please tell me... why aren't the Democrats allowing an up-and-down vote for Estrada?"

[syriacus]

Well that's a shocker - actually what it says to me is the Democrats want to ensure only liberals period will be passed.

You may need to alter your interpretation a bit. Columbus attorney Jeffrey Sutton was confirmed yesterday.

Sutton is not a liberal.

True the Democrats hate conservatives but they have a special animus towards Estrada.

Senate confirms Sutton to post, Cinc. Post, 4/30

Sutton had been in limbo because of opposition from Democrats, who accused the Bush administration of trying to pack the courts with conservative ideologues,[snip]

Throughout the debate, Sutton's critics portrayed him as a right-wing extremist intent on reducing the federal government's power to protect civil rights.

[syriacus]

no one has denied that President Bush has/is courting the HIspanics

Are Latinos undeserving of attention?

[syriacus]

There were little whispers here and there - just a dropped line (back when I had TV) before his election that he would most probably get to nominate one or more Supreme Court Judges and he would most likely be nominating the first Hispanic to the court.

He certainly chose a smart, hardworking Latino.

The ABA even gave a better rating to Estrada than they did to Sutton.

The ABA gave Sutton a minority of well-qualifieds and a majority of qualifieds.

Estrada got unanimous well-qualifieds.

[nanny]

Are Latinos undeserving of attention?

Boy, I knew I would get you sooner or later - so we are practicing racial politics - aren't we? Why didn't you just admit it to begin with and say you think it is fine or it shouldn't happen. Instead, I have had 2 or 3 people on here with long posts, and links, and yada, yada, yada trying to convince (not me) that President Bush has no interest in this man because he is Hispanic -

So now that you have admitted it - what do you think of it? Racial politics is OK if you are the one who is doing it? Racial politics is OK if you feel you cause is good enough? What?

My answer to your question - ALL AMERICANS are worth of attention - ALL - period. Anything different is vile racial politics - anyway you cut the pie.

Now quite frankly, you can keep wasting your breathe - but you have admitted what another poster finally did - well if we do it just a little, our back is against the wall, etc.

What is your stand on it - Do we look at Americans as Americans or as groups? Do we treat them as Americans or as groups? Those are your only two choices - you have no other - so make your choice - just be honest enough to admit it.

[nanny]

There were little whispers here and there - just a dropped line (back when I had TV) before his election that he would most probably get to nominate one or more Supreme Court Judges and he would most likely be nominating the first Hispanic to the court. He certainly chose a smart, hardworking Latino.

Now you have made my point. 'Nuff said.

[Saundra Duffy]

FREE MIGUEL!!!

[Saundra Duffy]

I cannot wait to see what bombs Dubya plans to drop.

I hope you're right. Let's roll!!!!!! (FREE MIGUEL)

[BOBTHENAILER]

FREE MIGUEL!!!

I love it...T-shirt & bumper sticker material....in certain states, billboard material.

Don't Janet Renoize Miguel Estrada.

[votelife]

FREE MIGUEL

[friendly]

The democrats are sending a not-too-subtle message to the "Hispanic" community: "You are on OUR plantation. You are are OUR property. Now don't you go getting any education or uppidity ideas...BOY!!!"

[syriacus]

I don't have anything against Latinos.

[syriacus]

Now you have made my point. 'Nuff said.

And your point is?

That people have to ignore their affiliations?