You know, now you do probably have a point there - I am sure most of the lawyers in congress aspire in their own minds to the Supreme Court.
I am not excusing what the Democrats do when they behave in their usual way. But that is all they are doing here. I really don't care about them and their morals. That's too big a job. I do care about the Republican Party. It is the last hope for this country to return to some sanity and some togetherness. This kind of behavior just helps to make it less and less a possibility.
I appreciate that you get to say what you believe - that is a good thing - but I would like the same courtesy and so far, you have given me that. I just ask that you truthfully look at the way it has been handled and the way the Republican party has been 'courting' the Hispanic (what every the heck that is - someone tell me) vote. You can't deny that - it is there for all to see. That is racial politics. So was the Trent Lott situation. The President wanted him gone (as did everyone else in this country besides him and possibly his wife) - but to use racial politics to do it does not do this country any good. It only does it harm. YOu have to see that.
Mr. Estrada may very well be the most qualified man on the face of the earth - perhaps that is one of the reasons he is being opposed.
No one should deny their affiliations - but affiliations and race are two different things, I think. But the President of the US, when nominating, hiring, etc., HAD BETTER NOT use it as one of the reasons, or he is not being President of the US - but just another pandering politician.
Racial politics is bad - in fact, it is the main reason this country is in the shape it is today. The Republican party with Pres. Bush and the congress could go a long way to changing that - instead they are just adding to the problem.
You're right. This is confusing.
I agree that chosing a candidate based on race is (probably) wrong (in any situations I can think of, anyway). I may change my mind someday, but right now I think affirmative action, where one group is favored over another, is wrong.
I'm sure affirmative action was responsible for the insufficient student aid my older girls got when they attended college. Students from objectively much better-off families than ours, who happened to belong to "minorities," got more student aid at two different all-women colleges. (My kids were best friends with "minority" students and knew their friends' backgrounds.) I'm glad this unfair policy, based on race rather than need, seems to be changing now.
I can't see where anyone is being hurt by Estrada's nomination, unlike the cases of affirmative-action, where non-minority candidates are hurt.
I think you and I have two different definitions of what type of behavior toward an individual is racist and what isn't. I say it's unrealistic to totally ignore people's affiliations and backgrounds. (Maybe I have some prejudice here, because biographies are my favorite books to read. I love to hear people's life stories). You seem to say it is realistic.
I certainly can't read Bush's mind to see if he has the totally pure motivations in nominating Estrada that you would like him to have.
If I had heard Bush say, "I have nominated Miguel Angel Estrada because he is latino, I might begin to think there is a problem. But I haven't heard Bush say that. If Bush were only nominating Latinos, and shutting out other qualified candidates, I would definitely begin to worry.
I've think I've heard other people saying Bush chose Estrada because he is Hispanic. And, if memory serves me right, those people have been liberals who are against the Estrada nomination. (I've got no interest in finding any documentation on this)
Anyway, I can't see why Estrada should be punished for Bush's imperfections, if it is true Bush has bad motivations.