home

Crawford: Sotomayor Hearings Political Disaster For GOP

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:17:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Atrios, Craig Crawford describes the political disaster that the GOP has decided to perpetrate upon itself:

Watching Lindsey Graham's gotcha grin as he needled Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor with disingenuous and rhetorical questions you had to wonder what was so funny. Does the Republican senator think it is amusing that he and his party's condescending tone toward the Hispanic woman was costing them ethnic votes with each passing hour of Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing?

. . . Even if they vote for her, the fallout for Republicans could reach well beyond Hispanic voters. They are coming across as a bunch of snarky and bitter old white men who cannot bear the thought of their kind losing power.

The only thing that can make it worse for the GOP will be, as I noted earlier, if no Republicans vote for Sotomayor's confirmation. Here's hoping.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Tainted Generic Drugs Recalled >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Crawford: Sotomayor Hearings Political Disaster For GOP | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    His revealing comment (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:28:49 PM EST
    about white men being out of power will likely be one of the memorable moments of today's hearings.

    sorry i missed that. (none / 0) (#5)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:36:03 PM EST


    Parent
    They're coming out of the closet (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:39:28 PM EST
    putting on their white sheets and pointy hats and waiving their tortches around AND the media is covering it all live!

    It is fascinating really.  Like they think its the only way that they might have the slightest chance at winning.  Desperate, crazy and I hope people register and remember just how nasty this bunch really is.  They aren't in some state of "temporary" insanity - the only new thing about all this is that they no longer feel obliged to pretend to be anything but themselves.

    I thought he looked evil! (none / 0) (#31)
    by imhotep on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:16:32 PM EST
    That may be too strong a word, but the way he was smirking and drumming his fingers on the desk as if he were waiting for her to fall into his diabolically clever trap.

    Parent
    CNN was agog over Graham's (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by byteb on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:55:41 PM EST
    'performance'. Seriously. Wolf, Candy and Co. were starry eyed.

    Pathetic.

    ick. (none / 0) (#13)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:59:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Same as whoever Charlie Rose (none / 0) (#49)
    by sallywally on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 09:07:57 AM EST
    had on last night. Also my local TV news, which won a bunch of Edward R. Murrow awards - clearly undeserved! I've told them so.

    Parent
    Once upon a time (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 09:04:38 PM EST
    you could run campaigns Willie Horton-style, and not care if minority voters were outraged, because all you cared about was winning the lion's share of an overwhelmingly white country.  The numbers have changed.  You no longer get to write off everyone with a non-white face.

    Some people still need to adjust to the new reality.  This includes a lot of the pundits.  The key question is no longer "how will this play with the typical white male voter" as if the year was 1980.  When people praise a performance like Graham's today, the takeaway is that they simply aren't able to evaluate the full spectrum of reactions.

    Craig Crawford saw and heard (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 09:07:24 PM EST
    what I did, and was apparently as offended.  Makes me think that others who saw Graham - along with Sessions - witnessed as naked a display of contempt and bias as anything we have seen, lately, and I do not see anything good coming out of this for the GOP.

    As ugly as this was - and I'm sure there will be more of it tomorrow - and as well as the Democrats have acquitted themselves in these hearings, when I consider the totality of the political picture, I cannot take much heart from any of it, and find myself just being generally disheartened and cynical to a degree that bothers me.

    I'm not finding many shining moments that give me hope that we can steer ourselves in the right direction.

    There's always Franken. (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:12:54 PM EST
    I don't expect a stellar performance, because Franken is more of a policy wonk than a spotlight hogging lawyer.  Although he might give us some nice counterpoints to the previous performances, considering how much material they've supplied him with.

    (For some reason "bitter old white men clinging to their _ and _" comes to mind. )

    Parent

    I'm sure Franken will do fine - I was just (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:52:53 PM EST
    feeling not so great about the political scene in general; as bad as the GOP is, I'm not all that sure the Dems are that much better.

    Parent
    My dad..... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:11:39 PM EST
    He's a biased bigot.  What do I mean?  Well, he says that This Individual is lazy/stubborn/drunk because they are a member of That Ethnic Group.  He doesn't paint every member of the ethnic group with the same brush, but it's still bigotry.  

    I have to wonder how many men in his generation still think that way, even if they are smart enough not to say it out loud - Republicans and Democrats alike.

    Parent

    My DEM mother-in-law is a bigot (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lilybart on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:28:40 AM EST
    A lot of older Jewish people are. Witness Sarah Silverman's quest to get old Florida Jews to vote for the schwartze. Which is the term my mother-in-law used last weekend during one of my forced visits.

    She works for Dems and she is a flaming liberal, but she really doesn't like him and really really doesn't like Michelle.

    She had me look up an apt building on google earth, where her FIRED housekeeper lives. She was SHOCKED to find out that it was a plain brick building, bleak area but fine. she really thought ALL black people live where there are stoops to hang out and needles in the street. google earth gave me street views for her. I was SO disgusted I almost looked up a rich neighborhood and said, look, there is where the Showy rich Jews live. They all live in mcmansions like that.

    Parent

    Ain't it a riot? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 02:44:48 PM EST
    When we were teenagers, we were embarrassed by our parents.  Now, we are still embarrassed by them probably for different reasons.

    My dad isn't that bad.  He's more of the "So-and-so is pretty good for a ethnic_slur."  kind of guy.  Willing to see the good in people, but can't give up a lifetime of stereotyping them.

    Parent

    What can I say (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:36:03 PM EST
    as a woman, I listened to those hearings and I was offended.  And it changed the way I thought of the Senators who offended me - from disagreement to disgust.

    I was too young to pay attention to the Clarence Thomas hearings, but I know that people who did pay attention took note - and it changed their POVs of certain pols forever.  And of course it does.  Senators get the mic, and as we say in the South, they "show their ass" - act up and play the fool.

    I hope these performances stick.

    And, yet, (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:09:25 PM EST
    and it changed their POVs of certain pols forever

    Some of those pols remain in place still today.

    Parent

    One of them is Vice President (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sallywally on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 09:12:01 AM EST
    and another, a Senator from Pennsylvania, just became a "Democrat."

    Parent
    Speaking of the Clarence Thomas confirmation (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:32:52 PM EST
    hearings and how certain pols would come to be viewed in a negative light thereafter - because they gave Thomas a free pass while roasting Anita Hill. The story was recounted by the NYTimes, last summer, after Biden became Obama's running mate: Biden and Anita Hill, Revisited:
    Mr. Biden at the time was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And while he ultimately voted against confirming Mr. Thomas, he was widely criticized by liberal legal advocates and women's groups as having mismanaged the allegations of sexual harassment made by Ms. Hill against her former employer, Mr. Thomas, at the Department of Education and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission...issues of race, gender and politics intersected in a volatile way that still may hold resonance today...[no $hit]

    The whole article is a good read with lots of links to video from the hearings.

    Parent

    "Strange Justice" (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:42:15 PM EST
    is a totally riveting read by two women reporters on all the stuff that went on during those hearings, and a great deal behind the scenes.  Biden comes off even less well in their telling than he did to those of us watching at the time.  Among other things, Biden never called a couple of women who were ready and waiting to corroborate Hill's stories with stories of their own. He just stuffed them.  Biden showed himself an utter moral coward in that whole episode.

    Parent
    Joe Biden and Arlen Spector (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:59:42 PM EST
    The  Judiciary Committee behaved pretty horribly toward Anita Hill, but Biden and Spector were especially odious. Spector, who was a Republican at that time, treated Hill like she was a criminal defendant on trial for some especially awful crime. And Biden, well he was, if not the worst Democratic chair of that committee, certainly in the top 2 or 3.

    Parent
    Well, she was, wasn't she? (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 12:51:33 AM EST
    </heavy snark>

    There was Thomas, all set to take his seat on the Supreme Court and here comes some woman whining about how bad he treated when she worked for him.
    <serious sarcasm>

    Ironically, if Thomas and Hill had an extramarital consensual sexual relationship, it might have been a real scandal because it would have implied Thomas was untrustworthy and weak.  Instead, all she said was that Thomas abused and exploited her - which apparently was acceptable behavior between a man and a woman.  

    Man strong, everything is fine.  Man weak, unacceptable.  Woman strong, um...er....

    Parent

    Incompetent or cowardly... (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:46:56 AM EST
    or both.  Biden was a nightmare as chair and it was an embarrasing all-male committee with an almost totally silent Ted Kennedy.  Now, of course, they are the Obama team.

    Parent
    No respect for those men (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 02:01:05 AM EST
    I lost all respect for the senators on that committee. To this day I judge them harshly for the way they behaved during those hearings. Even Teddy, who was painfully silent. No "let bygones be bygones" for me.

    Parent
    Clarence Thomas stated during the hearings, (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    under oath, that he never discussed Roe v Wade or abortion rights with anyone nor did he have any opinions about it.  Later, when Professor Hill started to indicate that this was not the case, Senator Biden cut her off, saying he did not want to go there.  Alan Dixon (D. Il) was one of the Democratic votes for Mr. Thomas (some held, that Republicans, in turn, would not field a strong contender in his coming re-election).  However, as a sliver of silver in this lining,  it did not work out for Dixon, since the outrage resulted in his primary defeat to Carol Mosley Braum, who went on to become a good, liberal senator, who as the first African American women in the senate, endured treatment from the likes of Jesse Helms who whistled 'Dixie" when in the elevator with her. (unfortunately, Senator Mosley Braun suffered  personal missteps and lost her senate seat).

    Parent
    Teddy was completely (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:19:53 PM EST
    hamstrung and silenced on this because of his own terrible history with women, not least poor Mary Jo Kopechne.  If he'd gotten into it, he'd have done more harm than good.  He had zippo credibility on the subject, rightly or wrongly.

    Parent
    Quite right. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oldpro on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 11:59:36 AM EST
    What was awful was to watch him 'braving it out' during the hearings.

    He should have called in sick.

    Parent

    Thanks for that tip... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 12:41:43 AM EST
    I just did a search for the book you suggested, Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas, and Amazon has it. Ah, memory lane, t'was only 18 years ago - vivid still to many of us who are now in our mid-thirties or beyond.

    Parent
    Depressing, isn't it? (none / 0) (#55)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    In the one branch of Government, where one would hope a higher level of intellect, morality, and/or sense of duty would be displayed; we find the number of moral mutants to be about the same as in the other branches.

    Whoever coined the phrase, "the cream always rises to the top," must've been text messaging in class when Government was being taught.


    Parent

    Agreed. I try to go with (none / 0) (#57)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will.

    Parent
    You'll love the book (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:21:42 PM EST
    It's right up at the top of the most fascinating, well-written non-fiction reads with "The Hunting of the President" and one or two others.

    Parent
    Graham's "schooling" (none / 0) (#1)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:21:26 PM EST
    of Sotomayer on the issue of what white men can not say (that she is able to "get away with" )could have been biting satire if it wasn't real.

    Anyone who is able to recognize that racism exists will be put off by that.

    SNL has a lot of material (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:30:03 PM EST
    if they choose to use it.

    Parent
    So true. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:35:43 PM EST
    all the abused white male whining is good stuff.

    Parent
    Could it be (none / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:48:31 PM EST
    -- because what the GOP is doing is so dumb, but from a liberal perspective -- that it actually does not want the Hispanic vote back?  That its (bad) strategy is to bring back its base, the angry young white men who went this time to Obama?

    Otherwise, what the GOP is doing just doesn't make sense.  And it's hard to figure out how a party that had its act so together for so long could have gotten so stoopid so fast.

    they are still under the impression (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:49:52 PM EST
    that they can stop the demographic change.

    Parent
    Okay, so if they can't stop the change (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:32:51 PM EST
    of Hispanic population growth, and the GOP sees that it can't get the growing Hispanic vote, then why bother -- when being a**holes may bring back their base.  I mean, what else can explain this?

    Parent
    My view is (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:44:29 PM EST
    they do not have a unified strategy.

    Republicans like Rove and Bush (who was no genius, but he came from a state where the Hispanic vote was very important) understood that demographics will doom the GOP unless they start getting more of the Hispanic vote.  That's one of the reasons the previous administration pushed so hard for a moderate immigration bill against the wishes of the Republican base.

    Lots of Republican strategists understand this basic concept.  Republicans who hope to compete nationally need to understand it, too.  But there are a lot of local and regional politicians in the GOP who simply care more about their own election than they care about the party's national strategy.

    Jeff Sessions clearly wins more support in his home state by catering to white resentment than by trying to appeal to Hispanics.  That's what he cares about.  The Republicans' national strategy really isn't on his radar.

    Parent

    Leaving Sessions as ranking member (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:47:06 PM EST
    was Specter's way of knifing the GOP on his way out. He had to know that would be the likely result.

    But the Senate GOP should have been smarter and turned the slot over to. . .almost anyone else on the panel.

    Parent

    I'm watching Sessions in rerun now. (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:51:33 PM EST
    When he threw in Cabranes being a Puerto Rican judge, she flinched.

    Parent
    Why not Hatch? (none / 0) (#32)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:27:38 PM EST
    I do not understand why the GOP didn't give Orin Hatch the ranking member seat. Does Sessions have more committee seniority than Hatch?

    Parent
    Republicans term limit their chairs and RMs (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:31:42 PM EST
    And hatch has been chair before. Grassley didn't want to give up finance.

    Another alternative would have been John Cornyn.

    Parent

    Ah, of course -- (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:01:16 PM EST
    local politics is all that matters to those with limited vision.

    Parent
    Or those (none / 0) (#37)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:45:29 PM EST
    who feel they might be on the endangered specied list.

    Parent
    just coming out for the record (none / 0) (#9)
    by diogenes on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:51:45 PM EST
    Once she is actually on the court and votes way on the left (in ways that the majority of the people do not support), the GOP can say "I told you so" as they campaign in borderline conservative states saying that if you elect GOP senators then you won't have judges like this.  I wonder how the growing Asian minority will feel about affirmative action votes that she will make.  
    She is a New York liberal, and a lot of her actual votes on the court won't sit all that well even with socially conservative Hispanics.  
    Not that many people watch these hearings, and memories are short (after all, the PUMAs all voted for Obama).  Wait until 2010.

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 09:02:12 PM EST
    Yeah, time for Plan B.

    that sounds as good as any.

    California (largest Asian community in the nation) looking good for the GOP NOW . . . uh no wait, um what was that again?

    Parent

    Funny comment (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:34:21 PM EST
    on so many counts.

    I love the line that the PUMAs all voted for Obama.  Where do you get this great material?

    Parent

    As to who is watching the hrgs., none (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:55:08 PM EST
    of the lawyers I met for lunch today were watching or even following the hrgs. since the nominee is sure to be confirmed.  If they aren't all that interested, who is?

    Parent
    puh--lease don't throw me into that (none / 0) (#12)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:58:28 PM EST
    briar patch!

    Parent
    "the PUMAs all voted for Obama" (none / 0) (#42)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:06:46 AM EST
    Huh? Is that a joke? If it is, it isn't funny.

    I did go for Obama but that's because in the end I decided against following PUMA because (while I respect their feelings) I felt this last election was too important. It was a painful and difficult decision because I knew Obama would bend to the Bush/Cheney will and the complicitous Dem leadership just as he has done.

    Parent

    Not funny and not accurate. (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:35:33 AM EST
    You did?

    I didn't.  Not willing to be an enabler and no longer a party member.  No longer those feelings of heartsick disappointment in 'my team.'  No rage.

    Watching in amazement but like the queen, "we are not amused."

    Parent

    Yes... finally I did (none / 0) (#47)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 07:44:38 AM EST
    My dad at 88 did as you did for the first time in his life. He had been a Dem all his life. Now he's gone Indep. He was first for John Edwards... wrote everyone he could think of praising Edwards. But Edwards was not making it. So then he was for Hillary Hillary Hillary as I had been from the beginning. But Michigan sauered him, made him angry and bitter against the party. He became angry and officially quit.

    I remained in PUMA status for a long time struggling. But the idea of John and Sarah... John and I are vets of the same war though I was not a POW or hero in any sense of the word. I know what PTSD is. I have hypertension just like John does. We've all seen the symptoms as a man is swallowed by his memories and becomes enraged by feelings of helplessness. John Kerry knew too and would put his hand gently on McCain's arm to bring him back. But John became resentful.

    Medication helps but that is not enough. The idea of someone like John in charge chilled me.

    Parent

    I hear you. In the end, the idea (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:51:41 AM EST
    of Obama/Biden chilled me as well, so I could not vote for either ticket.  Some of my worst fears/suspicians are now confirmed.

    Parent
    majority of voters? (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 08:37:10 AM EST
    As Obama said (not frequently enough) "we won".

    Why would you think the majority of voters want a super-conservative court?

    She will vote with the rest of the liberal block as expected on the close votes.  Which is what the people expect when they vote for the Democrat over the Republican.  Which the majority did.

    Parent

    oh gosh no, not even the GOP (none / 0) (#17)
    by cpinva on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:08:53 PM EST
    The only thing that can make it worse for the GOP will be, as I noted earlier, if no Republicans vote for Sotomayor's confirmation.

    could possibly be that stupid. wait........never mind!

    darn, i just knew i should have gone into stand-up comedy: the GOP, the gift that just keeps on giving!

    Did Sen. Jeff. B. Sessions really say (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:43:35 PM EST
    "As a white person I can see, . . ."?

    I hope so (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:31:41 PM EST
    I'm grateful to have been able to watch today.  I'm feeling an internal renewal tonight.

    It was very interesting (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:48:07 PM EST
    I listened and was riveted.

    Parent
    Poetic Justice (none / 0) (#46)
    by joze46 on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 03:31:07 AM EST
    Perhaps it's true

    One could transform into a social political gremlin. There are some personalities of the south that have an affinity for "counter anything".

    Sort of like that law of physics that generates counter energy, when anything new is formed to improve the system Senators Graham and Sessions grandstand for the crowd of no.  Where ever these Southern types came from in history, for sure their ancestors from England must have been a pain in butt for the king. LOL No wonder why they are here, the perfect place in history to perform in American freedom to cause grief or anguish using the Kings Bible to trigger fanaticism.  

    Ironically they are all loaded with empathy yet expressed their counter believes feebly, to latch on to that mystery of life that quest to be attached to the divine nature of things. It's as if these southern men were not able to crack that bullwhip of their faith "refusing to accept change" or commonly referred as "repentance".

    Of course Michael Medved a dear chosen one has to painfully watch as the majority choosing with mortal modern democracy a Port Rican woman, the closest thing to a basic American Indian, from the original islands of discovery, perhaps we say a soul from the West Indies is given prominence that was lost for centuries. Or has God's speed caught up to us? These southern men were certainly talking in tongues, confused, starring into retribution, and realizing as Specter did they are the party of aggravation.        


    The OWG (old white guys) (none / 0) (#52)
    by lilybart on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:00:40 AM EST
    wouldn't have to lose power if they just sincerely worked for what the people need from their government and not harp on ideology.

    but what we are really talking about is that they want to be the ONLY group that gets to govern. They feel safely in numbers?

    The Constitution and Bill of Rights work for everyone, they should not fear sharing power. Their rights are protected too.

    Crawford: Sotomayor Hearings Political Disaster For GOP | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment