« Gallup: Arab World's Opinion Of U.S. Leaders Has Improved Since Last Year -- But Still Low | Home | Book: Bush Needed Condi To Explain 'Articulate' Flap During Dem Primary »
Miranda: My Call For Filibuster Actually A Call For "Great Debate"
Earlier today we brought you a letter signed by conservative Manuel Miranda and dozens of other activists calling for Republicans to consider a filibuster of Sonia Sotomayor. On Hardball tonight, though, Manuel Miranda characterized things a bit differently.
A "great debate" (followed by a sixty vote requirement for confirmation. Cough.) Chris Matthews insisted that what Miranda and other Sotomayor critics really want is to slow her confirmation process down, but Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, said he'd speed the confirmation process up if the unfair attacks continue.
Advertisement
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Him backpedaling is typical; guy's a coward.
But in that interview, did Matthews ask Miranda why he said this?
No, he's not saying that African-Americans don't think, per se. He's saying that we're somehow, as a racial and cultural group, isolated from every other group's mode of thinking. What's most disturbing about this statement is that he seems to be saying this to placate white folks.
"No, sir - we're not like them. We're on your side!"
That's how I, as a black reader, see that quote. But that leads to his other gross assumption - that all people of a particular race or cultural group think alike. That's really dangerous thinking, considering how little I agree with Alan Keyes and Clarence Thomas on as far as, well, damn near everything. And that's just two black guys - I can think of several friends and associates with whom I share a percentage of melanin, but little else.
A dangerously stupid man. Surely, I look forward to seeing him plastered all over cable news for the next two weeks as an expert. Sheesh.
June 2, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That quote is in line with Byron York's view that black Americans are not "actual" Americans:
But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/black-white-divide-in-obama-popularity-43923897.html
June 2, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Surely, I look forward to seeing him plastered all over cable news for the next two weeks as an expert."
Word.
June 2, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the most astute statements, "A dangerously stupid man". Amazing that race is ALWAYS interjected by Republicans. Enough said about her race when she was introduced as the new SC nominee. Now the constant use of her race is sounding more and more racist. My guess is that this woman's GPA in College and grad school outshines most Senators by a bunch. I think Republican's treatment of this woman will win my party a no vote from Hispanics. Something very strange has happened since the last truly great Republican President we have had, H. W. Bush. It is sad to face up the the changes in the party. Both Bush Sr. and Reagan were "inclusionists" and not divisive and their tenure showed it. We seem to have lost our touch where race relations are concerned so I feel that Republicans will be the minority for years and years until they learn the stupicity of racism.
June 3, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always thought Eisenhower was our last truly great Republican President. Compare to him, both Reagan and Bush Sr were nothing more than rank amateurs.
June 3, 2009 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to Scientific's disassembly, what really stuns me is that no one seems to be wondering what is it about this nominee that calls for "a great debate" that prior nominations did not?
I've now read all the "hot button" opinions of hers that the Republicans have identified as reasons for grave concern and a number of her others. She is thorough, thorougly competent, a stickler for precedent and a person who "shows her work," i.e. shows you how she arrives at her conclusion based on a very incremental building up of precedent and reasoning rather than just making the kind of a big algebraic leaps of logic that some people mistake for brilliance ("why are you so dumb that you can't follow me?) rather than laziness.
What I'm not seeing is any sign that she's going to be any more radical or disruptive or noticably ethnic than, say, Stephen Breyer. All the crap the GOP has been saying is just that, crap. It is double talk manufactured out of thin air in such a brazen fashion that no one who hears me say it will really believe it.
The only thing that's worthy of a "great debate" is why it is that the sight of Obama naming her to the Court has a bunch of perpetually dyspeptic old rich white guys simultaneously pissing in their pants and lighting crosses.
June 2, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
DAA! The only reason for a Great Debate would be to publicly show how the repuglicans, while holding minority status in both House and Senate, still have ample political power to influence and change the course of events set by Obama and the Democrats. Now if the Democrats grow a spine and some hairs on their kahunas the debate may never take place. But that's an extreme make-over that the TV networks wouldn't consider persuing.
June 3, 2009 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. Senate website glossary wrote:
June 2, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Miranda showed his true bias today. He is now officially, in my eye, A HACK !
Since he FINALLY agreed that a vote would probably happen before the end of time as we know it, what he made clear today that he and his colleagues have only one agenda and that is to block EVERY Democratic nominee for anything - period.
Classic hackery and his fellow guest on Tweety's program was even worse.
June 2, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call for a great debate? No Carmen, it's actually a call for HYPOCRIT!
June 2, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, said he'd speed the confirmation process up if the unfair attacks continue."
Yes. Of course he will. With him and Reid leading the charge, Sotomayor will get her vote when Al Franken gets seated in the Senate. Of course, by then, Sarah Palin will be president, Franken will be the sole Democrat in the frickin' Senate, and Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg will have been replaced by Norm Coleman, Ben Ginsberg and the dipshit subject of this blog post on the Supreme Court.
June 2, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How come Repugs get their turds on the bench with 51, but the Dems need 60?
June 3, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
IOKIYAR still applies even though they lost their @$$E$ in the last election.
June 3, 2009 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that This nominee will be approved with 60 votes the first or second vote. That is unless Republicans have some death wish that requires them to chase away Hispanics. Obviously a lot are just blabbing to their constituents but when the rubber hits the road in a second vote, I predict Republicans will see the handwriting on the wall and vote for her confirmation. That or my party is tone deaf!!
June 3, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't lump Leahy in with Reid. Leahy has a pair of big brass ones, trying to get a truth commission on Iraq and Gitmo despite everyone in leadership wanting the issue to go away. His problem is he needs 1 GOP vote in committee to get a floor vote - total bs, but those are the rules.
What will be more interesting is if Sotomoyor is delayed by claims the committee already has votes pending on appellate nominee Hamilton - whose confirmation is a forgone thing once he gets out of committee, but who Sessions is being a jerk about.
June 3, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink