GOP Moves to Tone Down Criticism of SotomayorBy Dan Eggen, Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, May 29, 2009; 2:31 PM
Republican leaders on Capitol Hill are rushing to contain racially tinged rhetoric in the debate over President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, fearing that attacks emanating from some conservatives opposed to appellate court Judge Sonia Sotomayor could damage GOP prospects among women and the rapidly growing Hispanic population. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said today he was "uneasy" over allegations by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and talk-show host Rush Limbaugh that Sotomayor is racist. Sessions, who lost a 1986 bid for a federal judgeship amid concerns over his own racial sensitivity, said Republicans should focus on Sotomayor's legal record to try to divine what sort of a Supreme Court justice she would make.
"I'm uneasy," Sessions said in a 30-minute interview in his office in the Russell Senate Office Building. "I don't think that's good rhetoric. The question is, has the judge gone too far or not, given the established law of the land?" Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, also condemned the remarks by Gingrich and Limbaugh, noting that "neither one of these men are elected Republican officials."
"I think it's terrible," Cornyn said in an interview late yesterday with NPR's "All Things Considered." "This is not the kind of tone any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent."
"I just don't think it's appropriate," he continued. "I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong."
The effort at message control will continue Sunday morning with appearances by GOP congressional leaders on all of the major network talk shows, including a joint appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" by Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The developments highlight the rift within the Republican Party over how to approach the nomination of Sotomayor, the first Hispanic person to be nominated to the high court and who would be one of only two women on the panel if confirmed. Republicans have lost ground badly with Hispanics over the past four years, in part because of rhetoric on immigration and other issues, and GOP centrists believe the party could be headed for political disaster if it mishandles the Sotomayor nomination.
The rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052901538.html?hpid=topnews=====
Sotomayor Spark Lights Intra-GOP ConflagrationBy Eric Kleefeld - May 29, 2009, 12:15PM
After a week of escalating race and gender rhetoric from the right over the Sotomayor nomination, it's now looking like some in the Republican Party -- those concerned with actually getting elected -- have become alarmed by the political damage the more extreme members of their party may be doing and are moving to rein in the vitriol. It's the starkest example yet of an interesting division within the right, one that has been apparent for some time, but which the Sotomayor nomination has not only crystalized but accelerated: the right-wing bomb-throwers obsessed with ideological purity versus the right-wing pragmatists who want the party to actually win election again some day.
Make no mistake -- all of these people are staunch conservatives. While the bomb-throwers include folks like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and a colorful cast of other players, the practical folks include the likes of Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), RNC chairman Michael Steele, and pundit Peggy Noonan. Where you stand depends on where you sit: If your job is to whip up publicity and/or money, then haranguing on Sotomayor is the way to go. But if your job is to not alienate key groups of voters and to work to bring them back, it's a different story entirely.
Let's compare and contrast.
In his initial reaction on Tuesday, Limbaugh called Sotomayor a "reverse-racist" and demanded that the GOP "go to the wall" against her. The next day, Gingrich said she is "Latina woman racist" who should withdraw. And yesterday, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) made the interesting claim that she belongs to the "Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses, a reference to her membership in the National Council of La Raza, a longstanding civil rights group. (Really, without the hoods and nooses, what do you have left?) And as we've documented, there is a cottage industry on the right dedicated to raising money to oppose her.
But let's take a look at the other side of the coin. In the last 24 hours or so, some big-name Republican voices -- including people who are actually responsible for the day-in and day-out tasks of rebuilding a broken party and getting back into government -- have stepped in to dial this stuff back. They clearly understand just how destructive this kind of rhetoric is.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who represents a state with a large Hispanic population and is responsible for the Senate GOP's campaign in 2010, has denounced Gingrich and Limbaugh. Cornyn appeared yesterday on National Public Radio -- note the high-brow venue -- and said: "Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials
I just don't think it's appropriate and I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong." A possibly key statistic here: Cornyn won re-election in 2008 with 36% of the Latino vote -- a very good number for a Republican, especially one whose Democratic opponent was a Hispanic state legislator and Iraq War veteran.
Michael Steele gushed this morning, "I'm excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position," and that the party should not be "slammin' and rammin'" Sotomayor, but construct arguments against her on purely substantive grounds. Peggy Noonan was on Morning Joe today, and urged Republicans to above all else not make this about name-calling, and to instead make this a serious discussion about the difference between liberals and conservatives on judicial philosophy. "What I think should be happening here with Sotomayor," Noonan said, "is that the Republicans take it as an opportunity to be serious. Be calm; be judicious, don't be on the attack."
The rest: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/sotomayor-spark-lights-intra-gop-conflagration.php
=====
The Most Dangerous Game
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist
Friday 29 May 2009
(snip)
Before the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, lots of people were expecting President Obama to replace Justice Souter with someone virtually identical to Justice Souter: moderate, even-tempered, contemplative, and above all else, inoffensive to as much of the galaxy of interested interest groups as could be managed. Instead, Mr. Obama nominated someone moderate, even-tempered, contemplative, profoundly experienced, and above all else, guaranteed to hyperactivate a certain segment of those interested interests while putting the Republican Party in an almost inescapable bind.
A New York Times editorial from Wednesday nicely captured the essential reality of the Sotomayor nomination. "President Obama seems to have made an inspired choice in picking Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court," wrote the Times. "She has an impressive judicial record, a stellar academic background and a compelling life story. Judge Sotomayor would also be a trailblazing figure in the mold of Thurgood Marshall, becoming the first member of the nation's large and growing but still under-represented Hispanic population to serve on the court. Based on what we know now, the Senate should confirm her so she can join the court when it begins its new term in October."
The Republican right-wing's campaign of resistance settled into a predictable pattern almost immediately after the announcement. While those voicing opposition to Judge Sotomayor claimed to be surprised and disappointed that Obama chose such a "controversial" nominee, the truth is they've been suiting up for weeks to fight whomever finally got the nod. Their attacks were triggered automatically and would have come no matter what; if Mr. Obama had nominated Jesus of Nazareth to replace Justice Souter, the GOP would now be denouncing Him for favoring a socialist welfare state because He gave away loaves and fishes and circumvented the insurance industry when He raised Lazarus from the dead.
A fair portion of the arguments against Judge Sotomayor, therefore, have been pro forma, along all the old, well-traveled lines. The fact that Mr. Obama nominated a Hispanic woman to the bench, however, has inspired a particularly shrill reaction from the segment of right-wing interested interests that are somehow genetically hard-wired to freak out whenever someone besides a white male gets a gig in government.
It was a canny political move on Mr. Obama's part to nominate an indisputably qualified minority woman to the high court, because in doing so, he has once again scrambled the GOP's eggs. As the Times editorial noted, Judge Sotomayor brings all the qualifications one would expect and demand of a Supreme Court justice to the table, and her qualifications are further enhanced by her rich personal history. She is an excellent nominee, and Senate Republicans - already weakened by consecutive electoral defeats and lavishly despised by a majority of Americans - stand demonstrably incapable of thwarting Obama's choice, and run the risk of further damaging their prospects if they try. Unless she is found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, as the old DC saying goes, smart money says Judge Sotomayor is going to be Justice Sotomayor before the foliage is off the trees this fall.
The problem for the GOP is they may have to fight Sotomayor even if it means political suicide. The raving messiahs of the GOP base like Limbaugh are already up in arms over a cavalcade of anti-Obama issues and fighting a range war against so-called "moderates" within the party. Now, they're demanding that Senate Republicans fight to the knife to defeat Judge Sotomayor's nomination. If Limbaugh and his fellow rabble-rousers whip enough GOP base voters into a froth, the Republican Party will be stuck between a rock and a hard place: fail to fight and incite the base, or decide to fight and wind up giving mortal offense to a large swath of Hispanic voters in America.
The GOP has been courting Hispanic voters, with varying degrees of success, for many years now; Hispanic voters are the fastest-growing electoral bloc in the country, and the GOP covets their support in no small part because their survival as a viable party depends on it. If Senate Republicans go after Sotomayor, they run a great risk of alienating an entire generation of Hispanic voters, which simply eviscerates GOP hopes for a recovery at the polls going forward. But if Senate Republicans don't fight the Sotomayor nomination, they run a great risk of further alienating and infuriating the leading voices of an already deranged base, an event that could lead to open revolution within the party and be just as damaging in the long run.
The rest: http://www.truthout.org/052909J
:)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
