June 8, 2009

"On issue after issue in the long-running 'culture wars,' Obama has played it low-key."

"After all, he has a deep recession and two wars on his plate. But as the Senate prepares to hold confirmation hearings for Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, many of the hot-button issues dear to religious conservatives are about to come roaring back – foremost among them gay marriage, abortion, and the role of faith in the public square."

What great fun for the culture ideologues as well as the many of us who think it's such a drag to always have to talk about the wars and the economy! What does she think of the gays? What does she think of abortion? Is she an activist? Hmm????

106 comments:

NKVD said...

If activist = racist, then yes, yes she is.

But she is opposed to the 2nd amendment, so we're cool.

rhhardin said...

She will favor the diabled now. Rich Latina experience gets richer all the time.

traditionalguy said...

I know what. Let's break into her Therapist's office and read her file. Then the Conservative National Inquirer Industry will have headlines for the next three months at grocery check out lines. This Latino Lady is gonna be more famous than Princess Di. Of course we can then claim that she is too "controversial" to be a Supreme Court Justice.

BJK said...

Bad reporting 101 (From the article):

A recent Gallup Poll found that a majority of the American public, 51 percent, now calls itself “pro-life,” the first such majority since Gallup began asking the question in 1995. But Gallup also found that a majority, 53 percent, believe abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, and that 22 percent believe it should be legal under all circumstances – numbers that, combined, tilt away from the picture of a majority “pro-life” public.


Why 'combined'? Does the author intend the reader to add the 22 percent to the 53% number, or are we supposed to think that 22% of the public taking the 'anti-life' position somehow detracts from the majority?

John said...

"I know what. Let's break into her Therapist's office and read her file."

Why don't you put Andrew Sullivan on it. He seems to have an obsession with the medical records of powerful women.

ricpic said...

Break a leg, Sonia! Oops...she did.

AJ Lynch said...

Low key? I agree only if that means Obama has NOT changed his positions on the cultural issues.

He has ALWAYS supported and continues to support abortion on demand.

He has ALWAYS opposed and contInues to oppose gay marriage.

As to DADT, I am not sure if the govt-run media ever really asked [before the election) Obama for his position on that.

MadisonMan said...

I'm not sure how her views on the culture wars qualify or disqualify her for a USSC seat.

Bissage said...

President Obama’s low-key approach is easy to understand. He is simply building up a huge reserve of political capital for when he publicly announces the White House Summer Film Festival featuring the works of Jean-Luc Godard.

Henry said...

AJ -- Exactly right.

The word "low-key" is a minor, but telling example of how the media would prefer their king to be philosopher.

I would have written "On issue after issue in the long-running 'culture wars,' Obama has ducked responsibility."

Or how about "On issue after issue in the long-running 'culture wars,' Obama has been a deceptive coward"

Salamandyr said...

We exactly do we see this framed through the lens of "religious conservatives". Those topics are just as dear to "secular liberals", foremost among them the right to gay marriage, the right to abortion, and minimizing the role of faith in the public square.

My framing was just as accurate, merely pointing the finger of blame in a different direction. Add to it, it seems to me that it's the "secular liberals" kicking over the culture war anthill in general.

CT said...

Hi,
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. Great post, concise and easy to understand. I like this post..
I found out that this blog is very interesting and informative.
Best of luck to you!

Cheers,
Improve Golf Swing
Top Fishing Games
Top Honeymoon Vacation

Hoosier Daddy said...

Considering the heaping praise Obama gave to followers of the Religion of Peace last week, he should be appointing a Muslim. After all they invented algebra and demonstrated tolerance and equality.

I mean since we're one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, finding a qualified one should be as easy.

AJ Lynch said...

Bissage:

Will the folks who control the rights to Star Trek let the White House do that ?

AJ Lynch said...

CT:

A lotta golf plus a lotta fishing usually means you won't be having any honeymoon.

former law student said...

I'm not sure how her views on the culture wars qualify or disqualify her for a USSC seat.

That's because you're not in the mainstream of American values like Gary Bauer.

former law student said...

CT:

A lotta golf plus a lotta fishing usually means you won't be having any honeymoon.

CT appears to be a remarkable woman, according to her profile. Her favorite books include "all book about wedding plan and furniture," and along with blogging about golf, weddings, and fishing, she blogs about RADIOACTIVITY.

I think Althouse could learn a lot from her.

phx said...

I hope CT comments here often.

Juris Dentist said...

Why not be honest, Althouse, and label this post "daily chance to bash Obama"?

I know, there are days you provide multiple chances.

OK, then, suggested label = invitation to bash Obama.

Of course there never were invitations to bash Bush. Gee, I wonder why?

phx said...

Think of an invitation to bash Obama as an invitation to defend Obama. What's the difference?

Jeremy said...

"Of course there never were invitations to bash Bush."


Like that stopped anyone. We're speaking truth to power. Isn't that what all the cool dissenters and rebels do?

-The Other Jeremy

The Drill SGT said...

After all, he has a deep recession and two wars on his plate.

Using traditional military point of reference, it would be "one war, on 2 fronts, or maybe just one war period, after all both combat areas are in the same AO (area of Operations, e.g. CENTCOM).

But if you want to pad he numbers, why not:

3 wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or

4 wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, or

5 wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, AQ elsewhere, or

6 wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, AQ elsewhere, Korea(after all we never signed a peace treaty) or

or add the war on drugs or povery, or crime, autos, if you want to pad the numbers.

My view? 1 war, 1 threat = Islamic extremists (AQ plus associates)

NKVD said...

CT is a government servant.

We will all be government servants ere long.

Aaron said...

Well, whether or not you are an activist or not does impact on the economy. An unbroken line of doctrine going back before most of us were born said that non-geneva convention POWs were not entitlted to any trial at all. now the supreme court has decided to innovate that law, apparently because the terrorists are such nice guys they should enjoy rights regular german grunts and american citizens accused of fighting for the confederacy never enjoyed. that is activism, and it is a problem.

But even then, its hard not to yawn and say "so what? its replacing a liberal activism judge with an activist. what did you think you would get from an obama nominee."

her real problem is that she said that wise latina thing, and that creates a reasonable question as to her impartiality. it should, if we are principled about this, be a complete disqualifier for her, especially given her oddly boneheaded actions in the ricci case.

Btw, rhhardin, to be fair to her, she did favor a learning disabled person in the Bartlett case. and i praise her for that decision. it was one of the few cases that fought against innovations to unduly restrict the definition of disability before congress damn near unanimously slapped the courts for that.

phx said...

her real problem is that she said that wise latina thing, and that creates a reasonable question as to her impartiality.

I really wouldn't be afraid of standing in front of the judge as the white man I am in dispute against a latina, if I had the right and the law on my side. In spite of her "wise latina" comment, which sounded to me very ad libbed, I do think she's wise enough to resolve matters of the law blindly and fairly. In my guts, she just stikes me as having integrity, even if she spoke injudiciously in that one moment.

Quayle said...

Obama's choice doesn't matter one bit – it’s all about the economy now.

When the world is awash in US government bonds and the resulting inflation starts to kick in hard;

when the government is deep into the operations of running healthcare, banking, and all car-related manufacturing;

when the future tax rates have been raised through the roof to attempt to pay for the future's current operating needs AND our (i.e. the past's) borrowed stimulus money;

when all these pending non-political and undisputable events coincide, the makeup of the SCOTUS won't matter one whit.

The SCOTUS won’t be able to order inflation to subside, it won’t be able to order American laborers to be competitive on the world market, and it won’t be able to order the government to make a better car in higher demand.

Sotomayor is all much ado about little or nothing.

Curtiss said...

What I want to know is how does Sonia Sotomayor feel about Carla Bruni.

Does she think Carla is a wise Mesdames.

mccullough said...

If only Sotomayor were a wise Latina.

phx said...

How do you know Sotomayer isn't a wise Latina?

Henry Buck said...

Are the religious conservatives the ones bringing these "hot button issues" to the court? The article has it completely backward.
And knowing (1) that there will be cases filed that try to get the courts to adopt liberal policies, and (2) that it is vitually impossible to overturn a U.S. Supreme Court via constitutional amendment, it would be idiotic for conservatives to close their eyes to evidence on how a potential justice would rule on those issues.

Maxine Weiss said...

Aww, the Ugly Mexican fractured her ankle....

Can't wait to see how many more "disabilities" she plans to parade before the confirmation hearings.

Maybe she can go out and get herself raped, and then she'll have that to throw in their faces.

Oh wait, this Mexican is so unattractive she couldn't get raped if she tried !

Love,
Maxine

birdie bob said...

What does she think of the gays? What does she think of abortion?
It doesn't matter what she thinks. It only matters what the Constitution says, if anything, about the issue and whether or not she's willing to uphold her oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. I'm guessing she's not.

Quayle said...

What I want to know is how does Sonia Sotomayor feel about Carla Bruni.

And while we're at it, I want to know how Sonia Sotomayor feels about Hugh Chavez and Fidel Castro?

Does their wisdom flow from their race?

Or was it a female thing only, and not really about race?

NKVD said...

Yeah, a liberal can rationalize away the "wise latina" thing as an ad lib, but explain why she keeps saying it. She is a racist, plain and simple, and she has no place on the court.

NKVD said...

Juris Dentist, start your own blog - then you can write whatever you care to and not have to complain about what you find here.

phx said...

NKVD: I wasn't aware that "she keeps saying it." I might think differently if she did keep saying it. Enlighten me.

Palladian said...

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."

That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001. In that speech, she included the phrase "than a white male who hasn't lived that life" at the end, which sparked cries of racism from some Republicans."

Aaron said...

Phx

> I really wouldn't be afraid of standing in front of the judge as the white man I am in dispute against a latina, if I had the right and the law on my side.

Well, Mr. Ricci did have the law on his side, and he lost, before her. Her comments raise a question of whether he did so purely on the merits.

> even if she spoke injudiciously in that one moment.

Except she said pretty much the same thing about 4 times. Indeed the one time was in prepared remarks that she then delivered and then sent to a law review to be published, and was published even after at least one editor looked at it. This is not exactly a spontaneous outburst.

McCullough

> If only Sotomayor were a wise Latina.

Scrappleface claims that she said that a wise latina wouldn’t have picked her, but since obama is hampered by merely being a black man, he did. Heh.

Quayle said...

Maybe she can go out and get herself raped, and then she'll have that to throw in their faces.

Calm down. No one wants anyone to get raped, or to break their leg even.

Maxine Weiss said...

Gwen Ifill accidently breaks her ankle right about the time she's about to be dismissed from the debate.

Sotomayor breaks her ankle right about the time she faces tough questions.

Black President's grandmother passes away only days before a hotly-contested election.

phx said...

Maybe she dug herself into this hole, and maybe she isn't a "wise Latina" - I really don't know. If what CNN is saying is that she said "than a white male who etc. etc." then that part does still sound like it was ad libbed to me. But if she is outed as a racist at the confirmation hearings, more power to the right.
As a stand alone, I'm not very exercised over "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." I think she could defend herself with "a wise Latina woman means ME." It would be easier if she hadn't added the white man stuff, but I'm not worried that she's a racist anymore than I'm worried that Thomas is sex pervert. I trust the appointees to serve with integrity, and if some of them let me down I'll live with it.
As far as the Ricci case goes, Sotomayor was one of three judges who said Ricci DIDN'T have the law on his side.

Maxine Weiss said...

Conclusion:

Whites usually gain entry based on merits, but Darkies, who can't compete, elicit sympathy via contrived gimmicks.


http://twitter.com/maxinesplace

former law student said...

Well, Mr. Ricci did have the law on his side, and he lost, before her. Her comments raise a question of whether he did so purely on the merits.

No judge who has reviewed Ricci's case has agreed with Counselor Aaron, which cast doubts upon his understanding of the law.

Further, his claim that Sotomayor is biased in favor of Latins is undermined by her ruling against Ricci's co-defendant, Benjamin Vargas. Or does she (like the white women judges Arterton and Pooler, and the white male judge Sack) hate white men so much that she would let a hermano suffer just to stick it to honkies?

That sentence, or a similar one, has appeared in speeches Sotomayor delivered in 1994, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2001.

I believe she left it in because it got applause. Telling a crowd of "beaners," "wetbacks," and "mestizos" that they are better than The Man is likely to provoke applause.

An unbroken line of doctrine going back before most of us were born said that non-geneva convention POWs were not entitlted to any trial at all.

Spies and saboteurs get trials, not POWs. Terrorists get trials, not POWs.

elHombre said...

Headline from Althouse link: Supreme Court choice could reignite culture wars.

Exactly! That was Obama's intention. The hearing and public comments should focus on the divisive nature of the appointment and how he is tearing the country apart.

Questions and comments should show her biases, etc., that her life experience has little in common with the vast majority of Hispanic-Americans in this country, that there are any number of Mexican-Americans, or other Hispanic-Americans, with moderate views whose nomination would have been consistent with national conciliation.

The relentless focus of the hearings should be on Obama's failure to live up to his bogus promises of bi-partisanship. Sotomayor is incidental.

former law student said...

there are any number of Mexican-Americans, or other Hispanic-Americans, with moderate views whose nomination would have been consistent with national conciliation.

Sure! I hear Alberto Gonzales is still looking for work. And the Justice Department has declined to press charges against him. Further, Baltasar Garzon's prosecution of Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, et al., is unlikely to go anywhere. So why not pick Gonzales in a show of bipartisanship?

Michael Hasenstab said...

It is remarkable how many who support Sonia Sottomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court are sensitive to any criticism of her in any form or forum.

Those same folks saw no harm in doing and saying anything and anything to prevent the appointment of Bork, Thomas, Roberts and others.

But just say a few words about Sottomayor, who has had a very easy time of it thus far, and my oh my, the easily offended set their dials to 11.

former law student said...

Those same folks saw no harm in doing and saying anything and anything to prevent the appointment of Bork, Thomas, Roberts and others.

Nuh-uh. We were all in favor of Bork on the old Fortress of Solitude BBS, back in 1987. I'd sit behind my buddy's PC-XT, he'd stick the phone handset into the modem cradle, and away we'd go.

elHombre said...

FLS wrote: No judge who has reviewed Ricci's case has agreed with Counselor Aaron, which cast doubts upon his understanding of the law.

Could you be any more absurd?

You lefties are orgasmic about the malleability of the law when it is used to denigrate the democratic process in favor of liberal social preferences. Then you argue as though it is etched in stone when your intention is to preserve those preferences.

Among other things, it's called hypocrisy, Buzz, and yours has nothing to do with Aaron's legal acumen.

former law student said...

when your intention is to preserve those preferences.

Just how many black fire fighters were promoted instead of more deserving whites, anyways?

If the answer is still zero, kindly explain to me how blacks were preferred to whites? More courteous rejection letters? Comfier seats in the test room?

Jeremy said...

Anybody who believes Ann Althouse voted for Obama needs to have their head examined.

Damn near every day we get some kind of inane headline or photograph of Barack or Michelle that the local wingnuts can jump on or some insane quote from her two favorites; Rush and Drudge, or she herself throwing out a comment that is designed to bring the crazos out of the woodwork.

Just read the comments here today: I'd bet 90% are nothing more than childish cheap shots being taken at Sotomayor, Obama, anything he's said or any of his policies.

I believe in open discourse and that everybody has the right to their opinion, but with the exception of very few, you never hear a single thing that reflects any respect or admiration for anything Obama says or does...even as 65% of America approves, and the rest of the world give him high marks for at least trying to get the country back on track.

The fact that a law professor, who represents herself as some kind of "independent," is leading and egging on the pack of whining and bitching makes it even more disgusting.

Charles said...

Bill Donohue will quietly root for Sotomayor.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/pro-life-catholic-leader-roots-for-obama-nominee/

Quayle said...

Just how many black fire fighters were promoted instead of more deserving whites, anyways?

On this logic, nobody should get into Harvard because some blacks didn't get in.

In NYC, wheel chairs couldn't get into the French made street toilettes, so the only fair result to a liberal was that nobody got in and everyone has to hold their pee and keep walking.

This is typical for the left: they perch on their self-claimed elite vantage point and order the world to be flattened and all to be equal, yet they still claim to uphold progress and excellence.

Why should Sonya Sotomeyer get into Yale when there were other Latinas and Blacks that were turned down?

Oh, Yes! I remember! It's because admission to Yale Law is based on a relaxed flexi-bend-o standard of accomplishment AND race, which is very hard to define and explain, but about which you are instructed by the Elites to trust them to get it right and rest assured that they are wise enough to make the right decision and the whole process is still on the up and up.

MadisonMan said...

Shorter Jeremy: You, A Law Professor!

elHombre said...

Reference your 5:05 comment, FLS, which implies that there are no moderate Hispanic-Americans qualified for the SCOTUS that Obama might have picked:

I don't consider myself to be a sensitive individual, but I find that implication to be particularly offensive. It reflects exactly the kind of patronizing bigotry that we have come to expect from enlightened, superior, white liberals.

If you had even a modicum of credibility here it should have disintegrated with that bit of pompous, hypocritical tripe. You are outdoing yourself today.

Charles said...

Sotomayor is a cultural Catholic and may be a sleeper candidate. Her first patron was Daniel Patrick Moyhihan, who was pro-life.

elHombre said...

FLS wrote: "... kindly explain to me how blacks were preferred to whites?"

Is that the preference you think is at issue when I used the term "social preferences" in this context, blacks preferred to whites? My God. You don't even understand the legal underpinnings of your own silly ideology.

Why are you posting on this thread? Go back and finish school.

mccullough said...

FLS,

Why did the black firefighters who took the test do so poorly on it?

Why do middle and upper-class blacks who had good educational opportunities not do as well on the SAT or LSAT?

Palladian said...

"I believe in open discourse and that everybody has the right to their opinion, but with the exception of very few, you never hear a single thing that reflects any respect or admiration for anything Obama says or does..."

Yes, because when you vote for someone you owe them unending and unfailing fealty forever and any failure of loyalty and any measure of doubt is to be taken as the vilest sort of treason...

Still, it is amusing when Gene tries to feign reasonableness by using words such as "discourse" and proper sentence structure and no random capitalization. Stick around because he'll soon be calling me fat and telling people to SUCK HIS DICK.

It may seem strange that Gene (Jeremy) professes to hate this blog and all of its regular contributors, claims to dislike the author of this blog and constantly impugns her motives and loyalties, rarely if ever posts anything of a positive nature, responds to argument with the vilest sort of puerile insult and yet continues to post hundreds of comments every week, sometimes dozens of times in one comment thread.

That he continue here would be a mystery to anyone who didn't understand the motives of an old-fashioned internet troll. "Jeremy" (Gene Olson) is here to disrupt and destroy.

Thus ends today's colloquy on the motives and methods of Althouse's only troll.

elHombre said...

Jeremy wrote: "Anybody who believes Ann Althouse voted for Obama needs to have their head examined."

We believe that Althouse voted for Obama because Althouse said she voted for Obama and we have no reason to think she is a liar, much less to accuse her of lying.

You accuse her of lying solely because her blogging about Obama puts his performance at issue and, as one of his dupes, you don't like that.

That's pretty much how it is and everybody here knows it and now you know we know it.

This is a case of my observing the obvious, but I feel justified because you seem to be really stupid and probably hadn't noticed any of it.

Ann Althouse said...

If you think I didn't vote for Obama, articulate a motivation for lying and saying that I did. It makes no sense!

Ann Althouse said...

McCain wasn't going to win Wisconsin. Why would I secretly slip him one vote? Saying who I voted for was much more important than actually voting in my case.

former law student said...

I don't consider myself to be a sensitive individual

Ah, the famous faux outrage of the right.

Alberto Gonzales is a Latino with an inspirational life story. His name was widely floated as a candidate for the Supreme Court during the Bush administration. Conservatives opposed his nomination, indicating he was a moderate. Picking W.'s Attorney General -- a moderate Hispanic-American with an inspirational life story -- for the Supreme Court would surely heal our nation's wounds.

Why did the black firefighters who took the test do so poorly on it?

Why do middle and upper-class blacks who had good educational opportunities not do as well on the SAT or LSAT?

In other words, any test on which whites do better than blacks is prima facie valid. So let's just get on with it, and promote the top-scoring whites. Is there even a question that whites are superior to blacks?

Is that the preference you think is at issue when I used the term "social preferences" in this context, blacks preferred to whites?

Sorry I misunderstood. You are opposed to social preferences such as fairness and altruism -- I get it now.

Quayle said...


Sorry I misunderstood. You are opposed to social preferences such as fairness and altruism -- I get it now.


I'm all for alturism, at the local and individual level.

I'm all for volunteers helping someone that needs help to score better on tests.

I'm all for reaching down to raise up anyone below me.

The issue is so much more compelling when it is framed in terms of education level and economics.

But with the left, it never is. It is always about race and color.

And I'm against that classification because it is meaningless. Are poor whites any less deserving of help than poor blacks?

And because of this, I am against the left's asserted superiority because they want to make the government see race and color when I believe that the only test should be poverty and education.

Bruce Hayden said...

No judge who has reviewed Ricci's case has agreed with Counselor Aaron, which cast doubts upon his understanding of the law.

My count is that one judge actually ruled on the case, and three appeals judges (including Sotomayor) voted to punt, but arguably knew that they were on shaky grounds, which is why they didn't issue an opinion - possibly hoping that without an opinion, they wouldn't be reversed.

We shall see whether or not she was right here. My bet is that with Justice O'Connor replaced by Justice Alito, there will be five strong votes against Judge Sotomayor's position here.

But, we shall see.

Bruce Hayden said...

I really don't see these social hot buttons being all that important over the next couple of years. Maybe this is a way to activate and incite the cultural conservatives, but overall, I think many more people are going to vote based on the economy, and maybe even national security.

mccullough said...

FLS,

You didn't answer the questions.

(I don't think whites or asians are superior to blacks or hispanics.)

I think the firefighters who got the highest scores on the New Haven test worked harder.

Disparate impact assumes the (non-asian) minorities work as hard. What is the evidence for this in the New Haven case?

What is the evidence that Michigan Law School's black admittees worked as hard as the white and asian applicants. And why was the standard at U-M law lower for blacks than hispanics of the same socio-economic background?

Affirmative action proponents have no answers for these questions.

Jeremy said...

Ann Althouse said..."If you think I didn't vote for Obama, articulate a motivation for lying and saying that I did. It makes no sense!"

Well, start with your posting of ridiculous and embarrassing drivel via Drudge and Rush Limbauh, always designed to denigrate the man YOU say you say you cast a vote for as our President.

People who vote for candidates generally try to to give that person a reasonable opportunity to initiate and implement their policies before launching their minions into a frenzy over each and every thing he or she says or does.

Here are some of your recent HEADLINES, all designed, not for discourse, but to feed the local right wing haters:

"Let's watch C-SPAN clips of Senator Obama fretting about the dysempathy of those terrible judges, Roberts and Alito."
(This compared to the right calling the woman a racist?)

""If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." (Ann - "So says President Obama as he leaves on his Middle East trip.") - If you took the top 100...where would we be...Ann?

"What about Bagram?" (The detention site Obama doesn't even want to talk about.)- Is it important right now? Is it more important than what he has addressed?

"Caption contest!" (Brought out all the locals racists with that one) Michelle with Nancy Reagan...did you really think this was interesting...Ann?

"Let's parse Obama's Cairo speech."
("I'm on the road. Somewhere in Indiana. Obama's with the Egyptians, and I'm with the Hoosiers. Start the parsing without me.") Obama "with the Egyptians"...= Bring it on wingnuts...)

"Hannity interviews Limbaugh"
(Two heavyweight journalists beating Sotomayor and Obama into the ground?) - Important stuff...Ann?

"Ideas were exchanged on this important trip to Egypt that will have profound effects on our own national composition..." (A major international speech and you run the photo shopped Pharaoh picture? = Bring it on wingnuts.)

"Drudge uses this photo for "USA MOVES LEFT, EU GOES RIGHT." (Another journalistic wingnut heavyweight you apparently admire and adore)

*Now...

Run some of the highlights of any headlines or comments you've made that are respectful of Obama, that illustrate any admiration for literally anything he has done since elected.

You know...since you say you voted for the man...there must be SOMETHING you approve of.

elHombre said...

FLS wrote: "Ah, the famous faux outrage of the right."

I see. You post, at 5:05, a comment implying that there are no "Mexican-Americans, or other Hispanic-Americans, with moderate views" who were qualified to be nominated to the SCOTUS -- and my protest was "faux outrage?"

Funny, I would assume any decent American would be offended by the supercilious bigotry evident in your comment, but suit yourself.

I note also that your incompetence to respond to my post questioning your legal knowledge led you to fraudulently attribute statements to me that were made by other commenters. (6:44 PM: "Why did ...?"; "Why do...?")

Was it sort of a "straw-straw man?" Or was it just old fashioned lying on your part?

This is sleazy work even for you.

Lem said...

What great fun for the culture ideologues as well as the many of us who think it's such a drag to always have to talk about the wars and the economy!

Here here.

elHombre said...

Jeremy wrote: People who vote for candidates generally try to to give that person a reasonable opportunity to initiate and implement their policies before launching their minions into a frenzy over each and every thing he or she says or does.

Translation, courtesy of Palladian: Yes, because when you vote for someone you owe them unending and unfailing fealty forever and any failure of loyalty and any measure of doubt is to be taken as the vilest sort of treason...

Never mind that Jeremy's comment does not provide an answer to the Althouse question, "Why would I lie?"

It does give this crybaby an opportunity to air his petty grievances with the proprietor, who is entitled to post here as she pleases.

My three year-old granddaughter has an occasional tantrum about things I do. Her reason: "I didn't want you to ...!" This behavior is far more unbecoming in a grown man.

Ann Althouse said...

@Jeremy You failed to respond to the question asked. No credit.

Jeremy said...

Now let's see all of the embarrasing or leading headlines and photos about:

Palin
Newt
Steele
Limbaugh
Drudge

Palladian said...

"@Jeremy You failed to respond to the question asked."

What a surprise!

Meade said...

"... Why would I secretly slip him one vote? ..."

Driving poor hapless Jeremy inalterably insane might be a reason... if in fact you were truly a cruel and villainous person instead of the superhero goddess blogger fighting for truth, justice, and the American way - the way we all know you are.

Jeremy said...

Ann: "If you think I didn't vote for Obama, articulate a motivation for lying and saying that I did. It makes no sense!"

I articulated the "motivation."

The "motivation is a feeble attempt at representing yourself as a liberal leaning or middle of the road leaning "independent" who's "above it all," when in fact you don't have the guts to admit you're really a conservative. (At least politically)

*And if I remember right, you admit to voting for Bush...the 2nd time around no less. That either makes you what I say you are or a frigging moron...which do you prefer?

You're the genesis of the insane bitching and whining about all Obama that represents about 50-70% of the site's content...but if you're making dough and we all know about the feeding of the ego ...I understand that end of it.

I just wish some of the local "househeads" would have the guts or respect to say anything remotely positive about President Obama.

Being the "Independent" you are, you could start a whole new thing: Actual discourse versus the current "God, we all hate Obama so much we can't stand it" model.

Right now you're preaching to the 35% choir.

Jeremy said...

Meade...oh, we're so proud of you!!

You're a good boy.

Ann, give him five "Housedead" stars.

Pogo said...

"@Jeremy You failed to respond to the question asked."

He's all flustrered, trying to figure out how Sarah Palin did a Tonya Harding on Sotomayor.

garage mahal said...

"... Why would I secretly slip him one vote? ..."

Just so you can say you voted for him and your motives for posting inane Drudge nonsense is justified. "I voted for Al Gore!". "I voted for Obama!" I can't be peddling conservative claptrap!"

By the way that was a classic head fake by Drudge today getting everyone talking about a stupid picture of Michelle Obama to get wingers all juiced up instead of the clusterfuck NSRC fundraiser. Just like when ted Haggard got busted Drudge had the sirens going with "WHERE"S NANCY??!!!" Haha. So easy.

elHombre said...

Now let's see all of the embarrasing or leading headlines and photos about: Palin, Newt, etc.

Hmmm. What national offices do these folks hold and how are they responsible for running the country?

Seems like when you run around braying, "We won. You lost," you ought not to be offended when people notice and scrutinize, or criticize, accordingly.

Jeremy said...

elHombre said...Yes, because when you vote for someone you owe them unending and unfailing fealty forever and any failure of loyalty and any measure of doubt is to be taken as the vilest sort of treason...

No.

It means that when you vote for someone to be the President of the United States, it's assumed you've thought about and researched the person you're voting for, and generally that's what made you decide to do so.

People who take the time to do such research, don't immediately abandon their choice or fail to support them, especially within the first 5 months of their tenure.
(You supported Bush for eight years and look what that got us.)

I realize YOU didn't vote for Obama, but yours and others incessant whining and bitching makes you all look like fools.

Househeads as it were.

Jeremy said...

Pogo...too late, dickweed.

I did respond.

You're such suck-ass...

Palladian said...

"I realize YOU didn't vote for Obama, but yours and others incessant whining and bitching makes you all look like fools."

And YOUR incessant whining AND bitching DURING the Bush administration made YOU look LIKE what, GENE?

Palladian said...

"Pogo...too late, dickweed.

I did respond.

You're such suck-ass..."

Ahh, now he's dropped the whole "discourse" shit and is acting like himself again! Tell Althouse to suck your dick, Gene!

Jeremy said...

Why isn't there a blaring headline referring the Househeads to this?

How in the world is the Republican Party going to orchestrate its comeback if it's having such a tough time organizing the seating chart for one fundraising dinner?

That, at least, is the question being posed by many amused spectators of the GOP's puzzling game of musical chairs it appears to be playing with Sarah Palin.
(Time...and it's happening as we post)

Jeremy said...

Palladian, I responded to Pogo's snarky comment.

I don't consider that an aspect of "discourse."

I consider it deserved.

Jeremy said...

Palladian - Does this Gene person know you love him?

Pogo said...

Jeremy thinks I'm talking about him.

Weird, that.

Bruce Hayden said...

In regards to my previous post, suggesting that culture issues are unlikely to be all that important for voters, a recent Rasmussen poll on the Importance of Issues shows abortion tenth in importance, behind: the economy; government ethics; SS; national security/ terrorism; taxes; education; health care; Iraq; and immigration, with over twice as many people rating the economy as very important than they did abortion.

Their poll today shows that for the first time in over two years, Voters Now Trust Republicans More than Democrats on Economic Issues. The likely voters polled still trusted the Democrats more than the Republicans for: health care; education; and social security, but trusted the Republicans more for: the economy; taxes; Iraq, national security; government ethics; and immigration. Interestingly, abortion was the one issue where the two parties tied.

Combining these two polls could arguably give the impression that the Democrats may have overreached with pushing their agenda.

Bruce Hayden said...

How in the world is the Republican Party going to orchestrate its comeback if it's having such a tough time organizing the seating chart for one fundraising dinner?

See the polling date I linked to in my previous post.

traditionalguy said...

A little refresher course on code words in hispanic communities: Their usage of the term "white men " refers to anglo-saxon, English speaking Protestants who traditionally have disrespected the Culture planted by the Catholic Monarchs of Spain in the areas reserved to them by the Pope in 1493-94. Since those "White Men" conquered Spain's possessions during the Spanish-American war, our Government has been in possession of the hispanic people living in Puerto Rico for 500 years(like the Phillipines also were until 1945) . To argue by deliberately equating her code words usage with the usage of the word Whites by the descendants of former African Slaves seeking reparations, whom we are all fed up with, like a Jesse Jackson, is being deliberately disingenuous.

Palladian said...

"To argue by deliberately equating her code words usage with the usage of the word Whites by the descendants of former African Slaves seeking reparations, whom we are all fed up with, like a Jesse Jackson, is being deliberately disingenuous."

You know, if you keep digging that hole, you're never going to get out.

elHombre said...

It means that when you vote for someone to be the President of the United States, it's assumed you've thought about and researched the person you're voting for, and generally that's what made you decide to do so.

Nobody who "researched" Obama thoroughly could have voted for him with any enthusiasm. Those who voted for him without enthusiasm -- presumably including Althouse -- will be scrutinizing his performance with a discernment you obviously lack, Gene, and resent in others.

former law student said...

I note also that your incompetence to respond to my post questioning your legal knowledge led you to fraudulently attribute statements to me that were made by other commenters

Jeez o Pete get over yourself.
I never (well almost never) attribute anything to anyone. If you recognize a statement, what follows is a response.

I still don't see how my genius suggestion of Gonzales for the Supreme Court -- a solution intended to have almost every Althouse commenter clasping hands and singing Kum Ba Ya -- implied I thought there were no Hispanics with moderate views.

But OK, Carlos Moreno.

former law student said...

It means that when you vote for someone to be the President of the United States, it's assumed you've thought about and researched the person you're voting for, and generally that's what made you decide to do so.

People who take the time to do such research, don't immediately abandon their choice or fail to support them, especially within the first 5 months of their tenure.

That people generally vote for the person they like better doesn't mean they have to like them at all. Althouse could have rationally yet unenthusiastically preferred Obama to Clinton, and then Obama to McCain.

But my personal feeling is that Althouse was careful to view Obama with an unbiased eye, lest she be considered an unabashed cheerleader or Obamabot. She is merely giving Obama the same scrutiny after the election that she gave him before.

I will admit there are two factors that make Althouse seem an unlikely Obama voter. But these factors are far from conclusive.

First, she is a Rush Limbaugh listener. How anyone not a dittohead could listen to that man for more than ten minutes boggles my mind. But Althouse may be made of tougher material than me.

Second, she attracts a very conservative commentariat. I cannot explain why conservatives flock to the moderate Althouse, other than they feel she gives them a fair shake.

Jason said...

Gene,

Jeepers you give academics a bad name.

You - a psych professor - can't figure out what motive means?

Kirk Parker said...

FLS,

Indeed, Sotomayor having used the line repeatedly doesn't in fact prove she was wrong. But that's not why the repetition was cited. Rather, it's very conclusive evidence that it was said deliberately, rather than just being a slip of the tongue or a extemporaneous misstatement.

Michael Hasenstab said...

What seems to be absent from this thread are thoughtful and analytical comments from anyone who has actually, you know, read Sottomayor's opinions.

Ann Althouse said...

"How anyone not a dittohead could listen to that man for more than ten minutes boggles my mind. But Althouse may be made of tougher material than me."

Well, then you haven't listened long enough to get the hang of what's going on with the show. Break that 10 minute barrier and you might understand.

I started listening *after he mentioned me on the show.* That piqued my interest. I listened and I got hooked.

elHombre said...

Fls wrote: I still don't see how my genius suggestion of Gonzales for the Supreme Court -- a solution intended to have almost every Althouse commenter clasping hands and singing Kum Ba Ya -- implied I thought there were no Hispanics with moderate views.

Of course, you don't. Lack of insight is part of what makes a bigot a bigot.

elHombre said...

FLS wrote: But my personal feeling is that Althouse was careful to view Obama with an unbiased eye.... I cannot explain why conservatives flock to the moderate Althouse, other than they feel she gives them a fair shake.

Bigoted, leftist dogmatist attempts rehabilitation through ass-kissing.

elHombre said...

Oh yeah, a full rendition of the operative quote in your 12:14 AM comment should have been:

"...implied I thought there were no Hispanics with moderate views [who are qualified for the Supreme Court]."

I hope that helps.

former law student said...

"...implied I thought there were no Hispanics with moderate views [who are qualified for the Supreme Court]."

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices/moreno.htm

former law student said...

That piqued my interest. I listened and I got hooked.

I grew to like coffee, beets, and Brussels sprouts, so maybe repeated listening would help.

nansealinks said...

no one wants anyone to be raped?

well except for the rapist

who wants to masturbate to your voice every night

who wants to get you in bed no matter if you are willing or not

who does not hear the words: no this is not right

who might slip something in a drink

and that is just the minor case of date rape

violentrape is even worse

elHombre said...

FLS cites (9:34 AM):
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/justices/moreno.htm

Bigoted, leftist dogmatist attempts self-rehabilitation by acknowledging that there is one moderate Hispanic-American judge who is qualified for the SCOTUS.

elHombre said...

...and claiming to like Brussels sprouts.