Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Cornyn Pushes Back On Sotomayor Vote



Sen. John Cornyn defended Republican opposition to Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supeme Court. Photo by Chris Kleponis/Bloomberg News

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) dismissed as "Democratic cheerleading" the idea that voting against the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court will negatively impact the standing of his party with Hispanics.

"The disagreement that I and others have is not personal to Judge Sotomayor," said Cornyn at a briefing for reporters today. "I frankly wound up liking her on a personal level."

Cornyn's comments came just minutes after Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and a Hispanic, said (in Spanish) that "Republicans will pay a price for saying 'no' to this judge."

Cornyn alleged that criticisms of Republican opposition to Sotomayor as anti-Hispanic flies in the face of past statements made by Democrats relating to the nomination of judge Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2003 as well as the criticism directed at former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The vote on Sotomayor is expected tomorrow evening. To date, seven Republican Senators have announced they will vote for her while 28 have indicated they will cast a "no" vote. There are four three GOP Senators -- Judd Gregg (N.H.), George Voinovich (Ohio), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and John Barrasso (Wyoming) (Barasso is a "no") -- who have yet to announce how they will vote.

As the Post's Paul Kane astutely points out, two of them -- Gregg and Voinovich -- are former governors while a third -- Murkowski -- is the daughter of a former governor, meaning that they may give more precedence to executive privilege than some of their colleagues who have spent their lives in legislative bodies.

Cornyn argued that while Republicans badly lost the Hispanic vote in the 2008 election -- President Barack Obama defeated Sen. John McCain by a 67 percent to 31 percent margin among Latinos, according to exit polling -- those results should not be taken as sign that Latinos generally, the nation's largest minority group, are slipping from the GOP's grasp forever.

"Lots of these economic issues are what will determine the Hispanic vote in 2010 and I predict we will do well," said Cornyn. "One thing that is important is to show respect and I think we have accomplished that goal."

That premise will be put to the test in the coming months.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 5, 2009; 1:32 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Fix: The Comeback Kid (Again)
Next: A Word on Mouthpiece Theater

Comments

Chris,

I'm sorry to see Mouthpiece Theater end. I did enjoy your attempt at satire, and feel that we need to laugh more, if only to keep ourselves from crying all the time.
I'll be watching to see how your role will evolve. Thanks for your effort.

Posted by: gbruner1 | August 6, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Let me add to the TX history lesson: the presiding officer of the MX constitutional convention was another Texican, de Zavala. He was also to become Sam Houston's first VP of the Republic of TX, 13 years later, after the revolt against Santa Anna.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 6, 2009 1:38 AM | Report abuse

FranknErnest, the USA did not take TX from Mexico.

The Mexican Constitution of 1823 was enlightened and modeled after the US Constitution, but slavery was outlawed. Stephen F. Austin was its primary author.

Bustamante and then Santa Anna seized power by force and shredded the constitution. MX provided no defense against the Comanches in TX and the Apaches in NM. Austin and the libertarian Tejanos were betrayed by an anti-democratic tyrant.

TX seceded in 1836. Northern NM effectively seceded, too. The Republic of Texas existed for 9 years and then was annexed by treaty with the USA. The War with MX was not until 1849, and would have been lost but for the Texas Rangers as the USA did not have a cavalry. The Rangers had formed to fight the Comanches when MX would not do so. Ironic, sort of.
------------------
When I go to Santa Fe and see the oldest continuously used public building in North America dating from the EARLY SEVENTEENTH CENTURY I realize that American history in textbooks about Puritans and Virginia Colony are a small part of the story. And Manifest Destiny was not about Texas.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 6, 2009 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Jake's "tax protest" troll is criminal, not to mention stupid. If you get a tax refund why would you want a monthly pittance when you can have an annual windfall?

My refunds range between $7K and $15K, but they won't be as large after next year since I've paid just off my house and no longer get a mortgage deduction. Getting all that refund at once allows a major purchase or a major investment (read: gold bullion, land and hotels in Việt Nam) without dipping into savings. Getting it in monthly dribbles would mean a few extra CDs or something. I'd rather get the lump.

In any case, Jake is advocating committing tax fraud to make another brainless point about his hatred for President Obama. It's gone from pestering the forum to criminality.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 12:40 AM | Report abuse

This business about declaring extra deductions as a form of tax protest is another brilliant idea from the same people who thought up the Tea Bagging parties. What next, pencil drops?

I hope Jacked gives us a heads-up when it's Wear Your Clothes Backwards Day.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 6, 2009 12:12 AM | Report abuse

When Democrats voted in large numbers against Alito they had rock-solid reasons. Alito was a member of a racist group at Princeton and he dodged questions about it. He also gave evasive answers to numerous questions and as his performance on the bench has shown, the system failed in his case. He should not have been nominated, as he has proven to be a very activist justice, overturning settled law again and again.

Those opposing Sotomayor don't have any such reasons; they make a lot of hay about a single unguarded statement years ago, taken out of context, and which in the absence of an ethnic dimension wouldn't raise concerns. Alito said much the same thing but he's white.

Republicans are going to vote against her for two simple reasons:\

(1) she's an Obama nominee and they intend to obstruct and oppose and if that doesn't work, hold their breath until they turn blue

(2) Sotomayor is Hispanic, and the idea of someone neither white nor male at the pinnacle of American power offends Republicans to the core.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 6, 2009 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Typical Republican Lemming who is programmed to just say "no" and who can't act on his own........

An Independent

Posted by: aeaustin | August 5, 2009 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Typical Republican Lemming who is programmed to just say "no" and who can't act on his own........

An Independent

Posted by: aeaustin | August 5, 2009 10:03 PM | Report abuse

cornyn must have a really small penis and feel threatened by sotamayor...same for jeff sessions and the others... what are these guys afraid of...

she's way more qualified than either alito or roberts, but wait, they're white men ... i forgot.. women and minorites don't count.. they have to sit on the back of the bus... in the 21st century...

cornyn technically represents northern mexico, i.e. the state of texas from which the land was taken, was it not? oh yea we called that, what, "manifest destiny"... the right to take it regardless of who owns it... maybe that was where the takings clause orginated?

Posted by: FranknErnest | August 5, 2009 9:38 PM | Report abuse

So is criminal advocacy A-OK with the moderators here?

I think this troll has crossed a serious line, and WaPo should consider its legal position in allowing this to go on.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 9:23 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Free legal (and tax) advice is worth exactly what you pay for it -- I no longer practice either -- this is not a "tax protest" as much as my encouragement to review your W-4 and not pay the government more than you owe.

In fact, you’re in the lucky group this applies to if you're one of the 75% of Americans who get a tax refund year after year -- for example, in 2008, the IRS issued nearly 107 million refunds averaging $2,400 each -- so far this year, the average refund is even more: $2,700.

If you're just "average," then, you deserve an extra $225 a month in your paychecks -- far more than is being delivered by pResident Obama's "stimulus" plan. Habitual refund receivers have every right -- and some might say a patriotic duty to actually stimulate the economy -- to order the IRS to take less out of their paychecks.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

For the record, if you stuck to the law and did not encourage people to "SEND A MESSAGE," your post would be merely off-topic and not border-line criminal.

Posted by: nodebris | August 5, 2009 9:08 PM | Report abuse

For the record, nine (9) allowances mean dependents plus other things that can lower your tax liability for the year -- there's not even any penalty / interest for W-4 filers if they pay 90% of the anticipated tax right before January 1. 2010 -- people take more "allowances" all the time, for instance, home mortgage payments, qualifying for head of household filing status, child tax credits, day care credits, etc.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

JakeD is encouraging tax fraud in the Washington Post.

If you take him up on this suggestion you may very well end up in jail. My advice is don't.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

SEND A MESSAGE!

Anyone out there earning a paycheck can get a quick raise immediately just by turning in a new W-4 Form to your employer claiming 9 allowances on Line 5 (I know that more than 10 allowances used to trigger an IRS inquiry -- not sure if that's still the case -- the last thing you need is a "lock down" letter). As for any "penalty" next April, that would be worth it to send a message to Obama to stop spending now. Or, you can simply send in one check to cover the difference right before January 1st and avoid the penalty:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf

Print it now, and turn it in to your employer tomorrow!

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 8:28 PM | Report abuse

My parish doesn't have a lot of Hispancs, but when I'm in line to take Communion I notice that 95% of the families are 3 kids or less, so it isn't quite like Catholics are still having a baby every time they have sex. I think there's a fair amount of active family planning going on. I know that doesn't mean we're all having abortions or that we all support a woman's right to control her own body... but I think it shows that in America, Catholics are talking and walking a line that is more like that of the average American.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 5, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I think any national leader who invokes religion in any way should be forced to resign immediately. I don't want effing bible verses woven into politics. Religion is a private matter and we are officially a secular nation.

If you don't like it, Jax, move to bloody Iran. Or go to the West Bank and shoot some little Palestinian kids.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

But the contention that "opposing Sotomayor equals racism" (not saying that you have made this argument)

==

I haven't made the argument that opposing Sotomayor is absolute evidence of racism, nor would I. I leave open the real possibility that there are people who oppose her for real reasons.

But ...

When the opponents state their reasons for opposing her, they're talking crap. They're giving shibboleths. Ergo, they aren't stating their real reasons for opposing her, which means their real reasons are something they need to hide.

On the one hand, Republicans have been acting like spoiled children for years. They will oppose everything Obama tries to do and never consider for a moment what's good or bad for the country.

And on the other hand a lot of Republicans really are racists. Remember George Allen? Tom Tancredo? Sarah Palin?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

DEM SENATORS--LEARN FROM OBAMA

take a WALK during the Sotomayor vote.

Like the Dear Leader did when he voted "Present"

Sotomayor's coronation is a done deal, so whats the harm???

That way, when she issues another whacko Opinion on Gun Bans, Bible Bans etc,during your election you are bulletproof.

Pull an Obama--take a walk during Sotomayor vote

ITS THE SMART MOVE

Posted by: JaxMax | August 5, 2009 8:20 PM | Report abuse

SOTOMAYOR SERMON ILLUSTRATIONS FOR PASTORS

Consider getting the scissors from the Children’s classes and put them in a big pile in front of the Pulpit. Don’t mention why they are there.

Then during the sermon read Leviticus 18:22.

Then ask if that verse is in THEIR Bible. Ask several people by name. Ask them to read the verse out loud.

Look at the piles of scissors.

This verse has been BANNED and CENSORED on Billboards in the United States by Obama Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor. Okwedy vs. Molinari is the Court Case name.

Will the COURT BAN or CENSOR the vilest pornography?? No, of course not, First Amendment doesn’t allow CENSORSHIP of filth, the Courts tell us.

BAN and CENSOR Bible verses?? No problem says Sotomayor in her Official Court Decision.

Unfortunately, our own Senator (NAME) has announced SHE/HE is GOING to CONFIRM Sotomayor.

The Senate hasn’t voted yet. Maybe Senator (NAME) didn’t know, maybe SHE/HE will decide NOT to BAN and CENSOR the Bible.

Or use these scissors to cut Leviticus 18:22 out of your Holy Bible, to save Senator (NAME) the trouble. Like Sotomayor ruled as a Judge.

More info

Posted by: JaxMax | August 5, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

@chrisfox8 - Well, I did just spend a few days in Costa Rica and then there's that job thing. Let's drill down on one point. To be precise, your statement that "Latinos are often Catholic and adhere to the church position on issues like abortion. "

According to Gallup, support for Catholics on pro-life issues such as abortion and stem cells is not that different from non-Catholics. For example on abortion, 40% vs. 41%. In the noise. The poll wasn't broken down by ethnic grouping, so I had to look elsewhere. A 2007 joint survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Hispanic Center shows that 65 percent of first-generation U.S. Hispanics believe abortion should be illegal. But among second-generation U.S. Hispanics like Ana, that percentage drops to 43 percent. There is a lot of different polling on whether people consider themselves pro-choice or pro-life, but a figure in the low to mid 40s is typically seen.

So, on the specific case you cited, neither Catholics nor Latinos (excluding 1st generation) are *not* that different from the general population. I stand by my post. It was not a dodge, but a clear statement to caution against overgeneralization. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm meeting friends for drinks and dinn.er

BB

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/catholics-similar-mainstream-abortion-stem-cells.aspx

http://mylatinonews.com/2009/07/generational-shift-for-us-hispanics-on-abortion/

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 5, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox8:

gotta go, more tomorrow.

Posted by: zachgarber | August 5, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse

As Big John has proven repeatedly, he is about as studied in the art of listening to reality and it's loud clanging in the same room as I am in speaking Russian as a third language....(I barely speak English)....

When Cornyn is standing in the middle of the two-lane highway, in front of the auditorium where it's just been announced that he got beaten by 20% in his re-election, and he's wondering what he did that his alleged constituents thought was not in their best interest, he'll see this moment in time coming back to him biting him square in the ass.

Have fun the next few years Johnny....as texas becomes part of Mexico and you'll have NO office to go back to...teehee...

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | August 5, 2009 8:16 PM | Report abuse

@zachgarber: I'm not at all convinced that justice was done in the Ricci case. Ricci has sued many times, and that makes me wonder if he just wants to use the court system to get his way. Second, I really don't buy the "reverse racism" angle at all, I think it's dog-whistle. And even if it does happen it's less of an issue that the smell of garlic farts as a topic of political salience.

Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark has been hashed over so many times already that I honestly feel it's a spot of turnip blood and nothing more. If that's all you have after all her years on the bench and in print, I say you got bupkis and you should support her nomination.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Hi Chrisfox8 again:

I agree that most of the criticism that Al Gonzalez got was well deserved. But the contention that "opposing Sotomayor equals racism" (not saying that you have made this argument) fall on deaf ears given the Miquel Estrada affair. Remeber the House memo/e-mail was leaked (part of the Computer Gate thing) several years back stating a reason for opposing Miguel Estarda to a federal judgeship was becuase he was "Hispanic." That was an explicit statement that the man should be opposed based on his race, but was easily forgotten.

Posted by: zachgarber | August 5, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm not going to name any names, but there was a comment on here earlier this evening that seemed to me to be a clear violation of the rules concerning profanity and personal attacks. I copied it and asked why that person should not be banned from the site. Instead of being posted, I got a message saying something about sending it to the blogmaster for review. What gives with that, CC? Do you have standards or not?
Just to be clear, the post in question did not involve me or anyone I know.

Posted by: justmike | August 5, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Sen. John Cornyn defended Republican opposition to Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supeme Court. Photo by Chris Kleponis/Bloomberg News

Prudence say....
Sonia Sotomayor deserve to be among the Supreme Court Justices. She has all the credentials better than the WHITE MEN. Sonia Sotomayor is one pill that the white men could not swallow for fear they get choked.
Anyone who deserve the job but is not of the white race....GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOU...because the white men will put all the obstacle in your way.
HISPANIC PEOPLE....UNITE. AND COME ELECTION TIME...YOU KNOW WHO NOT TO VOTE FOR. I am not hispanic but I give credit where credit is due. And also, I have the highest respect for a well rounded educated person like Sonia Sotomayor.

Posted by: prudencerussell | August 5, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Hi chrisfox8. Thanks for the polite response.

My main point was that a "no" vote on Sotomayor is not just a political vote (and certainly not a racist vote as has been stated or implied in these commens numerous times). But here's an argument: 2 reasons for a no vote.

1) Her legal reasoning is average, at best. The Ricci case shows that in spades. The SCOTUS held unanimously that her reasoning in the case was wrong. By ruling in the procederal manner she did, her dcision did not see the light of day and only by happenstance did a fellow judge learn of the case and investigate it on his own and bring it to light; i.e., without her fellow judge taking an interest, the SCOTUS would have never had heard the case and an injustice would have stood.

2) Her speech that includes the famous quote about the "wise Latina" was also published in a Berkley Law Review. So, she could have changed her very clear remarks before they were put in print. I think she beleives what she said and that she will use her personal feelings as a source for interpreting the Constitution, which is a problem. If we have a rule book that changes based on the feelings of the judges, it's not worth a lot. Like an umpire deciding maybe the foul line is a little to narrow; it's fine if you're the batter, but no so fine if you're the pitcher. Imagine 8 conservtive Supreme Court justices "going with their gut" instead of the law; scary thought, no?

Thanks for the exchange.

Posted by: zachgarber | August 5, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Incidentally, there is some implicit racism in claiming that a vote against Sotomayor will hurt Republicans. There are real strands of social conservatism in the Latino community. Furthermore, it is a heterogenous community.

==

I guess you missed the discussions where we talked about this a few weeks ago.

Latinos are often Catholic and adhere to the church position on issues like abortion. They are however very sensitive to bigotry against them, and so allegiance to the Republican Party is necessarily conflicted (I have one Latino friend whose rơommate is a [white] gay Republican, whom I don't talk politics with). As the Republicans have become more overt in their bigotry toward Latinos, I've seen this conflictedness resolve into unalloyed support for Democrats.

Nobody ever said or implied here that Latinos are entirely homogenous about anything, why should we have to? Is touching that base required in every discussion? No, it's not.

Reacting to generalization every time someone states an essentially accurate one is a dodge. I don't think of you as a dodger, but this is one.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Cornyn alleged that criticisms of Republican opposition to Sotomayor as anti-Hispanic flies in the face of past statements made by Democrats relating to the nomination of judge Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2003 as well as the criticism directed at former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

==

Another Republican statement, another lie.

Criticism of Gonzales wasn't because he had a Latino name, Gonzales was criticized because he was a lapdog for Bush and a legal mediocrity. He could have been a real estate attorney in Houston and led a perfectly reasonable and successful life, but Bush wanted an AG more cooperative than Ashcroft (!) and there was "Al," standing up on hind legs and with the newspaper in his jaws.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Credit to JakeD - Those votes didn't merely not cost Obama, they were essential to his victory. He had to outflank Hillary on the left.

Incidentally, there is some implicit racism in claiming that a vote against Sotomayor will hurt Republicans. There are real strands of social conservatism in the Latino community. Furthermore, it is a heterogenous community. Those of Cuban, Puerto Rican, Central American and South American descent (or immigrants) have different social backgrounds and histories. My sons technically qualify as Latino, given that their mother was born in Latin America (they also speak Spanish). However, they hardly look the part.

And how about Justice Thomas? That didn't seem to hurt the Democrats who voted against him and his nomination was seen by many as obvious racial politics. Cornyn may be right about this one.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 5, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

The usual spin from Croyn and the other racist Southern bigots in the Senate. All this spin of how much they admire Judge Sotomayor's personal story is their usual bull sh-- of how much they honor a woman of latina background. They are against women and minorities, and all for the good old white male southern KKK approach of keep them bare foot and preg. What a shame, but of course they have no shame.


Posted by: fwh33 | August 5, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

There are several legitimate arguments against putting Sotomayor on the bench;

==

Name one (1).

A real one, I mean.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Three things:

1) Hey rharring: Armitage was Novak's source. Get your facts straight (not straight from Kos or the DNC). Here's the CNN link: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/leak.armitage/index.html

2) Again and again, there are no argumnts here from the Left, just name calling. There are several legitimate arguments against putting Sotomayor on the bench; a no vote is not an insult to Hispanics (if a no vote is really an insult, why would only Hispanics be insulted and not the sensibilities of all Americans?!?).

3) I hope the outrage sounded in these comments from the Left was equllay felt when the House e-mail was leaked several years back stating a reason for opposing Miguel Estarda to a federal judgeship was becuase he was "Hispanic."

Posted by: zachgarber | August 5, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

The thing that Republicans can not understand is that many who do not particularly like Obama and even more so the Democrats can still not vote for Republicans because they behave like irresponsible children who ha[ve] no policies that have not already failed.

==

And true to this, dropping support for the Democrats is not being mirrored for increasing support for the GOP.

And even among GOP-identifying voters the enthusiasm is split. Since they're probably going to run some unhinged lo0ny like Sarah Palin, a sizeable percentage of GOP voters will just stay home.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 7:43 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is in it's death throes, so of course, we're going to hear a lot of whining and crying and screeching and the lashing of tongues.

It has taken over 200 years, but the USA is finally living up to it's original charter -- to welcome all people of all races and exist in a truly multicultural society where EVERYONE gets the same chance.

Of course, there are still a few white-trash throw-backs that need to be goal-kicked, but it's easy to see these self-righteous, whining, cowardly cretins are on the way out.

Don't get me wrong -- I have, just like Cornholio said, actually come to like some old whiteys "...on a personal level."

But mostly these days they're just good for fixing my appliances and growing potatoes -- certainly not fit to be political leaders for sure.

Welcome to your biggest nightmare whitey! We alls comin' ta git yas!

Boo!

.


Posted by: Frank57 | August 5, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

The thing that Republicans can not understand is that many who do not particularly like Obama and even more so the Democrats can still not vote for Republicans because they behave like irresponsible children who has no policies that have not already failed. They are a group of failed politicians who think that they will win on the cult of personality.

We have had 8 years of ineffective government and they advocate more of the same incompetence.

Posted by: Gator-ron | August 5, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

This is, of course, the same John Cornyn who was elected, twice, to the Texas Supreme Court and said on "Justice Sunday" that he could understand, though not condone, physical attacks on judges.

"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."

Congressional Record, April 4, 2005, p. S 3126.

Ironically, he was speaking about politicization of the judicial process. Explicit in much of the rest of his comments is rejection of the principle of equal protection under law and pretty clear support of the legitimacy of Southern laws against race-mixing.

Posted by: edallan | August 5, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Rightwingnut droolers bad
Libs good

Posted by: koolkat_1960
>>>>>>>>>>>

Ignorant coward, is that you??? I thought I recognized your stupidity.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Minorities turn out in higher percentages than whites, so I'm most pleased that the GOP has written them off. We'll see how far they get as the party of rural white bigots. After all there are *so many* of them, right?

(shades eyes, rotates head)

why, there's one, over there.

(pause)

never mind, a predator got'im

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

I guess Cornyn might have a point, in that the GOP is already so disliked by Hispanics that the vote against Sotomayor won't cause any further damage.

Posted by: nodebris | August 5, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

the zing_of_kouk is hilarious. Its wonderful that after 8 years of criminal idiocy and sustained nonsense we can be amused by the little jester and be thankful that his master's error is over.

Hey kouky, Can you feel the Socialism slowly creeping in on the edges? Your fingertips starting to get all tingly and your face a little flushed? The sinking realization that the world has passed you by and you can't stop it? Welcome to the 21st Century.

Gonna be a long 8 years of suffering for you, kouky. Don't get yourself too worked up in the first 12 months...this is just the beginning of your nightmare, which will hopefully reverse the nightmare this country suffered since the stolen election of 2000.

Posted by: rbarry531 | August 5, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Cornyn better watch his P's & Q's being a closet Gay himself along with Perry. This homophobic country is the last of this kind of it's archaic thinking.

Posted by: crrobin | August 5, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"Ugh. Makes things easy, like thinking.

Posted by: king_of_zouk "

Says the guy who pretty much copies and pastes everything.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 5, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Queenofkook wrote: "what a simple view of the world this idiot has.

Repubs bad
Libs good"

I doubt it, ace. "Repubs" is a political party. "Libs" is not.

What you are probably going for is something like this:

Rightwingnut droolers bad
Libs good

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 5, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

While I find Mr. Cornyn repugnant in most if not all of his "stands," I think he and other of our representatives should vote on the basis of their best thinking, not as buttboys to any special interest group. Unfortunately, we spectators, i.e., the citizens of the Republic, do not get to see that very often.

Posted by: richjmurphy | August 5, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

dont blame corn dog. hes only doing what limbaugh,rove tell him to.his next trick will be to rollover and lick himself.good doggie.

Posted by: donaldtucker | August 5, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

GOP troll telling lies in here, just like they all do, everywhere.

Posted by: chrisuxcox

what a simple view of the world this idiot has.

Repubs bad
Libs good

Ugh. Makes things easy, like thinking.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Go back to stormfront

Posted by: chrisuxcox

another evidence of blind ignorance on display from the queen of the blog.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Sotomayor didn't lie under oath. If she had then both parties' committee members would have jumped on it. This is just another stupid GOP troll telling lies in here, just like they all do, everywhere.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

DHS SECRETARY NAPOLITANO:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR FUSION CENTERS ARE REALLY DOING...

...USING WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE AS PRETEXT TO HARASS AND CENSOR?

Can't seem to access, or post to, certain web sites -- especially, political sites? Or audio/video news feeds?

Are the functions of your computer "hijacked" by third-party remote computing software? Do important email messages fail to elicit a response?

Does your web browser suddenly and repeatedly crash for no apparent reason -- especially when you are visiting a site that focuses on politics or opinion?

Do you often get the "endless beach ball" -- your computer simply stalls and refuses to move -- except for that constantly whirling icon?

Are you blocked from making posts to certain web sites -- seemingly based on the content of your post? Do you receive messages like "your comment awaits moderation" ... but your comments never seem to post?

When you hit the "submit" button to send a comment, does the browser task bar start to churn, and then suddenly reads "stopped" before resuming after a noticeable pause?

Do political blog pages fail to update even if you hit the "refresh" button -- keeping you from making timely comments to new blog entries?

Do cookie "blocks" show up in your "preferences" list, even though you didn't request a block, thus preventing you from access?

Are you prevented from fully viewing public documents you try to download
from government web sites?

When you post, do typos, spelling errors and other anomalies appear in your comments (after a time-delay in the posting process) -- even though you carefully proofread the submission?

If any combination of the above happens with disturbing regularity, you could be the unwitting victim of government "fusion centers" that apparently are using internet "filtering" and real-time remote computing surveillance to censor and maliciously interfere with the telecommunications of American citizens.

Please see this running account of apparent Constitutional affronts, in the "comments" section of this ACLU blog thread:

http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-government-mandate

Then demand that American Civil Liberties Union renew its fight against warrantless government spying by filing a class-action suit against unconstitutional surveillance and malicious interference with personal and business telecommunications.

Recently, this writer learned of the Bush-Cheney "doctrine" of "ideological exclusion" -- apparently used to bar political "activists" from abroad from visiting the United States.

Could authoritarian bureaucrats be using this doctrine as a justification to censor political speech in this country?

If you suspect the answer is "yes," please add your account to the free speech thread cited above.

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 5, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Perjury and lying under oath are really serious charges. Why aren't they releasing a statement or presenting evidence or something?

We can't have a perjury and proven liar on the Supreme Court! This is really alarming -- do they have proof of this that they are withholding from the Senate and Obama and us? Who are they protecting? I want to see it quick so I can write my Senator! This is horrible.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 5, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

A big part of it is the nature of the opposition to Sotomayor. You know, if its on judicial philosophy, that's one thing. And while Cornyn and Limbaugh are two different people, the cries of racism reflect poorly on the elected representatives and given the steadfast refusal of Republicans to distance themselves from the shock jocks,

Posted by: DDAWD | August 5, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

At least "Vickie803" didn't get accused of being me in drag ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Yes, please provide the evidence of Sotomeyor perjury. We're waiting.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

king of stupid,

on your Emanuel hijacking the media. I guess well actually i am not surprised because you and your GOP ilk have a hard time with history for get that Bush/Cheney used NYT columnist Judy Miller to get out their WMD lies. And Karl Rove and Scooter Libby used Bob Novak and Cooper from Time to out an undercover CIA agent. Emanuel asking the head of networks to broadcast Obamas speech pairs in comparrison to these two treasonous acts.........

Posted by: rharring | August 5, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

So is the present day GOP saying that Bush '41 is a Liberal?
The GOP of today are nothing but a bunch of political hacks who believe that group think is a great thing for America.
For an example of perjury during a confirmation hearing, you should look up both of Rehnquist's confirmation hearings. He also lived in a gated community that denied entrance to African-Americans and Jews. A true GOP hero.

Posted by: lasker1895 | August 5, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Since the GOP senators are too chicken to say it, please enlighten us:

What did Sotomayor say that was perjury?

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 5, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse


"They are voting against her because she perjured herself under oath and has proven to be a liar."

If that were true, I would hope that just one of them would have the courage to say so.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 5, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

They are voting against her because she perjured herself under oath and has proven to be a liar

==

Go back to stormfront

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Vickie803 is an example of one of the funnier manifestations of the www

You get to start by claiming yourself to be especially qualified to flame your object.

Example:

I am getting my Klan hood starched as we speak, but I really think Negroes are people too.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 5, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

leeh11281 writes
"They are voting against her because she perjured herself under oath and has proven to be a liar."


Yet none of them cite those reasons for voting no. Surely the good senators would use such facts to explain their reasoning, if such facts were true.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 5, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

You are a Republican troll.

Posted by: chrisuxcox

after hours of heavy contemplation, the misogynist queen finally arrives at a conclusion. the depth of the intellect is stunning in it's paucity.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Sonia Sotomayor was eminently qualified when she was first appointed to the bench by President Bush. She is even more qualified after serving on the Court of Appeals. Nothing in her rulings contests that.

Cornyn and the rest of the NRA lapdogs are voting against her because she was nominated by Obama. Period. Many admitted that they would have opposed his pick "no matter who it was."

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 5, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse
======================
They are voting against her because she perjured herself under oath and has proven to be a liar.

Posted by: leeh11281 | August 5, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Cornyn rhymes with moron. It's funny to watch a white out of touch dinosaur expain to me how Latinos think.

Posted by: unpluggedboodah | August 5, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Sonia Sotomayor was eminently qualified when she was first appointed to the bench by President Bush. She is even more qualified after serving on the Court of Appeals. Nothing in her rulings contests that.

Cornyn and the rest of the NRA lapdogs are voting against her because she was nominated by Obama. Period. Many admitted that they would have opposed his pick "no matter who it was."

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 5, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat who is definitely not riding the liberal runaway train screaming down conservative objections. I have serious concerns regarding Obama's agenda. I've got to say a big fat NO to Sotomayor; she is a racist.

==

You are a Republican troll.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama's political agenda is clearly devoted to minorities and how to provide for the latinos he intends to give citizenship. If you haven't heard him express it more than once, you haven't been listening closely enough.

==

Are you aware that there are tens of millions of Latinos who are legitimate American citizens, or is it your belief that anyone in the US who speaks Spanish is an illegal alien?

I know it's rough when your intelligence is so severely limited by nature's cruelty in your case, but please, try to keep up.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat who is definitely not riding the liberal runaway train screaming down conservative objections. I have serious concerns regarding Obama's agenda. I've got to say a big fat NO to Sotomayor; she is a racist.

Posted by: Vickie803 | August 5, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone listen to a Republican, especially one from Texas. ? Republicans from that state are like a plague on the rest of the country.

Posted by: wasaUFO | August 5, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse


As for Cornyn losing Senate seats in 2010, I see that Cilliza's "top ten" senate races (most likely to switch hands) is five Democrats and five Republicans. This far out, I'd say the odds are that the net change will be zero, plus or minus one.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 5, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama's political agenda is clearly devoted to minorities and how to provide for the latinos he intends to give citizenship. If you haven't heard him express it more than once, you haven't been listening closely enough.

Posted by: Vickie803 | August 5, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

GOP upset victory in Delaware special election (updated)
Brett McCrae
Roughly one month ago Delaware State Senator (Senator President Pro Tem as well) Thurman Adams (D) died at the age of 80 from a bout with pancreatic cancer. There was a special election yesterday and the two front runners were Joe Booth (R) and Polly Adams Mervine (D and daughter of the late Senator Thurman Adams). Polly had two major things going for her:


1) she is a Democrat; and


2) she is the daughter of Thurman.


Legacy politics is the political way of life in Delaware. Beau Biden won the AG's spot because of his last name... nothing else.


Nevertheless Joe Booth won, taking a seat that was held by the Democratic Party for roughly 40 years in a state where the Democrats rule the House, Senate, and the Governor's office.


What is most remarkable about the win was the margin. Joe garnered over 60% of the vote in a heavy Democrat area and trounced Adams Mervine by 30 points.


I went to a couple of the polling places and the turn out for Republicans was huge. Far be it from me to say this is a bellwether, but I would venture a guess that the current state of local and national politics is beginning to bring out the conservative wing of the Republican Party here. And if it can happen here it will likely happen elsewhere.
Joe Booth won with over 60% of the vote. That happened despite Polly Adams Mervine raising over 2 times the money. Joe raised about $20,000 while Polly raised over $52,000. I am not a political expert but I don’t think that happens all too often. More food for thought.

Hey CC, did you miss this while you were making one of your little videos with the costumes and make up? this ios a clear indication that Obama-socialism is a total flop and the voters are getting set to turn out the wacko Liobs into their own creation - the unemployment line.

hooray!

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The Republican senators voting against Sotomayor are not opposing her because she is Hispanic, not qualified, or a "judicial activist." They are voting against her because she was nominated by Obama. For them, voting yes would amount to admitting their irrelevance so they vote No to remind people that there's still an opposition.

The Republicans voting to support her, with the exception of Lindsey Graham, are either retiring or are the old guard of the party's vanishing moderate wing.

Among the conservatives, only Graham and Kit Bond (who is retiring) had the grace to admit Sotomayor is qualified for the job and buck the rest of their comrades, though they seem to be using their "Yes" vote to needle Obama about voting against Roberts and Alito.

Frankly, though, senators don't have to support the nominees of a president of the opposite party either for judgeships or cabinet positions. But they do so at the risk of leaving those positions unfilled and defying the electorate that put that president in office.

As both Graham and Bond pointed out, elections do matter, and Senators pick their fights carefully. The GOP didn't really try to oppose Sotomayor. They staged some political theater as the "loyal opposition," but it was just to put out markers for future battles.

Posted by: Gallenod | August 5, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

So, how many seats does the Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman, John "cornhole" Cornyn, think that he's likely to lose in 2010?

Three? Five or Six?

'the old cornhole' would be lucky if things looked that GOOD for the republotards - which they definitely DO NOT!

A couple of appearances by President Obama and some solid Acorn work and 'the old cornhole', John Cornyn, will probably even lose the race to replace ole' grandma Hutchison in Texas to the Democrats.

Another day, another discredited republotard.

Posted by: Heerman532 | August 5, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Around 200 B.C. there was an economic crisis, similar to the one we are experiencing today. The plebeians, especially farmers, found themselves unable to afford their homes and they demanded a bailout from the government. When the Senate refused, an uprising occurred, resulting in increased power for the popularly elected Plebeian Council. The country was then essentially controlled by new Plebeian political elites who were, however, mostly concerned with their own power and not about the problems of the people who elected them.


As common Plebeians fell further into debt, unemployment rose and farmers could no longer sell their produce, resulting in widespread bankruptcy. People began voting for politicians who promised bailouts. Populist leaders emerged who promised "change." The final decades of the Roman Republic saw an eerily familiar increase in the dependence of the average Roman citizen on their government, along with tax increases to pay for government programs. The Republic had slowly devolved into a democracy wherein people voted themselves benefits they had not earned. Sound familiar?
Aristotle warned: "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." The Federalist papers show us that the founding fathers understood this all too well. We were founded as a republic partly because democracies become weaker as they grow whereas republics can become stronger.

Yet we elect populists, like Chairman Obama, whose unaffordable promises and unconstitutional actions, after the manner of Tiberius Gracchus, Caesar, and Octavian, will be recorded in history as the beginning of the end of our republic. We slip further into a "democracy" of dependence on government and control by it. Inevitably, we too will degenerate into despotism and tyranny. This has already begun. From antiquity through the present, great thinkers like Aristotle and our founding fathers have warned us of the dangers of repeating the mistakes of prior civilizations. Those who survive us will learn how the selfish majority, at the behest of power hungry political elitists, accepted subjugation in exchange for benefits and thereby sowed the seeds (or acorns) of our destruction.

Barack Obama: Plebeian politician to Senator to Dictator wannabe. The USA: republic, to democratic dictatorship and then despotism. It not only can happen, but it will, unless we learn from history and prevent its repetition

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Thus achieving the ultra-liberal end of making the conservative appear foolish.

==

No, he really is a conservative and really is as foolish as he feigns to appear.

And as you see nationally, conservatives need no help, parody, or embellishment to look bad.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

President Obama and Speaker Pelosi may find it convenient, not to mention politically expedient, to blame Republicans every time they fail to get one of their Big Government agenda items through the Democrat-led House and the Democrat-led Senate. However, the inconvenient truth is that majorities of Democratic voters are opposed to the Obama-Pelosi agenda on many issues. According to a recent Gallup poll, 40 percent of all Americans consider themselves "conservative," and only 21 percent call themselves "liberal" (35 percent say "moderate"). The same poll found that 62 percent of self-identified Democrats consider themselves either conservative or moderate.


Try as they might, Obama and Pelosi should eventually find these numbers hard to ignore. In the meantime, they seem content to not only buck mainstream America, but also buck the mainstream within their own Party.


conclusion - are all monbats ignorant of their surroundings or is it just the clown brigade of Obimbo/Reid/Peloony and the kooks on this site?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Republican poiliticians think everyone is an idiot, because they are accustomed to dealing with their base.

==

More to the point, they seem to believe that the great majority of Americans outside NYC and SF are at heart as nasty, stupid, angry, and bigoted as they are, and if only they could establish some context of candor that this would come out. They think that we're inhibited by PC and conformity with "liberal fascism" and reluctant to let our true bigotry and hate come out.

And they're wrong.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Well let me see now...

John "cornhole" Cornyn is from Texas.

Texas is now composed, demographically, of a majority of minorities, most of whom are mexicans or other hispanics.

But "the old cornhole", as he's known there, doesn't think that voting AGAINST a hispanic will make any difference.

Hmmmmm. Sounds like good ole' republotard logic to me!

Posted by: Heerman532 | August 5, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Zouk tries to cover his tracks. That pretty much sums it up. He's a paid wh*re for insurance companies.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 2:41 PM |

___________________________________

As a frequent lurker, and occassional sniper, I have an alternate theory on the Resident Royalty.

I start with the belief that most people who espouse the positions that he does do not know what Zouk is. And, if they were exposed to it, they would not find an affinity to it. (Wiki it, if you don't know).

So , I think that rather than being the sock-puppet he pretends to be, he is actually an agent provocateur. He cuts-and-pastes the most egregious things available, and then restates them in the most inane fashion possible, in an attempt to thoroughly discredit those that he pretends to be. Thus achieving the ultra-liberal end of making the conservative appear foolish.

Posted by: sourpuss | August 5, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

As President Obama's approval rating continues to nosedive toward that of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one has to wonder: Who are these naysayers abandoning the dynamic duo of government-run everything? While it's true that a majority of the discontented comes from the ranks of Republican and Independent voters, it is also true that many Democratic voters are parting ways with the Obama-Pelosi agenda on several fronts.


Healthcare


According to a recent Zogby International/O'Leary Report poll (which surveyed 4,470 voters July 21-24 and has a margin-of-error of plus-or-minus 1.5 percentage points - internal data here), only 36 percent of Democratic voters support the Obama-Pelosi government administered health insurance plan that would put government in charge of determining what medical procedures Americans can have and when they can have them. Fifty-nine percent of Democratic voters prefer to either keep the current system in place, or want something different altogether.


When Obama and Pelosi ask their more moderate colleagues to come onboard with Obamacare, what they're really asking them to do is ignore the will of their constituents, voters within their own Party, and the broader American electorate. That's a tough sell.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Republican poiliticians think everyone is an idiot, because they are accustomed to dealing with their base.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I guess since all Cornyn's friends are habitual liars

==

well duh he's a Republican. How many Republicans have you met since 2000 or so who didn't lie at the drop of a hot? You think the truth has anything to offer them?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Senator Cornyn must think us all idiots if he says someone is qualified, and that he likes her on a personal level, and yet implies that she lied to the committee.

I guess since all Cornyn's friends are habitual liars, he doesn't think its a bad trait.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 5, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Lib leadership on display:

With the fight over health care reform absorbing all the bandwidth on Capitol Hill, Democrats fear a major climate change bill may be left on the cutting-room floor this year.

Score so far:

Obama : 1 economy ruining porkulus
All else : 0 (not that I have anything against that in this situation) Bravo Reid and Pelosi for showing your true effectiveness with your overwhelming majorities and the WH.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Zouk tries to cover his tracks. That pretty much sums it up. He's a paid wh*re for insurance companies.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I just do not see how this will work for R's in the long run with minority voters in general.

All I ever see is angry white R's yelling on TV. How does that help? I see no outreach except to the base.

Praying the economy stays in the gutter is not a strategy.

Posted by: ModerateVoter | August 5, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) is worried that the White House will use a new media outreach program to collect the personal data of its political opponents. Yesterday, the White House asked supporters to forward "fishy" claims or rumors about the President's healthcare plan to a White House email address as a way to respond to "disinformation." Cornyn says this practice would let the White House collect personal information about people who oppose the President.

More CCCP thuggery. What happened to good old fashioned Liberalism?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

As is typical of weakling Libs, they cry for the moderator to quash all voices that don't comport with their loony tunes view of the world. It would be beyond expectation to expect them to defend their loco points of view. good thing the press is on their side or no one would pay attention at all. Rahm has to strong arm the networks to cover messiah any longer. a collective SNORE arises from the voters.

Pretty similar to Obambi huh? Bill, bail me out. I am weak and ineffective. My porkulus was a total flop. My diplomacy is not working, my spending is out of control, no one wants my "free" health care, all my campaign promises were lies.

Help me Bill, Help...

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Clearly dunder head has mad cow disease or possibly the peroxide he uses has fried his comprehension region.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 5, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, they never shut up, glo. Noting else to do, apparently.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I really wish there was a little moderation on these boards. That's saying something, because I'm a free speech freak.

It's impossible to discuss any subject in an adult manner without ringing (what amounts to) a dinner bell for the trolls.

Posted by: gio_momma | August 5, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

@drindl: I don't think WaPo or ChrisC are going to do anything about the trolls so long as they post from the GOP side.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"One thing that is important is to show respect and I think we have accomplished that goal."

This is crackers!

Posted by: shrink2 | August 5, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I urge all the sane people on the board to hit Report Abuse on kingofzouk's insurance industry propaganda. Funny, his 'data' is exactly the same as the script for paid industry trolls that has been leaked. Funny coincidence.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Dems never opposed Estrada simply because he was Hispanic. Republicans explicitly stated that Sotomayor is unqualified for the court because of her race and ethnic background.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | August 5, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I have three close Latino friends. All three used to be Republicans (they're Catholic and pro-life). Two of them have changed their party affiliation, both since the Sotomayor nomination. They're still pro-life but they're also anti-bigotry, and that outranks.

The third one is wavering.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Hope the GOP never comes back."

They are working on it.
An "A" for effort.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 5, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

R's trailing D's in 42 states!

"The Republican Party is disintegrating in front of our eyes. The latest Gallup Poll has them leading in party identification in six states. Six! They're tied in two. That means they're trailing in 42 states!

They're down by 2 in Texas and Kansas, 12 in North Carolina and Virginia, and 16 in Kentucky. Virginia and Indiana went from "Competitive" to "Solidly Democratic" -- since 2008. If you thought 2008 was bad, these numbers would lead you to believe that 2010 will be even worse.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Sen. Cornyn must have been eating or smoking something which impaired his reason. While it's true that a 'no' on Judge Sotomayor's nomination is not a guaranteed step towards 'rehabilitation' of the GOP in Hispanics' eyes, it will--along with the overall tenor of the far-from-respectful questioning in that stifling hearing room--merely add another nail to the GOP coffin in terms of the Hispanic vote.

That coffin was first built by good old CA Gov. Pete Wilson with his notorious Prop. 187 (decisively ending any hopes for his political future, much less for a Presidential run) in the '90s, and was further embellished by the vile rhetoric and eventual derailment of the Immigration Bill in 2005.

As Captain of HMS Titanic, Sen. Cornyn would do well to commit the lyrics of 'Nearer My God To Thee' to memory. A huge majority of the pro-GOP vote (particularly from Hispanics) in 2010/2012 will be votes AGAINST Pres. Obama, not FOR the GOP. 'Moses' and the Israelites have another stretch of desert to cover before reaching the land of milk and money--oops! I meant 'honey'.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | August 5, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Modeled after European equivalents such as the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the council is supposed to assign a monetary value to your life. This is done through a "QALY" -- a "Quality-Adjusted Life-Year." In Britain, The Wall Street Journal reports, NICE refuses to pay more than $22,000 "to extend a life by six months."

In other words, had Obama's plan been in effect in 1993, given the QALY of the 63-year-old Arlen Specter and the 61-year-old Bob Casey Sr., and had they been private citizens on the Obama public-insurance plan, both might, literally, have been allowed to die.

Pennsylvanians are well aware that the Specter and Casey families have benefited directly from high-profile medical treatment that the Obama plan would deny to average folks. So the question for Sens. Specter and Casey is: Would they be willing to enroll themselves and their families in the public plan the president is pushing?

Would they give up the quality health care that extended the senior Casey's life by seven years and quite literally saved Specter from death -- not once but three times?

That crowd of angry Philadelphians was an answer all by itself.

the Lib ghouls would have you die but save themselves. Same as always. Some animals are more EQUAL than others.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The GOP has so alienated the Latino vote that Texas is now a purple state.

The racial composition of the American electorate is now down to 74% white. Since the GOP doesn't get bupkis outside the white vote, Democrats need barely over a third of it nationally to prevail.

And the GOP is just doubling down on the southern strategy, like some saucer suicide cult, determined to fail.

From arrogance and swagger to derangement and now to full-blown nihilism. Hope the GOP never comes back.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 5, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

John Cornyn (R-Texas), the Senate GOP campaign chief, says Barack Obama's declining popularity is helping Republican recruiting and boosting the party's prospects for 2010.

“I think there will be a significant number of voters who, leading up to 2010, will wonder if they voted for someone they didn’t get.”

Cornyn didn’t hesitate to jab Obama, saying that the president had achieved little in his first months in office. And the Texas Republican called Obama’s economic stimulus package “ill fated.”

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Here's something to think about, r's. With current demographic trends, from now on, every election will mark a greater percentage of non-white voters. You want to reject blacks and hispanics? Then you will lose bigger every election.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Did SENATOR Obama "pay a price" for voting against CJ Roberts and Alito? No.

Posted by: JakeD | August 5, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

N Korea to Obambi admin:

Sit up!

Beg!

Roll Over!

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Except that (at least in the last administration) conservative "principles" meant that you believed in a limited interpretation of "advise and consent" and voted FOR the nominee if they were qualified.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 5, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

" It looks to me like they are trying to establish themselves as a party that has principles and standards that it supports and not just give in to Colin Powell's "big tent" beauty contest."

Like racism, I presume.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Last time I looked, neither Hispanics nor blacks were voting for Republicans in large numbers. So they simply have nothing to lose. It looks to me like they are trying to establish themselves as a party that has principles and standards that it supports and not just give in to Colin Powell's "big tent" beauty contest. In short, they don't care. Might ne something to that idea. Color me "independent."

Posted by: qball43 | August 5, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

The only Republican Senators with the balls to stand up to the NRA are the two from Maine.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 5, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Chris, if 28 GOPers are voting no, and seven are supporting, that means there are five who have not announced. In addition to the four your mentioned, we're still waiting on Senator Enzi.

Posted by: zim94 | August 5, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Everyone one is them is totally owned by the NRA -- they're their poodles.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Republicons show respect, please do not make me laugh, they probably need a dictionary to look up what that word means

Posted by: lildg54 | August 5, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

give it up, kingofzouk. the media propped up bush for 8 years. stop trying to pretend otherwise.

also, try to stay on topic.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Hey congratulations Chris! I just caught you doing a quick hit piece with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC talking about Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea. You managed to get in and out of that interview without calling the Secretary of State some offensive sexist name, good job.

Posted by: wsblount | August 5, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

White-wing Violent Minority members equate Gonzales with Sotomayor?
What a skewed sense of perspective.
It's one thing to defend someone on their merits, but to claim that Gonzales was anything more than a crawl-in-the-dark cockroach is ludicrous.

Posted by: Tomcat3 | August 5, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse


So the votes for Sotomayor will be between 65 and 72, depending on the 4 unannounced Republicans and whether Byrd and Kennedy show up.

I think Sotomayor is as mainstream as Roberts, but the vote will look like Alito. It is disappointing that the only Republicans not afraid of the NRA are those who are retiring.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 5, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I guess big John should go down in a blaze of glory. We all know that Cornyn's race in 2014 is going to be hard. He might just take a pass.

Posted by: bradcpa | August 5, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

In an unprecedented intervention by government in private media, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called all three TV networks and muscled them into giving President Obama prime time coverage for his medical expansion program.

For some, Emanuel didn't bother with mere newsmen. He went straight to the top, calling corporate owners such as Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger, whose company controls ABC, and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, NBC's boss.

"Whether this amounted to undue pressure or plain old Chicago arm-twisting, Emanuel got results: the fourth hour of lucrative network time for his boss in six months," wrote Howard Kurtz, who broke the story in Monday's Washington Post.

How's that again? Is this a free press in a democracy? Since when does prefabricated news from the presidential staff serve the interests of free citizens? The problems here are obvious — or should be.

First, heavy TV coverage gave an artificial boost to the White House's medical plan. It raised its profile higher than networks may have given on their own. In a world where there's no such thing as bad publicity, and where whoever spends the most cash wins the election, it doesn't take a genius to know that big, uncritical coverage of medical insurance equals outright support.

Two, it highlights media bias. In recent years, networks ignored President Bush's wartime speeches, saying he wasn't news. Now we see the media's double standard. It casts further doubt, if that was even possible, on their pretenses of fairness.

Third, Kurtz reported that news agencies lost $30 million on the prime-time coverage. That means their coverage was essentially a gift, or campaign contribution, for ObamaCare. It ought to be disclosed as such.

Fourth, in an era when car and bank executives are threatened for not going along with government, what did Emanuel intimidate the networks with if they didn't comply? How vulnerable are they to this in future stories? Who controls our media?

Fifth, the public's in the dark. Kurtz's scoop came after the news ran, meaning citizens watching the coverage knew nothing about the political muscle that went into its production. The public has a right to truth in labeling on propaganda as much as on food.

In other countries, such as Venezuela, the media fight back with all they can to resist government interference. Here, one call and they roll over. It's a sorry state of affairs, raising troubling questions about whether the big media can really be trusted.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | August 5, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

"One thing that is important is to show respect and I think we have accomplished that goal."

LOL. They clearly don't know what the word means. Badgering and calling the woman a racist will be remembered, and Rs will pay. Democrats never called Miguel Estrada a racist -- because he wasn't and neither is Sotomeyor.

And Gonzalez-- come on, the man was worse than incompetent.

CC--- got any more polling data that's more recent? I would like to see that correlated against the exit polling and see if there's been much slippage in Latino support for R's since this debacle. My guess is there has been.

THAT would be a story. The utterances of this clown Cornyn are not.

Posted by: drindl | August 5, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of astute observations, aren't both Gregg & Voinovich stepping down & thus don't have to worry about their NRA score in next year's election?

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 5, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company