Posted by
Jessica on Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:19:53 AM
Why is it that there are many on both sides of the aisle, claiming that going after Sotomayor would be a huge mistake? There are many in the GOP who are thinking we should pick our battles, and avoid any messy debates that could turn-off hispanic voters. There are many on the Left who are foaming at the mouth waiting for an opportunity to paint Republicans as sexist and racist, if they oppose Sotomayor.
I say, if we just roll over and ditch a golden opportunity to expose Liberals as the race-baiters that they are, then the GOP is done. By giving Sotomayor a pass, then in a sense, we're validating the Liberals claim that we are focused on race. (Even though it's the other way around.) By sticking to the issues and previous cases that expose her radical legislating from the bench, claims from the Left about racism will look phony and premeditated.
Here's a great post from the The Conservative Dominion -
http://theconservativedominion.blogspot.com/2009/05/republicans-cant-stop-sotomayor-but.html :
--------------------------------------------------------------
What the Republicans can do is play hardball by focusing on how far out of the mainstream Sotomayor is on the issues of race, eminent domain, and gun control. On race, the Ricci case shows her support for race-based discrmination against white males. The Didden case shows her support for government confiscation of private property even where there is overwhelming evidence of political corruption. Her views on the Second Amendment --- gun ownership is unconstitutional --- are as radical as can be.
The game would be to make her a political liability for Obama and any Democrat that votes for her. Voting for Sotomayor is a vote for race-based discrimination, confiscation of private property, and gun confiscation. Make that vote stick to Democrats like a deer tick.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But what about the Hispanic vote?
Then President Goerge Bush and John McCain were the biggest proponents for the Amnesty Bill in 2005, and what did it get the GOP?
President George Bush appointed Alberto Gonzales to U.S. Attorney General, and what did it get the GOP?
President Bush appointed Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Court of Appeals, and what did it get the GOP?
Here's an excellent piece from the
The Bulletin - Philadelphia's Family Newspaper :
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/28/top_stories/doc4a1e1cf56d3a0610508389.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Cardona, founder of Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary, issued a warning to Republicans saying an opposition to a Hispanic would damage their party with America’s Hispanic population.
“Republicans are going to have to tread very, very carefully on this one. They have already alienated 70 percent of the Hispanic community in this country with the whole issue of immigration,” she said.
But in 2005, Ms. Cardona, who was a consultant for the 2004 Kerry campaign, had a different attitude toward a Hispanic candidate nominated by a Republican president.“It’s not enough for the president to put forward a Latino name for the court,” she said in a July 15, 2005 Scripps Howard article in the bilingual newspaper La Prensa-San Diego. “What is important to us is that the person who ultimately gets nominated will be fair, will protect the rights of the people.”
Mr. Bush had made inroads into the Hispanic vote both times he was elected. This was something that disturbed Democrats so much that they met with activist groups such as People for the American Way and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. They were in crisis mode about Miguel Estrada.
A Nov. 15, 2003 Wall Street Journal story quoted from internal Democratic Party communications about opposing Mr. Estrada as a judicial nominee. The liberal interest groups warned the Democrats to delay Mr. Estrada’s nomination because he “is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.”
But the double standard thus far exhibited by the leadership of the Hispanic community does not seem to matter to them. Their reaction is the same as the black community, which is monolithically Democratic.
As Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, said, Judge Sotomayor’s nomination was “a monumental day for Latinos.”
But La Raza’s ethnic pride did not extend to Bush’s nominee, Mr. Estrada. The organization was “neutral” about the nomination of Mr. Estrada.
For Republicans who want to heed Ms. Cardona’s warning, commentator Rush Limbaugh reminded them during his broadcast yesterday that John McCain, who championed amnesty for illegal immigrants, lost the election. He also let Republicans know that President Bush appointed many Hispanics to high level positions in his administration. It did not help them in the election.
Conversely, the first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General was a Republican. Alberto Gonzalez was appointed by George W. Bush.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's clear that Republicans need to put on their Big Boy pants, and stand up for themselves, instead of cowering because they're afraid of offending someone. Obama obviously made this pick, because he knew the GOP wouldn't have the cajones to pick a fight.
Stand up for what's right, stop trying to pander, and for Goodness sake....what the hell do you have to lose?
http://theconservativemama.blogspot.com/