Why Do Republicans Always Have to Dog on Hispanics?
Listen to this rhetoric coming from the Republican party re: Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor:
“White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.” – Newt Gingrich
“a reverse racist” (comparable to KKK leader David Duke) – Rush Limbaugh
“picked because she’s a woman and Hispanic, not because she was the best qualified.” – Curt Levey
“a Latino KKK without the hoods or nooses.” (on National Council of La Raza, the nation’s largest Hispanic advocacy group) – Tom Tancredo(Colo.)
These were in response to Sotomayor’s comment:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
OK. Two questions:
- Is Sotomayor’s comment legitimately reverse-racism?
- Is she indeed underqualified or is this just Republican spin / rhetoric?
Like
1. These newsfeeds are only a small segment of a speech. I would hope that people do not continue to fall into half listening, and would listen to her whole speech. It so reminds me of Jeremiah Wrights comments during the election. No one either siding with her or against her can give an honest reponse until we hear the total in context speech.
2. Most assuredly qualified.
1. Her comments probably don’t rise to the level of “racism” in my mind, as I have a pretty high bar for what qualifies as racist. The fact that she can make such remarks however (and I heard the context as well) and not receive the career-crushing response a white man or woman would have received for the same kind of comment reveals a definite double standard of hypocrisy when dealing with issues of race. Just put her words in the mouth of a white man and you can imagine the outcry.
Certainly there are those who are using this to partisan advantage, but that is no different than what always happens and it is disingenuous for Democrats to claim moral superiority in this matter. Miguel Estrada was derailed in his nomination to the Court of Appeals by Democrats because they did not want a Republican to receive credit for appointing the first Hispanic to the high court.
2. Yes, she is qualified, if by that you mean does she has the history in the law.
elderJ! Where u been? Long time. The blogosphere is too quiet a place w/o u.
So far 2 say she’s qualified…
OK folks, what do you think about this?
Newt Gingrich: “new racism is no better than old racism” – referring to Sotomayor’s comment.
I wish the discussion would be less partisan but Newt and these others play such visible, prominent roles in the party…
I know… I’ve been so silent. I need to get a new post up soon. The discipline of writing is good for me. By the way I sent you a facebook friend invitation (in case you got one from some random J. S. person)
1. Its not racism, but it is disturbing.
2. She is qualified, but it isn’t just Republican spin.
The Republicans are correct that a white man would probably be forced to withdraw over those statements.
Hey Rand – nice to see u again…
I would agree that this doesn’t legitimately qualify as reverse-racism. It’s the implicit privilege I think that doesn’t make this an even playing field, and that’s where she was coming from. Newt missed this, but I hear he’s rescinded his comments anyway…
Maybe not racism, per se, but definitely prejudiced in the sense that it pre-judges the experiences that a white man can have and dismisses those presumed experiences as inconsequential compared to those of a Latina women. It is disturbing, then, in the sense that it denigrates the experiences of large swath of the population of this country.
I do actually understand where the comment is coming from, but it is wrong, nonetheless.
With regard to her qualifications, I honestly am not in a position to judge that. I don’t think this one remark should bar her from serving on the Supreme Court, but it is something that I think is fair game for the Senate to question.