I hope the Cons do prolongue the "debate" over a very moderate, reasonable judge.

They are the ones mobilizing racism, and racists, but they are also mobilizing anti-racists at the same time and they don't seem to know it. I recall this from the 1960s...the more than ranted, the more we recruited.

We shall see who has more power. In the end, we do I believe.

Whatever Dickerson thinks, the Cons are already pulling in their horns. Today, Gingrich backed off on his "racist reverse-racist" line, which means reverse racism is not testing well. Limbaugh did pretty much teh same thing later in the day, though as usual he didn't so much back down as claim victory and ooze forward. She has already won, and Dickerson's alarmism is really, really badly timed.

the Cons are already pulling in their horns.

It won't last. Rush Limbaugh has already called newt out on it. Republicans are structually incapable of refraining from hate campaigns for longer than a few days. Newt will be back at it with a week.

It is all Republicans know how to do.

Oh please, hate is the domain of the left. They love you unless you don't agree with them, then you're vile, racist, biggotted, selfish, stupid, [insert other adjective here].

Just look at what the GLBT crowd did to the Prop 8 supporters. Oh, sorry, they were biggots, so it's ok.

I really think the world would be better if they were forced to get real degrees in college rather than the liberal arts degrees they're getting.

What makes one college degree more "real" than another?

The 1960's? Are you serious? Apparently you are historically illiterate. Weren't the Republicans the ones who fought for civil rights? Weren't the Democrats the ones who defended the status quo?

Get real!!

candoxx:

I hope the Cons do prolongue the "debate" over a very moderate, reasonable judge.

They are the ones mobilizing racism, and racists, but they are also mobilizing anti-racists at the same time and they don't seem to know it. I recall this from the 1960s...the more than ranted, the more we recruited.

We shall see who has more power. In the end, we do I believe.

The 1960's? Are you serious? Apparently you are historically illiterate. Republicans fought for civil rights. Democrats defended the status quo.

Get a clue!

You were not, apparently, around in the sixties.

This is the only explanation I can offer for this outrageous lie.

Go to wikipedia, look up "southern strategy."

Ask yourself why Strom Thurmond changed parties.

I personally don't give a fuck what you think, but if you try this out on your teachers in High School, they'll flunk you for having the facts wrong.

Race and gender should not be considered inoculation against criticism.

Unfortunately, that is precisely what is being assumed by people who are quick on the draw crying "racist!" "racism!" "hate!".

It is newspeak from 1984. Criticizing someone in any blessed, protected special interest group is simply "ungood". No further thought need be expended, or Big Brother will come get you.

I doubt you remember anything much after 1963 or so, certainly not your civics lessons!

tonydavisnelson:

Oh please, hate is the domain of the left. They love you unless you don't agree with them, then you're vile, racist, biggotted, selfish, stupid, [insert other adjective here].

Just look at what the GLBT crowd did to the Prop 8 supporters. Oh, sorry, they were biggots, so it's ok.

I really think the world would be better if they were forced to get real degrees in college rather than the liberal arts degrees they're getting.

Help us liberal arts folks out here, tony. Can you cite for us any non-conservative public figure (e.g., media pundit, elected or appointed official) who's used language like "vile, racist biggotted [sic], selfish, stupid", etc. in reference to a conservative public figure?

Or does factual information ever enter into your mental processing?

Ah, oh yeah... the "liberal" in "liberal arts" really has no political or ideological meaning at all. It's a traditional academic label for a program of studies. Including use of language.

>>I hope the Cons do prolongue the "debate" over a very moderate, reasonable judge.

Yeah, but what about Sotomayor?

>>They are the ones mobilizing racism, and racists, but they are also mobilizing anti-racists at the same time and they don't seem to know it. I recall this from the 1960s...the more than ranted, the more we recruited.>>

If you were around then, surely you know that the prime opposition to Civil Rights was Southern Democrats. That's why more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even though the Democrats had the majority. The problem is the modern Democratic Party is as racist as the old one was. In the old days, they wanted racial entitlements for Whites. Now they want them for Blacks, to sort of even things out, as it were. I'm glad they're spreading their racism out, rather than just picking on one group, but of course it's better to not be racist at all.

>>We shall see who has more power. In the end, we do I believe.

Oh, well if it's just about Might Makes Right, I don't think we have anything to discuss. I will give you credit for admitting it, though.

>>Race and gender should not be considered inoculation against criticism.

It shouldn't, but unfortunately, instead of oppressing women and minorities today, we patronize them instead. If a white man is racist, that's bad, because racism is bad. If a woman or minority is, we make excuses for it as though "Oh, they couldn't be expected to know as well as we do." And this is their would-be best friends who treat them that way.

Or worse yet, they let them be racist as a kind of reward or compensation for the behavior they have suffered in the past. That would be reasonable if racism were good. (These people got some of the goodies, so these others should too.) But if racism is bad, then the whole thing becomes nonsensical. Kind of like that old golfer's joke. "You just hit my wife with that golf ball." "Terribly sorry, old boy. Here, take a shot at mine."

>>She has already won.

Maybe she has, but who says that's the real issue? The important thing is to fix firmly in the public's mind the image of the Democratic Party as The Party of Instituational Racism and racial entitlements. The harder they have to fight for her, the more the public gets to see it. That they'll get her on the bench in the end is true, of course, but the real question is whether or not it will be a Pyrrhic Victory for them.

>>I personally don't give a fuck what you think, but if you try this out on your teachers in High School, they'll flunk you for having the facts wrong. >>

Each of you is both half right and half wrong here. In fact, Democrats led both the charge FOR Civil Rights, and the charge against them. You're both treating the party as a monolithic whole (All those people are alike", which is ironic under the circumstances). It was Liberal Democrats who made the big push for Civil Rights, and it was Southern Democrats who opposed them. The Republicans were somewhere in the middle hoping to pick up the pieces from the Democrats' catfight.

The modern myth is that it was Southern Republicans (all twenty of them?) that fought against Civil Rights in the 60's, because, while the Democrats want everybody else to apologize for slavery, they've never owned up to their own part in it. We've had the country apologize. Now it's time for the Party to apologize.