Recently in Democrats Category

A while back - sometime between today and my previous post over a month ago - I came across a "conservative" blog discussing this view of the Democratic party and "the Left"

Leftism, which sees people as victim groups rather than individuals, which sets us one against another according to the color of our skins rather than distinguishing us by the contents of our characters, which is so eager to manipulate our guilts and grievances in order to form bases of support for an ever-expanding state, has derailed the natural American movement—the natural human movement—toward assimilation and unity and replaced it with ghettoizing multi-culturalism and infantilizing “diversity.”

Emphasis in original.  I preface my comments by saying that I do not like the "labels game" of calling people "liberal" or "conservative" or "left" or "right."  It really doesn't mean anything if you don't have tangible reference point.  For  example, if Pat Buchanan calls me a liberal, that doesn't really say much.  But if Ted Kennedy did, well, that's a different story.  So, when I refer to this blogger as "conservative" I'm using my political views as reference and it should be taken to mean "more conservative than me."  In fact, this blogger considers herself to be  "moderately conservative" or what would be referred to in the world out there as center-right.

With that caveat, I really have to laugh at this news item:

They’ve had it up to here.

Republican National Committee Michael Steele, who’s often tangled with members of his own party, is now facing boos from yet another crowd. This time, it’s Hispanic GOP leaders, who are peeved that he hasn’t appointed any high-profile Hispanics to top positions.

Emphasis in original.  If he wasn't so annoying, I'd feel bad for Michael Steele.  That said, it's interesting that the tokenism from "the right" sounds just like tokenism from "the left."

In a Mar. 6 letter acquired by a news site Wednesday, Hispanic leaders said they “were extremely disheartened that no Hispanics were considered for the post of Coalitions Director and that, to date, no Hispanics have been appointed to any other high-profile leadership roles within the party.”

“If the RNC’s outreach effort to Hispanics consists simply of appointing a Hispanic to serve as Director of the Hispanic Coalitions, then this plan is a recipe for disaster,” said the letter, co-signed by seven Hispanic group leaders (which according to Politico’s Ben Smith included the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, the Hispanic War Veterans of America, and the National Coalition for Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders).

Not to be outdone, the HRs (Hispanic Republicans) also played the race card.

The letter was circulated after Steele hired a black Republican to lead the GOP’s diversity efforts.

But that was back in March 6.  What happened since?

Steele responded to the March 6 letter by inviting prominent Hispanic Republicans, including the letter's signatories, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former Texas Congressman Henry Bonilla, to a March 18 meeting at the RNC's headquarters.

There, people present said, Steele reiterated the commitment to broaden the party that had won him broad support from Hispanic Republicans in the chairman's race, and asked them to send him resumes of capable Hispanic operatives and advisors.

His guests left satisfied, but say that since then, they've seen no action.

And just to show this isn't a Republican problem, the HDs (Hispanic Democrats) are upset too.

On the Democratic side of the aisle, Hispanic leaders are stewing too. Leading lawmakers are criticizing Obama for what they consider to be his “slow-walking comprehensive immigration reform.”

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) lauded Obama in Roll Call Thursday as being “clear and strong on the issue,” but she said her caucus would push for immigration reform this year.

I must say comprehensive immigration reform won't be much of an issue if we don't (a) turn the economy around and get it going in the right direction - which may be happening but who knows? - (b) create jobs; the faster, the better, and (c) keep people from falling into a black hole of economic despair.  After all, there won't be that much immigration into a country that doesn't have many or any jobs to offer.

So, there it is.  The HRs are just as bad at tokenism as the HDs.

Leftism, which sees people as victim groups rather than individuals, which sets us one against another according to the color of our skins rather than distinguishing us by the contents of our characters

So that would make Hispanic Republicans . . . leftists?  Riiiiiiiight!!!!! (No pun intended there.)

There was too much to write for this on Twitter. 

Ruben Navarrette recently 'predicted' that Latinos will get the shaft when it comes to the High Court.  Of course, he's talking about Sotomayor here, who's been a target and the source of much hoopla for weeks now.

To sum up Navarrette quickly, he credits the whole candidate list to tokenism:

The unqualified come in all colors, races, ethnicities and backgrounds, as do the qualified.

By the way, some pundits are saying the odds are good that a Latino will get the nod. I hope I'm wrong, but I predict Latinos will be shut out again. Then the administration will expect to get credit for at least including a couple of token Latino names on the short list. After all, I suspect, that was the whole point of including them.

Isn't he adding fuel to the fire that Latinos and women are not the "most qualified?"  What happens when a woman or a Latino is appointed to the high court?  Are we going to hear that the sole reason that they are there is because of their ethnicity or because they have titts???  Unfortunately, the GOP machine does not cease it's subersive messages even in the small hours of their irrelavant party.

This stuck out to me:

There's no end of speculation about what the president means when he says he's looking for someone with "heart and empathy" and a keen understanding of "how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives." But many think that means he intends to diversify the bench.

If one were to read that backwards, would they then deduce that someone who is privileged is then out of touch with the reality of our daily lives?  So ultimately, this seems to read as a compliment, but I hear a hint of belittlement.  It is if what is being said that diversity cannot think past the mind of the masses.  That in some way, we are linked to the myriad grind and routine of the 'average Joe,' who hopelessly is at the mercy of the cut and grind of the poor working class.

Is not this what the statement assumes?  This is exaclty what they want people to think.

The attack on Sotomayor equates her to an angry Latina.  Yes, you've read that correctly and that's called character assassination.  To date, the best post I've read to debunk this calculated attack comes from The Reality-Based Community (and folks, I am glad to be born on this side of the planet):

... anonymous accusations, especially personal ones, are obnoxious....confidence in them is not boosted when the author of the piece admits he hasn't talked to enough people or read enough of the judge's opinions to form his own judgment.

The additional information that the "not that bright" Sotomayor, coming from a background in the projects, won the Pyne Prize for the top undergraduate in her year at Princeton, ought also to raise some questions about the accuracy of Rosen's reporting. The best undergraduate isn't necessarily the smartest person, let alone the wisest, but it's hard to believe that the best undergraduate in a Princeton class lacks anything in the way of sheer brainpower.

From all the gossip and hearsay, the attack from the New Republic makes one gag and cough like after inhaling second-hand smoke. 

While American punditry goes through yet another round of hand-wringing about Obama overreaching, not succeeding, etc., the U.S. public has a clear idea of who's on their side - and who isn't.

A new national poll suggests that three out of four Americans approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, but the economic stimulus package he's trying to push through Congress is not nearly as popular.

Seventy-six percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Monday gave Obama a thumbs-up on how he's performing his duties, while 23 percent disapproved.

While the president puts on a full-court press, the debate over the $800 billion-plus bill -- which includes increased government spending and tax cuts -- appears to have split the public. A slight majority, 54 percent, favors the bill; 45 percent are opposed.

And there's a partisan divide. Three out of four Democrats support the bill, but that number drops to 51 percent for Independents and just 32 percent for Republicans. Nearly seven in 10 Republicans questioned in the survey oppose the bill.

Lets see, a majority of Democrats and Independents support Obama and the stimulus package and a majority of Republicans oppose both.  Republicans didn't get it on November 4 and they still don't.  But wait, there's more.

The survey indicates, however, that Obama and the Democrats in Congress do have some advantages in this political battle over the stimulus. Three out of four poll respondents said that Obama is doing enough to cooperate with Republicans in Congress, but only 39 percent feel that congressional Republicans are cooperating enough with the president.

Six out of 10 approved of the way Democratic leaders in Congress are handling their jobs. But only 44 percent of those questioned approved of the way Republican leaders in Congress are performing. Overall, only 29 percent said they like the way Congress is handling its job, with 71 percent disapproving.

That's far below Obama's 76 percent approval rating, which is higher than other recent national surveys by other organizations.

Emphasis added.  Those congressional numbers are interesting in that both Democrats and Republicans disapprove of Congress.  But if 60% of Democrats approves of the way their leaders in Congress are handling their job, it probably means that a good chunk of those Democrats believes Congress isn't doing its job because Republicans are messing things up.

The Gallup Poll pretty much has the same results.

So, if the Republicans don't want to become even more irrelevant, they better start listening to what the people have to say.

I've written before about this at my home base.  Mr. LP himself chimed in on this issue as well.  Yet, it appears there are a good number of resentful Clinton supporters out there who would rather see Obama lose even if it meant that McCain and the same Republican crew get to keep the executive branch for at least four more years.  Via CNN.com:

In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Sunday night, 47 percent of those questioned are backing Obama with an equal amount supporting the Arizona senator.

“This looks like a step backward for Obama, who had a 51 to 44 percent advantage last month,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

“Even last week, just before his choice of Joe Biden as his running mate became known, most polls tended to show Obama with a single-digit advantage over McCain,” adds Holland.

So what’s the difference now?

It may be supporters of Hillary Clinton, who still would prefer the Senator from New York as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

Sixty-six percent of Clinton supporters, registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee, are now backing Obama. That’s down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they’ll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June.

Emphasis added.  Do the math.  Twenty-seven percent out of 18 million voters is about 4.86 million.  That won't be enough to make Obama lose California, New York, or any of the other large or deep-blue states.  But it'll make a big difference in many of the battleground states out there.

And for what?  Do you really want to risk a McCain presidency?

Think about the right to choose.  Right now, one judge will make the difference between whether Roe is upheld as the law of the land or whether it's struck down.  The ages of four of these justices lie between 69 and 88 years of age.  It's not unthinkable that one or more of them will either die or retire over the next four years.

What will McCain do?  Here's a hint:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby.

Emphasis added.  Do you really want to risk that?  But wait, there's more:

Nuclear Power: Nuclear power is a proven, reliable, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. The U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. Currently, nuclear power provides 20 percent of our overall energy portfolio. Other countries such as China, India and Russia are looking to increase the role of nuclear power in their energy portfolio and the U.S. should not just look to maintain, but increase its own use. John McCain will put our country on track to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the ultimate goal of eventually constructing 100 new plants.

Coal: John McCain will commit $2 billion annually to advancing clean coal technologies. Coal produces the majority of our electricity today. Some believe that marketing viable clean coal technologies could be over 15 years away. John McCain believes that this is too long to wait, and we need to commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology. Once commercialized, the U.S. can then export these technologies to countries like China that are committed to using their coal - creating new American jobs and allowing the U.S. to play a greater role in the international green economy.

Do you want to support costly, ineffective, and unproven sources of energy and risk increasing the environmental harm to your children?

As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.

Emphasis added.  Is that the future you want for your country?

If you do, you're either a Republican, or you're blinded by disappointment.