Democrats: May 2009 Archives

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.