In these Senate hearings, the issue is NOT Sotomayor’s racialist philosophy–it’s also Obama’s racialist philosophy. It’s the philosophy of all Leftist Hispanics and Leftist blacks–that they are OWED for what happened long ago.

Senate Republicans don’t have the votes to stop Sotomayor. And after she gets onto the Court, the public will yawn and forget about her.

But if we can define OBAMA in these hearings, we will score because the public can’t forget about him–he’s POTUS.

OK, address it on the merits. I didnt get that from your original post, which said let her statements speak for themselves. To address it well have to actually ‘mention’ it. I agree that the white male grievance is the wrong way to go.

Issue framing, issue framing, issue framing…

YES. Thats my mantra. And what we see here is the result of the GOP failing to frame the issue of race relations: A nominee whose racialism (better word than racism) would have destroyed her if she were a white Republican is seen as a strong pick. This is a direct result of ducking the race issue for so long. (As was the lack of fallout from Obamas 20-year relationship with the racist lunatic Jeremiah Wright. The middle of a campaign is the wrong time to give American voters a crash course on liberal hate speech.)

Heres a test: Would the Dems be so timid in raising the issue of race? No. Then why are we? Well, because well be painted as.

Issue framing. Frame the issue of race properly and we can win because we are right.

OK, address it on the merits. I didnt get that from your original post, which said let her statements speak for themselves. To address it well have to actually ‘mention’ it. I agree that the white male grievance is the wrong way to go.

Issue framing, issue framing, issue framing…

YES. Thats my mantra. And what we see here is the result of the GOP failing to frame the issue of race relations: A nominee whose racialism (better word than racism) would have destroyed her if she were a white Republican is seen as a strong pick. This is a direct result of ducking the race issue for so long. (As was the lack of fallout from Obamas 20-year relationship with the racist lunatic Jeremiah Wright. The middle of a campaign is the wrong time to give American voters a crash course on liberal hate speech.)

Heres a test: Would the Dems be so timid in raising the issue of race? No. Then why are we? Well, because well be painted as.

Issue framing. Frame the issue of race properly and we can win because we are right.

Also, *citizen journalists* who are in the NYC area should visit local libraries and try to see if there’s something interesting she did in the past, such as something she said or did when she was with the PRLDEF. Citizen journalists need to do that because neither the MSM nor GOP hacks such as those posting articles at this site are going to do it.

Just address it on the merits of the arguments. Don’t use bombastic, loaded terms. It’s not how you win. We should champion OURSELVES as people of equality, in CONTRAST to her racial preferences, rather than shrilly calling her a racist, saying that she’ll discriminate against white men. Nobody’s going to buy that she’s a racist. All that does is polarize. Issue framing, issue framing, issue framing…

Putting aside the usual targets (Rush, Hannity), what this post is arguing is that the GOP should avoid the issue of race, at all costs, even when the Right is clearly right.

You offer a false choice: Rally people to the GOP or play the white man grievance card. How about the canyon-sized space in between? The space where most Americans of all colors still residethe one still believes we should be a color-blind society. This isnt the 1970s. Today, only one of the two major parties champion the cause of judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. The GOP. Hard to believe, buthere we are.

A strategy that advocates running from one of the most persistent, emotional issues of our day race relations is as dumb as would be a strategy of conceding any other persistent, emotional issue. Democrats are all alone on the field while we fret on the sidelines. Their brand of racial politics is overt and raw. But we have to be silent, even when We. Are. Right.

No sir. Sotomayers collection of statements (and in the case of racial preferences, her silence), go well beyond what Clarence Thomas ever uttered. Check out the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal for more.

La Raza means The Race by the way. Yes, Democrats are quite open about championing racial politics.

I have no problem with conservatives opposing her if they think she’s too conservative. I would only ask that (1) they acknowledge their opposition is ENTIRELY political, and (2) if they claim she’s too liberal they should point out some of her actual rulings that demonstrate that. You’re more than welcome to, although probably not capable, of trying to do this.

Here’s an idea. Tell us why conservatives should support Sotomayor.

Please, I would LOVE to know why you think that conservatives should be happy with this nominee.

Of course, to do that, you would have to actually know a few conservatives.

Tell me, are some of your best friends conservative?

As for the merit of affirmative action, I have no problem in evaluating it to see if it’s still necessary or appropriate. The problem I have with conservatives, however, is that they have opposed affirmative action from its very inception even though they were absent, or lackluster at best, in opposing the hundreds of years of racial discrimination that affirmative action was/is intended to address. For this reason, I and many others have difficulty distinguishing conservatives’ reasoned, substantive critiques of affirmative action from their disingenuous attacks that flow from, at best, an indifference to the racial wrongs that have occurred.