July 17, 2009

David Axelrod's Obamafication of poor Sonia Sotomayor

You have to feel a little sorry for Sonia Sotomayor. Here she's spent all these years giving speeches about what she believes to boring little Diversity colloquia. And now she finally gets on the big stage ... and her P.R. handlers tell her she has to dissemble about everything closest to her heart, that if the public knew what she really stood for she might not get ultimate power. ("Trust us, Sonia, it worked for Obama, didn't it?")

And, then, some Republicans, surprisingly, grow a bit of a spine and make her repudiate all her best zinger lines ... over and over and over.

It had to have been humiliating for her. And she probably figures that when she finally gets on the Supreme Court, now Scalia will mock her by quoting constantly her testimony back to her. "Of course, we all know where Madame Justice stands on this issue; as she so eloquently put it during her colloquy with Senator Kyl etc. etc.," while Alito chuckles and Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever.

Seriously, as deficient as these hearings were in various respects, they were still better than the utterly innocuous questioning that Obama bathed in during the 2008 election campaign, when the only man to stand up and speak truth to (future) power was Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Obama spent 20 months running for President without anybody reading to him from his own memoir.

We need Presidential candidates to be subjected to more hostile questioning by truly hostile, well-informed individuals. Presidential debate cross-questioning is lame because candidates can't afford to be too hostile or probe too deeply. And moderators are useless at hostile questioning because they are supposed to be moderate.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

36 comments:

Acilius said...

Poor Steve! Here you are, trying to make your name as an opponent of affirmative action. Yet you are still Republican enough that you feel you cannot accept the greatest gift ever given to opponents of affirmative action. "Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever." As opposed to all the other things Justice Thomas does, where he has some other reason for just staring at you.

Anonymous said...

I don't get the point of doing this. So, they lie and dissemble and get on the court anyway.

I say just vote against confirmation.

Rasselas said...

Steve, did you mean "giving speeches about ... Diversity colloquia" or "giving speeches to ... Diversity colloquia"?

Anonymous said...

Don't expect the MSM to ask any hard questions of lib Dems such as Sotomayor and Obama.

Anonymous said...

Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever.

You owe me a new keyboard for that.

John Anello said...

Hostile, well-informed individuals are a dying breed in America.

Henry Canaday said...

The last Supreme Court Justice, appointed by a Democratic President, who did not believe in making up Constitutional law to advance lefty causes was Byron White, Yale Law graduate, Rhodes Scholar, All-American college football player, NFL star running back and WWII Navy war veteran.

Do you sometimes get the impression that all these other judges who would kings are trying to compensate for having led such boring and pathetically narrow lives, grinding out briefs and decisions for a quarter century, before attaining real power?

That is not inevitable, of course. Roberts and Scalia were genuinely bright lawyers and judges, but they seem to realize that being a bright lawyer is not really that big a deal, so they are cautious in using their power over the rest of society on the Court. It is the half-bright liberal tier that seems to wants revenge for the relative impotence of a life in the law. And they have thus redefined both society and the Democratic Party since Byron White's days.

Anonymous said...

"And she probably figures that when she finally gets on the Supreme Court, now Scalia will mock her by quoting constantly her testimony back to her. "Of course, we all know where Madame Justice stands on this issue; as she so eloquently put it during her colloquy with Senator Kyl etc. etc.," while Alito chuckles and Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever."

Funny. Made my morning.
-Vanilla Thunder

Billare said...

Steve, if you're watching the hearings or up to date on them, do you get the impression that Lindsay Graham of South Carolina is planning a run for the Presidency in 2012? I feel like his marked conciliatory tone is the beginning of a political triangulation, especially given that a couple of Republican stars who were apt to run are now in no man's land with their prominent marriage scandals.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, MSNBC has only one clip from Ricci's testimony. They refuse to show him talk about his personal struggles. The only clip I've seen MSNBC show is the one in which he answers Sen. Specter's question about what he understood about Sotomayor's legal reasoning. The answer being, basically: nothing.

JeremiahJohnbalaya said...

Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever.
Sigh. This is me in every work meeting I've attended over the last 6 years.

Anonymous said...

"Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever."

You mean where he stares like he's watching "Long Dong Silver"?

Anonymous said...

Edmund Andrews was on Colbert last night, Steve. Highlights:

He claimed that he "fell in love with the woman he wanted to marry" - no mention of leaving his wife and kids, or the $50 grand a year he was paying them.

He called himself the "poster child" for the mortgage meltdown. I agree with him to an extent - if the MSM made a poster about the meltdown, a white man "with blue eyes" would definitely be front and center.

Colbert looked like he was restraining himself the entire time. It seemed like he was struggling to come up with anything to say other than "TAKE SOME GODDAMN RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT YOU DID, YOU MORONIC, SHIFTLESS, GREEDY SCUMBAG!" After the requisite end-of-interview and post-interview handshakes, Colbert immediately gave Andrews the cold shoulder and flashed a shit-eating grin to the camera.

The question in my mind is how does such an utter disaster of a man end up on the national stage anyway? Is it the NYT Mafia? Or is it, as I suspect, just a convenient way to further the myth that the people to blame for this whole mess are middle and upper-class white men?

Anonymous said...

We need Presidential candidates to be subjected to more hostile questioning by truly hostile, well-informed individuals.

I'd like to see something like British Parliament's Question Time not only for the U.S. President but also for Presidential candidates. Let politicians from the other parties grill each of the candidates several times for a couple of hours at a stretch during the campaign.

It'll never happen, of course, but I can dream, can't I?

Anonymous said...

"Thomas does that thing where he just stares at you like you are the most boring waste of time ever.

You owe me a new keyboard for that."

See? Steve Sailer is funny, despite Steve Sailer's protestations to the contrary. I LOLed.

Lucius Vorenus said...

Billare: I feel like his marked conciliatory tone is the beginning of a political triangulation, especially given that a couple of Republican stars who were apt to run are now in no man's land with their prominent marriage scandals.

Ha!

Lindsay and his beard are sitting on the mother of all marriage scandals.

Axelrod and the Alinskyites will be sure to time that disclosure for maximum possible damage.

Ronduck said...

anonymous said...

I'd like to see something like British Parliament's Question Time not only for the U.S. President but also for Presidential candidates. Let politicians from the other parties grill each of the candidates several times for a couple of hours at a stretch during the campaign.

We already have something like that right now with the confirmation hearings currently underway for Sotomayor. Do you see the opposing party making any effort to ask tough questions? A few softballs have been thrown, but none of the questions that Steve suggested have been used.

Anonymous said...

Lindsay and his beard are sitting on the mother of all marriage scandals.

LG sets gaydars pinging more loudly than Barney Frank himself ever could. So, yeah, I suspect you're right.

testing99 said...

LV I suspect you are correct regarding Graham.

However, Ace has a post-mortem on Sotomayor. He disagrees with Byron York on how "the GOP gave up" because even an attempt at a filibuster would be doomed with Senator Al Franken. That's Sixty votes, even if the Maine sisters Collins/Snowe held firm which they won't.

The political reality is that Sotomayor's beliefs are probably in line with that of most Americans, as painful as that is to realize. So Sotomayor's dissembling and disavowals of what she's said and done in the past are irrelevant, since most Americans hold the same views anyway. Not a huge majority, but 52% or so. Anti-ordinary White guy sentiment goes both deep and wide in America (look at any TV ad) as does the "need" for an imaginary Black or Hispanic friend by the SWPL crowd.

Anonymous said...

Hostile, well-informed individuals are a dying breed in America.

No shit. At least I got half that going for me.

Anonymous said...

"We already have something like that right now with the confirmation hearings currently underway for Sotomayor. Do you see the opposing party making any effort to ask tough questions? A few softballs have been thrown, but none of the questions that Steve suggested have been used."

The reason they're not going tough on Sotomediocre is that there's no point. Her confirmation is a lock.

Presidential candidates are rarely so certain, and the common man is more easily swayed than 100 elected, partisan Senators. A questions session would be far different from these hearings.

Dan said...

Lindsay Graham for President? I would never vote for that woman.

"Hostile, well-informed individuals are a dying breed in America."- so true, there may be a few here though- Steve I would not count as one though, too mild-mannered

Byron "Whizzer" White- what a man, do they still make 'em like that? I put him up there with Jack Buck, Chuck Yeager and old Viking coach Les Steckel

No chance most Americans agree with Sotomayer.... most people are too busy to worry about this bs...of course, that's the problem

fletz said...

It looks like I'm not alone in my suspicions about Lindsay Graham.

I wonder if he's the guy that had his thigh on David Brooks for an entire evening during a DC dinner party recently.

fletz said...

After googling, I found out that Lindsay Graham is a 52 year old life long bachelor.

I had suspicions before I found this out, and this just adds fuel to the fire (or 'flame' so to speak).

Hey, Jack Hunter the Southern Avenger, if you're reading this, any substance (or 'meat' so to speak) to these rumors?

Ronduck said...

Testin99 said...

The political reality is that Sotomayor's beliefs are probably in line with that of most Americans,

You'll have to define American before you make statements like that. United-Statesian (US resident) and American are not the same thing.

James O. said...

John Anello "Hostile, well-informed individuals are a dying breed in America."
=== Isn't hostility about to be outlawed?

Jack said...

Graham HAS to be gay. He's a lawyer and Senator who could easily have snagged one of South Carolina finest. The fact that he didn't even attempt at marriage shows he probably is not striaght.

Anonymous said...

Steve you better watch out.

It has started. They might come after your site next.

"Black Philadelphia police sue over message board, say it's racist"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/17/police.racism.lawsuit/

king obama said...

Steve, not to be too pushy, but could you please give your input on Obama Care.

I don't understand why you haven't commented on this. Obama Care could cost upwards of $1.5 trillion over the next decade and would be accompanied by higher taxes.

The Sotomayor hearings are not that important. The justice she is replacing is a hardcore liberal as well, so it is not like Obama is tipping the court one way or the other.

However, Obama Care could cripple the economy. Your number crunching analysis would be greatly appreciated.

Bruce Banned said...

I wonder if he's the guy that had his thigh on David Brooks for an entire evening during a DC dinner party recently.
No way! I wonder what kind of gay senator is that desperate!
David Brooks must really believe he's hot, or something.

Anonymous said...

I suspect Lindsey Graham is the MSM and elite's wishlist next GOP presidential patsey, er nominee. They certainly are working hard to clear the way for him wrt Palin and other GOP contenders.

If Graham gets the GOP nomination, you can be sure that there will be video leaks of him where he's not butching it up so much for CSPAN. Even if Obama is unelectable in 2012, the mangina Graham is a suitable manchurian candidate on all the right issues anyway.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why you haven't commented on this. Obama Care could cost upwards of $1.5 trillion over the next decade and would be accompanied by higher taxes.

You could do CPSIA, FSMA, Obama Care, and the Design Piracy Act all together!

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I agree that hostile questioning, rather than staged questioning from Real Americans who turn out to be working for some campaign or activist group, would be a boon to the republic. Let 'em preen and hog the camera if they want.

It would be a great "last man standing" competition for candidates as well. John Sununu would go through life undefeated, methinks.

Anonymous said...

Lindsay Graham for President? I would never vote for that woman.

And thus his overwhelming appeal as far as the press is concerned.

~Svigor

Anonymous said...

If Graham gets the GOP nomination

If he's a lifelong bachelor and remains so, not a chance.

~Svigor

none of the above said...

I don't care so much about the hostility, but I'd like informed questions. *Way* too many people, both congresscritters and reporters, think hostility is a substitute for knowledge of the relevant subject areas and current issues.

This is especially true in Sotomayor's case: I don't find the law interesting, and don't know much about it. I'd prefer to know that actual legal experts were going over her record and asking her questions, holding her feet to the fire about questionable decisions she'd made. (Among other things, this would give ambitious federal appeals court judges a strong incentive to do a good job.)

As it is, I suppose someone on Obama's staff did some of that work, at least enough to make sure she wasn't going to embarrass them. And I assume some Republicans have done that. But what I've seen covered is the stupid "gotcha" quote game. (If I never hear the phrase "wise latina" again, it will be too f--king soon.)

There are all kinds of places, in this administration and the last, where I've really wished for meaningful oversight from Congress. But they're just not up to the job. Nor is the media, which may have once done a decent job at this stuff, but now seems incapable of remembering things done or said more than a week ago or doing any analysis at all.