Posted on 12/09/2004 10:52:35 PM PST by kattracks
Do you know who Harry M. Reid might be? Frankly I did not know either until he was quoted in the newspapers as having said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Justice Clarence Thomas is "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court." He also asseverated that Justice Thomas' opinions "are poorly written." As he made these utterances recently on "Meet the Press," I concluded the man must have some stature, unless, of course, the issue being treated on the show was small-town bigotry. Well, it turns out this fellow Mr. Reid is a U.S. senator. In fact, he is the incoming Senate minority leader from Nevada.[snip]
The moral pretense of the American liberal is a thing to marvel upon. So is the intellectual pretense. The Nevada senator who pronounced on Justice Thomas' record and literary merit is a man of no intellectual distinction whatsoever. Having read the transcript of his remarks on "Meet the Press," I can tell you he articulates woodenly. His thoughts are banal. How well he writes I cannot say with total confidence, but if he writes as well as he speaks he is — after his first few simple sentences — unreadable.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Harry Reid is Hillary's bag man.
But on the other hand, the color of their skin does not and should not shield them from criticism. I winced every time the Democrats played the race card whenever Republicans dared to criticize a Democratic member of a minority group, and I don't like seeing the GOP doing the same.
Reid definitely deserves scorn for his inept attack on Thomas... especially since Thomas's opinions happen to be beautifully written and Reid didn't even bother to cite a poorly-written one. But that doesn't make him a bigot, and I wish people like Taranto would stop implying that he is. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Preposterosity! I love it.
We are not defedning Rice and Thomas solely because of their skin color. ... they are excellent human beings wrongly maligned by their lessers.
Their attackers have indeed used stereotypes to sharpen their attacks, so raising the issue of bigotry is not out of bounds.
The RAT bastards smear us every chance they get for being 'racist' about affirmative action and minority set-asides. I think turnabout is 100% grade-A fair play. I'm looking forward to calling out liberals for being anti-Hispanic when Bush nominates Estrada again, too.
raising the issue of bigotry is not out of bounds.
I agree.
***I gotta admit to mixed feelings about it. ... Justice Thomas in particular is one of the two finest Justices on the present court, and Condoleeza Rice is one of the most brilliant minds in public service, and those who are smearing them deserve what they get.***
So what is it about them that you have mixed feelings about?
I'm not saying we're defending them solely because of their skin color, and I agree that they are excellent human beings. I'm saying that in many cases the defense consists of "look at these Democrats attacking black people, they must be racists" which is bad, no matter whether it's Democrats doing it to Republicans or Republicans doing it to Democrats.
I think turnabout is 100% grade-A fair play. I'm looking forward to calling out liberals for being anti-Hispanic when Bush nominates Estrada again, too.
You say turnabout is fair play, I say two wrongs don't make a right. Do you really believe that Democratic opposition to Estrata is based on anti-Hispanic hatred?
So what is it about them that you have mixed feelings about?
You misunderstand. I don't have mixed feelings about Rice and Thomas, I have mixed feelings about the tactics being used to defend them against Democratic attacks.
The Rats ARE racist. They would accept a white child molestor running the Dept of Education if he were a Democrat. On the other hand, a black Hispanic female jurist in a wheelchair nominated for the Supreme Court would have to be the Second Coming to even get a vote in the Senate, even with a 20-year record as a DCA judge and an ABA recommendation. The Rats would more likely vote for a white male GOP nominee than a conservative black female nominee.
Rats have expectations of minorities only that they appoint leaders for their groups who will shepherd them to the liberal plantation. There is no such thing as a liberal who expects that a minority can succeed without government help. That is racism, plain and simple.
Further, are the Rats to be the only ones who are allowed to toss around the label 'racist?' Because if they are, we cede the field and accept it. If we toss the grenade back in their laps, what happens is that the word loses its meaning politically.
I prefer to slap the label back on them instead of meekly accepting it and affirmative action, especially when the leftists and their house Negroes are so loathe to be called out for it. Conservatives have skins like gator hide from being called names for years, while liberals and their bitches often wilt at being called racist, sexist, or homophobic. We should use appropriate labels as we can against the people who truly fit those labels.
As to Thomas being best for the job, heck no, he's not. I didn't support his appointment beyond the fact that he was the GOP choice, either. The symbolism of reserving a black seat at the table is ludicrous. And Scalia is the only strict Constitutionalist on the Court. Rehnquist has been a party hack for years, and no matter how often he votes the way the GOP faithful wants, I don't really trust Thomas's consistency on the issues yet, because I can't find a conclusive thread in his writings the way I can in Scalia's.
I think Scalia deserves the appointment regardless, but I would stand behind Thomas and hurl mud proudly and honestly. The Rats are racists to the core.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.