Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sotomayor + Rush's ignorance...

Furthering my theory that Rush in uneducated lifewise, or purposefully ignorant, Rush Limbaugh came out against Sonia Sotomayor, saying

"Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She'd be a disaster on the Court.
Do I still want to Obama to fail as President? Yeah, -- AP, you getting this?
He's gonna fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country."

And why would she be a disaster? Oh, because Obama appointed her. Nothing else.

He forgets to mention that she was first appointed to the bench by President H.W. Bush in November 1991. She's also considered a political centrist by the American Bar Association, which is what you want in a Judge; you want someone not tied down by party lines.

Not to mention that George W. Bush also considered her as a supreme court nominee, not to mention she is more qualified than anyone else currently holding the position.

Rush Limbaugh only cares because Obama appointed her. That's all. Why? Because he wants Obama to fail. Not in his "socialist agenda," but wants "Obama to fail as President."

Partisan, ignorant, fear-monger.

Good luck, Sonia. Rush Limbaugh has his drug-addled sights set on you.


Dave Miller said...

Still no comments. James, I think the conservatives are waiting for their marching orders.

For a preview, check out Bits by Bob.

James' Muse said...

Last time they went into a tangent about my comment that Limbaugh has no real experience or education to back up these opinions and marching orders he gives. They thought I was insulting people without a college degree! I don't care about a degree. I do care about some sort of qualification to lead. Rush has neither.

Dave Miller said...

Yeah I read all that James. Take heart.

Blogging is more about getting your thoughts on "paper" as opposed to writing for everyone else.

Write for su mismo.

It was great seein' ya!

Pamela D. Hart said...

James: I didn't hear all of Rush's show about Sonia. But I did hear him say he wanted her to fail. In my opinion I think he went way over board on the "failing" because it got so much press when he said he wanted Obama's policies to fail the first time. Rush knows what will get him on the page one of the NY Times and on CNN, etc. He knows how to play the media. So, by him saying he hopes Sonia fails and saying it often during his 3 hour show he's sure to tick someone off.

James' Muse said...

Exactly. And that's what makes me mad. He does it on purpose, and so many conservatives listen to him and quote his opinion as if it were fact.

I didn't really care until Michael Steele, and others, started apologizing to him. Rush has started taking over the party and it is not a good direction.


No argument about Rush from me James. I would like to say that there is not a day that goes by I don't kick myself for not finishing college. When I think of all the doors I closed because at the time it didn't pay off, I want to puke. My three kids are going. One just graduated. I won't let them make the same mistake I did.

Thank you for the forum. Sorry again about frightening off Bluepitbull.

Pamela D. Hart said...

James: I didn't agree with Steele's apology to Rush. Steele said what he said and he should've stood by it.

bluepitbull said...

What comments would you suggest?

you think all conservatives get their talking points from some source. The truth is that most conservatives use common sense. I don't need Rush or anyone to tell me my opinion.

Dave Miller, Truth, Pam, you all got it wrong with all of your comments.

James' Muse said...

Blue: Pam was saying that Rush is out of line, saying that he wants everyone to fail. He doesn't even say in their agenda. Just wants them to fail.

Steele should have stood his ground.

As for Rush, many conservatives do merely repeat his opinions without checking his facts. Rush is an entertainer with a very large, er, bias, and his opinions and talking points are merely that: biased opinions.

bluepitbull said...

Hot off the AP:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor once accused Princeton University of attempting to "relegate" the Puerto Rican and Chicano population to "oblivion," according to a decades-old letter to the editor released by the university's newspaper.

The Daily Princetonian has posted a series of Sotomayor-related letters and articles from the 1970s that show her early interest in the issues of discrimination and minority representation as a student at the Ivy League school.

In one May 10, 1974, letter to the editor, Sotomayor -- whose parents are from Puerto Rico -- described and defended a student complaint against the university charging it with an "institutional pattern of discrimination."

Puerto Rican and Chicano students objected that Princeton had no administrators or faculty members of either background, she wrote. They objected that there were very few Puerto Rican or Chicano students on campus and that the university did not offer courses dealing with their cultures.

"What is terrifying to us are the implications," Sotomayor wrote. "The facts imply and reflect the total absence of regard, concern and respect for an entire people and their culture. In effect, they reflect an attempt -- a successful attempt so far -- to relegate an important cultural sector of the population to oblivion."

She continued: "It has been said that the universities of America are the vanguard of societal ideas and changes. Princeton University claims to foster the intellectual diversity, spirit, and thoughts that are necessary components in order to achieve this ideal. Yet words are transitory; it is the practice of the ideas you espouse that affect society and are permanent. Thus it is only when Princeton fulfills the goal of being a truly representative community that it can attempt to instill in society a respect for all people -- regardless of race, color, sex or national origin."

The Sotomayor letters and articles from her college days, though decades old, could help provide personal context for Sotomayor's subsequent decisions on such issues on district and appeals courts.

One case from last year when she was on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has drawn much attention. In the case, the appellate panel ruled against a group of white firefighters who sued the city of New Haven, Conn., for throwing out the results of a promotion test because not enough minority firefighters scored high.

During her college years, Sotomayor was also co-chairwoman of a campus group called Accion Puertorriquena.


Princeton is as far left as you can go without going to Beijing U. It still wasn't good enough for the soon to be racist judge.

bluepitbull said...

Also, don't portend to tell Steele what to do. He is a big boy, and he knows the direction the party needs to move. If you don't like it, Truth practically have a chubby for ya. Go dem.

James' Muse said...

I'm not telling him what to do. I'm saying its sad when a national leader has to apologize for calling an incendiary political entertainer an incendiary political entertainer.

I guess if he hadn't he'd be like Powell: told to get out of the party.

Btw, what HAS Rush done for the Repubs? Other than give his opinions?

bluepitbull said...


First of all, you practically claim he is leader of the party. Now your asking what he's done for the party?

Which is he?

I can tell you many things he and others have done for conservatives: He's kept the Reagan philosophy alive in the face of GWB and others that would make the party into the Democratic party as they shift to communism.

James' Muse said...

I'm saying he's a leader, not the leader. Many people listen to his opinions as if it were fact.

Example: The "racist" allegations about Sonia Sotomayor. Not true whatsoever.

Being one of the leaders of a party doesn't mean you've actually done something for the party. You can lead in a detrimental way.

bluepitbull said...

Detrimental like the way Cornyn rolls over? You and he would probably get along well.