Liberal elitists and the Supreme Court

As i have noted before the fundamental cultural divides that separate people of color from the liberal white elite that controls the Dem party (and much of the liberal blogosphere). i am not a Democrat because of Roe/abortion, gay marriage, church/state, flag burning or whatever else consumes the social liberals. i'm a Democrat becuase i fundamentally believe in the role of government to regulate in the public interest and that i hate and despise corporate power above all.

the framing that has occured over the battles over the Supreme Court has deeply disturbed me. Democrats wonder why the working class "votes against their economic interest" or why the GOP resonates among rural or middle class folks, who think of Dems as cultural heathens or elitists. i think exhibit number one has to be the framing in the midst of the Supreme COurt nomination, where all i have heard is SAVE ROE! SAVE ROE!

Jon Chait, whose columns i have never liked, hits it on the head on how the obsession with social issues and abortion reflects the elitist nature of the Dem activists and party:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050725&s=chait072505

Noting that O'Connor is a pro-corporate whore whose ruling on business is even MORE right wing than Thomas or Scalia:

This is not to say that all of O'Connor's pro-business rulings were wrong. The point is that her lionization by Democrats says less about O'Connor than it does about the political disposition of elites, and especially liberal elites. These elites--donors, the media, business leaders, politicians, and strategists--are drawn from the ranks of the affluent and highly educated. People with high incomes and education levels tend to be more economically conservative and socially liberal than the population as a whole. The 2005 Pew survey of the electorate, for instance, found that large segments of the Democratic Party base oppose liberal positions on issues like gay marriage and the role of religion in public life. Similarly, large segments of the Republican Party base dissent from the conservative stance on questions like the minimum wage and private Social Security accounts.

Because these elites shape public opinion, there is a general tendency to identify political figures who tilt right on economics and left on social policy as "moderate."

In emails i have gotten from various so-called progressive groups, they all emphasize Roe and "civil liberties" and the possible "theocracy." VERY RARELY do i get an email talking about the Supreme Court's vast power on the economic lives of working people--whether it be workplace safety, the min. wage, the right to organize.

Nathan Newman is one of the few liberal bloggers i've seen to even bother to mention at all in serious detail O'Connor's anti-workers rights record.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/12/1101/61205

As i have said, give me a pro-life, anti-corporate populist anyday than a pro-choice corporate whore. In John Kerry's email to his list after O'Connor's resignation what did he mention? Roe and "civil liberties." i'm sorry, but the vast majority of Americans are just not gonna be swayed by that message. why nothing about the supreme court's impact on working people? and we wonder why people no longer view the Dems as caring about the little guy and more as the pro-abortion obsessed party?

Chait issues a warning:

Right now, conservatives are further away from their economic offensive than they are from striking down Roe. But, if Roe is struck down, it would merely shift the battle over abortion to state legislatures. If conservatives eventually succeeded in banning the government from regulating things like worker safety and the minimum wage, on the other hand, liberals would have no legal recourse at all.  

Why can't liberals like the ACLU and Alliance for Justice and People for the American WAy take a page out of David Sirota book and just say it's a battle between Big Business and the rest of us, whether it be consumers, workers, the environment, minorities, etc. focusing on Roe and religion, while i understand their importance, only underscore the power of the social liberals vs. those of us who are more concerned with economic liberalism.

Which means Dems shouldn't simply be satisifed with another O'Connor:

In the broad sense, it's true that O'Connor is a moderate. But the particular nature of her moderation makes the Democrats' lionization of her revealing. O'Connor famously voted to uphold Roe v. Wade and has deviated from conservative orthodoxy on other social issues. But Supreme Court justices do not only rule on social policy. They also settle disputes between business and labor, consumers, and environmentalists. And here, O'Connor has compiled a staunchly pro-business record. It is a distinction Democrats ought to pay far more attention to in the coming battles over Supreme Court nominees. In vast areas of economic, environmental, and regulatory policy, a justice in the O'Connor mold would not be what the Democrats want.

•  Been eating up those GOP talking points?

  ... more babbling the "liberal elites" canard...

  by A Citizen on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:13:52 AM PDT

  •  I find "liberal elites" offensive

    I take exception to the right-wing buzzword, "liberal elites." It sounds like the kind of drivel that emanates from the likes of Bernard Goldberg, who thinks that anyone who prefers chamber music to C&W is out of step with America and ought to butt out of public policy issues.

    I'd feel a lot better if the diarist changed the title and left the inflammatory language. It detracts from her arguments, most of which deserve to be taken seriously.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:31:19 AM PDT

    •  Ihlin's Been Peddling This Crap Forever

      And I'm not buyin'...

      by DHinMI on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:48:14 AM PDT

•  Affirmative Action

  will be the first to go when O'Connor is replaced. And you make a fundamental error. All Republican judicial nominees are pro-corporation first and foremost, social conservatives second. Basically, you are getting a pro-corporation hacktivist judge regardless. Social issues is where liberals have common ground with the libertarian wing of the Republican party.

  by pursewarden on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:15:28 AM PDT

  •  exactly!

    so why can't Dems focus on the pro-corporate aspect (which will draw more sympathy from folks, including quite a few evangelicals) instead of the social aspect? why do they always insist on talking about the Supreme Court in the context of Roe?

    by ihlin on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:44:29 AM PDT

    •  Because

      you are getting a pro-corporate hack regardless of what Democrats do and like others have mentioned previously this isn't a winning issue. Highlighting anti-choice and other social positions which resonate with people IS.

      by pursewarden on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:54:45 AM PDT

•  The fact is...

  ...that anyone who Bush appoints is going to be hardcore pro-business. But he might just appoint someone who is pro-Roe, so that would make it less bad.

  by metal prophet on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:19:04 AM PDT

•  Roe resonates, that's why

  These guys are politicians, pure and simple.

  When you have an issue that is 2-to-1 in your favor and you're a minority party, why not use this as a filibuster?

  This place is crawling with lawyers and I know more about the Griswold case than probably 99% of the rest of the American populace.

  My point: I recognize your hatred of corporate power, but could you give me one Supreme Court decision that (a) made a big difference in the power structure of corporations vis-a-vis ordinary citizens (and the recent Eminent Domain is not a bad start), but - more importantly - (b) the voting populace recognizes?

  Gary Bauer and the Religious Right have tried their utmost to actually AVOID saying 'overturn Roe v. Wade' since they know it's probably a loser.

  And, MOST IMPORTANTLY, when is the last time the Supreme Court EVER interfered with the setting of the minimum wage?  This is a monumental reach.

  Again, your provocative 'liberal elitist' title is a red herring.  Your big problem, it seems, is that the Democratic Party is not addressing social liberalism via the Supreme Court.

  My point is that give me a Supreme Court decision that resonates with voters in terms of both awareness and opposition as Roe.  Build your argument off of that.

  The Executive and Legislative branches have far, far more impact on economic liberalism than the judicial branch.

  On the other hand, the judicial branch has been unbelievably important in the establishment or defense of civil rights, abortion, affirmative action and other civil liberties.

  Has the Supreme Court adjudicated NAFTA or CAFTA?  Or, for that matter, quotas on cars or outsourcing?

  I think therein lies your answer.

  by yankeeinmemphis on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:24:56 AM PDT

•  Damn bobos again, eh?

  I'm wholly sympathetic to the notion that the Democratic Party would do well to emphasize economic populism and the class warfare that the wealthy are waging against workers.

  But if you want an audience here, you'll need to drop the Republican talking points.  "Liberal elites" is a fiction created by conservative think tanks and their useful idiots such as David Brooks to draw a wedge in the electorate along lines other than the rich vs. the rest of us whom they are screwing.  Social liberal activists will react to the liberties that are threatened by such wedging (why wouldn't they?), but that doesn't mean they are the first and last word in Democratic politics (why did you even mention flag burning?  We just laugh at that one; it's conservatives whose panties are in a bunch because of it.)

  by cardinal on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:28:15 AM PDT

  •  i guess you didn't notice

    that the flag burning amendment passed the House with more than 70+ Dem votes i believe...

    by ihlin on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:46:10 AM PDT

    •  I did notice

      But I didn't think that's what you meant, since it directly undermines your point.  Banning flag burning is a socially conservative position to take, 180-degrees opposite of the view held by the so-called "liberal elites."

      by cardinal on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 10:04:31 AM PDT

•  I cant even read this diary past the first few

  sentences because using the term 'elites' totally turns me off. Its so, so meaningless.

  by ablington on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:35:45 AM PDT

  •  Yeah.

    It's actually a valuable diary IMO, but the tone is pretty tiring.

    by tlaura on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:38:22 AM PDT

•  The ACLU isn't liberal.

  It's civil-libertarian.  And it's primarily interested in protecting individual civil liberties.  I don't even agree with everything the ACLU favours but it does what it does.

  I do agree that the Constitutioin in Exile is a much bigger threat than the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.  But lots of upscale-white-moderates have written about this, Jeffrey Rosen extensively.  In fact, it looks to be a more "elite" argument, in terms of the audience I've seen it pitched at, than the sort of MoveOn-fuelled Roe stuff.

  Here's the NAACP press release on O'Connor's retirement:

  The NAACP today, in commending Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for her consistent approach in establishing legal precedents in the areas of affirmative action, criminal justice and a person's right to privacy, urges the Administration to select a candidate possessing a commitment to true justice and equality for all people regardless of their race or economic status," said Hayes.

  In other words, civil libertarian issues.  I think you have a point here, but I also think it might be valuable to look at the reasons behind the focus on Roe rather than just assigning it to the perfidity of the "white liberal elite".  What are the specific orgs that should be addressing economic and corporate power issues (as in created to address these issues) and why aren't you getting emails from them as well?

  by tlaura on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:37:54 AM PDT

•  Gee

  I don't feel terribly elite! White, sure. But shit I'm facing unemployment!

  The whole "liberal elitist" thing is mostly (emphisis on MOSTLY) bullshit. The REAL elitists are the rich, WASP Republican neo-Cons who are dividing up our country like a big fat sucker pie.

  AND SINCE WHEN IS THE ACLU LIBERAL???? They defend EVERYONE'S first amendment rights right down to young republicans and neo-Nazis!

  You are falling for the neo-Con divide and conquer line. You are being divided and conquered by the Republicans right before our eyes when you post this diary.

  There is no question that there is a divide between progressive/liberal organizations and minorities. And a divide between such organizations and the poor. But the fact is the divide is situational and, in part, mythical. It is situational because let's face it, minorities and the poor are, on average, less engaged politically than those who feel they have some stake in the system. This has been true through much of history. Those who have the most to gain by political activity feel most excluded from the system and so don't participate. So they never get anywhere. Now the left has to reach out, but the truth is the best way for minorities and the poor to get noticed politically is to get active and get voting. If any community is known for delivering petitions to get someone on the ballot and for voting in high numbers, that community gets noticed by ALL the local politicians no matter who they are. I see that right here in NYC. The mythical part of the divide is that the divide partly occurred because of the very "liberal elite" myth that started with Reagan, if not Nixon. How can you possibly believe a billionaire white Yalie like Bush when he tells you it's the left that's elitist???

  I got news for you. The left is the ONLY hope under-represented groups have of getting anywhere. The right doesn't want you except for cheap labor and purchasing things on credit. The left has its flaws, but COME ON!!! The left is so easily divided because it is the side of the people. SOME are elitists, some are poor and some are in between. And I got more news for you. Some of the fucking best minority politicians I know with the best civil rights credentials you can imagine, trying to work their way through the system are NOT being helped by the right or other minorities. They are sometimes helped only by the progressives that recognize their potential as superb people. I am watching just such a thing in the Brooklyn DA race where the best candidate (Paul Wooten) is getting no help from anyone but a handful of us progressives who think he'd make one of the best DAs this city has ever seen. Are we being white liberal elitists by carrying around petitions for him? Is Norm Siegel being a white liberal elitist when he pushes Wooten's candidacy? Doesn't seem that way to me. I feel like we are finding the right guy for the job and helping him out.

  I think you need to stop looking at the world the way the conservative elitists want you to look at it and realize that the only way we are going to win in this nation is if we all get together and fight. From what I have seen, it is the liberals and progressives who are trying to do this. So maybe you should join in?

  by mole333 on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:42:04 AM PDT

  •  there are liberal elites

    so i am sympathetic when the right wing trots out this line because i've worked in the NYC-DC-LA media/political arenas, where everyone has their fancy ivy league degrees and thinks anyone who's an evangelical who likes the Passion or reads The Purpose Driven Life or is pro-life must be some stupid brainwashed hick. Folks "out there" have picked up on our snobbery and the GOP does rather well to exploit it (as Thomas Frank has said). the NYT is cultural elitist AND economic elitist (i.e. pro corporate whores).

    where i always argue with right wing friends who want to call Dems cultural elitists is to admit, yeah, that may be true, but fuck, the GOP are a bunch of CORPORATE economic elitists who have the power to fuck the environment, workers, your phone bill, your health care, your pensions, your media, your electricity (if in CA) and they're the ones who impact your life. not Barbra Streisand or the rest of the hollywood yahoos. this is the point Stewart was trying to make when interviewing that lame-o Bernard Goldberg. it's the point Dems need to be making.

    by ihlin on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:54:18 AM PDT

    •  Hmmm

      My degrees are all public schools. I have worked for two private schools--Kyoto University and NYU.  But I still love public education. I rejected a job at Stanford (Ivy League) because it sucked. I am from a combination of Iowa pioneers from Germany and Jewish intellectuals from Latvia. I am liberal. I am progressive.

      Don't get me wrong. There are assholes in any group. There are liberals who think if you don't agree with them 99.9999999% you are wrong. I do not like those folks. But look at the reality. Most liberals are a mish-mash of races, economic levels, philosophies who loosely believe in civil liberties, the rights of all Americans, a vague idea of peace, justice and the American way and who want us all to get along. That is the liberal group I have encountered 99% of the time. I don't agree with the purists. I agree with those who belive we all have a right to our opinions and should fight for those rights.

      The Republican of today are saying in no uncertain terms that if you don't agree with their anti-Constitution, pro-rich, pro-white philosophy you are a triator to mom and apple pie and should be locked away in a prison camp. That is the DOMINANT force in t he Repub party. And you are comparing liberals with these guys??????

      No. I know full well that there are very vocal, very irritating liberals out there. But there are two fallicies in your arguement. First off, most liberal Dems (at least that I know) do not fit that description of liberals. Second, the corrupt, nasty, intolerant Repub scum that we are opposing are so horrible, that to compare even the worst liberals with the average neo-Con is comlpetely unfair to the liberal. They are destroying our nation on all levels--national security, economics and civil rights.

      The abortion and gun control issues are difficult. On abortion Americans will never fully agree. On gun control if we go to James Madison's original intent and actions, we can find common  ground. But to find two issue that are difficult and ignore the entirety of our civil rights, economy and national security is just plain dumb.

      by mole333 on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 11:16:47 AM PDT

•  Think about who will be affected by the loss

  of reproductive rights. Oh, the liberal elitists will just hop on a plane for Canada if they want to have an abortion. They're less likely to have abortions anyway, since they have ready access to contraception and the education that allows them to learn about what contraception even is. Now, the poor and less educated American woman will just be screwed, literally as well as figuratively, into bearing a child she can't afford to take care of. How this is good for anyone is beyond me.

  You can call this elitism if you want, but to me this is the very essence of liberalism: to care enough to try to something good for someone other than yourself. What you're basically saying is that you don't care about this issue because it doesn't affect you personally, and you want to focus instead on something YOU care about.

  by elmo on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:44:16 AM PDT

•  Polls consistently show

  that a majority of the country supports abortion rights.  In fact, according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that I just linked to, 65% of the public wants Roe upheld.

  So, given pro-choicers are a majority, how exactly are Dems "liberal elites" for considering protection of a woman's right to choose an important issue when choosing a new Supreme Court justice?

  by martianchronic on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:48:07 AM PDT

  •  whoops

    started posting before refreshing.

    by friendofliberty on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:59:14 AM PDT

    •  Happens to me all the time. ;-) n/t

      Double the pleasure, double the fun.

      by martianchronic on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:04:08 AM PDT

  •  this isn't the number one issue

    for most AMericans or voters. if so many voters agree with the Dems stance, why the hell do Dems not control any level of govt at the moment?? and the choice issue is why Dems can't win in certain whole sections of the country.

    a lot of pro-choicers vote GOP. i frankly think if Roe is overturned it'd be the best thing to happen to Democrats. then all the moderate pro-choicers who are voting GOP right now would wake up and see what they have wrought and there'd probably be mass defections to the Dem party. and women of my generation who are a bunch of unappreciative ingrates when it comes to what our feminists mothers did for us, would have to wake up too and start calling themselves feminists and march in the streets.

    by ihlin on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:00:43 AM PDT

    •  Many pro-choice voters are complacent.

      Having Roe overturned would indeed wake up a lot of people, but the cost is too high.  We'd go right back to the stratified system of the past: Wealthy women will "go on vacation" and poorer women will put their lives in the hands of back-alley butchers.  Besides, anti-choice activists won't stop with abortion -- ready access to birth control is being threatened, as well.

      It's true Roe isn't the only issue to be concerned about when choosing a justice (especially with torture apologist Gonzales on the short list) but it might be an issue that will catch the attention of the public quicker than corporate stances.  

      People know what they think about Roe and abortion.  We have more ground to cover in a short amount of time getting people engaged on the real dangers of corporatism in this country.

      by martianchronic on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:20:31 AM PDT

  •  it's an important issue

    esp. to the rich white women who give lots of money to the party and people like EMily's List.

    But it's not the ONLY ISSUE.

    by ihlin on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:02:18 AM PDT

    •  It sounds like you assume

      the only women who are concerned about Roe are rich and white, or middle class and white. The fact is, 70% of Americans...male, female, rich, poor, black, white and purple...support CHOICE!

      Those emails from Naral and People for the American Way and other groups are intended to RALLY THE BASE and the BASE is overwhelmingly pro-choice. This is how these groups raise money for the overall fight. If this is the easiest way to raise money to fight for the more "center" judges...then why complain about it??

      The fact is, they can't raise the money any other way...otherwise they would. Oh, and I've gotten emails from my union about the Supreme Court nomination....so it isn't like EVERY group is touting choice....choice just so happens to be the thing that effects the MOST people and the thing that MOST people get energized about.

      If you want a judge that is center and supports the people donate what you can to whatever group emails you...because we are ALL working for the SAME THING.

      by Elise on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:51:02 AM PDT

•  The voters support Roe v. Wade

  by a vast margin of 65%-29%.

  http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

  by friendofliberty on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:58:34 AM PDT

•  me heathen

  SAVE ROE!

  by yet another liberal on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:59:25 AM PDT

•  Where's all your noise about Affirmative Action?

  Roe and Affirmative Action and all civil liberties and anti-persecution of the minority (HEY: NEWSFLASH THAT'S WHY WE'RE SO FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!) are bundled together in this focus on Roe.  Also, there will be - I guarantee you - a great deal of talk about affirmative action as well.

  You still have not answered my questions upstream:

  Can you name me one NON-CIVIL rights/liberties related Supreme Court case that has both (a) impacted the 'economic liberalism' that you want
  and (b)resonates with the general public?

  If you can, build your case around that.

  Jeepers Christmas, I have heard the following phrases from you ad nauseum:

  'liberal elites', 'sex in the city crowd', 'my body, my choice zealots',

  All of which are Republican talking points.

  If you want to convey your message, tone down your rhetoric and you'd be surprised what you might come up with.

  However, I would encourage you to again, answer my question.  When has the Supreme Court - in its role as the interpreter of laws - made a decision that has impacted your desired economic liberalism?

  I swear everytime the Democratic Party does not champion your cause, it's due to their liberal elitism.  

  by yankeeinmemphis on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:19:20 AM PDT

•  Good points

      The point is that the Democratic Party used to be concerned with what were known as "lunch bucket" issues.  The diary is correct that there are liberal elites.  The sad thing is that these folks are self-appointed.  One sees so many of these "elites" being just plain stupid, while shouting down those who have something to say about the problems facing working people.
      A recent book took on the people of Kansas, asking why they were voting against their economic interests.  The answer, of course, is that no one is addressing those interests.
      Most amazing is that the so-called "Hollywood elite" never mention labor and working issues, despite most of Hollywood being unionized to a fare-thee-well.
      Most Americans do not fret about their civil liberties.  Most Americans do not particularly care about Roe v. Wade deeply on a daily basis.  Most Americans do not care about the death penalty, frankly, unless whipped into a frenzy by some politicians with nothing better to say.
      It used to be said that Frank Roosevelt could sit down with a local Democratic committeeman or committeewoman at the precinct level and draw that person out in conversation, making their issues his issues.  Few Democrats can do that these days.
      When Howard Dean commented that he was running for the votes of the guys with rebel flags decals on their pick-up trucks, he was hooted down by Democrats who didn't want to think about, let alone get the votes of, such Neanderthals.  What Dean was talking about was that the guy with the decal had no health insurance, had very little money, and was living what used to be called a "hard-scrabble" life.
      John Edwards used to give a speech about two Americas.  That resonated with lots of citizens because they are deeply aware that there are two Americas.  The problem with so many Democrats, at least the leadership, is that they are more in tune with Republican leaders than they are with any rank-and-file beyond the Beltway.
      The nasty comments in response to this diary show all too starkly the mindless faux-liberalism of a self-appointed elite.
      Perhaps if we cared more about working people and their lives and jobs, we would win some elections.

  by ScarySteve on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:19:47 AM PDT

  •  are women not "working people"?

    do gays and lesbians not "work"? and do you seriously expect us to buy the line, unsupported by evidence, that the "hollywood elite" care nothing about economic issues, that the american people don't care about abortion, and that social liberals are all wealthy fat cats?

    back it up.

    by wu ming on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:29:56 AM PDT

    •  Back what up?

          I simply wrote what has appeared ad nauseum in the press and, indeed, in some diaries on dailykos.  There is nothing to back up.
          This is not a PhD thesis.  This is a diary with comments.
          Pick up some news now and then.

      by ScarySteve on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 11:34:53 AM PDT

      •  you're making claims here that are false

        the fact that you cannot be bothered to check that out is what irks me.

          Most amazing is that the so-called "Hollywood elite" never mention labor and working issues, despite most of Hollywood being unionized to a fare-thee-well.

        how do you know this, other than your assumption? what speeches from hollywood elites have you read recently that don't address these things? if you can't cite anything in support of your statement, why should anyone believe what you say about them?

        Most Americans do not fret about their civil liberties.  Most Americans do not particularly care about Roe v. Wade deeply on a daily basis.  Most Americans do not care about the death penalty, frankly, unless whipped into a frenzy by some politicians with nothing better to say.
        

        how do you know what most americans think? where is the poll that backs this up? again, without any shred of support, why  should anyone take what you say seriously?

        a quick look at the pew typology poll shows that americans have a broad range of opinions on these issues, that in face many americans care  a great deal about civil liberties and social issues (on both sides of the divide), and that the liberals you deride as not giving a damn about lunchbox issues are the strongest supporters of the government helping people out and regulating corporations for the public good. without us raising hell to push the party towards the left economically as well as socially, the dems would be even worse on working people's issues.

        by wu ming on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:00:31 PM PDT

•  Quite frankly, you've posted this diary

  a hundred times, and it's the same diary each and every time. Have you read the rules?

  And, do you speak for a majority of African-Americans?

  by upstate NY on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:22:57 AM PDT

  •  she's taiwanese

    the "people of color" is just borrowing a bigger soapbox.

    by wu ming on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:24:48 AM PDT

•  your right-wing talking points are getting tired

  most of us are economic populists and believers in social liberalism, and the red herring populist theocrats that you keep bringing up aren't anywhere near being mentioned as republican replacements to o'connor. you spend post after post here heckling people whop are quite likely far more left economically than you and who are working far harder than you to try and get the democratic party to cut its ties with the corporate sector, for chrissakes (blasphemy intended)! quite frankly, people like you are in the minority with your beam-in-the-eye social beliefs, both in our party and in the american population as a whole, so pardon me if i don't exactly rush to start denouncing my own deeply held moral beliefs just because you don't like them. you may live your life according to your flawed, nosy, holier-than-thou morality, but you don't get to legislate any of ours, and i sure wouldn't want a democratic party that did.

  now as for the white elitist lib'rul crap you fling about, i wonder what you think about this article:

  
  Latino same-sex couples as parents
  UCLA study shows higher proportion than other ethnics

  A third of all same-sex couples in California include at least one Latino or Latina, and a higher proportion of Latino same-sex couples are raising children than heterosexual couples of other ethnicities, according to a UCLA study released Wednesday.

  The report, based on 2000 Census data, is the first to examine California Latinos in same-sex relationships and sheds new light on diversity within the gay and lesbian community, said Gary Gates, the lead author of the study.

  "If you watch TV, most images of the gay community are white, mostly male and wealthy," said Gates, a senior research fellow at the Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy in the UCLA School of Law. "This is one in a series of studies that is beginning to break down those stereotypes."

  [...]

  The UCLA study found that about 45,000 Latinos and Latinas in the state were identified on census forms as a spouse or unmarried partner in a same-sex relationship, nearly twice as many as in Texas, the state with the second most.

  San Francisco, which is both a county and a city, had the highest concentration of Latino same-sex couples of any Bay Area county, but it ranked only 10th statewide. The five counties with the highest per capita rate of same-sex Latino couples -- Imperial, Tulare, Madera, San Benito and Monterey -- also had among the highest proportions of straight Latino couples.

  Los Angeles County has by far the largest number of same-sex Latino couples in the state: 7,930.

  i guess all those latino/as aren't really "people of color," then, huh?

  by wu ming on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:23:42 AM PDT

•  I am definately an economic populist

  I agree that Democrats need to point out more issues are at stake besides abortion and gay rights.

  That said, I think most of the people here are economic populists. I've never seen anyone here oppose national health care, raising the minimum wage, or support tax cuts for big corporations.

  I am starting to wonder if the current Karl Rove controversy will increase the chances of getting a theocrat on the court. They may not be able to afford to piss off the Religious Right, if in trouble.

  by erich398 on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 09:40:21 AM PDT