I was going to edit this down but the whole segment needs to be watched. This is from today's segment of Hardball guest-hosted by David Shuster. It's crazy, and Tancredo is a fucking lunatic.
<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31005313#31005313" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for, and </div>
(Note: the embed looks good in the preview, I apologize if it doesn't work in the published version so here is the link...come back for discussion if you want.)
So why am I pissed/flummoxed/baffled about this segment on the Sotomayor nomination?
1.) Tancredo doesn't feel the need to apologize for his comment on comparing LaRaza to the KKK.
2.) Tancredo 'doesn't know' if President Obama 'hates white people'.
3.) Why is Tancredo even given air time, or even treated as a credible source of opinion?
Hmmm. Hopefully you will indulge me here. I want to put this at the beginning for those of you who lose interest in my writing (rambling) as to what I feel should be the real subject of debate.
The Straw-Man
Previous Nominations
Tancredo's 'counterpoint' is former US congressperson Susan Molinari (R), I don't recognize her name so she's been out of office for a little bit. But she comes off sounding like the most sane person in the world against Tancredo. She bases her arguments not on empathy, not on her intellect, not even on racism, she bases her questions of Sotomayor's qualifications and on the treatments of Miguel Estrada's nomination by the Democrats. As most of you know, and I have have educated myself on, these are nothing more than straw-man arguments.
Since I didn't know anything about Estrada's nomination let me start there. Apparently, Estrada was nominated to the DC circuit of appeals in May of 2001 under Bush II. His nomination was blocked by Democrats seemingly for two reasons according to Wikipedia, that the Democrats didn't want Republicans to put an Hispanic person so close to SCOTUS nomination with this appointment. The second is that since Estrada was a Solicitor General, release of his past opinions to the general public, would diminish the objectivity of future Solicitor Generals to give unbiased opinion to the White House. Since this is from Wiki-world, take it with a grain of salt. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that these were the two prevailing issues.
The first argument just doesn't pass the smell test. Democrats had no objection (politically speaking, as she was eventually appointed) to Sandra Day O'Conner, being appointed to the bench in 1981, who was nominated by Reagan. The first woman to serve on the court. Why would they change their stance in the 21st century? Naw, I don't like this argument. And since it comes from Wiki-world I take it with a grain of salt.
The second argument seems more interesting. It sure sounds like executive privilege to me. Having the benefit of hindsight, I think the Democratic Party at the time had their finger on something. The link in the Wiki-article only leads to a Home Page, but I think someone with more patience than me could produce the salient reference (perhaps someone here even has first-person experience with the issue). However, from my understanding, Estrada never served as a Judge and the Senate wanted to know what his opinions were. He was nominated to serve at a level equivalent to Sotomayor's current position. I really don't think that a background check is that unreasonable at the Federal level, particularly without a prior record. What I do find suspicious is that the White House wanted the records blocked. Again, with the benefit of hind-sight, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Which-ever theory is right is really irrelevant because I don't remember anyone at the time saying words like 'racist' and 'stupid'.
Case Law
Here are the raw numbers 380 opinions:3 overturned. Statistically speaking, she's right 99.3% of the time. But this won't be the real issue. The real issue is Ricci v. DeStefano. This case is a Republicans wet dream. She upheld the lower court ruling, no judicial activism there. No, the real problem that Republicans have about this case is that the 'White Man' was put down. Speaking as a white, affluent, privileged male: IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME.
This really comes down to timing. The Republicans will try to delay this until a decision is made from the SCOTUS. At the the end of the day, it's another blank that the Senate Repub's will fire.
At the end of the day, the Republicans should get down on their knees and thank their God that Sotomayor is the nominee. She is someone who is fair, but tough. She sides with the law. She can work with Republicans. She is a fair replacement for Souter.
All of this is a straw-man argument, there is no real beef to anything that any Republican will bring up. This is, of course, in exception to any new details that may come out.
But that isn't good enough for the 21st century Republicans, which brings me to the crazy.
Tancredo
I honestly don't know why this guy is on TV. He's not an elected official, he doesn't hold some think-tank position. He's not writing an opinion column in some 'estblished' media paper. Why do I give a crap what this lunatic has to say? I lied, honestly I do know why this jackass is on TV: ratings.
Tancredo is a fucking fool. Personally, I love watching the hardcore, religious, racist, xenophobe, homophobe right implode. In the privacy of my own home I cackle with glee. In the realization of the digital age I know that the ranting screed from former elected officials will reach the far corners of the world. This is a bitter pill for any American to swallow.
Let me end with two philosophical questions. One that I am currently contemplating. If the world knows that the last Superpower is moving backwards, where does that leave the rest of the world? And where does it leave us, as the United States?