Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (313411)	7/7/2009 12:39:46 AM
From: Neeka	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793896

And they're becoming more angry each and every day. I don't how many of you heard Bob Beckel demand that the conservative panel "shut up, just shut up" (several times) when the subject of Michael Jackson came up on Hannity's show tonight. He asked what Jackson's children would think if they heard people say that Jackson was a "child molester", or they "wouldn't leave their children alone with him in a room." All of this after berating Sarah Palin for stepping down as gov of Alaska in an earlier discussion. I wonder where he was when his liberal colleges were making all kinds of horrible remarks about the Palin children?

To: mph who wrote (313411)	7/7/2009 9:29:51 AM
From: Geoff Altman	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

Thank goodness this clown never ran for office after he quit. Someone should lock Larry Elder and him in a closet for a few days. Powell Loves Racial Preferences and the Judge Devoted to Them Jennifer Rubin - 07.06.2009 - 4:35 PM Colin Powell on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday spoke out in favor of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination. It was vintage Powell — the Powell who is light on facts, wedded to affirmative action, dismissive of critics, and either factually ill-informed or banking on his audience being so. Asked about Sotomayor, he declared: She’s from my neighborhood, yes. She seems like a very gifted and accomplished woman. She certainly has an open and liberal bent of mind, but that’s not disqualifying. But she seems to have a judicial record that seems to be balanced and tries to follow the law. What we can’t continue to have is to have somebody like a Judge Sotomayor who is announced, and based on one simple tricky but nonetheless case at the Supreme Court has now decided, have her called a racist, a reverse-racist, and she ought to withdraw her nomination because we’re mad at her. First, there is the trademark provincialism. Obama was “transformative,” as in, how great to have an African American president! And Sotomayor is from his neighborhood. Case closed, right? Any support for his declarative statements that she has a “open mind”? Or that she is “very gifted”? None. Even Robert Gibbs offers a bit more than such bare bones talking-points. And then the misrepresentation: it is only “one tricky case” that has her branded a “reverse-racist”? No, there are, among other things, a lifetime of speeches, her disdain for objectivity, an utterly unprofessional and devious attempt to deprive Frank Ricci and others of their day in court, and more than a decade of radical racial politics advocated through PRLDEF. And is any elected official “mad” or demanding the nomination to be withdrawn? No. Are many groups very much concerned about her ability to set her biases aside? Are they calling for a tough hearing or votes against her in the Senate? Yes. But you wouldn’t pick up on any of that listening to Powell. This is the same sort of non-analytical and ad hominem attack we saw on display when Powell endorsed Obama for president while smearing John McCain for being insufficiently vigilant in policing racism in his party. Let’s be honest on Sotomayor: Powell has long been a fan of racial preferences. Indeed, he explains just how enamored he is of institutional discrimination in favor of minorities: Now, affirmative action is an issue that I thought about and worried about for many, many years. But let me summarize it this way. If you have a public institution, say, a college, such as a college I went to, City College in New York, where you’re responsible for educating the public, not just a part of the public but the public. And as you are looking at your student population, if you find that there are some parts of the public who are not properly represented in your institution, shouldn’t you do something about that? Don’t you have an obligation to do something about it? You don’t have an obligation to bring in anybody who is not able to do the work. You should always have qualifications. But once you’ve established those qualifications, is there something wrong with a taxpayer-funded institution not making sure that it is representing the entire public, the entire population? And I think that’s a good rule for private institutions as well. Call it affirmative action, call it diversity. It goes under a lots of different names. I have a hunch that maybe 55 years ago somebody took a look at my rather mediocre high school grades, but at the same time, thought, maybe this kid can make it, and let me into the City College of New York. As such, Powell should be honest that Sotomayor is precisely the sort of Supreme Court Justice to preserve and extend quotas and racial preferences which are so near and dear to Powell. But it is so much easier to mischaracterize the opponents of Sotomayor. Nevertheless, Powell is quite helpful in clarifying what is at issue with regard to Sotomayor’s nomination: if you love racial preferences as much as Powell does, Sotomayor is the Supreme Court Justice for you. As she showed in Ricci, she’ll pull out all the stops to protect the system of racial spoils, which her colleagues at PRLDEF and other left-wing activist groups struggle so hard to preserve. commentarymagazine.com