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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (116165)	7/22/2009 10:23:39 AM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 541851

In fact, the reaction from conservatives to the nomination of a minority woman tells you how prevalent it still is-- the cries of identity politics were loud and frequent, the striking comparison of Alito's empathy remarks during his questioning to S.'s ignored. That really is the crux of the issue. But we have to put the reaction into context; first the conservatives held almost all the levers of power and blew up their grip one by one until they were left with nothing except a squawkfest of protest today. So they squawk very loudly in pain and frustration. For some, it helps them avoid dealing with the messy question of WHY they were tossed out on their butts after actually putting many of their pet policies into effect. If they faced up to the picture honestly, they'd have to admit that a good part of the Bush-Cheney-Rove agenda just stuck in people's craws to the point where they got sick of it after a few years. Now they are just repeating the script from the early 1980's - big political defeat, demonize the successful president and his policies, scream doom and gloom about everything that comes from Washington and look around for the most orthodox winger you can find in your own ranks to run against the Evil One in office now. I'll be very surprised if the script varies much the next four years, especially since the business cycle is likely to turn around, just like it did for Reagan.

To: Rambi who wrote (116165)	7/22/2009 10:43:52 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Respond to of 541851

"we have some ways to go before we will be free of color or sex considerations when considering candidates" Though things have obviously changed a great deal over the past few decades I don't think we ever get to the color or gender-blind society which people refer to here and there.* If that proves to be the case I guess we will always have questions of race and gender entering into the process .. the idea that affirmative action will be of limited duration imo is a pipe dream. In practice I don't think there is that much difference between the parties on this issue, though to the extent the paleocons hold sway you do get affirmative action for holy rollers. I didn't notice a difference between the terms of Bush I and Clinton in that respect ... Bush II was different primarily in the deference he gave to biblical types. The right talks the anti-affirmative action talk but I don't think they walk the walk. *I think it would be contrary to not only human nature but the nature of all complex forms of life on the planet

To: Rambi who wrote (116165)	7/22/2009 11:36:25 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541851

The point that Green seems to be making to me is that he doesn't care if they are all old white men, as long as they are qualified. I don't know about that. He mainly has been arguing for Posner, who is old, white, and conservative ( although not in quite the dogmatic vein required of W's appointees ). Given 2 nominations, W nominated 2 Federalist Society dogmatists who are going to sit there for 30 years. And the SC already has 6 Republican appointees. Why Obama is supposed to have nominated a 70 year old conservative is a conundrum. It's not like green or any of the "pro" set would vote for him if he did.

To: Rambi who wrote (116165)	7/23/2009 3:08:33 AM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 541851

>>The point that Green seems to be making to me is that he doesn't care if they are all old white men, as long as they are qualified. << Rambi - But what he said, as I understood him, was that the reason some white man whom he considers to be more qualified than Sotomayor didn't get the nomination was due to Obama's prejudice against white men. For many years, people have argued that this or that supremely qualified candidate (pun intended) didn't get the nod because of a bias against his or her gender or race. Now we have Greenspirit arguing the same thing. I think the presumption of bias on his part is pretty close to being baseless. But even if Sotomayor's sex and race had something to do with her appointment, I don't see a huge problem. It's not as if white men never got promoted because somebody preferred white men over equally qualified non-white men or women. - Allen