Miers' Nomination Withdrawn

MrBadExample

MrBadExample

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
CNN is reporting that Bush is "reluctantly" accepting Miers' withdrawal of her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Is it a good strategy to do this now? With possible indictments in the Plamegate scandal coming today or tomorrow, why lump all the bad news into one week? Or maybe they just want to get past as much of it as soon as possible. Either way, not gonna be a good weekend for the White House.
 
I wish that the Bush administration strategy of never admitting having done *anything* incorrectly or making *any* mistakes backfires on them this time, as they nominated someone clearly unsuitable for the Supreme Court.

This comes the morning after she was scheduled to resubmit her questionnaire to the senate judiciary committee. I would *LOVE* to get my hands on both the original and revised answers of hers. I bet they speak volumes about her qualifications. So, if you legal people seem to know how to access those answers, if publicly available, please help me out.
 
The big question now is "Who's next?" After the disastrous Miers' nomination, who goes up now? Can he pull another John Roberts out of his hat? I think his next nominee will be more obviously anti-abortion otherwise that base will completely crumble again. Then again will the Plamegate looming, he may have to go for someone middle-of-the-road with excellent qualifications just to avoida draining fight in the confirmation process.

It's going to be interesting.
 
PUHLEASE! JANICE ROGERS BROWN! PUHLEASE!

I would laugh my fucking ass off watching D's try and destroy a self-made black woman like the racists they are.
54_cartoon_pf.gif


Example of liberal racism on display right here. Can you imagine if a white Republican male parodied blacks like this?
 
It's interesting to see how John Roberts passed muster with the radical flank of the Republican party (the anti-choice crowd) without having much on his record that screamed "I PROMISE TO TURN OVER ROE V WADE!!!" Moreover, his discussion of stare decisis during his confirmation hearings indicated, somewhat, that he would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The radical flank does *not* want a "stealth" candidate. They want a nominee with a big neon sign over their head that says "I WILL LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH AND OVERTURN ROE V WADE IF IT'S THE LAST THING I DO, OR EVEN THE ONLY THING I DO!" Roberts not only lacked that, but seemed to indicate (again, I stress "seemed to") that he wasn't the candidate that the radical flank wanted. Despite that, nary a peep was heard from them over Roberts as a nominee. As a matter of fact, the most ominous thing to me about Roberts was the fact that his character and his past did not scream "Anti-Abortion," and yet he slid through without scrutiny from the radical flank (a VERY vocal flank, mind you) of the Republican party.

Meirs, on the other hand, was crucified from the morning she was nominated, despite James Dobson's assurances that she was good to go. It's interesting to consider. Perhaps it was difficult to criticize Roberts, given his qualifications? Perhaps it's latent sexism? I have no idea, but it's fascinating that the uncertainty of a judicial nominee's position on abortion is what caused the fractioning from inside the party that should have blindly supported her, while such fractioning did not occur with Roberts, who was equally as difficult to read on his positions (if not more lucid in the opposite direction).

Hmm. "Who's next?" is, I suppose, the only question that matters. I'm hoping for Rove.

IKIK
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Example of liberal racism on display right here. Can you imagine if a white Republican male parodied blacks like this?[/QUOTE]

Bad comparison. It is a black commentator (gender unknown, to me anwyay) criticizing her; to suggest something as comparative when it is not the opposite of the "racism" you're identifying is incorrect.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next nominee approached "Borkdom" in terms of judicial, erm, insanity, so perhaps Ms. Brown would be fitting.
 
Oh, I get it. It's not racist or insulting if a black person does it, but is if a white person does it. Great double standard!

Racist stereotypes are racist stereotypes regardless of who perpetuates them.
 
And I'm still looking for "racist stereotypes" in that cartoon. Does Condi look like a racist stereotype to you? Colin Powell? Have you ever looked at a political cartoon before? You are surely aware that physical features are eggagerated, right?

Now, I understand that JRB does not look like that; as a matter of fact, she has that Wanda Sykes-like creole look. All that aside, the cartoon intends to show that JRB is a conservative in the cookie-cutter vein of Clarence Thomas; that is why they are drawn so similarly. Do I have to explain the fuckin' joke to you?
 
So the big lips, big ass, messy afro and flattened nasal features aren't racist caricatures?

Hmmmm, great to know. You're enlightened so it must be true.
 
Typically, you would be correct. In the context of that single cartoon, however, the caricature of Condoleeza Rice does not have any of those features. Perhaps you can explain to me how a stereotype can remain a racist caricature when contrary examples exist in the same cartoon?
 
Colin Powell is portrayed as a stereotype in the image above? News to me. I'd also venture to say that Thomas is not; the only thing that can be construed as racist is Brown's hair and backside, neither of which help the cartoonist's attempt to indicate that Brown is a carbon copy of Thomas.
 
Back on topic (I was seduced by PAD's distracionary rhetoric, my apologies), is the timing of this strategic (or, in other words, did Bush and/or his advisors push her to resign)?

Considering her qualifications, or lack there of, was it politically more sound to pull the rug from under her before she could be publicly embarrassed in the senate confirmation hearings? I *know* that it's framed to look like she made the decision, and nobody in power is happy with it, but of course, that's political strategy itself. Thoughts?
 
An interesting take from Salon:

A document dispute forced Miers' withdrawal? Don't believe it

George W. Bush is blaming his withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination on senators who sought documents reflecting her work at the White House. "It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said.

If the White House has ever floated a more transparently false cover story, it's hard to remember it. The fact is this: Opposition from the right, and not a dispute with the Senate, forced Bush to bail on Harriet Miers. The right was always iffy on Miers. Pro-Bush groups began running anti-Miers TV ads this week, and -- after the Washington Post unearthed a 1993 speech in which Miers seemed way too squishy on abortion rights -- Concerned Women for America called for the nominee's withdrawal yesterday.

With the Valerie Plame scandal threatening to hurt Bush further with the middle of the country, the White House needed to move quickly to keep its base on board. Charles Krauthammer laid out a plan for an exit strategy last week, and the White House has followed it to a "T": Manufacture a dispute over White House documents, declare an impasse and let the honorable Harriet Miers spare the nation an irreconcilable dispute between the legislative and executive branches by graciously withdrawing her nomination. When the president was asked Monday about a report that the White House was considering a contingency plan for Miers' withdrawal, Bush blurted out instead that he would never turn over documents from the White House "about the decision-making process, what her recommendations were." It wasn't an answer to the question Bush had been asked, and yet it was: The trumped-up, or at least not yet fully realized, document dispute was, in fact, the "contingency plan."

That dispute still hadn't come to a head this morning, when the White House announced Miers' withdrawal and said that the dispute was the cause. Indeed, in the last day or so, Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter was still talking about ways to work with the White House to limit the Senate's document requests in such a way as to avoid problems of executive privilege.

But Bush didn't need a solution. He needed an out. The document dispute, such as it was, provided him one, and now he has taken it.
Click to expand...
link

I remember hearing about Krauthammer's plan on the Sunday morning news shows last week. Looks like the White House was watching too.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']PUHLEASE! JANICE ROGERS BROWN! PUHLEASE!

I would laugh my fucking ass off watching D's try and destroy a self-made black woman like the racists they are.
[/QUOTE]

You really are an idiot.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You really are an idiot.[/QUOTE]

Actually, minus the "liberal" part of his comment. He makes a good point. That cartoon is INCREDIBLY racist and downright offensive.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Actually, minus the "liberal" part of his comment. He makes a good point. That cartoon is INCREDIBLY racist and downright offensive.[/QUOTE]

I just altered my post to focus on that part, as that is what I was calling him an idiot for.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I just altered my post to focus on that part, as that is what I was calling him an idiot for.[/QUOTE]


Ok, yeah that makes more sense now. See, the ironic part of what PAD said is that its incredibly racist on its own. Whereas republicans like to look at this woman as being qualified because she's a black woman, people who criticisize her are going to look past that. Placing this focus on someone's race like in this case only shows someone's own racist tendencies. Basically what republicans were saying with janice rogers brown is that the only way you can prove you aren't racist is by approving someone simply because of their race.
 
You do know that the replacement nominee is going to make your blood boil, make the MSM go into convulsions and Democrats sound like the Socialist PC centered thugs they are.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You do know that the replacement nominee is going to make your blood boil, make the MSM go into convulsions and Democrats sound like the Socialist PC centered thugs they are.[/QUOTE]
That is unless Bush, famous for treasuring loyalty above all else, decides to give the far right payback for skewering Miers. He could nominate a moderate that both Dems and the moderate Right would approve. But that is mostly wishful thinking because I would like to see the Far Religious Right marginalize themselves. Most likely Bush will look for another John Roberts.
 
So Bush should cater to far left extremeists who write the talking points of every Democratic Senator and "Democratic Consultant" talking head that appears on cable talk shows.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']So Bush should cater to far left extremeists who write the talking points of every Democratic Senator and "Democratic Consultant" talking head that appears on cable talk shows.[/QUOTE]

Well he stopped catering to far right extremists who write the talking points of every Republican Senator and "Republican Consultant" talking head that appears on cable talk shows when he nominated Miers, so.....
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']So Bush should cater to far left extremeists who write the talking points of every Democratic Senator and "Democratic Consultant" talking head that appears on cable talk shows.[/QUOTE]
Never said that.

You see, there are these people called "Moderates", folks in the middle. Look to you left. Go ahead, I'll wait. Your other left. You see those people way over there. They are Moderates and there are a lot of them. A vast majority some would say. That would be a good place to pick from since most of this country falls between the two extremes.

Now I'm a little bit further to the left of the Moderates. You probably can't see me due to the curvature of the Earth, but I'm there. :cool:
 
The Republican Sentors, as a whole, are spineless whimps. They are so far removed from true conservativism as to be liberal. Take into account the 6,000 special projects in the transportation bill, enacting a brand new giant entitlement spending project with prescription drugs, failure to secure our borders, failure to make tax cuts permanent, failure to fully eliminate the death tax, I could go on.

You haven't seen conservative leadership since Reagan was President. The Bushes are mere shadows of what they should be. You should be quaking in your boots at what kind of fire this whole matter lit under conservative voters. The last time there was introspective debating like this within the Republican party it led from a shift of philosphy from the Rockefeller Republicans to the Reagan Republicans. This time Bush is the Rockefeller Republicans.

The last time this happened Jimmy Carter won 49 electoral votes and Walter Mondale won 13 electoral votes. The Meiers nomination woke up a very dormant and now very angry dragon.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The Republican Sentors, as a whole, are spineless whimps. They are so far removed from true conservativism as to be liberal. Take into account the 6,000 special projects in the transportation bill, enacting a brand new giant entitlement spending project with prescription drugs, failure to secure our borders, failure to make tax cuts permanent, failure to fully eliminate the death tax, I could go on.

You haven't seen conservative leadership since Reagan was President. The Bushes are mere shadows of what they should be. You should be quaking in your boots at what kind of fire this whole matter lit under conservative voters. The last time there was introspective debating like this within the Republican party it led from a shift of philosphy from the Rockefeller Republicans to the Reagan Republicans. This time Bush is the Rockefeller Republicans.

The last time this happened Jimmy Carter won 49 electoral votes and Walter Mondale won 13 electoral votes. The Meiers nomination woke up a very dormant and now very angry dragon.[/QUOTE]

No, they just vote Libertarian.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']The last time this happened Jimmy Carter won 49 electoral votes and Walter Mondale won 13 electoral votes. The Meiers nomination woke up a very dormant and now very angry dragon.[/QUOTE]

You're treating Carter and Mondale as merely passive participants in the inevitable. Even you can't be that foolish as to recognize that Carter's presidency gave Reagan the momentum he needed, and the impetus that people sought was ***major change*** at the exective level of government. To suggest otherwise is both incorrect and absurd.

Additionally, in your attempts at rewriting history, you seem to want to place Reagan into a "goldwater" conservative template. There is something about staggering national debt that suggests that Reagan was only partially effective in executing conservative ideology. See, you hopefully agree with this idea that a tax cut is only successful as it relates to a proportional decrease in government spending. You can criticize Bush for ignoring this egregiously, but don't dare suggest that Reagan succeeded in accomplishing any more than half of that equation.

now angry dragon? Oh, horseshit. It's the same fucking grousers that have groused, grouse now, and will continue to grouse in the future. Recognize this much: the single greatest threat to a political or social movement is content. Who in the world are the people who are bitching now? Christian morality legislators, who have been bitching since 1973, and fiscal conservatives, who sure started bitching during Bush I, bitched a lot more during Clinton (budget surplus huh?), and bitch now. The problem is this: where will they go? None of them, in their right mind, would vote democrat. They can't risk factioning, lest they end up weakening themselves (see the French liberal party over the past 4-5 years; they were so factioned that a white supremacist, Jean Marie Le Pen, made the final election by coming in third in the primaries). What fucking dragon? It's the same old song and dance to me.
 
I feel bad for Miers, granted she is political road kill, but I'm sure this whole ordeal has been very embarrassing.

Of course, I can't leave it at that, one more Bushism for the record :)

"I picked the best person I could find. People are going to be amazed at her strength of character and her intellect."
- Bush
 
actually PAD, the opposition to Brown (or Thomas) is the exact opposite of racism. We are judging them on their merits which we don't like. What is racist about that? If we were really the socialist quota loving people you claim, we would have no choice but to applaud every nominee of color. The antidote to racism isn't embracing all minorities solely based on their color. So we don't and crying fake racism doesn't help.

In reality, dipshits like you list Brown's first qualification is that she is black.
 
No, opposition to Thomas and Brown is racist and what's worse is that it's the poverty pimps and race baiting whores leading the charge.

A black man or black woman cannot be allowed to succeed in a public way in America if they didn't follow the traditional model of the civil rights movement. You can't have people that were poor, studied hard, worked hard and succeeded on their own without affirmative action, government programs, set asides or help from any minority advocacy groups. They can't be "real" blacks but must be "Uncle Tom" types if they don't believe in the far left wing extremeist view of racial matters in the United States.

It's dipshits like you that can't see that's the left's primary opposition to her. Her judicial views are secondary. See? I can say dipshit too!

anim_loser.gif
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']No, opposition to Thomas and Brown is racist and what's worse is that it's the poverty pimps and race baiting whores leading the charge.

A black man or black woman cannot be allowed to succeed in a public way in America if they didn't follow the traditional model of the civil rights movement. You can't have people that were poor, studied hard, worked hard and succeeded on their own without affirmative action, government programs, set asides or help from any minority advocacy groups. They can't be "real" blacks but must be "Uncle Tom" types if they don't believe in the far left wing extremeist view of racial matters in the United States.

It's dipshits like you that can't see that's the left's primary opposition to her. Her judicial views are secondary.[/QUOTE]

See, I'd disagree, like I said earlier. No one resorted to saying that the only reason Roberts did or did not pass (or should or should not, before the confirmation) because he was a white male who had "made it". Why should it be any different for Janice Robert Brown? Why should her gender or race even come into question to begin with?
 
Why did Clarence Thomas' race come into question? They said he wasn't a "real black". Why was it prominent left leaning blacks that were opposed to his nomination? Because he doesn't believe in AA and believes the 14th Ammendment applies to everyone he's a sellout, traitor and Uncle Tom.

JRB is the exact same thing.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Why did Clarence Thomas' race come into question? They said he wasn't a "real black". Why was it prominent left leaning blacks that were opposed to his nomination? Because he doesn't believe in AA and believes the 14th Ammendment applies to everyone he's a sellout, traitor and Uncle Tom.

JRB is the exact same thing.[/QUOTE]


So basically, what your saying is that because of those issues related to the Thomas confirmation from 15 years ago, that's a justification to use the issue of race in this possible confirmation? Is this talk of her not passing some kind of preemptive strike because of what happened with the Thomas hearings?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']No, opposition to Thomas and Brown is racist and what's worse is that it's the poverty pimps and race baiting whores leading the charge.

A black man or black woman cannot be allowed to succeed in a public way in America if they didn't follow the traditional model of the civil rights movement. You can't have people that were poor, studied hard, worked hard and succeeded on their own without affirmative action, government programs, set asides or help from any minority advocacy groups. They can't be "real" blacks but must be "Uncle Tom" types if they don't believe in the far left wing extremeist view of racial matters in the United States.

[/QUOTE]

Do you even know the meaning of "racist" because you could use a refresher. If anything what you are claiming is "classist" or "elitest".

But all it really means is **SUPRISE**..you have to hold certain ideas of a group if you want that group to support you..Oh MY GOD? Kind of like you have to love big business, hate gays and wave the flag to be a good Republican.

Furthermore you are discounting the fact that since both Brown and Thomas were born BEFORE the segregation, their lives have been greatly impacted by civil rights regardless whether they embraced it or not. And Both Brown and Thomas were quite liberal at some point. But it is their opinion now that count. Get it?

Or are going to cry wolf some more?

Face paddy, the only people making a big deal about Brown's Race is the right. You know, I know, and most of America knows it.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Do you even know the meaning of "racist" because you could use a refresher. [/QUOTE]

Hence the reason we NEED racial issues courses in college. I'm not sure it would hurt to have them in high schools either.
 
If I have to hate gays to be a good Republican I guess I'm not a good Republican.

You know what's so funny about the "you have to love big business" statement? Is that Democrats want businesses to provide day care, health care, pensions, overtime, leaves of absences, regulated hiring practices, mandated working environments, they wish to limit the ability for businesses to move or expand through regulation, zone them out of certain areas yet bitch when despite all of this they make a profit.

So how is it hundreds of millions of Americans have all of the above due to "big business" yet "big business" is evil?

Talk about poor logic.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] If I have to hate gays to be a good Republican I guess I'm not a good Republican.

You know what's so funny about the "you have to love big business" statement? Is that Democrats want businesses to provide day care, health care, pensions, overtime, leaves of absences, regulated hiring practices, mandated working environments, they wish to limit the ability for businesses to move or expand through regulation, zone them out of certain areas yet bitch when despite all of this they make a profit.

So how is it hundreds of millions of Americans have all of the above due to "big business" yet "big business" is evil?

Talk about poor logic.[/QUOTE]

Difference being that businesses are often forced into doing that, many republicans would not do anything to make businesses more socially responsible. Though sometimes they realize that it is more profitable to provide some of the above things.
 
Hey, you're the dipshit, see, I like saying it too, that brought up what you have to love to be a good Republican. I'm just following your lead Sparky!
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Hence the reason we NEED racial issues courses in college. I'm not sure it would hurt to have them in high schools either.[/QUOTE]

The racial politics class I took years ago was just a forum for black people to complain about white people with no moderator in sight. I was attacked verbally and physically in that class when I disagreed with their assertions that all white people were racists and all black people are victims.

On an aside, I hope that Bush doesn't go for other loyal followers and ignore qualification. Otherwise, we may see some non-law figure...or maybe we'll see Bush's personal mechanic or personal barber nominated. In which case, I'm sure Bush can assure us all that as soon as we get to know these two kindred fellows, we'll love to confirm them.
 
Sorry PAD, I don't wear it nearly as well as you.

But I never made the point that "big business is evil" which renders your post useless. I, infact, don't think they are evil, just short-sighted.

'zo also made some great points about where those "great things big business is doing" actually came from.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']The racial politics class I took years ago was just a forum for black people to complain about white people with no moderator in sight. I was attacked verbally and physically in that class when I disagreed with their assertions that all white people were racists and all black people are victims.[/QUOTE]

My last girlfriend worked for a non-profit that worked with at risk teenage girls, the majority of whom were black. The girls were court ordered into this and she had semi-regular contact with CYS. As part of that contact she had to attend "diversity" and/or "racial sensitivity" classes like once a quarter which she dreaded.

Every class ended up blaming white people for absoultely everything under the sun and every problem anyone faced that wasn't white. She came out thinking she was a horrible person when, by God, she was on the front lines trying to better these people's lives! Now what purpose does that serve? To make front line social services people feel like shit for being who they are or in this case aren't?

If I was ever physically attacked in a class like this that an employer or school held that person(s) would get fired or expelled so quickly it would make their head spin. Sometimes it pays to have a family full of attorneys.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']The racial politics class I took years ago was just a forum for black people to complain about white people with no moderator in sight. I was attacked verbally and physically in that class when I disagreed with their assertions that all white people were racists and all black people are victims.

On an aside, I hope that Bush doesn't go for other loyal followers and ignore qualification. Otherwise, we may see some non-law figure...or maybe we'll see Bush's personal mechanic or personal barber nominated. In which case, I'm sure Bush can assure us all that as soon as we get to know these two kindred fellows, we'll love to confirm them.[/QUOTE]


Ahh, it looks like you unfortunately just had a bad professor. My professor for racial issues was awesome. She was black herself and was always open to people's beliefs regarding racism. It was definetly the one class that opened my eyes the most in college.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Ahh, it looks like you unfortunately just had a bad professor. My professor for racial issues was awesome. She was black herself and was always open to people's beliefs regarding racism. It was definetly the one class that opened my eyes the most in college.[/QUOTE]

My professor was black and didn't have any problem with my views. She was just totally ineffectual in being able to control the class or the course of discussion.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']She came out thinking she was a horrible person when, by God, she was on the front lines trying to better these people's lives![/QUOTE]

The class never made me feel bad as a white person. Rather, it just pissed me off that the black people in the class had the audacity to blame their problems on me as a white person.

My complaints of being attacked fell on deaf ears. In fact, they partially blamed me for ruffling feathers. I shouldn't have disagreed with her the short lived TA said.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']No, opposition to Thomas and Brown is racist and what's worse is that it's the poverty pimps and race baiting whores leading the charge.

A black man or black woman cannot be allowed to succeed in a public way in America if they didn't follow the traditional model of the civil rights movement. You can't have people that were poor, studied hard, worked hard and succeeded on their own without affirmative action, government programs, set asides or help from any minority advocacy groups. They can't be "real" blacks but must be "Uncle Tom" types if they don't believe in the far left wing extremeist view of racial matters in the United States.

It's dipshits like you that can't see that's the left's primary opposition to her. Her judicial views are secondary. See? I can say dipshit too![/QUOTE]

Now, what you're implying here is that democrats would oppose her because she is black; it would be a political nightmare for the "party of inclusion" to be shown up by the Republicans installing not only a black, but a *female* black, on the Supreme Court. I'd likely be lying if I said that what you're saying isn't a big fear of some Democrats in power (or misinformed; since I don't know for certain, I technically wouldn't be lying ;)).

At any rate, there exists a corollary argument to what you're saying that makes your argument fall apart. To suggest that JRB (n.b., my hands instinctively type "JBL," egads) would be opposed by Democrats *because* of her race suggests an interesting corollary; that is this: The Democrats would approve of a white judicial nominee with an identical record. Do you *really* think that the Democrats would put up less of a fight against someone with a track record of favoring corporations' rights, denying individuals' rights against their employer, having extreme anti-abortion positions, and generally being a radical nutcase, if only they were white? I think a gentleman by the name of Robert Bork is evidence to the contrary. Although many congresspersons have changed in those 18 years or so, certainly the same spirit of the Democratic party remains (spineless critics with few policy suggestions of their own, if I can partially agree with you). If we are to agree on all of that, then I conclude that any opposition to Janice Rogers Brown would be for many many reasons, but most certainly not because of her race.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']My professor was black and didn't have any problem with my views. She was just totally ineffectual in being able to control the class or the course of discussion.

The class never made me feel bad as a white person. Rather, it just pissed me off that the black people in the class had the audacity to blame their problems on me as a white person.

My complaints of being attacked fell on deaf ears. In fact, they partially blamed me for ruffling feathers. I shouldn't have disagreed with her the short lived TA said.[/QUOTE]

Your experiences are unfortunate, as those of PAD's gf (imagine! Dating PAD! Oh, I kill me; please, try the fish!). However, neither of those anecdotes suggest that "African-American studies" should be abandoned, or that it is entirely useless. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva wrote a fantastic book that you should read entitled "Racism Without Racists." It discusses how race-based hegemony exists in a "colorblind" society.

Another problem, one your teacher either didn't rectify, or couldn't rectify, is to explain the difference between direct and indirect effects, and indivdual racism and structural racism. Considering the difference in wages earned for comparable jobs (in the working class sector), blacks typically earn less. I would hope that very few of those lower-wage assignments were given intentionally to blacks; however, at the aggregate (overall) level, racial disparities appear to be IMMENSE. It would be a mistake to point at one person, or persons in general, to identify overt acts of racism (unless provable). The problem is that little, unintentional acts of racism, over thousands and millions of people, appear to be HUGE. It is not something, then, that can be handled at the individual level. It is not useful or appropriate to point at any white man (even PAD) and say "It is purposely your fault." The students in that class weren't learning what structural racism truly is.

Rush Limbaugh doesn't get it either; yesterday he went on a tengent about how blacks must think that whites are "out to get them" because second-string black pro baseball players make a ton less than second-string white pro ballers. He doesn't seem to understand how structural racism works, either.

Rant over.
 
Back to the OP, it would be funny if Dubya nominates a qualified moderate to the bench that the radical right would hate, but Dubya does it in retaliation since he's used to getting whatever he wants. And he's known for rewarding loyalty and retaliation.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Back to the OP, it would be funny if Dubya nominates a qualified moderate to the bench that the radical right would hate, but Dubya does it in retaliation since he's used to getting whatever he wants. And he's known for rewarding loyalty and retaliation.[/QUOTE]

I think he's going to have a hard time either way. The republicans are emboldened by miers withdrawal, and the democrats will attack anyone who is too conservative. The fact that bush has a very visible track record of appointing unqualified people makes his nominations an easier target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top