‘Narrative’ Meant Nuthin When Nominees Weren’t Liberals
Between now and the final confirmation vote, how many times will we hear of Sonia Sotomayor’s “moving personal narrative”? But as Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Ann Coulter pointed out this morning, touching personal tales meant nada to Dems when the minority judicial nominee wasn’t a liberal.
Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada each had moving stories of their own. But that didn’t stop the Dems from savaging the former and filibustering the latter when Republican presidents nominated them to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, respectively.
Buchanan and Scarborough made their case to Tina Brown on Morning Joe, while Ann later went head-to-head on GMA with a surprisingly lethargic James Carville. In both cases, the lib had first waxed sentimental over the Sotomayor story, leading to the thundering conservative counter-punch. Coulter pointed out that Dems blocked Estrada expressly because he was Hispanic. The Dems didn’t want Republicans getting credit for elevating a Latino to the Court of Appeals.
Personal Note: By coincidence, like Sotomayor I was born in the Bronx, close enough to Yankee Stadium that we could hear the cheering. I’m the grandson of immigrants who came to this country with nothing but a belief in the American dream and a willingness to work hard to achieve it. In the unlikely event I were nominated to anything, how far do you think that “narrative” would take me with the Dems’ tender mercies?
Kudos To Mika: You’ll hear Brown say she wasn’t aware of Clarence Thomas’s moving personal story until she saw a 60 Minutes story on him which ran years after he was confirmed. “That’s the point!”, observed Brzezinski.
This was written by
Mark Finkelstein. Posted on
Wednesday, May 27, 2009, at 8:24 AM. Filed under
Uncategorized. Tagged
60 Minutes,
ABC,
Ann Coulter,
Clarence Thomas,
democrats,
GMA,
James Carville,
Joe Scarborough,
liberals,
Miguel Estrada,
Mika Brzezinski,
morning joe,
msnbc,
Pat Buchanan,
personal narrative,
Sonia Sotomayor,
Tina Brown. Bookmark the
permalink. Follow comments here with the
RSS feed. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
[]
5 Comments
James Carville:”I was touched…”
Yes, James, you are touched….we won’t say how.
This is what liberals are impressed with: A black President with a Hispanic woman. Wow! Their idea of “diversity” is people of different colors and ethnicity, all with the same ideology.
If Sotomayor were a conservative, she would be just another “house slave” as far as liberals are concerned.
This appointment is more about BO than Judge Sotomayer. The Repubs should make it so…
All I can say at this point now regarding all this phony baloney double-standard hypocrisy coming from the left is …
Gag me with a spoon…I can’t take much more.
We all don’t have short memories as the left would like us to have…I remember well plenty of people that were blocked by the leftists in the Senate and the msm being their bull-horns for them…it was infuriating…still is.
Job well done by Coulter/Buchanan etc.
Mark, regarding your Personal Note:
Unlike Sotomayer, you haven’t devoted yourself to destroying the “American dream” for those that come after you.
Nor for those already here.
As such, the dems would treat you as a leper.
-Dave
This kind of thing is so common I’m sure no one here is surprised by it. I AM surprised that this obvious point is not being debated, defended, and denied more by the left. Carville’s being “touched” is pretty much a non sequitor in the discussion. And Brown was worse than useless, once she made her touchy-feely speech.
Maybe they’re finally realizing that this “partisan racism” has become so blatant that it can’t BE defended. They’re just counting on the “sheeple” not noticing (or caring), and the fact that they control the Senate, so it’s all pretty moot. Sotomayor is pretty much a lock.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] The most frustrating aspect of this entire nomination is the media playing it up to be the first ever Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court – which just isn’t true. We could go back in history and technically find that Cardozo per the article yesterday, was the first, but even if that is questionable there is Miguel Estrada, who was nominated by a Republican and was a Conservative. Democrats did not care about his remarkable history, growing up in Honduras and legally immigrating to the United States without being able to speak English and breaking through barriers to go to Columbia University and then onto Harvard Law School. The Democrats demoralized this man because he was a Conservative and didn’t fit the Conservative mold – he had to be destroyed – the same thing happened to Clarence Thomas – another from humble beginnings, who was a black man and a Conservative. We could go back through time, but why? We had an example of this very thing with the past election; Sarah Palin. A female who came from the lower middle class, if that, who had to pay her way through college, lived in a state that truly is the last frontier, and still isn’t all that developed, worked her way up politically by working hard and never giving up. But to liberals, a Female, a Black, and a Hispanic should only be democrats, not republicans – those who go against the mold need to be destroyed before anyone else; they are the biggest threats. The liberals want to make this nomination into this historically wonderful thing, bamboozling the dumbed down masses, attempting to brainwash them into thinking that Sonia truly is the first of her kind to be nominated, when that is an out and out lie. Ann Coulter talks about this in greater detail on Good Morning America. [...]