The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Frank Rich Gets It

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

Marcos El Malo — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:26:21 -0000

Yeah, but that was truly the funniest line, especially the "but never mind". Coburn is a walking, talking "but never mind". =)

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

Marcos El Malo — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:19:57 -0000

What was he "getting at"?

The most honest thing he said was that she would be confirmed, barring a meltdown. The rest was going thru a list of cultural markers to reassure his supporters so that in a future primary race, he could say that he asked her the "tough questions", even if he voted to confirm her nomination. This was all Kabuki (or shameless pandering, if you prefer) performed for the benefit of South Carolina voters who might be tempted to vote for someone more conservative in a primary race.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

dmf — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:41:31 -0000

ap, the "most qualified and experienced" do not have to be the "best of the best", in terms of potential, they just have to have been given access and a chance/profile to climb the ladder. my sense of CT's post is that he was pointing to a discrepancy between the interviewers and the interviewees, so to speak, which is why i was wondering why the senators seemed so ill equipped for this fight/debate. if it was just politial theatre for their re-elections than perhaps this sham of a practice should be brought to an end b/c it demeans the court if not the senate.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

anna perez — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:04:53 -0000

If Mr. Allford was head of the US Chamber of Commerce and happened to be a Black man, you might have a point. But Allford is head of the National BLACK Chamber of Commerce, so race was introduced by his presence at the hearing, not because of his pigment but because of the nature of the org. he represents. I would guess that his org/association's mission has something to do with the national advancement of at least some colored people. Sen. Boxer's insertion of the documents into the hearing record, seems perfectly appropriate to me. It is Allford's reaction that appears to be more than a bit staged.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

anna perez — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:47:34 -0000

Pat Buchanan believes Judge Sotomayer's Catholic HS valedictorian honor, her Princeton admission, grades and undergraduate honors, (including summa), her Phi Beta Kappa membership, her Yale Law admission and her position on the Yale Law Review were all the result of affirmative action and "grading on the curve." (Of course a little "self reflection" by Pat would reveal that if he believes this bilge, he's too stupid to live.) And if you read the comments sections on various political blogs, so do a lot of others. Sad, potentially dangerous, but true.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

anna perez — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:39:23 -0000

It depends on the Senator. I worked for Sen. Slade Gorton (R.Wa.) 25 yrs ago and he was, and is, intellectually a heavy weight, but some of his colleagues? Not so much (I don't just mean Dan Quayle.)

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

anna perez — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:34:23 -0000

If 108 of the 110 SCOTUS' have been White males, with women and people of color shut out of the process for most the last 200 years, I would submit that these nominees could not possibly be "the most qualified and experienced people in the country." If broad swaths of "qualified and experienced" Americans were/are shut out of the process, how do we know we have the best of the best?

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

sv — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:48:18 -0000

Coburn maintains that he has immunity from testifying in any Ensign inquiry because he counseled Ensign as “a physician” and an “ordained deacon.” Coburn is an obstetrician and gynecologist, but never mind.

Oh good lord, i gotta be careful reading this stuff at work... i laughed out loud at that line, one of many. The article overall is really good. Ancien regime, indeed.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

cormacmahoney — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:12:29 -0000

this exchange got sent to me last week and underscores that 'dumb' southern male GOPers' don't have a monopoly on WTF moments in Congress. I think the clip shows the full context of the exchange, but if somebody knows more, please update. sorry to bring up a closed post TNC, but your 17jul statistical posit and the ensuing commentary resonated with me as I watched another Senator recklessly insert pigment into politics. I suffer more from progressive naivete/idealsim than white guilt, but the endgame is usually the same: nauseating embarrassment. that tribalism and bigotry are traits shared by all humans, regardless of skin color, is a bittersweet solace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE_jGD5nZ6U

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

CitizenE — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:41:26 -0000

Pardon me, nor anly less bland than what their Senatorial questionners public personae belie.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

CitizenE — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:39:47 -0000

Well, from all the 'splainin' going on, one might suppose that all women ought to be the ditzy redhead stereotype that Lucille Ball hyperbolized to great and comic effect. Someone laughabale, no doubt. What we want out of our Latinas is that they do not consider themselves any wiser than white men, nor any less bland than what their public personas belie about their own very ill bigoted and manipulative true selves.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

kekemen — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:18:38 -0000

I loved how she stayed silent when Graham needled her with the "Okay, say it to me," line. I think with that moment of self-control alone she revealed her worth.

It's really crazy to watch the GOP spin out of control like this. I can't imagine what it must be like to come out of an administration like the Bush presidency, and watch impotently as every little thing slips out of their hands. They did their best with Sotomayor but they were never going to win that one. I suppose part and parcel of being part of the Ancien Regime means not being able to choose your battles wisely these days.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

silentbeep — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:17:07 -0000

I don't know what the definitive interpretation "should" or "could" be about the questioning of Sotomayor's temperament (and I'm not the interested in pinning it down either) but I will say this - there is a very common stereotype of Latinos and Latinas being "hot-tempered" and "fiery" and therefore, prone to emotional outbursts and cloudy thinking.

This stereotype is real. I think it's awfully coincidental that a Latina would be so pointedly questioned in such a manner about her temperament, when we live in a culture, where such stereotypical notions of the Latina emotional temperament exist.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

Lee — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:01:37 -0000

Yeah, I haven't watched the Sotomayor hearings, but I definitely got the same impression during the Roberts confirmation that people are describing here- even if he wasn't the smartest person in the room (which he may well have been), he was clearly way over the heads of the senators who were trying to "trip him up" with truly idiotic questions. Sometimes you're the windshield...

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

Doctor Jay — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:54:08 -0000

I have often found myself wondering why they would try the reverse discrimination line with someone who graduated summa cum laude from Harvard. Nobody thinks that's handed out. And it gives you a one-liner refutation. But they plow ahead anyway. Maybe it's because they are used to "creating reality" rather than studying it?

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

Guest — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:33:20 -0000

This confirmation hearing reinforced one of my strongest beliefs:" most people elected are idiots and that they resent smarter people than them". Watching those republicans clowns made me doubt about the viability of the 2 party system in America.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

sans-culottes — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:29:49 -0000

I think they simply read and believed the exaggerations that showed up in the New Republic piece that ran just before she was nominated. The anonymous commenters were so obviously trying to spike her in favor of some other candidate that it was difficult to take it seriously, but someone like Sessions or Graham would be looking for something like that.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

Persia — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:29:32 -0000

I have to believe that the white males I work with aren't the only ones who were on her side because they have at some point in their lives been questioned by and supervised by a Lindsey Graham or Jeff Sessions.

That's a really good point. And I think most of us aren't feeling resentment because Sotomayor got into a prestigious law college and we didn't-- most of us never got to that level in the first place.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

Persia — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:28:20 -0000

And IMO, we want them to be sharp with their questions. (While still respectful.) This is the Supreme Court, not kindergarten.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

DC Fem — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:59:13 -0000

Rich was spot on this week by arguing that most of us just yawned at these Senators usual narrow minded song and dance act and moved on.

What I think has gotten lost in the debate over gender/race that has come around again with Sotomayor's nomination is how much their ignorant questioning put off everybody, including some of the folks they're trying to appeal to. I have to believe that the white males I work with aren't the only ones who were on her side because they have at some point in their lives been questioned by and supervised by a Lindsey Graham or Jeff Sessions. It's tough to keep a straight face when the person asking you questions isn't even 1/2 as smart or qualified as you are but you've got to get through them to get the job. It's hard to keep words like "douchebag" from your lips when the person questioning your qualifications got his job because his daddy knows the CEO.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

Mr. Shrimp — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:54:02 -0000

Would these same Senators admit that Scalia has a "temperament" issue and should be more respectful and measured on the bench? Considering that Scalia seems to the absolute hero justice for these guys, it seems a little hypocritical.

In general it seems SCOTUS justices are pretty sharp with their questions.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

TG — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:47:30 -0000

Watching and listen to the Senate hearings was just plain bizarre.

Last week was a circus freak show.

Are these senators the best we can do within the system?

The GOP premise seems to be that there is only one proper and moral way to interpret the Constitution -- as if any who disagrees with, say, Robert Bork is somehow corrupt and unpatriotic.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

Skybuddies — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:43:46 -0000

I'm going to have to disagree with this whole male/female issue regarding juidicial temperament. Ginsberg didn't have to deal with it in '93 beacuse it was never an issue with her: she's always had a reptaution as being very measured and respectful on the bench. Likewise, Breyer, Alito and Roberts had pretty decent reputations with regard to judicial temperament.

I can guarantee you that if Bush had selected Michael Luttig, the Democrats would have questioned him on that, beacuse he had a reputation as being very hostile with appellate advocates, in contrast to Roberts or Alito, although Roberts has emerged as a somewhat tough questioner as Chief Justice.

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

dmf — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:43:40 -0000

I agree that the senators seemed largely clueless here but this seems to be part of a more general phenomena with them. I suppose that this might reflect the possibility that they are talking down to their constituents but they are pretty convincingly ignorant. Does anyone have some sense of how dependent senators are on their staffs for most of the decisions that they make?

Re: Frank Rich Gets It

Persia — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:38:23 -0000

Fair enough. I just think we're so used to 'giving people the benefit of the doubt' in our language, and...maybe people don't always deserve it.