Gibbs on Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment: Her word choice was “poor”

posted at 5:18 pm on May 29, 2009 by Allahpundit

And so the retreat begins, as predicted yesterday in Politico’s story about Democratic strategists nudging The One to walk back her comment and make it go away. Obama weighed in on this himself just a few minutes ago, saying he’s sure she would have “restated” what she said if she could do it again; Gibbs makes essentially the same point. Nice try, but their problem here is that she wasn’t speaking off the cuff at the time. It came in the course of a speech, something to which a federal judge would devote care in composing. Either she’s a sloppy writer, even on matters of great cultural sensitivity like race, or she meant exactly what she said. And somehow I find it hard to believe she’s a sloppy writer.

The first half of the clip is devoted to Gibbs ripping on Rush for comparing Sotomayor today to David Duke, an analogy at least as, ahem, useful to the GOP as Tancredo’s “Latino KKK” point yesterday. You’ll find the relevant bit from today’s show below as well. Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

bleeeeh.

I_C on May 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM

I know what she said. But this is what she meant to say.

Daggett on May 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Well you knew this was going to happen. I still think the whole KKK thing will backfire however. But that does not mean that the Republicans can not ask her some uncomfortable questions. They just need to be smart about it.

Terrye on May 29, 2009 at 5:20 PM

If a Judge has moments of “poor choices” of wording, why would we want them to be on the highest court? That sounds like another poor choice.

Enoxo on May 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Interesting even the Dems realize that Sotomayer said something very drastic and the dimbulbs in the GOP refuse to believe that.

promachus on May 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM

The first half of the clip is devoted to Gibbs ripping on Rush for comparing Sotomayor today to David Duke, an analogy at least as, ahem, useful to the GOP as Tancredo’s “Latino KKK” point yesterday.

Grow a pair.

The left is backing down on the stupidity of their affirmative action pick and you fools are piling on us just in time to rescue them. Great work, pantywastes.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Gibbs: “Oh, did I just say poor? Gee, that reminds me.. did I mention how Sonya Sotomayor started out in such humble and poor circumstances…” blah blah blah.. cry a river to Clarence Thomas about a touch childhood

gatorboy on May 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM

C’mon, GOP, take a chill pill. What she meant to say was “Kill Whitey!”

cackcon on May 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Obam and Sotomayor.

Pride and prejudice.

Speakup on May 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Rush’s David Duke comparison is a lot more apt than Tanc’s KKK comparison. I’m pretty sure Duke has not personally been involved in any act of the sort that defines the KKK as a terrorist organization, but he is an apologist for them in the same way that Sotomayor is a racist and associated with La Raza and other groups.

OneGyT on May 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Which word choice was “poor” and what did she mean to say? Not. Buying. It.

Buckeye Sam’s post is worth pasting over here from the headlines:

Without resorting to the polarizing racist blather, let’s see how the dominoes are lining up.

1. Ricci: disgraceful judicial conduct condemned by her own liberal colleagues to the point that they red-flagged the case to ensure SCOTUS review–and the reversal is doing to get nailed to her forehead during her confirmation hearings.

2. She’s in favor of giving prisoners the right to vote:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/the-franchise-for-felons/

3. She seems to think that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to states.

Three heinous positions with which too many Americans would disagree. No resort to shrill cries of racism. This is how you bludgeon a hard left nominee and a hard left president.

Feel free to scream racist at the very end, but stack up everything else first. Get the story going about her conduct not her biography.

Drip, drip, drip.

BuckeyeSam on May 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM

NTWR on May 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM

I thought the adults were in charge now?

Del Dolemonte on May 29, 2009 at 5:26 PM

They are climbing down because what she said was indefensible and they know it…and it does raise a lot of questions, especially now that they have de-emphasized strict constitutional interpretation and replaced it with ‘empathy’…big huge freaking red light for ‘outcome’ based SC decisions.

As far as Rush’s comments…meh. Same thing that they always do…paint everything he says in the most extreme possible light in hopes of covering their own extremist positions. Some people dance to their tune.

AUINSC on May 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2009 at 5:26 PM

In O’bamaland, jurors are held to a higher ethical and legal standard than judges are.

Del Dolemonte on May 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM

1) she is a bigot no need to stress what is plain to see

2) she is a nut

3) she’s gonna get confirmed

Hit her about 2/3ds as hard as Chuckles and Tedster hit our people but make her state why she is in La Raza, ask her if cession of the US Southwest is a laudable goal for one of the 600 most powerful people in the country to support. The donks and their astroturfers tried to paint Palin as a traitor for her husband flirting with the Alaskan Independence Movement how qualitatively is Maximum Latina Real Estate switch different?

sven10077 on May 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

In O’bamaland, jurors are held to a higher ethical and legal standard than judges are.

Del Dolemonte on May 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM

“we won”

sven10077 on May 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

She said what she said. So please with the spin this is becoming silly.

Jamson64 on May 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

In O’bamaland, jurors are held to a higher ethical and legal standard than judges are.

Del Dolemonte on May 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM

LOL.

I hope you checked with Allah, first, to see if “O’bamaland” was acceptable. I haven’t gotten my new edition of the pantywaste PC-dictionary, so I’m not sure.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 5:31 PM

So she meant to say “poor wise Latina”. Okay Gibbs. We get it.

portlandon on May 29, 2009 at 5:31 PM

I thought the adults were in charge now?

Del Dolemonte on May 29, 2009 at 5:26 PM

In soviet America , NOW charges the adults.

the_nile on May 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

The first half of the clip is devoted to Gibbs ripping on Rush for comparing Sotomayor today to David Duke, an analogy at least as, ahem, useful to the GOP as Tancredo’s “Latino KKK” point yesterday.

The first half of the clip is devoted to Gibbs ripping on Rush for comparing Sotomayor today to David Duke, an analogy at least as, ahem, useful to the GOP’s more clueless, gutless and sackless liberal members as Tancredo’s “Latino KKK” point yesterday.

Fixed it for you.

Gregor on May 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

So, what she said is fine with the WH — what others are saying about what she said, though… OMG!!!

littleguy on May 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Ummm… I see this as a good thing, for as much bashing as Rush, Newt, Tancredo, and talk radio have taken over their comments, the fact that Gibbs and The One are backtracking tells me they have polling data or something that says the public might actually be paying attention to the RACCCCISSST comments. Shudder the thought!!

davek70 on May 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM

I love the way Gibbs turns the issue around to blaming Republicans for discussing the hispanic woman/white man comments by Sotomayor.

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S!

Star20 on May 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

If Sotomayor expresses herself sloppily, maybe she’ll be the first Supreme Court Justice to need a teleprompter.

Cicero43 on May 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Why is it, in the era of obama and the ‘gift’ that we have all now been exposed to, like the ebola virus, is it that every democrat goes out and utters some sentence or makes a speech and they fail miserably. Gibbs, or some other democrat has to come along and clean it up or give us an interpretation of what they MEANT to say. When a conservative says something and they mess up, the democrats pounce on it like a hundred dollar bill. But, the democrats can always get that second chance to tell us what they REALLY meant to say. We, the public, know the truth. But, of course, the media is always going to suckle on it like mother’s milk.

HornetSting on May 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

er uh um I am certain that had Benedict Arnold had it all to do over again he may not have done the things he er did….

//Ogabe

sven10077 on May 29, 2009 at 5:35 PM

She meant to say that she wouldn’t travel in confined spaces.

Ronnie on May 29, 2009 at 5:35 PM

If you have a set of standards, double them.

Beto Ochoa on May 29, 2009 at 5:35 PM

I liked the part of Rush’s show when he played the clip of Chris Matthews stating that he believe Justice Alito was soft on mafia defendants. Did the Bush administration ask any Dems to disavow Chris Matthews? Is his every utterance part of the nightly news? Our side are a bunch of weak kneed ninnies.

Cindy Munford on May 29, 2009 at 5:36 PM

If they backtrack , they’re wounded. Keep attacking.

the_nile on May 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM

I liked the part of Rush’s show when he played the clip of Chris Matthews stating that he believe Justice Alito was soft on mafia defendants. Did the Bush administration ask any Dems to disavow Chris Matthews? Is his every utterance part of the nightly news? Our side are a bunch of weak kneed ninnies.

Cindy Munford on May 29, 2009 at 5:36 PM

You got it Cindy…

I’ll never forget the raw Chutzpah of Tedster Kennedy lecturing Justice Thomas on the finer points of being a horndog….

sven10077 on May 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Sonia’s “wise Latina woman”statement may be true…unfortunately she’s not a Wise Latina woman.

DDT on May 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

The first half of the clip is devoted to Gibbs ripping on Rush for comparing Sotomayor today to David Duke, an analogy at least as, ahem, useful to the GOP as Tancredo’s “Latino KKK” point yesterday. You’ll find the relevant bit from today’s show below as well. Click the image to watch.

Oh boo freakin’ hoo. Gibbs just signaled weakness in their case of Sotomayor and by doing so, inadvertently gave Rush a little bit of cover for that remark.

And now that we know they are worried about how that remark will be perceived, we should hammer on it all the more. At least if America is going to elevate a judge to the bench that believes her thinking is superior because she’s a latina and a woman, we should let them know what they’re getting.

thirteen28 on May 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Either she’s a sloppy writer, even on matters of great cultural sensitivity like race, or she meant exactly what she said.

::raises hand::

“Meant it.”

Branch Rickey on May 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Don’t liberals ever get tired to having to qualify/explain all the gaffees they make? Their motto should be What I really meant was …..

katiejane on May 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

If they backtrack , they’re wounded. Keep attacking.

the_nile on May 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Exactly.

thirteen28 on May 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Why should a White House Press Secretary care what a radio personality has to say?

What’s next? Critiques on Jay Leno monologues?

The Ugly American on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

I hope you checked with Allah, first, to see if “O’bamaland” was acceptable. I haven’t gotten my new edition of the pantywaste PC-dictionary, so I’m not sure.

It’s “pantywaist,” and I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are by throwing ever bigger bombs.

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

During confirmation hearings it sure would be nice if a Republican would have to stones to say something along the lines of “in our politically correct society it seems that the only group of people that it’s okay to slander with impunity are White males, can you blame people for considering you to be part of this problem?”. Oh well, I can dream, can’t I?

ardenenoch on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

If Sotomayor expresses herself sloppily, maybe she’ll be the first Supreme Court Justice to need a teleprompter.

Cicero43 on May 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Nah. She can just copy off of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Grow a pair.
The left is backing down on the stupidity of their affirmative action pick and you fools are piling on us just in time to rescue them. Great work, pantywastes. progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Could not agree more!!!

Branch Rickey on May 29, 2009 at 5:42 PM

Don’t liberals ever get tired to having to qualify/explain all the gaffees they make? Their motto should be What I really meant was …..

katiejane on May 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

No, because we on the right rarely make them do so. Most of the time we (or at least our ‘elites’ and our ‘betters’) are in preemptive surrender mode, wagging their finger at the rest of the conservative movement not to attack.

thirteen28 on May 29, 2009 at 5:42 PM

I’ll never forget the raw Chutzpah of Tedster Kennedy lecturing Justice Thomas on the finer points of being a horndog….

sven10077 on May 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM

LOL, did Chappaquidick Fats bring up his waitress sandwich experience with Chris Dodd?

Del Dolemonte on May 29, 2009 at 5:43 PM

It’s “pantywaist,” and I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are by throwing ever bigger bombs.

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

weakness ain’t an Aphrodisiac or an inspiration for voters….

hammer her hard, fairly, make her own her warped views and then let her be confirmed.

sven10077 on May 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM

(She said )“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

What if Roberts said:

“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina who hasn’t lived that life.”

We all know that would be game set match..Mr. Roberts would have been outa here.

Jamson64 on May 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM

It’s “pantywaist,” and I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are by throwing ever bigger bombs.

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

And we’ll never understand how so many like you believe that behaving like a preemptively surrendering weak sister who is slow to oppose and quick to apologize somehow inspires people to follow a political movement.

thirteen28 on May 29, 2009 at 5:45 PM

LOL, did Chappaquidick Fats bring up his waitress sandwich experience with Chris Dodd?

Del Dolemonte on May 29, 2009 at 5:43 PM

No but that’s what I was thinking as I watched, the funny thing is both have gone on to sandwich the American people even more than their little wait staff buddies….

Bob Packwood got ran, Beijing Billy got protected….

sven10077 on May 29, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Oh… Gibbs becomes the “interpreter” for everybody.
This too shall pass…
Imagine if a Bush nom had said something about whites being better than other races… ALL HELL WOULD HAVE BROKEN LOOSE!

But, then again, a concervative nom has more humility than an arrogant lib so thais wouldn’t be an issue…IT’S ALL ABOUT DEM….

CynicalOptimist on May 29, 2009 at 5:45 PM

I hope you checked with Allah, first, to see if “O’bamaland” was acceptable. I haven’t gotten my new edition of the pantywaste PC-dictionary, so I’m not sure.
It’s “pantywaist,” and I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are by throwing ever bigger bombs.

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Well, actually, panty’waste’ does work, but it is kind of gross. I agree with you, Allah. Let’s just roll over and play dead. Then, maybe the media and the democrats will like us. Hey, that’s a great idea, and maybe we should run John McCain again in 2012. He practices this ‘religion’.

HornetSting on May 29, 2009 at 5:45 PM

I’m disappointed he didn’t say “inartful.”

TexasDan on May 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Don’t liberals ever get tired to having to qualify/explain all the gaffees they make? Their motto should be What I really meant was …..

katiejane on May 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

It was not a gaffe. She meant to say it and it was not a mistake.

Jamson64 on May 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

It wasn’t just an off the cuff speech, she published that speech in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. It’s kind of ridiculous to say now that she misspoke. If she hadn’t meant what she said, she wouldn’t have submitted it to be published as a law review article.

mbs on May 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

It’s “pantywaist,” and I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are by throwing ever bigger bombs.

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

It’s not about demonstrating toughness or throwing big bombs, but merely putting libs where they’ve had conservatives for eight years – on the defensive. That exact strategy gave 2006 and 2008 to them.

LibTired (KO) on May 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

It’s “pantywaist,”

To me, it’s a waste of panties, for you guys to be wearing them.

and I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are by throwing ever bigger bombs.

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Who do you think got Gibbs to start backing down on this? The “moderates” who want to let her fly through, or Rush and Tancredo and the various voices who expressed their true outrage over this insanely ridiculous selection and her moronic rhetoric?

Tanc compares La Raza to the KKK and Gibbs is stepping back on Sotomayor’s lunacy the next day. Hmmm.

Go back and look at how everyone told Rush to shut up before (as he destroyed The Precedent) or how many urged Cheney to keep his mouth shut, as he obliterated the whole left on his own, against the wishes of the “moderates”. You pantyWASTES have not had a win, yet.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 5:47 PM

he’s sure she would have “restated” what she said if she could do it again;

Sure, now that a SCOTUS seat is on the line. She will be the best behaved judge in the country between now and the confirmation vote.

Unfortunately, what Gibbs is saying is not that she regrets what she said. She would have said the same thing, but used more code words had she known this could come back to bite her.

Mallard T. Drake on May 29, 2009 at 5:47 PM

“Compared to somebody who used to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan”

Like Robert Byrd?

mchristian on May 29, 2009 at 5:48 PM

I’ll never forget the raw Chutzpah of Tedster Kennedy lecturing Justice Thomas on the finer points of being a horndog….

sven10077 on May 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM

I think the late, great Phil Hartman said it best as Kennedy on SNL…

“Have you evah come outta da bathroom naked? Because I find that woaks. You should also bring them out on ya yaacht because it’s haader for dem to get away.”

However, I could have lived without Dana Carvey as Strom Thurmond in that sketch.

teke184 on May 29, 2009 at 5:51 PM

It wasn’t just an off the cuff speech, she published that speech in the Spring 2002 issue of Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. It’s kind of ridiculous to say now that she misspoke. If she hadn’t meant what she said, she wouldn’t have submitted it to be published as a law review article.

mbs on May 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Excellent point.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 5:51 PM

We do know that Sotomayor is an embodiment of the type of justice that Bill Ayers wrote about in his books and that Obama embraces. All three want differing tiers of “justice” and voting rights for the incarcerated. Heck, maybe our jails and prisons can be gerrymandered into voting districts with a little assist from ACORN.

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM

We do know that Sotomayor is an embodiment of the type of justice that Bill Ayers wrote about in his books and that Obama embraces. All three want differing tiers of “justice” and voting rights for the incarcerated. Heck, maybe our jails and prisons can be gerrymandered into voting districts with a little assist from ACORN.

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Most of the employees are well aware of which prisons are where. They have been guests in those prisons.

HornetSting on May 29, 2009 at 5:53 PM

It’s “pantywaist,” and I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are by throwing ever bigger bombs.

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Allah, were you listening to John Gibson the last 2 days? He’s on opposite Rush so not many do I assume, but he was spewing this same garbage you are…. boo whoo GOP don’t you ever want to win another election?? You never will if you keep alienating Hispanics…

Funny how 99% of Gibson’s callers ripped a big one on it.

As I said above, how do you explain Gibbs and The One backtracking on this since Rush, Newt, and Tanc called them on it?

davek70 on May 29, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Isn’t it interesting that Gibbs feels he has to respond to Rush Limbaugh and doesn’t feel its necessary to respond to the GOP or its members?

technopeasant on May 29, 2009 at 5:56 PM

I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are by throwing ever bigger bombs.

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

This is how clueless you are Allah. Maybe you haven’t realized it yet, but you’re not very good at winning elections. You suck. How did your “vote for the moderate “big tent” theory work out for you this last election?

You don’t seem to learn, or you don’t seem to care. Or worse.

We’re losing elections because our Party has been flooded with leaders such as you who are too gutless to take a stand on what’s right. You’re the one who sees it as a game. Hey! Let’s pretend to be liberal so that we’ll get more votes! Who’s playing games?

Yeah, that ought to work out swell.

What do you REALLY stand for? Do we even know? We don’t even know who you really are, so how the Hell are we supposed to know what you really stand for, if anything? In fact, we know less about you than we do Obama.

Gregor on May 29, 2009 at 5:57 PM

I think what people who find the “racism!” charge distracting might be trying to say, and would probably be able to say better if they benefited from sufficient richness of ethnic and gender experience, is that Sotomayor is highly vulnerable – not just on the basis of the 32 words, but on the basis of her whole identity-politics/legal realism approach to the universe, an approach that was likewise evident in her very selection.

This is a fat juicy pitch right down the center of the plate politically. Don’t overswing on it, just follow through and the ball will go a long way, bring some runners in, get a rally going. A little akido might work better than a karate chop. Pick your metaphor.

Obama’s going to add a leftwinger to the bench, but we should make him and his party and his movement pay and pay and pay for it – that requires holding people’s attention, not convincing them that we’re just opposing her because that’s the kind of people we are.

Though it also doesn’t mean that we need to go out of our way to disavow Rush or Newt or pretend that they’ve said or done anything “out of bounds,” or anything remotely comparable to what the the Dems have reflexively done to a long line of Republican nominees.

CK MacLeod on May 29, 2009 at 6:01 PM

The first half of the clip is devoted to Gibbs ripping on Rush for comparing Sotomayor today to David Duke

Robert Byrd?

peacenprosperity on May 29, 2009 at 6:02 PM

It’s “pantywaist,” and I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are by throwing ever bigger bombs.

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Sorry, but some things are more important than winning elections. The Republicans had control of all three branches of government a few years ago, and the media did everything it could to convince people that Bush was the most evil man that ever lived. The American people like our two party system and I don’t think either party will ever achieve a permanent majority.

That being said, I’m sick of our entire popular culture being controlled by liberals. I’m sick of people who vote Republican who feel the need to qualify it by saying “d-d-d-don’t worry, I’m not one of those born again Christians”. If the left is entitled to have their Michael Moores and their Code Pinks, then we’re entitled to have our Ann Coulters and Tom Tancredos. By the same token, if the Palestinians are entitled to have their suicide bombers then the Israelis are entitled to have their West Bank settlers who think that Arabs are vermin.

I’m sick of the left paying absolutely no price for their thuggery and extremism while we Conservatives have to walk on eggshells out of fear of being attacked by those who will hate us no matter what. It’s pretty simple, if you act guilty then people will assume that you are. Ann Coulter acts like she couldn’t care less what kind of names people call her because she knows none of them are true.

Taking the low road hasn’t hurt Liberals, and taking the high road hasn’t helped Conservatives. Maybe if both sides sling an equal amount of mud the American people will demand better from both sides.

ardenenoch on May 29, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Wanda sykes trashed Limbaugh. Obama applauded it. Now Sotomayer sends out racial speeches. Obama condones that. He isn’t touchible.
Gibbs didn’t deall with it in any way. He actually tried to justify it.

Sonia needs some new life experiences. sensitivity training.

seven on May 29, 2009 at 6:02 PM

CK MacLeod on May 29, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Said it better than I did.

AUINSC on May 29, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Back in the 90′s when the Student Loan regulations were up for renewal, a typo made it’s way into the law verbiage.
The phrase “Consolidation Loans are now subsidized” but it should have been “Consolidation Loans are not subsidized”.

That tiny typo cost the Federal Government millions in Student Loan interest payments to banks. The banks knew it was a typo, but since the regulations were signed-off by Congress, both the banks and the gov’t were beholden to abide by the law.

The point of my story is: words mean things (which is something that El Rushbo also says).

I also use this story to demonstrate why you can’t trust spellcheck to correct every error. Spellcheck would not have recognized this as an error.

kooly on May 29, 2009 at 6:05 PM

I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are by throwing ever bigger bombs.

I think some of us think we’re at war for the survival of our way of life, that we’re being targeted racially and ethnically and economically, and that it’s no longer just the regular give and take and back and forth of electoral politics. Under these circumstances, bomb throwers, tank commanders, spies, foot soldiers, etc. all seem necessary. If you don’t think the stakes are that high, take the diplomatic route, but don’t knock the attack dogs.

JiangxiDad on May 29, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41PM

If you want to indulge in a sporting analogy the GOP moderates or RINO’s remind me of Matt Millen, former GM of the Detroit Lions who kept making God-awful draft picks and forging some of the worst teams in the history of the NFL but kept saying he was on the right track and that his team would one day be a winner, who unbelievably kept his job for 9 seasons who finally lost his job when his team went 0-16.

Let me ask you AP does the GOP have to go the equivalent of 0-16 in an election to make you realize that perhaps the moderate viewpoint everpresent in the GOP perhaps is not a winning strategy?

technopeasant on May 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/29/no-patty-cake-please

I read this and there is a kernel of hope – IF the GOP follows this recipe.

disa on May 29, 2009 at 6:08 PM

If it’s just about winning elections, then why don’t the Republican’s just start promising the citizens more stuff? The heck with all this conservative crap, just promise people that Republicans can deliver big cars with 400 hp that will get sixty miles to a gallon and oh by the way gas is going to be fifty cents a gallon and the exhaust is going be puffs of rainbows that absorb carbon. This personal responsibility stuff about being proud that what you own because you worked for is for the birds. Let the politicians say and promise anything to get elected. Let’s all be Democrats.

Cindy Munford on May 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM

I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are by throwing ever bigger bombs.

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Oh, so if we’re just courteous to the bad guys, we’ll win the war. Where have I heard that one before? Dude, you must have slept through 2008. No one can be that naive.

Ronnie on May 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Who is the “Josh,” that asked the double-sprung question of Gibbs, the one that allowed Gibbs to begin an answer by trashing Rush yet again? Is it Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo, the blog that provides Axelrod’s astroturfers their talking points when infesting conservative or news sites?

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Interesting even the Dems realize that Sotomayer said something very drastic and the dimbulbs in the GOP refuse to believe that.

promachus on May 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM

Oh, they believe it. They just don’t have the balls to say it. They are scared of something. I’m just not sure what.

SouthernGent on May 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM

…. I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections ….

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

What good does it do to “win elections” if the GOP surrenders on every principle it has to outpander the Democrats? If the GOP becomes like the Democrats it doesn’t matte which party wins.

katiejane on May 29, 2009 at 6:11 PM

…. I’ll never understand some of you guys treating this like a game, as if the goal isn’t to win elections ….

Allahpundit on May 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

because that isn’t the only goal. I bet some real republicans would have a problem with your lame statement.

CWforFreedom on May 29, 2009 at 6:14 PM

I think some of us think we’re at war for the survival of our way of life, that we’re being targeted racially and ethnically and economically

JiangxiDad on May 29, 2009 at 6:06 PM

We are, and those who don’t grasp this are living in fantasyland.

Gregor on May 29, 2009 at 6:14 PM

OH no! We must not compare any dem or any of their appointments to anything or anyone evil. The moderates will run away. /s

BS

kahall on May 29, 2009 at 6:14 PM

So, the Republicans win elections by running people who aren’t really Republicans?

reaganaut on May 29, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Let the politicians say and promise anything to get elected. Let’s all be Democrats.

Cindy Munford on May 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM

That’s exactly what the current GOP is doing. It’s not working out too well, is it?

Gregor on May 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM

That’s exactly what the current GOP is doing. It’s not working out too well, is it?

Gregor on May 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM

That is what “dem-lite” will get ya

CWforFreedom on May 29, 2009 at 6:17 PM

We are, and those who don’t grasp this are living in fantasyland.

Gregor on May 29, 2009 at 6:14 PM

I think if we don’t “win,” we disappear. It’s existential, like Israel’s situation. Pretty simple really. They pushed too far. Now the gloves are off.

JiangxiDad on May 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Gregor on May 29, 2009 at 6:16 PM

Funny that when you offer people more of the same, they stick with what they have. Go figure.

Cindy Munford on May 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM

JiangxiDad on May 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Yep.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM

That’s exactly what the current GOP is doing. It’s not working out too well, is it?

Oh it working wonders. The best part is, when Republicans shift to the left, it allows the Dems to shift even further left. What a plan!

I say we save some time and money and just let the “journalists” from NY to DC pick the President and Congress. Just like the old college football polls. I mean, they are so much smarter than everyone.

Maybe a BCS type system, made up of journalists’ votes and polling data, with extra points for the minority group of the day.

reaganaut on May 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Andy McCarthy asks whether Sotomayor would even qualify to serve on a jury, much less as a Supreme Court judge.

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Ooooo! Those are fun! Reminds me of the CIA people who said Barry would most definitely not pass security clearance to work in any national security bureau. But, alas, he gets the most top secret of all briefings! Gotta love democracy!

Joe Caps on May 29, 2009 at 6:22 PM

I think if we don’t “win,” we disappear. It’s existential, like Israel’s situation. Pretty simple really. They pushed too far. Now the gloves are off.

JiangxiDad on May 29, 2009 at 6:19 PM

No doubt about it.

Gregor on May 29, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Time for another Contract with America

CWforFreedom on May 29, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Yep.

progressoverpeace on May 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM

But what that means in a practical sense is that I no longer feel it’s my moral obligation to make decisions or support positions that promote “fairness” or “equality” as their main goals. I am going to promote me, and those in the group I self-identify with. Let others promote their own self-interests.

ex. I don’t support gay marriage because I’m not gay.
I don’t support a latina on the court because I’m not a latina.

I support ME on the court.

JiangxiDad on May 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Allah’s panties are in a twist because a conservative calls ‘em as he see ‘em. Color me not shocked!

MCPO Airdale on May 29, 2009 at 6:27 PM

Gibbs, formerly known as “Interpreter” of the X-men, once again amazes the Press Room with his mutant ability to understand what someone meant, regardless of what they said.

In a rare exhibit of humor, Helen Thomas teased Gibbs by asking him what she meant after she said “I want to have your baby”. Gibbs politely deferred any response.

Quite possibly the best pick in the Obama Administration.

BobMbx on May 29, 2009 at 6:27 PM

What AllahPundit doesn’t understand is that Axelrod, Emanuel, and Obama are engaged in blood sport and that their “game” is to win.

How different is LaRaza from any other racist group? Why do we tolerate or not expose the former for what it espouses? Are certain goups taboo to discuss?

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2009 at 6:27 PM

Didn’t Newt use a poor choice of words one time?

TexasAg03 on May 29, 2009 at 6:27 PM

as if the goal isn’t to win elections but to prove how tough you are

That says it all! Why not both? If our ideas and principles are the right ideas then why not put up a tough fight and win? What good is a group called the republican party winning if they continue the same path to ruin as the democats only a little slower? It is possible to passionately articulate ideas, values and principles. The republican politicians just believe the American people are too stupid to understand issues clearly.

peacenprosperity on May 29, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3