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

Yet again Robert Gibbs to the rescue to explain to us dunderheads what they “meant” to say. Disgusting and insulting. You’d think that the democraps would get insulted once in a while too, but I guess they’re so used to someone else thinking for them they just take it in stride.

4shoes on May 29, 2009 at 6:28 PM

As I recall, Newt was ran out of town over his remarks.

TexasAg03 on May 29, 2009 at 6:28 PM

There is no question that Gibbs appears awkward in searching
for words to describe this situation that the Obama administ
ration finds itself in,in regards to Sotomayor!

Facts speak for themselves,for a Supreme court pick,her word
s mirror her character,and integrity,and with her as a membe
r of La Raza it clearly disqualifies her for the nominee!

And,again,let the facts speak for themselves!

President Obama,needs to withdraw this nominee,and return
to searching for a better,less politically abrasive pick,
that is more law and less activist!

P

canopfor on May 29, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Oops,disregard that P!Ugh.

canopfor on May 29, 2009 at 6:31 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

The other thing that is so pathetic about this is equating strong, principled opposition to “throwing ever bigger bombs.”

Man, the playground must’ve been a bitch for you growing up.

thirteen28 on May 29, 2009 at 6:35 PM

Btw,isn’t it interesting,that when ever Gibbs talks about
anything under the sun,in regards to any Liberal discussion
he drags Rush,or Newt,or Sarah Palin into the discussion!

canopfor on May 29, 2009 at 6:36 PM

When you look at that statement in the context of a speech, membership in LaRaza and the Ricci ruling is is overwhelmingly evident that she is prejudiced. She says and proves she is one who judges based on gender and ethnicity.

She is incompetent, being overturned on appeal 60% of the time for IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION. LIBERAL Superior judges have written criticisms of her rulings and she exhibits behavioral issues in the courtroom including unprofessional outbursts.

Her socialism was discussed in a Glen Beck show the other day.

I’ve been comparing her to David Duke all week, intending to say I dont want ANY BIGOTS on the SCOTUS, of any ilk.

You get that, O’Reilly?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a DUCK.

Jeepers.

dogsoldier on May 29, 2009 at 6:36 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

STOTUS?

angryed on May 29, 2009 at 6:37 PM

Those who control the past control the future. Those who control the present control the past. -George Orwell – 1984

Count to 10 on May 29, 2009 at 6:39 PM

The RINO Appeasers are the poltical equivalent of Neville “What I have here is peace in our time” Chamberlin. Weakness didn’t work then, doesn’t work now and won’t work in the future. We can continue to genuflect(sp) at the Democratic altar or we can show some real leadership for a change. Eight years of apologies and compromise with Democrats have brought us to where we are. It’s no wonder RINOS want us to keep doing the same thing. It certainly revived the Democratic Party.

sdd on May 29, 2009 at 6:42 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

Allah, you’re playing the part of Special Agent Ward when you pretend to not know the reality of politics today.

“Ward: Don’t drag me into your gutter, Mr. Anderson!

Anderson: These people crawled out of a sewer, Mr. Ward! Now maybe the gutter’s where we should be!

Do not forget that these are people who believe they have a right to have homosexual relations, on a public street and perform, publicly, any god damn thing they can think up. They believe that people with jobs should provide the American dream to those who don’t have a job. They don’t believe in borders. They like communism, but ignore Stalin, Mao, and Castro because it fucks up their dream.

These are people who change the meaning of words so that whatever they’ve done is OK, and then deny they’ve done it. They accuse vast numbers of civil servants of lying, and then refuse to substantiate the claim.

Gutter, Mr. Allah. You bet. That’s where the struggle is.

BobMbx on May 29, 2009 at 6:44 PM

No Gibbs, what she said wasn’t “poor” it was stupid.

By someone too “unwise” to be trusted with the Constitution.

viking01 on May 29, 2009 at 6:45 PM

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

TexasAg03 on May 29, 2009 at 6:27 PM

I thought it was even simpler, you know, a mis-speaking event.

The worst, of course, is the dreaded “inarticulate” error.

BobMbx on May 29, 2009 at 6:47 PM

The worst, of course, is the dreaded “inarticulate” error.

BobMbx on May 29, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Yeah, just ask Joe!

Beto Ochoa on May 29, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Treating Sotomayor with kid gloves will gain the republicans not a single vote with hispanics.

It will cost plenty of votes, though, with the base.

Republicans are the opposition party, then need to start acting like it.

Rebar on May 29, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Predict the toughest question by a republican to Sotomayor during the confirmation hearing:

My prediction is “Judge Sotomayor, Coke or Pepsi?”

BobMbx on May 29, 2009 at 6:55 PM

Gibbs: What a tool.

tbear44 on May 29, 2009 at 6:56 PM

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

I’m pretty convinced at this point that a large portion of the Republican/conservative base has worked itself into such a righteous fury that they’ve actually convinced themselves that wanting to win elections is a moral failing and a Very Bad Thing.

Someone actually compared me to Nancy Pelosi last night in the comments here on Hot Air because I said we’d never be able to influence policy again if we don’t win elections, so that should be our goal. Whoever it was thought they slammed me by pointing out that Pelosi also said her goal is to win elections. Ummmmm….okay. So if winning elections is an evil Democrat thing now, I guess we’ll be wandering in the wilderness for eternity. But we’ll be the good guys, so that’s okay. Or something.

aero on May 29, 2009 at 6:59 PM

BobMbx on May 29, 2009 at 6:44 PM

+1

JiangxiDad on May 29, 2009 at 7:00 PM

aero on May 29, 2009 at 6:59 PM

Newbies?

Cindy Munford on May 29, 2009 at 7:06 PM

Newbies?

Cindy Munford on May 29, 2009 at 7:06 PM

I guess so. The person who called me Nancy Pelosi must be a newer commenter because I’d remember who it was if I were more familiar with him or her.

FloatingRock and HornetSting were there, too, arguing against me, but not making dumb comments like the Pelosi comparison. Hornet called me arrogant, but it was not entirely undeserved. ;-)

aero on May 29, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Democrats have ZERO ground to stand on in saying that it was a “poor choice” of words. As AP touched on, she wrote the speech. She probably reviewed it over and over again. Then she spoke it to an audience. Then she published it in an academic journal! She meant what she said and her statement was a racist statement. I’m sick of the racial double standard between conservatives and liberals. Half the reason it exists at all is because many conservatives are such cowards. Note to these conservatives: It isn’t taking the “high road” when we don’t fight back. It’s called ceding ground to the opposition.

davenp35 on May 29, 2009 at 7:13 PM

aero on May 29, 2009 at 7:12 PM

I came in on the end of the thread and didn’t read all of them by I have to tell you that Sen. Cornyn frosted my cookies endorsing Gov. Crist before the primary, but I agree with you that overall he is a good man.

Cindy Munford on May 29, 2009 at 7:18 PM

It freakin disqualifies her! Just like being on the ACLU should have disqualified Ginsburg! Freaks on the bench! Can we ignore them now?

vapig on May 29, 2009 at 7:19 PM

My prediction is “Judge Sotomayor, Coke or Pepsi?”

BobMbx on May 29, 2009 at 6:55 PM

With my freakin’ luck, she’ll chose Pepsi.

Dang it.

ladyingray on May 29, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Wise? 8th Street Latinas? Huh?

/yeah that was a low blow
//fed up with non-whites being as racist as they like with no apparent repercussions. La Raza? The Race? And that gets a pass? The funny part is Latin isn’t a race. There are latins all over Argentina that don’t have a lick of spanish or mestizo in them. The only thing Latin connotes is a language.

pc on May 29, 2009 at 8:24 PM

The only thing Latin connotes is a language.

pc on May 29, 2009 at 8:24 PM

and a dead one at that…

or the Fwench are Latino too…

sven10077 on May 29, 2009 at 8:29 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

Hmmmm.

Sometimes, I wonder about you, AP.

I like to keep things simple.

Don King understands things intuitively that you just can’t seem to grasp academically.

Saltysam on May 29, 2009 at 8:29 PM

I suggest holding the hearings in Spanish.

It works for the La Raza site.

EEO could provide translators:

Senator Specter: (English): what did you mean by moral relativism?

EEO Translator (Spanish): Taco taco, enchilda jalepeno

Sotomayor (Spanish): Chile verde y chies rellenos, hasta la vista

EEO Translator: I do not believe in moral relativism and will be a conservative force on the bench

Senator Specter: thank you for removing the only impediment to your nomination. I will vote for you as soon as they give me my gavel back

EEO Translator (Spanish); la cucaracho el cucharacho
gringo, gringo loco si

entagor on May 29, 2009 at 8:34 PM

entagor on May 29, 2009 at 8:34 PM

That was last year…snarlin’ arlen wain’t the GOP topkick no more.

sven10077 on May 29, 2009 at 8:37 PM

With as much baggage as Sotomayor has, one has to wonder why Obama chose her? Was he just trying to get Kim Jong Il out of the headlines? Why would he pick a crappy candidate like Sotomayor?

Kjeil on May 29, 2009 at 8:58 PM

That was last year…snarlin’ arlen wain’t the GOP topkick no more.
sven10077 on May 29, 2009 at 8:37 PM

True but who is?

Sotomayor’s Berkley speech offends conservatives, not liberals. I look at Arlen as the bridge between two worlds, the bought, and the paid for.

Someone like Arly will be made the Voice of Reason so Sotomayor can be transformed into a non radical. They shouldn’t use a real Dem for the whammy, because real Dems cannot betray La Raza politics by questioning the white guy stuff since the statement is pure Obama. Maybe McCain will be the man. So many choices, so little time

Someone has to pompously pretend to question her patriotism. Listen meaningfully to her slow pre packaged response. And then pronounce her non threatening.

Everyone has Sotomayor winning. I do not see the pick guaranteed.

Sotomayor statements and decisions can be examined in daylight until a large part of the USA understands her agenda. That is why talking a lot about the Berkley speech is important. It is full of statements much more important than the white guy stuff.

The Dems want folk to waste their time attacking and defending the white guy statement because eventually, the argument will fold, a la Ginsberg

The right needs the white guy statement to get people to take notice, and then must get across the moral relativism, the extra legal legal solutions she favors

It all depends on the whammy. Anyone can use the whammy if they are smart, so she isn’t winning by a long shot

Dang, I used the word ‘smart’ about politicians

entagor on May 29, 2009 at 9:13 PM

Question to Gibbs;

So.. you are saying that someone who makes a poor choice of words in making racist remarks is an excellent choice to sit on the Supreme Court?

Star20 on May 29, 2009 at 9:15 PM

Star20 on May 29, 2009 at 9:15 PM

good shot

entagor on May 29, 2009 at 9:16 PM

The membership with la raza speaks for itself. The topic and stiff condemnations in her 2001 sermmon speak for them selves.
I take it Gibbs has not met her and someone needs to tell him if she is a big one, she can speak for herself and the fact she hasn’t tells us a lot.
I hear gibbs is attrackting too much embaressment especialy by his over use of the expression “what he/she meant to say”

Dems are into mind control
thot police and the car czar is starting up a behavior modification czar.

We sure will have a lot czar density.

seven on May 29, 2009 at 9:19 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.

I would like to say that this is nothing new. Democrats have appointed blatant racists to the US Supreme Court for decades. They have a very long history of it. It is democrat appointees who gave us the great rulings like “black men are 2/3 of a white man” and of course that old favorite “separate but equal”. This woman has been caught making racist statements against white people and is a member of a Latino racist group called La Raza (The Race) which states “All for the race, none for the rest”. This is not new, this is not change, this is the same old racist democrats that have existed for over century and a half. Are my statements “bombs” and am I a “bomb thrower” for stating these facts?? I guess in Allah’s eyes I am. For some winning elections are more important than standing up for principles. Having power is more important than what you do with it. But given the history of the democrat party, these things have to be said. It is my party’s sacred duty and honor to say it as just one person or with a majority. This goes to the very founding and foundation of my party, the Republican party. I solute Rush Limbaugh and Tom Tancredo for saying what must be said.

Dollayo on May 29, 2009 at 9:29 PM

take it Gibbs has not met her and someone needs to tell him if she is a big one, she can speak for herself and the fact she hasn’t tells us a lot.
seven on May 29, 2009 at 9:19 PM

It is useful to ‘not’ know her

They are poll taking now to figure out the script.

He will be used to push the polls as needed

After all, he does not ‘know’ her so he will be relaying ‘facts’, not ‘personal opinions’

Question: does a news monkey know he is a news monkey or does he think he is running the show?

Disclaimer: I can use the word ‘monkey’ because he is white. It comes from local childhood slang, calling old folks who sat on their porches all summer ‘porch monkies’. Monkey caregivers must understand I respect primates and imply no insult by the use of the word ‘monkey;. i am a simple Michiganian without malice towards good hearted monkies

entagor on May 29, 2009 at 9:38 PM

She should have chosen her words more carefully. She should have said something like; “White men’s greed in a world in need.”

Star20 on May 29, 2009 at 9:43 PM

To clarify, what she meant was:
All for the race(la raza). Nothing for the rest.

That is her credo.

TheSitRep on May 29, 2009 at 9:55 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

What wins elections is honesty, the kind Rush demonstrates. He is not treating this as a game and sighing in distress over him addressing HER words is indeed weak and won’t win a single damn vote.

KittyLowrey on May 29, 2009 at 10:07 PM

If I have this right, the “Big Picture” is that we can’t say anything bad about Sotomayor because Hispanics and blacks vote as one block, while whites vote for anybody and since everybody believes that “immigration reform” will make illegals legal, whites will become the minority, so we have to be nice when the minorities in power put us in the back of the bus.

Of course I could be wrong. I’m just a white man.

Star20 on May 29, 2009 at 10:15 PM

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.

Exactly!

President TelePrompter and Robert Gibbs are going to “exceedingly careful” degrees to walk back her racist comment.

They thought we wouldn’t notice her racism just because NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC failed to cover this story? As soon as the reporters appaluded (during Sotomayor’s nomination by TOTUS), I knew there was a ‘story’ to research!

TN Mom on May 29, 2009 at 10:29 PM

“Words mean something”

Barack Obama
September, 2008

************

‘Sotomayer didn’t mean it’

Barack Obama
May, 2009

TN Mom on May 29, 2009 at 10:34 PM

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.

Just as Nancy Pelosi is either a liar or incompetent, Sotomayor is either a racist or incompetent.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2009 at 10:35 PM

March on DC folks…it’s time!

We cannot wait until 2010!

will sass u on May 29, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Interestingly, Rich Lowry posted an email from someone who did a little research about reactions to Sotomayor’s Berkley speech. The speakers following her remarks, Latinos themselves, rejected her relativism on jurisprudence.

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2009 at 11:09 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

You’ve made it clear that you think a Supreme Court nominee is racist, but you don’t understand why most of us think that should be an issue?
I guess I’m just a bomb-thrower. No better than a nutroot. Just ask Peggy Noonan and AP.

thebriand on May 29, 2009 at 11:11 PM

Obama is the Teleprompter Czar, no need to appoint anyone.

Geochelone on May 29, 2009 at 11:15 PM

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

Like her judicial record.

HornetSting on May 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM

FloatingRock and HornetSting were there, too, arguing against me, but not making dumb comments like the Pelosi comparison. Hornet called me arrogant, but it was not entirely undeserved. ;-)

aero on May 29, 2009 at 7:12 PM

aero, are you telling tales out of school. I called arrogant last night because you said you were the ‘sole voice of reason’. I did enjoy sparring with you last night. ;)

HornetSting on May 29, 2009 at 11:29 PM

Since her poor word choice would have disqualified her from serving on a jury it should also disqualify her from serving on the Supreme Court.

Geochelone on May 29, 2009 at 11:32 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

My perspective is the opposite of yours, AP. It’s those of you counting “R”‘s and “D”‘s rather than concerning yourself about what they stand for that are treating this as a game.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM

And so the retreat begins, as predicted yesterday in Politico’s story about Democratic strategists nudging The One…

The Politico libs must have been in on the morning talking points briefing.

Jaibones on May 29, 2009 at 11:42 PM

She used poor word choice. What she really meant to say was: “I am superior to any honky man because I am La Raza and female” but what accidentally came out of her mouth was: “I am wiser than a white male because I am a Latina.”

Geochelone on May 29, 2009 at 11:43 PM

My perspective is the opposite of yours, AP. It’s those of you counting “R”’s and “D”’s rather than concerning yourself about what they stand for that are treating this as a game.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM

Exactly. You cannot win elections by appeasing the Libby base or giving the media a tongue bath.

Geochelone on May 29, 2009 at 11:46 PM

She is a racist who belongs to a racist organization. The only question is, is she an acceptable racists in Obama’s America.

If she says things like this with recorders running, imagine what she says when they aren’t.

TheBigOldDog on May 30, 2009 at 12:03 AM

My perspective is the opposite of yours, AP. It’s those of you counting “R”’s and “D”’s rather than concerning yourself about what they stand for that are treating this as a game.

FloatingRock on May 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM

Exactly. It is the Left’s game and they make the rules and they change constantly to their advantage. Playing their game by their rules is the surest way to lose. And, it’s the advice constantly given by the slightly right of center and the 9/11 converts who can’t stand who they are associated with.

TheBigOldDog on May 30, 2009 at 12:07 AM

Poor choice of words and poor choice of racist organizations (La Raza) to belong to. She is unfit for SCOTUS because she is a POOR CHOICE.

Geochelone on May 30, 2009 at 12:11 AM

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

I don’t disagree with your point; both statements were unnecessarily provocative.

And yet you must see the absurdity of this situation. An otherwise qualified judge, appointed to the Supreme Court, is on record making a statement which sounds overtly racist and apparently disqualifies her from serving on that court, and yet conservatives are berating other conservatives for pointing out that her statement is racist.

This is the direct result of a society which has allowed their entire media to become dominated by a group of partisans for one party, effectively creating an impenetrable shield of propaganda.

Jaibones on May 30, 2009 at 12:12 AM

aero on May 29, 2009 at 6:59 PM

Have you considered the possibility that you’re wrong?

That the electorate isn’t looking for Socialist-lite right now but rather a party based on American ideals and principles? That the party which ended slavery might, possibly, consider following Martin Luther King’s advise of judging people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin? Has it crossed your mind that, maybe, American’s have traditionally preferred divided government but that this option isn’t even available to them as of now because there is only one party divided by two letter designations? Could it be that some principled contrast might be in order?

FloatingRock on May 30, 2009 at 12:19 AM

That the electorate isn’t looking for Socialist-lite right now but rather a party based on American ideals and principles?

FloatingRock on May 30, 2009 at 12:19 AM

Or at least will be soon as a result of events?

FloatingRock on May 30, 2009 at 12:20 AM

Yes, her word choice was poor. Thank Goodness she is not being picked for a job involving words or their meanings.

GunRunner on May 30, 2009 at 12:33 AM

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

the_nile on May 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM

Exactly! When the enemy begins to break rank and scream “Back” you don’t apologize and back off.

GunRunner on May 30, 2009 at 12:41 AM

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

Actually the goal is to put forward a coherent political philosophy principles around which a Party can rally,such as free market, personal freedom and small government ideas.

You have to work to move the electorate to your ideas, not chasing your opponent’s.

If the only goal is to win elections, then you can never defeat an opponent whose only philosophy is to pay off as many groups as possible with corruption and economic disaster. You can’t outswindle a swindler.

TexasJew on May 30, 2009 at 12:54 AM

ALso, why all this vituperation about Rush Limbaugh?
He’s a private citizen who never held nor attempted to obtain public office.
What sort of government makes individual private citizens targets of constant public vituperation in defense of their own incompetence?
If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, it ought to….

TexasJew on May 30, 2009 at 12:59 AM

Somebody posted at another site this was simply Obama paying back La Raza for helping him get elected. Gee, this is so simple that I never thought of it.

technopeasant on May 30, 2009 at 1:10 AM

//fed up with non-whites being as racist as they like with no apparent repercussions. La Raza? The Race? And that gets a pass? The funny part is Latin isn’t a race. There are latins all over Argentina that don’t have a lick of spanish or mestizo in them. The only thing Latin connotes is a language.

pc on May 29, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Sort of like arabic.

Arab = someone who speaks arabic.

TTheoLogan on May 30, 2009 at 1:25 AM

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, of course, coming from a guy who doesn’t know what his name means.

TTheoLogan on May 30, 2009 at 1:29 AM

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 how about we get *more* conservative instead of less? I wouldn’t find all the verbal bomb throwing necessary if our boys (and girls) in DC would just man (and woman-) up and stand for something *besides* their own reelection chances.

gryphon202 on May 30, 2009 at 2:32 AM

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

OK………..

…………. how is “wise Chicana” any better?

By the way, after the fact, how do you fix a “poor” choice of words from a member of the Supreme Court of the United States……………?

Seven Percent Solution on May 30, 2009 at 3:48 AM

“Poor choice of words” means you meant to express one thought but, because of poor communication skills, your statement was ambiguous enough to suggest something else. Her choice of words and the meaning behind them were explicit; I’m better than white people because of my race. There’s no ambiguity there.
I don’t know if Robert Gibbs is the worst Press Secretary ever or if it’s just that he has the worst collection of morons, socialists and racists to represent in the history of the White House.

Crusty on May 30, 2009 at 8:00 AM

No lawyer ever makes a poor choice of words. All of those ums, ahhs, and pregnant pauses, are a sign of the wheels turning, in an effort to find the perfect word to make the point or ensure the maximum effect. Don’t believe a word of it when someone tells you that a lawyer misspoke.

Mr. Grump on May 30, 2009 at 8:09 AM

Obama sure Sotomayor would restate 2001 comment

Obama also defended his nominee, saying her message was on target even if her exact wording was not.

Obama’s top spokesman, Robert Gibbs, told reporters about Sotomayor:

“I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor.”

She said in 2001:

“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.”

The remark was in the context her saying that “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Gibbs said that what she meant was

“I am sure that any Latina would reach a better conclusion than any white male, period.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_sotomayor

drjohn on May 30, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Hey,Fibbs if Sotomayor can have a re-do on her choice of words,can we have a re-do on our choice of president?
:D

oldernwiser on May 30, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Her word choice was bad but she still has the thoughts

Rick007 on May 30, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Question for Sotomayor;

Are you wiser than a half-white man?

Star20 on May 30, 2009 at 1:09 PM

I don’t think hyperbole on this statement is necessary.

It is on it’s face racist.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Point out the double standard quietly over and over. Many Democrats agree with the statement–Begala for one.

I would love to hear Obama say out loud that Latina Women are not superior to White Men… then asked why his only options were women… and most of color?

Does he secretly agree that there is a genetic defect in White Male brains? Like the ones who set up this country?

Do you have to be of color to understand life? The White experience is valueless to the court? That is the logical conclusion you have to make if you accept that Begala and others agree with Sotomayor’s view.

And establishing that will “color” her every opinion from here on out. We can not win the battle this time, but in the future we will win the war.

petunia on May 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM

It appears that Pravda is the only media entity that can clearly see what is happening to this country: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

Very sad times for the Republic.

rplat on May 30, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Her comments were just a “poor choice of words”. Wow. I guess if someone were to hurl a racist remark against the President, they could claim it was a “poor choice of words”. Or if they called Rahm Emanuel a brual liberal hatchet man and an idiot…. it would be a “poor choice of words”. Pretty good excuse for racist remarks.

afotia on May 30, 2009 at 6:00 PM

******************************************************

IT IS FINE IF SHE CAN SHOW EMPATHY.

BUT WHAT IS NOT OK IF SHE ONLY SHOWS IT TO SPECIFIC RACIAL GROUPS.

WHERE WAS HER EMPATHY WITH THOSE WHITE FIREFIGHTERS THAT HAD BUSTED THEIR ASS TO STUDY AND STUDY FOR THAT TEST?

SHE HAS PROVEN NOT TO BE RACIAL BIASED SO BY DEFINITION SHE IS NOT FIT TO SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT.

EVEN A DEMOCRAT HAS TO AGREE WITH THAT

******************************************************

mooseburger on May 30, 2009 at 6:00 PM

******************************************************

IT IS FINE IF SHE CAN SHOW EMPATHY.

BUT WHAT IS NOT OK IF SHE ONLY SHOWS IT TO SPECIFIC RACIAL GROUPS.

WHERE WAS HER EMPATHY WITH THOSE WHITE FIREFIGHTERS THAT HAD BUSTED THEIR ASS TO STUDY AND STUDY FOR THAT TEST?

SHE HAS PROVEN TO BE RACIAL BIASED SO BY DEFINITION SHE IS NOT FIT TO SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT.

EVEN A DEMOCRAT HAS TO AGREE WITH THAT

******************************************************

mooseburger on May 30, 2009 at 6:01 PM

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

Oh that’s rich. Pot? Kettle. Kettle? Pot.
What’s up for Monday? Akbar Obama taking some talking head to task for ‘reading’ a teleprompter.
Never Again!

Blacksmith8 on May 30, 2009 at 7:17 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

A game you call it. Dude catch a clue. This IS what it’s about. THE CONSTITUTION! Are you deaf? Go to the mirror right now! Are you latina?
I’m white. I’m male. And I’m Catholic. She will more often than not come to a better conclusion than me. How far down her list of nobodys are you AP?

Look, you, as the blogger here, have got to get the cobwebs stripped away and wipe the fog from your eyes. Have you looked around the globe? Is there any place to move to when this country goes under? We must take this country back and undo the abuses of this ‘administration’.

Blacksmith8 on May 30, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Sotomayor isn’t the only racist here. Obama nominated her because she is hispanic. THAT is racist. HE is racist.

Star20 on May 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM

When Sandy Burglar shredded documents he stole from the national archives the libbies said that he was just SLOPPY.

Liberals make stuff up excuses as they go along. They have done this so long that they no longer realize how ridiculous they sound.

Geochelone on May 31, 2009 at 1:56 AM

“Her word choice was poor”???? Give me a break! You can scramble the words any way you like, they still have the same meaning.
She fits right in with Obama (no teleprompter, can’t speak), his militant wife (“downright mean country”), Gibbs, (can’t put a thought out there without a dozen uhhh’s, ummm’s, just like his boss). It’s all about playing “head chess”. Trying to talk while the head is sorting out answers and statements so as to be politically advantageous. As for Sotomayor…she meant the statement exactly as stated. (Watch out for that video tape, it’ll get the real you every time. Had she been at a confirmation hearing, that statement would sure enough NOT have been made. If you have a belief, state it and stick to it, consequences be damned. So, I guess now she’s just the regular political hack. Lie until you get what you want and then go about your real agenda.

hopefloats on May 31, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Obama frees black racist thugs who threatened old white people when they went to vote, says white people “cling” to their religion and guns, completely ignores a massive snow storm in rural Kentucky where mostly poor, white people live, and now appoints a very obvious racist to the Supreme Court.

By golly, I think I see a pattern.

amkun on May 31, 2009 at 9:57 AM

My question to the WH is simple: What did she mean? This isn’t a case of choosing words poorly. Calling someone the KKK of Hispanics is a fine example of over-dramatic use of language that reflects poorly on the speaker.

This was a case of actual meaning. I think she spoke quite clearly. I look forward to hearing the “real” meaning in the confirmation hearings, since I’m quite sure that saying, “I misspoke” won’t cut the mustard.

AnninCA on May 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM

“wise Latina” comment: Her word choice was “poor”

Or, in other words,
her word choice revealed deficiency of wisdom.

YiZhangZhe on May 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM

amkun,

Don’t forget Obama’s quote; “White man’s greed in a world of need.”

Star20 on May 31, 2009 at 11:49 AM

I’m surprised more isn’t being made of this part of Sotomayor’s comment:

Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address.

How is this any different from Larry Summers said at Harvard? If anything, it’s worse because she’s implying not superiority in math or science, but superior moral judgment.

Sean68 on May 31, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Why was her word choice “poor” mr. G.?
Because it let you know exactly who she is.

elifino on May 31, 2009 at 2:27 PM

So, making good “word choices” is not an important qualification for being a U.S. Supreme Court Justice? Just a socialist background is all we need now, right.

The court system continued to function in Germany throughout the Nazi era. The judges who didn’t get it were disappeared and new ones were brought on board. The Wise Latina is one of our new ones.

Venusian Visitor on May 31, 2009 at 4:32 PM

EXPLANATIONS THAT MAKE MATTERS WORSE

One of the requirements of the job of Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is the ability to communicate clearly what you mean.

Basilsbest on June 1, 2009 at 8:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3