Can someone please start a viable third party for people who favor small government, personal freedoms, and fiscal responsibility?
Please?
The GOP should have an opportunity to regroup and redefine themselves, and instead they are heading in a direction that is really going to firmly establish them as a fringe party, and sadly there is no group to take its place. I really don't want to live in a one party country, especially when that party supports government control of pretty much every aspect of existence.
How are they self destructing?
Do you really need to ask?
Lets see, opposing this new Supreme Court Justice, pretty much for the sake of opposing her. Lets face it. ANYONE Obama appointed, short of a popular politician who happens to be a Republican Evangelical Lawyer (There aren't many) they would try to say they were radically left wing. Truth be told... both sides really want a judge that rules ideologically from their political wing... so there will never be compromise there. I hate this political B.S. especially because this is a lose lose situation for the party that more closely aligns itself with my ideological beliefs.
These social issues that the GOP insists upon attempting to insert into law hurt them with an increasingly secular and diverse Nation. They are pigeonholing themselves. They had the bible belt advantage in recent times, however those days are over, ESPECIALLY when so many people are struggling to hold on to their homes and bring home the bacon. We have bigger fish to fry so to speak. This talk about whether Sotomayor will support left wing rulings is robbing us as voters. Instead of focusing on our economy they are bickering about issues that at the end of the day won't matter if we are all in the poor house.
OK while I'd like to just move on and say they should appoint Sotomayor, and I think while they should, the GOP is not going to allow smooth passage.... and the damage of this choice WILL BE LASTING. Anyone who apposes this nod from a state with a sizable Hispanic population WILL get a new stigma attached to them in the next election.
This woman's story is spectacular, she came from humble roots, and she is an inspiration to Latin Americans. Evidence shows that she is a competent and successful judge. The media is making her out to be a hero, and she appears to be a captivating person, much in the same way that Obama is. Attacking her, and criticizing Obama for appointing her will backfire. Of course some of the folks leading the battle cry are the arrogant, and often hateful Laura Ingraham, the usually batty and occasionally antisemitic Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh (link is Rush's damage control) who liked to publicise a racially tinged "Barack the Magic Negro" parody, Hannity who tends to be a lemming for the every thing right-winged, and yes the lovely Mitt Romney who tried to race bait against Hispanics during the main election over illegal immigration (hypocritically since he employed them). The real joke is one of the things they are accusing Sotomayor of is being racist, which is essentially the pot calling the kettle black (Rush's reverse racism claims).
Say what you will about leader of the GOP's Michael Steele, but he gets that this is going to be a problem for them. Steele: GOP must be careful on Sotomayor
Sotomayor obviously made a very questionable statement with "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." Liberal outlets are trying to spin it as misinterpreted, although what is said is pretty straight forward.... she is implying that her race will better suit her to make judgement over minorities, which actually is supposed to be something that should not influence her as a federal judge (Think back to criticism of John Robert's Christian beliefs on the flip side). The liberal spin is that she is saying she'd be better on a specific issue.... so maybe I'm smoking crack here... how is that not saying she'd be a better judge than a white man? What if a white man said the opposite.... lets say "Since issues the Supreme court sees involve white people, namely white men, I'd be better suited for the job than a Hispanic woman"... any guy who said that would not be able to go out in public again, let alone get the position. But honestly is it the same? We all know it isn't exactly, because we know there are social preconceptions about Hispanics that are tougher to overcome, at least when it comes to achieving a position of power. So while what Sotomayor said was wrong both for an individual and an officiator of the law to say, the stigma attached to saying it just isn't there. Telling people Sotomayor is a racist is a tough sell, because everyone, even the accusers know (even if they won't say it) that she is speaking from pride of overcoming insecurity and pride of her culture, rather than an assertion that she is really better than a white man. Well that's sort of the difference.......
The other piece of controversy is that she was involved with a famous New Haven Connecticut case of reverse discrimination where a couple of white men who did better on a firemen exam, were passed over for promotions in favor of minority employees who did not perform as well. The trouble with the ties asserted by the Angry Right-Wing is that apparently she did not make the ruling but rather was in a panel observing decisions of other judges, in which it is not customary to over-ride the opinions of other judges. Whether or not this implies she was implicit in not making a decision to favor the minorities is something that perhaps is not clear. I doubt this will change her appointment short of the Supreme Court over turning this decision, which has a slight chance of happening before Congress votes on Sotomayors appointment to the high court.
Other evidence shows that Sotomayor actually has a diverse set of rulings and opinions that even in one circumstance supported pro-life initiatives. "In 2002, she wrote an opinion ruling against an abortion rights group that had challenged a government policy prohibiting foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions." This is in direct conflict with the picture that the Antagonists are trying to spew forth.
I just wish the Right would pick their battles. They need to realize that these arguments do not rally the right as some claim, but rather they continue to damage them.
When the GOP threw out the Contract with America and adopted the Hastert/Delay social conservatism that aligns itself more with the Democrat party of the late 50s and early 60s than it does the libertarian roots of the GOP, it set itself of this path to self destruct. This election should have taught them that, and instead they are fighting amongst themselves and the only unity is a chunk of the party that thinks they need to be even more socially conservative despite the clear minority of the population that believes these issues are a priority.
Further by attacking moderates such as Colin Powell and even John McCain, the GOP is making sure that their ranks do not grow, and that Independents will continue to align themselves more closely with the Democrats in coming elections. While some may not agree with Colin Powell's policy views for the most part, THAT, is what should be discussed, not whether or not Powell is Republican enough.
While I frequently criticize Nancy Pelosi, she understood that to win a majority she needed conservative democrats from conservative states to win. The GOP should learn from this but they are too thick headed, and yes.... allowing a hot headed radio host who is an ENTERTAINER to dictate the direction of the party, is pretty brainless in my opinion.
