Even the right wing Republicans must be getting embarrassed…

48 comments on “Even the right wing Republicans must be getting embarrassed…”

1. The other day I looked up and read Judge Sotomayor’s entire speech. I wanted the context for the “I would hope that a wise Latina” comment. It’s worth reading. I won’t say that anyone who reads it will see the light, even in context I expect that people who want to hate her will see what they want to see. But I found it interesting.

   I really don’t think that statement was phrased badly. It’s just part of a larger speech that deals with a touchy issue. Any speech of substance is going to have lines that sound bad out of context.

   My favorite fact to point out to anyone who says a white guy couldn’t say what she said is that Justice Alito said almost exactly the same thing. Nobody cared when he said it.

   1. I really don’t think that statement was phrased badly.
      .
      Just so we’re clear, there’s a difference between saying that something “could have been phrased better” (which is what I said) and that it was “phrased badly (which is how you characterized what I said.)
      .
      PAD

      1. OK.

         Either way, I thought the phrasing was just fine.

   2. What did Alito say? I find it hard to believe he said anything about a white guy being more likely to make a correct decision and I’m just now hearing about it!

      1. Sotomayor didn’t quite say that about Latinas, either.
         .
         Her statement: 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.
         .
         Alito’s statement: Skip to about 3:45, their player sucks, so you won’t be able to get it exactly, but around 3:45 is close enough.
         http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30991079
         .

         Alito said that when a descrimination case comes before him, he considers the discrimination that has happened in his family and it affects his decisions. He doesn’t say that his decisions are better for it, but he wouldn’t “take them into account” if he didn’t think they were worth something.
         .
         Sotomayor’s comments, if you read the whole speech, were specifically about cases involving descrimination, not decisions in general. She said that she would “hope” (no guarantee that it happens, just a hope that it happens)that a “wise” Latina (not just any Latina, a wise one) would reach a better decision than a “white male who hasn’t lived that life” (not any white man, but one that has never had those experiences). These are not small points, there is a massive difference between stating that something *is* true and stating that you would *hope* that it is true. The word “wise” is important because elsewhere in her speech she talks about how it is important to recognize your own inclinations and make sure they hew to the law, as she continually tries to do. Do not let people lie to you, she made a nuanced point, not a massive declaration.
         .
         So Alito said that his experience with his background gives him some insight into discrimination cases. Sotomayor said that she would hope a Latina’s background would give her extra insight that people without that background lack.
         .
         The words may not be identical, but the message is. Both Judges were simply stating the fact that we are made up of our experiences and a someone who has had experience with a particular issue has more insight into it than someone unfamiliar with that issue.

   3. Yeah, I’m gonna have to say that does not come close to fitting my definition of “almost exactly the same thing.’ But your mileage may vary.
      .
      I don’t think Sotomayor is a bad choice at all and my philosophy is that if the president picks a competant person for the court they ought to be approved–in this way I differ from many of my friends on the left who had no doubts as to the competance of alito, Roberts, Bork, etc but had no problem going after them by any means necessary.
      .
      I alos don’t think her choice of words was particularly wise and if that makes me a meanspirited partisan at least I can take comfort in knowing that I have comapany in the Obama administration, including the press secretary and the Big O himself and, if Diane feinstein is to be believed, judge Sotomayor. Of course, calling her a racist is stupid, as it was when it was thrown at others whose only true offence is being in the opposing political party of teh accuser.
      .
      But I do look forward to judge Sotomayor making her case because I have read the speech and there are some troubling aspects to it above and beyond the words cmmonly cited. She seems far more willing than I am to see differences in how people of different races think as something physiological, a rather dangerous view in my opinion and one that has led us to much grief. Let me put it this way–does including the sentances right before the famous 32 words make it sound better:
      .
      Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
      .
      I would note, jason, that while your interpretation of the 32 words si sound on its own, when you look at the whole paragraph it doesn’t hold up. She specifically disagrees with the notion that a wise woman and a wise man will be equally likely to reach the same decision and that the reson for her disagreement is that she believes that a woman–or at least a Latina woman–is more likely to reach a wise decision than the male (or at least the White male) is. It makes no sence to say that she is simply suggesting that a wise Latina will make a wiser decision than a possibly unwise white guy. For one thing, duh. For another thing, her point with the “wise Latina” is meant to refute the idea that of how wise men and wise women would behvave. It would make less than no sense at all to say “some people think a wise man and a wise woman would make the same decision but I disagree because I would hope that a wise Latina woman would make a better choice than an inexperienced White guy would.” which is what I think you are suggesting she meant.
      .
      there’s another part of here speech that would probably have been death to any whote male candidate–the suggestion that while it’s all well and good to overcome your bias’ and confirm to the rule of law, it’s probably not going to happen in most cases. “While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.”
      .
      So why do I support her? Because this is the sort of thing people say at these sort of things. Gets a lot of applause. probably tells us little or nothing as to her competance as a judge which, from what I’ve seen, seems fine.
      .
      As to whether or not the phrasing was just fine or bad, Feinstein says that Judge Sotomayor herself called it “a poor choice of words”. Who am I to argue?

      1. Bill: She specifically disagrees with the notion that a wise woman and a wise man will be equally likely to reach the same decision and that the reson for her disagreement is that she believes that a woman–or at least a Latina woman–is more likely to reach a wise decision than the male (or at least the White male) is.

         And she’s right. She’s 100% right.

         The context is discrimination cases. You can’t ignore that, she was not talking about white male decision abilities versus Latina decision abilities, she was talking about descrimination cases. Someone who knows more about cars is better able to fix them, someone who knows more about the Spanish language is better able to translate it, and someone who knows more about discrimination is better able to make decisions about it.

         That does not mean that they will automatically make better decisions about it, but she doesn’t claim that they would. Sotomayor says in her speech that she strives to be aware of her experiences to make sure that they *do* help her judgements, and that they stay within the law.

         How is that different from what Alito said? It’s not. She does not at any point say that there is a physiological difference between her and anyone, she talks at length about how our experiences make us who we are. She’s right, and she’s right that we must become more than that (more than the sum of our parts is the phrase she used), and she’s right that we are also well served by accepting those experiences and trying to use them.

         As for why Sotomayor and Obama are calling it a poor choice of words, they’re trying to be diplomatic. They’re saying, “Oh, I’m sorry, it’s my fault you’re able to bend over backwards to twist my words into a demented argument that I’m a racist.” They’re just doing not being áššhølëš about it like I am in my phrasing. Personally I think the half-assed non-apology is the mistake. They’re not saying that she was wrong, they’re not saying what she should have said (which they’re probably hoping each side will take to mean “I should have said what you want me to say”) and the only result is that the non-apology has added to the fire and kept this nonsense going a little longer.

         Sotomayor made a speech saying she strives to follow the law and not judge by her own feelings, but that’s not always possible so she tries to and hopes to use her experiences for good. Guess what, we’re human, so she’s 100% right that ignoring your own experiences is impossible.

         Simple fact: Alito said that racially based things that have happened to his family affect his decisions. Nobody batted an eye. If a Democratic nominee had said that, I guarantee you Rush Limbaugh would be yelling about how that Democrat was out to grind an axe about crimes to his grandparents.

      2. I am one “on the left who had no doubts as to the competance of alito, Roberts…”
         .
         I knew what they were when they were nominated–right wing political hacks. They have no interest in applying the law or enforcing the constitution. Their only purpose is to promote right wing thuggery.

   4. It amazes me how often people are willing to call Obama a liar–even if it’s a diplomatic liar–so that they can avoid saying they disagree with him. Obama’s views on gay marriage less progressive than Ðìçk Cheney? Uh, well, he doesn’t mean it! yeah, that’s the ticket!.
      .
      I, on the other hand, will naively take them at their word, chips fall where they may, though I’ll admit that calling the judges words a bad choice may be more in the “If I had known I’d have to defend them I wouldn’t have said them sense.” we do agree though that the White house response has probably accerbated the problem.
      .
      IMHO unless Alito brought race into his statement, and, more specifically, the superiority of one race over another in deciding cases–any cases–his statement is in no way shape or form “almost exactly the same.”
      .
      She does not at any point say that there is a physiological difference between her and anyone,

      Please reread her speech. A- of COURSE there are physiological difference between her and anyone else! That’s a given, as it is for us all. B- She specifically says that she does not discount the possibility that these differences as they apply to non-whites and women will affect their decisions on the bench.
      .
      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.
      .
      Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
      .
      Agree with it, disagree with it, but it’s there. me, I think that any physiological differences between the races and genders as they affect the ability to make sound decisions are son vanishingly small as to be discounted. She is far more willing to consider them. So are others, less benignly.

2. When an organization has been as dedicated to alienating and purging out moderates from it as the GOP has, this is the best you’re going to get.

   Frankly at this rate, the Republican party will be as relevant and the Whigs and the two main political parties in America will be the Democrats and the Blue Dogs.

   1. Remember way back during Bush’s first six or so years and everyone was thinking the same thing about the Democratic Party? I mean, the Daily Show writers showed a picture of the Dem. Party’s grave in their AMERICA book. Something tells me this will come full circle for the umpteenth time…

      1. True, but when the Dems were considered on life support, it wasn’t because they were reduced to an irrelevant core of die-hards, it was because they were a bunch of ineffectual wusses who kept rolling over and couldn’t get their šhìŧ together. A little bit of good leadership and they’re back.

         With the GOP, they’re burning and poisoning the trees from which good leadership might blossom.

      2. I think the Republicans have very little chance of winning the White House in 2012, and they may win back one of the houses of Congress in the next few cycles, but not both for a long while.

         However, the Democrats keeping the White House in 2016 depends on who comes after Obama. It won’t be Biden. It might be Hillary Clinton, but a lot could happen in the next few years.

         The problem for the Dems is that leadership isn’t a permanent change. Bill Clinton was a strong leader for them, too. Then that ended and Al Gore wasn’t able to pick up for him.

         So who will come after Obama? That’s just too soon to tell. There are definitely some serious problems with the Republican party, but 2016 is a long time from now. I’m not quite ready to declare this the start of a 40 year reign as some of the more enthusiastic people on TV have.

      3. I really don’t think Hillary will be returning in 2016, since she’ll be 69. Age is still a factor in Presidential campaigns (but not in Congressional ones), ever since news of Reagan’s Alzheimer’s brought it to the fore. Remember how McCain’s age (72) was a issue last year?

         Same with Gingrich (74 in 2016, 70 in 2012), Romney (69 in 2016), etc.

         Hillary knew that 2008 was her only shot at the Presidency. If not for several major strategic mistakes in her campaign (detailed in Time magazine last year), she might have won it.

3. After the Republicans’ lost in the last election, they had two options: try to broaden thmselves from their “core” to become more inclusive, or focus on their core and become, well, more exclusive. They opted for the latter, which means alienating more voters, ostracizing or removing the moderates who might have a broader appeal (Powell, anyone?), and embracing the fire-and-brimstone attacks of Limbaugh and the I-don’t-know-much-but-I’m-middle-class of Palin. (Fox News demonstrates this perfectly: If Obama cured cancer, they’d report that it was the next phase in socializing medicine.) How they hope to win more by losing voters after a loss is beyond me.

   1. I think the GOP’s doubling down: The only way they can hope to ever again achieve the same level of power and influence they had during the Bush years is to hope Obama fails miserably and for them to have said “I told you so” all the while.

      Which of course means they’re counting on the nation and the world to be even more of a çlûšŧërfûçk than it is now.

      God help us.

   2. How they hope to win more by losing voters after a loss is beyond me.

      That’s pretty simple, actually. They’re counting on something horrible happening. In political terms, the most advantageous thing would be another major terrorist attack, but the economy staying in the dumps would work just fine. I’ll note that I don’t think that the Republican actually want there to be another successful terrorist attack, but that I do think that they would shamelessly take advantage of it if there was one.

      Since they can’t know exactly what their opportunity is going to be, they prepare by being obtructionist versus everything that the Democrats do and saying that anything they do is part of the Dems’ islamocommisocianazi agenda. That way, when something bad happens, they’ll be in able to say, “We told you the Dems doing X was the Worst Thing Ever and we opposed it.” Of course they say this about virtually everything any democrat does, so it’s a pretty safe be that they’ll be set up to capitalize on any chance like this.

      Here is where the drive toward political purity comes in. Republicans that are sometimes willing to work with Democrats, who admit that there are people in the political opposition that aren’t evil/incompetent/both, are a threat to this strategy. Anyone who wasn’t there pointing at the Golden Ticket Back to Political Dominance saying it was the Worst Thing Ever is a threat. Unfortunately, they don’t know ahead of time what the Golden Ticket is. If they could know, so would the Democrats and the Dems aren’t going to let something horrible happen if they can avoid it, either. So everything that the Dems do is the Worst Thing Ever. That way, they’re covered.

      That’s what I think when I’m in my more cynical moods, anyway.

   3. A lot of what the Republicans are doing is based more on the Republican primaries than on the general elections. At this point, over three quarters of the people in congress have already survived at least one election since the tide turned heavily against Bush.
      .
      The Republicans who managed to win elections under those conditions are from the most heavily Republican states and districts in the Nation. They may not represent the country in general, or even the Republican voters in general, but they are representative of these extremely Republican districts and states.
      .
      So there’s no way they can lose their next general election to a Democrat, but if they don’t go hardcore on the rhetoric, then someone more to the right will beat them in the Republican primaries. They’re stuck in a stuck in a self preservation ritual that they know makes it harder to expand the party, but is necessary for their own survival.

4. Not to mention this gem…

   http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018510.php

   Why can’t there be more folks like Richard Lugar, who has a sensible view of the world? I think he’s a tad more belligerent/nationalistic than I like, but I’m comfortable if he got his way, instead of slapping my forehead in disgust.

5. I find the whole thing morbidly fascinating. Like the metaphorical car crash you can’t turn your head from.

   It’s not often we get such a front seat to self destruction.

6. Ever since the Sotomayor comment broke, the Republican response has been a joke. Now I’m not pro-democrat or republican – I’ve voted for both sides, but for many years the republicans have come across as childish. It’s like they’re waiting to jump on any comment and hope it can make a media sensation in their favor. Maybe they should get off their ášš and do something useful. And for God’s sake get rid of the radio personalities that use their programs to hate monger, Goebbels must be getting misty eyed.

   It reminds me of an incident in highschool American Government class when the impeachment of Clinton was going on. The teacher was very pro-republican and was constantly feeding us his feelings on why Clinton should be impeached. Another student asked something about Nixon and the teachers repsonse was simple – that Nixon was misunderstood and the liberal media was out to get him.

   Until a party can own up for their mistakes and accept some responsibility you can’t take them seriously and this Animal Farm double standard attitude will continue.

7. It is a given that anyone President Obama puts up for this position will be run over by the Republican party.

   Sotomayor is actually a decent middle of the road candidate. Much less liberal in her choices than I would have expected. The Republican party should consider themselves lucky and push her nom through.

   1. Actually, it’s a given that anyone President Obama puts up for this position won’t be run over by the Republican Party–he’s got a virtually filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and could really nominate anyone he wanted and be confident they would be approved.

      That’s part of what’s so spectacularly idiotic about the Republican strategy; they have no way of stopping Sotomayor’s confirmation, opposing her as angrily and vocally as they are antagonizes two demographics they’re already struggling to keep, and as Gene points out, if they did derail her nomination, Obama’s next choice would probably be even more liberal. There’s no benefit to opposing her, and quite a few risks.

      1. Well, the Republican party is going to try to run over Obama’s picks, whether they’re successful or not.
         .
         They started bashing Obama’s nominee as being too liberal the moment Sutor retired. Obama hadn’t even come close to actually naming anyone yet, hadn’t even had a chance to, and they started saying the nominee would be horrendous. They really don’t get how dumb that makes them look.

   2. I agree with Gene. Sotomayor will be the 6th Catholic on the Supreme Court and while that is obviously no guarantee of being Pro-Life, (see Pelosi, Biden and Kennedy), she has made decisions that put her right of center on the abortion issue. And while I can’t believe Obama would nominate someone who didn’t share his Pro-Choice views, she certainly sounds like an improvement on Souter.

8. As Bill Maher said, Sotomayor made her “wise Latina” comment, and then Limbaugh, Liddy & Co. went about proving her right.

9. Uhoh, race was mentioned. I sense the imminent arrival of Captain Irony.
   .
   The last 8 years were pretty bad all around. Bush II was an idiot, and the response from liberals at times (myself included) were less than helpful. And yet, I’m seeing conservatives basically continue from where the liberals left off with Bush, and making claims such as Obama is a terrible president… after three effing months!
   .
   And yeah, Cheney, Limbaugh and the lot are encouraging it. I wish they’d STFU.

10. Not only has the “wise latina woman” quote been consistently isolated and reported on as though it were the only sentence Sotomayor spoke at that address, but the “liberal” media has scrupulously avoided providing any context for it. Eric Boehlert at MediaMatters.org wrote an excellent column on that very topic:

    mediamatters.org/columns/200906020003

    – Frank

11. Being a Nuyorican myself, I hate to admit that I knew – once Obama won – this was going to happen. That said I understand fully what Sotomayor said and the whole hoopla reminds me how people jumped on Michelle Obama’s (paraphrasing) “For the first time I’m proud to be an American.” or the Dixie Chick’s lead singer’s “I’m embarrassed by Pres. Bush.” comment.

    It’s so ironic that we (as a nation) have gone from the stereotypical angry black man to the angry white man. As a certain fictional character would say, “Fascinating.”

    Many have posted here and expressed, much more eloquently (than I ever could) the problems with the Republican party. I’ve always been a middle of the road guy that has voted for both parties over the years and if the Republicans were filled with moderate people like Gen. Powell they would appeal to me. Don’t get me wrong Democrats have their faults too but ever since the elections they’re the party I feel more comfortable associating myself with…FOR NOW.

    I thank God I was born in a democracy where I can simple tune out the hate and the petulant arguments. Imagine living in a country where you were forced to repeat, believe and never question such ….crap.

    I love America, with all her faults and always will.

    1. It’s so ironic that we (as a nation) have gone from the stereotypical angry black man to the angry white man. As a certain fictional character would say, “Fascinating.”
       .
       This is America. There’s plenty of room for all stereotypes.
       .
       PAD

12. Cheney hasn’t been entirely anti-Obama. He actually applauded the President’s decision to not release more photos from Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. So, I guess, Obama has that pat on the back from Darth Cheney going for him. Must feel very cold.

13. Hmm. I think the spam filter ate my post from earlier today, since I believe I managed to typo my e-mail address.
    .
    I think it was something along the lines of how this is par for the course, and that the GOP have basically picked up where the Dems left off with Bush, and that is to question anything and everything Obama does, including when and where he goes to use the bathroom.
    .
    Oh, yeah, and I had mentioned how because race was mentioned it was only a matter of time before Captain Irony would make an appearance.

    1. I think it was something along the lines of how this is par for the course, and that the GOP have basically picked up where the Dems left off with Bush, and that is to question anything and everything Obama does, including when and where he goes to use the bathroom.
       .
       The difference being that if, God forbid, we found ourselves with another 9/11 on our hands, I very much suspect that we would not be seeing the GOP pundits declaring that now is the time for us to line up behind and support the president.
       .
       PAD

       1. I very much suspect that we would not be seeing the GOP pundits declaring that now is the time for us to line up behind and support the president.
          .
          True, and we certainly wouldn’t have them agreeing that we need to invade Country X because that is where the terrorists came from after such an event, either.
          .
          I’m seeing some conservatives comment that Obama is a terrible president… and he’s only been in office three months. I mean, dámņ, it wasn’t until Bush started beating the drum about invading Iraq that the general liberal population started wondering what the hëll we had gotten ourselves into.

14. I mean, dámņ, it wasn’t until Bush started beating the drum about invading Iraq that the general liberal population started wondering what the hëll we had gotten ourselves into.
    .
    Speaking as part of the general liberal population, I wondered that the moment I started reading Molly Ivens.
    .
    PAD

    1. Bluntly, I knew Bush the Lesser was a shite president right from the start. I was just hoping he wouldn’t screw up too much before his 4 year reign of shite was over. Silly me.

       1. I figured, at the time, that Bush would be average at best. I thought the same of Gore, too. Ahh, if I only I knew then what I know now.

15. However, the Democrats keeping the White House in 2016 depends on who comes after Obama. It won’t be Biden. It might be Hillary Clinton, but a lot could happen in the next few years.
    The problem for the Dems is that leadership isn’t a permanent change

    Yeah, the bench is pretty thin after Obama. Look at the Yahoos under him; Pelosi and Reid are none too impressive. It just takes a modicum of common sense to run rings around the leadership of EITHER party.

    1. Don’t think for a moment that Hillary isn’t waiting in the wings.
       .
       PAD

       1. Honestly, I think Hilary is competent, but not as much as Obama. And in 2016, she’ll be 69. She’ll be hurt seriously by age questions.

       2. I’m sure it’s a major thought in her mind right now. I just don’t give any particular person more than 50/50 odds for a race that happens 7 years from now. There’s too much that could happen to anyone in that much time.

          Besides her, there isn’t much that’s inspiring on the Democratic bench. I can’t imagine Biden running. I, personally, would stay home instead of vote for Harry Reid.

          On the other hand, I had no clue who Barack Obama was 7 years before he was elected. The first I heard of him was when he became a Senator in 2004 and Jon Stewart joked about him being the Democratic golden boy, the great hope of 2030. Yes, I know there’s no Presidential Election in 2030, blame Stewart.

          Point is, someone who’s not on the radar at all right now might seem like a godsend in 2016. Or there might be nobody. 7 years is a long, long time in politics these days.

       3. Roger: And in 2016, she’ll be 69. She’ll be hurt seriously by age questions

          I’m not so sure that will mater. She looks *much* healthier than McCain did at 62. Whether or not she looks and acts old is a lot more important than her actual age. I imagine she’ll still be pretty lively.

          The biggest issue with Hillary is how well things go with Obama’s presidency. Especially the part of it she’s in charge of. If our problems with countries around the world significantly change for better or worse, that will significantly affect her chances.

       4. In addition to the age issue in 2016, I think Obama was part of a generational shift. While his childhood was in the ’60s, he wasn’t a child of the 60s in the sense of coming to adulthood vis a vis the previous baby boomer Presidents of Clinton and Bush II. While he’s young for a President, the 24 years of Clinton, Bush II, and before a different Democrat can credibly run for President (barring major disasters or Obama’s death prior to, say, late 2011, as I think people would be willing to challenge Biden), I think effectively make up the Boomers’ window of opportunity for the Presidency. Particularly as a fairly prominent aspect of Obama’s campaign was that he’d be a change from the way Boomers look and approach things. I think the Democratic candidate in 2016 will be from Obama’s generation and in their late 40s-early 60s, not a Boomer.

       5. Hillary is already talking like a president…unfortunately, that president is GW Bush: “And, finally, I looked around our world and I thought, you know, we are in just so many deep holes that everybody had better grab a shovel and start digging out.”

16. Just read that Sonia Sotomayor broke her ankle on the way to more meetings in DC. Being the trooper that she is, she got the cast put on and was off to her afternoon meetings. Sounds like she took the good-luck phrase “break a leg” a little too literally.

17. Ahh, more of the same:
    .
    Gingrich says Obama has “already failed”.
    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Obama has a “radical agenda.”
    Actor Jon Voight at the same fundraiser – “We are becoming a weak nation,” said Voight, calling Obama a “false prophet.” “Republicans need to find their way back to power to free the nation from “this Obama oppression,” he said.”

18. You know Limbaugh is just an entertainer, like Wanda Sykes?

    1. You know Limbaugh is just an entertainer, like Wanda Sykes?

       I’m sorry, but how many people are going around parroting what Sykes says?
       .
       And how many, by comparison, listen to Limbaugh and believe the crap he spews forth?
       .
       I rest my case.

Comments are closed.