Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Friday, May 29, 2009


and why women and minorities will stay away in large numbers. Who would want to be in an organization that has this guy as a member??

Yesterday on his radio show, conservative host G. Gordon Liddy continued the right wing’s all-out assault on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

First, just like Tom Tancredo, Liddy slammed Sotomayor’s affiliation with the civil rights group La Raza — and referred to the Spanish language as “illegal alien“:

LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.” And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments.

Finished with the race-based attack, Liddy moved on to denigrate Sotomayor’s gender:

LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

[Imagine someone suggesting that Justice Scalia might not be able to render a judgment the day after he was unable to, *cough* perform his husbandly duty *cough* because of his age. Lord knows how his frustration would impact a decision and what we would get then.]

Finally, Liddy disputed the entire idea that there’s anything wrong with the paucity of women and total lack of Hispanics on the Court:

LIDDY: And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body.

h/t ThinkProgress


Patrick M said...

Liddy's still on the air?

Arthurstone said...

Patrick M wondered:

'Liddy's still on the air?'

So's Lawrence Welk.

dmarks said...

Haha. I went to make a comment and found that Patrick M already posted it.

Arthur: I hear that Samuel Pepys is still running that London blog of his, too.

The Pajama Underground said...

No, you're right- it's totally cool for Sonia Sotomayor to make rulings based on nothing more than her own blatant bigotry. She's Hispanic! She was poor! Obviously that makes it okay for her to ignore the law and issue a ruling so bad even fellow Democratic judges knew it was a crock.

This is a pathetic choice- there's really no point in having a Supreme Court any more if all we're going to be sending up there is this sort of self righteous trash.

Ruth said...

We sure don't want some one with bad judgment, who might, say break into a political HQ and bungle it.

Or make wars on unoffending countries.

or ... yes, we can stop there.

The Pajama Underground said...

Ruth said: "We sure don't want some one with bad judgment, who might, say break into a political HQ and bungle it...." yada yada whatever.

The classic liberal response: nothing to do with Sotomayor, just some nonsensical ramblings. Thanks for the humor, though; I forwarded it down the line for some laughs. Have a great weekend!

Christopher said...

Each time the 400lbs. junkie and pedophile named Rush Limbaugh flaps his cakehole uttering such bon mots as equivocating Sonia Sotomayor with the former KKK Grand Wizard, David Duke, the more marginalized the GOP seems to mainstream America.

Personally, I am totally loving the Republican cannibalism unfolding before our very eyes. The decision to turn the GOP brain trust over to Limbaugh is truly a thing of beauty.

Things are so out of control in GOPer-land that even rightwing Republican Texas Sen John Cornyn, denounced Limbaugh's insane rants and Cornyn -- for the uninitiated, had his nose all the way up George W. Bush's rectum since 2002.

Keep it going, GOPers, stay the course and don't change a single thing. You morons are hell bent on destroying your own party, leaving nothing but roadkill along the side of the political freeway.

Arthurstone said...

dmarks typed:

'Arthur: I hear that Samuel Pepys is still running that London blog of his, too.'

If Pepys were alive and blogging I'd get even less done.

dmarks said...

Ruth said: "Or make wars on unoffending countries."

Oh. Clinton? The last President who did that? He's been out of office for a while.

Christopher said: "Things are so out of control in GOPer-land that even rightwing Republican Texas Sen John Cornyn, denounced Limbaugh's insane rants "

I thought this was supposed to happen. Actual in-office Republican leaders denouncing Limbaugh. Come on now, are BOTH signs of "GOP destruction"? The GOP in lockstep with Limbaugh OR it denouncing him?

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks, if you're referring to Clinton and Bosnia, your comparison doesn't hold--we've been over this before.

And to The Pajama Underground:

Typical comment written by someone who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

Throwing names like "racist" around in reference to Judge Sotomayor only confirms your ignorance of the issues.

And will keep you and the GOP marginalized.

dmarks said...

Serbia did not violate a cease-fire with the US, nor was it funding any anti-US terrorist groups and killing Americans through them. The comparison holds.

And Shaw? As for Sotomayo being a racist? I did just now find out about her racist and sexist statement from 8 years ago. Even the White House says the wording was "poor". I found out about this from Katie Couric on CBS News. NOT Rush Limbaugh. Someone who makes a racist statement can justifiably invite a description of "Racist".

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks, your arguments on the Bosnia war are tedious. That was an international effort involving NATO, nothing at all like Iraq.

As to Judge Sotomayor, why don't you read her entire statement yourself instead of listening to someone else's interpretation.

It is foolish for anyone to label her a racist.

Especially those who have defended Limbaugh over the years.

dmarks said...

There was also an international effort involving Iraq. Nothing tedious about the facts. The fact that it was not specifically a NATO effort is indeed a difference, but I do not find it to be substantive.

I did read the entire statement from Judge Sotomayor. However, I don't think this gaffe is a big deal, myself. You mentioned Limbaugh's name. I believe he has more racist gaffes to his name than Sotomayor. A record of repeated gaffes like that is much more problematic, IMHO.

libhom said...

dmarks: Are you serious or just a troll? The war in Bosnia was an effort to stop a genocide while the war on Iraq was an act of genocide that has killed over 1.3 million people.

dmarks said...

Libhom: Serious and informed, not a troll. The actual body count in Iraq is just short of 100,000. Most of them killed by the terrorists in those daily bombing incidents. Errors of 1300% are preposterous.

And yes, it stopped a genocide also. Saddam's ongoing and well documented efforts to eliminate the Kurdish and Marsh Arab cultures and people were well known.... and they were stopped as a result of fighting back against him.

And for the record, I supported both efforts to stop genocidal dictators.

Christopher said...


DMarks is a one of Shaw's peskier trolls. He spends most of his energy defending the 400lbs. junkie and pedophile, Rush Limbaugh.

And, he's not informed -- far from it. In fact, I would argue he's an idiot.

No one in their right mind would write only 100,000 Iraqis have died since Bush Inc. invaded and occupied Iraqi and began the systematic slaughter of Iraq nationals.

According to Iraqi Casualty Monitor, since 2003, 1,320,000 Iraqi nationals have died.

dmarks said...

Actually, the 100,000 figure comes from "Iraq Body Count", which backs up its totals with well-documented facts. It is not a right-wing sight.

The other false totals come from dubious counting techniques (such as doing research in the very worst places in Iraq and generalizing for the rest of the country based on that).

As for defending Limbaugh, the last thing I wrote about him in this blog was a comment the problem of his racist gaffes. Some "defense". I have defended him from the phony pedophile charge, but so have several liberals here.


Shaw, how pesky of a troll am I?

Patrick M said...

Christopher: Despite the fact that Dmarks often disagrees with the premise of everything that Shaw talks about, that doesn't make him a troll. By that standard, Saw would be a troll on my blog. However, she isn't, because we can still disagree and discuss things like adults without blathering the same tired (and untrue) shit you are so fond of vomiting (as in I don't get where you get the idea of Rush being a pedophile).

Christopher said...

Patrick M: And your point is?

dmarks said...

Patrick: I think he is defining "troll" as "someone who does not agree 100% with him".

Patrick M said...

Christopher: You come across as and sound like a blithering idiot (as opposed to being informed but wrong as hell like dear sweet Shaw) when you just vomit your Kos-like talking points. Especially since you're so ridiculously redundant.