What if...

Republicans have very little beef with Sotomayor. It has nothing to do with her ethnic background. She's an extremely qualified (and boringly predictable) choice.

"confirmogasms" priceless and a apt descriptor.

Tell us something we don't know.

The Republicans would be smart to keep their powder dry on this one, so of course, they will not.

Actually Republicans can and should be encouraged to go after Sotomayor insofar as they think she might be a problem. But bouncing back and forth between asserting that ethnicity doesn't matter and then being outraged that Obama selected someone who isn't an Anglo-Saxon male isn't going to win friends or influence anybody.

Its not just Hispanics that they risk alienating Joe. A lot of women of all backgrounds are offended by the attacks on her intellect as well. And they aren't doing so well with that demographic either.

Was the the comment you are referring to that Sotomayor made Dirks? If so, I agree.

"Rush has to have his daily reflux."
.
Good line. LOL.

Anyone whop wants to discuss her 'Latina' comment needs to read this entire article.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
.
They will then be free to think whatever they want about her own attitudes toward her heritage. Until that time however, any discussion will be based on a dishonest premise.
.
Have at it......

I notice that Andrea Mitchell, Norah O'Donnell and Monica Novotny on MSNBC are pretty sharp with the gasbags who appear from Republican Talking Points Central and subsidiaries.

Apologies for lack of technical ability. But Blue Texan has a piece on Republican empathy and election politics over at FireDogLake on judicial appointments.

Joe Klein:
.
It would be nice if we were spared the carnival in Sotomayor's case.
.
It would be nice if the Philadelphia Enquirer thought well enough of itself not to hand Professor Yoo a column from which he can justify his anti-American theories, but the establishment press' perverted "balance" construction prohibits the "censorship" of such radical falsehoods --unless the origin is the radical left, that is.
.
The carnival isn't simply the result of fake Republican outrage, it's the result of the establishment political media's love for easily digestible conflict 'n controversy.
.
Don't just tell the Republicans to do what's in their long-term political interests, tell your colleagues at cable news programming that, at some point, the unchallenged, repetitive declaration "Sonia Sotomayor is a racist!" becomes defamatory in the moral sense of the word, if not necessarily the legal sense.

No turning back for the GOP. They have embraced mindless opposition to everything Obama says or does, so why stop now?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

[...] Joe Klein has other ponderables. He grasps at the heart at why this circus exists, and how Republicans can be so caught up in it. It would be remarkably sane for Republicans to chill on this one, to not alienate an ethnic group–Latinos–who were a crucial part of Karl Rove’s plan to achieve permanent majority status. But there’s a beast to feed. Rush has to have his daily reflux. The interest groups need to send out direct mail letters and emails, begging for funds. (It’s how they survive and make money–and by the way, these sort of fights have been a speciality of liberal interest groups for twenty years, since Robert Bork first harrumphed his way to oblivion.) And members of the Senate need to please those interest groups if they hope to get campaign contributions when the election draws nigh. [...]

"The interest groups need to send out direct mail letters and emails, begging for funds. (It's how they survive and make money--and by the way, these sort of fights have been a speciality of liberal interest groups for twenty years, since Robert Bork first harrumphed his way to oblivion.)"
.
And in today's edition of false equivalency journalism, the DFH commentariate is left to point out that "liberal interest groups" are fighting to keep totally unqualified jurists such as Robert Bork from advancing their dogmatic incompetence to even higher levels of social damage.

Stuart, Granted sometimes it seems as though it is Philadelphia Enquirer, but it is actually the Philadelphia Inquirer.

As usual, Digby gets it right:

Limbaugh's "slave revolt" thesis plays nicely into the emphasis on the Ricci case, which greatly offends bobble heads like Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly, who despite their vast wealth and celebrity, like to pretend that they are oppressed working class white guys. Indeed, the whole phony construct of the Village is based upon the idea that these people inhabit a small middle class town in 1950s Real America, which is under seige from rapid social changes that threatens their traditional values. What they are, however, is a decadent ruling elite who inhabit the most powerful capital on earth who are under seige from social progress which is allowing members of unrepresented groups to have a seat at the table. There are certain shared characteristics between the illusion and the reality, but the results are hardly similar.

It's really bizarre to see the rightists try to work the Villagers' conceits/insecurities over their absurd, faux-representation of "Real America" the way that Limbaugh does, but since it got the country George W. Bush --and Brian Williams his job-- they're probably not done just yet.

Ivy_B: You caught me in a subtle prank.

SZ, Sorry, I wondered. As I noted it sometimes seems as though it is. Just wanted to make the point for those not completely familiar with Brian's rag.

What SZ said at 3:08, and certainly what Digby said (as always).
~
As if Time/The Swamp the last two days hasn't been in full "confirmogasm" mode. There's at least some very heavy petting going on. Given a few of MS/JNS' posts, "distort more than enlighten" may also apply here. "It would be nice if we were spared the carnival"--agreed, Joe, so perhaps you could urge you fellow swampcritters in the "right" margin to stop posting unfiltered GOP talking pts. I know journalism is v. sophisticated stuff, and I'm way out of my depth here, but you know, if one side is being honest and the other side is lying to your face, isn't it indeed "objective," for your "straight reporter" to report it as such?
~
This is not a condemnation of what you just wrote, but blaming the GOP alone is a touch disengenuous dontchatink.

"What if the republican party decides not to go berserk over Sonia Sotomayor?"
What if an alcoholic gets accidentally locked in a bar overnight and decides not to have a drink? Sorry, going berserk is what the republican party does best. It's an automatic reflex now.

Hugh Hewitt (!) is urging conservatives to keep the proverbial powder proverbially dry. So this could be a moment of maturation for the Republican opposition. Too bad if it is, since they are probably more effective politically when they aren't throwing temper tantrums.

Hewitt link:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/8761f3dd-5195-41da-9335-67f121b43495

Sotomayor thinks that states cannot disenfranchise prison inmates. Typical criminal coddling liberal judge. Maybe a member of the Obama fan club, err press corps can ask Gibbs about that.
.
And the Time Magazine doofus who called her a moderate liberal just clowned himself. Only a moonbat would think that the law forbids states from doing this. Funny how "empathy" never works for the law-abiding.

Thank you, Paul Dirks, for the link.