Thursday, May 28, 2009

The Two Sides of Rove's Mouth: Playing Politics with an Ivy League Education

AT loves it when political hacks like Karl Rove trip all over themselves in the service of bogus right-wing talking points.

The latest example comes as the former Bush adviser got caught changing his view of the kind of intellect it takes to make it through the Ivy League.

Speaking this week at a debate in New York, Rove claimed that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor was "not necessarily" "very smart." When host Charlie Rose noted that she attended Princeton and Yale Law School, Rove replied that you you don't have to be smart to attend a top school.

Unfortunately for Rove, he's on record arguing exactly the opposite point in defending the Ivy League credentials of George W. Bush. In an interview before the debate, Rove cited Bush’s experience at Harvard and Yale to mock claims that Bush is stupid. “The myth was that this guy…, was not smart.”

In December 2008, Rove also touted Bush’s time at Harvard and Yale in a Wall Street Journal column, writing, "You don't make it through either unless you are a reader."

You can't have it both ways. So which is it, Karl?


Man of the West said...

Hmmmm. Tell you what: when you can make a reasonable case that Judge Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case doesn't demonstrate the grossest bias and incompetence, I'll start taking what you have to say on the subject without a bucket of salt.

Tulsan said...

Make a reasonable case that her decision "doesn't demonstrate the grossest bias and incompetence?" That's not hard.

As Slate noted, "The four liberal-moderate justices currently on the court are likely to agree with her, in the name of preserving Title VII as a tool for fair hiring. There's even an outside chance that Justice Anthony Kennedy will follow along."

If her decision were as "beyond the pale" as you say, would it even be conceivable for a majority of Supreme Court justices to agree with it? I think not.

Could she have added her own analysis to the decision? Yes, and that's where debate on the case could reasonably focus.

I haven't listened to right-wing radio on this, but it seems tailor-made for Rush's and Boortz' audience of disgruntled white males. I'm sure they are going to town on Sotomayor.

But vicious attacks by the acknowledged head of the GOP (Rush) on a highly respected Latina legal mind will drive away the remaining Hispanic GOP voters (with the exception of Alberto Gonzales, who isn't getting much respect himself these days.)

The ironic part is that Rush and company probably realize that. But they just can't resist baiting their special audience with that juicy red meat. You could almost infer that Rush is not really concerned about the future of his party.

Neither am I. Go to it, Rush.

Tulsan said...

Sen. John Cornyn criticized Rush and Newt for their demogogery about Sotomayor:

"I think it's terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent. Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don't think it's appropriate. I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong."

Any bets on how soon Cornyn will be abasing himself to Limbaugh?

Tulsan said...

A good decision that Rush and Newt probably hold against her; from TPM:"Sotomayor concluded that the 'missing pieces of the [Vince Foster suicide] note, and therefore the physical look of the note, are an integral part of the public's interest.'

"The release of a copy of the note itself confirmed that previous transcripts of its contents were accurate. The note quieted--but did not entirely eliminate--allegations that the note was forged. In 1997 Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, agreed Foster had committed suicide and eventually even Limbaugh conceded the point. In time, most conservative polemicists decided it was necessary to crabwalk away from the 'Vince Foster was murdered' crowd."

Dittoheads still flog this discredited fantasy.

Comradio said...

Man of the West, here's my two cents on the Ricci case. You nor I know the whole story there. I personally have not read all the depositions, statements, and arguments encompassing the case but I feel it's a pretty safe bet that you haven't either.

So you heard it on the radio. Maybe you googled a bit. But, I ask this one thing, why, if Sotomayor's decision was so "grossly biased" because, as AM wants to impress upon, it's not those poor hardworker white firefighters fault that no African Americans made it through when they did, right?

But if everything was on the up and up and she was just meddling(see: judicial activism, legislating from the bench), why was there a case brought before her court to judge in the first place.

And (b) did she follow the law and precedent?

I feel you need a history of the Supreme Court, maybe start at Mulberry v Madison. You have a false view of the courts role.

As for her, Latina woman, rich white male comment. Sorry guys, they are right, if those words were exchanged in that sentence the politician or judge wouldn't make it two further steps politically in America, because he/she would be wrong, if of course, the words are indeed switched...

Problem is, she's right, people, a Latina woman herself, who have experienced America not only as a respected peer of rich white men, but having also seen the other side of America would indeed, I believe, come to a more informed decision than someone who was raised and groomed for success and never experienced or understood anything else, in a real sense.

That's where it sucks for you, I think many, if not the vast majority, if politcal mud could be put in limbo and people looked at in human terms, would agree with that rationale.

People of larger experience possess larger experience, duh. Which was the larger point of the paper your AM leaders choose a sentence from. But no, a rich white guy couldn't say that. Sorry. Guess we're all "reverse rascists". That's right, I hate my own race.

Tulsan said...

A more plausible interpretation of The Newt and Cornyn Show:

Good Cop Bad Cop by Digby

Tulsan said...

From Wikipedia's entry on the book, "What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" :

"So the central idea of the book answers the question as to why these social conservatives continue voting with the Republican Party, even after their social issues never go anywhere and when the resultant economic policies 'end their way of life.'"

The relationship of economic conservatives with "values" conservatives reminds me of the relationship between parasitic wasps and their hapless caterpillar hosts.

Anonymous said...

Its really nice blog
thanks for this great link ,, thanks
Lock in your price today for Your favorite channels - and keep it there until 2010!