David Axelrod’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

A very interesting article from Steve Sailer of www.vdare.com. Check out his book at the bottom of the article.

David Axelrod’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
[Steve Sailer]
I’ve got to bet that David Axelrod’s blood pressure is high at the moment, what with his prize pupil slipping the leash at yesterday’s news conference and letting everybody know what’s really on his mind. And now, Obama’s getting a second day of headlines over GatesGate.
From ABC News:
President Obama today stood by his comments that the Cambridge, Mass., police department acted “stupidly” in its arrest of Henry Louis Gates, telling ABC News that the Harvard University professor should not have been arrested.
President says he doesn’t regret his criticism of Cambridge police department.
“I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement, because I think it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don’t need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who’s in his own home,” Obama said.

In an exclusive interview with ABC’s Terry Moran to air on “Nightline” tonight, Obama said it doesn’t make sense to him that the situation escalated to the point that Gates was arrested.
“I think that I have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the job that police officers do,” the president told Moran. “And my suspicion is that words were exchanged between the police officer and Mr. Gates and that everybody should have just settled down and cooler heads should have prevailed. That’s my suspicion.”

At this point, Axelrod must have been feeling a bit better about Obama getting back on script.
The president said he understands the sergeant who arrested Gates is an “outstanding police officer.”
Good, thinks the President’s handler, Now just wrap it up, get back to health care, and you can go smoke a whole pack of Lucky Strikes.
But he added that with all that’s going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, “it doesn’t make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he’s not causing a serious disturbance.”

Oh, noooooooo! What with all that’s going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, what doesn’t make any sense is for my client, the President of the United States of America, to get publicly obsessed over a local police incident!
Cambridge Police Department Commissioner Robert C. Haas said in a press conference late Thursday that his department was “deeply pained” by the president’s comments yesterday.
Watch “Nightline” Tonight at 11:35 p.m. ET for Terry Moran’s full interview with President Obama

By the way, if you want to understand why Obama slips loose from Axelrod’s master plan and does these kind of self-destructive things every now and then, please buy my reader’s guide to the President’s memoir, America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story of Race and Inheritance.”

Vdare on Sotomayor

A very interesting pair of articles from http://blog.vdare.com/. See also http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/05/sotomayor_the_i.htm and http://www.thenextright.com/roger-pilon/the-sotomayor-nomination-an-opportunity-for-republicans-to-reestablish-their-identity




Key Obama question answered by Sotomayor

The nomination of professional Hispanic Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court goes a long way to answering the most pressing question about the Obama Presidency:
Did America elect a racist left-winger or a left-wing racist?
Steve Sailer in his seminal book on Obama America’s Half-Blood Prince was inclined to the latter conclusion. The choice of Sotomayor supports him.
In discussing Professor Kevin MacDonald’s description of the Jewish effort to get Solicitor General Elena Kagan the nomination, I suggested that Jeffrey Rosen’s New Republic pre-emptive attack The Case Against Sotomayor May 04 2009 could be seen as supporting evidence of such a campaign.
While this is probably true, not being Hispanic or Black, Rosen could not just say Kagan should be appointed because she is of his group. He had to deploy arguments. And in the context of his preference for leftist judicial legislators on the bench he developed perfectly sound ones.
What was needed, Rosen suggested, was
a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court….
Adding in his subsequent defense of himself
For the next Supreme Court seat, the president needs to be sure that the nominee’s temperament and abilities are not merely impressive but absolutely stellar. She–and the next justice should indeed be a she–must be ready to challenge the conservatives and persuade her fellow liberals from the very beginning.
More Sotomayor by Jeffrey Rosen The New Republic May 08 2009
Since no one seriously pretends Sotomayor is anything special as a judicial mind, Rosen turned to the distasteful task of documenting the doubts about her temperament. This he did by quoting
Sotomayor’s entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which includes the rating of judges based on the collective opinions of the lawyers who work with them. Usually lawyers provide fairly positive comments. That’s what makes the discussion of Soto mayor’s temperament so striking. Here it is:Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. “She is a terror on the bench.” “She is very outspoken.” “She can be difficult.” “She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry.” “She is overly aggressive–not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament.” “She abuses lawyers.” “She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts.” “She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn’t understand their role in the system–as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like.”
(Hat tip TPMMuckraker - VDARE.com)
What this means of course is she is likely to offend the eight other monsters of conceit who lurk on the Supreme Court - and so impede the advance of Leftism.
Rosen’s judgment is sound. Obama may well, alas, get other chances to nominate one of these Priest-Kings. But horrible things happen to Presidencies, very quickly, and his power is unlikely ever to be greater. The next time more Americans will understand Obama –and Congress is fickle. This was his best chance to effect real ideological change.
Instead, he succumbed to the temptations of race-baiting and the politics of the visible. Dissing the White man came first.
From a narrow VDARE.com point of view, Sotomayor is a relief. With Hispanics themselves vulnerable to Hate Crime charges, and she having a less clear record on the subject than Kagan and her friends, maybe we will be free to operate a while longer.
(The comment threads on the two Rosen articles are to be recommended. Even thought the pieces are eminently reasonable and polite, he received the most amazing vilification. One would think he was Charles Murray or Peter Brimelow!. And from fellow leftists! No one can read them and not be struck how much emotion and how little reason supplies modern Liberal/Leftism.)

Justice Sotomayor: Steve Sailer Saw Her Coming…Of Course!!
In his last column “Playing With Fire: The Obama Administration Backs Anti-White Discrimination in Ricci” VDARE.com’s own Steve Sailer discussed a few of Ms. Sotomayor’s atrocious judicial decisions…and warned us of her impending Supreme Court nomination
To get an idea of just how insanely liberal and frankly idiotic this woman can be I took the liberty of pulling a few comments from an article written by Stuart Taylor for National Journal Magazine.
Addressing a mostly Hispanic group at Berkeley School of Law about “Law and Cultural Diversity”, Judge Sotomayor said:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The most poignant comment in Mr. Taylor’s article was this:
“Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere “aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.” And she suggested that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may help explain why “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Experiences? Choices? Cultural differences? How has this woman been allowed to keep her law license? I know she’s “special” and therefore was allowed to attend “special” universities (you know, the kind simple white girls like me only get to attend if we pay through the nose LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE) and pay “special” tuition rates (“special” meaning “free”) but does she also get to “protect and uphold” a special Constitution? It sure sounds like it.
Oh people, we’re in trouble. I would say pray that the GOP puts a stop to this madness but their track record for standing up to the New Kids on the Block hasn’t been consistently strong…or consistently weak…actually, I have no idea what they even do all day.
Then again, they haven’t shown any since the days of Speaker Gingrich so even though they have the votes to stop the appointment, I’m not holding my breath.
But something tells me the criminals are!
http://blog.vdare.com/