Do Not Be Fooled

Many on the Left will tell you that they want 'women and minorities' in office. Do not be fooled. What they actually mean is that they want 'LIBERAL women and minorities in office. Take the 2008 Presidential Election for example. Many feminists and others rallied behind Hillary Clinton in the primaries and supported her wholly (or at least in part) because she is a woman. These people had a strong desire to put a woman in the White House. Hillary Clinton was eventually defeated in the primaries. Shortly thereafter, John McCain chose Sarah Palin (a woman) as his running mate and the Left threw a hissy fit.

Now wait a minute! I thought these people said they wanted a woman in the White House. "Nope nope nope! Not her! Not Palin!" What was that about voting for Hillary because she is a woman? What was that about wanting a woman in the White House? "NOPE NOPE NOPE! Not her! Not Palin! This is totally different!" There was a woman competing in the General Election. Did these people vote for her? The answer is no. The answer is they smeared her and watched with glee as she lost. Yet these same people complain because there has never been a woman in the White House. Do not be fooled. Feminists and the like are not interested in putting a 'woman' in the White House. They are interested in putting a 'LIBERAL woman' in the White House.

The same hypocrisies and half-truths apply to minorities as well. Take Clarence Thomas’ nomination process for example. George Bush Sr. was stuck between a rock and hard place. He had to replace a retiring Thurgood Marshall, the first black person on the U.S. Supreme Court. If Bush nominated a white person, he would probably be viewed as a racist who was trying to ‘cleanse the court’. So instead, he nominated Clarence Thomas, a conservative black man. Initially, there was a concern among many liberals that Thomas’ presence on the Court would threaten Roe v. Wade because just one year earlier, David Souter, a presumed conservative, had replaced William Brennan. Many liberals were also concerned that Clarence Thomas did not have enough experience for the job (they conveniently did not accuse Barack Obama of that).

When those concerns did not put Thomas away, a last ditch effort was made to destroy him. Anita Hill made false sexual harassment charges against Clarence (he was proven innocent). Why would there be such extraordinary efforts made to destroy Thomas by people like Al Sharpton and those who identify with him? Do they not want a black person on the court? They certainly want a black person on the court, but not Clarence Thomas. Why? Clarence Thomas is a conservative. Therefore, he is not viewed as ‘Justice Thomas’, but instead, ‘Uncle Thomas’.

He is viewed as a traitor, simply because he thinks for himself and does not kowtow to an old order that says because he is born with a certain amount of melanin in his skin, therefore he and everyone that looks like him must automatically think the same way, that way being liberal. Do not be fooled. Sharpton and the like are not interested in a ‘black person’ on the Supreme Court. They are interested in a ‘LIBERAL black person’ on the Supreme Court.

Twisted views regarding minorities did not stop after the Clarence Thomas nomination. On May 9^th 2001, George W. Bush nominated Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. He had argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court and he had received a unanimous “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, their highest possible rating. Sixteen major Hispanic groups endorsed Estrada. Despite all of this, Senate Democrats filibustered Estrada’s nomination. On September 4^th, 2003, Miguel withdrew his name (over two years after being nominated).

Why did this happen? Perhaps a memo sent to Senator Dick Durbin on November 7^th, 2001 says it best. The memo explains that Miguel Estrada is “dangerous” partly because he “has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” This was not the same sentiment Senate Democrats felt when they confirmed Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in 2009. As far as they're concerned, Miguel Estrada on the Supreme Court would be “dangerous”, but Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court is a cause for celebration, because she is the first Latino with that distinction! Do not be fooled. Senate Democrats are not interested in a ‘Latino’ on the Supreme Court. They are interested in a ‘LIBERAL Latino’ on the Supreme Court. That is what they got with Sonya Sotomayor.

The Left will tell you again and again that they want ‘women and minorities’ in office, but do not be fooled. As they have shown time after time, they only want ‘LIBERAL women and minorities’ in office, and in some cases, they will go to extraordinary measures to ensure that conservative female and minority nominees are not only defeated, but are permanently destroyed.