THE PLANK AUGUST 6, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Ed Kilgore is managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, and a frequent contributor to a variety of political journals.
As the Senate vote on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination draws nigh, most Republicans, privately if not publicly, are probably relieved that this hasn't become a strict party-line (and thus party-defining) vote, much less a filibuster fight, and are ready to move onto other issues.
But cultural conservatives, who are absolutely obsessed with the shape of the Supreme Court, and are bitter about the failure of past Republican presidents to deliver such prizes as the overturning of Roe v. Wade, are not happy about GOP defections on Sotomayor, or the corresponding decision against going to the mats to stop her. And what better messenger could they have for their unhappiness than their disgraced former chieftain, Ralph Reed?
Yes, Ralph's back, having (so far) avoided any indictments over his relationship with Jack Abramoff, and apparently recovered from his embarrassing defeat in a Republican primary in 2006 to become Lieutenant Governor of Georgia (en route, he reportedly assumed, to much higher political glory). He's founded a new group called the Faith and Freedom Coalition, which religion-and-politics writer Dan Gilgoff calls "the Christian Coalition 2.0." And in a memo to "Republican leaders and conservatives" about Sotomayor that was published in the can't-miss beltway outlet Politico, Reed has served notice that he intends to re-occupy his old position as ideological enforcer on behalf of the Christian Right nationally. No more screwing around with state politics, it seems.
The memo itself is unremarkable. It cherry-picks polls to make the dubious claim that Latinos don't care about Sotomayor's fate. It restates the familiar if tired ideological case against Sotomayor as a Justice. But its real message is simple enough: Republican votes for Sotomayor will "discourage the GOP base" (as defined by an assortment of activist groups opposing the nomination) and give Obama a big win. And in case anyone misses Ralph's implicit threat on behalf of the "base," he calls the vote a "political Rorschach test" for Republicans--a fancier way of saying "litmus test."
While Ralph's memo is unlikely to change any votes, it will be most interesting to see if his fellow Republican insiders--or for that matter, his old allies in the Christian Right--take it seriously. By all rights, he should be hooted off the stage and shunted back to his Atlanta-based political consulting firm, though he doesn't seem to have any Georgia clients in the upcoming 2010 elections. But he gets high chutzpah points for reemerging on the scene as though the last four years or so never existed.
--Ed Kilgore
13 comments
Chutzpah this reemergence is, Ed. It was a nice hiatus while it lasted but now, Ralphie is back.
- liberal reformer
August 6, 2009 at 1:22pm
Ralph should also learn what a "Rorschach Test" is, as his use of it makes no sense.
- boneill
August 6, 2009 at 1:50pm
Ralph - exactly.
- jemerk
August 6, 2009 at 1:54pm
Dear Republican Party: Please listen closely to Ralph Reed, and do and say exactly what he advises.
- rhubarbs
August 6, 2009 at 1:59pm
Oh, good LORD. I just love that the venal and callow Ralph Reed is still angling to be a political force, and one with some kind of moral authority at that. Hilarious.
And even more hilarious, he seems to have no idea what a Rorschach test actually is. Apparently Reed thinks that some people will see Olympia Snowe's vote as an ideological failure, and others will see a bat.
- drdannyu
August 6, 2009 at 2:32pm
"he calls the vote a "political Rorschach test" for Republicans--a fancier way of saying "litmus test."
The two are completely different. Litmus tests distinguish base from acid. Rorschach tests distinguish crazy from sane.
- wellman
August 6, 2009 at 2:42pm
You know, wellman, the GOP would be in much better shape if it could separate its base from acid. And also if it could distinguish between crazy and sane.
Personally, when I see Lindsey Graham voting to confirm Sotomayor, I see a pretty butterfly.
- rhubarbs
August 6, 2009 at 3:22pm
Don't ever bet against Ralph. On or off the reservation.
- iambiguous
August 6, 2009 at 6:44pm
wellwellwell
Rorschach tests distinguish crazy from sane.
george:
Is that anything like distinguishing terrorists from freedom fighters? If so, it's rather meaningless, isn't it?
gw
- iambiguous
August 6, 2009 at 6:48pm
It's quite easy to distinguish them. Terrorists get hunted down and imprisoned or executed. Freedom fighters get statues in the square and bios in the schoolbooks. In some cases, the terrorists can become freedom fighters, but they have to win in order to get the statue treatment.
- ironyroad
August 6, 2009 at 10:16pm
Yeah, that's easy for you to say.
Imagine this though:
What if the Founding Fathers and King George had the Internet back then? Who would be the freedom fighters and who would be the terrorists?
I was watching a documentary about natural disasters and one segment noted how an ancient library in Rome [with nearly 200,000 scrolls from the greatest minds of that age] caught on fire and all that extraordinary knowledge literally went up in flames.
What was particularly interesting was the narrator's speculation that, had the library not been destroyed, this knowledge would have have been passed down and the Renaissance would have unfolded centuries earlier than it actually did. Which means the world we live in now might well look like the world our descendants will live in 500 years from now.
And then of course there is the realization that had that 6 mile long asteroid not splashed down in or around the Yucatan Peninsula 65 million yeasrs ago the dinosaurs would not have gone extinct, the mammals would not have evolved as they did and none of us would even be around today.
So much is riding on contingency, chance and change. A sight shift here or there and everything changes forever.
These "truths we hold dear" are strung together so precariously, right?
george walton
[danny/annie]
- iambiguous
August 7, 2009 at 3:14am
Sotomayor is only a "litmus test" for people who believe in and practice racial identity politics.
- ChanRobt
August 7, 2009 at 4:58am
With Sotomayor's confirmation, six of the nine justices are Roman Catholic (20% of the population), two are Jews (1.5% of the population but disproportionately well represented in the legal profession) and only one is a Protestant and he's nearing 90. Furthermore, three of the nine justices are from New York City's outer boroughs, the Chief Justice is from upstate Buffalo and a fifth justice is from nearby New Jersey. That means a majority is from two states that have around 10% of the U.S. population.
The U.S. Supreme Court - diversity we can believe in.
- nbarry
August 7, 2009 at 1:12pm