Race Card

You have to be kidding me with this latest conservative trick, coming from a "group of folks" that lost the black vote by a 10:1 margin, a group that clearly votes against the interests of African-Americans at every opportunity. For them to have the gall to cry racism is frankly pathetic. But that's wht makes them conservatives.

I'm talking about the flap on the right from the new Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's comments on Meet the Press this Sunday, calling Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an embarrassment because "I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice." Apparently you're not allowed to think that without having some kind of ulterior motive. Sam Rosenfeld at TAPPED reports how civil rights leader Sean Hannity responded to this:

HANNITY: I'm just beginning to see a pattern here. I see a lot of the left attacking Condoleezza Rice. I see when -- when Justice Janice Brown, an African-American woman, when the president wants to appoint her, Democrats oppose her. Democrats opposing Miguel Estrada. Democrats attacking Condi Rice, Democrats attacking Clarence Thomas.

And I'm just wondering, it seems, you know, for the party that always claims they're for minorities and for advancement of minorities, they don't put them in positions of power when they have the opportunity, and then when other people try...

If I can follow that argument, it basically amounts to "Hey, we put black people in power, so shut up about them!" As if pigment is somehow a spray innoculating the wearer from criticism. Never mind that those people did absolutely nothing while bin Laden plotted, or spoke out against the very program that enabled them and millions of African-Americans to overcome racist policies and achieve success:

"In Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995), Thomas spoke out against affirmative action. "There can be no doubt that racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination." he wrote.

But Hannity isn't the only one mouthing this tripe. Robert Novak did the same thing today on Crossfire:

NOVAK: [Reid] said he could not support Justice Clarence Thomas' confirmation if nominated for chief justice, calling Justice Thomas an embarrassment who writes poorly. But Reid said he could back Justice Antonin Scalia for chief justice. Now, since Thomas and Scalia are both conservatives and agree on most everything, why the difference? The implication is that Thomas is a black man who is not smart enough, while Scalia is a white man who is.

BEGALA: So, Harry Reid is a racist? Is that it, Mr. Novak? Is that what you're saying?

NOVAK: Well, that is what some black Republicans feel.

Here's what Reid actually said about Scalia.

Could you support Antonin Scalia to be chief justice of the Supreme Court?

SEN. REID:  If he can overcome the ethics problems that have arisen since he was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court.  And those ethics problems--you've talked about them; every people talk--every reporter's talked about them in town--where he took trips that were probably not in keeping with the code of judicial ethics.  So we have to get over this.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement. And if Scalia and Thomas are "exactly the same," how come Thomas has written virtually no opinions of consequence (other than a few dissenting ones), while Scalia is at least up front about his ideas? At least Scalia has a backbone. I don't agree with him for the most part, but at least he'll speak up.

So this race card is clearly coming from on high as a wedge strategy. Hilarious. Or maybe not so hilarious. It was successful in branding John Kerry a homophobe. He who yells loudest wins in an age where politics is increasingly more and more like professional wrestling. TIme for Democrats to yell this cheap trick back to the Stone Age.