Thursday, January 27, 2005

Democratic Senators Blocking Minorities?

Well this is interesting. Radioblogger has posted a memo allegedly originating from Democratic Senator Dick Durbin. If authentic, the memo seems to be a "smoking gun" indicating that at least some Democratic senators have engaged in a strategy intentionally blocking minority nominees to the bench.

Radioblogger states:

It is fair to ask Senator Durbin if this memo is accurate, if he's seen it, and then we can start questioning whether the Democrats in the Senate are holding back conservative minorities for political reasons.

Actually, if the memo is accurate I'd say the answer to that question is already known. Yet even then, who is going to hold them accountable?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a very intriguing tactic... accuse someone of receiving an "incriminating" document... not what they may have actually done with it (assuming it is authentic and was seen by this person.) My guess is he laughed at it. Read your buddy's site more carefully... with an eye toward the pronouns.

"There was a heated exchange, with John saying there was a 2001 memo to Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois that backs up his claim."

To him... not from him.

Why not just create a stepped upon document showing three columns headed by "Too Dark", "Too Brown", "Too Wetback"?

Did you or your buddy even consider using the words "alleged", "unverified" or "hinky"? Truly, this is no better than the type of journalism (or its lacking) that you enjoy focusing on in the MSM.
I also relished the use of "redacted"... makes it all sound so authentic. As though knowing who sent the alleged document (if anyone) might not be relevant.

It's shoddy sophistry. (Ooh, I think I just named my new Blog!)

I enjoyed your buddy's sentence that attempts to really get at the truth...

"It is fair to ask Senator Durbin if this memo is accurate, if he's seen it, and then we can start questioning whether the Democrats in the Senate are holding back conservative minorities for political reasons. "

Well shucks?! I'm stumped! What P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L reason could the Democratics have for holding back any C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-V-E? That really needs a bunch of in depth thought. What a challenging question for the masses!

Isn't it more plausible to contend that the Dems just happen be terrified of losing seats to Republicans that happen to be minorities. And can't they just be a bit trepidacious since they see a once solid foundation of minority support eroding? Does it need a contrived memo?


12:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Whistling past the graveyard Kyle. You want to ignore the memo, fine. If you think minority nominees are being treated no differently than white nominees, run the numbers. See how the filibusters break down. Test how your "its just because they're conservative" theory holds up.

Could it be more likely that the Democrats are scared to death that their group-identity politics is threatened by Republicans appointing minorities to prominent positions? Nah... this surely hasn't crossed the mind of great statesmen like Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

9:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you, I will ignore the memo... at least until I see it proven reliable AND who sent it. Doesn't that bother you? The rest of your heated reply makes sense, and is likely the actual case.

My concern is how quickly you, personally, accepted/bypassed the hokey "evidence" and then gave out a perfectly rational and well reasoned response. Why bring to anyone's attention the goofy alleged memo?! Why not simply stay on topic and let the facts speak for themselves? Your opinion is quite defendable... the memo is not. (Maybe)

I've been trying to give your Blog and others a chance as an alternative to the MSM (Main Stream Media for those like me who don't intuitively know your blog-jargon") My take thus far is that it's mostly opinion and a bit a interesting/creative fact interpretation/gathering. You seem enamored with its "inevitable" evolution into the best way to get ones news. If this is an accurate assessment of your blog (and others), don't you feel an onus to be more deligent when memos (or other dubious bits of evidence) surface? Why is it "whistling past graveyards" to call attention to this gaff? Why respond as you did? My guess is that you just want to get onto the next article or issue.

I get that you have tremendous passion for this and other topics, but why go low road at all? If you're gonna be more than an intelligent, witty guy who drinks wine and writes well, be a tad more deliberate. Otherwise, you run the very real risk of being taken as seriously as Jon Stewart.


1:04 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Actually, I think you missed what I found interesting about the memo in the first place. It was the question I asked at the end of the post. Posit that it is entirely legitimate, distasteful as that may be to your sensibilities. So what? Would the Democratic Senators involved be held accountable by their party members in any way? I suspect not. But knowing the answer would provide an interesting perspective on the state of that party.

I wonder if you perhaps miss some of the chain of evidence that makes this memo more than something Radioblogger asks us to just take his word on. Radioblogger is Hugh Hewitt's producer. As he alludes on his post, the memo was mentioned in a disagreement between John Eastman, law professor at Chapman University, and Professor Erwin Chemerinsky of Duke University, on Hugh's show. Chemerinsky challenged Eastman to produce the memo. That's where Radioblogger got it from. You're free to consider Professor Eastman a fabricator or easily duped. But I'd be careful about that assumption. He's a lawyer, and tends not to make charges on national broadcasts that could get him sued for defamation.

I would also have you note that I didn't ask anyone to take my word for the memos authenticity. I provided the chain of evidence, a link to the source, and an open comments section for feedback. That's a qualitative difference between reading about it in a newspaper and seeing it on a blog.

As for my further thoughts on blogs, that's a good topic for its own post, so I'll save that, but in your comments you're blurring multiple concepts together in a way I wouldn't agree with. And Shoddy Sophistry is indeed a good name for a blog, so when do you start?

5:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home