President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 27, 2009 04:00 PM UTC

Stay Classy, Tom Tancredo (I Know You Are But What Am I Edition)

  • 61 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

On MSNBC yesterday, where a regrettably large number of people witnessed former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s typically bizarre histrionics over the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Partial transcript:

Tancredo: Unfortunately for her and fortunately for us there are plenty of things that we’ve even talked about her already. I’m telling you, she appears to be a racist. [Pols emphasis] She said things that are racist in any other context…

—

Tancredo: You can still be a racist and have all those things in your background. You can be a racist and have all that stuff in your background.

Ed: How aggressive do you want the Republicans to be on the judiciary committee?

Tancredo: I think there’s plenty of stuff that they can use and should. They should do to her what the Democrats did to Bork.

Ed: Like what?

Tancredo: I would continually bring up this quote of hers, I’d like her to explain that. It is incredible to me. There is no one else I can think of who could possibly have said the kind of things she said, If they are reported accurately about the benefits of being a brown women [Pols emphasis] as opposed to a white man and interpreting the law and nobody can look at that and say that was not a racist, sexist statement that would disqualify anybody else…She is a Hispanic woman and we can’t say anything like this…

If you have a strong stomach, you can watch video of Tancredo’s rantings at Crooks and Liars. Another off-reservation disaster for Tancredo and the GOP, especially since the level of opposition to Sotomayor’s nomination has in no way been agreed upon–a lot of smart conservatives realize they have much more to lose by shrilly attacking the first Hispanic woman nominated to the Court, by most accounts a moderate choice. These are the Republicans who understand they cannot continue to alienate the fastest growing bloc of voters in the United States to appease a small extremist wing of their party and remain viable.

Unfortunately, Tancredo is much more interesting on camera than they are.

Tweet
Share

Comments

61 thoughts on “Stay Classy, Tom Tancredo (I Know You Are But What Am I Edition)”

    3. I think he’s pretty “out” when it comes to his bigotry, but I always got the vibe he was keeping other stuff in the closet.  

    4. on an MSNBC show? Surely he knows his main job there is to say things for the rest to ridicule so the progressive viewers can enjoy the silly wacko being put in his place? Surely he knows he really is doing a service for the evil left, helping to promote progressive views? Gee, wonder (not) what motivates him.  My guess, it ain’t selfless altruism.

  3. How else would you classify Sotomayor’s comments?  If a white person said something like that, there’s no way they would be nominated or confirmed (nor should he or she).  We seemed to be making progress toward a color blind society.  Sotomayor’s nomination is a real set back.

    1. What if a Christian talked about his faith?  What if a person talked about his Irish heritage?  Sometimes it’s OK to talk about your background or ethnicity with pride and sometimes it isn’t.  If you think hard you might figure out why.

      1. I’ve often wondered why so many people get irritated when a person who is African-American or Latino chooses to identify as such but have absolutely no problem joining in with the Irish in celebrating St. Patrick’s day.  

        2. Half my family is Irish, and I’ve had to hear a lot about how the Irish were actually the most oppressed minority of all. And not just on St. Patrick’s Day either.

          1. .

            still maintain a colony on foreign soil ?  

            Portugal pulled out of Angola, the last colony in Africa, in 1975,

            and England pulled out of Hong Kong, the last colony in Asia, in 1997,

            but England is still holding on to “Northern Ireland.”

            .

    3. ignoring one’s context, imagining that one can be suspended behind a ‘veil of ignorrance’ (in Rawlsian terms) unencumbered, or unlearned, from one’s history, context, and yes ethnicity or religion, is foolish fantasy.

      We need courts, and other branches of government, to reflect the diverse make up of this land.

    4. I don’t think that should be our desire at all. Each of us should recognize our differences and honor them.

      Further, the context in which Sotomayor made the “controvercial” comments was a discussion on cases relating to sex and race discrimination.  I tend to agree with her that a latina is likely going to have an easier time identifying gender or race based discrimination than a white male. Especially when viewed in the context of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

      1. We can never be color (gender, age, etc.) blind.  But we can, and should strive to understand and honor them.  We need to laugh at our own group(s), too.

        I groan when I hear some lib friend of mine claim that they are color blind….but they would immediately cross the street in a dark minority neighborhood if someone young and darker was on their side.  

        1. That’s what makes Colbert’s insistence that he literally can’t see a person’s color and must ask what color they are a parody. There is nothing wrong with noting that having grown up as a minority or as a woman during a time when discrimination against both was rampant gives insights where others might have blind spots, not out of ill will so much as out of the clueless, casual acceptance of the way things are on the part of those born into the mainstream.  

          For instance, the fact that so many white Christian males see no problem (in fact see a great positive) with a nominee or candidate  proclaiming that their Christian faith will influence their decision making but get their undies in a bunch when a person says their experience as a member of a formerly oppressed ethnic minority, gender or sexual orientation will do the very same thing, is proof of a blind spot.  We all have them.  Diversity helps us to  be there to make up for one another’s blind spots.

    5. You must have missed this quote:

      “All judges have cases that touch our passions deeply, but we all struggle constantly with remaining impartial” and letting reason rule. Courts, she added, “are in large part the product of their membership and their judges’ ability to think through and across their own intellectual and professional backgrounds” to find common ground.

      And this one?

      “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”

      That last one? By some white guy named Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He must be a racist who was unsuitable for serving on the SCOTUS.

      But more to the point, a woman with brown skin who grew up in the projects in the 50’s and 60’s did not grow up in a color-blind (nor gender-blind) society. And the only people who could harbor the illusion that they grew up in a color-blind society did so in segregated all-white society. I think that Sotomayor is only acknowledging the obvious.

      But if you and the rest of the R’s want to keep ranting about this, have at it. I don’t think most gringos find Sotomayor’s comments offensive. But I think most Hispanics will find your comments offensive.  

  5. Tancredo = irrelevant. Just like when Musgrave opens her big fat mouth and says something stupid, it doesn’t really matter anymore because they’re no longer in a position of power.

    Tancredo’s an asshole, but thankfully he’s no longer an important asshole.

  6. .

    Which is it ?

    is she

                     by all accounts a moderate choice.

    as Pols editorializes,

    or

    was there one account, Tank’s, that said that she appeared to be racist ?

    Or am I reading too much into this ?

    Can some one be both “moderate” and “racist ?”

    .

      1. .

        Ralphie, I don’t know if we’ve met, but if we have met in some public forum, I probably had my wife and/or sons with me.  

        If I may paraphrase BG Charles Canham at the surrender of Brest, those are my credentials.  

        I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the characterizations.

        I’m just pointing out that Pols themselves recite an account that clearly asserts that the Judge is not moderate, and then incorrectly says that there are no accounts that say she is anything but moderate.  

        As a former certified QC professional, I believe that the only way we get better is if we are willing to accept criticisms when we fall short.  And here, Pols falls short in the use of the English language.

        .  

        1. I think she’s going to be way too moderate for the Progressives.

          Much has been written how Obama has co-opted the Republicans with this pick.  I also think he’s co-opted the Democrats to his left.

    2. Inhofe had this to say:

      In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.

      Now, granted, Inhofe isn’t as far off the rez as Tank, but I don’t think anyone made any mention of race or gender when discussing Alito or Roberts. Those words are reserved for women and non-whites.

      So you’re right, Barron, not everyone thinks that Sotomayor is a moderate. I suppose the question is who do you side with? Tank and Inhofe and the rest of the Fox fodder, or do you side with the people who actually know something about Sotomayor?  

      1. Alito’s nomination did have some gender overtones, but only in the context of “we’re losing a female voice from the Court”.  Nothing so much about Alito having “male” biases – those are apparently reserved for women…

        And nothing of Alito’s Italian biases, or “white” biases.  Or of Chief Justice Roberts’ over-whelming English-ness.

          1. The way that the GOP first chose, as its most repeated talking points, the questioning her experience and INTELLIGENCE, comparing her to Harriet Meirs, when her credentials in both areas are outstanding, shows that they continue to be determined to insult and drive away as many Hispanic voters as possible.   Fine by me.

      2. .

        I do not want someone made a Justice based strictly on ability, I want folks who will apply my religious beliefs in their rulings.

        You’d think that, with 55% (would she make it 66% ?) coming out of my faith tradition, that I’d be happy with every SCOTUS ruling, and yet I’m not.  

        Other folks here want a Justice who will apply their religious beliefs.  

        I consider a belief that “gay marriage” is a matter of civil rights to be a religious belief.  Nobody here (or elsewhere) has ever cited any scientific data to prove otherwise.  While that belief is “perfectly logical” to many who post here, that belief cannot actually be deduced through the application of Aristotelian or Boolean logic.  Sorta like my belief that “life begins at conception.”  I take my religious beliefs on faith, just as those who support “gay marriage” do.  And that is actually a stronger basis for arguing in favor of it, compared to false appeals to “justice” or “common sense:” freedom of religion.

        So, those old, obsolete, worn-out litmus tests, abortion, gay marriage, killing embryos for stem cell research, etc., they aren’t so obsolete for me.

        I don’t want no stinkin’ moderate.  I want an extremist in the cause of righteousness.  

        What are the chances of that happening ?  

        .

            1. .

              If “Christianity” was the state religion,  just my luck,

              it would be some variation that I could not abide.  

              Thus, I’m better off – as I think we all are – without one.

              .

        2. Gov’t should not discriminate in it’s laws or civic recognitions

          Marriage is a civic recognition

          Ergo: Gov’t should not discriminate in marriage

          1. .

            but explain to me the connection you see between “marriage,” which involves one man and one woman, and “gay marriage,” which does not.

            .

            1. Marriage as a civic institution recognizes the bond between two adults, bestowing upon them certain rights and responsibilities;

              Civic institutions must not discriminate against any adult citizens in instituting its civic recognitions, rights and attendant responsibilities;

              Ergo: Marriage should not discriminate against against any adult citizen in instituting its civic recognitions, rights and attendant responsibilities.

              Personally, I find it reprehensible that right-wingers get married, and the thought of them all sweaty engaging in their proclivities makes my skin crawl.  I might even go so far say as it is offensive to my core beliefs, but I would never dare to suggest that Colorado or the U.S. should prohibit them from marrying or doing their nasty, gross, and offensive deeds.

                    1. I learned that I am a moderate.

                      I need to check with my GF on where I fall on Kinsey scale…

              2. that stuff about right wingers caused me to momentarily envision Cheney and the Mrs.  Thanks a bunch. I’m going to watch some mindless TV now as a mind cleanser.

            2. Get government out of the “marriage” business altogether, including for hetero couples.  Get government into the civic partnership business, regardless of the sex of the two partners.  It’s good for society.

              And let churches call “marriage” whatever they want.  Hetero, homo, whatever.

              1. Religious ceremonies are totally optional.  What you need is a marriage licence, a witnessed ceremony, which may be secular or religious, and the signed marriage certificate.  I got married by a Justice of the Peace.  That’s a civil ceremony but I get to say that I’m married just as if it had been a religious ceremony.  

                So we don’t need a special civil union category.  All legal marriages are civil unions or recognized as common law in some states.  Any religious ceremony is purely a personal matter. The right to legally marry should be extended to same sex couples as a matter of equal rights.  

                Clergy  of various religious groups would still be free to choose  whether or not to perform religious ceremonies for same sex couples in the same way that Orthodox Rabbis are free not to perform ceremonies for Jews wishing to marry non-Jews in spite of the fact that such marriages are legal.  

                Where’s the problem? Everybody gets to marry the person they wish to marry and no clergy are forced to  participate in marriages of which they disapprove on religious grounds. Seems like a great American live and let live solution to me.  

            3. Christ, the Virgin Mary, Joseph all were Jewish.  The Jewish patriarchs had multiple wives and concubines.  To say that marriage involves one man and only one woman denies the rich and glorious heritage that gave rise to Christianity.

        3. You have Alito, Scalia, and Roberts (I would have inclueded Thomas but I honestly don’t think he has any beliefs other than to agree with however Scalia votes) on the court already…with a few minor tweaks they share your beliefs.

          1. .

            I meant that I didn’t think that Obama would appoint another from my tribe.  

            But if you hate Sotomayor, maybe I’ll like her.  I guess I need to do that research after all.  

            .

  7. from TAPPED:

    —-Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.

    […]

    When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.—-

  8. Wingnuts running out of ammo?

    From Talking Points Memo:

    National Review Online’s Mark Krikorian: “Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English… and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn’t be giving in to.”

    So how does an American pronounce Boener then?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

172 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!