Latinos Blackmailing America? Columnist: "Hurt us and we'll hurt you" Ruben Navarrette, Jr., writes in the Washington Post that the score stands at Latinos 1, liberals 0. The author seems gleeful about what he sees, and what he sees is simply described: It isn't fair to hold Gonzales accountable for his words or actions: Navarrette points out that the "problem" reflected in the August, 2002, memorandum began at the Justice Department in January. Accepting that it was a bad decision on Gonzales' part to hold the opinion he did, Navarrette excuses the Attorney General nominee from a charge of his own invention. As with the running excuses made by the GOP, nobody's at fault. If liberals appear to blame Gonzales for Bush's actions, 'tis true they might be expressing themselves poorly, but Navarrette's perspective seems to intentionally overlook the idea that the party responsible for the torture--e.g. President Bush--makes decisions according to what advice is whispered in his ear, and Gonzales used that whisper to pass along the idea that the Geneva Conventions should be ignored, and that torture was acceptable. Gonzales, as Navarrette would have it, bears no responsibility whatsoever. Navarrette has a point that it would be a blow to the liberal political establishment if Gonzales reaches the Supreme Court. However, his determination to make this about ethnicity only reflects his choice to excuse a Latino man from any responsibility for his words or actions. Are Mexican Americans morally entitled to that condition? In the end, Navarrette righteously notes that Senate Democrats went soft on the Bush nominee because they had to: In other words, in order to support diversity, liberals ought to excuse a man from any responsibility for his actions, or else Latinos will take it out on them. Is that the kind of coddling our Hispanic population demands? Or is it at all insulting to suggest that one's ethnicity grants them moral excuse? "Hurt him," Navarrette asserts, "and we'll hurt you." Should we presume that Latinos, as with Navarrette, have no care for the people who have been hurt in part because of Gonzales' actions? Apparently so, if we take this Dallas Latino at his word. ____________________ Notes: Navarrette Jr., Ruben. "... at the Democrats' Peril". Washington Post, January 15, 2005; page A23. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10922-2005Jan14.html
<i>"Should we presume that Latinos, as with Navarette, have no care for the people who have been hurt in part because of Gonzales' actions?"</i> That is an interesting question. But not knowing the politics of Latin Americans, I would first ask of their values as a unique culture. They seem to have strong family values as individuals, a bit passionate at times; however, I have never heard them talk politics at any level. they are not a real visible group.
All "latinos", I know of, only care that Gonzales is a "latino", and have no idea what his views are. Usually the same can be said about any minority group since they just wanna take what they can get in the hard world of politics and having any minority in office is somehow a victory. - N
The Vote on Mr. Gonzales Source: Washington Post Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12606-2005Jan15.html Title: "The Vote on Mr. Gonzales" Date: January 16, 2005 The editors of the Washington Post are troubled by the state of Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings: The editors point out that their judgment does bear in mind the president's right to choose his own cabinet; they deferred to that right in the nomination of former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Confirming Gonzales, assert the editors, is to ratify decisions that violate fundamental American values. The editors also take issue with Gonzales' defenders, who "argue that his position on the Geneva Conventions amounted to a judgment that captured members of al Qaeda did not deserve official status as prisoners of war". This defense is obviously inadequate, else the U.S. would never have suffered the blow to its prestige that came with the detention of foreigners at Guantanamo Bay. That hundreds of prisoners including foreign volunteers and innocent bystanders, as well as Taleban militants and al Qaeda operatives, could be "collectively and indiscriminately denied Geneva protections without individual hearings" was endorsed by the White House is certainly chilling, and Gonzales had his part in that decision. The Supreme Court has also knocked these decisions by the White House, ruling that the prisoners were entitled to appeal their detentions, and also that holding Americans without counsel--also a White House decision--is unacceptable. The court has invalidated Gonzales' position in the cases of Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla. The tactics, approved for the CIA against al Qaeda suspects held at Guantanamo, spread to Afghanistan and Iraq. Investigators have determined that U.S. personnel around the world elected, in light of the Geneva Conventions being declared "obsolete", chose to behave as if there was an absence of doctrine, and were thus empowered to torture suspects. While Gonzales has stated at his hearings that he opposes torture, he made no real effort to separate himself from his prior legal judgments empowering such abuses. • • • It is obvious at the outset that the Post's editors disagree with columnist Ruben Navarrette, Jr., who recently wrote that Gonzales' ethnicity excuses him from any responsibility for his actions (see topic post). The Post also disagrees with Navarrette's assertion that liberals blame Gonzales for the whole mess, or that Gonzales is somehow isolated from the policies resulting from the infamous August, 2002 memo. Writing the issue off to January, 2002, as Navarrette has, doesn't hold water, as instead of making Gonzales an instigator he becomes merely a willing conspirator. A man who so despises the U.S. Constitution as Gonzales' actions suggest has no business in the office of the Attorney General, whose job is to enforce the laws and Constitution of the United States. Why give over such a responsibility to a man who loathes those laws and that Constitution? Is it, as Navarrette says, because the politicians are afraid of an Hispanic population perceived as myopic and too stupid to tell the difference? Is ethnicity, as Navarrette holds, the reason Gonzales will be forgiven his actions and confirmed to this office? Or is it that the Democrats, at least, are trying to be responsive to "middle America", that amorphous bloc of Bush supporters who also, it would seem, consider torture a viable American principle, agree that the Geneva Conventions are obsolete and should be ignored, and would prefer to confirm a nominee for his ethnicity rather than oppose him for his record? Either way, the price the Democrats will pay pales compared to the damage done by Gonzales and the administration he supports. Shameful, indeed. ____________________ Notes: Washington Post. "The Vote on Mr. Gonzales". January 16, 2005; page B06. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12606-2005Jan15.html See Also - Navarrette Jr., Ruben. "... at the Democrats' Peril". Washington Post, January 15, 2005; page A23. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10922-2005Jan14.html
And that is the sad part; support a butcher only because he happens to be from your minority group. That sucks!. Most latinos are just too busy trying to make ends meet, they don't know much about politics, and claim only that white people run the show, so they get happy to see some PENDEJO get in public office, giving little regard of what the SOB stands for. Well this is one Latino, who don't support this asshole!!. But then again; it's not just only latinos that support him, the dumbshits senators show little risistance to this thug!. click Godless.
But so it is. Since so many "Latinos" are here for monetary reasons and have little stake in America, they try to get what they can. If it means "helping a brother out" so much the better. On the other hand, Latino culture is heavily saturated with machismo. So why object to Gonzales' statements or actions regarding torture? They are very gung-ho, very "manly". Why expect common decency out of such a thuggish background? No insult to any individual.
They Must Hate Hispanics? Or Is Something Else Afoot? E&P notes Post stinger; Boston Globe opposes Gonzales nomination Editor and Publisher, a newspaper-industry journal, called a recent Washington Post editorial (see above) "surprisingly hard-hitting" for its criticism of the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing for Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales. E&P also reports that a "survey of the largest daily papers found a wide majority criticizing or opposing his nomination". Meanwhile, up in "elitist" Boston, the Boston Globe checks in today with an editorial simply titled, "Unfit as attorney general". Diversity issues are a curious thing with the Bush administration. Secretary of State Powell, acknowledged before the GOP convention as the most popular Republican in the country, has long stood as a symbol of minority accomplishment within the American "system". Yet the Bush administration seems to want him merely for appearances, choosing to frustrate and undercut Powell when potential solutions deviate from the administration's hard line. His nominated replacement, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, earned acclaim in academia and industry prior to her tenure as National Security Advisor. In addition to her status as a racial minority, she is noted to be the first woman to occupy the NSA post. Yet she is widely regarded as a lap-dog; her considerable talents have been largely wasted as a shill for the administration's hard line. Alberto Gonzales, nominated for the post of Attorney General, has drawn some editorial praise for his ethnicity and life story, but his credible value seems to end there. Rejecting both the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution, his manner of legal advice has been to merely encourage the Bush administration's hard line. Thus I would ask you to imagine a classroom, perhaps of children, or maybe college students, in fifty years, looking back on American history. Will the diversity of the Bush administration be heralded as racial and ethnic progress, or will the tale be something akin to the tale of Futurama's Leela, who became both the first female blernsball player in history and also clocked in as the sport's worst-ever? Perhaps that's too obscure an analogy. The simple question is whether the apparent diversity of the Bush administration is real, or only skin deep? ____________________ Notes: Editor & Publisher. "'Wash. Post' Latest to Take Hard Line Against Attorney General Nominee". January 16, 2005. See http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000760300 Boston Globe. "Unfit as attorney general". Boston.com, January 18, 2005. See http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...rticles/2005/01/18/unfit_as_attorney_general/ See Also - Washington Post. "The Vote on Mr. Gonzales". January 16, 2005; page B06. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12606-2005Jan15.html TV Tome. "Futurama - A Leela Of Her Own". See http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-249/epid-130891/
Shucks, there you go again, making assumptions without even asking the one Mexican you do know here in SciForums, hmm, hmm, hmm. OK, lets start, First, Mr. Ruben Navarette is a Harvard grad, from Sanger, a small town, I mean a really small town in Central California. He appears to be on th 'right' of the issues, was syndicated nation-wide, worked for a Dallas paper & I think, now a San Diego one. Second: last time I checked, he didn't speak for me Third: don't call me "Hispanic" or "Latino", I'm Chicano (a Mexican born in Aztlan), thank you very much. "Hispanic" is a made up word, so that Republicans could imply they had support from 'hispanics', really meaning that only 'Cubans' supported them during the Nixon-era. "Latino" is a cultural designation, over most of the spanish- (sometimes including french- & Portuguese- ) speaking nations. Its not proper to speak of "Latinos" in the US; except as a whole, because the parts are not yet mixed, no cuban would ever tell you he is hispanic or latino first, nor would any Puerto Rican, wait a few years for that, when we join the "Heinz 51" club Fourth: Mr. Gonzalez is Nicaraguan Fifth: make sure Mr. Navarrette wasn't goating the left, the man is sharp, articulate & no friend of liberals. He's against celebrating Cesar Chavez day in California Sixth: to win the so-called "hispanic" vote, the real culprits are Bush & Gonzalez, not any "hispanics" or "latinos" collectively or individually, notwithstanding LULAC, etc... & Seventh: I would rather that a well qualified person make it to the post, but then again, people voted Bush for President, so that doesn't always happen. anyway, irregardless of ethnicity, I don't feel that only "white males" fit the description of "well qualified", so someday people will vote for a Chicano President of the US, "so say we all" could happen, Edward James Olmos leads a rag-tag bunch of humans in a series, why not Ruben Navarrette, Jr. in real life? More likely for a 'rightie', than a liberal; see Arnold for pointers
Source: Washington Post Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54420-2005Feb1.html Title: "Gonzales Will Not Be Blocked" Date: February 2, 2005 Angry Senate Democrats have buckled; they will not push for a continued procedural delay on the confirmation of Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales, who will most likely be confirmed tomorrow. Senate minority leader Harry Reid offered a "low" forecast that 25-30 Democrats would vote against Gonzales, but others think the vote could see Gonzales receive the largest opposition vote to an Attorney General ever; John Ashcroft got 42 in 2001. Furthermore, Gonzales has apparently refused to meet with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus until after his confirmation. The CHC has refused to endorse the AG nominee. • • • The GOP has scored a major victory inasmuch as they have confused the Democrats. The political right wing would have us believe that Hispanics are stupid, and care only about superficial labels. The Democrats have come to fear the possibility: they apparently "lack the political stomach" to legitimately oppose candidates who are ethnic minorities. Strange, though, how the GOP has relied on a sense of "contempt" that it has long depicted as symptomatic of liberal elites. As columnist Ruben Navarrette, Jr., has suggested, Democrats hear the message: this is about ethnic labels, not qualifications or performance or integrity. And I think it's quite sad they've given over. Will the GOP refer to the Democrats not blocking an up-or-down vote as an endorsement? After all, that notion hurt the Democrats in 2001 and 2002. They were afraid to not give over to public hysteria, and approved some bad legislation that has helped lead us to the war in Iraq. And the vote, of course, is the important detail; that the president delivered them inaccurate information before and after the vote, is incidental to the voting public. And this is, apparently, how Americans wish to be treated. Their opinion of style is more legitimate to politicians than their thoughts about integrity, procedure, or even "America" itself. After all, a tear-jerking, superficial "success story" is all the reason in the world to give to a man who disdains the U.S. Constitution the office of its enforcement. So you tell me: • Hispanic attorney general with a compelling rags-to-riches story • Human rights abuse and torture advocate; opponent of the U.S. Constitution and also international human rights conventions. Which is really more important to his potential future job performance as Attorney General? One wonders at the numbers the Democrats are seeing from the public. On the one hand, they have an obligation to block this vote. To the other, the people seem to hold it against the Democrats that the party is willing to attempt to block grossly-unqualified candidates. Candidates deserve a straight up-or-down vote, says the GOP. But these certainly aren't honest votes. The Democratic bluster does have one mild upshot, though. It creates a record, a backdrop for that most offensive of sayings: "We told you so." And, of course, the people resent that. Is this really the way things go? And yet such haughty apathy is considered a good thing. A Colorado professor has had speaking engagements cancelled because of death threats, and his job threatened for pointing out such apathy and arrogance. Do Americans still wonder why "they" hate "us"? Or are we finished making "their" point for them? ____________________ Notes: Milbank, Dana. "Gonzales Will Not Be Blocked". Washington Post, February 2, 2005; page A04. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54420-2005Feb1.html
the damage done Some examples of the AG's “ruthless legal logic”, that have stained the US; I nominate Mr G to be tried before a War Crimes Tribunal, as the architect of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc... If we play with the wording of the Geneva Accords, then how will we ever be protected?
Uncle Who? Source: Washington Post Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6387-2005Feb7.html Title: "Race Bait And Switch" Date: February 8, 2005 Columnist E. J. Dionne, Jr., indirectly offers a potential answer to the question indirectly set forth by Mr. Navarrette (see topic post). Dionne considers Alberto Gonzales, the impetus for his immediate considerations. "Democrats thought it appropriate to use Gonzales's nomination to launch a debate about torture policy," he writes. "Gonzales is Latino. Therefore, Republicans insisted, Democrats who wanted to debate torture policy were anti-Latino. Recall, perhaps, Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court. Thomas accused his opponents of conducting "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves". Appeals Court nominee Miguel Estrada is painted as a similar victim. Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) looked past the ideological discussion; to oppose Estrada, he said, "would be to shut the door on the American dream of Hispanic Americans everywhere". Sen Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said Estrada's rejection would close the door to any nominee who is "number one, Hispanic, number two, Republican, number three, possibly conservative and, number four, may have some ideas of his or her own". And Bush himself seems to be playing the race card: Dionne asks, "Isn't Bush playing the very "race card" that liberals are perpetually accused of using as a trump?" It's a fair question. • • • Diversity is a marketing gimmick for conservatives. Look at Bush's first term: • Sec. of State Colin Powell, a black man and also the most popular Republican around, generally undercut and countermanded by the administration; left holding the bag when all he wanted to do was his job. • National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, a black woman and also a Bush devotee whose political views, conveniently, suffer very similar lapses of fact as her president's. If such parroting is Rice's qualification, she's unqualified. If such parroting is administration policy, why are her genuine talents being wasted? It seems disrespectful in any consideration of diversity. • Sec. of Education Rod Paige, a black man who fits the Bush shoe well. He crossed the line: paying people to pretend journalistic credibility--remember that Armstrong Williams thought as a businessman and not a journalist, or at least so he says--in order to propagandize; calling teachers terrorists. Come on: if he was merely a showpiece for diversity, that abysmal state of affairs would still be a better shot than putting him out there with the intention that he should be a poor steward of his department. It doesn't speak well of Rod Paige's performance. Such are the problems of narrow examinations: the politics of race are no less cynical than they were thirty years ago. This issue of the new political correctness is an impressive nexus. Several betrayals of asserted political principle come together. Opposition to a minority candidate must necessarily mean opposition to race? Isn't this the very device conservatives have berated liberals over for twenty years and more? Reverse racism? Isn't this something conservatives have accused liberals of for decades? "Judicial activism"? While conservatives disdain the complex workings of the Constitution, their solution is to put forth a candidate who disdains the Constitution in general? It is equivocation. It is exploitatively-intended. It is typical conservative fare despite the twist. What is the difference between seven and fourteen years? Quite a bit if you're living it. Yet this is an old argument in American politics: how long do immigrants live out of the loop? The liberal response has generally prevailed; the double-term of the conservative proposition has made its appearances over the years, but we've come from that argument all the way to altering the Constitution to include immigrants in the presidential pool, but merely for the sake of one candidate. Exploitation? You bet. All the while they complain about elitism, too. Hollywood elite liberals, racist liberals, out-of-touch liberals. And those are fair terms. As long as we throw out both the dictionary and the present context of reality. Typical conservative fare. With a twist. ____________________ Notes: Dionne Jr., E. J. "Race Bait And Switch". Washington Post. February 8, 2005; page A23. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6387-2005Feb7.html
Scalia is as conservative as Thomas but his confirmation sailed through while Thomas got a hi-tech lynching. And he still does. Clarance Thomas, Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, Janice Brown, Miguel Estrada --after a while it becomes clear any Latino or Black who leaves the Democratic plantation is going to get a whipping to let others know what will happen to them if they leave. Democrats are bent on killing their party. Which is okey-doke with me.
Did Scalia have a sexual-harassment accusation hounding him? Why is it that conservatives, so willing to push the politics of personal accountability against Clinton, want to reduce everything to an issue of ethnicity in order to sidestep accountability? It's not liberal "elitism" that compels liberals to believe conservatives are superficial. It's the conservatives voice itself that leaves no room for question. Muhlenberg - Qualification, duty, integrity: do these have any meaning to you?
