More From The DOD (Department Of Dumb)

According to George Lopez, the Dumbos are gonna pay — big time — for their 31 votes against the confirmation of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In his one-man show in San Antonio last weekend, Lopez was snarling at John Cornball and Kay Bailey Cheerleader, the two U.S. Senators from Texas. Cornball couldn't get past the "wise Latina" references and Cheerleader voted against Sotomayor because the "wise Latina" was opposed by the National Rifle Association. Lopez snarled that the Texas Dumbos were gonna pay in 2010. This blogger is going to hang around and see what happens to the Dumbos in the blowback from the Sotomayor confirmation. If this is (fair & balanced) anticipation, so be it.

[x San Diego Fishwrap]
It Took The GOP Just 31 Petty Votes To Lose A Constituency
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Tag Cloud of the following article

activist afraid anyone case changing coming constituency court decades democrats demographics fact floor george given gop hispanics insult john judicial justice latina latino lopez lose mccain nomination obama opponents petty praise pull republicans responsibility rhetoric samuel sen senators sotomayor speeches stand states supreme think used voted voters watch white year

created at TagCrowd.com

During his recent HBO special, "Tall, Dark and Chicano," comedian George Lopez tore a hole in the Big Tent. Incensed that 31 Senate Republicans had voted against Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, Lopez informed the GOP that it would never again get the votes of Latinos. In fact, he said, given changing demographics, Republicans might as well get used to losing in the years to come because "you won't win a ... pie-eating contest."

That's harsh, but fair. Republicans know not what they did. They're only fooling themselves if they think they won't pay a price for their petty opposition to the nation's first Latina justice.

Remember when Republicans used to say that people should take responsibility for their actions? Never mind. They didn't mean it. Not when it comes to Senate Republicans trying to dodge responsibility for voting against Sotomayor. They might be able to stand behind their votes if they weren't afraid that they were standing on quicksand. They're terrified that Hispanics will be sore winners and take retribution at the ballot box — starting in 2010 and possibly lasting for decades.

In fact, Republicans are so desperate to avoid incurring the wrath of one of the fastest-growing parts of the electorate that they've pulled a page from the Democrats' playbook. The left is always trying to camouflage its true agenda with flowery rhetoric. Liberals talk about increasing Latino representation

on the federal bench but then torpedo a highly qualified Latino Republican such as Miguel Estrada, President George W. Bush's choice for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. With the left, forget what they say and watch what they do.

It's the same thing with the Republican senators who voted against Sotomayor. They say all the right things, before proceeding to do the wrong thing. Many of them went to great lengths to praise the nominee's qualifications, then voted against her because, they said, they were concerned about her speeches or afraid that she was a judicial activist.

The critics need new material. You'd think the senators had never given a speech they wish they could take back. Sotomayor isn't a judicial activist, as anyone who watched the confirmation hearings knows. But what if she were? She'd fit right in with her new colleagues on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy flexed their judicial activism in the New Haven firefighters case and in earlier cases involving the expansion of executive power.

Here's the real reason those Republicans opposed Sotomayor. They were catering to the white males who are still in the party and now account for most of its base. Those voters were miffed by the "wise Latina," and they're not about to vote for anyone who backed her. It's also interesting that many of the senators who voted "no" come from states with large Hispanic populations, such as Arizona and Texas. You would think that they might worry about a backlash from Hispanic voters. But, it is also in those states that white voters are especially nervous about what they see as racially antagonistic rhetoric from Hispanics, who are coming to greater prominence because of changing demographics.

At the same time, by singing Sotomayor's praises, Republicans must think that they covered their tracks. If they ever have to explain themselves, they can pull out a copy of their floor speeches and hope that no one bothers to look at how they actually voted.

First, the Republicans insult Sotomayor, as when Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma mistook the judge for Lucille Ball, telling her that she "had lots of 'splaining to do." And now they're insulting the intelligence of 48 million Latinos in the United States.

Christmas may be coming early for Democrats. After several generations of taking Hispanics for granted and offering little more than mariachis and salsa, how did Democrats get so lucky as to draw opponents who are so skilled at absolutely repelling this constituency?

Perhaps the biggest disappointment to many of us who like to believe in kinder, gentler Republicans is that Sotomayor's opponents included none other than Sen. John McCain. During last year's presidential campaign, McCain's record of serving the Latino community far surpassed that of Barack Obama. Now, thanks to a historic nomination to the Supreme Court, and how badly McCain and his fellow Republicans bungled it, I'd say that Obama is all caught up. Ω

[Ruben Navarrette Jr. graduated from Harvard in 1990 and returned to his native Fresno, CA, where he began a free-lance writing career that produced more than 200 articles in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, The Fresno Bee, and the Chicago Tribune. In 1997 he joined the staff of The Arizona Republic, first as a reporter and then as a twice-weekly columnist, before returning to Harvard in the fall of 1999 to earn a master's in public administration from the Kennedy School of Government. He joined the editorial board of The Dallas Morning News in July 2000, and in 2005, moved to the San Diego Union-Tribune. His column has been in syndication since 2001.]

Copyright © 2009 The Washington Post Writers Group

Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.

Copyright © 2009 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves