President Obama is Using the "Do as I Say, Not as I Do" Routine

Here we go again. Another case of "do as I say, not as I do" routine. President Obama and the liberals want the Republicans to rush his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor into the Supreme Court position vacated by David Souter. It has to be done before October, as the Obama administration claims.

What is the rush and why should the Republicans confirm someone who has made some outlandish statements? Statements about race and her judicial philosophies should be taken seriously and put under the Hubble Telescope. Remember what happens when our Senators rush into things without reading? (see Obama's Economic Un-Recovery Plan)

President Obama wants the process to go smoothly stating "we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this (Supreme Court nomination) process, and Congress, in the past." That is his "do as I say, not as I do" moment. Get ready to laugh.

When President Obama was Senator Obama, he was one of those politicians who tried to use posturing and ideological brinkmanship that bogged down Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination. Shocker huh? Not really. President Obama is a very well versed flip-flopper. This is just another example.

Besides being the first black President in U.S. history, Barack Obama is the first President that tried to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. Does he have short term memory loss? Or maybe he wished the Republicans do?

Flashback to January of 2006. Senator Obama, along with the liberal flip-flopper John Kerry and plagiarist Joe Biden, joined 21 other Democrats in a weak attempt to filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination. He explained the attempted filibuster to George Stephanopulos by saying "I "be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know.

Senator Obama continued, "When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly."

"I think that the Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," These last-minute efforts using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway, I think, has been the wrong way of going about it, and we need to recognize because Judge Alito will be confirmed that if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake and frankly I'm not sure that we've successfully done that."

He added that "there is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers and mechanisms to block the president instead of proactively going out to the American people and talking about the values that we care about. And, you know, there's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values and that's to win elections."

Nothing in that long winded explanation told anyone why he wanted to use the filibuster. As usual, just a windbag using a lot of words that amount to nothing. There is nothing in the conversation about Samuel Alito's judicial judgment or philosophies.

So, he now wants the Republicans to do the opposite of what he did to Alito? If anything deserves a filibuster it is the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Her judicial philosophies have been caught on tape, thankfully, and the racist comment she made are reason enough to filibuster her nomination. So, what happened after the Obama press conference?

All the Dems rushed out to grab the spotlight on MSNBC and all the other liberal "news" media outlets to tell the nation what a great personal story Sotomayor has. We all know, she had a rough life and diabetes to top it off. That was the entire talking point since this nomination was announced.

Then it was time to attack the Republicans who were already asking questions about racial comments that were aimed at white male judges and the videotaped comments she stated at Duke University. Next came the spin from the liberals.

She meant to say this. She meant to say that. What she really meant was this. Did I tell you she comes from a poor family who immigrated from Puerto Rico? She also graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University.

All this information is fine and dandy but the heart of the controversy is her statements. She must explain them in front of the Senate and I for one, hope they grill her. Not just put her under a microscope but the biggest one we have. The Hubble Space Telescope should do the job.

You know it is getting serious when Obama had to come out and claim that she could have used better wording. Not only that but the liberals are trying to paint Sotomayor as a moderate by claiming that she sided with her Republican bench mates 95% of the time...hmmm.

If that is the case, why are we not hearing the cries from the left wingers? Why would the most liberal ex-Senator, who is now President, nominate someone like Sonia Sotomayor? I will tell you why....

Its a TRAP. Remember his statement to George Stephanopulos? Obama said this at the end of his statement: "And, you know, there's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values and that's to win elections."

President Obama is doing this to help Dems win future elections. PERIOD. Plain and simple. He is using political posturing and ideological brinksmanship to the tenth power.

Senator Chuck Schumer came out and said if the Republicans oppose Sonia Sotomayor, they do so at "their own peril." He went on to say "I think the confirmation process will be more of a test of the Republican Party than it is of Judge Sotomayor."

Schumer continue to tell reporters "Its a test for the Republican Party because she is a mainstream justice...Why would they oppose her? There's no really good reason." Really Mr. Schumer? No good reason? I have heard of at least two good reasons so far.

What President Obama and the Dems are hoping is to paint the Republican Party as a group of racists attacking a poor minority from Puerto Rico. By doing so, they believe that the Hispanic population, who are generally conservative, will run from the Republican Party into their liberal arms. Its the Democrats who love to play class warfare. This is just another example.

Identity Politics at its best. We all have played the game "if the shoe were on the other foot" and know that had those comments been made by a white male Republican, all liberals would have been out, in even more force, screaming KKK. However, it was said by a "wise Latina woman" who happens to have a "D" next to her name, so no harm, no foul?

I would like to ask President Obama and his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, why can't this "wise Latina woman" be wise enough to come out and explain what she meant by her statements? This will surely be one of the best questions asked when Sotomayor testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The answers will come from the bipartisan questionnaire, released by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala). Pay particular attention to Question #12 Published Writings and Public Statements, part (c) and (d). Finally, we will get to hear from the source why these comments were made. Here is the link to the questionnaire: http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200905/052709b.html

The Republicans really can't do much to derail this confirmation. What they can do is ask specific questions and see if they can get true answers. Not packaged answers Judge Sotomayor will give to save face in order to obtain the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Republicans should call her out on her statements without fear from liberals of being labeled racists for going after this "poor, diabetes-stricken, wise Latina woman." The time to be politically correct is at an end in America.

As Newt Gingrich says "White man racist would be forced to withdrawl...Latina woman racist should also withdrawl." NEW RACISM IS NO BETTER THAN OLD RACISM. That is a simple FACT.