Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hillary: GOP Racist for Opposing Obama on Scalia Replacement

Hillary: GOP Racist for Opposing Obama on Scalia Replacement

Desperate words from a drowning woman.

Just four years ago, the Democrats were calling the GOP the party of old white people. Today, Democrats are running two old white people while the Republican candidates have been extremely diverse.

Despite this new reality, Hillary Clinton is clinging to accusations of racism against Republicans, in this case because there is opposition to letting Obama choose Justice Scalia’s successor.

The Washington Post reports:

Clinton: ‘Racial language,’ ‘bigotry’ part of Republican Supreme Court delay

Days after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in Texas, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has fused two of the most controversial issues of the 2016 campaign — the debate over who should choose Scalia’s successor, and race.

Clinton’s remarks came at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture in Harlem, where she delivered what was billed by her campaign as a major speech on “systemic racism.”

“The Republicans say they’ll reject anyone President Obama nominates no matter how qualified,” Clinton said. “Some are even saying he doesn’t have the right to nominate anyone, as if somehow he’s not the real president.”

Indeed, Republican candidates have frowned on the prospect that Obama would nominate Scalia’s replacement to a divided court less than a year before the end of his administration — though, as the president pointed out Tuesday, the Constitution does not specify such a time limit. This wasn’t just election year elbow-throwing, Clinton said. This was about race.

“You know that’s in keeping what we heard all along, isn’t it?” she continued. “Many Republicans talk in coded racial language about takers and losers. They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe. This kind of hatred and bigotry has no place in our politics or our country.”

Here’s the video:

This is a pathetic accusation. The real reason Hillary said this is because she’s worried about whether or not she can hang onto the black vote now that Bernie Sanders is nipping at her heels.

She’s desperately trying to attach herself to Obama for purely political purposes. If you want four to eight more years of this, you know who your candidate is.

In terms of Obama, who joined the filibuster to block Alito in 2006, he’s sorry now.

USA Today reports:

With the tables turned, Obama now ‘regrets’ his 2006 Alito filibuster

President Obama has come to regret his decade-old filibuster of Justice Samuel Alito, the White House said Wednesday as Senate Republicans threatened to block his nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.

The Alito nomination has become one of many historical footnotes that have taken on new relevance as Obama and the Republican-controlled Senate jockey for high ground in their battle over the election-year Supreme Court nomination. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest called Obama’s decision to join in the filibuster of Alito in 2006 a “symbolic vote” based on specific objections to Alito’s rulings as a lower court judge.

“What the president regrets is that Senate Democrats didn’t focus more on making an effective public case about those substantive objections,” Earnest said. “Instead, some Democrats engaged in a process of throwing sand in the gears of the confirmation process. And that’s an approach that the president regrets.”

Yeah, I bet he does.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Somebody needs to remind Hillary that the race card was worn out years ago. Got used way too often, and usually without justification.

    rabidfox in reply to Rusty Bill. | February 18, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    Yeah, the new narrative is “white privilege”. That’s the new ‘shut-up’ comeback to any criticism of His Blackness.

What a maroon. She’s calling R’s racist when the majority of R primary voters are choosing non-white candidates. When the R’s confirmed Obama’s first SCOTUS pick who was non-white. Yawn.

    Ragspierre in reply to Paul. | February 18, 2016 at 8:57 am

    She wasn’t just “non-white”…she was overtly racist herself.

    It was a terrible day, akin to approving David Duke to the highest court for life. Imagine that, after he had declared that the nation would benefit from the unique jurisprudence of a wise white man!

This may play well with a few AA voters still enjoying being the victims of whitey. For any rational people – doubtful. The race card has about been played out. You can understand her dilemma though, the sexist card just isn’t working all that well.

    Wish someone could explain to me (and others)why any black or other minority would vote for her. What is it about Hill’s love and respect for Margaret Sanger that they don’t understand?

The Friendly Grizzly | February 18, 2016 at 9:00 am

When I hear someone resort to cries of “racist!” I hear “I lost the argument!” or, “I haven’t a leg to stand on!”

The fact we’re hearing about this means it’s still a serious issue for the media, who will obligingly try to shame the GOP into nominating another Supreme ASAP. Why do they think this tactic will work? Because it always has in the past.

I think it’s time for the Republicans to start making jokes about this.

What party was looking lily-white at its last convention?

By contrast, what party right now has 1) the only black US Senator, 2) a cluster of outstanding, successful minority governors? 3) an even larger group of governors who have buffered their states from the current economic conditions, and thereby helped minorities?

Under what recent administration did minority thrive, even after what was intended to be a crippling economic blow?

What administration had policies that have extinguished the black middle class, not to mention impoverishing a chunk of the rest of us?

Although the Democrats call them racists and terrorists, what insurgent party has made rock stars of economically conservative black politicians and commenters?

What party actually judges people on the content of their character?

The Democratic Party of the United States of America at the national level: our last holdout of institutional racism.

    Radegunda in reply to Valerie. | February 18, 2016 at 11:06 am

    Judging people on the content of their character is now officially racist. I think “character” is probably just a code word for white privilege.

      Milwaukee in reply to Radegunda. | February 18, 2016 at 1:57 pm

      The fact that you would even bring this up tells me that you have White-privilege in spades. Thus you must be part of the White-oppressive=regime, keeping the man down. How do you sleep with yourself? Didn’t you hear that “character” is a part of the White-Christian oppression routine? Next are your going to support virtues and morals? (Good Idea. Support Away.)

      I am appalled. “This is outrageous. I shall report it to the Angriff.”

      At this point, _everything_ is a code word for white privilege.

The GOP always talks a good game before it surrenders.

You can always count on Orrin Hatch to surrender on judges. He always falls for the same game: float him three names that are 100% bad, so that he’ll eventually approve the nominee who is only 99.5% bad.

Expect the Republicans to approve a liberal extremist judge who once wrote a pro crony corporate opinion, or an extreme liberal who has tried to subvert originalism, instead of merely ignoring original intent.

Obama could have appointed a black Hispanic transgendered woman but went “wise latina” instead. So blame Obama.

Let’s remember Alinsky tactic #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

Not to mention that turnabout is fair play.

The alleged “Constitutional Scholar” portrays the Constitution wrongly once more. But then again, Mr “Pen and Cell Phone” ignores the Constitution and the Rule of Law whenever it gets in his way.

“White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest called Obama’s decision to join in the filibuster of Alito in 2006 a “symbolic vote” based on specific objections to Alito’s rulings as a lower court judge.”

Republicans objecting for the same reason are somehow racist for doing so. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    Radegunda in reply to phdwyphe. | February 18, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Was that before or after he said that Obama is now sorry he did it and that he now wisely understands that “he should have followed his own advice”?

You don’t get more vile and disgusting than a dying, pathetic, corrupt, incompetent opportunist like the scummy Hillary Clinton – who is a proven ant-Semite, to boot.

If a person was laying on the ground after being hit by a car and Hillary Clinton bent down to comfort them, they’d later find out their wallet was gone.

After years of denigrating individual dignity, debasing human life, establishing selective exclusion, anti-native policies, progressive wars, and whatever Planned Parenthood is doing, the only response this deserves is: I know you are, but what am I?

Class diversity. Perhaps it has a different meaning when heard from the dark fringes of a penumbra.

Hillary called GOP racist. Must be Thursday.

I don’t feel noways too tired to see hitlery spend the rest of her days in prison.

arf arf

Hillary Clinton, representing the party of Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Jefferson Davis, Strom Thurmond, Russel Long, Hale Boggs, John Sparkman, Harry Byrd, and the list goes on.

And Republicans are racist? Speaking in “code”?

Oh, GMAFB!

Sheesh!

Sticks and stones may break my bones.
But your opinion slips my attention.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend