Hagan and Landrieu Are In Trouble…But Pryor's Okay?
 |
Morning Jolt April 23, 2014 Hagan and Landrieu Are in Trouble… But Pryor's Okay? This morning, the New York Times drops a poll showing most southern Democratic Senators up for reelection this year in trouble, with one striking exception:
Kind of out of whack compared to other polling so far this year showing a neck-and-neck race. Democrats will undoubtedly begin the victory party, but we'll see if the Times' sample is just an outlier, showing them what they want to see. Elsewhere the Times poll finds:
For what it's worth, you don't see Republicans as worried about McConnell as they were late last year.
So the more important number is Landrieu's 42 percent, nowhere near enough to avoid a runoff at this point and a decent opportunity for Cassidy to put together a majority in the runoff. Progressives' Knee-Jerk Finger-Pointing on Race Spreads to the Supreme Court Now we know: A liberal Supreme Court justice will tell another liberal Supreme Court justice to his face, with the whole country watching her read her dissent from the bench, that he doesn't "understand about the reality of race in America" if she disagrees with his decision. It's been long lamented that there's a particular nastiness to debates about race and racism in America, but it's particularly jarring to see Sonia Sotomayor imply that six of her Supreme Court colleagues — including Bill Clinton's appointee Stephen Breyer! — are oblivious or in denial about such a key topic. To bring you up to speed, the Supreme Court ruled, 6-2, that a lower court did not have the authority to nullify a 2006 referendum — backed by 58 percent of voters — that bars publicly funded colleges from granting "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin." Depending upon your point of view, Sotomayor offered an impassioned dissent and/or went ballistic, accusing her colleagues of ignoring racism:
I actually think there once was a strong and compelling argument for affirmative action for the descendants of slaves, and may still be. A key part of Americans' ability to thrive since our founding is people's ability to build upon the financial, intellectual, and cultural capital that they inherit from their parents. Even if your ancestors came here with nothing, they had a decent opportunity to hand something down to their children — be it land, money, heirlooms, or even just good values. Generation by generation, families built their wealth, or homesteads, or at least a bit of financial security. But for the ninety years or so after the Declaration of Independence, blacks couldn't inherit anything. They couldn't own much of anything. Their families could get split up and sold. Once blacks were recognized as citizens under the law, they were still starting from effectively nothing. Because of their uniquely disadvantaged status for most of the first century of the United States — not mere garden variety discrimination, but a near-absolute legal restriction on accumulating anything to leave to their children — you can make a compelling argument that they need(ed) some sort of leg up, some sort of extra help. The question is… when is that leg up no longer needed? We have an African-American president. An African-American Attorney General. We've had two African-American Secretaries of State. Starting in the 1990s, just about every kid wanted to grow up to be like Mike, millions of women of every hue thought of Oprah as a personal friend, and in the sport of the ultimate symbol of the established white privilege class, the country club, everybody wanted to be like multiethnic Tiger Woods, or at least the pre-scandal edition. Millions of white Americans sought to emulate African-American role models. Are there any ceilings left to be shattered, any barriers left to be broken? I'm sure this will be dismissed as the perspective of just another white guy, but how many barriers to success for African-Americans are still based upon racism, as opposed to other factors? Notice where Sotomayor sees racism in today's America:
Ah, she's referring to "microaggressions," what Dr. Derald Sue, a professor of psychology at Columbia University, characterized as an "everyday slight, putdown, indignity, or invalidation unintentionally directed toward a marginalized group." Do we want the Supreme Court litigating "everyday slights and indignities," particularly if they're unintentional? Look, an unfortunate fact of life is that the world has jerks and clods and those who will insult you, intentionally and unintentionally. (Does the First Amendment protect the freedom to speak everyday slights, putdowns, or invalidations unintentionally directed toward a marginalized group?) Doesn't the fact that we're talking about "microaggressions" suggest that we're dealing with a comparably "micro" problem, requiring a shrinking of the government's tool to address this problem? And as a gentle reminder of perspective… we live in a world where ethnic cleansing, religious targeting, and targeted massacres are still going on in South Sudan, Syria, and other corners of the world. In the big picture, how big a problem is it if a person gets addressed in the wrong language? Don't Tell the Suits, This Is Why You Really Have to Come on the NR Cruise. You've been getting the e-mails urging you to book a cabin on National Review's post-election cruise. If I had to persuade someone that an NR cruise is worth the cost, I'd point out that it is a pretty unique opportunity to not just watch a speech by our guest speakers and editors, but actually interact with them at our dinners, cocktail hours, after-dinner cognac events, etc. You may even find yourself hanging out with the big names on your excursions.* You will probably never get a chance to hang around, talk, and drink with members of U2. You will probably never get a chance for much more than an autograph or a high-five from your favorite professional athletes. But if you're a fan of National Review or any of our prominent guest speakers, on the cruise, you can actually have a leisurely conversation with them. This happens to those of us among the NR crew as well. I've had "I can't believe I'm having this conversation" moments, touring the Tulum Mayan ruins with I mentioned Breitbart, and will never forget my wife and I hanging around with Andrew and his family; a sad fact of life is that you never really know when opportunities for this sort of thing will end. I moderated a panel with the late Tony Blankley. I don't know if we'll see Bernard Lewis, age 97, join us on another cruise. I understand the early NR cruises were full of folks best described as William F. Buckley groupies. Life is short, and sometimes it's worth it to splurge on an opportunity like this. (*You may also see us drinking late at the bars, or groggily stumbling for breakfast because we were drinking late, or you may find Roman Genn urging you to have a drink with him at about 10 a.m.) To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com
National Review, Inc. Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by: |
Comments
Post a Comment