Herman Cain Quotes Talking Points; Not A Serious Candidate! Snags Book Deal!

Could a Black man win the GOP nomination?

We have seen Michele Bachmann being asked questions about her relationship with her husband, Marcus.

We have seen Mitt Romney deal with questions about his religion.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently denied rumors he dislikes George W. Bush.

And yet, despite our penchant for asking candidates personal questions that have little or nothing to do with their ability to do their jobs, everyone is avoiding the most basic question with regard to Herman Cain, which is, "Do you honestly believe a black man could win the GOP nomination?"

You know you were thinking it, and if you weren't you probably were not a very good student of history. Or current events.

To be sure, there are plenty of reasons besides race that are hindering Cain. While his experience as CEO of Godfather's Pizza shores up his assertion that he knows how to create jobs, he has never held political office, which makes one wonder if he can create those jobs in a government arena.

He also has said some rather offensive things about Muslims and gays that may play well in the GOP primary but should make moderate Republicans question his electability in the general election. But given the racial tension seen during the 2008 campaign, it has to make you wonder if some of the people who drew caricatures of Obama with a spear and such are ready to embrace Cain as their own.

I'm not suggesting all Republicans are racists nor am I suggesting all Democrats are colorblind. After all, it was the Democrats who passed Jim Crow laws and a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who issued the executive order known as the Emancipation Proclamation. I believe the constant race card playing of the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are counterproductive and I think most people would be shocked to know that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.

So with all of that, I wonder: How is Cain's campaign playing out in the parts of the country where the GOP is strong and the meaning of the Confederate flag debatable?

This is a country where race still matters -- and this is a month in which the nation saw shocking video of a random black man being beaten and then run over by a group of white teenagers yelling racial epithets.

Certainly Cain has already thought about and to a small degree talked about what it means to be a black Republican running against a Democrat who also happens to be the country's first black president.

If Cain isn't ready to talk in more detail about these topics, then he probably isn't ready to fix any of the country's economic problems, which are closely linked to race as well as class. One glance at who entitlements benefit the most tells us that.

Why the media feels more comfortable asking Bachmann and Sarah Palin if they are going to have a catfight than asking Cain if he believes the country is ready to replace a liberal black man with a conservative one is beyond me.

Talking about race does not make one a racist, just as not talking about race doesn't make it go away. I can respect Cain not wanting to spend a great deal of time talking about the color of his skin, but I can't respect a line of thought that wants to ignore it either. Especially when we know many blacks feel compelled to vote Democrat -- regardless of how they feel about the party's policies-- because the GOP refuses to address its image regarding race.

I suspect one of the reasons why Cain's race is being overlooked is not because he's dealt with it already or that we're a post-racial society, but because few people outside his camp believe he can actually win the nomination -- so what does it matter?

Sure his fifth place finish in the Iowa straw poll was better than expected, but come on, a congressman in his party recently referred to Obama's economic policies as a "tar baby." (The congressman later apologized.) Is this person really going to be behind Cain being the GOP nominee?

I'm not saying race qualifies you for office, but I am saying it can disqualify you in the eyes of many. And for those of you who may be tempted to accuse me of trying to inject race into the conversation, save it. I'm just pointing out the black elephant in the room.

If the mainstream media can openly debate if candidate Obama was black enough for the black community, there is certainly room to openly wonder if Cain is too black for a political party that has struggled to shake its image of being full of racists for the past 50 years, and thus has a hard time attracting black voters.

Does Cain believe he can beat Obama without the support of the black community? With blacks saddled with a 15.9% unemployment rate under Democratic leadership, could Cain win enough trust to debunk former RNC chair Michael Steele's epiphany that blacks "don't have a reason to vote Republican."

To me these are simple, yet important questions the country needs to be asking, because we're not turning this country around without racial minorities having a stronger economic footing than they now have. Someone needs to be able to cut through the racial malaise and talk objectively about facts, problems and solutions because entitlements need to be reformed, businesses like GE need to be paying corporate income taxes and folks who thought they were middle class just found out they are the working poor.

In other words, we have some real problems but we are not going to be able to ask ourselves the difficult questions that could help us fix them if the easy ones like Cain, race and the GOP are too much to handle.



GOP Pres. Candidate Herman Cain Has Book Deal

Herman Cain is the latest presidential contender with a book deal.

The Republican best known as CEO of the Godfather's Pizza chain has an agreement with Threshold Editions for the memoir "Who is Herman Cain?" Threshold, a conservative imprint of Simon & Schuster, announced Tuesday that the book will come out in October.

Most of Cain's competitors, from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, already have books out. An announcement is expected soon for a book by Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.



After two Cain staffers resign, two more leave his Iowa campaign

Mere days after two top staffers resigned from Herman Cain's presidential campaign, two others have also called it quits.

Tina Goff, the Iowa organizational director, confirms to CNN that she left the campaign on Friday. Goff also said that another Iowa staffer - Straw Poll coordinator Kevin Hart - resigned that day. The Cain campaign confirmed both developments.

The Cain campaign downplayed the significance of Goff's title. "She was a junior-level staffer," claimed Communications Director Ellen Carmichael. She said the campaign had not yet hired a director for the state, but that it soon will.

Goff told CNN that the conservative businessman "wasn't willing to make the commitment to Iowa necessary to win the [Ames] straw poll." That contest is seen as an early test of success in Iowa.

Goff added that she was concerned by the amount of money and time the Cain campaign was committing to that straw poll. However, she declined to discuss specifics.

"I didn't want it to go this way," Goff said. "I'm very sad about it."

But Carmichael emphatically denies the notion that Cain was not putting in enough resources to win in Iowa.

Citing upcoming events in Iowa on Sunday, Carmichael said, "Mister Cain will have been to Iowa 22 times. Any insinuation that he is not committed to Iowa is highly false."

The fresh defections follow those of two other Cain staffers who recently resigned. Matt Murphy left as the New Hampshire state director and Jim Zeiler resigned as Cain's regional director.

In comments that echo those of Goff in Iowa, Murphy reportedly said that Cain refused to mount a serious effort in New Hampshire. The Cain campaign denied that assertion.

"As our first report showed last night we've done quite well. We are continuing to come up with our new staff across the country, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina," Carmichael said.

"These are just two people who are not a good fit for our organization."

On Friday, the Cain campaign reports it raised $2.46 million in the second quarter between April and June. Over 27,000 individuals contributed from all 50 states, the campaign said in a statement.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, Daily Kos, Fox News, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Think Progress, Youtube, Google Maps

Don Lemon To Tea Party Politician Rand Paul: "No Talking Points, Just Facts Please!"

Last Weekend CNN Reporter Don Lemon & Tea Party Politician Rand Paul Duked It Out Verbally On National Television During An Interview. Don Boldly Told Rand Paul: "No Political Talking Points! Just The Facts Please!" I Say We Need More Bold People Like Him In The Mainstream Media. Kudos!




CNN's Don Lemon And Rand Paul Clash Over Debt Ceiling

CNN's Don Lemon had a very testy exchange with Sen. Rand Paul about the debt ceiling drama on Saturday night.

As the House and Senate again failed to reach an agreement on how to raise the debt ceiling, Paul appeared on CNN to explain the Tea Party position on the talks. Lemon started off the interview by asking him to chat "without talking points." He also began aggressively trying to get Paul to answer his questions, asking him repeatedly how he had voted on the so-called "Cut, Cap and Balance" bill from the House.

Lemon then wondered whether Paul's insistence on measures like a balanced budget amendment were isolating him.

"The Democrats have made many concessions when it comes to what's going on here, and even the Tea Party position it appears to most people remains rigid," Lemon said. "The question is, have you made your point? And by continuing to go on with this, do you feel like you're overreaching and that you're going to lose the clout?"

Paul started talking about how he didn't want to add any more debt to the country's finances. Lemon cut him off. "Hang on, hang on," he said. "Can we just stick to that--we're going to get to that--"

"Let me finish my thought," Paul said.

"Hold on, please, be respectful here," Lemon responded. "I'm trying to answer your question, you've interrupted my answer," Paul said.

"If you answer the question, I'll give you plenty of time," Lemon said.

The two clashed again when Lemon asked who Paul thinks will be to blame if the U.S. defaults on its debt obligations. Again, Paul didn't answer the question directly, and, again, Lemon pressed him on it. There was yet another contentious back-and-forth when Lemon asked Paul about whether he understood that the public is frustrated with Washington, and Paul started talking about measures he had introduced in the Senate.

"I don't want talking points, with all due respect, I'm asking you, do you feel the public sentiment in Washington?" Lemon asked. "This isn't a talking point, I'm trying to tell you what we did 30 minutes ago in the Senate," Paul shot back.

"I'm not asking you what you did, sir. With all due respect, I'm asking you if you feel how the public feels in Washington," Lemon replied.

Later, Lemon said that he hadn't gone after Paul because he is a conservative. "It's not ideological to ask someone to stick to the question presented," he said. "It's just being respectful of you--the viewer the voter."


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Huffington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Offers Obama 2012 GOP Win-Win Debt Deal! Gov't Shutdown Looms!

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Has Just Offered Pres. Obama A "Baby Steps", Crooked, Lopsided Debt Ceiling Deal.

This Deal Which Stinks To High Heaven Is A No-Brainer, Easy Win-Win For The GOP In 2012.

GOP Leaders Have Drawn A Line In The Sand & Have Basically Pushed Pres. Obama's Back Up Against A Wall With NO Real Good Faith Effort To Avoid A Shutdown.

In Fact They've Been Hoping & Praying For A Complete Gov't Shutdown!

Why?

To Hurt Our Nation's Most Vulnerable Citizens, Eliminate The Black Middle Class & Paralyze Minority Voters Just For The Sake Of Winning In 2012!

How Diabolical!

And Yet Most Of These Republican Leaders Call Themselves "Christians"!!

For Shame!






Mitch McConnell offers non-deal deal

The Washington Post reports that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is pitching a non-deal on the debt ceiling. The proposal is fairly far into the legislative weeds, but it involves having President Obama ask for a request in the debt ceiling, which Republicans would reject. President Obama would veto the rejection, and Republicans would let the veto stand.

Producer Mike Yarvitz forwards this rough verbate of Senator McConnell talking to reporters just now:

[W]e will have available a sort of back-up plan that would operate as follows: I would advocate that we pass legislation giving the President the authority to request of us an increase in the debt ceiling that would take us past the end of his term ... in this legislation, if it were to pass, he would make three separate requests of us.

The first request would be initiated by passing the legislation in the next few weeks. He would send up a request of us to raise the debt ceiling, probably by $700 billion. That would be subject to a resolution of disapproval ... that resolution of disapproval, if passed, would then go to the President. He could sign it or he could veto it. Presumably, he would veto it. If that were the case, that veto would be sustained by one-third plus one in either the House or the Senate.

The legislation would also require him to list spending cuts he would make in the same amount as the debt ceiling request he's making of us. Then there would be a second request in the fall that would follow the same procedure. He would ask us to raise the debt ceiling. I think it's highly likely that both houses would consider and probably pass resolutions of disapproval, which he would veto. And his veto would be sustained by one-third plus one. That would happen one more time in June.

So this is, again, not my first choice. I had hoped all year long that the opportunity presented by his request to raise the debt ceiling would generate a bipartisan agreement that would begin to get our house in order by reducing spending. That may still happen. I still hope it will, but we're certainly not going to send the signal to the markets and the American people that default is an option.

Senate Republicans would be able to pass three separate resolutions of disapproval, the Washington Post reports. They'd also get $2.5 trillion in cuts -- the Biden deal, in essence. And they wouldn't have to take the heat for Social Security checks not going out if the government can't pay its bills. The Republicans would win what's there for them to win. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he's open to considering Mr. McConnell's idea.


View Larger Map

Sources: CBS News, MSNBC, Politico, Rachel Maddow Blog, TPMDC, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Democrats Defend Dems Defend Bob Etheridge's Arrogant, Obnoxious Behavior

Dems Defend Etheridge, Attack Breitbart


Bob Etheridge's abject apology for roughing up an anonymous conservative videographer is being accompanied by a defense of the congressman from national Democrats.

"Motives matter, and I think you can see who was behind this," said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse just now. "This was a Republican party tracking operation. If it wasn't a party tracker or intern, why is the face blurred and why is the source hidden? You know if it had been a right wing blog, they'd identify themselves and they'd be booking this person on TV all day. Republicans know if they admit their involvement in this game of gotcha it will undermine their credibility. One minute this guy is interviewing a member of Congress on camera and the next a video is released with his face blurred out? If that doesn’t tell you this is a Republican Party hatchet job nothing will."

A national Democratic Party official e-mailed around a set of talking points about an hour ago, under the subject heading, "Etheridge Gotcha Video Background."

Democrats are seeking to raise questions about the video, which first appeared on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government, because of what's widely viewed as the media's mishandling of the ACORN story, which emerged without context from edited videos. In particular, party officials say the video was likely taken by a tracker for the Republican Party, which would explain the effort taken to conceal his identity.

The Democrats' talking points:

1. There is always the part of the story that you can’t see in these gotcha style videos — what were these folks doing, how did they approach him, how were the cameraman and/or others off camera acting?

2. Why would any legitimate student doing a project or a journalist shagging a story not identify themselves. Motives matter — what was the motivation here? To incite this very type of reaction?

3. This is clearly the work of the Republican Party and the “interviewer” is clearly a low level staffer or intern. That’s what explains blurring the face of the “interviewer” and refusing to identify the entity this was done for. The Republicans know if they were caught engaging in this type of gotcha tactic it would undermine their own credibility — yet if it was an individual acting on his own there is no reason that person would have blurred themselves out of the video — and if it was the work of a right wing blog they would have their logo on the video and be shouting their involvement from the roof top.

4. This was a purposefully partisan hit job designed to incite a reaction for political reasons — but it is a tactic so low — the parties involved are remaining anonymous.

5. The fact that no one wants to take credit for this should raise real questions in the minds of voters and the press.

6. Push hard w/ blogs the lack of credibility inherent to anything Breitbart does/posts, given its role in the debunked ACORN videos:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21pubed.html?src=twrhttp://mediamatters.org/research/201006010001

http://gawker.com/5508190/okeefe-and-breitbart-acorn-videos-severely-edited

Still. It's pretty hard to think of a context in which Etheridge's assault on the videographer would be acceptable.


View Larger Map


Sources: CBS News, DC Camera Guy, DNC, Biggovernment, Gawker, NY Times, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP vs Obama On Wall Street Reform, "I Dare You!"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama Dares GOP To Fight Wall Street Reform Bill


For weeks, the White House strategy on Financial Regulatory Reform remained an open question: Would President Barack Obama water down his bill just to get something passed — the way he did on health care?

A Palinesque “Hell no!” was the answer coming from the White House on Wednesday as the president, his senior aides and his allies on Capitol Hill issued an ultimatum to Republicans fighting Democrats’ plans to overhaul financial oversight.

“For the president, you have to be willing to accept a strong bill,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, after Obama emerged from a contentious meeting with GOP congressional leaders.

“If the effort to get this close is simply to take steps to weaken that legislation, that’s not what the president is interested in.”

Democrats are so emboldened that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is prepared to bring the Banking Committee bill to the floor with no major concessions to Republicans and essentially dare them to vote against the measure, senior leadership aides said.

At a time when Wall Street is as reviled as government, Democrats are willing to gamble that at least one Republican — and maybe as many as a half-dozen — will break ranks. At the same time, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is betting he can hold his caucus together to deny Democrats even a single vote.

“It’s been two and a half years since this crisis started, more than a year since we first laid out a comprehensive set of reforms,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said during a rare appearance at the White House daily briefing alongside Gibbs.

“I think we know what we need to know. ... It’s just time to decide and time to move,” he added.

The hard-line, limited-compromise approach reflects a belief among Democrats, buoyed by recent polls, that they enjoy huge advantages on regulatory reform that eluded them on health care.

Unless the GOP can succeed in painting the reform effort as a path to new bailouts — and Senate Republicans are trying to do just that — the politics of the issue seem to be almost entirely on the Democrats’ side.

But before they take on the minority, Senate Democrats are trying to smooth over internal conflicts. For weeks, White House officials have been quietly working with Senate leaders, including Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), on the list of amendments liberals plan to introduce when the measure comes to the floor.

The goal, according to several people close to the situation, is to green-light those amendments that force Republicans to take tough votes, while minimizing votes that divide the Democrats’ left and right wings.

In the meantime, McConnell has settled into his accustomed role as spoiler, trying to persuade the 41 members of the Republican conference to stick together in opposition to Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s bill as it is currently written.

McConnell circulated a letter Wednesday that he hoped every Republican would sign, sending the message — as they did during the health care debate — that Republicans are united in opposition. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), a potential swing vote, said he signed the letter, which asked Democrats to reopen negotiations.

“It appears the bipartisan talks have broken down,” McConnell said, after meeting for less than an hour with Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

“The strings were kind of pulled by the Democratic leaders,” said McConnell, who added that Democrats “are trying to jam us” for political gain.

A seething Reid, squinting in the bright sunlight of the West Wing driveway, called McConnell’s claim that Democrats had abandoned talks a “figment of his imagination” and vowed to pass the overhaul quickly.

The standoff defined the parameters for what has turned into a sharply partisan debate as Obama pushes the Senate to deliver another major legislative achievement before Memorial Day. Democrats believe they can make Republicans fold, and Republicans expect to hold firm or risk losing any leverage they have left to change the bill.

“If we can get 41 votes, they’ll have to deal with us,” said Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee.

Three Republicans who have been targeted as potential swing votes — Brown, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg and Maine Sen. Susan Collins — suggested they have no plans, at this point, to provide Democrats the crucial 60th vote.

“Why would we do that when we are not in the room?” Gregg asked.

Shelby and Dodd resumed their negotiations Wednesday night, but both faced increasing pressure from their respective parties to go only so far in compromising.

Earlier in the day, Dodd threatened to end the talks with Republicans if they continued to lead what he called a misinformation campaign based on Wall Street talking points.

“My patience is running out,” Dodd said. “I’ve extended the hand. I’ve written provisions in this bill to accommodate various interests. But I’m not going to continue doing this if all I’m getting the other side is a suggestion somehow that this is a partisan effort.”

Dodd lashed out on the Senate floor as Obama led the tense meeting at the White House with congressional leaders.

Some Democratic senators say the template should be the legislative strategy that led to passage earlier this year of a $15 billion jobs bill. Reid infuriated Republicans by scuttling a bi-partisan compromise, betting that most wouldn’t have voted for it anyway. He pushed forward a narrowly tailored bill that at least a few Republicans decided they couldn’t vote against.





“We have to, on one hand, keep opening ourselves and keep offering our hands to Republicans,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

“But as a prudential matter we also have to be prepared, once again, to have that hand knocked away and to be able to go to a well-crafted Democratic bill — which will frankly be a stronger and better bill than if it is watered down with Republican amendments — and then let the chips fall where they may. I think that has to remain a backup strategy.”

With the public relations damage wrought by GOP talk of “death panels” fresh in Democratic memory, Team Obama launched a coordinated counteroffensive to rebut McConnell’s claim that the bank-financed “risk” fund included in the bill would pave the way for bottomless bank bailouts.

Geithner dismissed the idea that such a fund would lead to a bailout, saying, “Any risks the government takes are going to be borne by large financial institutions.”

Later, an administration official said Geithner has expressed willingness to negotiate with Republicans about the mechanics — but not the basic structure — of such a fund.

While Geithner and White House officials tried to project confidence that a strong, undiluted bill could be passed in weeks, they also cautioned that the toughest and most arcane work remained ahead of them.

Before leaving Wednesday’s briefing, Geithner delivered what he described as an “exhortation,” an unusual request for the press to guard the administration — and the American people — against GOP, lobbyists and banking interests.

“The stuff ahead of us now is derivatives, it’s ‘too big to fail,’ it’s complicated stuff — OK?” he said. “Make sure that you bring the same level of exposure and the spotlight on the choices ahead, because we — I think we all have an interest in resisting the efforts that are going to be made — and they’re going to come still, to weaken, to exempt, to carve people out of those basic protections.”


Sources: C-Span, MSNBC, Whitehouse.gov, Politico, Youtube

Dylan Ratigan Apologizes To Debbie Wasserman...He Was Still Correct!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dylan Ratigan Apologizes For "Very Rude" Debbie Wasserman Schultz Interview


MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan apologized Monday for his "very rude" conduct last week during an interview on health care with a Florida congresswoman.

Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz was explaining Friday on Ratigan's show "Morning Meeting" why she supported health care reform. Ratigan, who said he has "incredible frustration" with the way the bill treated insurance companies, asked her to explain why stocks for insurers were going up.

Schultz said she wasn't a stockbroker, and the answer apparently left Ratigan unsatisfied. He said he would "give her a brief education."

"You could be your own guest," she told him as she tried to get a word in edgewise.

Ratigan eventually waved her off, saying he didn't want her to "come on and do talking points."

On Monday, Ratigan quoted an e-mail from a viewer who said he was "very rude." He agreed with the sentiment and apologized to the congresswoman and viewers.

"Our mission and my mission on this show is to shine the light on what is really happening, whether it's health care, the banks, or a war in the Mideast," he said. "And the way I went about that on Friday was a disservice to our viewers because it got in the way of doing just that."

A message seeking comment was left Monday with Schultz's spokesman.

Ratigan is the former host of CNBC "Fast Money.".

He learned last week that his daily two-hour show, "Morning Meeting," was being cut in half and moved to the afternoon.



View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Morning Meeting, Huffington Post, Google Maps

Dylan Ratigan Blasts Rep. Debbie Wasserman Over Weak Health Care Bill

Morning Meeting Show Host Dylan Ratigan invited Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz to discuss the topic however they both end up in a heated debate, "You can be your own guest" she eventually told Ratigan.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, TPM, Dylan Ratigan's Morning Meeting, The Daily Beast, Google Maps

RNC Accidently Leaks Sotomayor Talking Points To The Media...OOPS!

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room----

Whoops! The Republican National Committee (RNC) has apparently inadvertently released its list of talking points on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Included on the released list were a few hundred influential Republicans who were the intended recipients of the talking points. Unfortunately for the RNC, so were members of the media.

Here are the talking points:

o President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is an important decision that will have an impact on the United States long after his administration.

o Republicans are committed to a fair confirmation process and will reserve judgment until more is known about Judge Sotomayor's legal views, judicial record and qualifications.

o Until we have a full view of the facts and comprehensive understanding of Judge Sotomayor's record, Republicans will avoid partisanship and knee-jerk judgments - which is in stark contrast to how the Democrats responded to the Judge Roberts and Alito nominations.

o To be clear, Republicans do not view this nomination without concern. Judge Sotomayor has received praise and high ratings from liberal special interest groups. Judge Sotomayor has also said that policy is made on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

o Republicans believe that the confirmation process is the most responsible way to learn more about her views on a number of important issues.

o The confirmation process will help Republicans, and all Americans, understand more about judge Sotomayor's thoughts on the importance of the Supreme Court's fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.

o Republicans are the minority party, but our belief that judges should interpret rather than make law is shared by a majority of Americans.

o Republicans look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor's legal views and to determining whether her views reflect the values of mainstream America.


President Obama on Judicial Nominees:

o Liberal ideology, not legal qualification, is likely to guide the president's choice of judicial nominees.

o Obama has said his criterion for nominating judges would be their "heart" and "empathy."

o Obama said he believes Supreme Court justices should understand the Court's role "to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process."

o Obama has declared: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old-and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."


Additional Talking Points:

o Justice Souter's retirement could move the Court to the left and provide a critical fifth vote for:

o Further eroding the rights of the unborn and property owners;

o Imposing a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage;

o Stripping "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and completely secularizing the public square;

o Abolishing the death penalty;

o Judicial micromanagement of the government's war powers.


UPDATE: These points were represented in RNC Chairman Michael Steele's statement on the nomination:

"Republicans look forward to learning more about federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor's thoughts on the importance of the Supreme Court's fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law," he said. "Supreme Court vacancies are rare, which makes Sonia Sotomayor's nomination a perfect opportunity for America to have a thoughtful discussion about the role of the Supreme Court in our daily lives. Republicans will reserve judgment on Sonia Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views."

- Aaron Blake

Sources: The Hill Briefing Room, Huffington Post, Day Life, Reuters