Lanny Davis Dumb Again

6:40 pm EST May 28th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 16 Comments

Remember Lanny Davis? He was the “Democrat” you could regularly count on during the Democratic primaries to say something amazingly stupid in defense of then-Senator Clinton. Well, Lanny’s back again, fretting over conservative nonsense on Judge Sotomayor’s controversy-free statement about bringing her background to the table in helping to make her decisions.

“She misspoke,” said Lanny Davis, a White House lawyer and spokesman for President Bill Clinton. “Every day that goes by that they don’t say she misspoke and she used the wrong words … they just feed it and give it life and give Rush [Limbaugh] and [Sean] Hannity more airtime unnecessarily.”

What Lanny, and also Chris Lehane who is also quoted in the piece, just doesn’t get is that the era of the Democratic party that jumped when the increasingly irrelevant noise machine says “jump” is over – it died in the wreckage of the Kerry and Clinton campaigns. Davis, and a few straggling liberals think that what is said on Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and talk radio actually matters to non-insane people.

It doesn’t.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

16 Responses to “Lanny Davis Dumb Again”

  1. Buzz Tok says:
    May 28, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    How could Sonia Sotomayor not bring her background to the table. If Justices are not supposed to bring their backgrounds to the table and have opinions, then we should just get robots to adjudicate.

  2. Dkelsmith says:
    May 28, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    Oliver,

    I agree that jumping to the side of people saying, “she misspoke” to ‘idiots’ is futile. You make yourself look bad. However, even though I would not have said what she said had I been in her shoes, the entirety of her 7 year old statement is not as bad as “Newt” would like us to think it is.

    ——-
    Attached is a cut and paste:
    ——-
    In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment. Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

    ——————
    End cut and paste.
    ——————

    I think this is evident. I don’t believe that a woman is more able or apt to make a good decision about abortion simply because she is a woman. I think that whole deal transcends gender, I personally am not for it, however I do not want to have a Sarah Palin stance on it. The reason being is because of the danger that would go in were it outlawed. I want to make the options against abortion more attractive.

  3. Lonya says:
    May 28, 2009 at 11:08 pm

    Lanny Davis is a whore and a lawyer . . . but I repeat myself.

    And rest assuered this is not about Sotomayor’s statement but Lanny the Shill’s oblique swat at Obama. He has not yet come to grips with his ongoing irrelevance to the party (and as a result the nabobs of the MSM) and is desparately trying to get some face time by playing the nay-saying Dem card.

    There’s no need to show weakness. No – take similar comments by Scalia and tell them to STFU. The reason why the Tory chattering classes are nattering with shuch visceral shrillness is because no one is listenting to them. And no one is listening to Lanny either.

  4. jr says:
    May 29, 2009 at 8:01 am

    Lanny Davis hearts being the apple of Sean Hannity’s eye

  5. william says:
    May 29, 2009 at 11:33 am

    It will be fun watching the race hustlers try to explain away Sotomayor’s membership in the hate group La Raza.

  6. lonya says:
    May 29, 2009 at 11:43 am

    Almost as much fun as your trying to explain her dissent in Pappas v. Giuliani. Try it.

  7. yo mama says:
    May 29, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    After thinking for a bit, I will enjoy this Sotomayor debacle. She can even be used to split the dems up a bit. Although minority liberals are ok with racism against whites, there are quite a few white dems t hat aren’t at all. I say confirm her, but bring this issue to the forefront. Pound it mercilessly and use it to smear Obama too. Let everyone know what this racist woman is all about. She can be the gift that keeps on giving, kind of like Pelosi, Dodd, Burris, Blago, Geithner….etc…..

    Culture of corruption.

    This is going to be fun.

  8. August J. Pollak says:
    May 29, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    Yeah, I’ve been enjoying watching right-wingers spiral down the drain too.

  9. News Reference says:
    May 29, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    “yo mama”, a right wing traitor who brags about not paying his taxes during our time of wars,, decides to take the Limbaugh-Gingrich approach to voter alienation.

    Not content to alienate women by attacking a smart, hard working woman raised by single mother who has managed to distinguish herself through hard work and rigorous education, the Limbaugh-Gingrich-”yo-mama” triad of offensive thuggery has decided to also alienate the growing Hispanic voter block by denigrating a Hispanic who graduated with the highest distinction from Princeton, distinguished themselves by being an editor of the Yale Law Journal, and has spent a lifetime building a career that rivals, if not beats, anything any of the right wing Supreme Court Justices had before becoming Supreme Court Justices.

    Instead of giving a respectful consideration of her careful words, the Limbaugh+Gingrich+”yo-mama” triad of racism+vulgarity+treason have decided to warp and mischaracterize the actual words the nominee said.

    It’s really all the right wing has these days.

    The right wing doesn’t have logic so it has to feed on emotions like fear and hate.

    The right wing doesn’t have courtesy so vicious serpents like Limbaugh and Gingrich float to the top, bloated from their venom.

    And here is the traitorous “yo mama” knowingly spewing falsehoods Limbaugh-Gingrich style in hopes of picking a fight.

    Well, we’ll see how that works for them in 2010 and 2012.

    Certainly I’ll be there to remind women and Hispanics of the right wing’s misogyny and racism towards a completely qualified applicant.

    And right wingers like “yo mama” can complain to their bigoted KKK buddies like Republican Senator Jeff Sessions how the Democratic Party had the temerity to nominate a qualified Hispanic woman.

  10. Duros62 says:
    May 29, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    Lanny Davis is hoping to get that chair next to Dick Morris on Fox instead of Carville.

    I say confirm her, but bring this issue to the forefront. Pound it mercilessly and use it to smear Obama too. Let everyone know what this racist woman is all about

    You know she really didn’t say what you think she said, don’t you? But yes, by all means make a big deal about it. There’s no WAY it won’t alienate 2 major voting blocs that the GOP can’t afford to lose.

  11. lonya says:
    May 29, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    “Although minority liberals are ok with racism against whites . . .”

    So Yo Momma . . . was she racist against whites in Pappas v. Giuliani?
    I’m sure you are familiar with her dissent there, aren’t you? You aren’t? Oh, never mind then.

  12. Dkelsmith says:
    May 29, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    @ William,

    I googled La Raza and here is what I found.

    “The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is a non-profit and non-partisan advocacy group in the United States. It is not to be confused with La Raza Unida. Its stated focus is on reducing poverty and discrimination, and improving opportunities for Hispanics. According to the organization’s website, it is “the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States” and “serves all Hispanic subgroups in all regions of the country”. NCLR receives funding from philanthropic organizations, such as the Ford Foundation, and corporations such as Citigroup and Wal-Mart. NCLR serves its constituency by means of its Affiliates, nearly 300 community-based organizations. The NCLR is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and maintains eight regional offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. The current president is Janet Murguía.[1]”

    It has been called, “racist” by American Patrol, which, by the way is listed as a hate group by the SPLC. The worst charge by a credible person I could find was when Charlie Norwood said that the group was “exclusionary” in its approach to civil rights.

    Last year the NCLR CEO had this to say,
    Janet Murguía stated: “First, as a sovereign nation, the United States has the right to determine who comes and who stays. . . [It also] has a right to consider enforcement at a variety of levels, including border enforcement, interior enforcement, and workplace enforcement. . . We support enforcement…[because] as Americans, we recognize it’s the right thing to do.”[14]

  13. Quaker in a Basement says:
    May 29, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    It will be fun watching the race hustlers try to explain away Sotomayor’s membership in the hate group La Raza.

    I call, Willie. What makes La Raza a “hate group?”

  14. News Reference says:
    May 29, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    The Pappas v. Giuliani case was about some racist police officer, Thomas Pappas, who was anonymously mailing out racist literature against blacks and Jews from his house.

    It got him fired. (I’m pretty sure Thomas Pappas is a white guy).

    Judge Sotomayor ruled that because it was done on his own time and at home it shouldn’t get him fired.

    She was in the minority.

    She stuck up for the free speech of a white male racist.

    “Hilzoy” does an excellent job writing about the Pappas v. Giuliani case.

    See also: http://google.com/search?q=Pappas+v.+Giuliani

  15. Matt Osborne says:
    May 29, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    Why is anyone listening to Lanny Davis again?

  16. Ref says:
    May 29, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    It’s asshats like Davis that made me stop describing myself as a “liberal” and start using the term “leftist.”