All Minorities Are Unworthy

Conservative parody really is much too difficult these days, as they're such over-the-top parodies of themselves that you can't successfully parody them without going too far.  And that's why I moved into doing a sort of reverse-parody at the American Nihilist website, which takes things a step further by pretending to be the evil liberal strawman that conservatives keep attacking.  But it's obvious that even that isn't enough anymore; as the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor has made them completely bonkers.

And so yet again I see that what I wrote in my nihilist award to Sotomayor is being used by actual conservatives.  In that post, I insisted that Sotomayor's great success is a sign of how powerful Affirmative Action is, with the idea being that a non-white could never be successful otherwise.  And sure enough, Fred Barnes is outright making the case that even her Summa Cum Laude from Yale was meaningless.

BARNES: I think you can make the case that she's one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.
[....]
BARNES: I guess it is, but you know, there's some schools and maybe Princeton's not one of them, where if you don't get Summa Cum Laude then or some kind of Cum Laude, you then, you're a D+ student.

Really??  There are places that give top honors to C students?  That's nonsense.  Hell, I graduated Summa at a school far less prestigious than Princeton, and still think it was a big f-ing deal.  And Barnes' Wiki doesn't mention that he graduated with honors from the University of Virgina; so should it be assumed he was a D+ student?

And geez, she was Valedictorian at her high school, won a very prestigious award for her grades at Princeton, and got into Yale Law.  And yet still Barnes has questions about her intelligence.  And sure, maybe he didn't know this stuff.  But you'd think he would have had time to learn more by now, particularly if he's going to be speaking publicly about her.  

But of course, knowledge is a detriment to conservatives and to learn more about Sotomayor would prevent them from making the attacks they're making.  All they care about is knowing enough to be dangerous.  Anything more would only undermine their case.

Affirmative Action Works

And the funny thing is that Sotomayor's story should be considered a good thing for conservatives.  They insist that people can rise up out of poverty and be successful without the help of Affirmative Action, which is why they think it's not necessary.  And one reason they rail against Affirmative Action is that it puts people in schools they can't compete in.  Yet Sotomayor's success at Princeton can't be in doubt, which is why they should insist that she's not an Affirmative Action success story.  

Yet, they can't do that, because they want her stopped.  And so instead, they're actually touting the success of Affirmative Action, in a situation in which it probably didn't apply.  And there can be no doubt that, were Sotomayor a conservative, they'd be completely hyping her success and insisting that Affirmative Action wasn't required.  It's only because they're looking for an excuse to oppose her that they're actually betraying one of their key issues; just to oppose a nominee they are idiots for opposing.

And that's one of the weirdest thing about conservatives: They get so caught-up in the needs of the moment, they completely lose sight of their long-term goals.  But of course, their long-term goal is really just to win every battle and to stuff Democrats as much as they can.  And that leads them to do totally stupid things, like opposing Sotomayor.  And so yet again, they pass up the opportunity to earn some good-faith points in order to go ballistic on an issue they most surely will lose. And until that changes, they won't have much of a chance to become relevant again.