On Sotomayor, Conservative Media “Echo Chamber” Hampers GOP

So the conservative pundits are walking back their overheated attacks on Judge Sotomayor, from Newt Gingrich eating his tweets to Rush Limbaugh announcing he may even back her nomination. But all the theatrics are obscuring a larger problem for the GOP: The fabled conservative media echo chamber, it turns out, is too successful.

For years, independent experts and strategists in both parties all agreed that conservative media was a crucial part of the Republican Party's resurgence. Talk radio mobilized the base, with Rush Limbaugh wielding influence that rivaled most GOP senators. Fox News framed national debates and turned party talking points into conventional wisdom. It worked so well, Democrats pined for their own echo chamber, plowing money into think tanks and political media efforts to imitate the GOP model. The message machine that helped put Republicans in power, however, now looks like an albatross for the opposition party.

Let's take a step back. There has not been a single hearing on Sotomayor's nomination, but Senate Republicans are already playing defense over the party's response to the nomination. But who speaks for the Republican Party? As every politico knows, the GOP's Supreme Court vision was hijacked by Limbaugh and Gingrich, two of the most visible pundits atop the conservative media machine. While the Republicans who wield actual power in this process - U.S. Senators and especially judiciary committee members – have to angle for a single TV appearance, Gingrich holds court with his paid platform on Fox. (Rush also dropped by there Wednesday). Gingrich amplifies his views with an online regiment that is downright millennial in its scope -- including "Second Life." His instantly infamous "Latina woman racist" tweet dominated several news cycles, and his blog post recanting it topped all online political news Wednesday, (according to the news aggregator Memeorandum). And now Limbaugh is backtracking as only he can, volunteering that he might support Sotomayor after all -- but he still thinks she is a racist. Apparently racism is not a disqualifying judicial quality for him.

All the fireworks, of course, are good for buzz and ratings. They were also good for keeping opponents off balance, for a time, when the conservative media's adjoining political party controlled government. The incentives for niche political programming, however, run counter to the needs of a political party trying to crawl from 40 Senate seats to a winning national coalition.

Republican officials are learning that in the minority, their echo chamber still works, but it's working against them.

Photo: Gingrich meets with President Obama and Rev. Sharpton in the Oval Office in May.

Credit: White House Flickr Feed.

Comments (38)

1. "Democrats pined for their own echo chamber???"

   Ahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

   Ari, you should write for Conan! That's good stuff. Thanks for the chuckle. Really.

   Posted by freiheit1 at 06/04/2009 @ 9:27pm

2. RE: Good Speech

   Well, he talks the talk but could he or is he willing to deliver? The muslims are shrewd they want action not propaganda, neither Iranian nor American.

   -----------

   Middle East Muslims Like Obama's Words but Want to See Action There was plenty of enthusiasm across the Muslim world for President Barack Obama's Cairo speech Thursday, although much of it was tempered by a withholding of judgment until talk of change is translated into action. And there were mixed feelings about whether policy changes would be forthcoming and on Arab and Muslim responsibility to help bring it about.

   Posted by HelenDAO at 06/04/2009 @ 9:27pm

3. Yep, we need to be "walking back" to Sotomayor's senior year at Princeton where her thesis advocated for Puerto Rican independence at a time when less than 1% of PRs were nationalists.....now, she's wiling to sell out her idealism of youth to sit on the SC of imperial America, as a Racist, no less!

   Whatever happens, happens.....but she could command all sorts of nics if she's "in":

   the Empathy Justice,

   the Racist Justice,

   the Latina Justice,

   the Ugly Justice,

   the Better-than-White Justice,

   the Rich-Background Justice,

   the Puerto Rican Justice,

   the Newyorkican Justice,

   the Anti-Ricci Justice,

   the No-Empathy-to-White Justice,

   the First Hispanic-but-not-Really Justice,

   the 60%(or more)-Overturned-by-SC Justice,

   the Heavy Chip-on-Shoulder Justice,...

   Kinda fun, hahahaha!!

   Posted by Happy at 06/04/2009 @ 10:19pm

4. The sad thing is, that the WSJ seems to be one of the biggest proponents of this justice candidate. They like her apparently pro-business, center-right, Republican Lite outlook. Smart figures involved with the "conservative" universe realize that they could have actually been faced with a liberal justice candidate, but instead, they can have a figure more agreeable on the issues that really matter.

   If only this candidate hadn't been pitched to the Democratic Party base purely in a context of identity politics, there could have been some consideration of what she might actually do if confirmed.

   Posted by syfriendly at 06/04/2009 @ 10:44pm

5. Posted by syfriendly at 06/04/2009 @ 10:44pm

   You could be right......she could burn both the Right and the Left.....and she would make the 6th Catholic SC Justice.....I find that shocking.....not that she, a Hispanic/Puerto Rican is one, but that they so dominate our SC! I almost prefer she believes in Allah and wears a hijab!

   Posted by Happy at 06/04/2009 @ 11:17pm

6. Sotomayor is racially "biased" and her decision on the firefighters fully supports the "New Racism" of leftist called reverse discrimination and quotas!

   That much is at least clear as is her 60% ratio of REVERSAL by the SCOTUS to date!

   Obamanation that makes desolation will get his nominee approved even if it is over white citizens "dead bodies" and further divides the nation which he is most efficient in doing! We wil live to regret his choice.

   Posted by BigPasture at 06/05/2009 @ 01:04am

7. Speaking of "echo chambers";

   Why don't you mention that the quoted 2001 speech has been a repetitious thing coming out of Sotomayors mouth from numerous speeches dated from 1994 to 2003 which was only the LAST time we have the same words of 2001 were coming out of her mouth??? Can you say "habitual" offender

   Posted by BigPasture at 06/05/2009 @ 01:24am

8. The GOP are increasingly driven into the fringe, because of an over-reliance for too long on the Nixonian southern strategy which is racist based by definition. The GOP has long since driven out the non-panderers to racism, so the party knows little else, except what it's fed by lobbyists on issues key to their Owners that can't be driven by racist appeals, e.g. banking regs.

   Posted by sloper at 06/05/2009 @ 03:33am

9. Would becoming enlightened 'self-actualized' new con repub blood sucking ticks actually make them all that much better to live with or just make 'them' feel better about coming to terms that they indeed do truly 'suck'?

   Posted by hsuBfools at 06/05/2009 @ 05:50am

10. @Happy - Do you find it equally as shocking that the Supreme Court is even more dominated by men? 8 of 9 is more than 6 of 9. Or that 7 of 9 were appointed by Republicans? Or that 6 of 9 are aged 65+? We could go on all day looking at all the different ways this group is not representative of the U.S. population.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2009 @ 08:01am

11. The overwhelming non-Catholic majority of Americans are silently submitting definition of their citizenship to a non-native philosophy of law. Since politics and the media of mass communication have converted the Pope's congregation into a voting bloc, social tensions may be expected to arise at the interface. Issues such as: stem cell research, abortion, vouchers; punishment for religious torture defilement of Arab males, gay marriage, retroactively defined criminal behavior (reversal of the will of the people expressed in the '06 vote, by the "surge") -- full discussion of these and other topics link to uses of "father"."god", "soul", "life," "citizen" as terms of self reference entitled to individuals by the constitution.

    The prospect of active, impartial, non-egocentric application of U.S. law to these issues is not merely compromised, it is contradicted by the Catholic majority. On any issue involving the meanings of these terms, such as "when human life begins", the 3 member minority could only align with one Catholic faction or another, effectively mooting all positions not framed in terms of Roman Catholic philosophy of law.

    Unchallenged control of ANY government process by a shared ideology, special interest, cults or secret society membership, contradicts the principle of checks and balances built into America's system of government to safeguard people's rights.

    If the Christian meaning of "God" under which the founding fathers signed the documents is stretched to include its Latin translation, Deus, the same principle, used again, will extend it to the Semitic "YHWH". From English, to Latin, to Hebrew; yet not. On issues of philosophical import, even such as whether "monotheism" is a conceptually intelligible designator, available

    Posted by jones at 06/05/2009 @ 08:26am

12. So HAPPY.....if she's so bad, as Mr Melber asked....why is Rush now supporting her nomination???

    "And now Limbaugh is backtracking as only he can, volunteering that he might support Sotomayor after all -- but he still thinks she is a racist. Apparently racism is not a disqualifying judicial quality for him."

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 08:28am

13. On issues of philosophical import, even such as whether "monotheism" is a conceptually intelligible designator, available to lawyers in context of legal description -- for example in description of Judaicism – this verbal translation bond bridges over metaphysical differences. As a verbal thread, it links through the token, "God", which occurs in national life history in English text -- mainly the King James version of the Bible -- to the ancient Roman empire and "the Jews". To submit America's unique Trinitarian God-use to that of these earlier traditions reverses the historical flow of developmental process.

    Thus, one implication of the verbal God-Deus-YHWH bridge is to link U.S. law, conceived "under God", and Old Testament "Torah", conceived under Zionism. These have little to do with each other, and in regard to Israel's doctrine of pre-emptive slaughter of innocents for self-protection, which is what the Zionist entity is contemplating toward Iran, are morally incompatible.

    However, Pope John Paul II, close friend of Jose Maria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei, has forged just such a link. As Vicar of Christ on earth, this was a theological enactment comparable to declaring the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

    If she is seated, America's historical soul force will be spent.

    At hand in the collective flow of daily news stories is a deep resonance of the chord struck by Abu Ghraib torture. The tone of religious revulsion struck among many Arab/Muslim males by genital exposure, sodomy, female undergarments is something to which it would be understandable for any normal person to want to filter out, to avoid mental distress. Where punishment for these is considered, as is pending in the national consciousness, her feminine psyche ...

    Posted by jones at 06/05/2009 @ 08:29am

14. could be expected to instinctively react; either by tending to yield to male authority judgment out of considered lack of experiential data – "it's a man thing"; or by identifying with and coddling either the abuser or the abused. It is relevant to know what factors, for her, affect bias in judgment of such issues.

    Sotomayor's appointment represents the psychohistorical trend toward the Nanny state, in which we try to show how good we are, as little children, by submitting to the Judgmental Mother – bringing it about that the Black man appoints a Catholic Female Supreme Court Justice to play the role! (Testing the white males' pre-Oedipal restraint to the maximum on a daily basis).

    Posted by jones at 06/05/2009 @ 08:31am

15. We must be on the lookout for Sotomayors ties to Bill Ayers and Prof Khalid Rashid!!!

    She is a secret Arab Islamo Fascist!

    Posted by Happy at 06/04/2009 @ 10:19pm

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 10:48am

16. Apparently racism is not a disqualifying judicial quality for him."

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 08:28am

    Did she give Rush the bone from her nose?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 10:49am

17. Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 10:49am

    Interesting time-line, huh?

    May 26th, 2009- Obama names Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

    June 4th, 2009- Following in the wake of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh surrenders and no longer has a problem with a "racist" being on the Supreme Court.

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 10:59am

18. Can you say "habitual" offender

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/05/2009 @ 01:24am

    Yes.

    Riobravo

    comanchenation

    bigpasture

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 11:01am

19. Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 10:59am

    Do you think the national cons, and our resident ones, will ever tire of making grandiose all encompassing claims, then slowly backing off with caveats, provisos, exceptions, "no you misunderstoodd me when I said 9/11 and Saddam were connected" type comments?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 11:07am

20. Their contradictions are legendary, crab-

    1. They tell us they supported 'bringing peace democracy to Iraq and the Arab countries in the Middle East"....but then tell us that "Muslims can't be trusted" and "Islam is a religion of evil"?

    2. They tell us they hate wasteful spending on projects that do nothing or are counter-productive.....but supported a TRILLION dollars on a project that installed a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad and KILLED 4100+ American soldiers?

    3. They say they support "getting the government out of your life".....but then supported Frist and Delay's moves to interfere in the Terri Schiavo case?

    4. They say they are more concerned about terrorism than liberals and support racial profiling and "doing whatever it takes" to protect Americans from "radical religious extremist" terrorism.....but then want George Tiller's murder to be "no big deal" and "don't want any blanket accusations."?

    5. They want to use gay marriage as a wedge issue, to turn out conservative voters.....but have little or no problem with Dick Cheney coming out in support of gay marriage?

    6. Guys like Rush say Sotomayor is a "racist" and how terrible it would be to have "a racist" on the Supreme Court.....but then back down and are okay with her confimration?

    7. They say they support the death penalty for murder...AND that "abortion is murder"....but DON'T want women who take RU-486 to get the death penalty?!???!??!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 11:42am

21. <Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 10:49am

    Interesting time-line, huh?

    May 26th, 2009- Obama names Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

    June 4th, 2009- Following in the wake of Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh surrenders and no longer has a problem with a "racist" being on the Supreme Court.

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 10:59am>

    They just lost...LIMBAUGH. See Ari Melber's latest.

    Now what, Larry, RIO, et al?

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 08:47am

    ????

    Perhaps you don't recall or didn't save my initial post on Sotomayor?

    <It will surprise no one at the Nation that most conservatives will not be happy with Ms Sotomayor on the Supreme Court; and I count myself among that number.

    That said, I am consistent in my view of presidential nominations. Back during Alito and Roberts, I said that presidents deserve to have their nominees confirmed unless there is evidence of judicial malfeasance.

    Thus, I believe Obama deserves to have this regrettable choice confirmed (and she most likely will be).

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/26/2009 @ 11:23am>

    http://tinyurl.com/q7ry5q

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 11:51am

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 11:53am

22. Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 11:53am

    What is regretable about her nomination?

    She appears to be pretty centrist, she has more experience than any of your appointees, she appears to not have "judicial activism" in her opinions, she is as smart as they come and she IS the American Dream, which does give a different perspective than most of the present court.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 12:09pm

23. Sharpton looks like he has a lime stuck in a nether region.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 12:10pm

24. "the Ugly Justice"

    Posted by Happy at 06/04/2009 @ 10:19pm

    I thought that NICHE was filled by Kennedy.

    Posted by mishelley at 06/05/2009 @ 12:12pm

25. Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 11:53am

    Sorry, Larry. Wasn't discountring you.

    But in the grand scheme of things, your acceding about the Sotomayor nomination, isn't as interesting as the rabid "She's a racist!!!!" hyperbole of Rush and Newt...

    that just got a bucket of water thrown on it by those same two.

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 12:28pm

26. What is regretable about her nomination?

    She appears to be pretty centrist, she has more experience than any of your appointees, she appears to not have "judicial activism" in her opinions, she is as smart as they come and she IS the American Dream, which does give a different perspective than most of the present court.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 12:09pm

    Nonsense. Her siding with the New Haven decision was absolutely reverse racism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 1:28pm

27. and she IS the American Dream, which does give a different perspective than most of the present court.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2009 @ 12:09pm

    And Justice Thomas is not? Only for leftists who are racist towards him.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 1:29pm

28. Jones: don't stigmatize all Catholics with yr broad brush, that's a throwback to know-nothing nativism, just another bigotry.

    Yr presentation of Catholic dogma & practice is a notch below even Dan Brown.

    And yr disparaging of Judge Sotmayor is not merely ignorant but profoundly bigoted & repulsive.

    4 of the 5 Catholic justices are members of Opus Dei. And therein lies the true problem. OD is a fascist era Spanish organization dedicated to reversing democratic institutions. This pope & the last both OD supporters, whereas most US & European Catholics are definitely not.

    jones: a waste of time, to be ignored. Why not find yrself a rightwing site for yr spewing yr hatreds.

    Posted by sloper at 06/05/2009 @ 1:40pm

29. @Happy - Do you find it equally as shocking that the Supreme Court is even more dominated by men? 8 of 9 is more than 6 of 9. Or that 7 of 9 were appointed by Republicans? Or that 6 of 9 are aged 65+? We could go on all day looking at all the different ways this group is not representative of the U.S. population.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2009 @ 08:01am

    No, not shocking in the least as to the dominance of men nor their advanced ages.....the SC reflect most Fortune 500 Boards and their top 3~5 officers, areas where affirmative action is not applicable directly. In time, the composition will change.....accelerated by AA.

    My posting you responded to, was directed toward religion. Considering Row vs. Wade, to have 5 Catholics.......and perhaps 6 w/Sonia, the irony or the juicy possibility (as Rush is openly `hinting' at), was what I inferred w/out stating.

    Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 1:41pm

30. Funny, Rasmussen didn't cite the "Echo Chamber" as a possible cause of holding UP Magic's sinking numbers!

    Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

    Friday, June 05, 2009

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 34% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of 0. That's the highest level of strong disapproval and the lowest overall rating yet recorded (see trends).

    The President's ratings have slipped since General Motors filed for bankruptcy to initiate a new government bailout and takeover. Just 26% of Americans believe the GM bailout was a good idea and nearly as many support a boycott of GM products. It remains to be seen whether the dip in the President's numbers is a temporary reaction to recent news or something more substantive.

    The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.

    Overall, 54% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Forty-six percent (46%) disapprove.....

    Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 2:17pm

31. Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 2:17pm

    Curious, HAPP, on Obama's approvals?

    Why is it ALWAYS Rasmussen that you guys cite...and no others? Just Rasmussen?

    (Hint- Try "He's the most accurate!!!")

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 2:22pm

32. (Hint- Try "He's the most accurate!!!")

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 2:22pm

    Thanks for the hint.....we agree, but good for other readers!

    Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 3:35pm

33. @Happy - I can't wait to see your analysis of what likely beer drinkers, unlikely to be employed in the next 12 months and other key groups think of Obama.

    Or, if you we were interested in honesty, we might talk about Bush's -30 on the Presidential Approval Index and how these things change over the course of time. But, hey, too much work to think too critically. Easier to let Rasmussen and the 1500 randomly called people in their sample do the thinking for us.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2009 @ 4:47pm

34. 'sloper' -- UR forehead shape, eh. ("you're" trekkers all the rage among tweets these days, notice?)

    Tell us, sloper -- or just me -- since you are so willing to let on yr knowledge that 4 members of the U.S Supreme Court belong to a radical rightwing secret religious organization, when and how did you learn of this? What kind of "real problem" is that, do you think? Do you know of other on-going criminality on this scale?

    (You should read "Their Kingdom Come" (Robt. Harrington?)? Great study, from Escriva (Venezuela; left Spain early on) on through to Casey, Reagan and JP 2.)

    I should go preach to right wingers? Sounds like UR sloper has been used for an Ariel Sharon brain dead seepage blotter. shellako akeem, maggot.

    Posted by jones at 06/05/2009 @ 6:03pm

35. Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 3:35pm

    Right!

    And it's just a "coincidence" that Scott Rasmussen gives you guys the 'best answers' for every issue...every Obama approval...etc.

    Just a "coincidence".

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 9:17pm

36. Or, if you we were interested in honesty, we might talk about Bush's -30 on the Presidential Approval Index....

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2009 @ 4:47pm

    Ok, ok,....in all honesty, by Magic's last year or two, when he has thrown 70% of Americans under the bus, it'a a huge bus, he'll think 30% (approval) looks pretty good!

    Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 11:16pm

37. Just a "coincidence".

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2009 @ 9:17pm

    You go into `battle' with the "coincidence" you have, not the one you wish to have.

    Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 11:17pm

38. And Justice Thomas is not? Only for leftists who are racist towards him.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/05/2009 @ 1:29p

    Sure, he represents the Dream, along with a dose of affirmative action. And, once again you project nonsense onto leftists. I am not aware of any that have a racist attitude toward Thomas. The objections I hear/read are either a difference in policy viewpoint or, most often, that he simply is unqualified to be on the Supreme court. The guy was an administrator, not a legal scholar, long serving judge or litigator. The irony, from your standpoint, is that the reason he is where he is, is because Bush wanted a black man to replace one.

    Can you find me an example of a "liberal" judge presiding over a wedding of say... Noam Chomsky or a Baldwin?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/06/2009 @ 09:07am