5/28: Rooting For The Admiral

While SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor remains the dominant topic in blogosphere discussions, the PA SEN race received some attention yesterday when TPM reported that Rep. Joe Sestak (D-07) intends to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter (D). Liberal bloggers, who have been urging Sestak to run ever since Specter switched parties, were delighted by the news. digby describes Sestak as "an improvement over Specter in every way" while Atrios (a Philly resident) immediately promised to donate $100 to Sestak as soon as he makes it official. Atrios went on to explain his feelings about the race: "While replacing the senior senator from Pennsylvania is certainly something I support in any case, even if Sestak doesn't succeed it's important for someone to be there to make sure Arlen behaves." Despite their enthusiasm for Sestak, lefty bloggers concede that he faces "an uphill climb" -- particularly now that the PA Dem party plans to support Specter.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Ace of Spades, Hawkins, Painter, Bandes) are buzzing about allegations (which were first made by a conservative blogger and then by a Washington Examiner editor) that "the [Barack] Obama administration has systematically targeted for closing Chrysler dealers who contributed to Repubicans." Liberal blogger Nate Silver responds by noting that car dealers as a group are "overwhelmingly more likely to donate to Republicans than to Democrats" and concludes that "there's no conspiracy here, folks."
• Conservative bloggers (Hengler, McCain) are excited about reports that ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) will endorse ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) in the FL SEN GOP primary. One righty blogger wonders if AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) will be the next GOP heavyweight to endorse Rubio.
• Several liberal bloggers (Bowers, Silver) are discussing the news that businessman Merrick Alpert (D) will challenge Sen. Chris Dodd (D) in the CT SEN Dem primary, although they don't consider Alpert a reliable progressive.
• Conservative bloggers (Chesser, Mirengoff, Cianfrocca, Hinderaker) continue to hammer Sotomayor over her 2001 suggestion "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."
• Liberal bloggers (McCarter, Yglesias, Cole, O'Connor) are hitting back hard at Sotomayor's detractors. Many lefty bloggers (Greenwald, Lewison, Serwer, Benen) are pointing out that conservative SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito emphasized his background as the descendant of Italian immigrants during his confirmation hearings. Other liberal bloggers (Adam B., Beutler, Blue Texan) are pointing out that President George H.W. Bush spoke about Clarence Thomas's "empathy" while nominating him for the SCOTUS.
• Liberal bloggers (Cook, Brad, Lange, Terkel, Drum) are mocking National Review blogger Mark Krikorian after he complained that "putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English...and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn't be giving in to." Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Foser, Serwer, White) are also blasting National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor for his criticism of Sotomayor.

PA SEN: Let's Go, Joe!

Liberal bloggers are pleased that Sestak is reportedly planning to challenge Specter:

• dday: "This is spectacular. Nobody, least of all Arlen Specter, should have a free ride to the halls of power. My personal feeling is that Joe Sestak is superior to Specter in just about every way, but even if he were not, I would support this for just about any and every seat. Primaries are healthy. They keep politicians honest. They allow the people to make the key decisions on who to represent them, instead of having the options shoved down their throats."
• Atrios: "While replacing the senior senator from Pennsylvania is certainly something I support in any case, even if Sestak doesn't succeed it's important for someone to be there to make sure Arlen behaves. I'm in for $100 once it's officially official."
• digby: "I think this is a very healthy development. If Specter wants to win as a Democrat, at least this way he'll have to prove he is one. I understand why the Party made promises, but they were promises they weren't empowered to make, so Sestak has every right to run and if he can raise the necessary money and win good for him. He would be an improvement over Specter in every way."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Party leaders, and especially outfits like the DSCC, tend to be highly primary averse. But I think there's little in the way of solid evidence that primaries are bad for a political party. Of course under certain circumstances primary challenges can be destructive -- as when a party's base demands ideological orthodoxy in a district or state that an orthodox candidate can't win -- but neither Sestak nor Specter is a down-the-line liberal, and Pennsylvania's a left-of-center state so from a progressive point of view it strikes me as desirable that there be some competition for the nomination."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "It's fair to say Sestak would enter the contest as the underdog. [...] But I wouldn't bet against Sestak. He's proven himself a capable lawmaker; he has an impressive military background; he's a life-long Dem; he has some money in the bank; and Pennsylvania Democrats are far from sold on Specter, who has given them plenty of reasons lately to question his fealty to his new party."

MyDD's Josh Orton is more ambivalent about a potential Sestak candidacy: "Two sides to this. On the one hand, I don't want Sestak to run and fail hard without support -- SEIU backed WAY off and Arlen's enjoying the President's fundraising machine. On the other hand, Specter's a pretty weak Democrat -- his party change was all politics. Plus, primaries are healthy and Pennsylvania Democrats are less than thrilled with him. If Sestak runs a decent race with the goal of nudging Specter left, it could be a good thing."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' Steve Singiser notes that a Sestak candidacy "would be an uphill climb," since numerous polls show Specter leading Sestak by a large margin.

On the right side of the blogosphere, Hot Air's Allahpundit welcomes the news, although he still thinks Specter will win the Dem nod: "It's a longshot -- Specter leads [Sestak] by 40 points thanks to the advantage in name recognition -- but this'll at least make him squirm a little on his way to the nomination. It helps [GOP Rep. Pat] Toomey, too, since Sestak supports card check and will run to Specter's left; the more Benedict Arlen attacks him from the center, the more likely disgruntled lefties and union members will hold a grudge during the general election."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Richness Of One's Experience

The American Conservative's Daniel Larison defends Sotomayor's expressed 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":

"Suppose for a moment that a conservative Catholic man in a similar position said that he hoped that the richness of his religious tradition would inform and shape his judgments that would more often than not help him to make better judgments than someone without that background. Such a person might reasonably and legitimately claim this. No doubt there would be a comparable freak-out in certain circles on the left that theocracy was on the march, while conservatives would declare it outrageous (indeed, the imposition of a religious test!) that anyone would object to a statement about the importance of the man's faith to his formation and thinking. She is not asserting that Latinas are naturally superior judges, nor is she even saying that they are necessarily better on account of their experiences, but that she hopes that they would be. One might almost think that her recognition that impartiality is something to be pursued, but that it is never fully achievable, would be considered a refreshingly honest admission that judges have biases and are shaped by their past experiences. For a moment, imagine a pious Christian who expressed a similar hope that his faith would make him a better judge than an unbeliever. No doubt this would raise the hackles of all kinds of people, but it would no more make him a religious fanatic than Sotomayor's rather mild comments make her a 'racialist'."

LEST WE FORGET: Sotomayor Opposed By Powerful Anti-Empathy Lobby

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"The Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor faces new hurdles today, in the form of pressure to block her confirmation from the powerful anti-empathy lobby. H. Walker Ranston, executive director of the American Anti-Empathy League, said that his organization was going to 'do a full-court press' to convince Republican senators to vote down Ms. Sotomayor.

'Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly made statements indicating that she has a human heart,' Mr. Ranston said. 'That is the last thing this Court needs.'

The lobbyist said that his group's 50,000 members were 'deeply disappointed' by the choice of the empathic Sotomayor, explaining, 'We were really hoping for a sociopath.' [...]

Looking ahead to her confirmation hearings, Mr. Ranston said that Ms. Sotomayor can expect a tough grilling in the Senate over her 'suspiciously pro-empathy views.'

'I'd like to say that I feel for her for what she's about to go through, but I'm incapable of that,' he said."