Unable to come up with a rational argument against the appointment of Sen. Jeff Sessions to be the Attorney General, the Democrats had to conjure up the image of slavery alive today and the Jim Crow era still upon us.
Jeff Sessions is from Alabama, Alabama was a slave state in the South, therefore Sessions is a racist. It is the only argument remaining for the left bereft of reason.
Booker tried to stake his future in politics on an impassioned attack on Sessions. He tried to follow the example of Obama’s 2004 convention speech and failed miserably. It wasn’t even good theater. He blew his lines and missed his cues.
Rep. Lewis, the man who believes sharks are still plying the slave ship routes across the Atlantic looking for slaves cast overboard 170 years ago, invoked the days of Selma to renounce Sessions. Relying on his role in the civil rights movement of the 60’s, he demonstrated clearly how completely he is stuck in the past. The reality of today is lost upon such as these.
Using the hearings to grandstand for the cameras is the best they can do. They have no case. The voices of the left will call it victory even after the Senate confirms Sessions as the next Attorney General.
Democrats’ Impotent Attacks on Jeff Sessions
They haven’t bothered to make a real case against Sessions because there isn’t a real case to be made.
DAVID FRENCH January 12, 2017
Yesterday’s emotion-laden testimony from John Lewis and Cory Booker wasn’t an indictment of Jeff Sessions. But it was symbolic of how hyperbole and fear-mongering dominate the American debate over race. Rather than detailing how Sessions is racist or why he wouldn’t uphold his oath of office and defend the Constitution, Lewis and Booker used Sessions’s confirmation hearing to, in effect, equate modern conservatism with the explicit racism of Jim Crow. This was disgraceful.
I don’t sympathize with every stance Jeff Sessions takes — I’m particularly disturbed by his prior endorsements of civil asset forfeiture — but to watch Lewis and Booker raise the legacy of the civil-rights movement to decry Sessions’s agreement with a majority of the Supreme Court on the Voting Rights Act and rebuke his support for “law and order” was to watch the tired progressive smear of conservatives as somehow insufficiently committed to true “justice.”
Lewis said, for example, “Those who are committed to equal justice in our society wonder whether Senator Sessions’s calls for law and order would mean today what it meant in Alabama when I was coming up back then.”
“Back then,” of course, African Americans were subjected to legal persecution and even physical violence if they tried to vote, sit at a lunch counter, or ride in the front of the bus. Is there one single American law — real or proposed — that would enable or empower such conduct today? Is there any reasonably foreseeable action that Jeff Sessions could take that would enable or empower such conduct? Of course not. Lewis, having lived through the bad old days and fought valiantly to end them, should know better.
But it was Cory Booker who truly gave the game away. In his testimony he, too, decried all emphasis on “law and order,” arguing that “law and order without justice is unobtainable, they are inextricably tied together. If there is no justice, there is no peace.” Like Lewis, Booker tied “justice” to the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. And like Lewis, he declined to mount any real argument that Sessions would return us to the dark ages of racial injustice, because there is no such argument to be made. In the end, he was reduced to charging, also without any evidence, that Sessions won’t defend the “equal rights” of gays and lesbians, that he won’t “affirm” the “human dignity” of immigrants, and that he won’t pursue “justice for women.”