of the first black female secretary of state in our nation's history. When confirmed, Condoleezza Rice, Ph.D. will be the highest ranking African American woman ever. A milestone achievement by an admirable and deserving woman.
But two Democratic senators, Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachussetts, do not want to see it happen. Today, these two senators placed on the record, for all to see, their announcement to the world that they are indeed bigots.
Oh of course Boxer and Kerry would deny such an accusation vehemently. They would insist that they've always fought on behalf of minorities and women. But using the same twisted logic that senator Boxer used to call Dr. Rice a liar, i think it should be clear to all that John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have something against the advancement of women and minorities.
i'm just pointing out the contradictions in their public statements, that's all.
At this historic moment in the history of feminism and civil rights, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer stand together at the doorway of the Harry S. Truman Building like twin modern day Orval Faubi.
1
Oh, Fidilidee... they aren't racist, they LOVE their negras. They just don't want to see them movin' off the plantation, welfare plantation that is. It's a big bad world out there, and they need to be cared for like the children they are.
I could never understand why Republicans were loath to brand the D's as the party of slavery, which they are.
And if you'll pardon me, I've decided to refer to our junior Senator as Boobera Boxer from now on. It's pretty hard to be the dumbest bitch in the Senate with those twats from Maine there and all, but she is leading by a mile.
Posted by: Casca at January 19, 2005 05:03 PM (cdv3B)
2
Democrats are bigots? Oh, like Robert Byrd? Kleagle of the Klan, Democratic Senator...those go hand in hand. If he was a Republican, rest assured he would have been kicked into David-Dukedom years ago.
Posted by: spydrz at January 20, 2005 01:47 PM (6wyVk)
3
The Democrats are just upset they couldn't be the ones to promote an African American woman to the Sec'y of State post, since they're the only bastion of minority and women's rights progression on the planet. *rollseyes*
Posted by: Derek at January 21, 2005 10:49 AM (U0/um)
4
I heard that this was another case in which Kerry took both sides of the issue, saying that she was qualified but that he wouldn't vote for her.
Earlier in his career, Jesse Jackson realized that the Democratic Party often takes its black support for granted. I don't know if he realizes that any more.
Maybe this would be an appropriate time to dig up information about the House banking scandal, in which then-Representative Boxer was implicated.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at January 21, 2005 12:34 PM (FPdMX)
5
Of course, this is the same knee-jerk logic that conservatives always accuse liberals of using, a perversion of political correctness. There hasn't been any indication in the statements of Kerry or Boxer that Rice's race or gender had anything to do with their decision. There is, on the other hand, a record of the administration lying to and misleading the public over the last 4 years, which she obviously had a role in. Anyone who said what we now know to be true: that WMD's weren't in Iraq, that Hussein had no connection to Al Qaeda, that he represented no threat to to America or even his neighbors- was shut out of public discourse in the name of patriotism. The race-card is just another method of censoring the nay-sayers and confusing the issue.
Posted by: hal at January 26, 2005 01:02 PM (6QsJ1)
6
Oh Gawd, Hal. i try not to do this as much as i used to, but it's impossible not to set you straight on a few items.
Firstly, like all liberals (who claim to have cornered the market on nuance) you missed my rhetorical and somewhat sarcastic point. Please re-read the part about "using the same twisted logic."
"Lying and misleading?" We may have to agree to disagree on that somewhat semantic argument. However, even John Kerry said, knowing what he knew now, he'd still have supported the war. And you say SH represented no threat? Do you deny that SH hated the US? Absent a war to topple him, would you trust SH - after the weapons inspectors had left - NOT to re-establish his weapons programs, as the Duelfer report said had been his goal all along? To me, that constitutes a threat.
And finally, in what parallel universe have you or anyone who believes as you do (including thirteen United States senators from the minority party!) been "shut out of public discourse in the name of patriotism?" Certainly not on ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, MSNBC, NBC, any of the major newspapers in the US, nearly all of America's college campuses, and certainly not on this blog? i'm sorry you
feel censored, but i just don't understand where you would get that idea.
Posted by: annika at January 26, 2005 06:41 PM (4oAj+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
