I know I sound like a broken record.
Everytime I think the Democratic race card players could not get more vile, more deranged, more patronizingly demeaning to blacks, someone manages to defy even my vivid imagination.
This time, it is the Editorial Board of The Washington Post, which issued a truly amazing screed (h/t Gabriel Malor) claiming that critics of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice are motivated by race and sex, as demonstrated by the facts that most are male and a significant percentage come from former confederate states (emphasis mine):
Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the [97 Republican House] signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy. You’d think that before launching their broadside, members of Congress would have taken care not to propagate any falsehoods of their own.
The WaPo Editorial Board must have forgotten the opposition to Condoleezza Rice’s confirmation, which was led by former Klansman Robert Byrd and a guy who left a girl to die:
Leading the charge against Rice on Tuesday were Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Barbara Boxer of California.
Boxer, one of two Democrats to vote against Rice’s nomination in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Rice’s answers to her questions were “completely nonresponsive” and raised more issues about her credibility than they answered.
Rice, Condoleezza, received fewer favorable votes in her Secretary of State confirmation than any nominee in almost 25 years and more negative votes than any nominee in 180 years. Twelve of the thirteen votes against Rice were from White Males, including the aforementioned former Klansman.
Boxer accused Rice of lying about Sadaam Hussein’s WMD program, and Rice pushed back that they relied on the available intelligence, among other things.
This would become a theme in Boxer’s continuously demeaning conduct towards Rice, which included mocking the fact that Rice had no children during the Iraq Surge hearings in January 2007 (note, Boxer also used the term “dark cloud” which, had it been used by a Republican as to a black Democratic nominee, surely would have been called a dog whistle or worse)(full video here):
Boxer’s mocking of Rice, Condoleezza’s family status created a firestorm of controversy, but plenty of liberals defended the attack.
Rice, Condoleeza, also was physically attacked at the start of those hearings, by White Liberals:
The Democrats’ often personal attacks on Rice, Condoleezza, continued unabated (Kerry Picket has more). Liberal cartoonists at major publications played on crude racial stereotypes in going after Rice, Condoleezza.
You get the point.
The criticisms of Rice, Condoleezza, on policy grounds were within the legitimate political realm, as are the criticisms of Rice, Susan.
In the criticisms of Rice, Susan, we have not seen from Republicans anything approaching the vitriol and crude racial and sexist comments directed at Rice, Condoleezza.
Does the Editorial Board of The Washington Post even belief what it writes? I doubt it. It’s all part of their race card game.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
THANK YOU, Professor Jacobson, for the very timely reminders.
One other thought: Rice, Condi, is 12-times smarter than Rice, Susan, even in deepest ‘alpha’ sleep.
The truly hideous ‘Mam Boxer deserves a nice, sensitive Taliban Stoning Pit. Ahhhhhhh…there I go, revealing one of my favorite fantasies.
“The truly hideous ‘Mam Boxer deserves a nice, sensitive Taliban Stoning Pit.”
No, no. We should do much worse: we should make her LIVE! 😉
The left lying by playing the race card is expected.
The right has a choice whether or not to be stupid enough to go for it.
Susan Rice is a liar and has betrayed her oath of office as well as her fellow citizens and her country.
Why, Professor Jacobson, you write as though you are somehow surprised, or still cling to the strange belief that Democrats have a sense of shame.
Around my blog, we call it Democrisy.
“the strange belief that Democrats have a sense of shame.”
A sense of shame? They’re not even rational enough to have any sense.
If she cannot be criticized, then she is ineligible to serve.
How many ‘blacks ‘ are on theNy Editorial board or are senior writers?
Besides Susan looks like an Egyptian.
Race will always be a factor if democrats are involved.
Don’t expect anything to change except for the worse until the current crop of scum are evicted. I didn’t get my with during this election and now wonder if I’ll ever see it before I pass on to oblivion.
It’s just that simple…
Sickening, yet so predictable.
What is it about the “content of their character” statement that is completely lost on every single leftist liberal? It can’t be that from now on they will run/seat African Americans and/or Latinos to thus invoke the Inquisition-like “no defense” and no criticism Teflon protection cloak, can it? To avoid criticism and scrutiny, and thus accomplish any and all tyrannical goals?! Would they try that?! …..
Of course, once again, the Republicans fall for this. Cave. Give in. Let it be repeated ad nauseum until it is publicly accepted “fact.”
Does anyone REALLY wonder why the left is “winning” right now – as would any tyrant with the press in his pocket?!
Really?! Anyone? Anyone?
At some point, this will lose all effect. In fact, how many of Prez-O-Bama’s “Santa Claus” voters ever read the Washington Post? Who outside the Beltway really gives two screaming sh!ts?
The opinions of the WaPo, NYT, LA Times and the other big city dailies are so predictable, even to the partisan faithful, that no one is swayed by what they write. It is the Journalistic, Industrial-Size version of “everyone gets a trophy”. The only thing that would restore a scintilla of credibility to the Fish Wrap Media would be the presentation of real dialogue, an offering of divergent points of view, just as the best papers once did.
However, the likelihood of that happening is right up there with Prez-O-Bama embracing supply-side economics and my dog, Aqua Velva, solving algebra problems. When these rags die, no one will miss them, unless Murdoch buys one or two and puts crusty, mean old newspapermen back in charge.
The Washington Post left the news business the day Bradlee came aboard. He turned WaPo around and into a mouthpiece for any spender who needed a forum. He backed LBJ’s switch over of Social Security funds into the General Fund, aided and abetted in pushing the Great Society, and now, this old has-been sits in his millions of dollar house and eats his pate, worrying over the plight of people about whom he cares nothing.
Hack is too polite a description for this rag. I look forward to the day WaPo is reduced to nothing but a web presence that dies because nobody goes there anymore.
Rice I was a lady in every imagination of class. Rice II is a political hack who insults every thing she touches. Did anyone mention she was dark skinned? I couldn’t really tell because I was blinded by the enormous smoke screen she put up five times in one day.
[…] For four years it has never stopped and guess what… It’s not going to. […]
“Squirrel!”
It is despicable that the WAPO editors don’t think a black woman is capable of defending herself, but what’s even funnier is a pencil-necked geek like Obama telling everyone that he’s ready to kick ass on anyone who would challenge her nomination. The guy who hides from his wife to eat a hamburger.
Wa Po Chicken and Rice:
Brown rice over white chickens in a nutty racial hot sauce.
Served with side of Benghazi Sum Ting Wong.
…and, don’t forget the fortune cookie that says:”YOU’RE BUSTED, Barack Benghazi O’Homey!!”
Something is really wrong if I can tell who and what party someone voted for by the color of their skin.
So it’s now the “Rice card” eh? So any Ricism that’s spotted should be reported by the dog whistle blowers to the Rice Growers union?
I just read a review of the memoirs of the NY times first black editor 83-2003. He was not very complimentary to his fellow journalists regarding his black status.
He seemed a lonely & sad man amongst the whites & unfortunately died at 56.
Why I do believe they caused his premature death with their mean bullying racism.
Works for me.
Maybe a good response would be:
Conservative: Mr Liberal, how can you really believe that the Ambassador’s incompetence is so intimately connected to her race?
Liberal: I don’t believe any such thing!
Conservative: You certainly have a history of thinking it.
Liberal: You can’t be serious! How so?
Conservative: Well, every time a person of color is accused of doing something stupid, you say it’s because of their race.
Liberal: No! I’m not saying that!
Conservative: On the contrary, I can’t think of a time when you didn’t say it. Every time a black person fails at something, the first thing you say is it’s because of their race.
Liberal: But, but, uh, but that’s..
Conservative: You liberal guys are such haters.
Excellent observations, as usual. Could there be an additional agenda, considering the utterly inane “arguments” these people are making defending their “positions” on issues and scandals?
I think they’re flooding the (willing) media with this junk to desensitize people from even listening to any criticisms of the Obama administration. I think of it as the Cloward-Pivening of Benghazi (and other scandals).
Of course, Cloward Piven seek to break the back of our financial system to establish a free paycheck for everyone, but the same principle can be applied to politics, in general, and scandals specifically.
Overwhelm the system with both petty and large explanations (financial demands) of such absurdity that it becomes difficult to sort out the truth. In fact, in our lazy culture, certainly media and low information voters don’t bother.
I’ve been shocked at the obvious stupidity of the explanations of these people regarding Benghazi (and other scandals); send a PC employee out with a ludicrous cover and then blame the hooters for not believing her. Move quickly into Alinsky mode.
Thus the truth is deflected, the scandal dissolved and we move on to the next obfuscation. The people go back to sleep.
[…] The claims of racism and sexism with regard to questioning Susan Rice’s competency are the standard Democrat response to any controversy they are questioned on, however the loudness and pervasiveness of their claims this time show their level of desperation. Just what else does this woman have to hide besides purposefully lying to the American people? The Democrats, and now their lap dog media, want Benghazi to go away and they want us all to shut up already. (Related: WaPo Plays The Race Card) […]
Republicans have yet to learn from history. Having Democrats play the [name] card is not anything new. Class warfare has been the basis of the Democrat Party since William Jennings Bryan ran against Taft.
Bryan demonized the industrialists, claiming they only wanted to gain more and more wealth, giving them a Scrooge McDuck image (diving in and out of their piles of money) to the general population. He pitted the owners of industry against the workers. As he went after Rockefeller, et al, he claimed that they did all the work while the “robber barons” got all the money. Intellect and ambition were made dirty words. Bryan went into the ghettos of New York and Baltimore and tried to appeal to the recent uneducated immigrants by telling them how they were being abused by the Republican party who wanted to keep them as industrial serfs. But then, unlike now, people voted for jobs, and the industrialists provided them. Bryan lost to Taft.
Just a short 20 years later, FDR pled his case to black Americans. Not that he had any use for them, they represented nothing more than votes. But once again, the class card was trumped, with FDR winning the election of the once Republican blacks. Nothing has changed. It was during that time that the Democrats started their hijacking of civil rights and claimed it for their own, and they could do that simply because Americans were unaware of how their elected officials actually voted in Congress.
LBJ sealed the deal, and simply pushed civil rights for no other reason that votes.
For over 100 years, the Democrats have claimed, wrongly, that they are for the “little” people. Even the term “common man” was highjacked for election purposes. And Republicans, fearful of being labeled anti-something or other, have stood by unwilling to take a stand for the truth.
Until that changes, until we punish the press to the point where they report the truth and not be purveyers of opinion, we will lose elections.
Political Correctness is an aggressive, malignant cancer that has succeeded in stifling TRUTH. What..25-yrs..? TRUTH is verboten in most colleges, news rags, large corporations, clubs, etc, etc…Tammy Bruce’s fine little ‘troot telling gong,”The New Thought Police”, was published on the subject 11-yrs ago and just look at the quantum leaps in PC-Malignancy since then!
Okaaaay, Mr.Prezzy, here’s a ‘Test for Racism’ that you can run through the senate on your next SCOTUS nomination,’Yo: Nominate Janice Rogers Brown. Then, watch the Left-Lib-Democrap spit, venom, hatred and knives from your sacred friends on the Hill.
Questions…?
I have long suspected that Barbara Boxer won the race for Special Olympics Senate and through a terrible paperwork snafu in the upper echelons of Kali-forn-iya government ended up in Washington.
The argument over the argument over Rice has certainly devolved to foolishness and recrimination.
I just don’t see why the argument is about the blundering contradictory information in the early days following the tragedy.
Why are these people wasting valuable time and energy on that blundering when the real blundering was insufficient security, when the consulate had previously been threatened and attacked? Who made those decisions and why?
And, I don’t really care if Rice was the one presenting the talking points, why replace “terrorist” with “extremist”? I get why a group that had nothing to do with 9/11 a decade ago might not be best characterized by the term Al Qaeda, nor was the attack ordered by the Al Qaeda we talk about in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but if they’re a militia, why not say militia; if they’re terrorists, why not say terrorists?
By focusing on the clumsy release of information to the public, we’re not getting the relevant information about the lousy security and what this group’s purposes are. Do they wasn’t to terrorize the new government to make it fall? Do they want to return to a Ghadaffi-type regime? That would help more than h this whole side show.
Republicans are looking as incompetent now as the administration then, and as this sideshow escalates, it looks less and less like the Congress, both sides, are obstructing an administration that is killing terrorists, but that has some explaining to do.
Such stupid questions and accusations. Such wrong focus derails everything relevant. Why take umbrage at Democrats taking umbrage, when there are real security and intelligence failures here? They attacked our Rice when she testified, so it’s okay to attack their Rice for talking on TV, and their Rice have false info, and our Rice gave erroneous testimony, and WHO CARES? There are real questions here.
[…] White Males to grill an African-American woman nominated to high office. They don’t need Professor Jacobson to point out that opposition to Condoleeza Rice’s nomination to the State …. That’s why it leads with that ambiguous “Could it be…?” They aren’t […]
[…] Post are heartily encouraged to scream cancellation until apologies are forthcoming. More at Legal Insurrection—H/T Instapundit. Tweet Comments […]
I couldn’t help but notice that a majority of the Congressional Racist Caucus come from states that were formerly colonies of foreign powers. We can’t know what’s in their hearts, but they’re probably all guilty of treason and should be tried and executed.
Liberal logic FTW
[…] in some cases it can be both. This, apparently, is such a case. William Jacobson has an important response to this editorial, reminding readers of the opposition to Condoleezza Rice’s nomination to […]
[…] demeaning to blacks, someone manages to defy even my vivid imagination,” thunders blogger William Jacobson. He’s referring to a passage in a Washington Post editorial about critics of U.N. Ambassador […]
Congrats on the linky you got at the Wall Street Journal, it is well deserved!
[…] Legal Insurrection: The WaPo Editorial Board must have forgotten the opposition to Condoleezza Rice’s confirmation, which was led by former Klansman Robert Byrd and a guy who left a girl to die: Leading the charge against Rice on Tuesday were Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Barbara Boxer of California. […]
[…] any of you white folk say another bad word about Ambassador Susan Rice over this whole Benghazi mess, just remember that […]
The Washington Post has devolved into a sad shadow of its former self. Once upon a time, I lived in DC and took the town’s paper of record. Commentary on the OP-ED page was diverse, though the official line of the paper at endorsement time was reliably Democrat and liberal. In the last 8-10 years or so, the Post has become craven in its service to the left. Once GWB was in political peril from Iraq, the craziness seemed to begin. With the 2008 election, the nuttiness came to the fore. In 2012, the race-card throwing and out-and-out distortion of anything and everything Republicans said, reached an apotheosis. I happened upon a copy of the tired old rag about 2 weeks before the general election and was just speechless. The whole newspaper might just have well been a long-winded political advertisment for the incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
What is the motivation? Is it purely liberal white guilt? Is it that the lefties now finally feel safe in saying and writing and doing as they always wished, but feared doing so, because liberal was Washington’s ultimate dirty word?
For me, the worst part of Benghazi, in purely constitutional and political terms,is that public officials, including Susan Rice, imputed the now infamous anti-Muslim video as the source of the tragedy, when it was in fact a planned terrorist operation;essentially, this was multiple high-level people making statements that could have had a chilling effect on Americans’ 1st Amendemnt free speech protections for some kind of cynical short-term political advantage.
Race hucksterism and “war on women” michegas is all the Dems have in SR’s case. They can’t defend her on the merits of her performance, so they must now make any and all criticism off-limits by charging that the same is universally motivated by racism and sexism. Well, so long as that criticism is coming from a conservative.