Power and Control: Dems revert to Klan roots
The "conscience" of the Senate, our favorite former KKK Democratic Senator, takes on Codoleeza Rice, the house slave according to the mindset of many Democrats. But in reality, the analogy should work the other way - as long as a black American stays on the Democratic plantation, he or she is treated softly, but dare that person try to flee the plantation, all matter of racist abuse is justified. Not saying what she is going through now constitutes such abuse, but there have been many racist cartoons and hateful statements made with impunity against the likes of her and Clarence Thomas, among others. Power and Control: Dems revert to Klan roots
posted by Hatcher at 6:37 AM
5 Comments:
When it comes to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Dan Rather, I prefer silence over speech.
Does Al Sharpton still wear that medallion? Anyone know how to get one on E-bay?
This is a classic attack the messenger, ignore the messege rant. Where the other 12 Senators who voted against Rice former members of the Klan? When will we get the blog that contradicts the case that Rice didn't do her job when she was advising the President to go to war with Iraq?
Well here's one difference between people. When faced with changing ideas about racial issues in the the United States, Strom Thrumond quit the Democratic Party, ran for president as a strict segregationist, and then was welcomed with open arms into the Republican Party. Faced with the same moral questions, Byrd quit the Klan.
I guess you guys would prefer the man who quit the Democrats to the man who quit the Klan.
I might also remind you guys that your hero, Barry Goldwater, only won any electoral votes at all in his 1964 presidential campaign because of his strong opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which earned him the votes of the deep South and was the the real beginning of the Republicans' accendency in the South.
Look, I'm huge fan of Byrd. As an economist, I can't really defend a guy who's primary contribution to democracy has been massive pork-barrel spending for his home state. Obviously, I agree with him on other matters, however.
But really, does anyone think that there are any racial or sexual overtones in Rice's confirmation in any way? I mean it's a black woman replacing a black man who replced a white woman. She's a woman with a long track record (a record which some believe is great and others believe is terrible). She was an obvious choice for the position and her color really has nothing to do with her being selected or the opposition to her.
This is not a Clarence Thomas case where Thomas was selected for the position solely based on his color. Had a Justice besides Marshall retired: no Thomas. Had Thomas been white: no Supreme Court seat for him. Race played a huge issue there, but it's hard to see a racial issue here.
The real question that Democrats have is, "What does someone have to do to get fired around here." Dr. Rice presided over national security during two of the biggest failures in nationality security in recent history: failing to see the Al Qaeda threat and seeing a WMD threat in Iraq when there was none. Do you want to promote someone with such a track record? By the way, in my opinion, Dr. Rice's color and gender in no way affected her judgement (or lack thereof) in these decisions.
Post a Comment
<< Home