Criticism of UN Ambassador Susan Rice and opposition to her possible nomination as secretary of state has generally divided into two camps. One camp, concerned by Rice’s handling of the administration’s response to the Benghazi terrorist attack, in which she presented talking points officials knew were false, believes her role in the misdirection must be accounted for. In other words, this group of critics has focused on Rice’s professional responsibilities.
A second group agrees Rice isn’t the best choice for secretary of state, but has aimed its fire at Rice’s supposed personality flaws, attitude problems, career ambitions, and stories of craven political cynicism. In other words, it has made it personal. Liberal news outlets are up in arms over one of these two camps–and it isn’t the one you would think. The first camp includes John McCain and Lindsey Graham, as well as a group of about 100 Republican members of the House. The second includes Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. Yet the Washington Post editorial board published over the holiday weekend a shameful attack on the House Republicans, who had written a letter to President Obama urging him not to nominate Rice. The editors wrote:
Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the 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.
This follows the general belief of the mainstream media that criticism of the Obama administration is racist unless it is sexist, though 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 serve as George W. Bush’s secretary of state, “which was led by former Klansman Robert Byrd.” Jacobson adds:
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.
Jacobson also notes the explicitly race-based critiques of Condoleezza Rice, which have been absent in Susan Rice’s case. But actual racism isn’t necessary for the Washington Post editorial board to attempt to smear the names and careers of politicians it doesn’t like.
In addition to all of Jacobson’s points (and you should read his whole post), what the editors are suggesting is essentially that white (Republican) males refrain from criticizing non-white (non-Republican) non-males, or the WaPo will be back for them again. This is also revealing in and of itself. Though leftists often try to claim that Southern conservatives long en masse for the days of the Confederacy, it is the Washington Post that refuses to move on from those days.
To the Post, if you are from the South, your motivations are immediately suspect. If you are from the South, you don’t have quite the same right as others to engage in public debate.
This is not a particularly good sign for Susan Rice. Had her defenders been able to muster a case on her behalf, they would have presented it. Instead, they are conceding that she and the administration cannot be defended cogently in this case, but must be protected from criticism. Additionally, the Washington Post’s editorialists should consider reading the Washington Post (though I understand why they don’t). There, they’ll find liberal writers like Milbank whose criticism of Rice is personal rather than professional. Perhaps Milbank is not from the South, and therefore qualifies for the rights and privileges the Post has taken upon itself to award based on race, sex, and state of residence.
I'm guessing that the editorial was written by Jonathan Capehart; a guy who whitewashes Sharpton. What's disappointing is that people like Jackson Diehl and Charles Lane signed on.
Well, he did just write a column about how concerned he was for the Republican Party.
Did I imagine the riot at the University of Mississippi when Obama was re-elected? Note the rioters are the sons and daughters of Mississippi's ruling class. Take a look the invective against Obama when his policies hardly differ from those of either Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. Not the increase in gun sales — violence has always been the resort Southern racists. Then tell me I'm imagining the bias of Southern white men.
To be fair, they were just as rabid (and wrong) about Clinton…who, however, did manage to carry a couple of southern states, as did Carter. But I also don't think it's a coincidence that opposition to Obama is so concentrated in the same states that fought for slavery (and then segregation).
So where was the Washington Post when a number of conservative blacks were called horrible terms such as "staying on the plantation", etc.? Is the new racist term that will be allowed be "white male"? Has this country not matured enough to where legitimate arguments can be made without calling someone racist? This started when the Tea Party was called racist without a single bit of evidence. What in the world are we teaching our children? It's pathetic.
I'm from Missouri – the "Show Me" state – and I don't think she's qualified to be Secretary of State – she knowingly lied to the American public.
So had the other Rice.
Ironically (considering modern perceptions) the South elected the first black U.S. representative (John Willis Menard – 1868) and the first U.S. senator (Hiram Rhodes Revels – 1863). Both were Republicans and both faced opposition from Democrats. In fact, during the Reconstruction Period (the years following the Civil War) 1500 blacks were elected to public office in the South. To my knowledge this was more then in the North. n nSadly, the Ku Klux Klan and other reactionary Democrat forces reversed the changes of the Reconstruction within a decade and produced the infamous Jim Crow South. Republicans have been stuck trying to repair the South's racist image created by Democrats to this day.
My goodness, what a terrible distortion of history. n n1) "The South" did not elect these black officials. Newly-freed black Southerners did. Who freed them? The North. n n2) Black voters were only able to vote because U.S. soldiers, from the North, were posted at polling stations, as elsewhere throughout the South, to prevent white southerners from killing or otherwise suppressing potential black voters. n n3) The South had been a reliably Democratic voting bloc since the end of the Civil War, it's true. And yes, KKK, Knights of the White Camilla, et al were Democrats. But they only voted that way until – guess when? – President Johnson (a DEMOCRAT) signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended legal segregation and racial discrimination, among other things. This was the moment when the South abandoned the Democratic party. Why? Because most white southerners were racist. This is just a plain fact. n n4) What exactly have Republicans done to try and "repair the South's racist image…to this day"? Opposed affirmative action? Championed the War on Drugs? Held in bald-faced contempt hard working Central American immigrants, legal or not? Opposed the Dream Act? Conflated welfare recipients with "blackness"? Enacted immigration laws that allow, FORCE rather, officers to ask for papers that prove a person is a citizen if their skin is brown? (And don't give me that crap about these laws specifically disallowing racial profiling. In practice you and I both know that no white person will ever be asked for papers proving his/her citizenship in the prosecution of this law) Please. Republicans rely on the vote of racists. I'm not saying that ALL conservatives are racist, or even that most of them are. It is not some strange coincidence that the Confederate states are the most reliably Republican. n nRead a book, for God's sake. n nI grew up in the South, lived there my whole life. I know my land and my people. Many of them are still racist. Not most, certainly. But many. And almost ALL of the racist ones vote for conservatives. Why?
The black voting block collaborated with (ironically) white union workers to get many blacks elected. Now, I may be overestimating how large of a percentage of blacks were elected with the help of whites (because there were many areas where blacks outnumbered whites) what I said is not false. n nAlso, there were several civil rights bills put forth prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that were blocked, opposed, or watered down by Democrats. Including a Civil Rights Bill by Eisenhower, Republican. There was even an anti-lynching bill put forth by Republicans in the 1920s that was blocked by Democrats. Yes, in the fifties and sixties it was almost exclusively southern Democrats that opposed all these things but as I've already said, southern Democrats screwed everything up. Republicans supported civil rights regardless of where they lived. n nLyndon B. Johnson didn't originally fully support the Civil Rights Act, his civil rights record was spotty at best. He only pushed it through for political reasons and yet he still gets most of the credit and he solidified black support for the Democratic party despite the fact that Republicans and JFK (Democrat) are largely responsible for it. n nAlso, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't what caused the shift of a large percentage of Democrats to turn Republican. Some did yes, but the larger factors were a tolerance of diversity (ironically), rising education and prosperity levels, and – most importantly – the sharp leftward shift of the Democratic party. n nRepublicans have been on the defense when it comes to race ever since as Democrats have redefined the discussion. Though Republicans have a great civil rights record they are largely held responsible for what southern Democrats have done. n nWhen Republicans oppose affirmative action in school admissions because it actually harms minorities (and not to mention is unfair) they are called racists (I advise that YOU read a book and see the data for yourself). n nWhen Republicans oppose open borders because we have borders for a reason they are called racist and xenophobic. When they protest Obama's actions they are told race must play a factor in their attitude. n nRepublicans have a better civil rights record then Democrats and yet they get none of the credit.
I will never untangle this web of distortion. Good luck with the whole republican-head-in-the-ground thing. n nOverall, though, I'm not sure of your point. I guess what you're saying is that Republicans, today, are better on civil rights? I think I'll borrow from Tom Ricks: That's horse$@&t. n nLook, I love what Republicans used to be about. I regard Lincoln as one of the greatest men ever to have lived (Many of today's conservatives thrash him, by the way). Teddy Roosevelt is my boy (jingoism and foreign policy excluded). Ike did wonderful things (the interstate highway system comes to mind – a HUGE government program. A "gift", if you will, to business owners and basically everyone else). Nixon was a good president. n nIt's what the Republican party stands for NOW that I have a problem with. And until conservatives start to recognize: gay rights as a civil rights issue, that children of illegal immigrants should get the benefit of government programs, that allowing business to operate in an unregulated "free" market opens the door to racism and prejudice, they will continue to be regarded as the party of haters. n nOne thing we can agree on: it is ridiculous to accuse those who criticize Obama of racism. It's something I tell my liberal friends all the time. n
You are right and I am wrong on the south electing blacks thing. I took a little factoid I knew (that a few blacks were elected in the 1860s – one of which was either Menard or Revels – with the help of white union workers) and projected it onto the rest of the 1500 blacks that were elected in the South following the Civil War. I didn't recognize the huge gap of logic I took in making my original post until after you accused me of putting my head in the sand. n nI was all to ready to defend the South (I'm a Yankee myself) because I think the characterization is a little unfair having lived in Texas for the past six years not having met one racist. n nI apologize.
Haha, no worries. I'm always having to defend the south. It's worth defending! But there's no denying it was pretty awful back then…
This is a highly selective and disingenuous reading of history. So now that most blacks (including in the South) have gone Democrat, while whites in the South have *overwhelmingly* gone Republican…what has changed? I think we know. Hint: it happened in the 1960s.
See my response to AmazingSpidey above. Also, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't what caused the shift of a large percentage of Democrats to turn Republican. Some did yes, but the larger factors were a tolerance of diversity (ironically), rising education and prosperity levels, and – most importantly – the sharp leftward shift of the Democratic party.
Yes, the Republicans are so racist and misogyist they made Condoleeza Rice the first African-American Secretary of State. /sarc__But I guess outlets like the WaPo are only colorblind when the it doesn't fit their chosen narrative which is that all Republicans must be racist, sexist homphobes. Pathetic!