Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Saturday Night Card Game (WaPo plays the Rice card)

    Saturday Night Card Game (WaPo plays the Rice card)

    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.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    […] any of you white folk say another bad word about Ambassador Susan Rice over this whole Benghazi mess, just remember that […]

    krakker ron | November 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    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.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend