Condi Rice

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Adam's Apple, Jan 27, 2005.

  1. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Has anyone read any articles yet in the MSM expressing regret that the political cartoonists attacking Condi Rice in their strips are doing so, based not on her policies, but because she is a "come uppidity" black woman? The insults they are hurling her way are incredible. But if they can lambast Bush, I guess no one gets a pass from them, not even an accomplished, intelligent, and capable black woman.

    And what about Senators Boxer and Dayton who openly called her a liar? Wouldn't it have been more "politically correct" and smarter to say they simply disagreed with her policies? With their ridiculous attacks on Condi, we see the left's true picture in all its glory. It certainly says something about the skewed view of the left when the blacks themselves have had enough and are willing to stand up and defend Secretary Rice.
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770

    Like these?

    http://boortz.com/nuze/200411/11182004.html

    or this? scroll down a bit:

    http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/000647.html
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
  4. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    Oh, heaven forbid saritists do their job. Satirists can portray Mrs. Rice as "come uppity" as the basis for the humor of their strips or panels, but one can't really argue that they draw her *because* she is "come uppity". From my perspective this is a right-wing reaction to a good-old-boy getting satirized, and it's becoming about as sensitive as the ACLU. Condi's in the funnies again? To quote the singular Justin Timberlake, cry me a riiiveeeeer.

    And what about those senators? While I agree that they definitely went overboard, this is nothing new, and a phenomenon that can't be generalized as left wing epidemic. I mean, Newt Gingrich vs. Bill Clinton?
     
  5. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    It most definitely is generalizable. Freaking out, screaming, ineffectively asserting diminished power inappropriately; this what these loser dems are doing, and what libs do generally in all their discussions.

    A liberals mind is generally a series of fallback positions.
    observe
    1. Democracy is not the best wasy, because hitler got elected

    -- but hitler didn't win those elections.


    2. condescending lib voice: Like you have to win elections to ascend to power, look at bush, all you need are neocon judges.

    -- do you realize your mind is just a loose conglomeration of fallback positions, positions you go to in certain conversational situations, but which are inconsistent with each other?
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    NE, it's not that Condi gets satirized. There are lots of funny Condi cartoons out there. The ones that I get riled up about are the ones that say, more or less, that Condi is an "Uncle Tom" or a "house n****r" or something like that, solely because she is a conservative black. Not to mention that the cartoonists doing said lampooning are usually the most outspoken advocates of "racial tolerance" and always speak out against all forms of racist comments, symbols, thoughts, etc. Conservatives are upset about the hypocrisy of it all - not the satire.
     
  7. nakedemperor
    Offline

    nakedemperor Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    Thanks Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings:
    +150
    I would definitely agree with you that 'toons that call Dr. Rice an Uncle Tom are completely out of line-- its supporting a black stereotype that is a large part of what can be called (in part if not in whole) a self-defeating black cultural outlook. However, I'll refer to a couple of cartoons that have been criticized in the past on the USMB for allegedly calling Dr. Rice an Uncle Tom; I could be wrong about this but I thiiiink it was either Avatar or RWA that posted a link to a strip of Dr. Rice as a Parrot saying "whatever you say, chief", or something. This was supposedly an "Uncle Tom" lampooning. I completely disagree. It is akin to the ACLU's indiscriminate race-card playing to call this particular cartoon racist. What made it racist? Nothing in the cartoon, simply a right-wing reactionary faction that noted that a) Dr. Rice is black and b) there is a strong (if not true) feeling of Dr. Rice being a yes-man (er, woman) to the president. If you take those two factors together, you come to the conclusion that the artists was calling her an Uncle Tom, without ever considering that he would have (and could have) drawn the exact same panel with the exact same caption had she been a white woman.

    That said, I definitely conceed that any cartoon specifically saying she has "sold out" other blacks or is merely a token cabinet black person are definitely toeing if not going over the line. Anybody have any links to mainstream 'toonists doing so?

    You can support generalizations with more generalizations until you're blue in the face, but freaking out, screaming, and petty name-calling are part of you modus operandi, RWA, and you're certainly not a liberal.

    Your "what liberals say" faux-quotes are generalizations taken from your experiences with DU extremists and the occasionally board troll. Nothing more. I could outline generalizations about conservative fall back positions, (e.g. "Liberals hate God".. but the large majority of liberals are religious.. to which: "You can't be a liberal and be religious!") but how helpful is that. Yes I HAVE heard these statements, even from yourself, but I don't use this selective sampling of experience to support "all conservatives generalize". Its just a more effective way of discussing, and far less invective and prejudice (another buzz word "fall-back position", but I'm using it to mean judging people and their supposed beliefs before you know someone and their individual beliefs.
     
  8. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Kathianne posted a couple of cartoons; looking over Cagle's political cartoon site, I find no objectionable cartoons. I think we agree on the fundementals of the issue; I think that we should be willing to call out both mainstream and "fringe" cartoonists that engage in such stereotyping.
     
  9. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    Rice and Democratic Politics
    By Charles Krauthammer
    January 28, 2005

    In parliamentary systems it is not uncommon to turn a political nomination — or even a relatively insignificant bill — into a way of expressing a lack of confidence in the government or in a major policy. In the United States that is far less common, but 12 Senate Democrats (plus the independent Jim Jeffords) have done precisely that over the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

    They have used it as a vehicle to stake out their opposition to the Iraq war. They are likely to pay a heavy political price. In this country, it is customary to allow the president to choose his own Cabinet so long as the nominee is minimally qualified. Rice is superbly qualified, and everyone concedes that. So it is mildly shocking that the Democrats mustered more votes against this nomination for secretary of state than have been cast against any since 1825.

    Indeed, secretaries of state are generally approved unanimously. This is the first nomination in a quarter-century to have earned even a single dissenting vote. It is certainly legitimate for senators to use whatever instrument they wish to make a political point. But it is not very smart.

    Because of her race, her symbolism and her personal story, Rice is not a run-of-the-mill appointment but a historic one. Which makes some of the more vitriolic charges against the first African American woman ever chosen for the office once held by Thomas Jefferson particularly wounding and politically risky.

    Mark Dayton of Minnesota accused her of lying in order to persuade the American people to go to war — a charge that is not just false but that most Americans don't believe. Rice was not a generator of intelligence. She was a consumer — of a highly defective product.

    Nor was she the principal architect of the Iraq war. That distinction lies with the president and vice president. To pin so much of the war on Rice, as her Senate opponents needed to do in trying to sink her nomination, seems unfair and disproportionate.

    You don't expect to see an iconic civil rights leader such as Andrew Young indignantly defending a Bush administration appointment. It took the Senate Democrats' attack on Rice to produce that unlikely scene.

    Will it matter politically in the end? Can Democrats take the African American vote for granted? Perhaps, but it will be interesting to see whether Democrats will be willing to repeat this exercise if Bush should nominate Clarence Thomas to succeed William Rehnquist and become the country's first black chief justice. The Democrats' performance on the Rice nomination has opened precisely that possibility for the president.

    The other political calculation that Democrats have to make — one that plagued them throughout the presidential campaign — is how vigorously to oppose the Iraq war. We are at a critical point in the Iraq enterprise, the most hopeful point since the fall of Baghdad. It's not just the advent of the first free elections in Iraqi history but the beginning of a real politics with campaigning, coalition-building, debate, the construction of political platforms — all the rudiments of a representative political system.

    It seems particularly inopportune for Sen. Edward Kennedy, for example, to use this moment to call the Iraq policy a catastrophe and a hopeless quagmire. It is possible that history will, in time, prove him right. But how does he know?

    To assert with such certainty that the war is lost, especially at such a hopeful time, seems more than betting against our side. It presents the political dilemma that faces all war dissidents — particularly those whose main argument is unwinnability: It tells the brave and committed soldiers on the front line they are fighting in vain.

    Regardless of the sincerity of Kennedy's assertion, it carries heavy political risk. Kennedy, however, is long past aspirations for higher office. Among the 13 senators who opposed Rice are some thinking seriously of running for the presidency in 2008. Most prominent are Evan Bayh and John Kerry. And Barbara Boxer clearly used the hearings to raise her national profile. By using Rice to vigorously oppose the war, they all vie for the 2008 Howard Dean role — albeit played calm and composed — of unequivocal antiwar candidate and favorite of the party's activist left.

    There is at least one even more prominent Democrat who clearly considers that calculation wrong. Among the list of Democrats who did vote for Rice is Hillary Clinton, steadily moving to the center with her relatively hawkish work on the Armed Services Committee, her recent conciliatory speech on abortion and now her unwillingness to go over the cliff in opposing the Rice nomination.

    Who has the politics of this right? My guess is: Hillary, as usual.
     

Share This Page