0
   

Blacks and women celebrate Condi Rice.

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 03:38 pm
so is the issue the qualifications of appointed minorities? or perhaps, qualifications of appointments in general? careful in answering this might be a trick question.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 03:42 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
The most prominent "minority" in the Clinton cabinet was Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary.


Inaccurate. You overlook Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who died in a plane crash in Bosnia.

Your opinions are, likewise, as faulty as your facts.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 03:50 pm
There was a secretary of Agriculture as well, though I don't know much about him.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 04:12 pm
Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros, Commerce Secretary Frederico Pena, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown, and of course Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 07:33 pm
PDiddie wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
The most prominent "minority" in the Clinton cabinet was Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary.


Inaccurate. You overlook Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who died in a plane crash in Bosnia.

Your opinions are, likewise, as faulty as your facts.


Oh yes Ron Brown. The chief bagman of the former administration. Selling tickets for his foreign "sales" junkets for $100K a pop to gullible business execs. Stellar figure.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2004 10:02 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Oh yes Ron Brown. The chief bagman of the former administration. Selling tickets for his foreign "sales" junkets for $100K a pop to gullible business execs. Stellar figure.


And how could you have overlooked him if he made such a stellar impression on you?

Thanks for re-illustrating my point. Yet another caustic, obnoxious, and fallacious opinion of someone, anyone, whose political philosophy happens to be to the left of yours. I notice as I peruse the forum that there are a lot of those from your keyboard this evening.

Are you sure your wine hasn't turned into vinegar?

This raises a related question, george, one I've been considering for awhile:

Can't anything keep you conservatives happy for any length of time? It's only been a month; has the glow of Bush's Man-Date already faded? How do you people manage to stay angry all the time?

On second thought, don't answer that. I'm not interested in knowing.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 09:20 am
PDiddie wrote:
...

This raises a related question, george, one I've been considering for awhile:

Can't anything keep you conservatives happy for any length of time? It's only been a month; has the glow of Bush's Man-Date already faded? How do you people manage to stay angry all the time?


Speaking as a conservative, I must say I'm quite happy. And, I would also point out that from my perspective it is the liberals who appear to be the angry ones. They are angry at Bush, far more than conservatives were angry at Clinton. More than anger, I think conservatives observe your reaction towards Bush and wonder why you folks "just don't get it."

PDiddie wrote:
On second thought, don't answer that. I'm not interested in knowing.


Sorry .... didn't see that until after I'd typed my response. Please ignore same.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 09:59 am
Ticomaya wrote:
They are angry at Bush, far more than conservatives were angry at Clinton.

Shocked

Quote:

More than anger, I think conservatives observe your reaction towards Bush and wonder why you folks "just don't get it."


This is starting to sound like a mantra.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:01 am
PDiddie wrote:

Thanks for re-illustrating my point. Yet another caustic, obnoxious, and fallacious opinion of someone, anyone, whose political philosophy happens to be to the left of yours. I notice as I peruse the forum that there are a lot of those from your keyboard this evening.

Are you sure your wine hasn't turned into vinegar?

This raises a related question, george, one I've been considering for awhile:

Can't anything keep you conservatives happy for any length of time? It's only been a month; has the glow of Bush's Man-Date already faded? How do you people manage to stay angry all the time?

On second thought, don't answer that. I'm not interested in knowing.


Well, I'll respond anyway. Actually I'm a very cheerful upbeat guy, who enjoys most of what he does a great deal. Like you, I have knowledge and opinions, and I say what I think. There is no shortage of caustic material here, and what one finds obnoxious generally depends on the proclivities of the reader as much as the writer.

With respect to the late Mr. Brown (and Ms O'leary as well) I was speaking from direct, personal experience. At the time I ran a division of a company with a substantial government service practice, and I was a direct recipient of their solicitations, which, even by contemporary government standards, were blatant, self-serving, and corrupt. Check any contemporaneous newspaper file about either party and you will detect the lingering odor of it.

I recognize this presents you with the necessity of choice. Either deal with conflicting information and opinion, or castigate the one who offers it. Evidently you have made yours. OK by me.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:05 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Speaking as a conservative, I must say I'm quite happy. And, I would also point out that from my perspective it is the liberals who appear to be the angry ones. They are angry at Bush, far more than conservatives were angry at Clinton. More than anger, I think conservatives observe your reaction towards Bush and wonder why you folks "just don't get it."


Well and good (well, not really) but this doesn't answer the question I posed.

I'll try again:

What do you people have to be so angry about of late?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:09 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Check any contemporaneous newspaper file about either party and you will detect the lingering odor of it.


So if this is something that both parties have in common, why use it to show how one is inferior to the other? And since the issue was about the individual's qualifications and accomplishments, is corruption a factor?

The fact is that the Bush administration is patting itself on the back a little prematurely. It still remains overwhelmingly white and male and not quite representative of the population. If it makes you all feel better to think that the quality of your minority appointees is so superior that fewer are needed, good onya. But the fact remains that Clinton's cabinet was more diverse both demographically and ideologically.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:22 am
I didn't say both political parties have it in common to that degree. I said these two individuals were notably corrupt, even by contemporary political standards, and you can verify that in the then contemporaneous record This was their salient characteristic. Big difference.

You are dead wrong about the role of "minority" people in the Bush administration. Those appointed are not mere placeholders - they are serious people who make serious contributions in matters not direcly involving questions of race - also a big difference.

Edited to clarify ambiguities
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:29 am
Oh. I thought georgebob1 was referring to Ron Brown and Ms. O'Leary when he said "Check any contemporaneous newspaper file about either party and you will detect the lingering odor of it."

Freeduck - did you think he was referring to the Republican and Democratic parties?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 10:32 am
Yes, that's what I thought he meant.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 11:56 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
More than anger, I think conservatives observe your reaction towards Bush and wonder why you folks "just don't get it."


This is starting to sound like a mantra.


So it's not just me then?

PDiddie wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Speaking as a conservative, I must say I'm quite happy. And, I would also point out that from my perspective it is the liberals who appear to be the angry ones. They are angry at Bush, far more than conservatives were angry at Clinton. More than anger, I think conservatives observe your reaction towards Bush and wonder why you folks "just don't get it."


Well and good (well, not really) but this doesn't answer the question I posed.

I'll try again:

What do you people have to be so angry about of late?


I don't have it, and I've not observed it .... but I guess I'll let the "angry" ones respond.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 12:57 pm
AC's not angry. (Note: if you don't like Ann, I already know it, so you don't have to tell me how "unreliable" she is, how full of "hate," etc. Thanks in advance.)

Quote:
It's Dr. Rice, not Dr. Dre
Ann Coulter

December 2, 2004

In light of their reaction to the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, I gather liberals have gotten over their enthusiasm for multiculturalist milestones. It's interesting that they dropped their celebrations of the "first woman!" "first black!" "first Asian!" designations at the precise moment that we are about to get our first black female secretary of state.

When Madeline Albright was appointed the FIRST WOMAN secretary of state, the media was euphoric. (And if memory serves, Monica Lewinsky was the first Jewish female to occupy her various positions on the president's, uh, staff.)

With Albright at the helm of the State Department, Osama bin Laden ran wild throughout the Middle East, the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes under her nose, and we staged a pre-emptive attack solely for purposes of regime change based on false information presented to the American people by Albright about a world leader who was not an imminent threat to the United States. Slobodan Milosevic wasn't even a latent, long-term, hypothetical threat.

But the girls in the mainstream media were too smitten with Albright's brooch collection and high heels to notice the shambles she was making of foreign policy.

The New York Times raved about Albright's brooches in an article titled, "A Diplomat Who Says 'Read My Pins.'" In the San Francisco Chronicle, Leah Garchik was amazed by Albright's "jewel-encrusted flag" pin - Albright's clever ruse to prove that Republicans did not have "dibs on patriotic jewelry." Perhaps Rice could impress American journalists if she talked more about her accessorizing.

People magazine quoted an aide gushing that Albright "stays in her heels all day." Albright herself told Harper's Bazaar, "I've kidded that the advantage of being a woman secretary of state is makeup." This was a great leap forward for feminism? At this point even Paris Hilton was rolling her eyes and saying, "Oh, come on now!"

But Bush nominates a brilliant geopolitical thinker who happens to be black and female and all of a sudden she's Butterfly McQueen, who don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' no Middle Eastern democracies.

Earlier this year, the flamboyant Richard Clarke claimed that when he briefed Rice in early 2001 about al-Qaida, her "facial expression gave me the impression that she had never heard the term before." It's good to know that Clinton's chief terrorism "expert" believes himself to possess paranormal abilities such as ESP.

Why couldn't Dick Clarke have used some of those mind-reading skills on Osama before al-Qaida blew up the USS Cole in October 2000? Or after? To the bitter end, the official position of the Clinton administration was that it couldn't say for sure who was responsible for the Cole attack.

Apparently, liberals believe Rice compares unfavorably to Madeline Albright, whose principle accomplishment before becoming secretary of state was managing to attain the age of 60 without realizing she was Jewish. That was raw competence.

I take that back: Albright also taught at Georgetown University. Of course, American universities make professors of people like Eldridge Cleaver's wife. (Kathleen Cleaver is currently at Yale law school; Susan Rosenberg, a participant in a Brinks car robbery, teaches at Hamilton College; former Weatherman Bill Ayers is a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago; and former Weatherman Bernardine Dohrn is the director of a legal clinic at Northwestern University.)

Or how about Clinton's first secretary of state, Warren Christopher, a lawyer whose dazzling foreign policy experience consisted of being President Carter's chief negotiator for the hostages in Iran? That's almost as impressive a resume entry as "Chief Iceberg Lookout, the Titanic," "Senior Design Engineer, the Edsel," "Navigator, Exxon Valdez," or "Writer/Executive Producer, 'Alexander.'"

The closest black woman to Bill Clinton was his secretary, Betty Currie - whose principal function was penciling in "Monica" on Clinton's "To Do" list every morning. The closest black woman to most of the liberals accusing Rice of being incompetent is the maid they periodically accuse of stealing from the liquor cabinet.

George Bush chose a black woman to be his top adviser on national security. Now he wants her as his secretary of state. And when she becomes the first black female secretary of state, Rice will replace the first black secretary of state - both appointed by right-wing Republican George Bush. The entire Bush Cabinet is starting to look like an Image Awards telecast minus the fisticuffs and gunplay.

Democrats are terrified that black people might start to notice.

Say, there's a black woman standing next to President Bush ... who is that?

Never mind! It's probably somebody he's arresting!

It's extremely valuable for Democrats to be able to campaign in black neighborhoods while talking about the "white boys" running the Republican Party. When she was managing Al Gore's 2000 campaign, Donna Brazile said she was not going to "let the white boys win in this election." (If I had a nickel for every time I've confused Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Terry McAuliffe, Paul Begala and James Carville for the Jackson Five ...)

Sure enough, Brazile was instrumental in not letting a couple of white boys - named Al and Joe - win the election. I guess that's liberals' idea of a "competent" black woman.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 05:53 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:

This is starting to sound like a mantra.


So it's not just me then?


No, it's not just you. Apparently you all get your information and opinions from the same place. Sig Heil!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2004 05:57 pm
until all americans can discuss and evaluate candidates on their merit only and without regard to colour, gender or any other meaningless factor we shall all suffer from our own bias.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2004 11:37 am
One time I agree with Coulter, except about Brazile.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 01:12 pm
In spite of Condi, the relationship between the rightwing political machine and blacks appears to be as ... problematic as ever. Especially when the stakes are high, election date is near, and the machine desperate..

The GOP and race baiting: they just can't help themselves
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 11:08:46