The Black Republican

Senator Sheets' opposition to Condi is pretty much the ultimate vote of confidence in her capability and appropriateness to the post.

I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I've now linked you to my blog at http://worlddebate.blogspot.com. Thanks for adding intelligent discourse to the political debate. I appreciate your perspective.

Uhhh, what the hell are you talking about? Why wouldn't Sen. Byrd have then opposed other minority cabinet members? Did you read his speech? Is this all you have to hold onto? And I'm sure you are convinced that the opposition to Mr. Gonzalez is purely based on race as well, not his legal judgement that the Pres. doesn't have to obey the constitution or signed treaties such as Geneva. I know you guys are partisan, but comeon.

Matthew, Yes I am implying that Senator Byrd's motivation does have a racial component, just as Democrats implied the same about Senator Lott and his comments at Strom Thurmonds birthday. Were the Democrats wrong to object to those comments? Perhaps they were a bit overzealous in their comments, but no, IMHO they were not. And the Republican party was right to remove Senator Lott from the Senate leadership. Senator Lotts comments were an indication that the he still held views that I (and a majority of Americans, not just conservatives) do not want to be associated with in any way. This country's segregationist past is nothing to be lauded - ever - no matter how innocently. Even when you're just waxing philosophical at an old man's birthday party. But where were those Democrats when Senator Chris Dodd made similar comments at Senator Byrd's birthday party? Silent! Slavery and segregation were just wrong and there should never be any attempt to minimalize, and thereby trivialize, how wrong they were. By the same token, allowing Senator Byrd - not just a segregationist, but a member of a violent, racist, white supremacy organization - to comment in any way on the nomination of ANY minority is insulting to us all! I don't care what he actually said, his mere appearance in the debate was reprehensible! Do I think Senator Byrd, Senator Lott or Senator Dodd are racists? Probably not, or not any more at least. But do I believe that they continue to have old attitudes when it comes to race? You bet! It's sort of like the difference between a recovering alcoholic and someone who has never drank. Neither of them drink now, but who would you be more likely to trust to lock up the bar at night?

To the question of why Byrd didn't object as strenuously to any of the hundreds of other minority nominations this president has made... are you sure he hasn't? And as for Colin Powell and Alberto Gonzalez specifically, well maybe the assertion I made in the post is correct "...to his eyes... [they are] just so much "brighter" than Dr. Rice." (hint - ask someone about that term!)

BTW... if you are going to post comment here, and make claims in those comments, please be prepared to backup those claims. For example, please provide proof of your claims that President Bush has broken his oath to protect and defend the Constitution or advocated violation of the Geneva Conventions. If those claims are true, and you can back them up, we will give you a forum for all the world to see.

Steve:

If Byrd and his fellow DEMACRAPS offered less opposition to other minority nominees it’s because there are no other positions as important as the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the Attorney General. Their opposition to the appointment of Ms. Rice is racist in the sense that they are exploiting a minority for the purpose of maintaining a power base. While the DEMACRAPS claim to represent the common folks, the small guy, and in particular minorities, it is the Republicans who are appointing minorities to high level cabinet positions: Powell as the first Black Sec. of State, Rice as the first Black female Sec of State and only the second woman to hold the position, and Alberto Gonzales as the first Hispanic Attorney General. And what have the DEMACRAPS done? Well, they‘ve appointed minorities to lesser cabinet posts (Labor and Energy) and second and third tier positions. So the DEMACRAPS’ claims seem a bit hollow, and they may just seem that way to more and more African-Americans and Hispanics --- BIG PROBLEM FOR THE DEMACRAPS!

As to opposition of Alberto Gonzales based upon “his legal judgment that the Pres. doesn't have to obey the constitution or signed treaties such as Geneva,” This person has his facts wrong. That legal opinion was written by the Justice Department as the request of Gonzales. So, it was the considered opinion of the Justice Department that the Gitmo prisoners were “unlawful combatants,” and therefore, were excepted from the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

Did Mr. Gonzalez not agree with the justice department memo that OKed the use of torture and told the President to proceed? So wasn't that a judgement/opinion? As for not obeying the constitution, I was referencing the fact that the White House/President redefined torture to a state that goes against existing U.S. law.

I think Mr. Gonzalez' involvement in this process as personal council to the president warrants discussion in the U.S. Senate. To chalk it up to racism is absolutely ridiculous and is what I've become so tired of in today's public discourse on both sides. Forget your partisanship. As an outside observer, doesn't this some scrutiny?

What? You mean Gonzales isn't entitled to agree with the DOJs opinion? One can agree with a court's opinion, but that doesn't mean that you wrote it, and more importantly, exercised your powers of reasoning to arrive at its conclusion.

Had Gonzales wanted to merely interject his own opinion, he didn't need the DOJ to write an opinion. But instead, he sought the opinion of a third party on an important matter, as Gonzales has asserted. There is no evidence to the contrary. Agreeing with it only means that they arrived at, or share the same conclusion.

Approve the use of torture? What crap! I defy you to demonstrate anywhere in the Justice Department's opinion, or any executive order or memorandum that either approves or suggests the approval of torture. Exactly, what U.S. statute(s) proscribe the specific techniques employed, or define them as torture? Moreover, I hardly think the DOJ is going to write an opinion that is in open defiance of a U.S. statute or case law.

There are all sorts of interrogation techniques employed in time of war. The approaches employed are the same as those employed in past wars. While there may be some debate about the effectiveness of some of the techniques, there's nothing new about them, except that the media and the DEMACRAPS are attempting to induce a moral panic over them. As it stands now, the Bills of Rights does not apply to foreigners outside of the U.S.

Gonzales' opinions and activities, as with any nominee, warrant discussion in the Senate. But neither the Rice or Gonzales hearings were discussions or inquiries, but rather inquisitions. The DEMACRAPS used them as a public forum for venting their hostility toward the Bush Administration and to demean the nominees; such as, Boxer referring to Ms Rice as a liar. And, it isn't just these two nominees whom the DEMACRAPS have attacked; there were the two appellate court nominees (Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada - Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit- ) who were filibustered. Both had the necessary number of votes for confirmation had they been given an “up or down” vote. The D.C. Court of Circuit is consider the most influential next to the Supreme Court. So, once again, we have the DEMACRAPS in opposition.

I agree that “racism” has become a cliché, but just because you’re tired of its use doesn’t mean that it’s nonexistent, and in this instance in particular. One has to look at the pattern that is emerging. Minority -Conservative- Influential Position- Opposition. This is occurring across judicial and executive branch nominations.

Lastly, you're very presumptuous. You assume that because an individual renders an opinion on the matter that may be favorable to the nominees, that it’s necessarily partisan. And especially so, if the notion of race is suggested. Your anti-war bias is patent.

Thanks for the comments Tom. I was going to respond to Matthew again myself but wanted to wait and see if anyone else would weigh in on the matter. I'm glad I waited. You brought up most everything I would have.

The main point I wanted to make with my post was just what you pointed out so well - the Democrats are the ones obstructing the ascension of well qualified minority individuals (Minority -Conservative- Influential Position- Opposition) and yet have the audacity to claim to be the party of diversity and inclusion.

If that is true, then why such opposition? Yes, their congressional detractors (and Matthew) all claim policy or ideological reasons, but why were those reasons not used to oppose Porter Goss or Michael Chertoff? As a matter of fact, can anyone tell me the last non-minority nominee to recieve anywhere close to the kind of opposition Dr. Condoleezza Rice or Alberto Gonzalez have recieved?

Democrats are not a party of diversity and inclusion, they are a party of special intrest factions... Pro Abortion, Environmentalists, Feminists, Labor Unions, NAACP, Gay & Lesbian groups! That is why they will continue to have a hard time getting elected. They try to do what appeals to each of those factions instead of concentrating on what is in the best intrest of the country.

As for my partisanship, yes I am partisan. I only want people in government who work for all American citizens regarless of what group they belong to, and work to secure American intrests, not against them.

Dr. King’s dream must be true we live in a day that men, women, blacks or whites can hold an office regardless of race, color or creed. Both of George Bush’s Secretary of States are the first and second, back-to-back African Americans. Condoleezza Rice as the first African American woman as The United States Secretary of State. Funny, there are no websites announcing Condoleezza at any of national organizations for minorities or equal rights.

The NAACP instead congratulated Oprah Winfrey as the 36th NAACP Image Awards Hall of Fame Inductee. Most likely, 12 Actress and three Motown singers ago, the NACCP would have recognized Condeleeza’s advancement, but Oprah passes out free cars. Jessie Jackson’s Rainbow Push / Coalition celebrated Johnny Carson’s passing and starting the career of many African American’s on his television show. The celebration of actors by the NAACP and Jessie Jackson must be a coincidence. Similarly, the ACLU’s headlines cover support for displaying marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems and opposition to Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General. The ACLU has not commented if a high Hispanic requires a 'green' card. Comparisons of Condeleezza’s press coverage with Barak Obama’s first month as a senator, one might mistake him for Captain of the Moon and the only great hope.

NOW, the National Organization of Women, yawned. After boasting for four years for Madam Albright why fawn over number two? NOW’s recent headlines include: NOW Opposes Attorney General Nominee Alberto Gonzales, NOW Activists Stand Up to Bush Agenda and NOW Calls for Resignation of Harvard University's President. With such firm opposition to men (Bush, Gonzales and Harvard's President), it is hard to miss what NOW supports (Women). Equally, the National Council of Women’s Organizations was busy updating their home pages permanent link to Augusta National to bother with silly Secretaries of State.

And yes in this alternate universe, "a former Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan can stand in the well of the United States Senate to advocate blocking the acceptance of a black woman nominee for Secretary of State and not one major national newspaper or television network questions the propriety of such an act?"

The dream is alive.

I agree that the national organizations that support the success of minorities should be lauding Ms. Rice's and Mr. Gonzalez' nominations. That is a valid point.

The take on Mr. Byrd is also a valid one. But in his career he has approved dozens of minorities, just the same as the rest of the senate. Was the Commerce secretary scrutinized? I just think it's funny, and sort of typical that the right's reaction to valid criticism is to call it racism. And the fact that the right can't see why there should be criticism is even more telling.

Matt, I can't agree with you that the right is failing to see need to be critical, the right is not a collection of mind-numbed robots, no matter what your local comedian says. If you don't hear the voice of reason from the right it is because there is too much foul wind coming from the left; the debate is too often framed by those who know only how to accuse, never discuss. Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry et al were not interested in getting to the truth, or to any point where they could become educated, they simply were playing "gotcha". Boxer never asked a question, she always made a charge, rehashing the Kerry campaign. And, if Rice did not plead guilty to the charge, then Condi had to be wrong; in Boxer's mind. There was no critical thinking going on in Boxer's mind, only preconception, which, to the embarassment of the American people she verbalized. Boxer is, apparently, incapable of non-partisan reasoning. For her everything is about gaining an advantage for her side. For her to call anyone a liar is ridiculous, for in her mind there is no absolute truth. To her truth is only that which will gain her an advantage while harming her side's imagined opposition. She is neither American, nor UnAmerican, neither racist, nor color-blind; she is only narcissistic, selfish and greedy. That the issues at hand were more complex than a sound bite could illustrate, and that the actions taken were more reasonable than the Dems can afford their natural enemy to be, is wasted on these partisan hacks. They know only hate, they cannot envision the future, so they sure as hell cannot understand and deal with the present.

Now, having said that, I see where Steve is coming from, in a fashion. For, when I read his charge of "racist", I am reminded of the way Jesse Jackson and so many others have mis-characterized so many under that banner. And, I am reminded of the Rush Limbaugh line, "NAALCP, the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People". There is no doubt in my mind that if Rice and Gonzales were social libs, who had done exactly these same things on national security matters they would be lauded by the very people who now denounce them. And, since the term racist has been so badly managed as to be virtually useless to describe all but the self-avowed racists, it is perfectly fitting to call anyone who opposes any person of color a racist without fear of contradiction. If that makes sense to you, then seek professional help, for their is truly no rhyme or reason to the use of the that term anymore. But, now the accusation has been made, the burden to disprove it is the task of Boxer and her pals; they must prove they are not racist! Picking on the Hispanic man and Black woman isn't helping.

As a point of clarification, it must be born in mind that there is a distinction between the epithet, racist and the noun, racism. One can engage in acts or behavior which have the effect of racism, but not necessarily be a racist. A racist is one who believes in or intentional promotes racial hegemony. Racism, on the other hand, can be an unintentionally act that has a hegemonic effect.

Unfortunately, race hustlers or demagogues who use it for political expediency and without regard to contextual cause and effect of a situation, have so seriously diluted the concept, as to render it a cliché