Saturday, January 13, 2007
Boxer With Children And A (personal) Side Of Rice
This editorial in the Washington Post,
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm?page=0 , pretty much parrots everything said recently by the right wing media types regarding the relevant incident. The general consensus of those folk is that Senator Barbara Boxer made a verbal personal attack against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The specific arguments against the Senator range from saying that she was putting down Secretary Rice because she has no children to claiming that Senator Boxer said that Secretary Rice was unqualified to make military decisions because she has no children. Limbaugh went so far as to say:
Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this -- an African American woman -- right before Martin Luther King Day, hitting below the ovaries here.
Poppycock.
Let’s first look at what actually happened; let us look at the actual words that were used. First, here is some context. Secretary Rice was in the Senate defending the President’s ‘new’ plan of escalation. Senator Boxer is against the plan. One of the points she was trying to make, and indeed the entire Democratic Party has been making for some time, is that the people making the war policy are risking nothing, sacrificing nothing, and paying no price for their decisions.
Now, given that context, here is exactly what Secretary Rice said and the response that Senator Boxer made that she has now been so criticized for:
Rice: “I could never, and I can never, do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of --"
Boxer: Madame Secretary, please, I know you feel terrible about it, that's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions. Now the issue is: Who pays the price? Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price; my kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.
As you probably know, I’m no particular fan of either of these women, so I believe that I can form a fairly objective opinion here. To me, I can see no insult. Senator Boxer does not even directly mention the fact that Secretary Rice has no children, let alone does she suggest that the Secretary’s lack of kids is a bad thing, or even relevant.
I honestly don’t understand how this was an attack. I just really, really don’t. If any of you do, please enlighten me.
Here are a couple more articles on the subject:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243359,00.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701120014 < Limbaugh and his ‘lynching’ comment
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-have-no-idea-if-condi-rice-is.html
|
This editorial in the Washington Post,
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/editorials/boxers_low_blow_editorials_.htm?page=0 , pretty much parrots everything said recently by the right wing media types regarding the relevant incident. The general consensus of those folk is that Senator Barbara Boxer made a verbal personal attack against Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The specific arguments against the Senator range from saying that she was putting down Secretary Rice because she has no children to claiming that Senator Boxer said that Secretary Rice was unqualified to make military decisions because she has no children. Limbaugh went so far as to say:
Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this -- an African American woman -- right before Martin Luther King Day, hitting below the ovaries here.
Poppycock.
Let’s first look at what actually happened; let us look at the actual words that were used. First, here is some context. Secretary Rice was in the Senate defending the President’s ‘new’ plan of escalation. Senator Boxer is against the plan. One of the points she was trying to make, and indeed the entire Democratic Party has been making for some time, is that the people making the war policy are risking nothing, sacrificing nothing, and paying no price for their decisions.
Now, given that context, here is exactly what Secretary Rice said and the response that Senator Boxer made that she has now been so criticized for:
Rice: “I could never, and I can never, do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of --"
Boxer: Madame Secretary, please, I know you feel terrible about it, that's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions. Now the issue is: Who pays the price? Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price; my kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.
As you probably know, I’m no particular fan of either of these women, so I believe that I can form a fairly objective opinion here. To me, I can see no insult. Senator Boxer does not even directly mention the fact that Secretary Rice has no children, let alone does she suggest that the Secretary’s lack of kids is a bad thing, or even relevant.
I honestly don’t understand how this was an attack. I just really, really don’t. If any of you do, please enlighten me.
Here are a couple more articles on the subject:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,243359,00.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200701120014 < Limbaugh and his ‘lynching’ comment
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-have-no-idea-if-condi-rice-is.html
|
Comments:
Post a Comment
