HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » WaPo: 'What we do know is...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:31 AM

WaPo: 'What we do know is that more than 80 of the (Rice letter) signatories are white males'

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:38 AM - Edit history (1)

By Editorial Board, Published: November 22


SINCE THE Senate is solely responsible for the confirmation of Cabinet officers, it’s not often that members of the House of Representatives jump into a debate about the nomination of a secretary of state — particularly before there has been a nomination. That’s one of the reasons a letter sent to President Obama this week by 97 House Republicans, challenging his potential choice of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for the State Department job, is remarkable.

Another is blatant disregard of established facts. Drawn up by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), the letter alleges that “Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public” about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But as congressional testimony has established, Ms. Rice’s comments on several Sunday television talk shows on Sept. 16 were based on talking points drawn up by the intelligence community. She was acting as an administration spokeswoman; there was nothing either incompetent or deliberately misleading about the way she presented the information she was given . . .

Though the Benghazi attack involved clear failures of U.S. security, Republicans have concentrated on a dubious subsidiary issue: the alleged failure of the administration to publicly recognize quickly enough that the incident was “a terrorist attack.” In fact, Mr. Obama has acknowledged that “the information may not have always been right the first time.” But if there was a White House conspiracy to cover up the truth, Republicans have yet to produce any evidence of it — much less a connection to Ms. Rice, who had no involvement with the Benghazi attack other than those television appearances . . . more

Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the 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.


read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-bizarre-attack-on-susan-rice/2012/11/22/22c54a10-340a-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_print.html

33 replies, 3869 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply WaPo: 'What we do know is that more than 80 of the (Rice letter) signatories are white males' (Original post)
bigtree Nov 2012 OP
jberryhill Nov 2012 #1
GoCubsGo Nov 2012 #17
MADem Nov 2012 #18
jberryhill Nov 2012 #24
madokie Nov 2012 #2
Mass Nov 2012 #3
bigtree Nov 2012 #6
Mass Nov 2012 #8
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #10
Mass Nov 2012 #19
mzteris Nov 2012 #27
Mass Nov 2012 #29
hfojvt Nov 2012 #20
bigtree Nov 2012 #25
Tutonic Nov 2012 #4
uponit7771 Nov 2012 #5
hfojvt Nov 2012 #21
Evergreen Emerald Nov 2012 #7
Pathwalker Nov 2012 #9
Buns_of_Fire Nov 2012 #15
Pathwalker Nov 2012 #31
RVN VET Nov 2012 #11
LuvLoogie Nov 2012 #16
heaven05 Nov 2012 #12
otohara Nov 2012 #13
ChisolmTrailDem Nov 2012 #14
The Wizard Nov 2012 #22
Blasphemer Nov 2012 #23
Historic NY Nov 2012 #26
WillyT Nov 2012 #28
Applan Nov 2012 #30
struggle4progress Nov 2012 #32
gulliver Nov 2012 #33

Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:44 AM

1. A black female Secretary of State named Rice?



I'm not certain they are jumping on her like white on Rice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:53 AM

17. I agree, for the most part.

This is more an attempt to obstruct President Obama's wishes, rather than a purely racial thing. Heck, Grampy McAsshole flat-out said he would not approve of ANYONE Obama nominated. I am sure there is a racial element to it. But, I think it's more related to the President's skin color, rather than his nominee's skin color.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:11 PM

18. Ahhhh....but SHE was easily controlled! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:59 PM

24. Was she black, female, and from Stanford or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:46 AM

2. It is racism loud and clear

Only the blind wouldn't see it as it is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:51 AM

3. That is the Republican caucus, so what did they expect?

25 women (less than 10%), 3African American, less than 10 hispanics.

They actually got at least half of the woman caucus and one third of the African American caucus (West, of course), so it is an unfair statement for white men. It is the Republican brand that is crazy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:03 AM

6. the sentence is less of an indictment than it is a statement of fact

. . . and the impact is political, as we saw in the presidential election where a coalition of minority voters and women prevailed over a compacted white male electorate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:15 AM

8. Yes, but the fact is that neither this statement nor

Last edited Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:18 PM - Edit history (2)

the notion of racism is the point of this editorial. It comes like an afterthought.

What they are bemoaning is the fact that the GOP makes up facts as it goes. They are calling them liars.

Now, it is possible that this is racism. It is also possible that this is sexism, and I find that it is interesting that it is dismissed concerning a party which has shown so much sexism in this campaign (starting by their presidential candidate). But the truth is that the letter was signed by 80 white men because the GOP is made of white men, and that the GOP is racist and sexist.

EDIT: I should have said it is racism, given that this is clearly part of the equation. But in Rice's case, sexism is also part of the equation. She should go back home at 5pm to cook dinner for her kids, said presidential candidate Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:57 AM

10. The prominent Obama appointees that the Fox News horde has attacked

so severely that they have pushed them out of office thus far have been mostly African-American.

Tuesday's resignation of an Agriculture Department official from Georgia continued to reverberate throughout the day, with the White House denying that it pushed her out of a job and the NAACP reversing course to defend the employee.

NAACP President Benjamin Jealous had condemned Shirley Sherrod for describing at an association banquet how, 24 years ago, she did not help a white farmer as much as she could have because of his race.

But Jealous responded just as forcefully Tuesday in accusing conservative activist Andrew Breitbart and Fox News of distorting Sherrod's remarks and said the NAACP had been "snookered."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/07/usda_worker_quits_over_racism.html

Van Jones, under fire from the extremist television show host for his background in radical activism, has resigned from the administration.

Jones was Special Adviser for Green Jobs at the Council on Environmental Quality - the so-called 'Green Jobs' Czar. Jones' 2008 book, The Green Collar Economy, was a New York Times best-seller.

The saga began with Glenn Beck, a talk show host for Fox News, who hammered at Jones relentlessly the last several weeks for his radical past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/06/glenn-beck-gets-first-sca_n_278281.html

Two examples. Racism always gets the Republicans fired up. It's a shame, but it is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:12 PM

19. I totally agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:36 PM

27. generally speaking,

I have pretty much found those two traits to be synonymous - scratch a racist, find a misogynist and vice versa.

And it's a fairly safe bet they probably don't like GLBT & Latinos, either.

A Black Female to hate, woo-hoo, it's two, two, two-target-hate groups in one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mzteris (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:42 PM

29. Totally agree...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:13 PM

20. let me see if I understand this

the 6,244,000 black males who voted for Obama are part of the coalition
the 4,470,000 lationo women who voted for Obama are part of the coalition

and they somehow prevailed over the

19,403,000 white men who voted for Obama. (numbers from 2008 because I cannot seem to find polling data from 2012)

That we white males are not part of the Obama coalition? Not welcome in the Democratic Party? Just an unimportant shrinking part of the electorate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:09 PM

25. the collective majority of voters prevailed over a compacted white male vote in the republican bloc

. . . that winning majority obviously included white males.

In the past, solid blocs of white males voting republican have provided margins of defeat for our Democratic nominees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 09:59 AM

4. Why they are going to lose 2016 too.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:02 AM

5. I think Wolfe was the first to notice all the witch hunts have been blacks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:16 PM

21. that figures. He would be the first

to cry wolf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:15 AM

7. The through-the-looking-glass propoganda is now finally being challenged

These tactics, used--successful--during the Bush administration are now being exposed as the bigfatlies that they are. The difference is that we are questioning the stenographic media, we have other outlets and more independent sources.

The republicans do not care about facts. They do not care that they are destroying the career of an intelligent, hardworking woman who has dedicated her career to public service. For what? What is their goal? How does attacking her help them politically? It certainly is divisive and hurtful to the American people.

So...we think our elected officials' jobs are to represent us. They know that, once elected, their jobs are to take as much power as they can for the republican party--and to represent the donors.

We spoke in the election--a mandate. And they are ignoring our voices. I think they must be held accountable for their actions. And the only way is to continue the sweep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 10:45 AM

9. Where can I find a list of these congress cretins?

I'm terrible at google and would like to know if the new rep(Dave Camp) from my freshly gerrymandered district is on it, and I'm pretty sure my ex rep cretin (Mike Rogers) is on it. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pathwalker (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:29 AM

15. Here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buns_of_Fire (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 04:46 PM

31. Thank you! Amazingly,

they didn't sign it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:00 AM

11. They're racists. . .

. . .and they're stupid, but I repeat myself.

I hope each one of these silly morons is called to public account for this. Soledad (bless her!) has been doing a great job of letting them stumble and fumble on TV. But the President, if this keeps up, ought to invite every one of them to an auditorium for a q. and a. -- only he gets to do the q., and they have to do the a.

First question: Now that the intelligence community has stated, through General Petraeus, that Ms Rice's talking points were, in fact, edited for National Security reasons, wtf are you complaining about?

Second question: There would be no second question because everyone of these racist pigs would shrink away towards the exit door to avoid answering the first one.

(And, yep, I called them what they are. These are low-brows who must have bristled when Bush brought Condi into his Administration, but they did so silently and off-camera because they didn't want to catch the wrath of their own Party.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RVN VET (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:38 AM

16. I wouldn't give them the time of day.

Ignore them. The President was right to call out Graham and McCain at his press conference, but he really should just shit heal these deadbeats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:11 AM

12. well

let's get real for a moment. Let's see? African-American POTUS, Secretary of State and Attorney General. You don't think that scares the SHIT out of 'the good ole boys'. People (mostly racist white males)who by virtue of their skin color have ALWAYS been entitled to every freedom and perk of this country must be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century or voted to the dustbin/garbage dump of history. These assholes will never give up on their hate of minorities. They still don't want equal rights for fully over 50% of the american population and it damn sure sticks in their craw to have to give up their self-perceived racial superiority over others. Sad but true. Been around too long to not know that these are RACIST dogs who signed this letter. But guess what racist PIGS? POTUS is still African-American, AG, still African-American and soon SOS wil be the same. To HELL with all of you!!!!! Anachronistic fools!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:19 AM

13. Taking Cues From Mr. Wrong On Practically Everything McCain

if he didn't run and stick his face in front of every TV camera available - there wouldn't be the long long sad trail of untrue statements by the senior senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 11:26 AM

14. First truthers. Then birthers. Now Ricers.

It's all about her being black.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:21 PM

22. Who could have thought

Republicans are bigots?
Of the two parties, which would find itself aligned with the Ku Klux Klan?
The Kloseted Kristian Klan Konservatives can go piss up a rope. It's time to end reconstruction and cut off all funding to the secessionist Confederate States. With apologies to all the normal people living there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 12:25 PM

23. I'm pretty sure they would react the same way...

No matter what color or gender the Ambassador/potential nominee was. It's just their typical anti-Democratic president agenda. That said, I do believe the CBC is correct to make it a race issue in this case. A party known for having a racist agenda should always be called out under these circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:27 PM

26. The GOP Congress just doesn't know their place.

They have no comfirmation vote & no say in who or whom is put forth in an nomination...they just don't know how this government works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 01:38 PM

28. K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 02:10 PM

30. "...either willfully or incompetently misled the American public about the Sept. 11 attack..."

Wait, wasn't that Dick Cheney? My mistake, his misleading was certainly not incompetent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:04 PM

32. It seems nearly a hundred of the House cannot read their Constitution:

... he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law ...

-- US Constitution, Article II §2 ¶2

Well! What a frightfully embarrassing gaffe! Whatever should we expect next? Representatives trying to write Supreme Court decisions? Representatives trying to issue Executive Orders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:38 PM

33. There may be some race, but I think what they really don't like...

...is that she is so damned good. She is very, very credible and poised, and she does her homework. Republicans didn't like her introductions of the terms "baseless" and "unfounded" to the political dialog. Those terms are perfect to describe Republican lies and smearing in a classy yet devastating way. They don't like that. That makes the Republicans think they are being called lying idiots. They don't mind being that. They just don't want people pointing it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread