Boxer, Rice, and the dumbest ‘controversy’ of the day

January 12, 2007

For those of you who don’t peruse the right side of the blogosphere, you may not realize that a surprising number of conservatives are apoplectic about an exchange between Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over personal investment in the war in Iraq.

This piece in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post seems to be the source of all the commotion.

Boxer was wholly in character for her party – New York’s own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic — but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.” Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

Breathtaking. Simply breathtaking. […] The junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

Following the NY Post’s lead, conservative bloggers have been in a frenzy, accusing Boxer or everything from callousness, to anti-feminism, to homophobia.

I’m afraid these critics have lost their collective minds.

In the context of the hearing, Boxer was talking about the costs of the war being shouldered by a small portion of American society, and that those sacrifices generally aren’t felt by senators or cabinet secretaries. It was a point about personal sacrifice — and how thousands of families are paying the ultimate personal price for this misguided war.

The NY Post accused Boxer of arguing that Rice isn’t “qualified” to be Secretary of State because she has no children. That’s insane; Boxer said nothing of the sort. The senator merely noted that neither she nor Rice stand to lose any close relatives in this conflict. That doesn’t have anything to do with either of their qualifications or their personal lives.

Indeed, as John Cole noted, Boxer applied the exact same standard to herself.

[S]ince the wingnuts think they have a winner here, let’s help them out. If you read the transcript, Boxer actually said SHE would not pay a price, either. In other words, she attacked not only Rice, but she attacked herself. I think that is proof positive that Sen. Boxer is sexist….

All Boxer said was that she and Condi will not pay a personal price for any decisions they made. Reading that as an attack on Rice’s competence, much less homophobia, is beyond silly.

It occurs to me that perhaps the right considers this absurd flap an opportunity to change the subject away from the administration’s tragic escalation plan. It’s far preferable to launch some bogus, trumped up attack against Barbara Boxer than it is to argue the merits behind Bush’s “new” idea. If so, today’s freak-out over Boxer’s comments is just a shell game, and no one really believes it’s a real story.

At least, I hope that’s the motivation. Otherwise, there are a whole lot of conservative bloggers who are utterly and completely lost.

Barbara Boxer’s contribution to that hearing was no doubt the most pointed, poignant and hard hitting and that’s what has the rightwingers’ panties in a bunch. I would have liked to hear Barbara demand that anyone who supported the Royal Moron’s latest idea to kill thousands should be required to send an immediate family member but, falling short of that, it was still a masterful part of the discussion. She also talked about the maimed soldiers who are so disfigured that they have to put pictures of them on the walls of the hospital room so that the staff can think of them like that, as real human beings. Jenna and not-Jenna could always join up and Daddy would only have to find 19,998 more pieces of fodder. It’s a start.

  • “Changing the subject”….exactly CB.
    In “State of Denial” Condi is portrayed as a very dangerous and quietly incompetent member of this fucked-up administration. In telling her of serious intelligence coming in with regard to al-qaeda, one official mentioned that it was like putting the information out in one big black hole.
    And one need not look too far for examples of Condi’s empathy…shoe shopping and Broadway plays in New York while people were drowning in New Orleans. Yes…a really caring individual.

  • I think conservative bloggers are utterly and completely lost without outrage. This nonesence about Boxer is all displaced rage since they can’t really vent against their anger against the President–who by his own words is responsible for this continuing disaster.

  • So NOW the wingnuts are concerned about feminism and such. It strike me that so much blogging is rightwingers trying to get leftwingers attention and to a lesser extent the left blogging at the right. Thus, so many accustations of “hypocrisy” arise. It’s just that the right has to cook up fake hypocrisy and the left is provided rightwing hypocrisy by the pot full.

    That same article is the one accusing Hillary of “undercutting a President in wartime.”

    Rupert Murdoch at work. That was front page stuff too.

  • I’m afraid these critics have lost their collective minds.

    Absolutely correct. Furthermore, I expect them to start the all-out attacks on John Cole in 3, 2, 1…

  • I kinda agree with the displacement theory of Jon Karak #3. Perhaps all right-wing blogging is just a cry for help.

  • I just hope that Boxer doesn’t break down under the pressure of these attacks and issue a tearful (and totally unnecessary) apology like Dick “Where’s My Hankie” Durbin did under similar circumstances.

  • In reality, Boxer’s reference is to a draft-less military–filled to a large degree with those seeking an economic opportunity. Of course, there are those who joined the military after 9/11 out of a sense of duty to country.

  • At first, I read it as if she were talking about the deficient, but the kids are too old/young didn’t make sense. My point is just skimming through it I got a different view, but when it didn’t make sense I looked at it again.

    But even if she did, aren’t they the family party ?? What the problem ??

  • Another example of the right’s post-modern suspicion of “facts”. To the post-modern rightwinger, there is no such thing as objective truth – all statements of facts are infused with political content. Some examples:
    – Stating that Dick Cheney has a gay daughter is an attack on Cheney.
    – Stating that we’re losing, badly, in Iraq is an attack on Bush
    – Stating that Condoleeza Rice has no children is a (possibly homophobic) slur on Rice.

  • Rupert Murdoch looks to be at least a corporal in Tony Snow’s New Media War. When there is nothing bad to say about the behavior of Democrats, these guys have to manufacture controversy out of whole cloth. The fact that Murdoch has partisan tendencies is not a problem, but that he so openly uses his properties to engage in blatant and quite unprofessional manipulation of public opinion bordering on the illegal is an outrage.

  • Rice is a piece of work, arrogant and heartless, Boxer nailed her; good for Barbara! It’s about time someone said something. I also agree that the right wing blogs are trying to change the subject. I would be too if I had to defend the indefensible.

  • conservative bloggers have been in a frenzy, accusing Boxer or everything from callousness, to anti-feminism, to homophobia.

    Homophobia? Really? So the right can say gay marriage is a threat to civilization (just like terrorists) and the right can compare being gay to bestiality and the right can get its knickers in a knot because M. Cheney is having a baby and the right can come out and say all sorts of shit about gays and lesbians that is worthy of a cinder block to the cranium and that is A-OK. But Boxer’s comments are homophobic?

    Fuck them. Really. Preferably with pitch forks as they roast in the section of Hell reserved for hypocrites.

    And who is supposed to read this cry of homophobia and get upset? The Log Cabin Republicans? Ha. The rest of Das Base? That’s no damn good, they’ll just think That Barbara Boxer is one of us!

    Fuck ’em.

  • Good thing that horrible Rice doesn’t have children or family. I am one who hopes the diseased breed dies with her. She is an insult to all decent people, male or female.

  • “an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice”

    She is neither accomplished nor seasoned, has no understanding of diplomacy, her “scholarship” is considered second-rate at best, and the only reason she ever managed to make it to the point of being and “advisor” to two presidents was both needed a two-fer to hide their lying asses behind, and she was the only black female who would take the job.

    Condoleezza Rice, poster girl for the right’s nightmares of “affirmative action” and these bozos spring to her defense? Is it just me, or do these halfwits get dumber by the hour?

  • But now we are talking about it. This from the Lyndon Johnson school of Texas Politics. (of course he was an amateur compared to the re thug machine). In a nutshell he would tell his people something like, spread the word that my opponent is sleeping with his mother. Loyal aide would ask if this would true. Johnson would say of course not;
    BUT MAKE THE BASTARD DENY IT!

  • Boxers whole point in her statement was to do just that. Disqualify Ms Rice’s authority to make such decisions. Any other interpretation shows a lack of reality.

  • I was surprised by the snarl on Condoliar’s face throughout the day’s sessions, she looked like she wanted to jump over the table and kick someone’s ass. Hilarious.

    It’s even more hilarious to see Mordoch whining about “low blows”. This is the guy who spews some of the lowest forms of “entertainment” out there. But Mordoch’s minions go for the ultimate guffaw when they spurt this gob onto the keyboard:

    …time was when Schumer seemed to understand the existential threat posed by Islamic extremism…

    Existential threat? Islamic extremists threaten to end our existence? You can almost hear the Posthole’s editors pissing their Depends.

    Once again, the true wingnut is not finished until they equate opposition to Bush with murder and terrorist support…

    To the extent that such behavior encourages America’s enemies – and of course it does – he, like they, stands to have innocent blood on his hands.

    Yes, the party’s bloggers will be happy.

    So will al Qaeda.

    So here we go again with the alQaeda loves Bush’s opposition bullshit. Didn’t Rupert get the memo that nobody with a brain buys that crap anymore?

    But wait, now they say Bush didn’t send the right number of troops (until now):

    As for McCain, his support is tempered by the fact that he argued correctly, from the start, that the war was being fought with too few troops. Had the administration listened four years ago, this tactical shift might not be necessary now.

    Nevermind that McLame didn’t say any such thing at the beginning of the war, that he said we’d win easily, nevermind that. Look who’s criticizing El Presidente now, for “not listening” to the shit that McLame hadn’t said yet, undoubtedly getting people killed in the process. Who are these terrorists? The NY Posthole!

    I say they’re in bed with Osama.

    And for once the Posthole says something true: “…to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre…”

    It is beyond bizarre. And since the Posthole is the only outfit saying that, they’re calling themselves bizarre. For once, I agree.

  • No, they haven’t lost their minds, they’re trying to do another Mary Cheney. Remember all the trumped-up outrage over Kerry referring to Mary Cheney’s homosexuality during the third debate? It was a phony issue, but a brilliant political tactic: the media talked about that, instead of about how Kerry had won all three debates, and that was precisely the point. This time, they’re trying to distract from the negative reaction to the Iraq policy, but they’re not dealing from the position of strength they had then, so it’s not working as well.

  • Senator Boxer, although fundamentally valid in her pointed frustration, was more of a grand stander in addressing Secretary Rice. Who pays the price; was her banter, but what exactly was her point? Why was she acting like she was engaged in caring for the concerns of our countries patriots. Where was Senator Boxer when terrorism was known throughout the eight years of the Clinton Presidency? This is not simply a matter of winning freedom for Iraq. If we can not launch operations from a friendly ally in the Middle East we are going to be in deep trouble when Iran and Syria escalate the threat; and ‘yes’ they will escalate the threat. We need an ally in that geographical location if we want the ability to react when threatened by Middle East extremist.

    My heart breaks for those in harms way; and the children and loved ones who suffer. However, we do not honor or help them by tearing our country apart in political debate. If Boxer really wanted to help the situation she would need to find a way to unite this country; a campaign that spurs this nation towards a collective stand. Terrorism is not going to go away… even the President stated, during the early days of 911, that this fight will be ours, our children’s, and our children’s children, to fight. Wake up! ‘Career politicians;’ this American feels you are a part of problem.

    It is time for senators and congressmen to quite running for office while using the Presidency as a scapegoat. They need to do a better job supporting this country. We are at war and politicians need to take up arms against the enemy; not wage war against their own countrymen. Our governing officials should be helping the enlistment efforts; after all, they are also paid to serve. I am tired of their aristocratic pedestals and feel its time they start earning that fat pay check, benefit package, and ‘pork feed’ job security.

    Why would any elected official point out the fact that other nations are holding back their support? Get real… this nation has always given more towards the pursuit of world freedom; that is what sets us apart. Wake up! It is time to quit filling the media with pessimistic commentaries that only weaken our countries posture; if the world has no respect for us, the congress, senate, and every condescending American is responsible.

    It is my prayer that a shift of spirit and resolve will sweep upon this great nation so that every American will realize the need to get involved and support efforts towards global stabilization. If a past mistake needs to be mentioned it should be the failure, after 911, to involve the public. Telling Americans to go about their business as usual was a mistake. In stead, Americans should have been instructed in ways to become involved; much like the efforts during World War II. Failing to involve every American was the biggest mistake.

    Do not waste our time, Senator Boxer, with your unprofessional outbursts, aimed at the heart strings of Americans. These are the times when the tough need to get tougher and we ‘all’ need to get behind the efforts to stop the insane ‘world violence’ that will, if not dealt with, bring this great nation to its knees. Make no mistake, all you on the hilltops of society, it is not the warriors, or their families, that do a disservice to this nation; instead, as Senator Boxer alluded, it is those that do not have any vested interest or are not choosing to “Pay the Price.” In World War II the home front united and collectively sacrificed to win; where is that commitment now?

    God Bless America

  • Every time the conservatives claim to be concerned about anti-feminism or racism or homophobia, that means we’ve won. We have succeeded in framing the public debate. We have set the social and moral standards by which the debate is carried on.

    Hooray!

    • Comments are closed.