So Condi Rice as Sec. of State

[godfry n. glad]

Heh...Okay.

Yeah, I interpreted "much more offensive. . .than godfrey's [sic]" to mean that godfry's opinion was offensive enough and FormerFundie200419's opinion was just added insult to injury.

Sorry. Thanks for the clarification.

godfry

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I remember that whole "if women ran the world there would be no war" line. I believe it was supposed to be uterus related. It never made much sense to me as mothers have sent sons to war since there have been sons to send, so I don't see why women would be inherently less inclined to order large numbers of other mothers' sons into battle.

Yeah, the whole "Come back with your shield or on it"* attitude has been around since time immemorial. No less an observer than Margaret Mead has pointed out that women seem no less willing to send their sons into battle than are men. In fact, Mead argued just the opposite: she claimed that since women are less likely to know the horrors of battle firsthand, they're perhaps more likely to send soldiers off to battle than are men. I don't know about that, but I've never seen any evidence that women in power are more reluctant to send soldiers into combat than are men in power.

Cheers,

Michael

*Supposedly, back in the days of Ancient Greece, mothers would say this to their sons as they sent them off to battle. These soldiers carried large shields into battle -- if the soldier panicked and ran from the enemy, he'd throw away his cumberson shield. So, a soldier who came how without his shield was probably a coward. On the other hand, a soldier who died in combat would be carried home on his shield. So, when the mother told her son, "Come home with your shield or on it," she was saying, "I'd rather you were dead than a coward."

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

"much more offensive. . .than godfrey's [sic]"

I'm Still Tired. Yeah, that's my excuse.

Sorry about that!

[Godfather]

Why does this have to become a discussion about women in politics? Her gender, race, the colour of her pants, and what she ate for breakfast are all completely irrelevant. Can't we just act like sensible grown-ups and stay focused on the real issues - like the fact that she is a baby-eating reptilian shapeshifter with laser-beam eyes and concentrated liquid evil for blood?

Seriously, even disregarding my general abhorence of all she believes in and stands for, she is just hilariously unqualified to be Secretary of State. She is a terrible public speaker, has no tact or charisma, and can't take the slightest criticism without getting flustered, evasive and stroppy. And this is the best person to lead US foreign relations? Fortunately for her, it really doesn't matter, because this administration doesn't actually have any foreign relations any more. Well, apart from the obvious ones, and the Pentagon handles those.

[Shaguar]

Godfather has a good point there, her public persona does seem a little limited, she may be OK kidding around with the boys at the barbie but from waht I saw of the confirmation hearings she does not operate well under public scrutiny. My guess is that many experienced world politicians will run rings round her, not that it matters because she does not have be conciliatory or listen to other points of view.

[Petra]

The Daily Show: http://www.comcentral.com/tv_shows/t...ithjonstewart/

There's two pieces on Condi's confirmation - Secretary's Day (has the "No I did" punch that liv mentioned) and Colbert's Rice Hearing (www.confirmationvixens.com/buttmunch <---not a real link).


It just goes from bad to worse, really, doesn't it? At least they provide the satirists with plenty of good material, I suppose.

And I thought Barbara Boxer was great! Who is she? She deserves a pay rise.


As for everyone else - what a bunch of appeasing wankers. And I'm with you, GD - the Dems as a collective are sickeningly pathetic.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by lunachick

And I thought Barbara Boxer was great! Who is she? She deserves a pay rise.

She's a senator from California, and sadly, one of the few Democrats in office who seems willing to stand up for her principles. ["Sadly" in that there aren't more like her, not "sadly" in that she stands up for her principles!]

As for everyone else - what a bunch of appeasing wankers. And I'm with you, GD - the Dems as a collective are sickeningly pathetic.

What is it with the Democratic Party? Haven't they learned by now the pathetically-obvious lesson that they get nowhere by acting like the Republicans' lapdogs and making only token objections (if that) to even the most egregious of Bush's proposals? If Bush announced that he would be setting up "Reeducation Centers" during his second term where those who were suspected of having "improper" thoughts and beliefs would be confined indefinitely without trial -- I wonder if more than a handful of Democrats would have the guts to oppose even that?

The Democrats don't deserve to be in power, but the problem is that the Republicans deserve it even less. Sadly, we don't exactly have many other choices.

Cheers,

Michael

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Shaguar

Godfather has a good point there, her public persona does seem a little limited, she may be OK kidding around with the boys at the barbie but from waht I saw of the confirmation hearings she does not operate well under public scrutiny. My guess is that many experienced world politicians will run rings round her, not that it matters because she does not have be conciliatory or listen to other points of view.

Does anyone in the current administration operate well under public scrutiny? I don't mean that rhetorically, mind you, but as a serious question about both the administration and the press/legislative branch right now. From what I can see, there is little to no public scrutiny under which anyone is being compelled to operate because executive secrecy is at an all time high and overt questioning at an all time low.

Overclassifying
Cheney task force
Press shirks duty to scrutinize official claims

Of course, Lincoln suspension of habeas corpus and Wilson's alien and sedition laws resulted in the actual arrest of political opponents, so it's not like Bush administration officials are unique in their failure to operate well under public scrutiny. Modern communications play a role too.

Ugh... Derailment. This is probably an issue for another thread.

[D. Scarlatti]

I think you're being a little hard on the Democrats in this instance. Although the Constitution doesn't differentiate between the two, the Senate, in its advice and consent role, gives the president greater leeway in choosing his cabinet than in making life appointments to the federal court, for example.

Senator Feingold delivered an articulate statement of this principle during John Ashcroft's hearings in 2001. I don't think it's unreasonable to extend to the executive greater deference for its term appointments, as noxious as they may be, as opposed to its life appointments, and the Democrats have been digging in their heels on those.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

I think you're being a little hard on the Democrats in this instance. Although the Constitution doesn't differentiate between the two, the Senate, in its advice and consent role, gives the president greater leeway in choosing his cabinet than in making life appointments to the federal court, for example.

Senator Feingold delivered an articulate statement of this principle during John Ashcroft's hearings in 2001. I don't think it's unreasonable to extend to the executive greater deference for its term appointments, as noxious as they may be, as opposed to its life appointments, and the Democrats have been digging in their heels on those.

And I'd almost rather have her in the appointed-and-confirmed cabinet post in the public sphere than in one of these under-the-radar "advisor" categories.
#222

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Godfather

Why does this have to become a discussion about women in politics? Her gender, race, the colour of her pants, and what she ate for breakfast are all completely irrelevant. Can't we just act like sensible grown-ups and stay focused on the real issues - like the fact that she is a baby-eating reptilian shapeshifter with laser-beam eyes and concentrated liquid evil for blood?

Fucking agreed. I got into it with Dorian last night, because he enjoys seeing her succeed because she is a black woman, even if she is the spawn of satan, because it breaks down walls (and ceilings)... blah blah blah. I said I don't care if she's a black jewish lesbian single mom of two kids on welfare, I hope she dies. Am I wrong?

[TomJoe]

I guess people would prefer to see, perhaps, Ann Coulter, as Secretary of State?

[livius drusus]

Depends on the state.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Apparently she also commented on how the tsunami presented a "wonderful opportunity" for the United States to reach out to countries in the Muslim world and build good will. What a tool.

When the United States came out with it's initial donation for help (which was around $35 million), the press lamented that we were wasting an opportunity to show the world that we were still on the forefront of humanitarian aid.

So then, when Ms. Rice says that it presented a "wonderful opportunity", the press lamblasts her... even though in the first example, and the second example... they both meant the same thing.

I'm sure that we all say things that we later think "You know, I could have rephrased that." or "Hmmm, I forgot to mention (x, y and/or z)" and fortunately for us, we don't have a few billion people reading the transcripts of what we wrote a few minutes after we've said it.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

I guess people would prefer to see, perhaps, Ann Coulter, as Secretary of State?

The first transexual Secretary of State!

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

I think you're being a little hard on the Democrats in this instance. Although the Constitution doesn't differentiate between the two, the Senate, in its advice and consent role, gives the president greater leeway in choosing his cabinet than in making life appointments to the federal court, for example.

Senator Feingold delivered an articulate statement of this principle during John Ashcroft's hearings in 2001. I don't think it's unreasonable to extend to the executive greater deference for its term appointments, as noxious as they may be, as opposed to its life appointments, and the Democrats have been digging in their heels on those.

There's noxious, and there's criminal. Lying to Congress about Iraq's WMD capability was criminal.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

There's noxious, and there's criminal. Lying to Congress about Iraq's WMD capability was criminal.

Particularly when it was used as a rationale to perpetrate an illegal and ill-advised war that unnecessarily put American lives in jeopardy as well as irreparably damaging our international reputation. They have made the United States a rouge nation. I personally think it's treasonous.

godfry

[Shake]

Originally Posted by Corwin

Patience Dave.... let's get Howard Dean into heading the party and see what happens...

Here's an II thread about Dean, but the o.p. has a quote about his views on Condi.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Shake

Here's an II thread about Dean, but the o.p. has a quote about his views on Condi.

Shake.... Could you paraphrase or synopsize for me. I'm an exile on the outside.

godfry

[Godless Dave]

I think you meant rogue nation. A rouge nation would be something else entirely.

[godfry n. glad]

Hey...If SpongeBob Squarepants is triumphant, we'll all be rouge nation.


(Yes...rogue is right. Embarrassing typos...)

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Shake.... Could you paraphrase or synopsize for me. I'm an exile on the outside.

Here's the quote in question, godfry:

Stephanopoulos: [...] Would you vote to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State?

Dean: No. I think John Kerry and Barbara Boxer made the right vote. I think Condi Rice is a capable person, but her chief attribute in this position is loyalty to the President. I think we need someone who is an independent thinker who is willing to give the President advice that he doesn't want to hear. I don't think that's a hallmark of most Bush appointees.

From the Democracy for America blog.

[Shake]

Oops! Sorry, godfry. Anyway, liv posted the appropriate quote. That blog link is interesting reading, too.

[Petra]

I can't believe the overwhelming majority that voted in favour of her confirmation. 85 - 13, or something.

[LadyShea]

[QUOTE=TomJoe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'm sure that we all say things that we later think "You know, I could have rephrased that." or "Hmmm, I forgot to mention (x, y and/or z)" and fortunately for us, we don't have a few billion people reading the transcripts of what we wrote a few minutes after we've said it.

We all say things like that yes, but we are all not the chief ambassador of the US to the world. She shouldn't be making stupid gaffes like that.