.

.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

‘LITTLE DICK’ DURBIN SPEWS RHETORIC THAT IS BENEATH THE DIGNITY OF THE OFFICE HE HOLDS…


Does anyone, other than myself of course, view it as being anything more than just a little hypocritical that we would now have the second-ranking Senate Democrat, ‘Little Dick’ Durbin, accusing the Republicans of putting Barry’s attorney general nominee “in the back of the bus?”  It was just yesterday that ‘Little Dick’ chose to criticize the GOP over the delay in confirming Loretta Lynch in what has become rather typical for Democrat, the playing of the ‘race card’.  Now keep in mind here, that this is the very same ‘Little Dick’ who felt completely justified in voting against confirming Condoleezza Rice not once, but twice.  Ms. Rice had the most ‘no’ votes in history of any Secretary of State nominee during her confirmation process two months before the 40th anniversary of Selma.  ‘Little Dick’ was among those no votes. But be that as it may, this is what he said yesterday regarding the pending confirmation of AG nominee Lynch, who just like Condi, is a Black Woman: “I would think, as we approach the 50th anniversary of Selma, that Republicans should be more sensitive about what they’re doing to this woman.”

And in so choosing to once again very blatantly play the race card against Republicans blocking Loretta Lynch’s attorney general nomination, I’m assuming the ‘Little Dick’ must have completely forgotten all of those times that he chose to oppose Republican minority nominees.  It was in one of those, not so rare, instances of hypocrisy that ‘Little Dick’s’ Senate staff submitted a memo in 2001 asserting that George W. Bush U.S. Appeals Court’s nominee Miguel Estrada was an “especially dangerous” prospect because, now get this, “he is Latino.” And yet “Little Dick’ somehow felt it appropriate to take to the Senate floor, just yesterday, and to accuse Republicans of forcing Lynch, who is black, “to sit in the back of the bus” until a vote on a controversial sex trafficking bill is resolved. ‘Little Dick’s’ inflammatory statement was a reference to civil rights icon Rosa Park’s refusal to move to the back of a Montgomery, Ala. bus in 1955.  ‘Little Dick’ said Republicans were treating Lynch unfairly by blocking her from becoming “the first African-American woman” attorney general.

But if we choose to look back in time we would see that it was on Nov. 7, 2001, that a staffer in ‘Little Dick’s’ office sent out a memo summarizing a meeting with “representatives of various civil rights groups” to discuss Estrada’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  The memo showed that one of the reasons Democrats wanted to block confirmation of the Honduras-born Estrada was because he is Latino.  The meeting “focused on identifying the most controversial and/or vulnerable judicial nominees, and a strategy for targeting them,” Durbin’s staffer wrote in the memo which was published only in Nov. 2003, months after Estrada withdrew his name from consideration after a protracted battle with Democrats.  ‘Little Dick’s’ staffer wrote, “They also identified Miguel Estrada [D.C. Circuit] as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” 

A spokesmoron for ‘Little Dick’ issued a statement at the time claiming that the memo was not meant to be a racial attack on Estrada but was, rather, purely political in nature.  So I’d be curious to know why it is that the same claim cannot be used as a very plausible explanation for the Republicans’ reluctance to confirm Lynch.  But besides his opposition to Estrada, ‘Little Dick’ also opposed two other minority Bush nominees.  In 2005, he voted against Bush’s nominee for secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.  And again, in 2005, he was very outspoken in his opposition of Bush’s U.S. Court of Appeals nominee, Janice Rogers Brown.  Both Rice and Brown were eventually confirmed.  And, as you may recall, like Lynch, both are black.  So it would seem that it was with more than just a touch of hypocrisy that ‘Little Dick’ made his rather incendiary little comment from there on the floor of the Senate as he criticized the GOP over its handling of Loretta Lynch's nomination.

Now as ‘Little Dick’ was right to point out, Ms. Lynch would, in fact, if confirmed become the nation's first black female attorney general, replacing Eric “The Racist” Holder, the first African-American in the job.  But such is far from being a sufficient reason to confirm her, especially when there remains so many unanswered questions about many of her positions.  Lynch was nominated last fall and now several months later, it would seem that the rather reckless accusation in ‘Little Dick’s’ vitriolic attack, indicates that the Democrats are, like any of us should all give a shit, growing increasingly agitated over the holdup in confirming her, even though they were in control of the Senate during at least some of that time.  ‘Little Dick’ said, "Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar."   And then he went on to add, "That is unfair. It's unjust. It is beneath the decorum and dignity of the United States Senate."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planned a vote on Lynch's nomination this week but delayed it when the Senate was unable to finish work on a bill to combat human trafficking. That legislation is stalled because of a partisan spat over abortion funding, with Democrats objecting to a provision blocking money in a new victims' fund from paying for abortions in most cases.  It was in response to ‘Little Dick’s’ racial implication that McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said, "The Lynch nomination is next on the schedule. The only thing holding up that vote is the Democrats' filibuster of a bill that would help prevent kids from being sold into sex slavery."  He went on to say, "The sooner they allow the Senate to pass that bipartisan bill, the sooner the Senate can move to the Lynch nomination."  Democrats claim that Republicans snuck the abortion provision into the trafficking bill without telling them. Republicans note that the language has been there since the bill was introduced early this year, and no one raised objections as it unanimously passed the Judiciary Committee. Democrats insist they were never made aware of it. 

When Democrats look at Loretta Lynch, all they see is her skin color. In taking this ugly road, ‘Little Dick’ has been joined by fellow Democrat Rep. George Kenneth Butterfield, from North Carolina, who argued who yesterday also did his best to imply that race was “a major factor in the reason for this delay.”  Also adding her voice to what would seem to be a growing chorus of political charlatans was none other than Rep. Marcia Fudge, from Ohio,  It was this genius who also suggested that “there is some racial bias” at play.  And then we also had the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, some imbecile by the name of Sherrilyn Ifill.  Now knowing as we all do what the kind of organization that today’s NAACP has become, it comes as no surprise to hear that it was she who proposed that “women are watching, that African-American women are watching,” and that neither of them would like what they were seeing.

Because they regard themselves as the unimpeachable champions of American progress, it’s unlikely that ‘Little Dick’ & Co. will recognize just how acutely this mindset damages their cause.  But damage their cause it most certainly does. As Aesop taught us in his “Boy Who Cried Wolf,” dramatic claims eventually have to be backed up with demonstrable facts or they will begin to invite indifference and ridicule. The sins of America’s past are real, and they are often overlooked by those who would prefer to talk about something else. And yet, in the political realm at least, the charges of “racist” and “sexist” have become so ubiquitous that it is becoming difficult for most listeners to determine when they are legitimate and when they are opportunistic. Jim Crow involved the systematic subjugation of an entire race of people; Loretta Lynch is seeing her nomination delayed because the two main parties in Washington disagree as to what constitutes the best way forward. If both these occurrences are to be described in exactly the same language, indeed, if the two are to be directly compared, our historical and linguistic comprehension will eventually become damaged beyond repair. Then what?

No comments:

Post a Comment