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