Duke brings up many of the issues that the mainstream GOPers refuse to remember (if they even paid attention to begin with) regarding Condi Rice. For example, her fondness for bringing up racial grievances in unlikely contexts. I remembered the example wherein she took umbrage to anyone questioning the Bush 'democratizing Iraq' program. She snapped that the idea that certain people might not be ready for democracy was like the arguments made by 'bigots' back in the fabled Bad Old Days of the Civil Rights era.
She referred to America's 'birth defect', its supposed racial sins of slavery and inequality, in comparing America to Iraq.
She also had stories about how she was the victim of 'racism' during her childhood. Example: a White department store clerk told her not to touch the merchandise. Condoleezza's mother then shot back 'my child can touch anything she wants!' Racism everywhere, in other words. White children, of course, never ever got told not to handle merchandise in a store. (Actually, our mothers probably told us that first, so store clerks rarely had to tell us, at least in my case.)
Commeter 'Tav' at American Thinker makes good points:
"Considering her remarks about America's "birth defect" -- an egregious term for any secretary of state to use about a nation that has brought more liberty to more races, colors and creeds than any in history -- I am struck anew how deeply Rice's vision of race in America, or, perhaps, in segregated Birmingham, affects her vision of America in the wider world. It is as if Rice sees American influence as a means by which to address what she perceives as disparities of race or Third World heritage on the international level.
This would help explain her ahistorical habit of linking the civil rights movement to the Bush administration's effort to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, in a 2003 speech to the National Association of Black Journalists, she argued that blacks, more than others, should "reject" the "condescending" argument that some are not "ready" for freedom. "That view was wrong in 1963 in Birmingham and it's wrong in 2003 in Baghdad," she said. ''
The mainstream GOP articles about Rice's possible candidacy, if they even dared to be mildly critical, mentioned only 'safe' subjects, like Rice's support for abortion, her apparent support for the current president, her praise of him at his election, and other such liberal positions.
But few, until Selwyn Duke,mentioned the issues he brings up. The commenters are divided, with some agreeing (although rather carefully) with Duke's criticisms, while others tout Rice's supposed brilliance and accomplishments. She speaks fluent Russian! She plays the piano! She holds a high position at Stanford!
Actually, her fluency in Russian has been called into question a number of times, as I remember mentioning on this blog in the past; Russian speakers say her skill in their language is lacking. And others question her qualifications for her Stanford position.
This is no surprise to regular readers, I'm sure. There is such a thing as 'affirmative action', in which credentials and actual abilities take a back seat to race and gender, or other such victimhood markers.
Diversity trumps all. Yet it's a shocking thing to question whether a given individual has been promoted beyond his or her abilities because of obvious 'affirmative action' and 'diversity' mandates.
So, while the respectables like the FReepers may point out that Rice is a 'RINO', they ignore the much more important ways in which she is not qualified or suitable for the VP position. Those are the things which we need to focus on, should she be chosen for the spot.
If only those hopeless GOPers at AT, clamoring for Allen West or other favorite 'diversities' in the VP position, would get the message: stop emulating the liberal multicultists in trying to pander or to prove your anti-racist bonafides. We do not need to prove anything to anyone. Just insist on the best possible candidate for the job -- on ability and experience.
