Top Menu

Follow Taylor on Twitter

The Sexist Confederate War on Susan Rice

THE CONFEDERACY lives in the 21st century Republican party and segments of the American right, which many progressives have argued for a long time; they may not be the largest contingent, but they’re the loudest and most troublesome for conservatives clawing their way to relevancy in the wake of the 2012 election.

The confederate right has risen up to target U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice in a display of character assassination that has been aided and abetted by some infotainment characters on the Fox News Channel, which included a false report of the CIA standing down that helped fan the fury, and is led by some of the very people who started and pushed Obama birtherism, including Sean Hannity. But that’s only half the story.

The Washington Post editorial board delves into it:

SINCE THE Senate is solely responsible for the confirmation of Cabinet officers, it’s not often that members of the House of Representatives jump into a debate about the nomination of a secretary of state – particularly before there has been a nomination. That’s one of the reasons a letter sent to President Obama this week by 97 House Republicans, challenging his potential choice of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for the State Department job, is remarkable.

Another is blatant disregard of established facts. Drawn up by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), the letter alleges that “Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public” about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. But as congressional testimony has established, Ms. Rice’s comments on several Sunday television talk shows on Sept. 16 were based on talking points drawn up by the intelligence community. She was acting as an administration spokeswoman; there was nothing either incompetent or deliberately misleading about the way she presented the information she was given.

… Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy.

There is another obvious aspect that was also present in election 2012, with liberals and progressives making their argument for Obama/Biden on this issue alone, which proved powerful and gave Democrats and Planned Parenthood a huge victory where sexism became part of the election.

The patriarchal portion of the Republican Party was the other half of the demographic demolition, gender the other 2012 vote killer for the right.

When you put race and sexism together in the case of Susan Rice you get the hard right nucleus of what’s wrong with the American right, with conservatives fighting mightily to vanquish them so they’re not in the lead again.

The clash of generations, but especially of culture, seen through the talking points of Bill O’Reilly, topped off with the racial component and a growing majority of women rising, who are still fighting to gain equality from Republicans, has all led the supremely controlling white male, epitomized by Senator John McCain, to have an identity crisis crackup.

How could this not turn ugly?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

38 Responses to The Sexist Confederate War on Susan Rice

  1. ladywalker68 November 23, 2012 at 2:05 pm #

    Thanks for telling it like it is, Taylor. Not only is it already ugly, it is going to get worse.

    Hillary’s bid for the Presidency very rapidly unmasked the blatant sexism in this country, even among Democrats.

    In Obama’s bid and win for his second term, the racists ripped off their hoods and came out into the open.

    Now, these two evil forces are coalescing in an attack on Susan Rice. It is worse than ugly. It is a cancer ravaging our society.

    • cjoblak@hotmail.com November 23, 2012 at 3:56 pm #

      The dumbocrats are definitely the most sexist party in the country. If they weren’t Hillary Clinton would be President now.

      • secularhumanizinevoluter November 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

        Anyone who knows me here is well acquainted with my feelings towards the misogyny used in the primary against Hillary Clinton by so called ‘progressives” and “liberal Democrats” which resulted in my not voting for President for the first time in my life in that Presidential first election Of B. Obama….HOWEVER “The dumbocrats are definitely the most sexist party in the country.” is simply to delusional and to stupid to rate anything other then BWAHAHAHAHAHA! And a sincere wonder if those who would make such blatantly asinine comments like that really think they will be taken as anything other then pathetic?

        • secularhumanizinevoluter November 23, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

          OOPS…was that taking the bait?!!!!!!
          BWAHAHAHA!

          • Taylor Marsh November 24, 2012 at 10:10 am #

            cjoblak@hotmail.com November 23, 2012 at 3:56 pm

            This is absolutely untrue. I wrote the book on it and proved it.

            It’s old news, but I can’t let something like this pass, because it rewrites history with a lie.

            Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton, because her campaign made incalculable mistakes, beginning with Plouffe’s caucus strategy, making a fool of Mark Penn, who should never be trusted anywhere in a campaign unless it’s polling.

            It’s really remarkable that no amount of facts will give the Obama team credit for what they did in the ’08 primaries.

            There was sexism, but it was mostly in the media, including new media and the Democratic & progressive boy blogs that disgraced themselves.

          • secularhumanizinevoluter November 25, 2012 at 6:40 am #

            Ms. marsh not sure if that is directed at my post. If it is…I never said the reason she lost was the misogyny…I just said I refused to vote for Obama because of his and his campaigns USE of bald faced misogyny.

      • Solo November 24, 2012 at 11:37 am #

        Hillary Clinton lost the nomination race in 2008 to then candidate Obama because he ran a superior campaign! Was she the victim of sexist attacks? Sure, but that was not hen reason she lost. She lost because her campaign was filled with overpaid loyalist who made a whole lot of assumptions that turned out to be wrong.

        • Taylor Marsh November 25, 2012 at 9:03 am #

          I already wrote that and have written a book proving it.

          • Solo November 25, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

            Yes you did!

  2. Jane Austen November 23, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    The white men are terrified! The days of their controlling this country are over and they know it. There’s nothing they can do about it. This is only residual back wash coming out now. The House has absolutely no voice in the selection of the SOS so they should just shut up.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter November 23, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

      Indeed…BillO is crapping his pants over this fact…apparently some of the posters here are too!! Kinda fun to see them melt down though.

  3. cjoblak@hotmail.com November 23, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

    This is total bullshit, Taylor. There is No sexist war on Stupid Rice. She is incompetent and incompetently misled the world about what happened. She is stupid. Is she so dumb that she is not angry that she was made to look like fool??? It’s really hilarious to see how the left can turn everything into a sexism or racism or mysogynism coming from the right, when it’s one of their own showing total incompetence. You can overlook the biggest lie in the world to protect your own. It’s despicable.

    • Taylor Marsh November 24, 2012 at 10:12 am #

      Anyone saying Susan Rice is “stupid” is ignorant.

      You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

      You’ve listened to way too much Sean Hannity.

      Also see Marie205 November 23, 2012 at 8:07 pm below.

      cjoblak – You need to bring some conservatives over to help you argue the point. You’re getting creamed.

      • ladywalker68 November 24, 2012 at 10:54 am #

        Taylor-Both of your responses are spot on. Thank you.

        As much as I support free speech, it is getting difficult to have a civil conversation on any of these threads.

        Some people can’t handle the truth–Sexism, misogyny, intolerance for gays are alive and well and written into the Republican platform.

        Racism — there isn’t anything explicitly about it in the Republican platform, but all you have to do is tune into Rush L. and Bill O and listen to them boo hoo, and also to Mittens whining and lamenting about the loss of power by the white patriarchy. It is right there. They themselves are saying they lost because they are out-numbered by non-whites and single women (oh, the horror!) and frankly, they aren’t doing such a great job of handling the truth and neither are many of their supporters. Gee, maybe part of that demographic doesn’t appreciate being told we must give birth to babies of rapists and that we are a bunch of stupid sluts who want to just have sex all the time and have the government foot the bill.

        I simply can’t imagine why we didn’t vote for them, can you? ;)

        The House Republicans are declaring a political Civil War led by John McCain,on the possibility that Obama will appoint Susan Rice as Secretary of State. Not only is she black, but God-forbid, she is a woman too!!! What is the world coming to???

  4. cjoblak@hotmail.com November 23, 2012 at 3:54 pm #

    The democrat party has become the party of Incompetence. We have an incompetent President, an incompetent Senate majority unable to come up with a budget for 4 years, an Incompentent UN Ambassador who may soon become an incompetent Secretary of State. Woe be to the United States.

    • angels81 November 23, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

      boo hoo, poor little cjoblak, such a angry hateful person. Still can’t get over that your guy lost, and lost bad. The majority of voters don’t buy into your hateful take on the President or Rice for that matter. Some little poster on a blog calling a Rhodes Scholar stupid is really a hoot. Keep up the humor, we all like a good laugh.

    • Marie205 November 23, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

      cjoblak@hotmail.com….Basically, your saying that even though Democrats are incompetent…they still were able to beat out the genius (gag) Republican party…for another four year term….um, Okay!

      Plus, this incompetent party…helped oversee the hunt and death of osama bin laden by use of Seal team six…which the former Republican president was never able to do. Speaking of Republican genius…where is Bush hiding these days…why was he not out reminding Americans everyday on the campaign trail alongside Romney…how wonderful those previous eight years were under his rule….

      • ladywalker68 November 23, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

        Oh, snap Marie! Well said!

    • spincitysd November 25, 2012 at 4:16 am #

      By not capitalizing the Party name and not ending the proper noun properly with the “i” “c” ending you pretty much prove what a partisan, Faux News viewing hack you are Cjoblak. It is the Democratic Party, only Republican stooges use “democrat” so as to have the “rat” ending. Hopelessly puerile Cjoblak.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter November 25, 2012 at 6:42 am #

      Blah, blah, blah…gibber, gibber…blah,blah,blah. The broken record scratches on.

  5. fangio November 23, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

    Rice is not stupid, she was just used, the same way Powell was used; however, saying someone who’s a Rhodes Scholar cannot be stupid is inane. History is filled with Rhodes Scholars who caused the country nothing but grief.

    • angels81 November 23, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

      Just out of curiosity care to name a few Rhodes Scholars you consider stupid?

      • secularhumanizinevoluter November 23, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

        Indeed…apparently SOP lately is to just make absurd statements and troll on their merry way. Seriously…do you think these individuals actually think they are scoring any points with anyone smarter the ….oh I dunknow…..Mitt Romney?

    • spincitysd November 25, 2012 at 4:24 am #

      No, not even used, just mishandled. As Taylor pointed out the Obama Administration was way behind the eight ball on Libya. The 9/11 attack at Benghazi was the trick cigar that blew up in Barack’s face because he was clueless in the Maghreb.

      The situation on the ground was chaotic, with our intelligence in the area being an oxymoron of that word. The fog of war was very thick on the day Rice gave her presser. With such limited visibility is it any wonder Obama et al crashed into a political pile up?

      • secularhumanizinevoluter November 25, 2012 at 6:45 am #

        ” The 9/11 attack at Benghazi was the trick cigar that blew up in Barack’s face because he was clueless in the Maghreb.”
        “The fog of war was very thick on the day Rice gave her presser. With such limited visibility is it any wonder Obama et al crashed into a political pile up?”

        THAT explains why Mitt da Twit was able to hammer President Obama in all three debates about Benghazi and continue to use it to win the election!!!!!!

        • spincitysd November 26, 2012 at 5:17 am #

          Sigh Sec,

          If the Republicans were in any way rational they could have fricasseed Obama on the subject of Libya. The whole Maghreb misadventure has been a prime example of our clueless and reflexive interventionism. It’s been muddle and piss poor planing from day one.

          As Taylor has pointed out, the Administration has been way behind the power curve and has mismanaged the post Gaddafi nation-building realities in a appalling manor. Gross incompetence has been the order of the day.

          But lucky Barry, the Adults have long abandoned the Party Of Lincoln and only puerile, jabbering imbeciles remain. The thumb-sucking idiocy vomited up by the likes of John McNasty and the usual gang of Faux News morons have ended up giving Obama a free pass.

          Mittens gross political malfeasance at the beginning of Benghazi, an icon of crass political calculation, utterly ruined any chance Romney had to offer a real counter to Barack. Obama may have been incompetent, but Romney proved himself utterly clueless and dangerous cynical about the Benghazi affair.

          Obama “won” because the Republicans were unable to present a plausible counter to his policies. The really chilling thought is that as bad as the Mighty Mormon was, the rest of the Republican presidential field was infinitely worse.

          • secularhumanizinevoluter November 27, 2012 at 5:33 am #

            “Obama “won” because the Republicans were unable to present a plausible counter to his policies. The really chilling thought is that as bad as the Mighty Mormon was, the rest of the Republican presidential field was infinitely worse.”

            Well, at least there was SOMEthing in there it is possible to agree with.

  6. angels81 November 23, 2012 at 4:38 pm #

    Commenting on the posts that cjoblak has posted, I think the Rhodes Scholar comment was right on the mark.

  7. ladywalker68 November 23, 2012 at 5:35 pm #

    While we are dissing institutions of higher learning, l think Yale deserves a shout-out: It gave us the stupidist, dumbest and WORST PRESIDENT EVER….george w. bush…

  8. angels81 November 23, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

    Bush was a legacy, to become a Rhodes Scholar there is no daddy buying you in.

  9. DaGoat November 23, 2012 at 7:57 pm #

    While Rice’s gender and race no doubt play some small factor, to me this is much more about the GOP antagonism towards Obama, and Rice is largely in the wrong place at the wrong time. I disagree with WP – Rice’s comments were misleading and I think she could have shown better judgment. I can’t see a more polished politician tolerating being put in the situation in which she found herself.

    Is that enough to block her nomination – no, but neither has she distinguished herself. Taylor referred to Rice as the “good soldier” in an earlier post. . You want the SOS to be more than just a good soldier and spokesperson, you want them to show some backbone and honesty. Assuming Rice had access to both the classified and unclassified accounts, she know what she was saying may not have been true.

    • angels81 November 23, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

      From everything I have read, Rice did not have access to the classified account. Rice was not in the loop, she was giving the unclassified talking points and that was what she spoke on.She did not lie or cherry pick anything. She was nothing more then a spokesman for the Sunday morning talk shows to give out the unclassified talking points that the CID and the other security agencies approved.

      • DaGoat November 23, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

        If that’s true then the administration hung her out to dry. Even if unintentional it doesn’t speak well for the administration, she becomes a sympathetic figure and someone in the administration is either incompetent or dishonest.

        • Taylor Marsh November 24, 2012 at 10:15 am #

          Colin Powell taught us what happens when a SoState plays the good soldier role.

          Knowing something about Rice’s forcefulness, I don’t think her appearance on the Sunday shows is representative of what she usually does in her UN job.

          In the end, Obama served Susan Rice up, however inadvertently. You’re absolutely correct on that, DaGoat. It’s also why I feel Obama came to her offense in the press conference and said bluntly what he said. He owed her and knew it, for which he deserved the credit that I gave to him.

          • secularhumanizinevoluter November 24, 2012 at 10:35 am #

            Indeed Ms. Marsh, indeed.

          • DaGoat November 25, 2012 at 9:30 am #

            I have to admit most of what I know about Rice I learned over the past two months and the impression is not of a forceful person, it’s one of weakness. Maybe that’s unfair to her, but she had previously stayed relatively out of the spotlight and much of her public image has been formed since 9/11/12. She does not have the gravitas of Hillary Clinton, or even Kerry, Albright, Condi Rice or Powell. By throwing her to the wolves, even if inadvertently, Obama has damaged her. Obama talking tough for one speech doesn’t change that.

            Interesting take on Hillary:

            http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Eileen_Shields-West_14287BD5-52B9-4A5E-B6FA-B8689CE9681F.html

  10. Marie205 November 23, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    cjoblak@hotmail.com….Democrats are not the ones pushing a policy agenda of anti-choice and no fair pay for women. Yes, Democrats do have “ some “elements of sexism…but they don’t make it part of their main political goal to turn women rights 50 years back in time. Plus, when have we heard a Democrat run on “legitimate rape”?

    • secularhumanizinevoluter November 24, 2012 at 10:37 am #

      cjoblak’s comment is so egregiously bogus I think it is just more “bait”. NO person with a functioning brain…with the possible exception of the staff at faux not news and CBN…could possibly make such an out of contact with reality claim.

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong