And you thought that Democrats were the party that promotes minorities & women!

Ok, I just have to ask this. Bush's first two cabinet choices are/will be Alberto Gonzales, a Latin American, as Attorney General and (most likely) Condoleezza Rice, an African American and a woman, as Secretary of State. Rice replacing Colin Powell who is an Affrican American too.

It will be interesting to see how fast the libs will attempt to tear down the two while still claiming to be THE party that promotes the advancement of minorities and women. It will be funny to me to watch the absence of NOW and the NAAPC when it comes to supporting these two minorities. Oh, that's right. They only support LIBERAL minorities and women. I almost forgot.

I also want to pose this question so I can be lazy and not look it up. Was Colin Powel the first African American Secretary of State and is Condoleezza Rice going to be the first African American female to hold the same office? Also has there ever been another Latin American that has held an office this high?

It seems to me that at least SOME of the stereotypes of the Republican Party not promoting minorities are not true. How about giving Bush some credit here libs?

I believe this is correct on both accounts.

What I find sad is that a man of Powell's stature, intelligence, diplomacy and obvious value to the country has found it necessary to step down from his position. He will be missed. I can't say as I blame him, though, since he was made by the Bush administration to lie to the American public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I judge Rice based on her past record as being very conservative and a virtual lapdog for Bush, rather than by virtue of her being female and black. For that reason, her impending appointment as Secretary of State does not excite me in the least, and neither should it womens' or minority groups.

I will not take the bait and debate you on this. Been there, done that but until Powell agrees with you or there is ANY proof of what you claim I will continue thinking that statements like yours are made out of sheer hatred for Bush.



Like I said... Democrats, NOW & NAACP... Here to promote LIBERAL African Americans and LIBERAL women only. If you are conservative in thought forget the support of the groups that CLAIM to support you.

I pose another question since you were so kind to answer my first two.

Why didn't Democrats do this first if they are the party of the minorities? lol

Please do as you said. You are the hatred monger. I can feel the saliva spattering all the way over here!

To echo your cop-out in the posting above... "I will not take the bait and debate you on this. Been there, done that... I will continue thinking that statements like yours are made out of sheer hatred for [Democrats]."

Touche.

(And, I really don't have anything else to say in this thread except to repeat what I said above about how much Colin Powell will be missed. So, good luck with this thread, Billy. )

I'd imagine the Democrats pick their appointees based on who they feel will best do the job, incidental of color of skin, as opposed to say the Republicans who pick their appointees based on party loyalty and cosmetic appearance.

LOL... sticks and stones...

It was not meant to be a cop-out. Those issues have been debated ad nauseam and I didn't want this thread to fall off topic and simply debate the entire war on Iraq again.

And yes, touché indeed. I am man enough to apologize for that statement. I do not know you and made a snap judgment. You are right to throw it back in my face. I do not "hate" Democrats at all and you probably feel the same in regard to Republicans. Please accept my sincere apology Beryl.

ROFL... Very nice Kendra. You now are on record saying that there is not a single minority or woman who was qualified for the positions mentioned during Democratic presidencies. Way to go!

Yep. I would agree with that. Perhaps Condoleeza is the best person for the job, or perhaps she helps to put on a pretty, multicultural face to the GOP. Who knows.

I know it's a mistake for anyone to the right of Karl Marx to venture into the SL political forums, but here goes:

Clinton actually DID appoint minorities. He went out of his way to do so. He made most of these "token" appointments in departments that don't draw a lot of press. HUD, Education, Energy, but then there was also State and Attorney General, those are the ones I remember anyway.

The problem with his appointments is that he picked relatively unknown people, and they were relatively unknown for good reason. The Secretaries of HUD and Energy both got into trouble for misappropriating travel funds (in other words they like to go on trips at taxpayers expense and treat their friends and family while they were at it). Albrite (State) also had some travel problems, although since travel is more a part of the job in her case they went largely unreported by the press. (I happened to be working at State). She travelled more than any Secretary of State in history by an order of magnitude. It was rare to actually catch her in Washington DC at all. Programs within the State department had to be scaled back or eliminated to make up for the shortfall that her traveling-in-style cost. It was said that she cost more per trip than the President did because she insisted on deluxe accommodations and she took LOTS of staff members with her. It was not that uncommon to find that something didn't get done because the person whose signature was needed was "with her majesty".

Then there was Reno, who trampled on the Constitution quite a little bit. Calling out the army to deal with what should have been a local law enforcement issue. If there was any justice in the world she would have gotten at least as much heat from the press as Ashcroft (not that I'm a big fan of his either).

All things considered, Bush has made a much more diverse selection of appointees and I think in most cases has selected minorities who are clearly qualified to do the job they are selected for. In other words, the best person for the job without regard to race, sex, or ethnicity. Powell is head and shoulders above anyone Clinton picked (not so sure about Powell's son though).

As to Powell's decision to leave, I don't think it was any secret at the time (since I was at the State department I would have heard this anyway) but they had to practically beg him to take the job in the first place. He was making $50K and up per speaking engagement and the Secretary of State job doesn't pay nearly so well. His wife was also dead-set against him taking a job involving that much time away from home. He made it clear he only wanted to do one term, so there was very little chance he would be sticking around unless they could somehow convince him that the situation in Iraq totally depended on his presence (which of course it doesn't).

Anyway, just thought I'd clear those things up for y'all.

That would be a twist of my words --and a moot point really as both Rice and Powell are Republicans. The point is Democrats seek the most qualified, not the most politically expediant --or are you going to argue that Condi Rice is the most qualified person the Republicans have to be Secretary of State?

Having said that --I'll ask how many Catholics, Jews, African Americans or Women have been Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates?

Don't be naive, Billy. Gonzales has two things going for him... he's a bone for the Hispanics who voted for the right because of "values," which is incredibly ironic considering he's also the author of the memo claiming that Bush isn't bound by the Geneva convention in regards to torturing prisoners of war. He's also said he thinks the Geneva convention is "quaint." How very moral. Rice is a complete lapdog for Bush. She'll happily make the rounds of the news programs and say whatever specious bullshit the administration asks her to. Despite Powell's parade of lies before the UN about WMD in Iraq he's been a thorn in the Bush administration's side being a moderate with a bit of free will. No such issues for the Bushies with Rice. She's also a bible thumper. If you watched the Republican convention then you should be aware that the right is more than willing to use minorities for appearances. It would be wonderful for a black woman to rise to such a high position, and under different circumstances I'd think it a wonderful thing, but I don't personally think Rice deserves the job. I imagine when Powell gets home after his last day he'll take a year long shower, screaming "ewwwww, get it off me! Get it off me!" all the while.

Actually Affirmative Action, created during the Johnson administration and expanded during the Kennedy administration, has seen the support of 6 Republican presidents. Equal rights has not been a partisan problem, some individuals in both parties have either rejected or supported the notion but Conservatives have always shown about equal support. Historically minorities and women were not demographically democrat untill later in the 1960's.

In fact in 1864 the republican party made the abolition of slavery one of the party planks, Republican president Lincoln abolished slavery and in 1866 Republicans passed the Civil Rights act making African-Americans citizens. The 14th and 15th ammendment were also republican driven ammendments. The NAACP was founded by liberal minded people in 1908 but it was founded due to the riots that occured at a support rally in Springfield. It was founded to support republican endorsed ammendments (13, 14 and 15) and was opened on Lincoln's birthday. The same Lincoln who invited Booker T. Washington (the idol of NAACP) to the WhiteHouse for dinner.

So regardless of my political affiliation, historically speaking, republicans have for the most part embrased and pushed for equal rights. Hopefully we have evolved beyond this need to take credit for freeing the slaves or to push affirmative action as a solely liberal endeavor though. Now we need to start grading those in political office based upon their actions not their gender or skin color or party tag.

Mac,

Although I despise Bush and his minions of evil doers... I do agree with your point that he has appointed those most qualified for the position of manifesting his will. Though they are not likely the best for the position on a "job description" level, he has surrounded himself with those who will push forth his agenda with little resistance. It takes a certain kind of person to lie to the public, wage war on soveriegn countries without reason, make excuses for a monumental deficit increase and support the push towards theocracy. He has done a marvelous job replacing the brains with the lemmings.

And to echo your point the Dems are no better but that is what we get for pushing the 2 party system.

That is NOT a moot point at all… That IS the point of this thread.



Again, why didn’t they do it first if this is true unless you are saying that there has never been a woman or minority that was in fact the most qualified.



That is a topic for another thread. But in the sense of fair play I will ask you one question. When in the HISTORY of mankind has the MOST qualified person been Sec of State? And who is to say who the MOST qualified person is? Ok, that was two questions… lol.



You must have a point behind that statement so I will let you make it before commenting.



It is a case of reasonable conjecture from what you said. Clearly you feel that “Democrats pick their appointees based on who they feel will best do the job, incidental of color of skin”. So a reasonable conclusion is that they have never thought a minority or woman ever was “best to do the job”. When I call your party out on the mat for never finding “appointees” “who they feel will best do the job” that happen to be minorities or women you are understandably upset about it. The truth hurts, doesn’t it?

Then on top of that you want to belittle anyone who is not a flaming liberal even though they have done what no other person of their race and gender has done. You just can’t stand it that the Republicans did it first because it destroys the platform and propaganda that the Dems have spread. If they REALLY want to be the party to promote minorities and women I ask you again why have they not stepped up to the plate?

TY for your concern Chip. It is truly touching. Don’t worry though as I am not, have never been and will not be in the future.

As for the rest of what you said, this thread really is not addressing whether anyone is or is not qualified but is addressing that Bush was the one to promote minorities and woman to the highest levels of the Government. A feat that no Democrat has accomplished. Frankly it amazes me how you libs can’t just give the President a well done when it comes to accomplishing something that you couldn't or wouldn't.

As for your statements about Powell I just ask who you are to speak for him? His actions beg to differ.

Billy. I'm sorry to make you type so much. My answer here will be very brief.

I have no desire to get into this sophmoric argument with you.

I don't evaluate people's accomplishments based on the color of their skin or their gender. Your argument is based on the premise that this is some kind of special accomplishment because Condi Rice is black and female. Historically it is somewhat significant, unfortunately, but I personally see this as similar to the kind of statements made by people who refer to others as "my black friend," or "my Jewish friend." Her race and gender should be irrelevant. They are to me.

Tell that to everyone fighting for the rights of minorities and women everywhere. "Her race and gender should be irrelevant." It is only irrelevant to YOU because she is a conservative Republican.



Usually you are very cordial in your arguments Chip but this offends me. Just because I want to recognize a wonderful accomplishment that furthers minorities and women you want to infer that I am a racist or whatever that crap is supposed to mean.

If you wanted to upset me you accomplished your mission but as a consequence I have lost all respect for you. In the interest of me not personally attacking you or anyone else I will simply say that what you infer is sad and pathetic. I thought you were above that type of thing. Guess I was wrong.

I didn't mean you specifically, Billy, but the fact remains that I find people patting themselves on the back for hiring minorities a bit offensive. I always have. It's sad that we live in a country where this is considered some kind of accomplishment or special act of benevolance.

While this is an interesting subject, please finish the research. Email Senator Kerry and request from him what his intended cabinet lineup would be so that we can compare it to Bush's intended cabinet. A comparison sans one side is exceedingly meaningless.

Further, stop associating the words, 'libs' or 'liberal' or any variation thereof with Democrats. I'm offended. I'm not a democrat (or anything else) but easily categorized as Liberal. So as a 'lib', I can't be THE party to support minorities can I? I can sure as heck tear down those two sycophants Bush is putting in his cabinet though.

As to only supporting LIBERAL women or minorities: Really, if they're a minority or female, I don't care. If they're going to excel at their job, that's all that matters.

Maybe I missed something here. Was that an apology or not? Lol

To comment and for the record, I am not President Bush’s AV… lol… So, who is “patting themselves on the back”? I am patting President Bush on the back and you should join me instead of wasting time belittling the people involved and attempting to trivialize a wonderful accomplishment.

Patting Bush on the back for appointing Rice because she is a black woman IS trivializing her accomplishment. That's my point.