TAKING BACK AMERICA!

    Tuesday, January 25, 2005

    Boxer vs. Rice

    It's proper that any nomination to an appointed position by any president be properly questioned - as long as it is done with respect. After watching how Senator Barbara Boxer slammed into Dr. Rice without respect - I was compelled to check, before passing judgment, what qualifications Senator Boxer possessed to question anyone.

    I found that Barbara Boxer (born in 1940) had a college degree - a Bachelor of Arts awarded in 1962 (over 42 years ago) from Brooklyn College. She chose not to pursue a graduate degree of any type - no further academic studies. Her bio shows just three entries for professional experience - all three basically paper-pushing types of jobs. It's noted that in all three the longest she was able to hold on to a job was three years - the other for two years. Her official bio at the senate website doesn't even mention those items - I suppose that picture of her with Senator Kennedy is suppose to offset these facts?

    I then checked the qualifications of the person she was so rude to - maybe Senator Boxer was over-qualified to attack and belittle as she did. I did find this out about Dr. Rice:

    Dr. Rice (born in 1954) was awarded a Bachelor's Degree in political science, graduate (Master) from Notre Dame, and Ph.D. in International Studies from the University of Denver. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the National Defense University in 2002, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004. She completed a six year tenure as Stanford University's Provost, during which she was the Stanford's chief budget and academic officer. I can go on and on.

    There are no education requirements to be a Senator - you could be hillbilly-ignorant. At the most, Senator Boxer might be qualified to shine the shoes of Dr. Rice. Obviously, Boxer has issues with other females, especially if they are not white, are younger, brighter (which is easy), and might attain a position that is above her own (especially in visibility). For her to question the intelligent reasoning of Dr. Rice is sort of like her or Kerry or Kennedy attacking Einstein, saying his theory of relativity is a lie to the American people because it's just a theory (and the U.N. didn't vote for it).

    10 comments:

    nonpcpundit said...
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    nonpcpundit said...

    Boxer is a good example of Democrats who, while pandering to the disenfranchised and non-wasp portion of the community, show their hypocrisy by their fanatical hatred of those who succeed. They are backed up by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who, for all their ranting, don't practice what they preach. Where were Jesse and Al when a Democratic pundit called Ms Rice George Bush's "Aunt Jemima?" We could do better in both the Senate and the House if the news media had to keep cameras out of the halls. People like Boxer and Senator Biden wouldn't grandstand if they knew they were not on camera. The ten minutes of fame they get on CNN takes more priority than doing the nation's business. Boxer is from California. What can you expect?
    Whether anybody likes George Bush or not, his administration and reelection has raised the curtain on the Democrats. The screaming, ranting, name-calling, abusive, insultive, childish, moronic conduct of people in that party and their incessant efforts to waylay the ballot box should demonstrate to the American public at large why that party should be classed as a public nuisance and be ordered to disband. Democrats of a good stripe should forget party unity and raise a voice against the likes of what we have seen the last few years.

    Anonymous said...

    It might be valuable to consider that perhaps Dr. Rice was not being slammed for these ad hominem reasons. It certainly did not seem entirely over the top to me, and I would personally not want those examining a candidate an important cabinet position to be fettered by the pussyfooting of formalistic discourse. Perhaps there was more concern for her performance as Security Advisor than her exemplary academic credentials - or Boxer's own lack thereof - which I have heard is a large issue for liberals in 2005. Though, I am not sure, perhaps Boxer is a hypocritical bigot, as suggested here. I am not positive the distinction is easy to make here.

    -Alex
    inessentialism.org

    Anonymous said...

    You'll also note that when someone leaves Stanford in the manner as Ms. Rice did (to serve in an administration), they usually keep the post open for their return. Its a tradition of sorts and a courtesy. They didn't do this for Ms. Rice. Good for them!

    And really, concerning the comments about Boxer's "fanatical hatred of those who succeed". Is that what you really think? There are many many reasons to hate someone. The "succeed" excuse would be a very lame one. There is obviously more to it then that!

    I hope that if she hears of another attack on this great country before it happens, she'll let us know beforehand.
    -Andrew
    Dallas, TX

    Anonymous said...

    "I hope that if she hears of another attack on this great country before it happens, she'll let us know beforehand." - Sounds like Andrew are one of those few suckers that want to believe the administration knew where/when of 9/11. Andrew - how do you explain the terrorist training during Clintons reign - under Clintons nose, in our own country?

    Go back to watching reruns of your Feurer, M. Moore.

    My take on this post is that boxer is hillbilly-ignorant". Being so, she could question all she wants but she would not be able to understand the answers, leading to even more frustration. Not everyone can have the background of Rice but boxer is clearly not in the same league and shouldn't pretend to be just because she won a senate election.

    Anonymous said...

    Well, in response to the previous statement that...

    Not everyone can have the background of Rice but boxer is clearly not in the same league and shouldn't pretend to be just because she won a senate election....it is important to note that our constitution does not provide for a meritocracy, but a democracy. In this way, Dr. Rice's education does not put her in a higher league than Boxer, and in fact Boxer's winning of a senate election should actually be viewed as the proper mandate - as Rice has never stood the test of a public election. That's just a sidenote though, as I would hope that the systems of election practiced in this country would disallow anybody of "hillbilly" ignorance the chance to occupy a seat in the Senate.

    -Alex

    nonpcpundit said...

    Alex, I agree with your assessment that democracy means somthing different than meritocracy. The importance of allowing "the people" to preside over decision-making in this country is paramount, something that does not exist in any other country. That's evidenced in the preamble to the constitution, where the first three words are "WE THE PEOPLE" which sets the origin of our system apart from anything ever seen in history. Yet, the Founders referred repeatedly, especially Jay, Madison, and Hamilton in THE FEDERALIST PAPERS to what they characterized as the "deliberative will of the people" which means there must be reason, assessment, and serious deliberation to what we do. I'm sorry, but Senator Boxer does not appear to fit the description of a "reasoned, reasoning person" as evidenced by the treatment of Ms Rice. Or by the picture at the start of this post. Something sadly lacking in the Democratic party of late are any manner of courtesy and etiquette. I agree with Maddie Dog on this one.

    Aldon Hynes said...

    It is a common mistake to confuse having a degree with having intelligence. There are many people who question the intelligence of U.S. foreign policy and our country is based on such questioning.

    Yes, it would be nice if it were done in a more civil manner, but it is much more civil that how people question policies in other parts of our world.

    Personally, I love the democracy that makes our country strong, even when it includes someone speaking out strongly against something I believe.

    Torrid said...

    how does education have any relevance to job performance? Rice was perhaps our nation's least effective, most dangerously incompetent NSA ever. Perhaps she doesn't deserve all the blame, since the functionality expressed by the word "advisor" was stripped from her job duties, and she was simply to do what she was told by those above her. And then there's the flat out lying she repeatedly did regarding what was known or believed before the war.

    It seems you can only get to alternative explanations for Boxer's harsh questioning, by ignoring the primary explanation--Rice deserved it.

    Anonymous said...

    "How does education have any relevance to job performance?" - Are you serious? You must be a retard from Wal-Mart.

    "Rice was perhaps our nation's least effective, most dangerously incompetent NSA ever." -- then why did most Democrats vote for her?

    "And then there's the flat out lying she repeatedly did" - you mean like all those other Democrats that based their same conclusions on the same faulty intelligence? Sorry - but on that you can blame the likes of Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton for cutting back on the intelligent budget. Something I guess you forgot huh?

    "Boxer's harsh questioning" - That bitch is a joke and you fell for her money-raising scheme. Go to her web site - give her your money - another gullible whiner!