Lieberman puts his foot in it...

[Mike S]

But where's the outrage?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5756

If they guy were a repub I've a feeling there would be a plethora of indignant rants and statements questioning his qualifications for president being that he is running for that office in 04.


why am I not suprised tho..
MS

Article:


Lieberman's Liberal Racism
By Ruben Navarrette
DallasNews.com | January 27, 2003


Thank you, Sen. Joe Lieberman, for providing us with a fresh example of liberal racism.

And just in time. My old material was getting stale.

Five years ago, while working at a newspaper in Arizona, I wrote a column criticizing a Democratic official. I got an angry e-mail from one of her supporters, a self-described liberal itching to put me in my place. He noted that I am Mexican-American and then informed me that, without affirmative action programs secured for me by the Democratic Party, I wouldn't have enjoyed any of the opportunities I had experienced up to then.

Translation: Shut up and stop biting the hand that feeds you.

I have had to put up with cracks like that for almost 20 years, ever since I graduated from high school at the top of my class and went off to the Ivy League. Funny thing. Whenever the term "affirmative action" is mentioned, it always is slung as an insult. The suggestion is that, if not for the kindness of strangers, I wouldn't be a Harvard-educated writer but rather a fruit picker in my native Central California, working alongside Mexican immigrants.

No offense taken. I have more respect for most Mexican fruit pickers than I do some Harvard graduates.

But there has been one change. It used to be that the people behind the insult were almost always conservatives who opposed affirmative action. What bothered them was their assumption that I had profited from a racial spoils system and thus had no right to my opinion. What surprised me in the Arizona exchange is that the slam came from someone who called himself a liberal and seemed to support affirmative action. What bothered him was that I dared express an opinion different from his own.

Given experience, I was less surprised when I heard Mr. Lieberman, during a recent appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, kindly inform the nation that, without affirmative action, one of President Bush's top advisers wouldn't have any of the opportunities she has now.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice had appeared on the show moments before Mr. Lieberman. Asked her view of affirmative action, Dr. Rice said she thought that colleges should be able to consider race as one factor in an applicant's portfolio but that the Michigan program – which includes a point system – might have gone too far.

When he got his turn, Mr. Lieberman disagreed. He said that the Michigan program was perfectly fine and that minority applicants simply are given a hand up.

Mr. Lieberman should have stopped there. He didn't. He marched on. And that's when he stepped in it.

In fact, Mr. Lieberman insisted, "it is exactly programs like the Michigan program that helped a star like Condi Rice get to where she is today."

Stop the tape! Did Al Gore's running mate in 2000 and now the presumed front-runner for the 2004 Democratic nomination actually say that one of the highest-ranking women in the U.S. government – and a black woman at that – has gotten where she is because of affirmative action? This from the man who wants to lead the party that bills itself as enlightened and sensitive on racial matters.

Thanks for clearing that up, Joe. Given what I have read of Dr. Rice – including a recent cover story in Newsweek – I had assumed that her path from Birmingham, Ala., to the White House inner circle had been blazed by hard work, sacrifice, discipline, intellect and making the right choices in life.

After all, those are the things we are taught to assume put successful white males "where they are today." You won't hear that Ted Kennedy, John Edwards or any other white male in the Senate owes his success to a government program. This despite the fact that some of them – with their trust funds and family connections – have benefited from their own kind of affirmative action.

Besides, Mr. Lieberman picked the wrong person to hold up as an example of someone who should bow at the altar of affirmative action.

Newsweek dubbed Dr. Rice "the most powerful woman in Washington," calling her "black, brainy and [Mr.] Bush's secret weapon."

Hmm. The editors left out the phrase: affirmative action baby. Must have been an oversight.

Mr. Lieberman's remark was offensive, and African-American groups should say so loud and clear. If they hold their tongues – and do so because Mr. Lieberman is a Democrat – they lose all credibility. They also lose the right to complain the next time a Republican official says something stupid about race – which could be any moment now.


Ruben Navarrette Jr. is an editorial writer and columnist for The Dallas Morning News.

[Roddimus]

I don't need an opinion piece to tell me Lieberman is a douche.
He was the most vocal of the few democrats who supported the lax accounting legislation that lead to all the Enrons and Worldcoms that kept us entertained for much of 2002.
Based on that article tho, I wouldn't necessarily say he's as racist as Trent Lott. He just made yet another in the long line of dishonest democrat assertions.
I fail to see the racism in lying to make your point on a political issue.
Whether you agree with the program or not, it's hard to deny that thousands of black people have benefitted from affirmitive action. Just because Lieberman tried to dishonestly illustrate this point by making a groundless assumption about Condi Rice doesn't mean he's a racist.
Or maybe I'm missing something...

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Roddimus
I don't need an opinion piece to tell me Lieberman is a douche.
He was the most vocal of the few democrats who supported the lax accounting legislation that lead to all the Enrons and Worldcoms that kept us entertained for much of 2002.
Based on that article tho, I wouldn't necessarily say he's as racist as Trent Lott. He just made yet another in the long line of dishonest democrat assertions.
I fail to see the racism in lying to make your point on a political issue.
Whether you agree with the program or not, it's hard to deny that thousands of black people have benefitted from affirmitive action. Just because Lieberman tried to dishonestly illustrate this point by making a groundless assumption about Condi Rice doesn't mean he's a racist.
Or maybe I'm missing something...

He implied that she wouldnt be where she is with out a handout?
Read agian what he said. In my opinion it exposes the underlying bigotry behind the dems support of A.A. That certain people CANT make it without a handout.

I agree the program was successful.. now its time for the program to end or be directed at people who really need it.

MS

[seattle science]

Anybody who happens to have opinions that differ from mine = a douche.

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by seattle science
Anybody who happens to have opinions that differ from mine = a douche.
It's not that his opinions are different from mine, it's that he constantly distorts facts and stretches the truth to simply bolster his obviously disingenuous "anti-corporate, pro-working man" stance.
Having differing opinions simply means I think you're incorrect on certain issues.
Constantly lying and reinforcing the image of the hypocrite politician makes you a douche.
Hope that clears it up...

[booboo69]

Oh fuck. Choosing between Bush and Lieberman is worse than choosing between Bush and Gore. Guess who's votin' green this time...?

[seattle science]

Please vote Green. Every Green vote helps ensure that Bush sits in the oval office for 4 more years.

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by Mike S

He implied that she wouldnt be where she is with out a handout?

MS

Uh, he didn't imply so much as he actually said (and I quote from your own article, though I've not checked the source to be sure of its veracity): "it is exactly programs like the Michigan program that helped a star like Condi Rice get to where she is today."

Problem is, MS, Condi herself agreed to that - on the record - last week. Now, whether affirmative action is the only or primary reason for her position today, neither Leiberman said nor did Condi commented on. Rather, Lieberman used the verb "helped" in the quote above, as in affirmative action was one factor among many.

In any event, to deny that her position as Provost at Stanford was not aided by Stanford's affirmative action stance is just flat wrong. Condi herself is honest enough to state this clearly and directly.

If you'd like, I'll gladly dig up the Condi quote for you. Before I waste the time to (again) catch you posting un-truths here, you have to agree that if you claim she didn't say that - and in fact she did, and I post a verifiable source showing same - you will write 100 times on OT "MS is a bitter little knee-jerk conservative who hates the fact that some other Americans care and honestly think about other people and the world around them, and not just themselves."

For the record, I think Lieberman is a prick and not fit to be president of our country, and I'm at best ambivalent and at worst not supportive of affirmative action as it is practiced today.

I wonder though, MS, what do you think of the "legacy" system that gets Baby Bush and other lazy, spoiled, rich white boys with rich white parents into the Ivy League? Isn't that exactly the sort of "quota" that you speak out against? Interested in your response, as always.

Peace,

D-d0g

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by seattle science
Please vote Green. Every Green vote helps ensure that Bush sits in the oval office for 4 more years.
Hehe...Well, if you live in Washington or Oregon, a vote for Bush is about as futile as a vote for Nader.
Thank you very much electoral college.
:p

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Roddimus
I don't need an opinion piece to tell me Lieberman is a douche.
He was the most vocal of the few democrats who supported the lax accounting legislation that lead to all the Enrons and Worldcoms that kept us entertained for much of 2002.
Based on that article tho, I wouldn't necessarily say he's as racist as Trent Lott. He just made yet another in the long line of dishonest democrat assertions.
I fail to see the racism in lying to make your point on a political issue.
Whether you agree with the program or not, it's hard to deny that thousands of black people have benefitted from affirmitive action. Just because Lieberman tried to dishonestly illustrate this point by making a groundless assumption about Condi Rice doesn't mean he's a racist.
Or maybe I'm missing something...

Actually Rodd racism means the belief that one race is superior to another. If you find it nessessary to create institutions to seperate the races like segregation than obvious you are saying one race needs to be seperated from another becuase one is superior. If you say to one race that your inferior to other races so what we are gonna do is give you a leg up to help you out becuase we all know becuase of your race your just not able to compete with other races which Affirmative Action does. Whether it's Lott's remarks reflecting segregation, or Libermans and the whole Democratic Parties strong support of Affirmative Action it doesn't matter which way you try to cut it there both discriminatory and racist policies.

-Jason

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by D-d0g


Uh, he didn't imply so much as he actually said (and I quote from your own article, though I've not checked the source to be sure of its veracity): "it is exactly programs like the Michigan program that helped a star like Condi Rice get to where she is today."

I saw the Meet the press show that Sunday morning, it was a week or two ago. Liberman is suggesting without Affirmative Action she would of not been the star she is today. But the crux of it all is that Affirmative Action did give her the top nod for the position as provost at Stanford but it did not make her the star she is today, she is the star today becuase she is talented, she is intelligent, and etc. She is where she is becuase of her individual merit and not becyuase the color of her skin.

Problem is, MS, Condi herself agreed to that - on the record - last week. Now, whether affirmative action is the only or primary reason for her position today, neither Leiberman said nor did Condi commented on. Rather, Lieberman used the verb "helped" in the quote above, as in affirmative action was one factor among many.

In any event, to deny that her position as Provost at Stanford was not aided by Stanford's affirmative action stance is just flat wrong. Condi herself is honest enough to state this clearly and directly.

If you'd like, I'll gladly dig up the Condi quote for you. Before I waste the time to (again) catch you posting un-truths here, you have to agree that if you claim she didn't say that - and in fact she did, and I post a verifiable source showing same - you will write 100 times on OT "MS is a bitter little knee-jerk conservative who hates the fact that some other Americans care and honestly think about other people and the world around them, and not just themselves."

Read the transcript here..
http://www.msnbc.com/news/860813.asp

For the record, I think Lieberman is a prick and not fit to be president of our country, and I'm at best ambivalent and at worst not supportive of affirmative action as it is practiced today.

I wonder though, MS, what do you think of the "legacy" system that gets Baby Bush and other lazy, spoiled, rich white boys with rich white parents into the Ivy League? Isn't that exactly the sort of "quota" that you speak out against? Interested in your response, as always.

Peace,

D-d0g

Actually I'd like to chime in here..

I personally don't think very highly of legacy systems either but I'm not going to be against it becuase of class envy and hatred like above. Now on the other hand legacy systems are up to the school to decide, it's not unconstitutional to apply that system. It is how ever unconstitutional by state institutions to discriminate people by race.

-Jason

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD

I personally don't think very highly of legacy systems either but I'm not going to be against it becuase of class envy and hatred like above. Now on the other hand legacy systems are up to the school to decide, it's not unconstitutional to apply that system. It is how ever unconstitutional by state institutions to discriminate people by race.


Ok, but wait. "Legacy" systems are a form of structural, institutionalized racism. Historically, the Ivy League schools did not admit non-white students. Thus, if one looks at the pool of individuals/families who have attended these schools in the past, the percentage of non-white folks is amazingly tiny. Again, this is structural - the Ivy League had anti-black policies in place historically.

Consequently, today, the pool of potential "legacy" admittees is, by definition, highly skewed against non-white applicants. Again, this is a concrete legacy of institutional racism - not the outgrowth of other factors. This is historical racism perpetuating a bias against non-white students, plain and simple.

So, while the schools can say with a straight face that they aren't admitting these lazy, lucky legacy students because they are white, the truth is that by logical necessity their decision to favor legacy applicants must structurally favor white applicants due to the institutional history of racism embedded in the potential legacy applicant pool (I believe that the Ivy League all practice some form of affirmative action at least in part to counter this history of their own racism - an instance of affirmative action really functioning specifically to counter a historical wrong that still has effects today).

Why is it ok to allow legacies that favor whites by definition, but not ok to "balance the scales" by giving today's minority applicants an equalizing leg up in admissions? Or, if the latter is wrong because it is "reverse racism," then how is the former simply not "racism with no reverse?"

Again, I'm no big philosophical supporter of affirmative action. However, I'm disgusted by a system that by its very structure perpetuates a history of institutional racism - and yet is considered ok in today's America.

Full disclosure: I come from a "Harvard family," and thus would have easily been admitted there as a rich, white, lucky kid from Pennsylvania when graduating high school. However, rather than take that easy path in life I busted my fucking ass, got good grades, was admitted to Reed College, went from there to the University of Chicago's MBA program (ranked this year #2 in the world by Business Week magazine), and am now studying for a Ph.D. Fuck legacy "free rides" and the intellectual laziness that comes with them! :mad:

Baby Bush should be sent to an inner-city, public school and then we'll see how well he "pulls his own bootstraps" and puts his coddled ass through Hahv-ahd. :eek:

Peace,

D-d0g

ps: Condi is a solid woman - I admire her honesty even as I wonder at her choice of administrations.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by D-d0g


Uh, he didn't imply so much as he actually said (and I quote from your own article, though I've not checked the source to be sure of its veracity): "it is exactly programs like the Michigan program that helped a star like Condi Rice get to where she is today."

Problem is, MS, Condi herself agreed to that - on the record - last week. Now, whether affirmative action is the only or primary reason for her position today, neither Leiberman said nor did Condi commented on. Rather, Lieberman used the verb "helped" in the quote above, as in affirmative action was one factor among many.

In any event, to deny that her position as Provost at Stanford was not aided by Stanford's affirmative action stance is just flat wrong. Condi herself is honest enough to state this clearly and directly.

If you'd like, I'll gladly dig up the Condi quote for you. Before I waste the time to (again) catch you posting un-truths here, you have to agree that if you claim she didn't say that - and in fact she did, and I post a verifiable source showing same - you will write 100 times on OT "MS is a bitter little knee-jerk conservative who hates the fact that some other Americans care and honestly think about other people and the world around them, and not just themselves."

For the record, I think Lieberman is a prick and not fit to be president of our country, and I'm at best ambivalent and at worst not supportive of affirmative action as it is practiced today.

I wonder though, MS, what do you think of the "legacy" system that gets Baby Bush and other lazy, spoiled, rich white boys with rich white parents into the Ivy League? Isn't that exactly the sort of "quota" that you speak out against? Interested in your response, as always.

Peace,

D-d0g

Oh I know the quote dog and maybe your right I'm over reacting to Liebermans quote. I'm of the opinion though that quite a few people on the left are of the mind others cant make it with out a hand out. It goes to why I think allot of their programs tank. If you create something to help someone based on pity and not respect it may help them in the short run but in the long run it wont help them at all and may create more problems.

If your referring to the old boy network that acts as a sort of affirmative action for the well to do my first reaction is the same as my reaction to race or gender based programs that choose applicants not by their scholarly merits but by who they are. Bullshit.
Its funny you bring that up I'm reading a book about yales skull and bones society and it talks allot about that sort of thing. I know you hate Bush (understatement) but where you and I differ (among many other things) on him is that I don't hold his upbringing against him. I'll judge the guy on what he does now. As far as that goes he's done well internationally but domestically he needs to step up or he's going to repeat his dads presidency. This will be especially true if the dems pull their heads out of their asses, quit opposing just to oppose and actually start floating some competing ideas.

Back to the original topic though..

There's not much you or I can do about the private choices of individuals as far as the old boy network but we can oppose a public program that is biased in that it chooses people based on race and gender.
I cant totally bag on AA.. it did help quite a few people but now its gone from being a program to being treated like an entitlement.
Now, I think, its time to either end it or alter it so it helps those who need it. By that I mean it shouldn't be race or gender based but maybe geared towards everyone, regardless of race or gender, who comes from a disadvantaged environment.


Later D

MS

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Roddimus
OOooops...My bad.
I was logged in as Nukegrrrl when I made that post above, and I didn't notice it until I got to work.
I'll have to fix that when I get home...

oh I see how it is Roddimus in drag = nukegrrrl.;)
MS

[D-d0g]

Originally posted by Mike S

Its funny you bring that up I'm reading a book about yales skull and bones society and it talks allot about that sort of thing. I know you hate Bush (understatement) but where you and I differ (among many other things) on him is that I don't hold his upbringing against him. I'll judge the guy on what he does now. As far as that goes he's done well internationally but domestically he needs to step up or he's going to repeat his dads presidency. This will be especially true if the dems pull their heads out of their asses, quit opposing just to oppose and actually start floating some competing ideas.

What bothers me so much about the little prick is that he seems so blissfully ignorant of how much he was coddled and pampered as a rich little boy. See, I grew up with (some) of the same privileges as he did; that doesn't make me inherently bad (at least I hope not!).

However, I choose to be aware of the benefits I was - through sheer luck of who my parents were - gifted with as a kid. I also recognize that, did I not have those random advantages, my life would have been much, much harder. Thus, I don't take for granted the opportunities I've had. Further, I try to do what I can to help others benefit as I was lucky enough to benefit. At the least, I never put myself on a pedestal - thinking that my good luck with parents makes me, by definition, better than others. . . or able to tell others how they should be living their own lives.

Baby Bush has none of this perspective, and has none of this understanding. He's insular and ignorant and horribly self-righteous. These are dangerous traits in a person who has been gifted with familial power. They are frightening - beyond frightening - in someone who has been used by the power brokers of the Republican party to steal the highest "elected" office in our country.

There's not much you or I can do about the private choices of individuals as far as the old boy network but we can oppose a public program that is biased in that it chooses people based on race and gender.
I cant totally bag on AA.. it did help quite a few people but now its gone from being a program to being treated like an entitlement.
Now, I think, its time to either end it or alter it so it helps those who need it. By that I mean it shouldn't be race or gender based but maybe geared towards everyone, regardless of race or gender, who comes from a disadvantaged environment.

Point of fact - whether discrimination is "public" or "private," it's still illegal in America. So whether Yale runs a "private" system to benefit white legacies - or whether a state university runs a "public" system to encourage racial diversity - the legal principals are the same.

I'm pretty much on page with you regarding "AA." The danger with it, at least in my mind, is that it becomes institutionalized and loses touch with its original purpose. To wit, to help those who have historically been systemically fucked in our country to get back to par so they can live their lives according to who they are, today. In other words, to re-balance some of the historical imbalances that our country created back when it allowed full-fledged, overt, structural racism to flourish in public and private institutions for nearly a full century after the Civil War was fought to end black slavery in America.

Sadly, our shared position on this topic doesn't make good sound bites and thus is pretty much lost in the din of partisan bickering. Too, Bush the Priveliged railing against affirmative action programs that seek to help the structurally disadvantaged is such a nauseating example of hypocrisy writ large. Then again, so much of his administration is 100% based on hypocrisy as a substitute for substantive policy.

Peace,

D-d0g

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by ZupanGOD


Actually Rodd racism means the belief that one race is superior to another. If you find it nessessary to create institutions to seperate the races like segregation than obvious you are saying one race needs to be seperated from another becuase one is superior. If you say to one race that your inferior to other races so what we are gonna do is give you a leg up to help you out becuase we all know becuase of your race your just not able to compete with other races which Affirmative Action does. Whether it's Lott's remarks reflecting segregation, or Libermans and the whole Democratic Parties strong support of Affirmative Action it doesn't matter which way you try to cut it there both discriminatory and racist policies.

-Jason
I think that's inferring a lot from a single quote.
One could also take it to mean that Lieberman simply thinks there is still a great deal of institutionalized racism out there that prevents minorities from suceeding, and Condi Rice managed to avoid these pitfalls with the help of A.A.
I'm not saying this is definintely what he meant, but it's hard to take his quote as meaning he believes that THE ONLY REASON Rice got to where she is is because of A.A.
He said it "helped" her become the star she is, not caused.

[Roddimus]

Originally posted by Mike S


oh I see how it is Roddimus in drag = nukegrrrl.;)
MS
Not quite...
Nukegrrrl = Roddimus' roommate and girlfriend.
:D

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Roddimus

Not quite...
Nukegrrrl = Roddimus' roommate and girlfriend.
:D

Suuuuuure. hehehehe.

MS

[ZupanGOD]

Originally posted by Roddimus

I think that's inferring a lot from a single quote.
One could also take it to mean that Lieberman simply thinks there is still a great deal of institutionalized racism out there that prevents minorities from suceeding, and Condi Rice managed to avoid these pitfalls with the help of A.A.
I'm not saying this is definintely what he meant, but it's hard to take his quote as meaning he believes that THE ONLY REASON Rice got to where she is is because of A.A.
He said it "helped" her become the star she is, not caused.

Agreed. What I am saying whether he intentionally means so or not it is what it is.

-Jason