LA Times Still Zip-Lipped About Boxer/Rice Smackdown
Posted By: 'Okie' | 11:30 am — 1/13/2007 | 
7 Comments See comments below:
Our idiotic CA Senator Barbara Boxer slams Secretary of State Condi Rice for being single and childless during her testimony before a Senate Investigative Committee and I guess the Los Angeles Times considers this a non event — or at least not newsworthy enough to even mention it in passing. See this search for LA Times articles that include “Barbara Boxer”.
Odd — The New York Times has a story on it.
A passing exchange during a Senate hearing on Thursday turned into a political flashpoint overnight as Senator Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused one another of insensitivity in comments about motherhood and the war in Iraq.
In an interview this afternoon with The New York Times, Ms. Rice suggested that the California Democrat had set back feminism by suggesting during the hearing that the childless Ms. Rice had paid no price in the Iraq war.
“I thought it was okay to be single,” Ms. Rice said. “I thought it was okay to not have children, and I thought you could still make good decisions on behalf of the country if you were single and didn’t have children.”
During the Thursday hearing, Ms. Boxer told Ms. Rice: “You’re not going to pay any particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”
In a separate interview, Senator Boxer said her comments had been misunderstood and were now being turned against her by the White House and other Republicans. “What I was trying to do in this exchange was to find common ground with Condi Rice,” Ms. Boxer said, adding that “my whole point was to focus on the military families who pay the price.”
The Grey Lady even covered it on one of its Blogtalk blogs, from which I borrowed this Rush Limbaugh quote about the incident.
“Here you have a rich white chick with a huge, big mouth, trying to lynch this — an African-American woman — right before Martin Luther King Day, hitting below the ovaries here.”
So did the NY Post. The San Diego Union-Tribune at least bothered to mentioned that an exchange between the two women had taken place. CBS News ran the AP version of the story. The White House came out with a strong statement against the Boxer position and verbal attack of the Sec. of State calling it “outrageous”!
“I guess that means I don’t have kids. Was that the purpose of that?” Rice said. “Well, at the time I just found it a bit confusing frankly. But in retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that. That the only question is are you making good decisions because you have kids?”
And, White House spokesman Tony Snow also weighed in:
“I don’t know if she was intentionally that tacky, but I do think it’s outrageous. Here you got a professional woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn’t have children, as if that means that she doesn’t understand the concerns of parents. Great leap backward for feminism,” Snow told FOX News Talk’s Brian and The Judge.
Our Liberal “feminist” Senator is back-peddling as fast as she can, but will not outrun this one — except for out here in La La Land, where our kitty-box-liner-of-record continues to ignore anything that might hurt the Liberal agenda, especially if it might shine an ill light on the anti-Iraq-War movement.
Now, maybe ol’ Bab’s comment has been taken a bit out of context, maybe not. And I can understand that if you’re a Lefty Anti-War Liberal you would feel that what Boxer said to Rice is right-on dude!, but what I can’t understand is not even mentioning the exchange. What say you LA Times? — cricket, cricket – - cricket, cricket . . .
Media Bias? Naaaaaa, couldn’t be — could it? (db)
Technorati Tags: Barbara Boxer, Condoleezza Rice, Tony Snow, Los Angeles Times
-
[Welcome Michelle Malkin visitors!]
My original post on this event is here,
The LA Times ignores stuff often it seems,
I also wrapped up my list of LA Times 2005 faux paux and outright biased articles,
Some thoughts on Global Warming,
A tasty lookin’ braised pork shoulder,
plus, have you ever seen someone make a Turducken? No? Well, you can here — just in time for Superbowl Sunday!
This entry was posted on Saturday, January 13th, 2007 at 11:30 am and is filed under Focus On Politics, Media Bias, Media Doin' It Wrong. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Recently Posted:
- Too Late To Apologize — Hard Rockin’ Founding Fathers Edition!
- Global Warming Is Dead, Dead, DEAD — Walter Russell Mead Says So!
- Even Some Die Hard Liberals Get It — Obama Presidency Is A Bust!
- Scott Brown Wins In Massachusetts — Hell Freezes Over, Pigs Be a Flyin’ — Dems On Suicide Watch!
- Dems In Massachusetts — They Can’t Win If They Don’t Cheat!
- More Global Warming Horse Hockey From The Scientific Consensus
- Scott Brown Ahead in Massachusetts Polling!
- America Rising
- Happy New Year?
- More On The Obama/Interpol Sovereignty SANFU
13 January 2007 | The Liberal Avenger Said:
Boxer’s comment wasn’t taken out of context – it’s simply been undermined by political operatives feigning outrage.
Condi Rice is a high-profile architect of the war.
Condi Rice doesn’t have children.
Therefore Condi Rice hasn’t had to pay the price of the loss of a child in this war.
Nowhere there is a value judgement about the merits of having or not having children.
You wingnuts need to grow up.
13 January 2007 | DRJ Said:
Hi, Okie boy. I’m a right-leaning Texan visiting from a link at Patterico’s blog. Just thought I’d mention that Mr. Avenger is a regular at Patterico’s place, too, and here’s an example (comment #40) of how he feels about serving in the military and our troops:
13 January 2007 | CC Said:
Ms. Rice has class.
Ms. Boxer has the class of a wart.
14 January 2007 | Federal Dog Said:
“Therefore Condi Rice hasn’t had to pay the price of the loss of a child in this war.”
Neither has Barbara Boxer.
Obviously.
14 January 2007 | Syntax Said:
Federal Dog, I believe that’s exactly what Boxer said of her own sacrifice or lack of. She had stated that her children were too old and her grandchildren were too young so she doesn’t know of that “sacrifice” neither. It’s always nice to see at least one Right-winger who paid attention and didn’t distort something for a pointless political agenda. And it is pointless: 11/7/06 anybody? The other 70% of this country refuse to be this stupid anymore. Sorry!
It is what it is and anybody with 1/2 a 3rd grade education can see it for what it is at face value. Those on the Right are pathetically and desperately trying to distort the matter like immature drama queens in an attempt to draw attention away from the numerous upon numerous Republicans who are criticizing and lining up against Bush’s “more of the same BS” war plan for Iraq. After 6 years, the other 70% of this country is smart enough to see through this. The tantrums of the minority are laughable at best.
15 January 2007 | discgman Said:
Syntax said it was “pointless political agenda”. Wasnt that how the democrats were elected into office in the first place? That, and how the 1/2 the 3rd grade education made it easier to fool the 70% voters who thought Iraq was in utter chaos and civil war was imminent. Oh, and Mark Foley represented the whole rep party with his immoral actions (without any prosecution)…
15 January 2007 | Syntax Said:
Well if the majority is stupid, then the minority is what? Mark Foley had little to do with the elections as most of the American people had already made up their minds way before the lying, pedophile protecting Republicans started coming out of the closet. Iraq IS in total chaos! Saddam’s execution was carried out by sectarian Shi’ites who weren’t chanting Maliki’s name. They weren’t chanting Bush’s name or Blair’s name or America’s name. Who’s name were they chanting and better yet, how were they able to infiltrate the highest level of the “Disney” Iraqi government to take over and control that execution? 1/2 a 3rd grade education anyone? They’ll keep their promises this time…promise! Bulls**t!
Can the President be that stupid? Can the pathetic shreds of whats left of his base still be that stupid? How about the few remaining Republicans left that are up for re-election in 2008 and 2010, think they’re gonna be that stupid? People shouldn’t fear the government, government should fear the people.