Still furious about the election, liberals are lashing out at blacks. First it was Condoleezza Rice. But calling a Ph.D. who advised a sitting president during war “Aunt Jemima” apparently hasn’t satiated the Democrats’ rage. Even the racist cartoons didn’t help.
So this week, they’ve turned with a vengeance to Clarence Thomas. Only the Democrats would try to distract from their racist attacks on one black Republican by leveling racist attacks against a different black Republican. If Democrats don’t nip this in the bud, soon former Klanner and Democratic Sen. Bob Byrd will be their spokesman.
In the past few weeks, there have been nasty insinuations all around about Condoleezza Rice’s competence for the job.
Democratic consultant Bob Beckel — who demonstrated his own competence running Walter Mondale’s campaign — said of Rice, “I don’t think she’s up to the job.”
Joseph Cirincione, with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (so you know they don’t have an agenda or anything), said Rice “doesn’t bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position.” This was reassuring, inasmuch as that was also liberals’ assessment of the current president before he took office and he, to put it mildly, has been doing rather well.
The Kansas City Star editorialized that Rice “has not demonstrated great competence in the last four years,” which is to say, Dr. Rice failed to be sufficiently clairvoyant to predict the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
Columnist Bob Herbert sneered of Rice’s nomination in The New York Times: “Competence has never been highly regarded by the fantasists of the George W. Bush administration.” For example, these are the bumbling nitwits who conquered Afghanistan, the “graveyard of empires,” and toppled Baghdad in less time than your average Jennifer Lopez marriage lasts. (Wait, I can’t remember: Was it the Bush administration that hired Jayson Blair?)
So far Dr. Rice has demonstrated her abundant competence only in academia, geopolitics, history, government, college administration, classical music and athletics. I eagerly await the Bob Herbert column in which he lists the subjects and pursuits he’s mastered. If only Rice talked about her accessorizing like Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, she might impress the sort of fellow who writes for The New York Times.
Liberals at least give white Republicans credit for being evil. Rumsfeld is a dangerous warmonger, Paul Wolfowitz is part of an international Jewish conspiracy, Dick Cheney is “Dr. No.” But Dr. Rice? She’s a dummy.
In fact, after spending the last four years telling us that President Bush was an empty suit, a vessel for neoconservative fantasies of perpetual war, liberals have now found someone who is Bush’s puppet: the black chick.
It’s all so eerily familiar.
The late Mary McGrory, a white liberal, called Scalia “a brilliant and compelling extremist” — as opposed to McGrory herself, a garden-variety extremist of average intelligence. But Thomas she dismissed as “Scalia’s puppet,” quoting another white liberal, Alvin J. Bronstein of the American Civil Liberties Union, to make the point. This is the kind of rhetoric liberals are reduced to when they just can’t bring themselves to use the “n-word.”
Most recently — at least as we go to press — last Sunday Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, had this to say about Justice Clarence Thomas: “I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written.” You’d think Thomas’ opinions were written in ebonics.
In the same interview, Reid called Justice Antonin Scalia “one smart guy.” He said that although he disagreed with Scalia, his reasoning is “very hard to dispute.” Scalia is “one smart guy”; Thomas is the janitor. If Democrats are all going to read from the same talking points, they might want to get someone other than David Duke to write them.
On the Sean Hannity radio show, Democratic pundit Pat Halpin defended Sen. Reid’s laughable attack on Thomas by citing Bob Woodward’s book The Brethren, which — according to Halpin — vividly portrays Thomas as a nincompoop.
I return to my standing point that liberals don’t read. Harry Reid clearly hasn’t read any of the decisions Justice Thomas has written, and Pat Halpin clearly hasn’t read The Brethren.
The Brethren came out a decade before Thomas was even nominated to the Supreme Court. The only black Supreme Court justice discussed in “The Brethren” is Thurgood Marshall. That’s one we haven’t heard in a while: I just can’t tell you guys apart.
How many black justices have there been on the Supreme Court again? Oh yes: two. It’s one thing to confuse Potter Stewart with Lewis Powell. After all, there have been a lot of white guys on the court. But there have been only two black justices — and Democrats can’t keep them straight. Two! That’s like getting your mother and father confused. I can name every black guy on a current National Hockey League roster: Is it asking Democrats too much to remember the names of the only two black Supreme Court justices?
In America (The Book), by Jon Stewart and the writers of Comedy Central’s “Daily Show,” the section on the judiciary describes how to make a sock puppet of Clarence Thomas and then says, “Ta-da! You’re Antonin Scalia!” On grounds of originality alone, Mr. Stewart, I want my money back.
But reviewing the book in The New York Times, Caryn James called the sock puppet joke one of the book’s “gems of pointed political humor.” Funny how the liberal punditocracy all parrot this same “sock puppet” line about Thomas year after year, almost as if they were sock pu– oh, never mind.
Curiously, of all the liberals launching racist attacks on black conservatives I’ve quoted above, only two are themselves black: the two who write for The New York Times. So I guess there are still a couple of blacks taking orders from the Democrats. Isn’t there an expression for that? I think it begins with “Uncle” and ends with “Tom.”
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter