While I don't think her comments are a farce, I'm also not outraged. However, nighttimer is correct (happens occasionally) that the Right is more worked up about this than it warrants, as simply cruising across some of the heavy hitters on the 'Net illustrates. True to normal form though, his assessment of why is wrong.

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

No. Personally I do not see that Boxer insulted Rice. If she'd wanted to insult her, she could have done it much more vividly and pointedly. I would certainly, however, salute anyone who would do that. I would like to insult that lying little b---h myself. 3,000 Americans and on the order of 100,000 Iraqis have died, in part, because of the lies she told in support of her boss's insane war policy. She deserves tarring and feathering rather more than insulting. I find it difficult to understand that anyone takes her seriously anymore; or that every single question directed to her in Senate hearings is not "where are the nuclear weapons that you said threatened the United States?"

Moreover, if a Secretary of State can't stand pointed, personal criticism from a U.S. Senator, what the heck is he doing in office? If you can't stand proximity to red-hot iron, don't take a job in a foundary.

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?

Ho, ho, ho, have you read the U.S. Constitution lately?

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?

Careful, or you'll pop a gasket from all that huffing and puffing. Boxer does answer to the people of California, and I'm rather certain that this little brouhaha won't be mentioned when she stands for reelection. But by all means, feel free to send money to her opponent, if you care all that much about it.

New York Post

To twist this exchange into a statement that a person is not fit to serve her country if she does not have children boggles my imagination. Boxer was confronting Rice with the fact that while she is a power holder in the decision to send troops to Iraq, it is the troops and their families that bear the burden and risk of being sent.

Thank goodness that the women of America have the gang at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue watching out for them.

There is nothing to see here beyond the right fringe blogosphere.

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?
Yes. This kind of ad hominem attack is crude and unjustified. And esp. to the highly respected Rice.

?

YES



I am sure her constituents in SF for the most part cheered her for the remark. But the level of un professionalism is shocking. I am sure there will be more to come.

Ted,

Why do you bring up that alleged paragon of "evil," San Francisco? Is this a blatant emotional, knee-jerk appeal?

Barbara Boxer is a United States Senator who represents all California citizens. I haven't heard any cry for an apology from anywhere in California. If so, please let us know about it. If anything, Rupert Murdoch, the Faux in the chicken coop of journalism, should offer Boxer an apology through the New York Post. Don't hold your breath, though.

This is the type wedge issue the right has used for years. News Bulletin: It doesn't work anymore. Get used to it.

I mention SF as the heart of the far left in CA and spritual home of idiot BOXER. Her crude stupid comment is typical of the nasty rhetoric these days from our politicians on BOTH sides and that does not make it right does it.

The insinuation that Rice would vote for a continuation of the war because “she has no children to lose” is disgusting at best.

News bulletin Bof this is not a “wedge issue” this is just another stupid remark by a left wing senator. Teddy K has said worse – as expected.

I am endlessly puzzled by this entire tempest in a teapot. The comments made by Boxer rank as somewhat tasteless, nothing worse. I would not have said it, but to read the running commentary from some here you would think she had compared Rice to some misshapen amalgam of Stalin, Dr mengele and Ming the Merciless.

Her comment was:
""Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young." Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

That is all. hardly choice words, and certainly nothing to be proud of. But the horrendous hue and cry seems to be self-inflating, as though trying to convince people it was so much worse than it actually was.

I am reminded of the confrontation between Clinton and Wallace some months ago, in which Clinton, without even raising his voice, corrected wallace on what he felt was a mischarictarisation, right or wrong, and accused others of smearing him, a call which (love or hate Clinton) is undoubtably true. The next day the right-wing press carried headlines like "Clinton goes Crazy" and people spoke of him having a psychotic episode on the air, there were calls for Clinton to apologise to wallace, Fox news and the American people, and so forth. Of course within a few days everyone realised this was a complete non-story, and nothing of what the far right pretended had actually happened in the interview.

I am not defending Boxer's comments, they were most certainly in poor taste. However, the worst of her crimes was asking what is in essence a fairly reasonable question: who will pay the price for this 'troop surge'? The answer: the men who are sent into the bloody morass and their families. This includes neither Boxer, nor Rice. Not a very relevant addendum to a good point by Boxer, and badly phrased. But hardly the venemous hate mail that some here seem to be attempting to present it as.

It is almost like some people are trying to find or invent a left-wing scandal to distract people from the foolishness of the troops surge. But no, that is too cynical even for one such as I.

The point is what she implied. This nasty statement goes along with others from the left demanding a return of the draft and implying that Congressmen who voted for the war are not “sending their children” . It is mean spirited at best. Typically the left has called Bush every name in the book. I cannot post them here. Its disgusting.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JeffJac..._in_bush-hatred

You sound like a sensitive man Ted, so I will try to not to offend you. Sen. Boxer implied a fact regarding Sec. Rice's motherhood. There is no denying that Sec. Rice is not, and has not ever been, a mother. Unless you are a resident of California, there really is nothing you can do about Sen. Boxer's statement. Maybe you could lobby your U.S. Senators to see if they can get the First Amendment repealed so that more comments that you find unacceptable cannot be uttered anymore.

This is overblown hype by a bunch of sore losers.

The republicans lost everything big because they were as corrupt in principle as much as anybody. So, to feel better, they try to dig up crap like this.

I would have preferred Boxer not make that comment, but I think her overall point is legit - how many of the war mongers would believe in this Iraq debacle if their sons and daughters were being made mincemeat by IED's? Would those sacrifices be worth it then? Since they are politicians above all else, I think their stance would be much different if their own children were being killed. Just like they are with their own money versus ours.

But to be fair, the same people who are protecting Boxer would be calling for Trent Lott to be forced to resign had he made a comment like this.

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

First off, is Boxer Thelma or Louise? I lose track of which one of the CA Yentas is which.

Should she apologize to Rice? For what? Being a mean spirited left wing elitist? It is what she *IS* after all. Can a snake apologize for being a snake?

Should she remove herself? Why? She got her headline. Mission Accomplished.

Should she apologize to CA? Sorry, but she's WAY back in the line of people who owe this state an apology.

Hey no offence taken barnaby

Hey the idiot has the right to say anything her little heart desires and I have the RIGHT to call her a mean spirited moron. And I am sure they love her in CA esp. in SF where the idiot who they elected mayor wants to disband the US military and the school board kicks out JROTC.

Actually I hope her and dopes like Teddy ratchet up this type rhetoric so that new conservative Democrat voters will get a good look at the Party they voted for.

Actually, you are the face of the party the people threw out.

If you think Boxer, and mean comments that she made to one of our best are right then YOU are the face of the Dems and IMO the conservatives and swing voters will catch on quickly over the next couple of years, and not like what they see..

See ya at the polls friend.

How did she imply anything, exactly? She prefaced her comment about Rice's lack of family by pointing out that she too, had no family of military serving age. What did she imply, precisely, and how did she imply it? There is a difference between what was implied, and what you chose to read into her comments that was not there.

Not that it is relevant, but when has any left-wing politician called for the Draft exactly? As for the left calling President Bush names, yes, its true they have. Care to place a wager as to who was called more frequent and more ugly names, President Bush by the Democrats, or President Clinton by the Republicans?

Ted, you might make a more compelling case if you found something else to call those you don't like, "idiots," "morons," "dopes," and stupid."

Boxer cannot be both an “idiot” and a “moron.” Both words were part of an older British system of classification for mentally retarded people. I’ll let you look up the difference in the two words.

BTW: What does Sen. Edward M. Kennedy have to do with any of this?



More Rupert Murdoch Slanted News

It seems that Faux News, another Murdoch outlet, has jumped in. John Gibson may wait until hell freezes over before Boxer offers an apology. I hope so.

To add to the mockery of Dr. Rice is this comment:

"Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate [for President], is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job."

Wow, so being an older woman with no kids and no other family precludes her from running for President? Is this comment better or worse than Boxer's? Maybe it depends on who said it. Any guesses? Laura Bush.

.



OK lets stick with idiot. And who cares about an apology – this is what the woman believes in her little far left brain. And Kennedy has said far worse about Bush and others that is why I mention him Bof.

I don't mean to sound like "that guy" but these comments are actually quite sensible.

Dr. Rice would be a good candidate for President
BUT
She has no interest
I THINK
You need to have a very strong family and their support to tun for President.

So Laura Bush isn't precluding anyone from anything but instead drawing from personal experience and attempting to apply it to others.

Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

I'm no fan of Senator Boxer's style, and it is obvious how her wording might be construed to be insensitive; but within the full context, I don't read in this quote any assertion, intentional or otherwise, that a woman is only as valuable as the number of children she has or the man she's married to. Senator Boxer, on the contrary, has a long record of taking actions many would deem consistent with trying to eradicate such a mindset, so it would seem she has merely pulled a John "Inartfully Worded" Kerry. But that doesn't get her entirely off the hook for her statements.

Senator Boxer's real mistake here, like Representative Rangel's, is only that she does not believe any leader without family in harm's way can possibly empathize enough with the human cost of warfare to make sound judgements about our nation's defense. In almost any other situation, she would call such an emotional investment in a decision a "conflict of interest". Should the entire jury in a capital murder trial be composed only of family members of the accused or others on death row? Of course not. If Sen. Boxer goes so far as to apologize for anything, it should be to her constituents who elected her to make sound judgements, not for unintentionally insulting Secretary Rice.

If there were any sign that Secretary Rice took the statement personally, it would be polite, but definitely not required, for Senator Boxer to offer a heartfelt, sympathetic voice of opposition to the specific implications that had offended Secretary Rice, along with reassurances they were not intended; first in private, then in public. Statecraft is part stagecraft. Whether or not she chooses to respond sympathetically depends on what public persona Senator Boxer wants to project-- the tough prosecutor or the senior statesperson. An apology is not owed, but one might be offered anyway.

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?

If she were Senator Lott or any other Republican, the DNC would demand her resignation and stage demonstrations in the streets. The paleomedia would be foaming at the mouth demanding an apology, then complain the apology was inadequate and insincere. So they would demand she apologize again, preferably with tears this time, for any voters in the viewing audience who might have missed the first one. But alas, she is a champion of the paleomedia's favorite ideologies, so she gets a free ride, the benefit of the doubt, and almost none of the negative attention usually heaped on Republicrats. Collusion at its best.

However, just because Senator Boxer has treated others (particularly Senator Lott) unfairly doesn't necessarily mean she should be treated unfairly, too. She should neither remove herself from the hearings nor allow herself to be removed from the hearings without a fight. She merely tried to say something in a way that could easily be misinterpreted as politically incorrect-- much like Senator Lott, whose flubbed attempt to complement an elderly Senator made him look almost as racist as Senator "Grand Dragon" Byrd (D) (now third in line to the Presidency) once was. The Republicrats who claimed Lott should not have been railroaded have no business trying to paint Sen. Boxer as a male chauvinist pig; if not for common honesty and decency, then for the simple reality that such charges wouldn't stick even if they were true.

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?

On the basis of offending Secretary Rice and the female gender, she owes no apology to anyone; however, she would be wise not to get defensive, but to humbly clarify her statement and distance herself from the way her words were misconstrued, probably in a low-key press release unless the paleomedia really starts beating the war drums (not likely), in which case an "impromptu" (memorized) "heartfelt" statement to a "hapenstance" (orchestrated) gaggle of rolling cameras would likely suffice. A full press conference would do her far more harm than good. Of course, she and her damage control handlers already know all that. Business as usual.

Chastising Senator Boxer for what she obviously did not mean should be beneath all American politicians, but it never has been. The Republicrats played Kerry's "inartfully worded" joke for all it was worth a few months ago, no differently than the Democrans hounded Senator Allen as if he were the first politician in history to liken his opponent's operatives to monkeys (albeit a show of poor judgement and profound insensitivity to race issues, at best). Boxer's adversaries would be far wiser to give her the benefit of the doubt on political incorrectness, while opposing the real substance of what Sen. Boxer's was obviously trying to say: that the only people qualified to make rational decisions about the nation's defense are those most emotionally predisposed to put personal interest ahead of national interest. While the sentiment is superficially satisfying, its implications are foolish, almost to the point of being backwards.

To be clear, I believe most family members of our troops would be perfectly capable of making the right decisions if the fate of the nation were placed exclusively in their hands; but few could honestly deny the difficulty of resisting the overwhelming emotional urge to place the safety of their loved ones above the fate of the rest of the nation, especially if all the decision-makers were under similar pressure. It is the very fact that many are subject to the constant tug of such temptations that earns each of them far more respect than most of us could ever muster-- especially when they can find the strength to put on whatever public face is necessary to boost morale, although our gratitude should not be diminished if and when such a burden becomes too heavy to bear.

Pardon me if I have strayed off topic yet again. Suffice it to say the issue hits close to home.

Oh, indeed, it's a tempest in a little right-wing teapot. But why be surprised? It's par for the course for the likes of O'Reilly and Limbaugh. Their schtick only works if they keep the likes of Ted here constantly riled up. Obviously they do a pretty good job of it -- then they laugh all the way to the bank!

But even though it does marginally serve a right-wing political agenda, I can't be much bothered by it. I think most Americans have lost their patience with the iron-jawed ardency of Limbaugh and his ilk. The whole phenomenon is too far over-the-top, too angry, and too, well, stupid.

But who else beside the NY Post is mentioning this? Is it making its way around the Talkers? I mean this is so much nothing I can't imagine their using this.

Frankly, I'm amazed this topic got any legs. The only people that seem outraged about this are in the Conservative Blog community and news outlets that don't seem to have much else to report on. Odd that they didn't seem as outraged when Laura Bush took a shot at Condi.

Here's the quote to avoid people having to dig for it:


Should Senator Boxer offer a formal and public apology to Secretary of State Rice?

Should she remove herself or be removed from the hearings?

Should she offer a formal and public apology to the citizens of the State of California and the Governor?
No, this is a classic example of the Right Wing Noise Machine making much ado about very little. Just like the botched John Kerry joke. They don't have much to grab onto at the moment so they make mountains from molehills whenever possible.

edit: My"hawk-like" reading comprehension skills missed the fact that this was also brought up a few posts ahead of mine.


Sorry BA (and thanks for the courteous reminder ), but if you were to comb Boxer's remarks with the same light brush you used for the First Lady, it would come across just as harmless. I happen to agree with you regarding Mrs. Bush's comments, I just also happen to think they are just as harmless as Senator Boxer's.

Then again, I also think that the media and the blogosphere (from both sides) believe that America is far more sensitive to comments like these than the average joe should be given credit for. Most people aren't too concerned about this, and neither am I.

I thought I'd heard that Limbaugh and the rest of the kennel were off on this.

Thanks for the ad hominem. Actually if you read what I said it was that I was disgusted with the personal attack from BOTH sides. Apparently You on the other hand have a problem with the “right wing” O'Reilly and Limbaugh but the left wing attacks are ok. Interesting - and hypocritical.

Vladimir is correct though, Ted. Unless people like you are screaming mad about Boxer's inference, then there is nothing positive for conservatives to talk about. The ploy of conservative talk shows right now is the bashing of Democrats through homosexual association, whether they be in San Franscisco or Vermont or Massachussetts. It's apparent in your posts; you continue to mention San Francisco and Ted Kennedy. Even though Kennedy was not in the hearings and Barbara Boxer is a U.S. Senator, representing the whole of California, from conservative Orange County to liberal San Francisco. It keeps you off the real topics, like the increase in troop levels. I hardly watch O'Rielly anymore because I cannot take it, but last month I turned it on and his top story was Judge Cashman out of Vermont. That story is several months old and of no journalistic value. FOX cannot talk about anything but Red Herrings and you are doing the same. Have you ever been to San Francisco?

As I have posted the left is far more vitriolic in attacking Bush and anyone right of center. I live in MA and that is the reason I mention Teddy because I hear more of his attacks of Bush etc. than you do and he makes me sick. I personally do not listen to the far right talk shows although I do listen to O’Reilly occasionally and consider him only slightly right. SF is a well know bastion of the left and fair game as such. Plenty of Bush bashing has come out of SF – I can post if you like. And as I have SAID I deplore both sides ad hominem attacks. They are mean spirited and accomplish nothing.

And again you are mad at the “conservative” talk show hosts but apparently think its ok for the “liberal” talk show folks to say anything they please? Same double standard as Vlad.

Again, you don't know your facts. If you research this you would find out that it was Ted Kennedy, and not Rush, that called Obama, Osama. Furthermore it was the Swift Boat Vets that impuned Kerry, and they have that right since they were there. Nevertheless I applaud your support for more respectful dialogue in the government.

Boxer, former stockbroker, journalist, Congressional check-kiter, and now Senator. Her daughter is married to Hillary's brother. Not surprisingly she voted against Rice as Sec State. She's a typical California liberal.

I don't really get in a bunch when anyone pops off at the mouth and says something rude or insensitive. These are after all just words and we do have free speech. Take Ann Coulter for example, her statements about the widows of 9-11 was as callous a comment that one could make, but I wasn't calling for an apology. I think freedom of speech should prevail; she'll be judged by her words. In Sen. Boxer's case, she made an inference toward a fact, not exactly worth the uproar. This thread is a bright Red Herring. All the senators failed to grill Sec. Rice about the details of the plan. The senators took turns insulting her; great, that does nothing to expose the shortcomings of this plan.

The difference IMO is that Boxer (and Teddy K) are elected officials and when they personally attack people like Rice IMO it is different than “free speech” it is ad hominem and reprehensible. Rice is a hard working government employee who certainly may be criticized for performance or decisions made but for a US Senator to personally attack her by implying that he decisions might be different if she had a “kid over there” IMO is reprehensible. Her integrity should not be in question in this way unless Boxer is doing more than speculating, and if so lets see the proof.

Can you show me an example of a Republican Senator doing something similar? As I said I find ad hominem attacks on working government people, by either side of the isle, reprehensible.

Well Ted, a verbal criticism of a person is ad hominem ipso facto, as is yours of Boxer and your namesake Kennedy. But when, in rhetoric, we say that an argument is ad hominem, we mean that it impermissibly seeks to blacken a person's argument by blackening the person.

And I don't think that that is what Boxer was guilty of, her desire, so far as a resonable reading of her words would suggest, being to say that those sitting in the seats of power are not the ones paying the real costs of the war.

However hardworking this particular civil servant may be, she has been a prominent war proponent and she can well expect to receive some personal criticism for it. As I said before, if you can't stand proximity to red-hot iron, don't take a job in a foundry.

And this IMO is exactly what the comment was meant to do. Rather than just saying the she (Boxer) disagreed with the war and the strategy/results to date, Boxer make a comment that we can only interpret as an implication that she made decisions that have resulted in US casualties because she had nothing personal (children) to lose, and further implies that she (Rice) might not have done so if she had.

If this is not what you think was implied, than what was.

In any case this is sure to continue so it may not be worth discussing

I think that was Boxer's intent. The problem with guessing intent is you're likely to get it wrong. Lest we forget when Trent Lott made a birthday wish to a 100 year old Strom Thurmond and quipped the world would be better off if he were President.



Was his intent that since Strom Thrumond was once a Separatist that the US would be better off Seperate?
Was his intent that Strom would have made a great President?
Was his intent Happy Birthday you dottering old fool?

Ultimately your upthread point that Boxer is a US Official and Sean Hannity is radio host (that's a paraphrase) is correct. There's a HUGE difference.

Y'know, I was thinking that your outrage seemed a bit exaggerated The Founders Intent and after looking back it became apparent why.

A few months ago you didn't find it appalling at all when an act of galactic stupidity and a mind-boggling show of nerve, lack of faculties and a lack of decorum was directed at a person of the caliber of Michael J. Fox by Rush Limbaugh.



So when a utterly loathsome, Oxycontin addict goes after someone suffering from Parkinson's that's all well and good, but don't let a U.S. Senator grill a Secretary of State. That's nasty and personal. Is that the way it goes with you?

Gee, the past really is prologue. Your selective indignation is showing.

So you want to compare a talk show host's comments regarding the politics of a movie star, to the decorum within the highest levels of the federal government. Fox made a political statement, and Rush commented on his illness in that respect, stating that his illness cannot shield his political opinions. Boxer questioned the judgement of a duly appointed presidential cabinet member, who outclasses her in education and foreign policy experience by a light-year. Your rhetoric is as transparent as your judgement.