I’m still on my post-election vacation, but I have to interrupt it to note an astonishing editorial from the Washington Post. Not so long ago I found the Post to be worth reading despite its liberalism, not so much for being a voice of reason among the left, but for making an effort at least to be fair to their opponents. Those days are now truly past.
The Post editorializes that Republicans are opposing the rumored nomination of Susan Rice, not because of the rampant dishonesty and/or incompetence exposed by Rice’s absurd public statements on the Benghazi attack, but because they are racist:
Could it be, as members of the Congressional Black Caucus are charging, that the signatories of the letter are targeting Ms. Rice because she is an African American woman? The signatories deny that, and we can’t know their hearts. What we do know is that more than 80 of the signatories are white males, and nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy.
This is really quite astonishing. Could it really be that the Washington Post has no memory of our last Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, another black woman who even happens to share the same last name? If they could remember Condoleeza Rice, they might recall a historical parallel: Her nomination also faced opposition, and although we can’t know her opponents’ hearts, most of them were white males, and every single one of them belonged to the party that historically supported slavery and segregration.
In fact, that’s too kind to the Democrats. Although I believe that most of Condoleeza Rice’s opposition was simple partisanship, there also was an explicitly racist campaign waged against her by prominent liberals. There is nothing remotely of that sort in the opposition to Susan Rice.
Internet Scofflaw 