Rich Lowry is usually a good read. But he has outdone himself with his latest column, which lays bare the racism and sexism being employed to promote Loretta Lynch’s confirmation vote, to replace eric holder as Attorney General.
Lowry points out – correctly – that racism and sexism are being used as tools by at least some of the people who support her. In this regard, he features Dick Durbin’s transcendentally obnoxious inference that the holdup in her confirmation hearings (while the senate debates a contentious piece of legislation) is tantamount to putting her at the back of a bus…i.e. segregated because she is Black.
I’m posting some key excerpts below…but please click here to read the rest, because it is more than worth your while to do so:
Consider how Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin went to the Senate floor on Wednesday to effectively accuse Republicans of racism in the nomination fight, even though Hillary Clinton had tweeted on Monday that it is sexism and the head of Lynch’’ sorority has said it is both. Synergy!
For his part, Durbin went straight to a Rosa Parks metaphor – because getting humiliated in segregation-era Montgomery, Alabama, is just like being a high-powered lawyer whose confirmation vote has been delayed in the Senate. “Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general,” he said, “is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar.”
Did Durbin vote against the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state because she’s a black woman? On his own stilted terms, he wanted to relegate Rice to drinking from the segregated water fountain of failed secretary of state nominations, and used the snarling police dog of his “nay” vote to try to do it. It’s hard to believe this could still happen in 2005 America, but it almost did.
The sleight of hand of Lynch’s proponents is to pretend that her nomination is uncontroversial.
This is demonstrably false. As all the Republicans opposing her nomination make plain, the issue is her belief that President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty is lawful.
The Senate shouldn’t confirm any attorney general nominee, from whatever party, of whatever race, ethnicity or gender identification, who believes the president can rewrite the nation’s laws at will.
Yep.
Lowry goes on to speculate that, when the vote is taken, Lynch will be confirmed because Republicans fear being called racist and/or sexist.
Personally, I don’t understand why that would be the case. Democrats do little other than call Republicans racist and sexist. Why would this one additional time, added to all the others, make a difference?
My advice to Republicans and Democrats both, is to vote up or down on Loretta Lynch based on their actual opinions of her, not on party loyalty or fear of being called names.
It’s called integrity. I don’t much expect much of it in politics, but it is nice to see once in a while.
One other thing: as I have blogged numbers of times over the years (click here for just one example), an amnesty that would give legal status to millions of illegals is inherently bound to hurt Black job-seekers. Would it be racist to ask Ms. Lynch, as a Black woman, why this is OK with her?
