Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California was her usual bitter self last Thursday during the debate over Iraq, attacking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman. Boxer implied that Rice, because she had no children, could not understand the sacrifices made by families of U.S. troops in Iraq and that Rice didn’t grasp the “price” of the war. “Who pays the price?” asked Boxer. “I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”
A nationwide denunciation was quickly unleashed against Boxer, who then refused to offer Rice an apology, explaining “I was just saying what I felt.” The outrageous exchange occurred during Rice’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 11. Newspapers and TV commentators characterized Boxer’s comments as “vicious feminine politics,” “a new low blow,” “more than cheap,” “degrading,” and “Boxer proved herself a shrill harpy.”
Boxer’s reasoning, if it can be called that, is both specious and fallacious. Just because Rice is unmarried and childless, does not mean she is incapable of feeling the pain of families who have lost loved ones in the Iraq war. Loved ones, by the way, are not limited to one’s children. There are husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, and other blood relatives who have given their lives in the defense of their country. They are, in death, and contrary to Boxer’s vapid comment, “immediate family.”
Boxer seems to think, as many slave owners did, that blacks don’t feel pain, sorrow, fatigue, or other anguish that non blacks do. This was a favorite defense of many slave holders who worked their subjects long hours, separated them from their families, and visited other indignities upon them. There are specific historical references during that era to blacks not feeling the same sorrow as whites do when a loved one dies.
This is the pernicious path that Boxer took on Thursday, even though Rice tried to make clear that she indeed did understand the pain of families who have lost loved ones in wartime. But Boxer managed to cut off Rice’s comments before she could finish. For the record, this is not the first time that Boxer has “disrespected” Rice. During her confirmation hearing two years ago, Rice was accused by Boxer of losing respect for the truth because of Rice’s loyalty to President Bush. “Your loyalty to the administration has trumped your loyalty to the troops,” Boxer charged.
During a television interview last Friday, Rice said Boxer’s comments the day before were needlessly personal. “I guess that means I don’t have kids. What was the purpose of that? Gee, I thought single women had come further than that,” Rice said. She might have added: I thought single black women had come further than that.
Boxer has long been characterized as “an appalling scold from California,” elected by, among others, Hollywood’s liberal star aggregation, and the hippy dippy voters of Marin County. Her bullying tactics were even immortalized in a Saturday Night Live sketch built around Boxer’s distaste for Rice in which a SNL actress portraying Boxer refers to Rice as “Condo-lies-alies-a-lot.”
If not having children disqualifies a woman from making policy in America’s government, then we need to take a second look at senators Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Olympia Snow of Maine, and Libby Dole of North Carolina. All of them are childless, as are several members of the House of Representatives.
Barbara Boxer’s aggressive posture and tastelessness have finally caught up with her, this time for the politically suicidal misdeed of racism. As the New York Post noted in an editorial, “Senator Boxer has made it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.”
– Chase.Hamil
7 users commented in " Barbara Boxer plays the race card "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI can’t believe you’re serious. I heard the question Senator Boxer asked. She did not say that Dr. Rice was childless. The senator said, that as she had no immediate family in the war Dr. Rice and Senator Boxer were not “paying the price” for this war. The Senator is correct. In fact, as a nation only those with active duty or soon to be called up family members are “paying a price” for this war. There is nothing in the US that would suggest we are at war.
I also must say as a black woman I am outraged at the attempt to make Senator Boxer’s comments racial. While she could have been more articulate in expressing herself, there was nothing in her comments that denoted racism. In fact, I think you may be showing your biases in your comment.
At the end of the day, the Iraq war was a mistake, marked by incompetence and arrogance. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. That is exactly what the administration is doing. God help America and Iraq.
Excuse me, but Ms. Boxer was merely expressing what many military families feel–standing up for military families when no one else appears to. People who have no family members in the military know very little about the “sacrifice” military families make. And very little respect comes with that “sacrifice.” While my Ohio National Guard son served the entire year of 2005 in Iraq, the cruelest comments came from those whose sons and daughters were safe at home. One such comment was: “better that your son be in Iraq and perhaps die there than to shoot dead 4 college students” (shades of the Kent State shootings where, ironically, students were protesting the Vietnam war). This president and his staff have been mouthing the word “sacrifice” but have NO concept of its meaning. The joke about “sacrifice” from the mouth of this president and his staff has made the rounds of our military family group. And we are sickened by it. Kudos and thanks to Ms Boxer.
It appears that this Post is “Playing the Race Card” in order to draw in more readers, rather than reflecting true events- descending to hype & diatribe.
If you read the actual exchanges between the two VERY POWERFUL women, Boxer was making the point that NEITHER she nor Condi will be losing any children in the continued/expanded WAR. There is NO mention or implication of “race” anywhere, except in the title of this post.
If anything, Condi has and will continue to “use the race card” to open opportunities for women, intellectuals, and Americans in her meetings and diplomatic duties, which is GOOD! We need to change half the world who are still living the ethics of two centuries ago, when women were/are PROPERTY.
I mean, come on Americans & conservatives– drop the fierce attitude at this time of unprecedented crisis. If we don’t work together now, we are only hastening our descent into terror and barbarism.
ALOHA from Mauna Kea Mothership
BzB at http://GalaxyGarden.org
Republicans are only attentive to feminism when a conservative woman gets put on the defensive. Then, all of a sudden, they provide thrilling displays of feminist consciousness. The critics of Boxer MIGHT have a point if Boxer hadn’t also included herself, and her privileges, in her comments to Secretary Rice. In context, it is clear that Boxer’s comments were pointed but entirely fair. Unlike the attacks on anyone who has opposed Bush during the last six years. You want to play kind and gentle? Try setting a good example yourselves, which you haven’t.
The old saying about not throwing stones if you live in a glass house comes to mind. We have a Vice President who hurls obscenities at a U. S. Senator but somehow Boxer’s reasonable comment is out of line. Another old saying about getting out of the kitchen if you can’t stand the heat is relevant. But that came from a Democratic President so I wouldn’t expect Republicans to understand its significance.
As for this article’s balderdash about the race card, laughter is the best medicine and if I were a doctor I’d prescribe this column.
Are you high? The race card?
We all know that Boxer was criticizing all of the people making decisions about war who don’t have any family members in harm’s way. Those who say otherwise are just bitter right-wingers who are crushed by how quickly and badly their party has fallen from power.
The most amazing thing to me is the outragous statements that Ms. Boxer continues to make as an elected official. She has proven repeatedly that if she is not informed on the issues nor intelligent enough to make a cogent agrument for a point of view in virtually any major issue she supports.
Every time Boxer is on a commission and has the opportunity to question someone from the opposite side of the political isle she attempts to belittle them by pontificating about how they are bad people who don’t care about others, they are unethical, or some other baseless accusation.
The 911 commission was a joke with the partisan antics that went on. The hearings for Judges Roberts and especially Ilito was a horrible travisty of partisan nonsense by democrats who would not stand for any of their own behavior if the republicans had ever treated one of their nominees as they did here.
I”m not saying the republicans are wonderfull and that we don’t have problems in both political parties but cmon. Don’t we want puplic officials that are suppose to represent us to do more than pander personal and extreme agendas? Why does any of the questioning by members of these committee’s and commission’s have to be tolerated when it comes down to personal attacks?
In Barbara Boxers case she exemplifies percisely what we don’t want and don’t need as a representative in the Senate or any other office. She isn’t a part of the solution. She is clearly a part of the problem!
I can’t speak to Boxer’s record, but her point was fairly trivial, and one many people have been making for a while. The people who make war policy don’t have sons or daughters fighting in the war, with few exceptions. It’s mostly poor and powerless people who fight the wars of the rich and powerful, and that is something that should be brought up, perhaps with more clarity. I can’t imagine why Rice would take it as an attack on her feminism, or why if she did she wouldn’t easily be able to see why that was a mistake. And racism? That is a stretch. “Boxer seems to think, as many slave owners did, that blacks don’t feel pain, sorrow, fatigue, or other anguish that non blacks do.” I can’t imagine a more ideologically driven way of missing the point than that statement. Are we going to have a response from the author of this odd piece?
Leave A Reply