Emily Litella Rice

Byline: | Category: Above the Fold | Posted at: Thursday, 29 November 2012

I don’t understand why Republicans are opposing Ms. Rice to be the next Secretary of State. She was perfectly acceptable to Republicans (not to mention, just as black and just as female) four years ago when she was Bush’s Secretary of State, so why do they oppose her now?  Knowledgeable, competent, honest, and strong, Ms. Rice did a pretty good job then.

Wait, what’s that? You mean she’s not the same Ms. Rice?

Never mind.

Share this post:

11 Responses to “Emily Litella Rice”

  1. Instapundit » Blog Archive » EMILY LITELLA WEIGHS IN on the Rice nomination…. Says:

    [...] EMILY LITELLA WEIGHS IN on the Rice nomination. [...]

  2. Steve Skubinna Says:

    Waaaaaaacist!!!!11!!1!eleventy!!1!!

  3. Ray Van Dune Says:

    You have obviously forgotten that THAT Ms. Rice was a conservative, so she wasn’t really black. Try to keep up – pop quiz: who have we always been at war with, Eastasia or Oceania? No fair checking with the WAPO!

  4. JAL Says:

    Heh. And Rice, C is/was nowhere near as rich.

  5. werewife Says:

    This really does deserve an Uncle Ben’s joke, but I can’t come up with one that isn’t actually racist…

  6. jaed Says:

    A satirist might write a piece on a black female Secretary of State nominee, who was harshly questioned by Congress and attacked on specifically racial and sexual grounds, only to see another black female SoS nominee a few years later defended on the grounds that questioning a black female SoS nominee is “racist and sexist” because THIS black woman was nominated by a Democrat, so Of Course It’s Different.

    However, not even the broadest satirist would give the two nominees the same last name. It would simply shatter the willing suspension of disbelief.

  7. Rich K Says:

    Well,for this administration Everything is just a retread of tired failed policies so why should this be any different.

  8. Mark V Says:

    Rice was duped on Benghazi. Did she know it or not is not the question. One is as bad as the other. Not quite what you would want in that position.

  9. dennymack Says:

    I think the Rice nomination is genius, and I think this was all foreseen by the Obama administration.
    They knew that even with a curiously incurious press that the Benghazi story would eventually unravel, but they needed it to last until after the election. So they had their likely pick for a Senate dependent nomination shop the story to ALL FIVE major Sunday shows, while everyone else shut up, or made carefully empty statements that could later be parsed any-which-way. (The Rose Garden speech that Romney referred to in the debate is an example of such speech: everyone who heard it understood that it was the video, but careful language allowed them to use it to say they were pointing to terrorism all along. Worked!)
    Now the GOP is going after the spokesperson, who is a sympathetic character, who was, after all, only doing her duty. The light has shifted away from the real story: What did “they” know, and when? Who changed the talking points? An office? Who? Why were they attacking that particular spot? Did we have a disavowed detention center in Benghazi, and that’s why we did not send support? What the hell happened?
    This kind of premeditation seems paranoid, but imagine they had a drone feed or satellite imagery that showed that There.Was.Never.Any.Protest.
    Now, try to imagine how, with current technology, they did not have the full story before she went on the air.

  10. linda sherman Says:

    hey they all look alike

  11. willis Says:

    Man, the commenters just won’t quit. They’re sticking with this issue like white on Rice!