Posted on 10/09/2003 7:34:47 AM PDT by kattracks
The most widely heard complaint regarding Rush Limbaugh's observation that African-American quarterback Donovan McNabb received more favorable press coverage than he deserved goes something like this: Right or wrong, Limbaugh shouldn't have interjected McNabb's race into the argument.
But if Rush's critics really mean what they say, where were they two months ago when New York Sen. Hillary Clinton declared in the midst of a speech on civil rights that she was glad she grew up in the segregated suburbs?
Addressing the American Constitution Society on Aug. 3, Mrs. Clinton criticized Republicans for idealizing "the 1950s white suburbs for family life, which I grew up in and write about in my book and am very grateful for but didn't exactly describe the universal experience in America?"
Imagine if Limbaugh had said he was "grateful" that he grew up "in the 1950's white suburbs."
After all, which is worse: A political commentator observing that the press practices affirmative action when it comes to covering black quarterbacks. Or the most powerful Democrat in the country clearly suggesting that the all-white culture of her youth was superior that anything black America had to offer at the time?
Of course, there was no press coverage [except for NewsMax] when Hillary touted her segregated roots. And little public outrage, except from Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, head of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny - who called on Sen. Clinton to explain herself.
That's too bad. If conservatives demanded that liberals be held to the same standard they are, the left's racial McCarthyism would likely cease overnight.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
![]() |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
You know, that seems to be the left's favorite objection for any policy which might even the playing field between Democrats and Republicans. And why not? After all, Joseph McCarthy is widely considered the most hated senator in American history. By associating anything they don't like with that guy, therefore, they can cut off a debate before the other side even gets to define terms. (My objection: "It reeks of filibusterism.")
I've heard liberals moan and gripe about not being able to speak their minds re: the war on terror. News flash: there ARE no communist witch hunts going on today, and you are PERFECTLY free to speak against the war. To quote Ann Coulter, "We'll let you know when you're being censored."
By the way, speaking of censorship all the way from the Oval Office, I hear many rumors about Bill and Hillary opponents who kind of, you know, "disappeared." Is there a web site or book that documents these incidents in any sort of detail?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.