Originally published by Communities @ Washington Times
SAN DIEGO, July 20, 2011 — Last Friday, speaking on the House Floor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) offered a somewhat predictable, but less than original theory as to why Congress is making President Obama’s job difficult regarding the debt ceiling expansion.
Her hint that it might be racism seems about as subtle and restrained as a sand filled paper bag dam over Niagara Falls.
“I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this president — only this one, only this one — has received the kind of attacks and disagreements and inability to work, only this one. Read between the lines. What is different about this president that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment of when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills, something required by both statute and the 14th amendment?”
“…I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness of this president. Why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community that is the question that is being raised.”
“Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why did the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the president down to make sure he is unelected?” (Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, 7-15-11, House Of Representatives floor)
Before we label her comment as thoughtless and irresponsible, we’ll be fair enough to agree that technically Sheila Jackson Lee was not talking about general criticism of presidents but rather a very specific financial issue. We also acknowledge her disclaimers in the same speech about rights of political parties to disagree with each other.
Still, since Ms. Jackson also put forth a challenge about “reading between the lines” it’s difficult to ignore some crystal clear lines of her own with little, if anything, in between. One must literally suspend belief to suggest her insinuations of racism do not apply to any criticism of Obama, financial or otherwise.
Indeed, what we heard Friday serves as a fair sequel to Sweet Sheila’s other thoughtful remarks such as those 2010 verbal gymnastics delivered before the NAACP:
“…And I thank you, professor, very much. I’m going to be engaging you with those very powerful numbers that you have offered on what the tea party recognizes, uh, or is recognized as. Might I add my own P.S.? All those who wore sheets a long time ago have now lifted them off and started wearing [applause], uh, clothing, uh, with a name, say, I am part of the tea party. Don’t you be fooled. [voices: “That’s right.”, applause] Those who used to wear sheets are now being able to walk down the aisle and speak as a patriot because you will not speak loudly about the lack of integrity of this movement” (From panel discussion, Engaging Congress: the NAACP’s Legislative Agenda to Achieve One Nation, One Dream as reported by Show Me Progress, 7-12-10).
Later, Lee qualified her comment a little by insisting she was talking only about “elements of the Tea Party” (The Ed Show, MSNBC, 7-20-10).
OK, Congresswoman, since we’re talking only about “elements” how do you feel about those elements of the Tea Party that are made up of Democrats and Independents? How about the African-Americans who attend Tea Parties? How about the Black Tea Party movement?
For that matter, what do you say to African-Americans who chose not to vote for Obama in 2008? Were they racist? How about white Americans who did vote for Obama but promise they will not do so a second time? I suppose they overcame their racism in 2008 but will be victims of a relapse should they fail to offer a repeat performance.
And let us not forget the many conservatives who defended Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice against attacks from liberals. How do you label conservative and liberal responses in those cases, Ms. Lee?
In fact, Congresswoman, do you or any of your political peers truly believe for a second that the high majority of Republicans and other conservatives, both in and out of the Tea Party, would not vote for an African-American presidential candidate who had a platform of lesser government, lower taxes, Pro-Life affirmation, school vouchers, etc?
In your mind, Congresswoman, is it even remotely possible that objections of House and Senate Republicans to Obama’s “economic solutions” have anything to do with 2010 voters who put their representatives in power to stop a president who has totaled our economy, not like a mathematician totals numbers, but rather as an automobile gets totaled?
Oh wait! I almost forgot. Obama inherited this mess from our horrible former president! Yes indeed, the only hand played as frequently as the Race Card, is that 8 of Clubs Blame Bush Card. As a matter of fact, since Obama can’t seem to get over good ol’ George W, a useful example in our discussion might just be standing before our very eyes!
Ms. Lee, you say Obama alone ” has received the kind of attacks and disagreements and inability to work, only this one.”
Yes, that certainly rings true. After all, when Obama was a senator, he and his fellow Democrats supported George Bush at every turn, as you yourself did. Liberal circles outside of Washington got behind President Bush as well. No journalists or bloggers or college professors ever compared the man to Hitler, or accused him of fabricating a 9/11 hoax, or suggested he deliberately delayed the rescuing of African-Americans during Hurricane Katrina. And if anybody had said those things, Sheila, you would have rushed to his defense. Right?
Remember all the commentary back in 2008 after Pastor Rick Warren interviewed both presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama? Those who favored McCain pointed out how direct his answers were when Warren threw out questions such as, “Does evil exist?”
Those siding with Obama talked about McCain as if he gave overly simplistic answers. They enjoyed pointing out how ultimate issues of life are often more complex than a childish mind can fathom. They liked the subtle nuances of Obama’s response. Such was the badge of a genuine intellectual. In fact, for a while, the word nuance became quite the popular election year catch phrase.
What happened to the notion that issues are “sometimes more complicated and nuanced?” Is Congresswoman Lee providing an example of liberal intellectualism? The only quarrel one can possibly have with Obama is his skin color? It couldn’t have anything to do with his deadly economic policies, not to mention a litany of other issues?
Should Western Civilization survive, I doubt that our generation will be remembered for its deep, rational thought. If, despite this lunatic time in American history, pockets of wisdom remain unscorched for posterity, it is unlikely that they will appear on the same pages as the historical record of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee’s recent comments on the House Floor. None of this suggests the woman has not done good things with her life or career. It’s just that this isn’t her towering moment.
And for those who are still incapable of thinking beyond race, to show you that Congresswoman Lee’s ethnicity has nothing to do with my observation, I don’t expect to see favorable marks in future history books for Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid either. With this understatement of the century, I bid my readers farewell until next week.
Share this on
