Was Boxer's questioning of Rice an act?

[kuozzman]

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, left, talks to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Wednesday, Jan. 19, 2005, on Capitol Hill during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Rice's nomination to be Secretary of State.


Do you ever get the feeling that some things are planned or allowed by Dems and Repubs? I do, a lot. Allowing Bush to steal the election was one. As was the "challenge". And why have Dems not proposed an alternative to Chimp's SS plan? Because Clinton looted the SS trust fund as well as both Chimps so nobody is exposing the fraud that it is-basically stealing $1.5 trillion from taxpayers. Now it's Rice's fake "grilling". The questions Boxer had for Condi were obviously legitimate, but the fact that it was her that asked them will automatically make any non-Democrat not even consider the fact that they're legitimate questions-they'll immediately recall that it was boxer that challenged the election results and dismiss anything she had to say as sour grapes. That goes for the good questions Kerry had as well. And of course Kerry and Boxer were the two no-votes.


National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice reaches to shake a hand after thanking Senator John Kerry(D-MA) (R) after her second day of testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee during her confirmation hearing to be secretary of state on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 19, 2005. Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) voted against Rice's nomination.

[WI_DEM]

1. if it were I wish more dems would "act" like that

So she spoke with her? big deal.

[merwin]

2. You don't have to hate someone when you disagree with their policy.

You can still be friendly with them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Hey, I still talk with my freeper coworker.

Of course, we talk about the merits of Elektra, rather than the merits of elections.

He got what he wanted, and will remember it when he gets drafted.

[K-W]

7. And in washington, that is considered proper etiquette.

They like to try and cling to the idea that we are all in this together. Our reps in congress arent as ready as some on DU to give up that hope.

[liveoaktx]

3. Not with her-I think she genuinely believes she needs to speak

her mind and her conscience.

The others, like Dodd and Biden, are the hypocrites.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. That is customary. Senators always talk with the person....

they are questioning. I see nothing wrong with it. In court, prosecutors and defense lawyers talk too.

[K-W]

6. Oh come on!

There is nothing even remotely suspicious about this. Welcome to washington. If you dont like exchanging pleasentries and small talk with people you dont like, its not the job enviroment for you.

[kuozzman]

8. It's not just that she spoke with her, it's the fact that she was

the one who did the best job of questioning her. Since it's her, who recently challenged the election results, freepers won't even consider the fact that everything she says is true.

[wryter2000]

9. I would say the nice-nice afterwards was the act

Barbara Boxer is the real deal. She always has been.

[doodadem]

10. Should she have thrown eggs?

Think of the ammunition THAT would have given the other side!
There are plenty of people I have to do business with that I can't personally stand, but I'm more than happy to take their money. It spends the same.

[ldf]

11. i think part of the problem

is that they do rant and rave at each other (for our benefit) then go have drinks together.

it is to easy that way.

they need to FEEL what they are saying enough to live it.

so essentially, all the talk doesn't affect them. they are above it. just like the super rich never get hurt. every economic downturn is just another opportunity for them to get even richer.

the longer a politican is in congress, the more powerful they become. the power tends to require that they go through the motions (after all, they do want to get re-elected) but they then go rub elbows and laugh and have a great time with the very people who are trying to derail the very things they are proposing.

i just don't get it. there should be a degree of "respectful disagreement". but when it comes to using the constitution and the bill of rights as toilet paper, trying to turn this country into the american version of the taliban, and purposely keeping the citizens in a state of ignorance and faux outrage over essentially irrelevant issues, then it is long past the time for "respectful disagreement".

it is time to kick ass and slam the door in the opponent's face.

but why do i feel that my party has no intention of doing that?

[saltpoint]

12. Boxer's challenge to Rice felt real to me.

Real, rare for modern Democrats, and very welcome.

[bemildred]

13. Ms Boxer voted against the Iraq war resolution back in 2002.

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/2002/10/24/News/Senator.Boxer.Defends.Vote.On.Iraq.Resolution-304772.shtml

And she took a good deal of heat for it.
If it's an act, she's been at it for quite a while.