Noah Rothman of Mediaite recently did an excellent job detailing what the progressive media said about Condoleeza Rice when George W. Bush appointed her as his Secretary of State in 2005. Rothman noted how the media dismissed Condi Rice as merely a “friend” of Bush and otherwise made it seem as if her appointment was just a payoff for loyalty instead of the appointment of a qualified person. In contrast, Obama’s appointment of Susan Rice as his national security advisor is not being so quickly dismissed by that same media establishment.
Rothman quoted a series of members of the media from 2005 dismissing Condi rather spectacularly as having received her nomination simply because of the “loyalty” factor.
Inter Press Service Washington Bureau Chief Jim Lobe, for instance, said that Condi was appointed “as much for her fierce personal loyalty to Bush as for her own foreign-policy views.”
Christian Science Monitor diplomacy correspondent Howard LaFranchi complained that Condi’s appointment meant that “no fresh new voices will be challenging White House thinking or offering debating points in policy discussions.”
The New York Times ravaged the appointment as an example of “friends of George” being foisted on Washington.
Others complained that Bush just wanted a “yes” person at Foggy Bottom, another dismissed Condi and said she would be but a “loyal servant” at State, and still others claimed she had “no real background” to take the position in the first place.
Rothman has many more quotes from media types both savaging Condi and dismissing her as a simple-minded mouthpiece for the President.
He wraps up his piece pointing out that Susan Rice’s troubles far outweigh anything Condi had done back in 2005.
Susan Rice’s ascension to NSA after deeply embarrassing the Obama administration and straining relations with a nascent provisional Libyan government by repeating the charge, concocted in offices yet unknown, that the Benghazi attack resulted from an inflammatory YouTube video, gives the press as much if not more reason to note that loyalty and not competence may be the reason for her promotion.
Rothman asks the key question: considering how they savaged Condi’s appointment as an empty example of a payoff for loyalty, will the press slam Obama for appointing Susan Rice as his national security advisor in much the same way?