She’s Good, Ain’t She? (UPDATEDx2)


One man. Two boys. Twelve kids.

Related Post Roulette

103 Responses

  1. Miss Mary says:

    So you’re keeping up with the convention, but are you watching the Paralympics?Report

  2. wardsmith says:

    Good on you kazzy for writing this. And good on you for condemning the a-holes at your school who don’t understand the meaning of free speech.

    This comment on the linked site resonated with me:

    Condoleezza Rice’s message struck every nerve in my body and embodied the fundamentals that America needs NOW. It should be required reading. I came from a strong Democratic family but have finally realized that the Republican Party is what the Democratic Party used to be. I too want to know where America stands and am convinced that we need to correct our nation’s course before we destroy this country


    • Mike Schilling in reply to wardsmith says:

      The Republican Party is indeed what the Democratic Party used to be. In 1860.Report

    • Peter Moore in reply to wardsmith says:

      Those ‘a-holes’ didn’t try to stop her from speaking or stop others from listening. They just exercised *their* free speech right to register disapproval of her actions.

      So it sounds like *they* understand free speech just fine. It is your definition that has me wondering.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Peter Moore says:


        Where did I say they couldn’t exercise their right to free speech? I was just bothered by this… especially since these same students railed against conservative students who protested Paul Farmer’s speech the year before because of his advocacy for condom use to curb the spread of AIDS in Africa; and those students opted to protest by simply not attending, not standing up in the middle of the speech and walking out or turning their backs.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to wardsmith says:

      I’ve long held that I call it like I see it. I won’t always be right, naturally, but I do my best to be honest.

      I have no party affiliation and, at this point, have no intention. I follow my values, which admittedly shift as I mature, as I grow, as I learn and incorporate new perspectives into my own. I got the sense from this speech that Mrs. Rice and I shared *some* of the same values, something that is rare when dealing with most politicians of all stripes (many who seem devoid of values entirely).

      I don’t agree with all of the sentiment expressed in that comment, largely because I don’t know what it means to “destroy this country”.Report

      • wardsmith in reply to Kazzy says:

        Kazzy, my apologies for misreading the situation. I’ve seen too many videos and personally experienced conservative speakers shouted down by “liberals” who feel that free speech can only be for “them” and not their ideological adversaries. Should I post 7 or 800 links with video evidence proving my point or will you grant that this occurs on a regular basis at liberal arts universities across the country? I assumed they did worse than merely turning their backs because I’ve personally seen worse, much worse. In fact (and I don’t know your school so can’t verify) it is always possible that worse did in fact occur at your commencement but that you didn’t personally witness it (but she would have seen and experienced it).

        Just prior to commenting here, I had just commented elsewhere on the Chris Mathews video where he shouted down his “guest”, shouted over him trying to answer the “questions” he was supposedly “asking” and claimed he’d “won” before telling the guest he was “garbage”. That kind of bullying turns my stomach whether it is Mathews doing it or Oreilly. Unfortunately it is now par for the course in our political discourse, which is why I’m marginally willing to discuss politics here among the gentlepersons.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to wardsmith says:

          No need to apologize.

          First off, I should say that I don’t think “shouting down” folks is an overt denial of free speech, since the other feller could just as easily shout louder… but it sure as hell undermines the spirit of it and I would join you in condemning it. I have seen it myself, from both liberals and conservatives, so no evidence is needed. I didn’t see anything besides folks turning their backs and/or walking out, though you are right that it is possible more went on; I heard rumors of kids with signs and/or messages spelled out across their backs, but didn’t see any of this and I believe security was checking for just such chicanery on the way in.

          The reality is, I think both sides talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to free speech. Conservatives claim to be the last bastions of free speech in their war on political correctness, yet many lead the charge to ban sexually explicit material. Liberals claim to be the last bastions of free speech in their pursuit of bringing all voices to the table, yet many call for legislation that would silence voices they find to be racist or sexist or homophobic.

          I am a rabid proponent of free speech. I also believe in promoting civility IF AND ONLY IF “civility” is not being used to tip the playing field towards one side (I think we see plenty of that here, to be honest). So, shouting folks down is free speech and is not denying free speech BUT it rarely leads to constructive dialogue. Of course, if the only way to be heard is to shout someone down… then shout them down.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to wardsmith says:

      I sat through Joe Biden at a law school commencement in ’92, which I attended for a friend.* I didn’t agree with everything he said and at the time I still thought of Republican Party with the pronoun “us” as opposed to “they,” so then-Senator Biden was from the “other party” as far as I was concerned at the time. No conservative students stood up or protested. I certainly listened all the way through and found some of what he had to say (not all) persuasive.

      I sat through another commencement address given by Justice Anthony Kennedy, some years later, while Justice O’Connor was still on the court and Kennedy was considered a more reliable conservative vote. (I can’t recall the year.) Again, no one walked out, even when he touched on sensitive issues.

      Yes, the students have a right to register a protest against Dr. Rice — presumably her actions as a government official — by walking out of their own commencement address. But even if I felt strongly enough that the speaker had done something very wrong in her public service, I’d still not do it myself, both because it seems unspeakably rude, and contrary to the spirit of education, which involves opening yourself to new and sometimes uncomfortable ideas.

      * I’d graduated the year previously, and had the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California as my commencement speaker. I’m proud of myself that I even remember that much; I don’t remember a thing she said and I’d have to look up her name. Then-Senator Biden, I recall discussing both campaign finance reform and the impact of the lawyers practicing before the Supreme Court on the overall lawmaking process. Not only don’t I recall any significant missteps; I recall being impressed with his persuasiveness and his style of delivery.Report

  3. Fnord says:

    I agree with you as to the domestic stuff.

    Maybe it goes better as speech than in print (probably), but the foreign policy part left me feeling skeevy, and that’s the part she leads with. The hairpin turn from “the AIDs orphan in Uganda, the refugee fleeing Zimbabwe” to “Israel to Poland to the Philippines to Colombia…they must know that we are reliable and consistent and determined.” When I think of US involvement in Columbia, I don’t think of helping AIDS orphans. And when she says “our armed forces remain the sure foundation of liberty” in the context of that section, it seems hard to read that as being about defense against invaders; it looks an awful lot like an endorsement of the nation-building adventurism of the past decade or so.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Fnord says:

      I didn’t think it was a perfect speech… there certainly were things to disagree with. But even in those moments, I thought, “I could talk to this woman and she would listen and we’d likely have a reasonable and intelligent conversation about it, even if we walked away still in disagreement.” Much of that had to do with delivery indeed.Report

  4. Nob Akimoto says:

    She focused more on ideology than policy, on values than plans… and I think demonstrated the best of what the Republican Party and, more broadly, conservatism has to offer.

    I’m not entirely sure what to make of this. Making something rhetorically interesting is easy when you don’t offer policy prescriptions. It’s even easier when your policy prescriptions in reality do the exact opposite of what you’re trying to sell in rhetoric. It’s a convention speech, so it’s supposed to be light on policy. And the vision is nice. But it would also have been nice to address things like the fact that for a long time in American history THERE WAS a time when people were suffering when others were prospering. And who better to say that an African-American woman? It’s OKAY to admit the sins of America’s founding to point out things are better today…it’s NOT okay to pretend IT NEVER HAPPENED.

    1.) When some of my fellow classmates decided to protest her speaking engagement at graduation by standing up, turning their backs, and/or walking out, I was disgusted. I understood that they had ideological differences with her, but they somehow thought that ruining their own graduation ceremony and insulting and demeaning possibly the most accomplished black women in American history showed what good little liberals they were? Fuck that.

    The framing here is clever, but ultimately a bit creepy. You use the term “ideological difference” as if it were some sort of disagreement over taxation or school vouchers. Let’s remember what Rice represented. She was a member of the Bush Administration’s cabinet, where her portfolio was first National Security Adviser then later Secretary of State. She oversaw a period as NSA leading to the invasion of Iraq. While it was Rumsfeld in charge of DoD, she was also part of that same national security apparatus that created the apparatus that eventually led to the likes of Abu Ghraib.

    This isn’t “ideological disagreement”. This is “protesting immoral actions by your government.” It’s clever, but the adventurism that the Bush-43 national security cabinet members put into action go a bit further than that.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Nob Akimoto says:


      1.) Well, yes, there are a ton of things she could have touched on and didn’t. Had this been a college course she was lecturing at, I’m sure she would have touched on more. But she was attempting to frame why she supports the broader Republican and conservative principals and values.

      2.) The speech was given before Abu Ghraib came to light. And she wasn’t given a stump speech for the Bush Administration. She was delivering a commencement address, something she was uniquely equipped to do because of her career in academia. The speech was largely apolitical and non-partisan. And most of the kids I spoke to or whose words I read in the paper didn’t lay out the case for “moral objection”… it was all, “She’s a conservative! She’s a Republican! Bush is a Nazi!” And, as I said above, many of these same kids and groups were the ones who fervently denounced conservative students who protested Paul Farmer the year before for their far more tasteful protest (simply not attending). This was much less about standing up for their moral principals and much more about making a partisan political point, which I thought was wrong.Report

      • Nob Akimoto in reply to Kazzy says:

        Re the commencement address.

        Isn’t the reason she was given that prestigious position because she was a member of the Bush Administration? Or was she an alumna of your university? Given that the incident was inherently political, it might be worthwhile to note it’d be sufficient grounds. And even if it was simply because of her affiliation with the Bush Administration, was this before, or after the Invasion of Iraq? The 2003 moment was in many ways a watershed in terms of attitudes.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Nob Akimoto says:

          I dunno… she was also the former President of Stanford, which itself seems to make her a worthy choice. I don’t know the rationale behind the choice, to be honest. She did not have an affiliation with our school.

          It was post-2003, so you are right on that front.

          Let me ask, Nob, had she spoken at your commencement which was post-Iraq but pre-Abu Ghraib, what would you have done?Report

          • Nob Akimoto in reply to Kazzy says:

            I’d have gone and probably said something terrible to the people who walked out, but that’s partly because my own position at the time was substantially different than my position today.Report

          • Chris in reply to Kazzy says:

            I’d have protested, post 2003, and probably post 2001 as well (you know, there’s another war some of us never agreed with, too). This is because I recognize what free speech is (despite Ward’s Sarah Palin-theory of free speech, which amounts to, I have a right to say whatever I want without being criticized), and back then, I was pretty fond of using it.Report

          • Michelle in reply to Kazzy says:

            She served as Provost at Stanford, not President.Report

          • Kimmi in reply to Kazzy says:

            Slept through it (with eyes open) just like I did with Heinz-Kerry…
            Commencements are often boring affairs.

            The ceremonial wand-like thingy was a hell of a lot more interesting than the speeches…Report

      • Nob Akimoto in reply to Kazzy says:

        1.) Well, yes, there are a ton of things she could have touched on and didn’t. Had this been a college course she was lecturing at, I’m sure she would have touched on more. But she was attempting to frame why she supports the broader Republican and conservative principals and values

        My problem is sweeping statements like: “[In America], we have never believed that I am suffering because you are doing well.”

        I mean c’mon…”never believed” when trying to set up a historical narrative of your country. Well, sorry, but that sort of convenient amnesia isn’t okay, especially when you’re going to invoke segregation later in your speech.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Nob Akimoto says:

          I’m not quite sure I follow, though I’d like to probe this, because I think you bring up a substantive rebuttal, but I want to make sure I understand it fully.

          Do you think that “America” has ever believed that the root cause of individuals suffering is other individuals doing well?

          I think the reality of the inverse is true… some folks have done well BECAUSE others suffered. But at what point in time can we say, “Your suffering is the result of someone else doing well?” And, more to the point, even if there are times in our history where you can point to our reality, was that a widely held belief of how the American system functioned?Report

  5. Mike G says:

    Thanks Kazzy. I agree, it was an outstanding and heartfelt speech.Report

  6. Kolohe says:

    It’s a fine speech with some ok sentiments, but the thing is, it’s not much different than the speech Susan Rice would give.Report

    • Nob Akimoto in reply to Kolohe says:

      Maybe, maybe not. I wish you weren’t right, but I get the impression you’re onto something here.Report

      • Kolohe in reply to Nob Akimoto says:

        There are 3 strands of foreign policy in Republican circles: Practical, Impractical, and Crazy. There are 2 strands of foreign policy in Democratic circles: Practical and Impractical.

        The Practical strands in both parties are, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable. Best example – the Gates/Clinton alliance. That Gates had a better working relationship with Clinton than he did with Rice says something too.Report

  7. Ryan Noonan says:

    I liked the speech, for sure, especially because it was so effective at making me forget what a disastrous public servant she was.

    That said, my jaw did actually drop a little when she offered a lukewarm defense of immigration. As half-assed as her defense was, it was basically suicide in the Republican Party. Good on her.Report

  8. Kazzy says:

    To clarify a few things, this was far from a perfect speech. It didn’t leave me speechless. I disagreed with a number of things she said. But if you are going to give a speech at a Convention that, by it’s very nature, is going to be political and partisan, I much prefer her tact to what many others demonstrated (and I realize that what many others demonstrated is par for the course for all speakers at all Conventions). Where most other speakers seemed interested in “rallying the base”, often through exaggeration, she seemed interested on selling the values and principals to everyone, which I found to be a considerably more impressive tact. And when she did say something I disagreed with, I had the sense that A) she was speaking genuinely and honestly, not just spouting talking points and B) more importantly, I felt I could have a reasoned conversation with her on the point.

    Mrs. Rice isn’t perfect. But I think she gave the best speech I’ve heard yet at this year’s RNC and I think, all told, is one of the more impressive members of the GOP. For that, I offer her my respect, appreciation, and kudos.Report

    • Nob Akimoto in reply to Kazzy says:

      Mrs. Rice isn’t perfect. But I think she gave the best speech I’ve heard yet at this year’s RNC and I think, all told, is one of the more impressive members of the GOP. For that, I offer her my respect, appreciation, and kudos.

      I know you’re trying to be respectful, but Rice is single, has never been married and has a doctorate, so it’s either “Secretary Rice” or “Dr. Rice”. Using “Mrs. Rice” is in context demeaning or at least simply inaccurate.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Kazzy says:

      And I should note that I mentioned Mrs. Rice’s gender and race because I am of the sincere belief that if the roles had been reversed and it has been conservative students protesting a black female Democratic Secretary of state, those very same liberal students would have accused them of racism and/or sexism.

      Mrs. Rice was there to talk about our future. Who better to do that than someone who carved out one of the most impressive futures for herself despite some of the most egregious roadblocks?Report

  9. Creon Critic says:

    When some of my fellow classmates decided to protest her speaking engagement at graduation by standing up, turning their backs, and/or walking out…

    That strikes me as one of the most respectful ways to protest a graduation speaker. For comparison, at my undergrad graduation animal rights protesters grabbed the microphone from the president of the university and had to by physically removed by security. Repeatedly. That strikes me as a much more aggressive form of protest, standing and turning one’s back to the speaker or walking out is one of the more dignified ways of expressing disagreement. For instance, delegations walking out is used at the UN when a head of government (say Ahmadinejad) is saying something especially offensive.

    As for “ruining a graduation ceremony”, well, it depends on what you think is more important, conscientious objection to something one finds profoundly troubling or graduation exercises. That Dr. Rice is “possibly the most accomplished black women in American history” is neither here nor there. That someone is accomplished and that someone is black does not and should not be a shield from protest. Such an attitude of deference means anyone worth protesting, ever, couldn’t possibly be by virtue of their current or previous office. She is a public figure and she was a key part of an administration that took extremely controversial actions (torture, Guantanamo, etc.). That makes her a worthy target of (dignified) protest.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Creon Critic says:


      You make many good points here. I suppose my point is that Mrs. Rice is/was far more than a representative of the Bush Administration. All of us have done something folks would find objectionable. Looking at Mrs. Rice on balance, I think she is far more admirable than condemnable.

      Perhaps I am being too hard on my fellow students. You are right that they certainly could have been far worse. Again, had their protest been steeped more in, “We feel that this woman is an inappropriate speaker for graduation because her morals and values conflict with our own and that of this university,” I would have applauded them. But it wasn’t, at least not for most of the kids who I spoke to or whose words I read; for most, it was, “But she’s a Republican!” I found that petty.Report

      • Creon Critic in reply to Kazzy says:

        Unless Condoleezza Rice become Vice President, President, a supreme court justice, or chief of one of the international financial institutions (World Bank, IMF), former Secretary of State will be *the* position she’s known for. Perhaps a morbid way to think about life but that’s in the nut graph of her obituary. It’s also what you led with, “Former Secretary of State’s Condoleezza Rice’s…”. Yes she was also a Russia scholar, provost at Stanford, a job often leading to the presidency of an Ivy League or similar caliber university, etc., but being in the Bush cabinet defines her place in history thus far. I’m not sure whether all the information had come out about this at the time of the graduation you speak of, but she chaired national security principals meetings where torture was discussed and approved (emphasis mine),

        Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

        According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.


        A year later, amidst the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects, leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo — the Golden Shield — that authorized the program.

        But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

        Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns — shared by Powell — that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: “This is your baby. Go do it.”

        As is the case with quite a few figures in the Bush administration, strictly speaking she belongs on trial for violating US law and, perhaps even more clearly, violating the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It is something that the against “Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment” part was so absent from US policy during the Bush administration.

        Last, and this may be a nitpick, but not “Mrs.” Rice, she is unmarried and she has a doctorate. So maybe Ms. Rice, Dr. Rice is what I went with, and just plain Rice after saying the first name once is also a possibility. A species of mistake I’ve made before I hasten to add, in French class I would call one unmarried teacher madame instead of mademoiselle for nearly the whole semester – embarrassing, but I blame French for not providing a neutral alternative.Report

      • Kimmi in reply to Kazzy says:

        she stood with bush, and by doing so cost many people their lives, and more people their homes.
        Someone willing to do that is not a good person.Report

  10. I have a question about your first disclaimer above. Is it the very fact of the students’ actions that bothered you, or something particular to that specific event?

    The reason I ask is that a few years ago Phyllis Schlafly was given an honorary degree by Washington University, and many of the students stood up and turned their backs to the stage during that part of their graduation ceremony. Given how odious I find her views, I would probably have done the same thing had I been in their position. What alternative would you have proposed for those students to express their disapproval of their university’s decision to honor a person whose work they found disgraceful and unworthy of such an honor?Report

  11. Mike Dwyer says:

    I missed the speech (will be watching this morning). I did catch the clip of when she related her personal story. I already knew the story and I still found myself smiling. It’s a powerful tale. I have to say though, the high-ups and Romney himself had to cringe for a second when she said her parents made her believe she could be President. She should have saved that for 2016. The cheers were so loud it drowned out her postscript about actually being Secretary of State.

    I find it interesting that she chose to get involved here. I really thought she was done with politics after she left her post. Maybe she has realized she has a lot of potential.Report

    • Ryan Noonan in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

      As she’s one of the small handful of people (or only person?) to come out of the Bush administration not only non-toxic, but actually widely respected, “a lot of potential” is almost an understatement.Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to Ryan Noonan says:

        She’s non-toxic because the consensus is that it’s all Cheney and Rumsfeld’s fault, i.e. she was completely ineffective. How good a platform is that for a future career in politics?Report

        • Good enough. Most of the of the polling I saw (from PPP, generally) that tested her as a VP candidate found that she was spectacularly popular and would likely help Romney across the board. Politics is a popularity contest, after all; the one and only thing that matters for getting elected is being popular. Which she is.Report

          • Kolohe in reply to Ryan Noonan says:

            It’s a popularity contest, but one that she has never had to play on any level. And based on her track record as just a political infighter, it doesn’t strike me that she would be good at it.

            (iow, she’s no Herbert Hoover)Report

          • Michelle in reply to Ryan Noonan says:

            I bet McCain is kicking himself for choosing Palin instead of Rice.Report

            • Patrick Cahalan in reply to Michelle says:

              He very well might have won if he had picked Rice.Report

              • North in reply to Patrick Cahalan says:

                I’m doubtful. The only way they had any hope of pulling through would have been through avoiding the poison of the Bush name. Rice was utterly radioactive in 2008.Report

              • Ryan Noonan in reply to North says:

                Yeah, no way. There is absolutely nothing a Republican could have done to win that election. And a vice president worth 7% of the vote? No.Report

              • Patrick Cahalan in reply to Ryan Noonan says:

                Remember how close it was one month before the election? The financial crisis and how McCain looked during it…

                … oh, yeah, he probably would have looked like that anyway. Scratch that comment.

                I think Dr. Rice has teflon on her as far as the public’s opinion on Iraq war in concerned. But whether or not that teflon coating would survive a candidate’s scrutiny is certainly an open question and, “No way would it survive” is a reasonable guess.Report

              • Was it close? You’re the second person in the last couple weeks to mention how close Obama and McCain were. I don’t remember that election ever being close.

                Of course, I also pretty much only read Nate Silver, so maybe I missed something. People keep saying the current election is close, and that seems pretty obviously false to me.Report

              • Kimmi in reply to Patrick Cahalan says:

                it is close in %’s. and it is close because the news media wishes it to be close.
                It does not actually resemble a 50/50 flip of a coin.Report

              • Patrick Cahalan in reply to Patrick Cahalan says:

                Hm; now I have to figure out whether I’m retconning or not.

                Let me put it to you this way, it was the 2008 election that convinced me that Nate might know what he was talking about, and the 2010 election that convinced me he’s actually pretty repeatably good at it.

                My remembered reading of the aggregate-of-all in late August 2008 was that it was still close.Report

              • Actually, I’m a guy that was pretty high on the idea of a McCain presidency until the Palin debacle started to unravel.

                I still remember her first big red meat speech and thinking, Wow! Where did they find her???!!! She’s the real deal!

                And then “so what are you reading” got spun as a gotcha question, and then it all went downhill pretty fast.Report

              • I want someone to do a retrospective – maybe they already have, but I’m not going to – of the national polling a month or so out from every election for which we have polling. I feel like elections always seem closer in the Gallup poll than they really end up being.

                Although, that said, two of the small handful of presidential elections I can remember really WERE pretty close (2000 and 2004), so it’s possible I’m just out of my mind.Report

              • I think that’s true, especially with incumbent races. Bright Shiny Object press coverage always skews things one way or another for or against the new guy for a few months.Report

              • Kolohe in reply to Patrick Cahalan says:

                There was another crisis in the run-up to the 2008 election. The South Ossetia incident. This is a crisis that Dr. Rice had literallyjoebiden been training for her entire life, yet the response was kinda meh. (not discounting, though, that the correct and best response may have been ‘meh’)Report

  12. Kazzy says:

    Thinking about it more this morning, here is what I think the appeal to Dr. Rice is, to me at least…

    Almost everyone in politics nowadays seems to be a caricature of their respective party’s ideology. It often feels as if politics has devolved into a “Crazy Contest” that everyone is winning. She does not seem to submit to that. And I find that laudable. It doesn’t mean she’s never wrong or hasn’t done things I find objectionable or possibly even deplorable. But when she does, I bet she can offer a rational defense, even if it is unconvincing. I think she has ideals and values and principals which she genuinely believes in and works hard to find policies that serve those ends. Regardless of the specifics of these beliefs, I find that, and her, highly respectable.Report

    • greginak in reply to Kazzy says:

      Dr. Rice may be respectable, but her tenure was a colossal disaster in her own arena. US standing among the rest of world, for whatever its worth, went way down. We rushed into a disastrous war and screwed up the years afterward. You might like the coach who led your team to four straight losing seasons but he/she was still a crappy coach.Report

  13. Stillwater says:

    In the meantime, I apologize for whatever respect I might have conveyed for Dr. Rice