I'm surprised no one has gotten to this one already (or has someone? I searched diaries and fount no results):
NYT: Latest Confirmed Nominee Sees Slavery in Liberalism
Pretty self-explanatory. But the "slavery" thing is really a gimmick. In truth she's aligning liberalism with totalitarianism, which is probably one of the most ironic things I've heard all year.
If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy - a license to steal, a warrant for oppression.
I have no problem with Brown being a black female Republican, for the same reason that I can't stand it when Clarence Thomas is referred to as an "Uncle Tom." It's Ms. Brown's choice. We shouldn't force or guilt-trip people into one party based on their race or gender, even if we do know for a fact that one party is more concerned with their well-being.
But I do have a problem with her use of the "liberalism = big government = no freedom" path of thought. Want to know who will return us to the days of slavery? It's the Jesse Helms crowd, not John Kerry. Want to know who hearkened back to the days of segregation? No, it wasn't Howard Dean, it was Trent Lott.
Janice Rogers Brown's political priorities are certainly skewed, but not because of her race and/or gender. They're messed up because of that one simple statement.