January 17, 2008
Portside Racism
I’ve been sort of avoiding posting on politics for the last few days, a short break as it were, but there seems to be an issue in the wood work that I feel a need to remark upon.
It’s this whole Obama-Clinton thing wherein the media and, to some extent, the concerned candidates themselves have brought up the color of the former and the gender of the latter in the course of their Presidential campaigns.
What causes me to take notice here is that the left, which includes the mainstream media (MSM), places so much emphasis on the minority status of one and the female status of the other.
The first black President, the first female President.
One result of this is the evident need of Hillary Clinton to shout from the rooftops of hers and her husband’s infinite and historical quest for equal rights and opportunities for blacks. Despite, of course, the former POTUS’ completely empty record in that regard.
Point being, we’re seeing the history of our political left repeat itself: For decades, they have demanded equality, for everybody else, to American born white males. I completely agree that all Americans should enjoy total equality in the marketplace, in the neighborhood and everywhere in between.
That said, those we select to represent us in government should be elected purely on the merits of their policies and their patriotism, their ideals and their courage, not because they are a certain color, a certain religion or a certain gender (I know that there are generally only two genders from which to choose, but I once lived in San Francisco and in that municipality, there may well be a third sex — I mean, I would not even consider personally investigating this from a field perspective, so I’ll leave it in the realm of uninvestigated conjecture).
But the liberals and their Democrat political domestic staff insist, as they always have, in making sure to hammer home the fact that Obama is black and that Hillary is a woman.
This is divisiveness at its highest order. Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton is a woman and that Barak Obama is black. Just look at a photograph of either. The media has a lot of influence upon questions asked and the issues involved — they do, after all, have the job of informing the public as to the above. So when they stress the genders and colors of the two Presidential candidates, what are they doing? They are disrespecting both, creating artificial wedges between them. Do we want a female or a black chief exec? For that matter, what about a Mormon?
Keeping bigotry alive is a primary objective of the left, its believers, its politicians, its media — the MSM. Without the ability to play the “race card”, liberal activists and Democrat politicians alike would lose a valuable propaganda tool — they could no longer blame a white, conservative Judeo-Christian society for “oppression” against all those who don’t belong to “the club”. They could no longer brand patriotic, conservative blacks “Oreos” or “Uncle Toms” (among others, Justice Clarence Thomas comes to mind) for succeeding on their own two feet rather than pursuing the victim agenda, and pit them against lesser achievers of the same minority status’.
They would be forced to confront the equality status for which they have purportedly fought (purportedly is the key word here) as the reality it has become, and concentrate on the true issues our politicians need to address in order to competently govern our country.
Well, at least they would have a few less distractions with which to razzle-dazzle the American people while, “behind the scenes”, they eased us into the adoption of socialism as a new platform for the distribution (allocation?) of our tax payments.
In summary, we need to ignore the ethnic prejudices projected by the MSM, and start looking at the candidates themselves. The media folks have pretty much demonstrated that they are too biased, racially and otherwise, to be acknowledged as an accurate source of information or political guidance…
http://hardastarboard.mu.nu/wp-trackback.php?p=781
January 17th, 2008 at 9:57 am
This racial fight between them proves that liberals are the racists and not conservatives. Her comments yesterday about how Dr. King needed a President for the Civil rights legislation also shows her desperation for the black vote.
She forgets that were it not for the force of King neither Kennedy or LBJ would have even attempted the legislation. Also LBJ could not get to first base with the legislation until he crossed the isle and garnered the support of the GOP who helped him get it through Congress because Byrd and the other Southern Democrats refused to even look at the legislation.
This racial tift between them is designed by Hillary to try and sway the black vote and nothing more. In actuality she could care less about any voters regardless of the color of their skin unless they provide her with some sort of political advantage!
January 17th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Ken –
That’s Hillary to a tee.
It is definitely her misfortune, considering the need of any Democrat for the black vote (it’s really difficult to understand how the majority of black voters have been so gullible as to support the Dems for so long based totally on undelivered promises), to have a black Democrat of close popularity running against her the first time she decides to make a White House run.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Seth, I’m very relieved that you’re not going to do an in-the-field investigation of the third sex! LOL! (’scuse me… I couldn’t resist.)
You raise a good point here, and here’s another one: What if the Republicans ran a woman and a black? The Dems would accuse us of playing the gender and the racial card. You know they would, which is only more proof that Republicans have more class than Dems, but we knew that!
January 18th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Gayle –
LOL, if you only saw some of those two-legged critters that evidently pass for average folk in San Francisco (In your neck of the woods, they’d be turned into Texas toast as soon as some good ol’ boy, bless his heart, passing in his pick-up, spotted them). As I said back when I left that liberal hell-hole for the last time, when I stopped doing double-takes on passing such items on the sidewalk, I knew it was time to move back to the United States.
If the Republicans ran a woman and a black, rather than praising them for their successful careers and leadership abilities, the Democrats would brand them an Uncle Tom and a political whore, both mere dupes for the racist Republican machine — only the Democrats retain license to exploit race and gender for their own political ends.
I thought everyone knew that!
January 18th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Seth, what if the GOP ran a black Jewish woman from NYC? Boy, wouldn’t that put the Dem’s in a tizzy?
I was truly hoping Ms Rice would run. I believe she is tough enough to run this country and do what needs to be done; unlike Hillary or Obama.
The GOP must get someone onto a platform that just blows away the opposition. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a ‘Ronald” emerging.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Old Soldier –
Seth, what if the GOP ran a black Jewish woman from NYC? Boy, wouldn’t that put the Dem’s in a tizzy?
ROTFLMAO!
I could see Bush calling the NYT, Pelosi and Reid on conference call and saying, “Look that up in your Funk & Wagnals!”
I’ve been for Fred Thompson since Tom Tancredo dropped out, he is the only remaining candidate who is 100%, nonflip-flopping conservative on every issue (he won’t support the war on one hand and amnesty for illegals on the other, limited government and low taxes on one hand and same-sex marriage on the other, our Second Amendment rights on one hand and government run healthcare on the other, etc).
Unfortunately, it seems that the best Republicans for the job of POTUS are either the long-shots in the race or not running at all, while those whose conservatism is tempered by liberal viewpoints on certain issues are out in front.
We’re going to need strong, uncompromising conservative leadership more than ever in the next few years, perhaps more than we’ve ever needed it before, not only to spearhead the War on Terror, but also to counter the socialist agendas emboldened by the Democrats’ year old ascention to the Congressional majority.
I positively shudder at the thought of having to “pull the lever” for the likes of John McCain in order to help ward off the tragedy of a Clinton or Obama Administration, but that might well be a painful and unavoidable experience if a whole lot of Republicans don’t wake up and smell the proverbial coffee.
January 20th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Well, Seth, if they don’t wake up and smell the coffee, they’ll be smelling a similar (but far different) smell - the piss in their pants when madam president is inaugrated in Jan ‘09.
I cannot tell you how dissappointed I am that the GOP has not forefronted a strong Republican with a resounding platform that makes the dem’s recoil in horror of having to oppose. I’d even accept a right-of-center [ideological] candidate that was honest and consistant. Hell, most of my emotional trigger issues are state’s business anyway. I’m just beside myself with disgust for the current GOP leadership (or lack thereof). My gosh, even the Boy Scouts have adult leadership.
January 20th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Old Soldier –
I heard a lot of arguments, after the Nov 2006 election, that the GOP (along with Republican voters who did not bother to turn out back then or voted across parties) would learn its lesson, straighten up and fly right (pun intended), but I was at least 40% skeptical, and that part is being borne out today.
The concept of a third, serious-conservatives-only party that was being discussed by many of us in late 2006 looks better and better by the day. That or a successful “throw out the bums” campaign to elect all new, real conservative senators and representatives to replace those career first, country second dead beats that currently hold office.
Unfortunately, modern politics seems to work exactly opposite the realities of the private sector: In the marketplace, if you don’t do things the way your employer tells you to, you get fired. In politics, not only do you get reelected for not doing what your employer (the voters) wants, but you even get to vote yourself a generous raise (factoring in all the perks, an even better deal than being a TV weather forecaster, where you can be wrong 99% of the time, but still negotiate exceedingly lucrative contracts because you keep the people “entertained”)!
Last year, we proved that when the people roar (The Immigration “Reform” bill, the John Doe provision) the politicians listen. The problem is that afterwards, they go back to SSDD status. Your comment that unlike the Boy Scouts, they lack adult supervision is spot-on.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Although a conservative party sounds enticing, I doubt we would accomplish much more than rendering the GOP and CP ineffective against the liberals/Democrats. I like your comment about throwing the bums out… it seems more achievable than establishing a CP large enough to defeat the liberals.
It is going to be an interesting election for many reasons. Be sure to fasten your seat belt, ’cause I don’t think the ride will be enjoyable..
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 am
Old Soldier –
Be sure to fasten your seat belt, ’cause I don’t think the ride will be enjoyable..
I think the race will become a verbal street fight that will drag on for the next nine months and change, and that its very rawness will prove an embarrassment to our entire political system.