Race and the Dem Debate

I find this article entertaining for many reasons. Instead of focusing on one, let's look at the article as a whole and see why it's so hard to take the Democratic candidates seriously.

From CNN: Race a focus in Iowa presidential debate

Sunday's debate reached an emotional peak when the Rev. Al Sharpton accused former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean of failing to appoint minorities during his tenure.

Dubbed the Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum, the debate was sponsored by a group that describes itself as a nonpartisan minority issues organization.

Okay, first of all..."Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum?" Can you say "pandering," boys and girls? This is friggin' hilarious already.

"It seems as though you discovered blacks and browns during this campaign," Sharpton said.

Dean, front-runner in several Iowa polls, responded, "I beg to differ with your statistics," and said African-Americans and Latinos did work in his state government.

I want to make a quick observation here: Isn't it interesting that the Democrats, who are constantly trying to fight Evil Racist Republicans™, are so focused on specific racial characteristics? It seems just a bit racist when you judge a politician by the color of his staff members, don't you think? I'd expect this crap from Sharpton, of course, so it's not a huge surprise.

When Sharpton asked whether any African-Amercians and Latinos served in Dean's Cabinet, a defensive Dean said, "We had a senior member of my staff."

Pressed as to whether that person was in his Cabinet, Dean acknowledged that none had been, but noted that the Cabinet contained only six people.

"Wait a second...we have to do the math and find out if that accurately represents the number of African-Americans in your constituency, then we'll decide whether or not you're a racist."

Let's skip ahead and go into extended entry mode...

"We tend to hire people like ourselves," Dean said. Political leaders must help whites overcome their "unconscious biases."

What? That was some serious doublespeak there, Dr. Douche. First of all, imagine if...oh, I don't know, Trent Lott happened to say that he "hires people like himself." I think we all know where this is going.

Second, Dean's other statement, if he did actually say it, is hilarious because it contradicts itself. After all, Dean is white, so by his own admission, he must HAVE "unconscious biases." But wait...could it be...

You guessed it! LIBERAL ELITISM! Dean has apparently risen above his poor, deluded, racist brethren and become enlightened by the wonders of diversity, so he now has the ability to magically erase all traces of bias from others who are still in the South dark about race!

So much for that coveted "guys with Confederate flags" vote.

Again, Sharpton responded critically. "Just having conversations with whites, without real legislation, without real executive action, is to trivialize our problem. We don't need people talking to whites, we need people to do something about racism and about discrimination. Don't reduce this to a coffee shop conversation. We need action."

It's time to make fun of Sharpton's idiocy now. The first question, obviously, is this: Why are "whites" and "racism" always mentioned together? Read his statements again. "We don't need people talking to whites, we need people to do something about racism..." Interesting how he just assumes that whites are the only ones who can be biased. Except for "enlightened" whites like Dean, of course.

Skipping past more CNN commentary, we come to this:

Dean -- whose native state of Vermont is about 98 percent white -- responded to Sharpton himself, saying, "I believe I have more endorsements from both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus than any other candidate on this stage."

Amazing. This must be part of Dean's brilliant plan to combat racism by aligning himself with groups that single people out by race. But they're not white, so I guess it's just a celebration of diversity.

Wouldn't this be similar to Sharpton bragging that he's endorsed by (non-violent, for the sake of analogy) white supremacy groups? Why isn't he going for that vote if the strategy works for Dean?

Sharpton said institutional racism continues to thwart the advance of many minorities. "Fifty years ago, we had to watch out for people in white suits. Now, they have on pinstriped suits, and they discriminate against our advancement, they discriminate against our achievement and we're called divisive if we bring it up.

"We're divisive if we don't bring it up. Our fathers had to fight Jim Crow. Now, we have to fight James Crow Jr., Esquire."

What the F is he talking about, anyway? "Pinstriped suits?" Is that a code word for the Evil White Patriarchy™? In any case, you can find "institutional racism" in just about any situation if the various races aren't represented EXACTLY as they are in society. "OH NO! We need to hire 2 more black guys, or else we're racists!"

Skipping ahead a bit...

Gephardt applauded the work of Moseley Braun during her tenure as a senator from Illinois from 1992-1998 but said he had faced special circumstances in the House.

"The problem is, in the last few years, we've had people like [House Majority Leader Rep.] Tom Delay, [R-Texas] and [former Speaker of the House] Newt Gingrich to deal with," he said about the men, both of whom opposed affirmative action programs.

Wow! 2 underhanded liberal strategies for the price of 1! Let's look at them separately:

1) The Victim Card: "It's not my fault I didn't do anything about race while I was in power! The eeeeeeeeeevil conservative majority silenced me!"

2) Affirmative Action is Opposed to Racism!: So, we're trying to eliminate racism, but the problem is...uh...people who were against racism. What was the problem again, Gephardt?

Sen. John Kerry then brought the conversation back to the common enemy among the speakers. The problem "is not just of black and brown, it's one of poor people, it's one of power in America -- the powerful, the friends of George Bush."

Here we go again. Johnkerrywhoservedinvietnam reminds everyone about the REAL enemy: President Bush and his rich associates, who are refusing to give up the money that they earned so the minorities and poor people they oppressed to get to where they are will have a fair chance!

Before I go on, this is a good time to inject something I realized recently: Liberals are incapable of recognizing that rich people can be rich because they earned it. They always assume that rich people are rich because they had some kind of racial advantage or did something illegal to get there. That's why they like quasi-socialist policies, because they think they're punishing rich people for their dishonesty in being rich.

And now, back to the debate:

Kerry cited the Medicare bill and energy bill as loaded with billions of dollars' worth of gifts to special interests.

Rrrrright...and who's the one speaking at the "Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum" again? No special interests there.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio drew a laugh when he took the president to task for his suggestion that the United States try to give new goals to the nation's space program.

"I've been wondering why the president would, while we're still in Iraq, talk about going to the moon or going to Mars," Kucinich said. "Maybe he's looking for the weapons of mass destruction still."

Remember, Kucinich is the one who is opposed to space weapons. Maybe he knows something we don't...

He called for "a president who's going to do first things first," such as canceling the tax cuts, removing U.S. troops from Iraq and cutting the "bloated Pentagon budget."

In other words, he wants a president who will do exactly the opposite of everything Bush has done. Once again, we see the elitism. Kucinich thinks that his ideas are the only logical ones, so Dubya must be either evil or terminally stupid if he doesn't agree.

Gephardt concurred, calling for the economy to take center stage. "We need to get rid of this president and bring in a Democratic president who will pay attention to the priorities of the middle-class people here at home, not on Mars."

Are they living in a fantasy world where the economy isn't recovering? I don't understand why they're still acting like Bush gave a ton of money to the rich while totally neglecting the middle class. Guess what? My family is middle class. We got a tax cut. There goes the Democratic argument. No more of this crap.

...Hmmm...I'm off my game today.

Anyway, that's just some of the stupid crap they said at the debate. In general, however, I've noticed the same characteristic popping up at these things: The Democrats don't really seem to know what they believe in.

When they speak to groups like this, they adopt whatever issues the group stands behind, and then they argue over which one of them would be the worst president in the eyes of that group.

By the way, that's the other problem. They're so negative at these things, I don't know how they can get support. They attack Dubya, they attack each other, they demonize white people, rich people, and other politicians, but they never actually suggest what they would do.

It's always, "You're wrong, and that's that," and never, "I'm right, and here's why." Do they think the voters are psychic? Do they assume that everybody hates Bush, and whoever makes him look the dumbest will get the vote?

I don't get it.

Posted by CD on January 12, 2004 02:38 PM
Category: