Interesting post by Jonah Goldberg has caused a lot of cyberchatter this weekend . . . he posits that a "certain segment" of the population will become "completely unhinged" if Obama does not win the Dem presidential nomination.
Now, I respect the National Review about as much as I respect the New York Times (read: not at all), so I tend to read this post the same way I would read any ravings by the lunatic fringe. If Jonah thinks that black people are going to riot if Obama doesn't win . . . well, seems a little nutty to me. And why doesn't he make the same prediction about women, if Hillary doesn't win? I'm ready to riot, believe me.
I actually visited the Reagan Presidential Library about a year and a half ago. The most striking moment in my visit happened when I walked into the front room, lined with pictures of all our past presidents. And my two 10-year-old companions -- my daughter and her best friend -- asked two questions right away: "Where are the women?" and "Why is everyone white?" You see, they live in multi-cultural Los Angeles, and they both go to girls' schools, where the majority of the populations are neither male nor white. Our past presidential politics do not represent their point of view, and although they are not yet voters, I can't imagine that they are going to be comfortable with the status quo, if it remains in place for the next decade. (They'll be voting in the 2016 election). And, BTW, none of their black or female friends are prone to rioting.
It's the status quo that's pre-emptively trotting out the race card when it comes to Obama. "Please, please don't let him run away with the media," they say, "Or he'll make 'his people' violent." Never mind that "his people" includes his white mother from Kansas. I suspect that it was the same status quo that pounded on Hillary for referring to her gender -- when we all know full well that women are held to higher standards when it comes to the old boys clubs of boardrooms and politics. (Remember Martha Stewart? What's happened to all the guys who are always doing the same kind of insider trading?)
Salon has posted an amusing response to Mr. Goldberg, with this great picture of the "rioters" in Florida after the 2000 election:
Nary a black person and hardly a woman among them.
Jesus, I'm irritated. Fed up with the politics of hatred driven by those who have subverted the term "conservative" to mean "don't change anything and, BTW, we get to tell you how Godless you are."
Most people I know aren't concerned with questions regarding regarding religion (the Constitution handles it), abortion (again, the Constitution), or the capabilities of women (gee, where the the ERA go?). They ARE concerned about the tanking economy, falling home values, a government that lied regarding the rationale behind an illegal war, our dependence on oil, and how we pay for health care. And that includes not only my friends in SoCal, it includes my old Southern family in Virginia.
In short, they're concerned about the simple, everyday, how-to-keep-our-lives going "human card." The candidate who responds to those problems is the one who's going to win. If s/he doesn't, then we'll show you a hullabaloo -- I think it will be the most bipartisan riot you've ever seen.
What you seek does not exist. The lenders make huge ptfrios on Cash Advances. If you went to a bank for a cash advance you would fill out 15 pages of paperwork and wait 2 days. With a credit card, you just get $500 like magic. No paperwork or waiting. The credit companies even send you checks so you can get money faster. But you have to pay a lot for the ease of getting money with no questions asked.
Posted by: Elizabetty | October 01, 2012 at 10:15 PM
That's a crackerjack awnesr to an interesting question
Posted by: Addrienne | March 30, 2013 at 02:30 AM