It’s Thursday, May 16th, 2013…and here’s The Gouge!
Headlining today’s line-up, courtesy of Dick Mayer and American Spectator, an absolute must-read column by Daren Jonescu, who offers a dead-on, balls-accurate assessment why…
Benghazi Reveals the Heart of Progressivism
In the first months after the Benghazi attack, the most urgent question, and one only rarely asked, was “What were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton doing during the seven and a half hours between the initial emergency communications from Benghazi and the final American deaths?” A negative answer was provided in February by Leon Panetta: they werenotengaging with their subordinates; they werenotcontacting anyone to discuss options; they were givingno orders for action; they remainedentirely uninvolved.
We are left to speculate about the positive answer to that question. Were they sleeping? Curled up by the fire with a good manifesto? Playing poker with Huma and the gang? Practicing jokes for a fundraising speech? Your guess is as good as mine.
And none of these guesses really matter in the end, compared to the looming horror that attends any of the possibilities, namely this: the president and secretary of state of the most powerful nation on Earth are impervious to shame. They can do — they have done — what you hope you could never do, what you pray your children will never be able to do, what psychologists fill academic journals attempting to explain. They were informed that their countrymen — their appointees — were being attacked, were issuing repeated cries for help, and, if nothing were done to intercede, were likely to be killed. Knowing this, and knowing, further, that they had at their disposal the most powerful military in the world, no risk of personal harm, and many subordinates prepared to leap into action at their word, they blithely walked away from the desperate men pleading for their help, and carried on with whatever they happened to be doing that night. They let other men suffer unto death without lifting a finger to help, or even indicating a moment’s regret for their inaction after the fact.
They demonstrated a cold lack of interest in the suffering of others — not the abstract, theoretical suffering of collective interest groups, such as “the poor” or “gays” or “women,” but the real physical pain and mortal terror-style suffering of individual human beings in mortal crisis.
Walking home one evening, you hear men across the street shouting for help, as they are in the process of being overwhelmed by a gang of thugs. You walk away, unconcerned with their cries or the sounds of bats smacking down on their flesh. You do not call the police or volunteer any assistance. You go to bed and sleep well. The next day, and each subsequent day, you carry on with your life of fun, friends, and self-indulgence, never giving a second thought to the men who died because you did not care to help. If a neighborhood reporter asks you about the crime, you put on your gravest voice and say, “Gosh, that’s so sad; I hope they find the creeps who did it.”
That is what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did on September 11 and 12, 2012, and what they have continued to do in the months since. God save a nation in the hands of men and women with souls of this nature. For a man without shame or the capacity for the most primal forms of fellow-feeling is a man who has no internal, self-imposed limits on what he might do to achieve his ends. If the suffering of others is absolutely nothing to him; if literal cries for help do not stir in him painful feelings that can only be alleviated by prompt action or, failing that, by interminable days of shame and self-loathing, then there is nothing — apart from pragmatic calculations — to prevent him from doing anything that seems to serve his ends. For it is the awareness of the rightful existence and potential suffering of other men that serves as our internal limit.
And, for that matter, how does a man impervious to the plight, the fear, the anguish, and the simple will to live of other human beings choose his own ends? What prevents him from choosing ends which entail or require the suffering and sacrifice of other people, if he is incapable of recognizing — at the moral and emotional level — the dignity, the value, the slender thread of breath linking an individual human being to the divine for its achingly short span of life? Such a brute is limited only by external restraint, specifically by the law. Once he himself becomes the maker of laws, either actually or in his own mind, he is utterly without limits. For now his inability to appreciate the individual existence of others is divorced from the fear of punishment or personal pain that might have stopped him from acting out the lusts and whims of his monstrous inner life.
Progressivism, socialism, Marxism — call it what you will — is an authoritarian strategy masked as a political theory. At its core is the premise that the state has full authority, in the name of “the people,” to do any number of things which would have been almost universally recognized, throughout human history, as shameful acts. In the name of “equality” and “justice,” progressives claim the authority to take one man’s rightfully earned possessions by force, and simply give them to other men; to remove children forcibly from their parents, and raise them according to precepts that may be antithetical to everything the parents believe; to retard the intellectual and moral development of every citizen through an aggressive, coercive program of indoctrination through government schools, aimed at producing a submissive underclass of competent but unambitious adults; to determine, by edict, who may or may not be permitted to pursue life-preserving medical treatment, and under what conditions that treatment may be provided; and so on through the litany of moral violations recast as “services,” and even “rights,” by collectivist despots and their bureaucratic minions.
There must have been a moment near the end for each of the men who lost their lives in Benghazi, and perhaps particularly for Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty who died many hours after the violence began, when they realized their situation was all but hopeless, that no help was coming, that their urgent calls and messages were meeting with silence in Washington. If there is a Hell, and it has the poetic perfection of Dante’s, it is reasonable to suppose that this feeling — “I am alone, vulnerable, and abandoned” — will be the eternal fate of two people who knew these men’s predicament and had the power of the world at their fingertips, but who did not care to try to help. The deaths of four Americans — their fear, courage, and pain — will not have been in vain if the most essential lesson of Benghazi is well-learned, and long-remembered. For Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton revealed themselves as today’s “democratic” progressives rarely do. They revealed, to be exact, that they are, at heart, what all leading progressive authoritarians have been: conscienceless; without basic human empathy; dismissive of, and unfeeling about, life itself (except their own); constitutionally incapable of considering as significant or meaningful any harm their actions or inaction may cause to other “mere individuals” — in short, monsters.
Homer, composing his epic tales for a society dominated by war and its frequent and sudden losses, coined a term for the essential life force of an individual man, a term designed at once to dignify the individual dying warrior, and to fill all hearers with wonder and a moral shiver at the fleetingness of it all: psuchē — literally, “breath.” There is the root, linguistically and philosophically, of our word psyche, i.e., soul. Human life is breath, and thus death a mere exhalation. A biological fact transformed through poetry into the essential glory and tragedy of our existence. With what horrifying ease may a man be dispatched from this world — from the company of his comrades, the home of his family, the embrace of his beloved, and the society of his fellow citizens. In the end, a man’s life is just an invisible wisp of air, barely felt and quickly lost. We cling to and cherish life because, deep down, we know this of ourselves. We begin our journey to full humanity, however, when we recognize and respect this truth in others. To fail in this initial stage of our moral journey is to become something other than human, something lower, something degraded and ugly.
Creatures of such failed moral development are currently, unthinkably, the most powerful men and women on the planet. We are sometimes given to wondering, in the face of one or another of the progressives’ assaults on individual freedom, natural rights, and human dignity, how they cannot see what inhuman conditions they are imposing on their fellow men. The problem is worse than that. As Benghazi teaches, these monsters, unlike their hypnotized followers, do see what they are doing, but they are simply incapable of giving a damn.
Four thoughts occur to us: first, Mr. Jonescu’s right on every count. Second, these men weren’t killed in combat; they died from willful neglect. Third, is anyone really surprised two such unabashed advocates of partial-birth abortion willingly sacrificed the lives of four adult humans in pursuit of personal political advantage? Lastly, Jonescu and everyone else at American Spectator better get ready for their audit!
For more on the scandals which may ultimately prove impossible for the MSM to ignore, we turn to another commentary from American Spectator from Ross Kaminsky, courtesy of Bill Meisen:
Turning on Obama — Could it Be That the Liberal Press has Finally Figured Him Out?
If ponies rode men and grass ate cows, and cats were chased into holes by the mouse …
If summer were spring and the other way round, then all the world would be upside down.
Once in a long while, an event evokes one of my favorite historical images: the British Army band, at Lord Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown which sealed the Americans’ revolutionary victory, playing “The World Turned Upside Down.” In this case, the event is the dramatic change over the past two weeks in the “mainstream” media’s coverage of President Obama.
From reporters to opinion writers, from newspapers to television, after a mere four and a half years of economic fecklessness, foreign policy failure, unseemly narcissism, and a Nobel Prize for deeds to be named later, prominent liberal-leaning pundits and organizations may have finally realized that reality, if not journalistic ethics, demands a more clear-eyed look at the president they have been so deeply invested in.
Or maybe they’ve just noticed that their fawning and sycophancy has meant declining circulation and viewership.
But whatever the reason, the dominant establishment mass media’s turn is as remarkable as it is welcome.
The first major crack in the dike may have come from New York Times opinion columnist Maureen Dowd in an April 20 piece entitled “No Bully in the Pulpit” in which she bemoans President Obama’s inability to pass restrictions on gun rights. It is not the liberal writer’s anger over the outcome that is surprising; it is that instead of the usual “it’s all the Republicans’ fault” meme, she lays the blame directly at the feet of the previously Teflon-coated president:
It’s unbelievable that with 90 percent of Americans on his side, he could get only 54 votes in the Senate. It was a glaring example of his weakness in using leverage to get what he wants. No one on Capitol Hill is scared of him. Even House Republicans who had no intention of voting for the gun bill marveled privately that the president could not muster 60 votes in a Senate that his party controls.”
Dowd’s criticism of Obama was, by N.Y. Times standards, withering:
“President Obama thinks he can use emotion to bring pressure on Congress. But that’s not how adults with power respond to things.”
“When you go into a fight saying you’re probably going to lose, you’re probably going to lose.”
And most to the point, “Unfortunately, [Obama] still has not learned how to govern.”
Apparently, Maureen Dowd gave other reporters and columnists a “permission structure” to tell their cloistered liberal readers what much of the rest of the country has long understood. Over the ensuing two weeks, they’ve used that permission, raining down a deluge of criticism of Obama.
On April 30, Dana Milbank — a liberal columnist for the Washington Post who recently asked in writing “Is there nobody who can tell Ted Cruz to shut up?” (Dana, I suggest you walk over there and try it yourself) — called Barack Obama “A presidential bystander.” This was in response to Obama’s press conference that morning in which “The president was out of sorts from the start.…He didn’t attempt to set the tone for the event.…And he often found himself remarking on the difficulty of his job.”
Milbank closed his note with this advice for Obama: “[L]ively leadership is the way to resuscitate a moribund presidency.”
Also in response to Obama’s disastrous press conference performance, another liberal columnist, Frida Ghitis, says that the president is “failing on moral leadership.” (“moral leadership”? The man doesn’t exhibit leadership of any kind!) Ms. Ghitis argues that “The president is smart and eloquent. But leadership, especially for someone who has achieved that level of power, requires three elements: It must communicate a clear vision and a commitment to its realization; it must mobilize and inspire others into action; and it must produce results.” On a wide range of issues, she seems to believe Obama is accomplishing none of those things — and, regardless of political viewpoint, who could disagree?
Her conclusion echoes those of Milbank and Dowd: “Of course, the problems he has to deal with are difficult and often offer choices between bad and worse. But the time is right for a new display of conviction, of effectiveness, of leadership.”
It’s not just opinion writers but also reporters who suddenly seem willing to criticize President Obama’s abilities or leadership or favored programs and policies.
The highlight (or for Obama, the lowlight) of the April 30 press conference was a question by ABC News’ Jonathan Karl: After laying out a list of Obama’s political failures including gun control and the sequester, Karl asked “So my question to you is do you still have the juice to get the rest of your agenda through this Congress?” No, that wasn’t Fox News’ Ed Henry, but the White House reporter for one of the three old-line broadcast networks who dared to ask such a question.
In typical Barack Obama style, the response was a 9-minute passionless sermon best described by Tom Lehrer’s description of Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic operas: “Full of words…and signifying nothing.”
No doubt asking hard questions of a man so richly deserving of them was a liberating renewal for Mr. Karl and maybe part of a new permission structure for his Obama-adoring colleagues: “Oh, now I remember why I went to journalism school.” But perhaps I am too optimistic. (We believe he is…at least for now.)
On April 25, N.Y. Times reporter Sharon LaFraniere published a remarkable piece of investigative journalism in criticism of a fraud-infested race-based scheme used by Democrats to buy elections. When I mentioned to Ms. LaFraniere how impressed I was to see this story in the Grey Lady, she responded “the NYT really wants to uncover the truth. There are no sacred cows.” Frankly, when it comes to Times management, I don’t believe it…though I believe LaFraniere does, and she can rightly point to the fact that she was allowed to publish a 5,300 word, front-page story which must have caused many Democrats, including Times editors and President Obama, to cringe.
A week later, a group of four Times reporters published another front page article — a dagger in the heart of what little foreign policy credibility President Obama has left, even among the left. In that story, readers learn that Obama’s infamous “red line” regarding the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria was an unscripted ad-lib which came “to the surprise of some of his advisers” and which “defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.”
By putting his foot in his mouth, by implicitly committing to some substantive American response to a particular event that may now have happened, Obama may have cornered himself into taking an action that he doesn’t want to take, namely “providing lethal assistance to the Syrian rebels” — which is, despite Congressional chicken hawks’ pleas to go down that very road, a truly terrible idea.
In short, the article suggests that by not understanding the significance of his words, the president has narrowed his options, possibly forced his own hand, and impacted the already jaundiced eye that America’s allies and enemies alike turn toward any American foreign policy statements of this administration. Obama has through his egocentrism and naïveté added instability to an already dangerously unstable world. May I remind you: this was the New York Times.
And last week, following a “sunny speech in Mexico,” reporters at the Los Angeles Times penned an article stating that “audience members didn’t necessarily agree with [Obama’s] assessment” of Mexico’s current situation and likely future progress. The article corrected several Obama claims on issues like immigration and an emerging Mexican middle class, noted that “many among the several hundred people in attendance said he seemed too upbeat about their country” and quoted audience members with reactions like “Obama is fantastic, but I believe that today he was talking about another country, not ours.”
Particularly when it comes to foreign affairs, Barack Obama is no longer the adoringly-fêted citizen-of-the-world who, on July 24, 2008 spoke in Berlin to 200,000 adoring, mindless fans, in a speech that German magazine Der Spiegel called “People of the World, Look at Me.”
To be sure, not all of the usual suspects in the liberal media have changed their tunes. Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather, still bitter over losing his job in an attempt to smear George W. Bush with a forged document, says that Obama’s Republican opponents “want to cut his heart out and throw his liver to the dogs.” (One wonders what they want to do with the heart.)
But when reporters and columnists from the N.Y. Times to the Washington Post, L.A. Times, CNN, ABC News, and others have suddenly come out of their Obama-critique group-laryngitis and are telling the world that the president is a reckless, feckless, spineless non-leader, the political world has indeed turned upside down.
We’d say better late than never…but only if it should come to pass. Color us skeptical; we agree with Mr. Meisen, who compares the Press to a battered wife who cannot help coming back for another beating. In similar fashion, we see the MSM eventually dropping the charges and crawling back on bended knee for more of the same.
The MSM has gone all-in with The Obamao; their fame, fortune, their very essence and sense of self-worth are wholly-dependent upon his success. Survival remains man’s most basic instinct; and what’s the First Amendment, or for that matter the rest of the Constitution, compared to self-preservation. Then again, as Mark 8:36 states, “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?”
Yet a glimmer of hope remains, as demonstrated by this next item from Fox News. Team Tick-Tock’s continued indifference to the rule of law has been so egregious it has more than a few Liberals are finally showing concern, including Doug Schoen, former pollster for President Bill Clinton currently in the employ Mayor Boobberg:
Benghazi, IRS, AP scandals — will buck ever stop with Obama?
The first question for White House spokesman Jay Carney at Tuesday’s press briefing went right to the heart of the growing crisis facing President Obama:
In the matters of the Benghazi terror attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the Justice Department going after AP phone records, “…doesn’t responsibility for setting tone, setting direction ultimately rest with the president?”
That question of “where the buck stops” harkens back to another Democrat who occupied the Oval Office some 60 years ago, “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman but the answer is as relevant today. Benghazi may not be “Obama’s Watergate,” as Sen. Lindsay Graham has called it, but what we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.
On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day — and it’s clear that the administration’s actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering. The White House has been caught not telling the full story, and modifying the narrative for political ends.
But that’s just a piece of the troubling picture emerging from the West Wing.
We have Attorney General Eric Holder — he who managed to dodge full responsibility for the “Fast & Furious” gun-walking debacle in the president’s first term — revealing Tuesday that he had recused himself from theinvestigation into Justice Department gathering of phone records from more than “20 separate telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.”
The bipartisan response to Monday’s disturbing challenge to press freedom was swift. Speaker Boehner’s office said Monday, “they better have a damned good explanation.” And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, acknowledge he’s “very troubled” by the allegations. (Yeah…right! Next he’ll be “deeply troubled”, followed by deeply disappointed”!)
Then there is the very serious matter of the IRS singling out conservative Tea Party and Patriot groups, among others, for special scrutiny when they sought to apply for tax-exempt status. The president says he’s “outraged” — but also said Monday that he knows nothing about this news. But “newly obtained documents” show the current IRS chief knew about the agency’s targeting of Tea Party groups as early as May 2012, and other officials in Washington were clued in more than a year before that, as the scandal continued to spread.
Perhaps even more telling is White House spokesman Jay Carney’s acknowledgement to reporters Tuesday that the administration is getting its information on these matters from news reports. Again, who’s in charge here?
And finally there’s what appears, from the public record that has emerged so far, to be the prevarication, without any clear explanation, from the administration on Benghazi:
On November 28th, 2012, Carney stated that the State Department had only changed one word of Susan Rice’s talking points — we now know this not to be the case. We also know that within hours of the attack, the White House, the State Department and the FBI received emails saying that an Islamic group had claimed credit — even going so far as to identify Ansar al-Sharia as the group.
This epidemic of evasions, and most likely falsehoods, only raises more questions. The White House, the State Department, Hillary Clinton and any additional officials involved have committed a serious breach of trust with regard to the American people, and moreover, their actions are an insult to the American citizens who died in Libya that night, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
What’s next? Just months into his final four years in office, President Obama is facing a credibility crisis, one that threatens his fundamental abilities to govern.
Congress needs to get to the bottom of not only Benghazi, but these other scandals so that the American people can regain some semblance of trust in a government that is seemingly run amok.Perhaps it’s time for the president to gather his inner circle to lay down the law — clean house if and when necessary — and to assure the American people that regardless of where these investigations may lead, ultimately: “The buck stops here.”
No, the President and his inner circle ARE the problem. And the only house needing cleaning is the White House; from top to bottom!
“The buck stops here”; who is Schoen kidding?!? Hells Bells! As this next headline confirms, with B. Hussein the buck doesn’t even reach the Cabinet level:
Next up, courtesy of AEI, James Pethokoukis echoes the sentiment we expressed at the conclusion of today’s Cover Story:
Scandals may shut the door on Obama’s progressive experiment
Democrats and left-wing pundits have long argued that Barack Obama would be their Ronald Reagan, a president who significantly shifted the nation’s political and economic landscape. With reelection and a second term, as Andrew Sullivan wrote last September, Obama would become ”an iconic figure who struggled through a recession and a terrorized world, reshaping the economy within it, passing universal health care, strafing the ranks of al-Qaeda, presiding over a civil-rights revolution, and then enjoying the fruits of the recovery.”
Forward!
Republicans and conservatives, on the other hand, have tended to see Obama as Jimmy Carter: The Sequel — an inexperienced naif with delusions of grandeur who presided over a collapsing economy at home and retreat abroad. But for about 15 minutes after Obama’s reelection, many on the right may have harbored fears Obama would indeed be the anti-Reagan, launching a generational turn toward progressivism built on the economic and foreign policy failures of the Bush administration. Obama’s aggressive election night and inaugural speeches didn’t help.
But the defining mission of the Obama presidency, to usher in a new Progressive Era, is foundering.
1. Even before the Benghazi/IRS/AP scandals exploded, faith in government was on the rocks. As Pew Research concluded last January: “As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high.”
2. And the big three achievements of Obama’s first term — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act — are seen as either flawed(hopelessly flawed!) or failed.
3. At a minimum, a new Progressive Era requires a public that sees government as honest, efficient, and competent. The Left swoons over the success of Big Government Scandinavia, often ignoring the region’s pro-market turn. But the Nordic Way has earned the trust and confidence of its citizens. As I wrote earlier this year:
Scandinavia still taxes and spends too much. But it is able to offset those disadvantages partially with efficient, honest, and transparent government. Both cultural homogeneity and history have created a high level of social trust, The Economist explains, which means “high-quality people join the civil service. Citizens pay their taxes and play by the rules. Government decisions are widely accepted.” In its economic-freedom index, the Heritage Foundation praises the Swedish economy for its “regulatory efficiency [and] open-market policies that sustain flexibility, competitiveness, and large flows of trade and investment.” Of Denmark, Heritage says, “The overall regulatory environment, transparent and efficient, encourages entrepreneurial activity.”
4. In Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index last year, Denmark and Finland were tied for first, with Sweden fourth. The US was 19th. And that was before this recent deluge of scandals.
Bottom line: At least Americans thought Carter was honest.But in the public’s eyes, the Obama administration now risks combining Carter-level incompetence with Richard Nixon’s untrustworthiness. Hardly a formula for a political revolution, much less a modestly successful presidency.
When the smoke clears, an emasculated Egoist-in-Chief and a Republican Congress in 2014 is the best outcome Conservatives can realistically expect. Then again, to mangle a phrase from Kenny Roger’s The Gambler, the best that we can hope for is he’ll die in his sleep!
Meanwhile, in the Conflict of Interest segment, as detailed in the Washington Free Beacon via The New Media Journal, anyone calling for a serious Senate query into the IRS overly-zealous oversight might as well save their breath:
Democrat Senators Pressured IRS to Investigate Conservative Nonprofits
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), repeatedly pressed the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the tax-exempt status of specific conservative nonprofit organizations in letters to then-IRS commissioner Doug Shulman and director Lois Lerner in 2012. Levin said he was concerned nonprofit organizations were abusing their tax-exempt status and engaging in partisan politics and requested information from the IRS on 12 organizations. Levin, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said the subcommittee will be investigating the IRS targeting of conservative groups.
…In addition, The Daily Caller reports that Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who is also leading an investigation into why the IRS targeted conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny, once wrote a letter urging the IRS to do exactly that. Baucus wrote a letter to then-IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman dated September 28, 2010 urging the IRS to investigative nonprofit conservative groups during the Tea Party-dominated 2010 midterm elections.
Though Baucus identified 501(c)(5) groups — or labor unions — as worthy of investigation, the only organizations cited in his request were conservative, pro-Republican groups.
…Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, said Levin should not be surprised that the IRS was caught targeting Tea Party groups when senators are sending these kinds of letters. “And he wonders why the IRS gets caught using partisan criteria to investigate Americans,” said Smith.
Democrat Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tom Udall (D-NM), and Al Franken (P-MN) sent a similar letter to Shulman in February 2012, asking for the IRS to investigate tax-exempt groups they believed were engaged in political activities…
As did one Charles Ellis “Chuck U” Schumer:
Which is why everything is riding on the House.
Uh-oh!
On the Lighter Side…
And in Tales From the Darkside, as James Taranto details…
Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. At TheRoot.com, our pal Keli Goff praises Speaker John Boehner for attending his daughter’s recent wedding. Goff writes that his new son-in-law, Dominic Lakhan, is “a Jamaican-born construction worker, who happens to be black,” and imagines that Boehner, who happens to be orange, secretly disapproves of the young man.
Keli Goff: a bigoted pot calling the kettle racist.
She concludes:
A high-ranking Republican official endorsing such a union would have been unthinkable just two decades ago, when race-based political advertisements depicting black men as dangerous were still considered the norm. So just as the wedding itself is a testament to how far our country has evolved on race, Boehner’s attendance is a testament to our country’s political evolution as well.
Really? We don’t recall anyone objecting when Clarence Thomas, who happens to be black, married Virginia Lamp, who happens to be white, in 1987. Nor do we remember any Republicans looking askance when she sat by his side at his confirmation hearings after George H.W. Bush, who happens to be white and Republican, nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991.
We’re pretty sure Bush didn’t boycott the 1974 wedding of his son Jeb, who happens to be white, to Columba Garnica Gallo, who happens to be Mexican-American. Nor, to the best of our knowledge, did any Republicans refuse to attend the February 1993 wedding of Sen. Mitch McConnell, who happens to be white and is now the Republican leader, to Elaine Chao, who happens to be Chinese-American. As we noted in February, the couple were recently the targets of some racist attacks, but the attackers happened to be Democrats.
In short, somebody is preoccupied with race and engaging in invidious stereotyping. And unless we are mistaken, she does not happen to be a Republican.
Keli Goff: proof positive if Liberals wish to view the real source of racism in America, they need look no further than…
…the nearest mirror.
Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with News of No Use, where the question of the day is:
How to pronounce Cannes: Cans, can or con?
According to The Daily Gouge dictionary, it’s pronounced “can”, as in “Can we care any less?!?”
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.