In a previous posting, I noted that Maureen Dowd enjoys playing the race and gender card, even as she and her fellow liberals exhort the rest of us to see beyond someone's race, and that men and women are, sans anatomy, essentially the same. But now she is at it again. Does she not realize how foolish she is sounding recently? She may be very smart, but she is not wise. On Wednesday evening, September 9, 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) interrupted President Obama's speech on health care with a shout of, "You lie!" when the President claimed that Democratic health proposals would not cover illegal immigrants. Now there is a whole brouhaha over the lack of respect Rep. Wilson showed to the President. Was it the right thing to do? Probably not. Was it disrespectful? Yup. Would I have done it? Nope. I must say, though, it's a tad tamer than outburst I have seen from the House of Commons or the Israeli Knesset. President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, "No President has ever been treated like that. Ever." Sorry, Mr. Emanuel, but President Andrew Johnson was treated like the Antichrist by the Radical Republicans after the Civil War, so let's not go overboard here.
But the piece de resistance goes to the New York Times' Maureen Dowd, who in her September 12, 2009 column claimed that Rep. Wilson's outburst was racially motivated. In her words, "...what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"; "Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber"; "Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it." In response, the White House claimed that race was not a factor in Rep. Wilson's outburst. When even the White House itself repudiates a New York Times' claim, you know something is awry. (By the way, why was Fox News the only media outlet to cover this part of the story? It can't be because the rest of the MSM agree with Ms. Dowd, right?)
Where to begin? During the campaign in 2008, we were inundated with claim after claim that if then-Sen. Obama would lose it would be due to his race (which is half-white, by the way. It's the half which raised him, and did not abandon him as a child.). By that logic, if John McCain would lose, would it not be due to his age, and those who did not vote for him were age-ists? The argument was so foolish, but made it was. I remember listening to NPR (as a conservative, I often listen to and read opposing viewpoints) back in August 2008, and wanting to rip the radio out of my car when Harvard Law Prof. Lani Guithier said that if Barack Obama would lose, it would mean that America "was still caught up in the original sin...of slavery." I screamed at the radio, "I am not not voting for him because he is black! I am not voting for him because I disagree with almost everything he stands for! If I agreed with a three-headed Martian, I'd vote for him! I care about values, not color!"
Why is it near-impossible for liberals to accept the reality that overwhelmingly, we conservatives disagree with President Obama because of his policies, and not because he is black? Are there racist conservatives? You bet. Are there racist liberals? Undoubtedly. But consistently, when liberals oppose a non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual, candidate for office, it is always presented as principled opposition. When conservatives do it, it's because they are racist, misogynist, homophobic pigs.
Nobody ever said standing up for your principles was easy. Ms. Dowd, if Barack Obama were whiter than the whitest Office Depot copy paper, we conservatives would still oppose his policies. Unlike you and your friends, we believe values trump the liberal trinity of race, class, and gender.
But the piece de resistance goes to the New York Times' Maureen Dowd, who in her September 12, 2009 column claimed that Rep. Wilson's outburst was racially motivated. In her words, "...what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"; "Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber"; "Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it." In response, the White House claimed that race was not a factor in Rep. Wilson's outburst. When even the White House itself repudiates a New York Times' claim, you know something is awry. (By the way, why was Fox News the only media outlet to cover this part of the story? It can't be because the rest of the MSM agree with Ms. Dowd, right?)
Where to begin? During the campaign in 2008, we were inundated with claim after claim that if then-Sen. Obama would lose it would be due to his race (which is half-white, by the way. It's the half which raised him, and did not abandon him as a child.). By that logic, if John McCain would lose, would it not be due to his age, and those who did not vote for him were age-ists? The argument was so foolish, but made it was. I remember listening to NPR (as a conservative, I often listen to and read opposing viewpoints) back in August 2008, and wanting to rip the radio out of my car when Harvard Law Prof. Lani Guithier said that if Barack Obama would lose, it would mean that America "was still caught up in the original sin...of slavery." I screamed at the radio, "I am not not voting for him because he is black! I am not voting for him because I disagree with almost everything he stands for! If I agreed with a three-headed Martian, I'd vote for him! I care about values, not color!"
Why is it near-impossible for liberals to accept the reality that overwhelmingly, we conservatives disagree with President Obama because of his policies, and not because he is black? Are there racist conservatives? You bet. Are there racist liberals? Undoubtedly. But consistently, when liberals oppose a non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual, candidate for office, it is always presented as principled opposition. When conservatives do it, it's because they are racist, misogynist, homophobic pigs.
Nobody ever said standing up for your principles was easy. Ms. Dowd, if Barack Obama were whiter than the whitest Office Depot copy paper, we conservatives would still oppose his policies. Unlike you and your friends, we believe values trump the liberal trinity of race, class, and gender.
No comments:
Post a Comment