Nora Ephron has White Penis Envy
Apr 21, 2008 Political
Nora Ephron has a piece in today’s Huffington Post where she discusses the Democratic primary and the soon to come general election in terms of how white males will influence the outcome in each of those contests. Ephron contends that the idea that white men have been powerless is a lot of bunk and always has been. She contends that the white male vote will decide the outcome of the primary and of the general elections. She also points out that white men cannot be trusted as any woman who has dated one can attest to.
I guess Nora suffers penis envy and that is why she attacks white males as a group that cannot be trusted with elections while she conveniently forgets that it was the white women who gave us Bill Clinton. Soccer moms who dreamed of giving him Lewinskys voted for this guy despite the fact that he was a scum bag. She forgets that blacks of both sexes have supported Barack Obama at a 90% rate thus denying Hillary her rightful place in the White House. No, to Ephron only white males have the clout to decide elections.
It is not unusual for liberal females to chastise white males. We have been listening to this crap for decades so this is nothing new. White males will determine the outcome in Pennsylvania because white males vote so, as she points out, it will all depend on who they decide to support. These white males will be Democrats and mostly liberal. They will either vote for Obama out of guilt or Clinton to push the feminist agenda. however, if she wants to really talk about white males who cannot be trusted she should look at the super delegates. They are ALL Democrats and they are overwhelmingly old white men.
As for the general election, many white males will vote. They will not stay home as will many of the young people who have drunk the Obama kool aid. Many of the minorities will stay home on election day because that is what they have historically done though an Obama candidacy will bring more of them out. There will be enough diversity and division by party that the demographic with the largest turn out will decide who is elected.
This does not register with Ephron who believes that white males have dominated politics for a long time (they have) and she believes that the candidate who wins will be the one who can attract more of the racist white males. She has this all figured out:
If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.
I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news but the idea of a candidate who could have been a father, son, or brother also applies to white women. Yes Nora, all the guys who have been elected could have been the father, brother or son of any white woman. So that means that any one of our past presidents could have been the father, brother or son of Hillary Clinton or any white woman who votes for her.
As a matter of fact, any of our past presidents could have been the father of Barack Obama because he is half white.
The fact is, white males will vote for the candidate they want to and their vote does not indicate they are racists or sexists or anything else. They are entitled to vote for whom they wish just as are all the non white male voters out there. The 90% of the blacks who vote for Obama are no more racist than the white guys who vote. It is obvious that they are only voting for Obama because he is black but Ephron ignores this and chooses to take white males to task for their voting patterns.
Of course she is upset at the idea that white males might decide the outcome of the election but the fact is there are many demographics out there and any one of them could decide the outcome depending upon who shows up on election day.
As it stands right now, white males are a reliable voting block as are the elderly. However, as we saw with the Bill Clinton elections, any group of people that shows up en masse (in his case soccer moms) can affect the outcome of an election.
Nora Ephron needs to get over her penis envy and work harder on getting people out to vote. A 30% nationwide turnout is nothing to be proud of.
Tags: Clinton, election, McCain, nora ephron, Obama, white males
Obama Laments Distraction but not His
Apr 21, 2008 Political
Barack Obama was discussing his contest with Hillary Clinton when he made reference to her claim about throwing the kitchen sink at him. Obama stated that Hillary had thrown the China and soon the buffet would be coming. Obama stated that the things Hillary is discussing are distractions and take them away from discussing the issues that people want to hear about.
I wonder how long it will be before someone takes him to task for making a reference to Hillary’s temper and who will make the connection of woman-China-kitchen (though Hillary opened it up with the sink reference). Maybe that was why Obama mentioned (during the debate) Hillary and her famous “baking cookies” remark years ago. Obama thinks this woman belongs in a kitchen.
Amazingly (or maybe not) Obama is lamenting over the distractions caused by the Clinton campaign but his campaign is just as guilty. His campaign held a conference call to discuss the Bosnia sniper lie and it has taken as many opportunities to go after Hillary and ignore policy as her campaign has. This is just another case of the kettle and pot scenario or as Jake Trapper ponders:
Is Clinton’s Bosnia-sniper-fire story not a “distraction,” while Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Bitter-gate, and the flag pin are “distractions”?
In the article about this Obama stated he was from Chicago so he knows politics is rough business and he assures us he can handle it. Ignoring the stuttering and stammering he did in the last debate, when he was handling it, Obama has given us more insight. He is from Chicago and that place has a history of having the dirtiest and unethical politics around. There is little that goes on there that is legal and the Democrats there continue in the tradition of past criminal politicians. Obama learned politics in Chicago so it is not hard to imagine he knows how to skirt the law with the best of them. Think Rezko.
Obama is just as guilty as Clinton with regard to distractions. They have both engaged in the politics of personal destruction and have shied away from the issues. People claim Obama discusses issues but he only talks of hope and change with little substance or information as to how he will change things. He hopes you will not notice and many have not.
The Democrats are tearing each other apart. She and her veiled shots at his race and he at her sex. Their supporters are mean and nasty and the slightest criticism of either brings out the rabid supporters and their attacks.
John McCain is the one who benefits from the dysfunctional Democratic Party and he must be loving it. As an aside, Jack Murtha (American traitor) recently stated that John McCain was too old to be president (did know there was an upper age limit in the Constitution) and there was little criticism of his remarks by the Democratic establishment.
I wonder how nutty the Democrats would become (nuttier?) if a prominent Republican claimed Obama was too young to be president?
Just a thought for this Monday morning…
Source:
ABC
Others with interesting posts:
Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Random Yak, 123beta, Maggie’s Notebook, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Chuck’s Place, D equals S, Nuke Gingrich, Wake Up America, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, DragonLady’s World, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, , Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Obama had it All Wrong
Apr 15, 2008 Political
Last week Barack Obama made a statement that has ended up being the most damaging of his campaign, at least up until this point. The young Senator indicated that people in small towns (the unstated message: mostly white people) turn to guns and religion and against immigrants because they are bitter about their economic situations. As an aside, most people are against ILLEGAL immigration and have no problem with those who come here legally.
I have been listening to the talk shows and reading stories about the Obama gaff and I am amazed at the number of people who say that Obama was right in what he said but he chose his words poorly. I do not believe this to be the case and I refuse to accept the apologists point of view that Obama meant people were angry because of their economic situation. I don’t see any possible way to arrive at that conclusion from the statement he made. What does turning to guns actually mean (does he mean violence) and why indicate that the small town folks only turn to religion in bad times?
The fact is, poorly chosen words or not, Obama did not say people were angry no matter how this is spun. There is no need to bring guns or religion into this to indicate anger. I could see the argument about ILLEGALS (though Obama chose to say immigrants) because many people are bitter about them coming here and taking jobs. But, many people were upset with them being here long before economic circumstances turned sour. There are a great number of law abiding citizens who resent ILLEGALS being here regardless of the economy as demonstrated by the huge opposition to the amnesty bill Congress tried to ram down our throats.
Many people in small town America own guns and are responsible people. They do not go around shooting people for the hell of it and they do not commit crimes with their guns. Certainly there are some who do but the overwhelming majority are law abiding gun owners. Obama was referring to Pennsylvania when he made his statement. That state has a huge number of hunters and other legal gun owners. The bulk of the gun crimes are in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh where people (many of whom may not legally possess firearms) use illegal weapons to commit crimes. Obama chose to ignore this group of people who happen to be the ones that turn to guns in good times and bad and instead insulted a group of people who are responsible firearms owners.
Obama also decided that he would knock religion as some crutch that people only turn to when they are on the skids. In the Obama world people turn into gun toting zealots when times are bad. Otherwise they would be non gun owning part time worshipers who were happy to have a good life while helping ILLEGALS cross the border. It does not occur to this elitist (I know he grew up poor) that many people hold their religious convictions in high regard regardless of their economic circumstances. It never occurred to him that many believers have faith that through good times and bad God will not saddle people with more than they can handle. Obama fails to understand that there are people who worship as a matter of devotion rather than a matter of convenience. It is not hard to see why when one considers that Obama joined the most popular black church in Chicago to increase his standing in the black community. Since his pastor always preached hatred and doom and gloom it is not hard to see why Obama believes that people only attend church when things are not going well. Twenty years of clinging to hatred obscured any message of hope that one expects from religion.
The Obama apologists and the candidate himself would have us believe that he misspoke about his true meaning. They want us to believe that Obama was saying that people were angry because of their situations when he actually stated that guns, religion and opposition to law breakers are refuges for those who have nothing in life or those who have lost a lot. No matter how one slices it there is no way to get to what they say the meaning was from what he actually said.
Senator Obama, when apologizing, stated that he chose his words poorly and that he should have said it better. He and those who defend him are upset that his words are being “twisted” to fit a political agenda. How dare people politicize the words of a political candidate!
It is amazing that Obama would cry about his poorly chosen words being twisted and used against him. The Senator did not hesitate (nor do any of his followers) to twist the words of John McCain with regard to being in Iraq for 100 years. McCain meant that we could have a presence there (after the war) just as we have had in Korea and Europe for the last 60 years or so. Though this was clearly what John McCain said, it has not stopped Obama and his minions from saying that McCain said we would be at war for 100 years. All the Democrats have twisted those words to indicate we would be at war for 100 years when that is clearly not what was said or what was meant. For those who doubt the meaning:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” CNN
As for Obama’s statements, he said them and he will have to live with the backlash. I believe it shows his disdain for small town America and the predominantly white residents thereof. That he feels this way should come as no surprise to anyone who has heard his pastor speak.
It seems Barack Obama clings to that message of hate.
Tags: hate, Iraq, McCain, Obama, small town
Blame Boeing, not McCain for Loss of Contract
Mar 8, 2008 Political
I wrote earlier about the contract for the military’s refueling tanker and how that contract went to a French company. I did not debate the merits of the contract and instead chose to focus on the outrage expressed over the loss of jobs in America because the contract was not awarded to Boeing. The members of Congress who object to the contract are doing so based upon the loss of jobs and they are still at it only this time they are pointing their fingers at John McCain because he was responsible for nixing the tanker contract with Boeing in the past. The politicians are trying to use the actions of McCain against him in the upcoming presidential election and many union members as well as Boeing employees are joining the bandwagon.
I wrote before and I stick to my point that government contracts should not be awarded based upon the number of jobs they provide and to whom those jobs go. The Pentagon is responsible for ensuring our troops get the best possible equipment regardless of who provides it. The idea that the Pentagon and its contracts are some sort of social welfare is ridiculous. As I stated, I do not debate the merits of the contract because I do not know them. My friend Trip at Webloggin wrote an excellent piece indicating why the contract was a bad one and the potential problems that lie ahead. If members of Congress focused on the points Trip made then I would see their point. The prattle dealing with jobs is not an argument I care to hear because it is irrelevant. Certainly Trip has valid points about the economy but they cannot be the sole reason for the contract. If there are problems with the products and the methods, it is one thing but building the economy or providing jobs is quite another.
Of course, our economy is in a slow down so any chance to cry about jobs is one that Congress jumps at. The same people who are crying about lost jobs are the ones who utter nary a word with regard to all the jobs that ILLEGALS are taking from US citizens. If they close the border and get rid of the ILLEGALS there will be plenty of jobs. I realize the jobs involved are skilled and that Mexicans are taking few, if any, of those. However, John McCain is not the reason those jobs are going to France (but he is responsible for the jobs lost to Mexicans). Boeing is solely responsible for the loss of the contract because the company engaged in illegal activity to get the contract and John McCain caught it and ended it. McCain should be praised for halting corruption.
McCain called such criticism off base.
“In all due respect to the Washington delegation, they vigorously defended the process before – which turned out to be corrupt – which would have cost the taxpayers more than $6 billion and ended up with people in federal prison,” he said. “I’m the one that fought against that … for years and brought down a corrupt contract.”
Keith Ashdown, with the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said Boeing executives who broke the law were to blame for the demise of the tanker contract – not McCain.
“This was theirs from day one,” he said. “This idea that any lawmaker is to blame is a joke.” My Way News
Boeing executives broke the law and that cost them the contract. That is the bottom line and no amount of finger pointing can change that fact. As McCain points out, many of the people criticizing him are the same ones who went along with the original, illegal, contract. He was the one who stopped it. In other words, the members crying about jobs were more than happy to overlook corruption in order for Boeing to gain the contract and keep jobs here in the US. That is business as usual in Congress and I would bet if we looked at other contracts there is plenty of corruption and these very members were aware and condoned it. I thought that at one time there was talk about denying any company involved in illegal contracting procedures the right to bid on contracts for some period of time. If they had something like that in place perhaps Boeing would not have been able to bid on it at all.
I have problems with John McCain but in this instance I side with him. The money for this contract comes from taxpayers and we deserve to have the money that is extorted from us spent wisely. Corrupt contracts and corrupt politicians cause the need for more money and fuels the Democrat’s desire to raise taxes. People should take a good, hard look at the folks who are upset with McCain and decide if they are the kind of people who are best suited to be good stewards of our money. I think not.
Regardless of how this plays out and regardless of how many fingers get pointed, one thing is for sure, creating jobs is not a valid argument for awarding a contract.
Tags: boeing, contract, corruption, economy, jobs, McCain, tanker
Will NYT Hit Piece Help McCain?
Feb 24, 2008 Political
The New York Times put out a hit piece on John McCain that its own ombudsman criticized because it made accusations about a sexual relationship without providing any evidence. As the ombudsman pointed out, there is a pretty good story if all the sex references are removed. This is true and the story deserves attention with regard to the meat of the issue. That is, did John McCain engage in activities that favored a lobbyist? If the NYT had stuck to that part of the story there might have been more focus on it and less on the concept of a hit piece.
In essence, the paper might have helped John McCain. It is no secret that many conservatives are unhappy with McCain and it is also no secret that he was not helped by an NYT endorsement though the realists among us knew that as soon as he was the nominee (or close enough to leave no doubt) that the NYT would turn on him. And turn they did. The Times did exactly what many believed it would and instead of casting more doubt on McCain, the hit piece rallied people around McCain for what was seen as an unfair attack with innuendo and speculation.
The Times is an enemy of conservatives and they showed that they are definitely biased when they went after McCain. Given that there are plenty of speculative stories about Clinton and Obama, one would have to ask why the paper has not gone after them as well. Despite the Clinton’s claims that the media is unfair to them, they have gotten a free ride for decades. Obama is a charismatic young man who has brought the Democrats together and given them “hope” though no one, not even Obama, can describe exactly what his message is other than hope and change. Hope is not proper mission planning and it will not get him very far should he actually win the presidency.
McCain has his faults but one thing he has that the others do not is experience. He has more experience in Congress, he has more experience as a legislator and he has more experience with regard to the military which means he has more experience to be the Commander in Chief. I am not overly happy with all of his positions but I agree with more of his than the other two. They will be a disaster for this country while McCain is more likely to do an adequate job. One thing is certain, he will be better for our national security than either of the Democrats.
The paper’s hit piece might be a gift to McCain in that it will rally people around him who otherwise might have sat out the general election. I am sure that was not their intention when they published the piece but it is certainly having the effect of helping rather than hindering him.
Time will tell if he benefited from the piece and it is still a long way until November. Any of the candidates can slip up between now and then. Obama seems to be the cleanest of the crew because he does not have as long a paper trail but if he wins the nomination people will be digging in the weeds to find the dirt he has left behind.
It would be poetic justice if McCain beat him and the determining factor was the Times hit piece. If McCain wins the presidency one gets the impression that on a Wednesday in November a lot of people at the Times will be jumping from the upper floors of the building.
On the way down they will be screaming; “we have seen the enemy and it is us.”
Others with interesting posts:
The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, A Blog For All, WayWard Fundamentalist Christian, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Chuck’s Place, Nuke Gingrich, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Wolf Pangloss, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.