Thursday digest
- The above cartoon makes an excellent point. The mainstream media has been slobbering all over Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) as of late, partly to make it look like the contest for the '08 Dem nomination will be anything but a coronation for Hillary. However, they've totally ignored the very capable African-Americans who are running for the Republicans this time around. Is that because according to conventional liberal wisdom, if you're black and a right-winger, you really aren't being true to your race (kinda like how, because she was a conservative, feminists always scoff at the suggestion that Margaret Thatcher was a trailblazer for women in politics)?
- I have to admit I'm a little bit out of my depth on the issue of this income trust fiasco, but what I do know is that if this is true, it's just another sign that those who hoped for any red meat to go along with the Conservative victory in January should be disappointed. According to the article I've linked to, a paltry 1% cut in the GST in four year's time was at risk if income trusts weren't taxed, and this during a time of record surpluses? Puh-leeze. How about showing some balls and shrinking the size of government instead of giving us Liberal-lite public policy sauteed in flip-flop sauce? Sure, you can argue that income-splitting is a sop to the tax-cuts crowd, but I'll be looking for some strong signals in this month's economic update as to why rock-ribbed fiscal conservatives like me shouldn't start considering spoiling their ballot next time, especially given that the Liberals are about to pick either a socialist retread or a John Kerry twin for leader. (Not like there's any real danger there, at least not for the next election.) A few more insights here, here and here.
- Speaking of Kerry, more on the absolutely unforgivable NYT coverage of his pathetic attempt at humour, here, while VDH just dissects him.
- Robert Kagan argues that those expecting a less muscular foreign policy if the Dems do well on Tuesday shouldn't get their hopes up, which one of my favourite pundits on Iraq, Ralph Peters, is about to throw in the towel.
Yikes.
- On the jihadist front, the French government has stripped numerous airport workers of their security clearances following an investigation which found that they have links to al-Qaeda, and predictably, their union is crying discrimination. Meanwhile, in Canada, we have the Council on American-Islamic Relations protesting against Maclean's for publishing an excerpt from a book that you can't find on the shelf of any major Canadian retailer because it - gasp! - discusses shifting global demographics and what this might mean for those who are concerned with the rise of militant Islam.
No doubt the Dixie Chicks and their fans are gathering as we speak to protest this attempt at muzzling free speech.
- Bob Barker is packing it in. Be sure to save some Kleenex for your tears, fellas - like Bob himself would say, "don't spend it all in one place, now".
posted by Road Hammer @ 5:42 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
The obsession with Obama is interesting. What the MSM fails to realize is that a black northern state democrat will never win the White House because he would not be accepted in the south.
The southern bible belt states are very similar to Quebec in that they are a minority of the population but tends to vote as a block and therefor holds a lot of influence and needs to be catered to. It's not a coincidence that the Dems haven't had a Northern President since JFK.
No Democrat, period, will win the South in the foreseeable future.
Southerners are not as much a minority as people may think as the South (and West) are starting to see disproportionate increases in population growth. Another factor is that conservative-minded people tend to have more kids. Some pundits argue that the lib-left is aborting itself out of any potential majority status in the future.
Your comment suggests that the only reason Obama is getting play is because he is black.
Maybe he is getting slobbered all over due to his ideas, age and charisma, and not because of his skin colour. And maybe those other candidates don't warrant the same kind of attention.
Should they get equal air time because they happen to have the same skin colour as the "it" candidate from the other party?
He's getting more and better publicity not just because he's black but because he's black and a Dem.
If he was black and a Repub he'd be a nobody in the eyes of the MSM.
BTW, I haven't heard a single idea out of the guy.
The black GOP candidates running for Congress right now are all very capable, qualified and are running strong campaigns, but you'd never know it. In comparing their lack of coverage to that which Obama is receiving, I find the difference quite striking.
Or is Obama is getting more play due to the weakness of the Dem. field? I think people find him refreshing since there has been such an abysmal group of hopefuls in the Dem. camp, and this guy has some panache.
Did the media give J. Jackson a huge boost when he ran? I don't recall that, but I can't say for sure.
I don't understand conservatives like you. This government is the best you are EVER going to get when it comes to acting like a conservative government -- ever! If they lose the next election, the media (and conventional wisdom) will say it was too right wing and there was the backlash. Do they care that you spoiled your vote? No, they will assume you are a part of the left.
If conservatives like you jump ship, the movement will be hurt beyond repair as the Liberal government will make things WORSE.
You have to admit that they could be doing a lot better on fiscal matters, Jim.
I think it's pretty naive to say that Obama would be getting the same attention if he were not part African American. By far the biggest loser in the rise of Obama is Harold Ford Jr. who was once the rising star among African American Dems. Am I not correct, however, in my understanding that he grew up in a white world, in Hawaii of all places, and has no clue as to the plight of most African Americans? Just a question, not a claim.
There was an article in the NY Daily News yesterday claiming that Obama is not a "real" African American.
I don't understand why it should matter - we're all individuals, first and foremost - but it does.
If race shouldn't matter, why do you post a cartoon that is based on race and they say it's on the mark?
You make race an issue when you say that black Reps. are getting a fair shake.
And Oscar, if being African-American is such a benefit for politicians, why has a black or a visible minority never been close to getting elected to the White House? And why is there such an underrepresentation of African Americans and other minorities in U.S. politics?
Hell, it was seen as a huge breakthrough for America when Lieberman, a Jew, was on the ticket for the vice-presidency, even though he lost. So how can you saw being a minority is a benefit?
I don't think he's saying that being African American helps one gain office, but it is probably a pretty good way to end up on the cover of Time Magazine and as the toast of the town among Northeastern liberals.
...not to mention all those who do anything Oprah tells them to.
I would like to castrate "The Linc".
ROTFL... that's awesome
By the way anonymous, I'm blacker than night... does that get your liberal candy-ass all in knots?
Greenchief, don't hate the player, hate the game.
Post a Comment
<< Home