03 November 2007

The Bogus "Gender Card"

Since at least 1980, the Republicans' primary constituency has been white males. To be more specific, it has been middle to lower income white men who have constantly complained and whined about losing power and influence to all those “diversity” groups.

And the Republicans have indeed pandered to these white males like there is no tomorrow--oh, how they have pandered. Think about it; nearly every Republican issue is heavily steeped in gender—guns, war and security, no taxes for social problems (women’s issues), gay marriage, environment/big-SUVs, immigration, and abortion (don’t give those uppity women control over any decisions). All of this extreme political demagoguery has helped the GOP gain electoral ground: in the South (a trend started by the racist Nixon campaign of 1968 and honed by the equally racist Reagan campaign of 1980); as well as inroads with Reagan Democrats—those traditional blue collar male voters that once voted with the liberals.

But, when is the last time you heard the lazy and irresponsible mainstream media in this country charge that the Republicans were playing the "gender card?” They have clearly been punching that infamous ticket for nearly 30 years now. But I never hear anyone make the charge, or even bring it up.

Yet this past week, Hillary Clinton gave a
campaign speech at Wellesley College—her alma mater. She mentioned that her education at an all-women's college prepared her to "compete in the all-boy's club of presidential politics." Wow, really radial stuff! Immediately, the Republicans, the media, and even some Democrats insisted that she was utilizing the “Gender Card.”

Let me get this straight--white males can vote for their gender, Republicans can propose all sorts of so-called “manly” policy issues and insinuations to get that white male vote…..but that has never been labeled as gender pandering (although we all know it is).

What the hell is going on here? I suppose it is simply “accepted” behavior that men can pander to other men, and that men control the political system. But when women seek the votes of other women……holy shit we can’t have that. It’s unnatural of course. That’s different……blah, blah, blah.

This blatant hypocrisy really aggravates me. And as usual, only the liberal bloggers have even mentioned this problem.
Digby (one of the absolute best writers of all the leftist bloggers) said it best:
Indeed, the entire Republican campaign strategy can be said to be one big gender card-- the only people they believe matter in this country are delicate, insecure creatures who are so sensitive that they have to be pampered and pandered to like a bunch of overfed princes who like to play cowboy and don't want to share their favorite binky.

Every presidential candidate, and most other politicians, since 1980, have been bowing and scraping before this constituency. But for some reason, the hunting trips and codpieces and brush clearing and all that metaphorical crotch measuring isn't considered playing "the gender card." It's just considered the normal political pander to an aggrieved minority vote: the poor white males who've been treated terribly by all those powerful women and minorities and gays. What could be wrong with that?

I'm sorry, but this is truly sexist crap. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are out there one upping each other on who will be the most macho sadists among the crowd of warring GOP thugs. Hillary goes to her alma mater and says that her education at the women's college prepared her to do battle with the political boys club and the gasbags' eyes roll back in their heads and they start drooling and whining that she's 'broken the rules'.

All these squirming little fools who talk about how they have to "cross their legs" whenever they hear her voice, or hallucinate that she's "acting like a little girl" or any of a dozen other ridiculous, sexist responses to Clinton are revealing far more about themselves than they are about her. If anyone's playing the gender card it's them--and it's a picture of a quivering little boy crying in the corner because he doesn't want to share his toys with a girl. Tough. Eat some pork rinds and shut the fuck up.
Thanks Digby-- things are indeed changing and the angry white boys need to deal with it.

02 November 2007

A Bush-League History Lesson

Mr. 25% in the polls attempted to give the Democrats a history lesson today. Why does he do this? He has proven time and time again that he knows little or nothing about history. Yes, he knows how to clean and carry brush at the ranch—but he doesn’t know dick about history.

I believe it was several months ago that he tried to analyze Graham Greene’s novel, The Quiet American. He might have seen the movie, but it was clear that he didn’t intellectually grasp the book or the film. You would think that after he made an ass of himself with that earlier historical/literary analogy, maybe he would stick to something he actually understands.

But no……today he decided to again leap into twentieth-century global history with some baffling comparisons between Iraq and past historical crisis.

Bush suggested that the current Iraq dissenters and naysayers reminded him of earlier appeasers, like those who allowed Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin to launch the communist revolution; those who didn't stop Hitler when he moved to establish an ``Aryan superstate'' in Germany; and the liberals individuals in the early days of the Cold War who advocated accommodation of the Soviet Union.

``Now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding, this time regarding my policy in the Middle East,'' Bush said. ``Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be stability.''

Bush said any denial of war is dangerous and added that "History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake." The president added that "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"

Oh my God…..what the fuck is this man talking about? He has dredged up the Nazi-appeasers argument. I thought that one was in mothballs. Using Bush’s logic, Iraq becomes a stand in for every disastrous event that has taken place in the entire course of human history. There were always people like him giving warnings, but liberals others just didn’t listen.

It’s not just Lenin, Hitler, and the Communists that made their "intentions clear"—hell Democrats and liberals have always been on the wrong side haven’t we? Indian attacks, Napoleon, slave rebellions, British troops burning the White House, union anarchists, uppity suffragettes, Castro, dirty naked hippies at Woodstock…….Bush and his ilk always knew the real motivations of these troublemakers and their allies. It’s us soft and pansy-ass liberals who have allowed this crap to flourish.

Let me respond to this moron with a more serious critique. He is absolutely wrong about the Cold War—wrong in so many ways. I cringe to think where we would be if Bush and his minions had been in charge during those critical years. I guess many of us would be small cinders or pieces of chard still smoldering in the nuclear fucking dust.

Even with all the hubris and the mistakes that were made during the Cold War, cooler heads generally prevailed and we averted a major meltdown. Isn’t that what we were aiming for? No, maybe I have it wrong. Maybe we should have let the nukes fly and showed the world what men we were.

Yes, both nations spent too much money and manufactured lots of unnecessary misery around the world……but we did avoid a nuclear catastrophe, we did end up with some stability (not a bad word in my lexicon), and a generation of diplomats steered this nation fairly well considering the circumstances.

As you nod off tonight, think about the following Cold War scenarios:
--Bush instead of JFK as president during the Cuban Missile Crisis (goodbye Cuba!)
--Not Eisenhower, but Bush negotiating with the Soviets during the U2 incident (nukes a flyin’)
--Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz dealing with the Berlin blockade instead of Truman, Marshall, and Acheson (Germany split into at least 15 sections)

Things could have always been worse my friends—Bush and his kind might have been in charge. His comments on the Cold War are an embarrassment. He is an embarrassment.