Thursday, March 17, 2005
I'm accustomed to the dual standard that the media shows the two parties. They insist that the Democrats must to propose an alternative to W.'s "Kill Social Security Plan"-- when they never required the wingnuts to do so-- in order to be taken seriously. They repeat wingnut bullshit about Social Security teetering on the brink of collapse-- but when someone prepares a detailed rebuttal, they call it a claim that can't be verified, because it would be too hard to check the math.
There's the false equivalence. W. can lie like a fucking rug, but that's excusable because Democrats sometimes oversimplify complex issues. It's OK for Tom Delay to turn Congress into the Politburo and purge anyone who didn't vote to acquit him. But it's the scandal of the century when someone suggests that Holy Joe Lieberman has no party loyalty-- or if Bob Casey doesn't get a prime time spot to make an in-kind contribution to the Republic Party.
And, of course, Lady Marmalade-- a tax-dodging gay hooker-- is a fully qualified journalist who deserves a lifetime pass to the West Wing and the full support of everyone in his chosen profession. But someone with an advanced professional degree--who uses the Internet to share his professional judgment--is some kind of dangerous crank whose ideas can't be trusted.
Irritating, to be sure. But this story just galls me beyond belief, because of what it doesn't say. It's quite true that Constantliar Rice has absolutely no chance to be elected in 2008-- but it has absolutely nothing with her position on abortion.
It's as simple as this: Wingnuts will never, ever elect either a "colored" or a "broad". They're rascists and they're miscogynists. They display confederate flags--which aren't any damned different than swastikas. They belong to religions which state flatly that women are inferior to men and that whites are superior to all other races.
I will not entertain dissenting opinions on this subject, for the same reason I don't debate the existence of Easter Bunny. It is unlikely, I submit, that a state that has never elected a black or a woman to the U.S. Senate will put someone who is both in the White House. And most states haven't done either.
There have been exactly five black Senators in the history of the United States. Three belonged to the Republic Party. Hiram Revels and Blanche K. Bruce got to represent Mississippi shortly after the Civil War ended-- when state legislators elected U.S. Senators and Carpetbaggers controlled the legislature. Black senator #3 was Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, who was a peer of Ted Kennedy's. Does this suggest that the wingnuts are ready to give the keys to the country to a minority?
(The last two are Barack Obama and Carol Mosely Braun--both from Illinois. You knew that, right?)
Only 33 U.S. Senators have had vaginas. 20 of them have been Democrats. Of the 13 Republic women, three have hailed from Maine, two from South Dakota, two from Nebraska, two from Kansas and one from Alaska. Not exactly the bible belt.
Of the three who hailed from wingnut country, Paula Hawkins of Florida was a one-term senator. She won 52-48 in the Reagan landslide of 1980 and lost 55-45 in 1986. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas got into office by winning a special election to replace Lloyd Bentsen. She won the primary with a whopping 29% in a primary with 24 candidates. She has been re-elected, but she wouldn't have been there if two guys hadn't split the wingnut male vote 50-50.
Then there's Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina. She was running to replace Jesse Helms, who'd won 53-46 the last time he ran. Helms worked for her. Her exceptionally well-known husband Bob actively campaigned for her. Her opponent was Erskine Bowles, who was Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff. Her campaign outraised and outspent Bowles--even though he contributed $6.8 million to his kitty and she kicked in only $30,000.
Given all those advantages, she won 54-46.
I am just sick up and fed listening to horseshit about how Democratic interest groups use litmus tests to hold moderate candidates hostage. To have to endure speculation that a black women might have trouble getting support because she is perceived as being pro-choice. It's slightly more credible than suggesting that she can't win because she's snaggletoothed, and southern voters place a high value on proper dental care.
I think Mudflap is correct, when he says that he "don't know how many northern Democrats who have tolerance for my kind." The reason we don't is that we don't know many Southerners who have tolerance for anyone but their kind.