PDA

View Full Version : Diversity for Diversity’s Sake



stephanie
01-30-2007, 03:30 AM
:thumb:

by L. Brent Bozell III
January 24, 2007




The “historic” Democratic presidential primaries of 2008 are kicking in already, and the online announcements of Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have spun the media into a frothy sweet Frappucino of giddiness.


Take ABC, whose Claire Shipman described the emerging Democratic race this way: “Call it Obama wave collides with Clinton juggernaut,” a contest between Obama’s “fluid poetry” and Hillary’s “hot factor” from her “ever-popular” husband. If this piece was in print instead of on television, it would have fallen off the page with all the exclamation points. High-school dance squads have less enthusiasm; high school term papers have less hyperbole.


Let’s face it: nobody in the media really waited for the kickoffs to begin in January. News magazines were swooning over Obama and Hillary on their covers last year, advertising their “audacity of hope” for a complete liberal takeover of Washington. Their ardor is never-ending.


The campaigns have just begun, and already, I’ve had just enough of this pandering. Is being black or being female a qualification, something that makes you a superior president? Or is the election of 2008 going to operate on theme of America being dared to prove it’s “ready” to endorse diversity for diversity’s sake? The media are already knocking on that thematic door: Is America still too racist or sexist to pick either a black ultraliberal or a female ultraliberal?


Whatever happened to the notion of merit? Or the value of experience? What about ideology? These factors have so far been undervalued in the hype factory.


Badly hidden in all the media’s excitement is the belief that America’s supposedly still-oppressed and powerless minorities just naturally do things better, or at the very least, should be allowed to man the helm (woman the helm?) because it’s their turn. Last week, ABC’s “Good Morning America” hosted all 16 female Senators, and Diane Sawyer asked if the world had more women presidents, would the world see less war? The women politicians agreed that they are superior to men in their talent for being collegial and collaborative.


Hillary stepped out and announced women had more “openness to process” and working together. This clashed dramatically with Hillary’s interviews on the other networks, where she explicitly advocated cutting off funding for the security details for Prime Minister Maliki and other Iraqi leaders until they cry uncle to American demands. How is that collaboration and collegiality?


Can you imagine someone proposing the Clintons have their Secret Service details axed until they cried uncle in a negotiation? And how quickly would our media treat them as assassin-baiters (not to mention Clinton haters) of the first rank?


Obama’s exotic upbringing has been pitched repeatedly as an enormous advantage by the candidate and his media backers. It’s all biography, no ideology. Being born in Hawaii and growing up for a while in Indonesia supposedly have made him a better, more empathetic global citizen. He tells reporters he was “greatly influenced by a years-long childhood sojourn in Asia.” He even claims his Indonesian upbringing made him especially to sensitive to preventing the alleged threat of a bird flu epidemic.


What about the issues – the real issues like, say this world war against Islamofascism? The one element that’s emerged in the Democratic primary goo is the war in Iraq, and how Obama is allegedly superior to Mrs. Clinton since he opposed the war from the beginning (when he was dreaming of fighting bird-flu epidemics in the Illinois state legislature.) But this distorts Hillary’s positioning, as if she were as hawkish as Joe Lieberman.


The “Saturday Night Live” satire of a Chris Matthews interview with Hillary captured it perfectly, when the Hillary impersonator stated that most Democrats “understand that my support for the war was always insincere,” and if she knew then what she knows now, “I would have never pretended to support it.”


So far, this whole Democratic field looks like a motley collection of ultraliberals. Even supposed Southern conservative John Edwards sounds like Dennis Kucinich with a twang. But the media don’t see any need for ideological diversity in the Donkey Party.


The last time the GOP race was open in 1999, the media were pressing the Republican Party to move left. In March, the networks were publicizing pro-abortion group ads pressing Elizabeth Dole to stop being so “anti-choice.” By May, they were touting Mrs. Dole for boldly taking on the gun-rights lobby.


When and where will the political reporters go looking for pro-life, pro-war, pro-gun Democratic presidential contenders? Forget it. They have zero interest in that kind of diversity among Democrats.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2007/col20070124.asp

Bozell hit the nail on the head with this article.....The SWOONING by the (not liberal biased media), is starting to make me GAG...;)

Hugh Lincoln
02-01-2007, 09:03 AM
Last week, ABC’s “Good Morning America” hosted all 16 female Senators, and Diane Sawyer asked if the world had more women presidents, would the world see less war? The women politicians agreed that they are superior to men in their talent for being collegial and collaborative.


Uh huh. First, have you ever seen two female lawyers go at each other? Second, I don't think women are morally superior to men. I just think they express their evil differently. Males are more physical. Women are more psychological. Think of the unparalleled cruelty of a group of "popular" girls toward the unpopular girl in school. This probably adds up to more damage and hurt than getting punched in the face by the bully boy.

jillian
02-01-2007, 09:19 AM
Uh huh. First, have you ever seen two female lawyers go at each other? Second, I don't think women are morally superior to men. I just think they express their evil differently. Males are more physical. Women are more psychological. Think of the unparalleled cruelty of a group of "popular" girls toward the unpopular girl in school. This probably adds up to more damage and hurt than getting punched in the face by the bully boy.

Congratulations. You have said something I actually agree with totally. I always found I worked better with male adversaries for the simple reason that *most* of the men were able to battle tooth and nail in the courtroom and then go have a drink and talk about the case. I think that comes from men having more experience with competative sports, where you fight your heart out and then go out for a beer. Personally, I thought it was a good skill to have, so I tended to adopt it in how I handled myself. Most, if not all, of the other women against whom I litigated tended to be the most difficult... in and out of court because there was no moment of collegiality to discuss things and possibly arrive at a resolution.

That doesn't mean there were no men I dealt with who weren't slime buckets or women I dealt with who weren't terrific to deal with outside the courtroom. Just stating a general rule.

Hobbit
02-01-2007, 12:50 PM
Congratulations. You have said something I actually agree with totally. I always found I worked better with male adversaries for the simple reason that *most* of the men were able to battle tooth and nail in the courtroom and then go have a drink and talk about the case. I think that comes from men having more experience with competative sports, where you fight your heart out and then go out for a beer. Personally, I thought it was a good skill to have, so I tended to adopt it in how I handled myself. Most, if not all, of the other women against whom I litigated tended to be the most difficult... in and out of court because there was no moment of collegiality to discuss things and possibly arrive at a resolution.

That doesn't mean there were no men I dealt with who weren't slime buckets or women I dealt with who weren't terrific to deal with outside the courtroom. Just stating a general rule.

I'm glad somebody else noticed this. As a guy, I drop grudges on a whim. People say guys suppress their emotions while girls express them, but it's just that they each express and suppress different emotions. While girls openly express sadness and affection, guys openly express anger and exhuberance (unbridled celebrating). When it comes to conflicts, guys will yell, scream, hit, or try their best to take it out on something else so they don't do that while girls hide their anger and go all passive aggressive. Too many people have argued for too long on which gender is superior, which is fine in elementary school, but we're adults, and what we need to learn is that the genders are different.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a politician before anything else, and will wear a 3-piece suit and develop a beer belch if she thinks it will get her more votes.

As for Barack Obama, he's a skilled orator, and little else. In fact, he's sort of an inverse Bush in that he has no real platform or original thought, but he expresses it so well that you don't realize it.

5stringJeff
02-01-2007, 12:57 PM
I'm glad somebody else noticed this. As a guy, I drop grudges on a whim. People say guys suppress their emotions while girls express them, but it's just that they each express and suppress different emotions. While girls openly express sadness and affection, guys openly express anger and exhuberance (unbridled celebrating). When it comes to conflicts, guys will yell, scream, hit, or try their best to take it out on something else so they don't do that while girls hide their anger and go all passive aggressive. Too many people have argued for too long on which gender is superior, which is fine in elementary school, but we're adults, and what we need to learn is that the genders are different.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a politician before anything else, and will wear a 3-piece suit and develop a beer belch if she thinks it will get her more votes.

As for Barack Obama, he's a skilled orator, and little else. In fact, he's sort of an inverse Bush in that he has no real platform or original thought, but he expresses it so well that you don't realize it.

Welcome aboard Hobbit! :D

darin
02-01-2007, 12:57 PM
As for Barack Obama, he's a skilled orator, and little else. In fact, he's sort of an inverse Bush in that he has no real platform or original thought, but he expresses it so well that you don't realize it.


We elected somebody like that from Little Rock awhile ago. ;)

Hobbit
02-01-2007, 01:45 PM
We elected somebody like that from Little Rock awhile ago. ;)

Actually, he's from Hope.

Hagbard Celine
02-01-2007, 02:17 PM
We elected somebody like that from Little Rock awhile ago. ;)

It's almost as if EVERY president is nothing more than a talking head! I'm starting to see the big picture! Wait, wait, no, that's just an acid flashback.

I can't let you dis' my boy Willie. At least he was an accomplished scholar and an attorney before he got into politics. The same can't be said for W who had and has nothing more to offer than his father's name.

Besides, I'd rather have a president who has a wide-ranging vocabulary and the ability to verbalize his/her thoughts clearly than a stuttering buffoon who doesn't even know what to call the state of the union address while he's giving it.

I don't think Obama is presidential material. Any and all fervor stirred-up about an Obama presidency has been concocted solely by the press. He's a junior senator for God's sake! Not to mention he wouldn't get a single southern state because he's mixed race. And he's a first generation US citizen and his parents are/were Muslim. Too many strikes against this dude. He's not a strong candidate.

JimmyAteWorld
02-02-2007, 02:32 PM
Actually, he's from Hope.

He was born in Hope, Arkansas, but grew up in Little Rock.

"The Man from Little Rock" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

jillian
02-02-2007, 02:35 PM
He was born in Hope, Arkansas, but grew up in Little Rock.

"The Man from Little Rock" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

As opposed to pretending you're a good ole boy from Midland, Texas, when you're from Connecticut, 10th generation wealth and went to Exeter Academy?

JimmyAteWorld
02-02-2007, 02:36 PM
It's almost as if EVERY president is nothing more than a talking head! I'm starting to see the big picture! Wait, wait, no, that's just an acid flashback.

I can't let you dis' my boy Willie. At least he was an accomplished scholar and an attorney before he got into politics. The same can't be said for W who had and has nothing more to offer than his father's name.

Besides, I'd rather have a president who has a wide-ranging vocabulary and the ability to verbalize his/her thoughts clearly than a stuttering buffoon who doesn't even know what to call the state of the union address while he's giving it.

I don't think Obama is presidential material. Any and all fervor stirred-up about an Obama presidency has been concocted solely by the press. He's a junior senator for God's sake! Not to mention he wouldn't get a single southern state because he's mixed race. And he's a first generation US citizen and his parents are/were Muslim. Too many strikes against this dude. He's not a strong candidate.

Clinton was little more than a glorified used car salesman with paper on the wall. The only thing he's accomplished is avoiding responsibility and convincing people he's done grand things.

Agree with you on Obama though. He's a pop star, and likely a one hit wonder.

JimmyAteWorld
02-02-2007, 02:39 PM
As opposed to pretending you're a good ole boy from Midland, Texas, when you're from Connecticut, 10th generation wealth and went to Exeter Academy?

Pfft.

Again... He was born in Connecticut, but grew up in Texas. He was a baby when they moved. And I didn't say anything about pretending anything.

jillian
02-02-2007, 02:44 PM
Pfft.

Again... He was born in Connecticut, but grew up in Texas. He was a baby when they moved. And I didn't say anything about pretending anything.

And he's still 10th generation wealth and went to Exeter, not a good old boy from Midland. The implication you made that Hope, AK, was somehow disingenuous was what my comment was directed at. Had he NOT done that, he'd have been characterized by you guys as an "elitist" who was a Rhodes Scholar and went to Yale (the Rhodes Scholarship and Yale being things he earned despite being born in Hope, AK to modest means, and not because he was a legacy).

Just saying....

JimmyAteWorld
02-02-2007, 02:49 PM
And he's still 10th generation wealth and went to Exeter, not a good old boy from Midland. The implication you made that Hope, AK, was somehow disingenuous was what my comment was directed at. Had he NOT done that, he'd have been characterized by you guys as an "elitist" who was a Rhodes Scholar and went to Yale (the Rhodes Scholarship and Yale being things he earned despite being born in Hope, AK to modest means, and not because he was a legacy).

Just saying....

First off, I don't imply. If that's what I wanted to say, I'd say it.

In the 1992 campaign, they pushed the whole "The Man from Hope" thing, though he grew up in Little Rock. "The Man from Little Rock" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. It's a joke. Use a fucking brain cell.

jillian
02-02-2007, 02:51 PM
First off, I don't imply. If that's what I wanted to say, I'd say it.

In the 1992 campaign, they pushed the whole "The Man from Hope" thing, though he grew up in Little Rock. "The Man from Little Rock" doesn't have quite the same ring to it. It's a joke. Use a fucking brain cell.

And you're reason for pointing out that "the man from Little Rock" doesn't have the same ring? Because of your deep and abiding respect? Or to take a potshot? I figure a pot shot deserved an accurate response. Sorry if that makes you cranky. I'll refrain from insulting your intelligence, though. :)

JimmyAteWorld
02-02-2007, 03:17 PM
And you're reason for pointing out that "the man from Little Rock" doesn't have the same ring? Because of your deep and abiding respect? Or to take a potshot? I figure a pot shot deserved an accurate response. Sorry if that makes you cranky. I'll refrain from insulting your intelligence, though. :)

What part of "it was a joke" did you not understand?

If we're going to get into accurate responses, why did you feel the need to make a mountain out of a molehill by responding to it to begin with? Did you not understand what I was saying? Did you leap at the opprotunity to spread more of your Liberal bullshit? Talk about cranky. All one needs to do is scroll up.

Have a nice day.

jillian
02-02-2007, 03:20 PM
What part of "it was a joke" did you not understand?

If we're going to get into accurate responses, why did you feel the need to make a mountain out of a molehill by responding to it to begin with? Did you not understand what I was saying? Did you leap at the opprotunity to spread more of your Liberal bullshit? Talk about cranky. All one needs to do is scroll up.

Have a nice day.

I know it was a joke -- a potshot aimed at Clinton. They get boring after a while. You just gave me a good opening.

The "liberal bullshit" stuff? You're just annoyed I responded to the right-wing bullshit stuff. So sorry if you don't like that.

And I wasn't cranky at all, but seems you are.

Relax a bit. Have a beer. Listen to some tunes.

Cheers. :beer:

JimmyAteWorld
02-03-2007, 06:54 PM
I know it was a joke -- a potshot aimed at Clinton. They get boring after a while. You just gave me a good opening.

The "liberal bullshit" stuff? You're just annoyed I responded to the right-wing bullshit stuff. So sorry if you don't like that.

And I wasn't cranky at all, but seems you are.

Relax a bit. Have a beer. Listen to some tunes.

Cheers. :beer:

The problem here is mine was based on fact, and it wasn't hateful. I'm not knocking Clinton for pushing the whole "The Man from Hope" thing. Anybody running for office that was fortunate enough to be born in a town with that name would. If there was a "potshot" taken, it was at Little Rock itself, and it's true.

"The Man from Hope"
"The Man from Little Rock"

Does it have the same ring? I didn't think so.