Argh!
I've seen this headline, or similar, far too many times in the past few months: Will U.S. voters elect a woman as president?
The other version asks if we're ready to elect a black president. Now, these questions play a small role in the question of whether or not Hillary or Barack will be elected president, but the headlines imply that this is THE question.
It is not. I am ready and willing to vote for a black person, or a woman, for president, provided they are the right person for the job. In a million years I wouldn't vote for Hillary or Barack, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with their gender or race. As an example, I'd vote for Condoleeza Rice, both a woman and a black person, over every one of the current Democratic candidates for president 2008, and over the majority of the current Republican candidates as well.
So, dear MSM, please stop asking stupid questions. Hillary is unelectable, but it's not because she's a woman. It's because she's a twit.
The other version asks if we're ready to elect a black president. Now, these questions play a small role in the question of whether or not Hillary or Barack will be elected president, but the headlines imply that this is THE question.
It is not. I am ready and willing to vote for a black person, or a woman, for president, provided they are the right person for the job. In a million years I wouldn't vote for Hillary or Barack, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with their gender or race. As an example, I'd vote for Condoleeza Rice, both a woman and a black person, over every one of the current Democratic candidates for president 2008, and over the majority of the current Republican candidates as well.
So, dear MSM, please stop asking stupid questions. Hillary is unelectable, but it's not because she's a woman. It's because she's a twit.
3 Comments:
Ah, but I bet there are a few people out there with GWA (Guilty White American) syndrome that can be browbeat into voting for a Hillary or Barack by being accused of sexism or racism if they don't.
Also, this is setting the tone for the after-election narrative: The American people didn't reject the liberal agenda, we sexist racist horrible people rejected the woman and the black guy. We should be ashamed.
They're trying to float the religious bigot card also. Is it Rommy who's Morman?
Can't just not elect someone because they're totally inadequate. Must be an "ism" or "ist" behind it.
Take Edwards (please)...the other day he said he doesn't know what kind of health care they get in Cuba!!! Where has he been for the last forty years?
I'm very much afraid that a majority of Americans accept the liberal agenda. Take my sister-in-law, please. The other day, she was complaining about the high cost of medical care, and saying that the government needed to do something aobut it. I tried to explain that the cost of medical care is outrageous because the government does something about it, but I'm not sure it got through.
In case this is read by someone who is either liberal and/or stupid (one usually implies the other), I'll explain. Under programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, the federal government pays for some people's health care. However, under our system of half-assed socialism, the government makes little effort to control costs and pretty much pays the health care providers whatever they want. Because the federal government will not pay a discriminatory rate, the health care providers can't gouge Uncle Sugar without gouging the rest of us. So we all pay more for medical care than we would in a free market, and pay taxes for the privilege.
In any case, I know college graduates who think that the solution to most problems is more government intervention. I'm not optimistic that common sense will prevail before our socialist government collapses as those of Eastern Europe did. Frankly, I'm amazed that our government, which makes little effort to control the costs of its giveaway programs, didn't collapse first.
Post a Comment
Testing ...
<< Home