Now that whiter-than-Wonder-bread Iowa has punched Barack Obama a first-class ticket to New Hampshire, can the mainstream media, particularly the New York Times, shut up about whether America is ready for a black president? That's what Michelle Malkin rhetorically asked on her blog before giving readers the answer.
Sure they will. Instead, they'll whine about how white Iowa is hardly reflective of the nation as a large. Gotta give Hillary a fightin' chance, I guess:
Well, it looks like the answer is no. No, the MSM won’t stop yammering about un-diverse white voters. Here’s the NYTimes editorial this morning, right on cue as I predicted, clamoring for an end to the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary by zeroing in on its lack of, you guessed it, racial diversity:
We don’t question the enthusiasm or the commitment of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire. But Iowa, where a huge turnout amounts to less than 10 percent of the population, is about 92 percent white, more rural and older than the rest of the nation. New Hampshire has a non-Hispanic white population of about 95 percent…
Yes, white, rural, elderly voters turned out in droves for black candidate Obama and rejected white, union-backed hacks Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
This must be stopped!
The Times editorial concludes:
…None of this has led us to a choice in the nominating contests, never mind for the presidency. The majority of Americans are in the same position. That’s why they should be allowed to see and hear more of these candidates, and not have to settle for the judgments of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Oh, we’ve seen and heard plenty. And who’s being forced to “settle for the judgments of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire?” Voters in the rest of the nation’s caucuses and primaries will get their chance. Someone has to go first. The Times proposes a regional system “in which states are divided into regional groups that vote on a designated day. The honor of going first would rotate year to year among the regions.” But even if the Times editorial board got its way, I guarantee you the paper would still complain that the designated first-in-the-nation regional group to vote had an unfair electoral advantage that tainted other regional voters’ decisions.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Primaries
January 4, 2008 - 18:10 ET by KC MulvilleWatch the assumptions here. Think of how much we take for granted in this complaint.
You must remember that this is a function of the political parties, not the law or constitution. An independent third party can have a series of state primaries, and they can select the order of states any way they want. It just so happens that the Democrat and Republican parties have found it more practical to hold it in this order. To prevent voter fraud, the various state election commissions find it useful to go along with that process, but it's only out of convenience, not a matter of law.
What I find interesting is how much we take parties for granted in the first place. (By the way, the Founders didn't.) That assumption is so deeply ingrained in our common consciousness that we have forgotten that it wasn't ordained from on high. It's strictly an arbitrary convenience for the two "gangs" that have organized to acquire political power.
I'm not saying that's such a bad thing. It's just intellectually fun to see, once again, how much our common life is stitched together with purely arbitrary assumptions. Most of these are self-serving assumptions of the people currently in power, but that's going to happen in any system anyway.
So let's see....if HRC
January 4, 2008 - 18:40 ET by motherbeltSo let's see....if HRC loses, the country is sexist; if Obama loses, America is racist.
If Romney or Huckabee lose, I doubt they will paint the country as anti-Mormon or anti-Christian. More likely they will find a reason to blame the candidate.
This is what the msm does,
January 4, 2008 - 18:59 ET by msh1973This is what the msm does, stir up trouble. If there isn't a story, make one up.
All the media outlets have become tabloid in their reporting. The msm has to make us out to be racists to keep that lie going
I dare say that George Bush has appointed more minorities to prominent positions than Bill Clinton did when he was President. It is just nonsense and it makes me crazy.
We all know the biggest
January 4, 2008 - 19:04 ET by BlazerWe all know the biggest racist's, misogynist's, and hatemonger's reside on the left. My brother an Edward's supporter and My mother a Clinton supporter are two die-hard liberal's. My mother blames Hillay's lack of support in Iowa on misogyny and then goes on to say if Hillary doesn't get the nod she hopes Edward's does.
When I ask her and my brother why edward's and not Obama it's alway's "just because", with a look on thier faces that they just ate something bad..
I've known both of them my whole life and I know the reason really why. They dont' believe "they" should get the key's to the plantation.
I'm ashamed to admit all of this, but it's the truth.
But we conservatives are the biggest racist's right ?
Most conservatives I know do not care about the race, ethnicity, or religious makeup of a candidate. If Allan Keye's got the nod I would vote for him in a minute. I like alot of what Walter William's say's and wish he would get into politic's.
Unfortunately alot on the left dont' practice what they preach, instead it seem's they like to excercise hypocrisy when they dont' get what they want.
Check this out. This say's it all. A few excerpt's from DKOS:
"Lot's of sour grapes out there today. Some who will pick up their toys and stay home on election night if Edwards is not the nominee, others who vow to fight on in NH and beyond. I can understand how they feel, I feel the same way. But I am jumping ship now and I want my fellow Kossacks to know why."
That's funny I thought only us conservatives stayed home when we didn't get our way, here's more:
"Edwards seemed to me to be playing the angry white man role. Americans have had enough of angry white men for the past seven years."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/4/13302/22351
That folk's right there, say's it all. It just stink's with irony and hypocrisy. The left's favorite tactic when thing's dont' go thier way, is to put a racist, or ant-semite brand on someone, compare them to Hitler or a Klansmen.
Hell they have a living, breathing Klansmen in Congress.
The left believes if racism doesn't exist, manufacture it. "We dont' want "them" to get the idea "they' dont' need us anymore. Let's keep em' victim's and useful idiot's begging at our table of entitlement."
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
"Lot's of sour grapes out
January 4, 2008 - 19:48 ET by motherbelt"Lot's of sour grapes out there today. Some who will pick up their toys
and stay home on election night if Edwards is not the nominee, others
who vow to fight on in NH and beyond. -DKos posting
Poster doesn't even know what "sour grapes" means. It doesn't mean getting mad and quitting, or saying that your opponent cheated, or anything like that. It means declaring the loss wasn't really a loss. The fox who can't reach the grapes says "Ah, I didn't want them anyway, they're probably sour." "Sour grapes" would be Her Royal Clintoness saying, "I'm glad I didn't come in first; Obama's the unlucky one with the high expectations to meet now."
I really get tired of people misusing the metaphor. So thanks, Newbusters, for allowing me this "Mom Moment" to straighten people out. ;-) LOL
MSM hype makes the election cycle what it is
January 4, 2008 - 21:35 ET by nkviking75The extreme importance placed on the Iowa caucuses is a creation of MSM hype. I'm old enough to remember when no one paid much attention to us. All the emphasis was on New Hampshire's primary. Even so, the campaigns didn't live or die on the result of one or two contests. But then, as the legend goes, Jimmy Carter built on a second place finish in the Iowa caucuses in 1976 to become president. Like a snowball rolling downhill, the caucuses got bigger and bigger and bigger.
The media wants drama. They want everything to rest on one roll of the dice. Despite what they might say, they don't want a thoughtful, deliberate process.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.