Actual Joan Walsh Salon Headline: 'What’s The Matter With White People?'
Can you imagine the media outrage if a conservative author published a piece entitled "What's the Matter With Black People?"
On the left, white people have been a problem for a while, due to the depth and persistence of white racism. Today it’s hard to ignore the racial resentment that feeds the hysterical anti-Obama movement – the sickening email about the president’s mother sent by a federal judge is just the latest example. Democratic pollsters and strategists have been wringing their hands over losing the white working class to the GOP since the rise of “Reagan Democrats,” but it’s now remarkable the extent to which the Republican Party has become a white party. Where that was an advantage back in [Pat] Buchanan’s day, though, it’s an eroding base in the 21st century. About 52 percent of white voters call themselves Republicans, according to the Pew Research Center, as opposed to 8 percent of blacks and 22 percent of Latinos.
"On the left, white people have been a problem for a while, due to the depth and persistence of white racism."
Maybe Walsh should check her own racist leanings given her hatred of white people:
Just Wednesday, before he began the filthy rant about Sandra Fluke that ought to get him mothballed, Rush Limbaugh railed that Obama “Casts Aside White, Working-Class Families While Setting Up ‘African-Americans For Obama‘;” in December he claimed “the Obama campaign says to white working class families: We’re not interested in your votes; we don’t care.”
The president’s crafty strategy, Limbaugh insists, is meant not only to disrespect whites but to rev up and turn out his non-white base, which presumably thrills to the notion of reparations and race war. Of course it’s Limbaugh and his hard-core listeners who want a race war; the rest of us, of every race, mainly just want to get along.
The rest of us, of every race, mainly just want to get along. That's why Walsh spends so much time complaining about white people:
Of course, whites will remain dominant economically and politically even after they lose demographic dominance, due to the legacy and endurance of racism.
And then she did what white-hating liberals do best - cherry-pick data:
The biggest difference seems to be whether you define that group by income, or whether you define it in terms of people without a college degree. The Democrats’ current political troubles have more to do with white people who lack a college education than those who lack income. In 2008, Obama lost white voters who didn’t go to college by 18 points, but he lost whites who made less than $50,000 by only four points. No wonder Santorum doesn’t want us to go to college. (Intermarriage rates are also highest among the college educated.)
Walsh omitted a key point from the 2008 exit polls: Obama got 63 percent of high school dropouts to McCain's 35 percent. In fact, McCain's numbers did better and better as voters became more educated with the exception of those with post-graduate degrees.
As such, despite Walsh's claims, a more educated electorate favors Republicans.
This became even more apparent in the 2010 midterm elections when House Democrats received 57 percent of the high school dropout vote while Republicans garnered 52 percent of high school graduates, 53 percent of folks with some college, and 58 percent of college grads.
What was that you were saying about "No wonder Santorum doesn’t want us to go to college," Joan?
The fact is Democrats have known for years the key to their success is an uneducated electorate. This is why they favor teachers' unions in public education that basically guarantee low graduation rates and poorly-performing students.
And why they have folks like Walsh out there misinforming the public so the great unwashed will continue to vote for Democrats against their best interests.
Maybe Walsh's next column should be "What's the Matter With Liberal Journalists?" as this is a far greater problem in our society than white people.