There is mass outrage in the Democratic Party, we are told, over the fact that Cory Booker and Deval Patrick won’t be on the debate stage in December’s candidate’s debate, and neither will former housing secretary Julián Castro, or Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. True, Andrew Yang has qualified, but Asians don’t count as minorities to progressives, because they are so successful and don’t commit many crimes, heaven knows why. That’s why Harvard can discriminate against them and get away with it. But I digress…
There’s just one reason Yang will be the only non-white candidate on the stage: the other minority candidates couldn’t justify their candidacy, even among the frightening weak competition of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Steyer, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar. Naturally, Democrats being Democrats and primed to blame any result they don’t like on racism, sexism or bias, this obvious example of democracy working the way it’s supposed to is being condemned. Well, I should clarify that: It’s working the way I think it’s supposed to, the way the Founders thought it was supposed to, and pretty much the way everyone thought it was supposed to until progressives came up with the moonbat idea that results were only fair if they distributed benefits in strict accordance with demographic percentages, and were even better if they gave an edge to “historically disadvantaged minorities.”
Thus, even though the process of deciding the winners in the slow motion musical chairs of the Democratic nomination game seems to rely on who the voters think is best qualified, that process is, according to moonbattism, bad, as in racist and unfair, if the process doesn’t yield sufficient numbers of contenders with the right skin shades. The party really thinks like this, or at least significant numbers of the party to render the entire party untrustworthy.
I don’t understand how anyone can responsibly put a party in power that has adopted such an obviously destructive and non-democratic position.
“What message is that sending that we heralded the most diverse field in our history and now we’re seeing people like her dropping out of this campaign?” Senator Booker asked a crowd in Iowa. He darkly suggested that Kamala Harris left the race “not because Iowa voters had the voice. Voters did not determine her destiny,” but because bigotry was afoot.
The message being sent , Senator, was that lousy candidates like Kamala Harris (and you), who bungled every debate and who appear to have no leadership qualities at all, don’t appeal to voters seriously looking for a President rather than a symbol, like Bracak Obama. It is deeply self-serving for Booker to attribute Harris’s failure to racism, since he appeals to even fewer voters than she did, and is also, like her, wearing skin in the darker range.
The New York Times gasps, “The Democratic primary is facing a reckoning. In two weeks, Democrats will gather in Los Angeles for a debate that is likely to feature an entirely white roster. That is not, several candidates and prominent party members say, how the party that emphasizes diversity and fairness should want to represent itself.”
How about the fact that none of the candidates on that stage appear to be competent, trustworthy or responsible? Shouldn’t that be more of a concern than the skin-tones of the various socialists and panderers debating each other?
Not in Democrat Quota Land, I guess. Here’s a howler from the Times that only a thoroughly brain-washed progressive zombie could read without laughing:
“Some blame the rules for qualifying for the debates. The polling requirements give an advantage to candidates who can invest in extensive television advertising to get their name out. Others note, however, that the candidates of color in the 2020 field have not drawn significant support from black and Latino voters.”
Come to think of it, some blame the rules in sporting contests that require winning teams to actually score more runs or points than the losing team. “The polling requirements give an advantage to candidates who can invest in extensive television advertising to get their name out”? Candidates who attract support by how they conduct themselves in debates, interviews and in their jobs, if they have any, attract contributions that allow them to pay for advertising. Harris was getting free publicity and hype from the news media for months—because she was the perfect candidate, female, with dark skin, and attractive! What else is there to leading the nation!— but her donations dried up, not because of the rules, but because she reminded perceptive voters with every interview or TV appearance that she couldn’t manage a bait shop. “Others note, however, that the candidates of color in the 2020 field have not drawn significant support from black and Latino voters”—why this can only mean that those voters are racist too! Or something.
9 thoughts on “The Democratic Party’s Unethical And Irrational Obsession With Diversity”
Wow. Maybe they should all wear masks and not let anyone know what color they are and maybe use voice morphers so that no one knows if they are a male, female or “fill in the blank” and then it would for sure be 100 proof there was no way anyone was discriminated against?
OR.. they could create diverse avatars and use those to talk (like in Second Life) and then when the actual person won, they could be revealed OR, they could just use the avatar throughout their presidency adn let the viewer chose the Presidents look to make them feel most comfortable?
There are lots of ideas the Dems could do so everyone feeeeeels it’s fair and the best man/woman win.
As do the Dems in Virginia, the cracker candidates could just wear blackface! Problem solved.
A few observations:
– I admit that I giggled when reading that Washington Post story where it said, “…another no-brainer for the VP list is Kamala Harris”. I’m sure they didn’t mean it the way that I read it, but I think my interpretation is the more honest one.
– Perhaps Al Green didn’t think of the obvious answer to his question: the Democrats couldn’t find any “people of color” who were also experts on the obscure topic of impeachment AND were willing to burn down their credibility by participating in sham hearings. If the three experts that the Democrats brought in are truly the top thinkers in that field, that would be a searing indictment of everyone else who studies the topic. It would also suggest that there is a lucrative opening for someone with an IQ of 120 or so to come in and dominate the field.
– “Measurable” support is a comically low bar. Why have any standards at all? Just let anyone on the stage who can get a single voter to say they like them. You know what, forget “like”. The standard should be “anyone who can get anyone else to say they don’t abhor the candidate viscerally” is allowed into the debates. I want to see a debate with more people participating than watching it.
– I will never grow tired of candidates who are trying to woo Democratic voters publicly decrying the Democratic voter base as racist, sexist, etc. This seems like a super winning strategy. “Vote for me, or I will call you mean things” usually works, right?
– “…primed to blame any result they don’t like on racism, sexism orbias…”
I don’t know what “sexism orbias” are, but I assume it’s something made of crystal that Gwyneth Paltrow sells to dumb, affluent women to ward off “misogynistic energy”…
Orbias. My nominee for typo of the day.
You get a Pthththththththt! too. And I fixed it.
“If you can’t compete, change the rules.” Progressivism and modern day liberalism in a nutshell.
I agree. All the Democratic candidates should put all their activities on hold until we get proportional representation everywhere.
Maybe the Democrats should devise a historical oppression scale in order to choose the VP candidate. Forget about accomplishments in Congress, business, or the professions. I would guess that would leave somebody like Bloomberg or Steyer out.