Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Monday, May 11, 2015

The Intrinsic Qualities of White Guy Presidents

So.  Every single white guy who won the presidency won it on merit, but Barack Obama and, if elected, Hillary, win because of voters' "self-virtue?"

Laura Clawson of Daily Kos exposes Epstein's, and all who buy into this crock of crap, self-absorbed victimhood.  Sadly, many on the right buy into it as well.

So what would Epstein say about the motives of voters should Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio become president? 

Epstein = Derp. 


 Weekly Standard contributing editor Joseph Epstein:

"If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016 she will not only be the nation’s first woman president but our second affirmative-action president. By affirmative-action president I mean that she, like Barack Obama, will have got into office partly for reasons extraneous to her political philosophy or to her merits, which, though fully tested while holding some of the highest offices in the land, have not been notably distinguished. 

In his election, Obama was aided by the far from enticing Republican candidates who opposed him, but a substantial portion of the electorate voted for him because having a biracial president seemed a way of redressing old injustices. They hoped his election would put the country’s racial problems on a different footing, which sadly, as we now know, it has failed to do. Many people voted for Obama, as many women can be expected to vote for Hillary Clinton, because it made them feel virtuous to do so. 

The element of self-virtue—of having an elevated feeling about oneself—is perhaps insufficiently appreciated in American politics. How have we come to the point where we elect presidents of the United States not on their intrinsic qualities but because of the accidents of their birth: because they are black, or women, or, one day doubtless, gay, or disabled—not, in other words, for themselves but for the causes they seem to embody or represent, for their status as members of a victim group? 


Yes, he's arguing that white men are elected because of their merit, their intrinsic qualities, and in no way because of the accidents of their birth. Somehow, everyone in American history who has been elected on merit has coincidentally been a white man. 

Everyone who has been elected or been a strong candidate for the presidency while failing to be a white man has also coincidentally lacked true merit. Funny how that works. 

George W. Bush, grandson of a senator, son of a president, one-and-a-half-term governor of Texas ... "notably distinguished" candidate composed of pure, shining merit. But Barack Obama, who got to Columbia and Harvard without family connections, had to build his own fundraising base and political operation rather than inheriting one, and was elected president without even needing the Supreme Court to put its thumb on the scale ... all "accidents of his birth" and affirmative action and victim mentality right there." 



25 comments:

Anonymous said...

You have got to be kidding.So many people voted for Obama because he is black/half black

Shaw Kenawe said...

For skudrunner's edification:

President Obama is the ONLY president since Eisenhower to win 51% of the popular vote BOTH TIMES. Reagan never accomplished that.

Dave Miller said...

Shaw... Reagan did get a majority of voters in 1980, though not, as you noted 51%.

Now I wonder... if someone of Jewish descent wins the White House, will that too be an affirmative action election?

How about if Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio? If they win the election, would they be affirmative action elects?

How about Bobby Jindal?

I'm guessing it is only when a Dem wins that we see this type of stuff...

But that is really painfully evident, isn't it?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anonymous. So many people voted for Mr. Obama because John McCain lost his marbles, and Mittens couldn't make up his mind on what he stood for.

skudrunner said...

David,

I am for selecting the best qualified no matter who is running.
That would be a change from the last four elections.

Rational Nation USA said...

Wasn't affirmative action intended to offer greater opportunity to those who otherwise would likely not have had the opportunity?

Qouta's are the issue. Once opportunity is afforded performance and merit is what matters.

Both Hillary and Obama should be judged solely on performance and merit. Period. End of story.

Infidel753 said...

Somehow, everyone in American history who has been elected on merit has coincidentally been a white man. Everyone who has been elected or been a strong candidate for the presidency while failing to be a white man has also coincidentally lacked true merit. Funny how that works.

Yep, that's what he's saying. Next up, Republicans continuing to wonder why so many blacks and women won't vote for them.

Anon: So many people voted for Obama because he is black/half black

And how many more knuckle-draggers voted for McCain or Romney because they weren't "the black guy"?

Jerry Critter said...

Mittens couldn't make up his mind because he did not stand for anything.

Anonymous said...

If Ben Carson won the presidency would that mean he was an affirmative action president like the nut balls on the right say Obama is?

sad king billy (pilgrim) said...

i always think that rather voting for the guy they like the most, people vote for the guy/lady they dislike the least.

i think a lot of obama's votes were due to the less than popular bush administration.

Anonymous said...

I welcome civil discourse from people of all persuasions but express no obligation to allow this blog to be trolled. Any comment that fails to rise above ranting, taunting, profanity, and name-calling will be deleted without further comment at the discretion of the blog owner.

Like you have to say that, just an excuse in your mind to justify censorship. A statement from feeling guilty.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Hello Anonymous,

You apparently don't know anything about blogging. I am under no obligation to keep this an open forum for trolls, idiots, and cranks to come by anytime and deposit their taunts, insults, and rants.

This is my blog, and I am the person who decides what gets published.

That's not censorship, it's keeping this blog free of idiots and malcontents who, every day, leave filthy comments, profanity, and angry name-calling.

If you desire a free and open blog where racists, degenerates, and pornographers are free to come and go as they please, go visit the Skank Tank.

Lisa and her blogging gang-bangers are just the crowd you'd fit in with. She'll publish any crap.

Rational Nation USA said...

... and a lot more.

Anonymous said...

I suggest you just publish what you agree with that way it is like talking to yourself. Not very informative but not challenging either.

Shaw Kenawe said...

You're wrong Anon. Skudrunner gets published here as does RN USA. Les and I don't always agree, but he isn't a taunter, rude, or obnoxious.

Anyway, why do you care how I run my blog? Does it keep you awake at night?

LOL!

skudrunner said...

You did forget to post my response to your 6:29 but it is your board and you can decide what to post.
You were correct, Reagan only got 50.8% the second time around

Dave Miller said...

Anon, if Shaw did that she'd be just like those Free Thinking conservative blogs... Geeez man, really? Is that what you want?

I'm Skippy's Mom said...

Lisa is the Jerry Springer of the blogging world. lOL!

Free Twinkies said...

She also allows ID theft by her bottom-feeding, low-IQ commenters. They steal people's blogging IDs, they write comments pretending they are liberals, and then her stupid gullible commenters reply to Lisa's sock puppet ID thieves. They talking to themselves!


It doesn't get any more moronic than that.

If the GOP candidates are a clown car, blogs like the Smut Hut are the junk yards where their "intellectual" turds are dropped for the feces throwers to play with.


Rational Nation USA said...

Perhaps, although not very useful really; other than to add fuel to the odious flames.

Better to ignore. It took me too long to but I finally realized it. Rise above the stinke as they say.

Swine Times Nine said...

The problem with Lisa is that you can’t approach her from the front anymore unless you want to be skewered in the throat. Even her sock puppets have turned into impaled shish kebob:

Slice of Onion
Cubed Redneck
Green Pepper
Porn on the Cob
Tomato
Crude Dude
Green Pepper
Troll on Parole
Garlic
Missing Linke

Always a raw deal no matter how much you flame them.

dmarks said...

Was going to think of something to add, but RN said it best:

"Qouta's are the issue. Once opportunity is afforded performance and merit is what matters.

Both Hillary and Obama should be judged solely on performance and merit. Period. End of story."
-------
Obama won two elections because more voters made the decision that he was better for the job. There was no affirmative action policy in place. It is am immense whopper to make such a claim. I strongly oppose the racist/sexist quota policies, and would be very quick to criticize such if they were a factor with Obama's election, or will be a factor with Hillary. But they aren't present.

dmarks said...

Shaw, I came here for your thoughts on the Dzhokar sentencing. Look forward to seeing what you write...

-----------------

The Anonymous troll whined: "Like you have to say that, just an excuse in your mind to justify censorship. A statement from feeling guilty."

Shaw's editorial discretion here is the opposite of censorship: it is the expression of free press, free speech. Just like when the New York Times chooses which letters to print or not print. For you, Anonymous, to dare to dictate the content of Shaw's forum would be to negate free speech.

I think your views will be more welcome in Lisa's porn blog, to be honest.

Flying Junior said...

i think a lot of obama's votes were due to the less than popular bush administration.

That's a very shallow point-of-view, King Billy. Yet it contains a grain of truth. Here is the second biggest mistake you make. Most of the dickheads who disavowed any allegiance to Shrub only did so after the dollars squandered from our Treasury were counted. They cared not for the "collateral damage" of four thousand U.S. soldiers dead or a half a million dead Iraqis.

Your biggest mistake is not understanding the love and trust that we, the electorate, held for Barack Hussein Obama to lead us out of this nightmare of blinding wilderness. People like you only cared about the damage to the economy caused by Shrub's failed economic policies. We were concerned about the future of the entire world and our own reputation as the leader and great friend of all the world's peoples. Many of us also believed that Hillary might have led us back to the truth. She may yet have the chance to pick up the thread and continue in the work that so desperately needs to be done.

You sir, with your indifference and lack of love, may simply vote republican. It makes no difference to me.

Anonymous said...

Hillary is a corporate shill and is the same as voting for Bush, intechangeable