George, the Racist?
By Ari Kaufman (02/09/06)
On Tuesday, desperate Democrats used the funeral of a national icon's wife to hurl political cheap shots at the sitting president of the United States. What was worse is that these ill-timed, spurious claims were not only made by a racial-dividing minister in a Southern church, but by a former president himself, Mr. Jimmy Carter.
Carter, likely most well-known for being the worst president in United States history, showed no decorum within these remarks. Watching them unfold, in the South, with Bush seated in the background (the President flew right down to the funeral to avoid any Katrina-esque backlash)! again reminded us of the concrete fact that this president will never be treated fairly by the Democrats. Former president Clinton never had it this bad in the late 90s.
One of the biggest fallacies brought up over and over again by apologists on the left is, of course, race. Issues to them nearly always fall along racial lines, and since President Bush is Republican, he is too often demonized as a racist himself. This is as far from the truth as saying that the Tampa Bay Devil Rays will win the 2006 World Series this year or that the s! tate of Florida has majestic mountains, but it is worth trying to ascertain where the left conjures up such nonsense.
At his second inauguration in January, much of the Liberal Press chose to devote time - on an otherwise patriotic, optimistic day - to the few insane Leftists who managed ! to maneuver their way to the Capitol to "protest'" President Bush's re-inauguration. We don't really know for sure if this was lingering, Moore-inspired bitterness over George's win in Florida in 2000, the disenfranchised folks who couldn't understand a calendar in Ohio, or simply some angry, unemployed, mephitic 30-40 year olds. Either way, they were definitely incensed, unkempt and hurling vicious insults at whomever was there, including Bush, of course. The hallmark quote was "racist, sexist, anti-Gay; George Bush, go away!" Others had to do with genocide, but I won! 't even dignify those with commentary. No judicious individual should.
But let's break down the epithets about "race, sex and gays."
George Bush as a Sexist? Well, I can't figure this one out. Help is sought to comprehend such. George has a lovely wife, who is the backbone of his persona, two daughters of sound upbringing, a recognizable mother whom he adores, women in the cabinet, women fighting in the war, etc. He also nominated less-than-qualified Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice, perhaps simply to appease his ridiculous critics. There is no basis for that appellation as you might have expected.
George Bush as anti-gay? Now even if you take to heart the spin that "W" is 100 percent opposed to same sex marriage, and wants to put a constitutional amendment in place to banning such San Franciscan-inspired acts, does that make him anti-Gay? Not inherently. I am sure George would treat a homosexual the same as any person who came to the White House, lunched with him, or wanted an internship. This is 2006, and President Bush is a level-headed, understanding man. He is the only president in my time with whom I could see myself sitting next to at a Barber Shop and having a chat. No, not even Slick Willy. Bill would be trying to ask me what I thought his "legacy" would be like. George simply wants to keep marriage between a man and a woman; the way it has always been. Am I totally on his side? Not in sum; I am a social moderate. But is he ANTI-Gay? Good heavens, no.
And lastly, my favorite fallacy: George Bush as a racist? Well.
Have any of these people seen the news? Doubtful, unless it's on CNN or fraudulently published in the NY Times. In 2005, Bu! sh risked dividing the GOP in half and severely curtailing his support for bills in the future by leaving our borders open to all comers from the South. The Minutemen - a group of private citizens who are set to march on Washington in the coming week - were forced to take things into their own hands since the Border Patrolmen were been limited in their jurisdiction. Bush has a Latino Attorney General, an African-American Secretary of State, and former Secretary of State. And no, to answer the next question, I highly doubt that this was all done as a front to show that he is sensitive to "minorities." You don't risk the nation's post 9/11 security and future to make a point. However, that would be typically liberal for those people to believe he would, since they are seemingly ambivalent to fighting a War on Terror in the first place.
And as far as the other "minorities" (Jews, Middle Easterners, Asian Indians, Oriental Asians, Europeans, Aussies), it is known that when Leftists speak of minorities and “White Racism,” they are ONLY speaking about Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans. That is, of course, an undeniably flawed way to view things, as well as narrow-minded, condescending and RACIST itself, but when has hypocrisy ever interfered with anti-Americanism?
If anything, President Bush can be accused of being too open-minded, perhaps trying to curry favor with these radical, PC organizations. Yet they still castigate him on the issues. Now we know why the Democrats, as of 2008, will have been out of White House for 20 of the past 28 years.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ari Kaufman
