The only surprise? Green and Castro didn’t blame Russia

Barack Obama was elected President despite a significant black racism controversy.

Hillary Clinton came within a hair’s breadth of becoming President, and is still adored by a significant portion of the Democrat electorate. This adoration lingers in the interminable attempt to impeach President Trump.

One might expect Democrats to point to these facts as evidence that, 1) the Democratic party has abandoned its legacy of Klansmen and Jim Crow and, 2) if Hillary’s near miss is not enough to dispel charges of misogyny, there’s the party’s unequivocal devotion to the pieties of Planned Parenthood.

One would be disappointed.

Now come Rep. Al Green (D., Tex.) and Julian Castro, Democratic Presidential candidate, Obama’s former Secretary of HUD, and rumored VP pick for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Green and Castro find racism and misogyny in their fellow congresscritters and in the Democrat base, respectively.

Dem Rep Laments Absence of Black Impeachment Witnesses

Green said that if he was wrong about the racial composition of the witnesses, he would apologize. “But if the committee is wrong, if the Congress is wrong, what will it do?”

Well, given the Dems impeachment theater performance to date you might first ask, “Wrong about what?” But, the seriousness of an impeachment is not Rep. Green’s issue. His question is about witness DNA, of which he can’t quite be sure.

He hedges his bet on “racial composition” because he can’t be certain if the ‘one drop‘ rule includes any of the three Progressive law professors tasked by Jerry Nadler (D., NY), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to express their naked partisan opinions that Trump should be impeached, because reasons… and that he shouldn’t have named his son Barron, because Barons made King John sign the Magna Carta… or something. Or, who knows, maybe one of these Profs secretly identifies as black and Green doesn’t want to get on the wrong side of that Twitter storm.

Mr. Castro, on the other hand, does not directly accuse his own party, but he does go after the Democrat propaganda machine.

Mr. Castro’s party, you may remember, is that whose DNC suppressed a male socialist anti-semite (how times have changed) in favor of a female habitual liar, who in 1992 mounted a campaign to label women her husband seduced or raped as a ‘Bimbo Eruption.’ That same ‘likeable enough’ cattle futures profiteer the Dems superdelegate conspiracy somehow failed to nominate over a black man in 2008.

No, Mr. Castro blames the press for forcing probable Democrat primary voters to disfavor Kamala Harris. If I were cynical, I’d say he’s just pandering to her meager constituency in a desperate attempt to get on the Dec. 19th debate stage, for which she had qualified and he has not. Julian Castro and MSNBC Agree: Media Held Kamala Harris to a Different Standard

Mr. Castro has not been held to any standard, because he’s irrelevant.

It’s true, though, that there is a different standard. It’s just temporarily out of favor. It’s the the one the press applied to Barack Obama. That same press that depicted Obama as a leg tingling, “lightworker,” “perfectly creased pant,” haloed on the cover of Time, Newsweek and The Rolling Stone. That press did more than treat Barack Obama with kid gloves.

While the press did circle the wagons to defend Obama’s association with the Rev. Wright, they were forced to report it – and some thought it might derail Obama’s candidacy. Of course, their insurance plan then was Hillary – not Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, and Page.

Now they have only Bloomberg as backup to Warren or Biden. I’d be nervous, too.

That Obama’s candidacy wasn’t ended by the Wright racism story is due in part to his facile tongue; in part to an utter lack of MSM curiosity about his sealed academic record and why, during his tenure as Harvard Law Review President, he never published an article; and in part to the noted fawning adulation.

How the press treated Obama was indeed better than they treated Harris, whom they treated nowhere near as badly as any Republican. And, in the beginning, Harris didn’t get off too badly:
Joy Reid, MSNBC host: The name I’m hearing now — there was a sheet of people, sort of survey, of prominent women in politics. Number one name of the person that’s on people’s minds, Kamala Harris.

Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC host: The politician she reminded me of most then was Barack Obama. Kamala Harris is now running for president. And she is one of the top tier candidates.

Chris Matthews, MSNBC host: There’s a new challenger to Trump and she is drawing huge crowds, Senator Kamala Harris of California kicked off her campaign this week and surrounded by — look at that crowd. Trump must be envious as hell.

Squandered that. Harris was flawed, unprepared and had a dysfunctional campaign organization. That those facts formed part of the reportage on Harris’ performance is not a different standard unless compared to the tongue bath the press gave Obama. Democrat Primary voters were not polling/donating well enough to keep her in the race, and it’s Democrat Committee members who selected the witnesses of the wrong ‘racial composition.’

If the Dems are sniffing about for diversity, you might think that would include Taiwanese Christians or Samoan-American Hindus who also come equipped with fresh ideas. You’d be wrong. MSNBC Contributor: ‘Yang and Gabbard Don’t Represent the Democratic Party’s Minority Base’ The implication? Only blacks count as diverse. Until the Hispanic Castro drops out of the race, anyway.

Neither Yang nor Gabbard carry the baggage of having slept* their way into elective office, nor Harris’ corrupt prosecutorial history. It’s Gabbard’s Dem debate zinger on that latter, for which Harris was, as usual, unprepared, that marked the beginning of the Harris campaign’s demise.

This article from the San Luis Obispo Tribune, indicates her campaign was in trouble from the beginning, and because of her actions, not her race or sex.
Can Kamala Harris withstand the scrutiny of a presidential campaign?

And, finally, a quote from that last link one might apply to the Democrat’s impeachment show trial. I found it quite amusing. Someone should read it to Schiff and Nadler.

“My entire career has been focused on our system of justice. It is one of the hallmarks of our system of democracy,” said Harris. “And it becomes weak when people interfere with that system for a political purpose. And no one — in particular right now when there are so Americans that are so distrustful of their government and its leaders and institutions — no one should give the American public any reason to question their integrity or the integrity of our system of justice.”

*At the very beginning of her political career, with a very powerful Democrat 30 years her senior, who bore little resemblance to say, Denzel Washington.

And contra Castro, See the Wapo defense of Harris here.

Charlemagne or Casanova?

King Arthur or Jay Gatsby?
Don Quixote or Humbert Humbert?
Howard Roarke or Ellsworth Toohey?

In writing Magnanimous millennial males it occurred to me that some millennial males claim to value selflessness, openness, and empathy over physical strength, competitiveness, and independence because they think it improves their chances of getting laid. If so, they’re apparently going to be disappointed.

This is an interesting article, though it suffers from donning the straight-jacket of Feminist terminology: Feminists Think Sexist Men Are Sexier than “Woke” Men

Men frequently complain about being “friendzoned,” the idea being that men who are respectful toward their female interests get placed into the role of friend, rather than potential boyfriend…

These are complex, highly politicized dynamics that foster conflicts and finger pointing between the genders. Unfortunately, research suggests that women do in fact find sexist men attractive.

That quote benefits from a little parsing. First, are women more attracted to men they respect? I’d be interested in that answer.  Second, what exactly is meant by “respectful” here? At one time opening a door for a woman was considered respectful by both parties.

And why “unfortunately?” Wouldn’t that depend on the meaning of sexist and sexier (and respect)? Oh, I know “sexism” carries heavy, despised bags. This implication is so obviously true to the author he doesn’t even examine it. But he does recognize something called “benevolent sexism.”

Maybe chivalry is a better term. But, chivalry, of course, is sexist. A man might get an earful if he opens a door for certain women. One assumes certain women don’t respect men who would open a door for them, but who knows?  It’s a “highly politicized dynamic.”

One perhaps overly simple way to define sexism is, “treating women differently from men,” and it’s the definition Feminists use when they decry the non-existent “wage gap.” It doesn’t matter how dangerous the job, how many hours are worked, level of education, length of job experience, etc.: If women aren’t paid the same amount across the board, it’s because of sexism.

What definition is in use often depends on what point a Feminist is trying to make.

Since women are different from men, perhaps there’s a benefit to sexism. For both sexes.  As Tom Lehrer was wont to say, “When correctly viewed, everything is lewd.”