Gay Conservative

Race has apparently crept into the Dem race for the presidential nomination.  That’s old news by now.  But I wanted to comment on the phenomenon now because the articles keep coming in along with the TV analysis, etc.  The conservative media – especially Limbaugh – have had a field day with this one.  Rightfully so.

After analyzing the MSM for years, a conservative would be led to believe that such charged rhetoric would probably be found only in the GOP.  After all, we have our sad, sorry history, right?  The Willie Horton ordeal that became an issue in the Dukakis/Bush election was as racist as they come.  It had nothing to do with Dukakis’ record in regards to crime issues.  It had everything to do with the fact that Horton was black.  Or how about the Dem use of James Byrd against GW Bush?  Though the rhetoric emanated from the left, it was obviously the GOP’s fault that a black man was killed by white folk.  And GW was directly responsible as Texas governor because he failed to support hate crime legislation.  Nevermind that 2 of the 3 perpetrators were sentenced to death under non-hate crime laws.

Now we come to Obama and Hillary.  I have now been won over to the theory that Hillary’s prolonged presence in the Democrat nomination process has nothing to with her believing that she can win.  Rumor has it that she knows she cannot win.  Her presence has everything to do with her attempts to mortally wound Obama to such an extent that he cannot defeat McCain in the general election.  McCain might well be a one-term president due to his age.  That would put everything in play again for 2012.  And Hillary wants to secure her spot in that contest.  It’s not a conspiracy theory.  It’s just consistent with the way that the Clintons operate.  It’s a very Shermanesque “scorched earth” strategy.

Now charges of race-baiting have been lobbed against her highness and King Bubba.  Hillary’s references to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and her assertions that she has been stronger with the white Democrat constituency have left many libs and party leaders crying foul.  Sherman Frederick of the Las Vegas Review-Journal voices such sentiments.

When Hillary strategists say they are winning the “working class,” they don’t mean they are winning working people with a household income of, say, less than $50,000. All the exit polls show quite clearly that lower middle-class people who work split between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Clinton. The difference is generally skin color. Hillary wins the lion’s share of the “working-class” white Democrats. And, sadly, as Hillary’s campaign has become meaner and more to the point, that margin has become bigger.

I hate to join the ranks of GOP Hillary aplogists, but I will.  As Limbaugh and others have observed, how is this fact racist?  Obama is pulling in over 90% of the black vote. Are we supposed to ignore this tidbit of trivia?  So what?  Obama pulls in blacks, and Hillary attract whites.  But the liberal mindset does not acknowledge this as a double standard.  Rather, liberals are mired in self-guilt over slavery and past discrimantion. They consider such logical rationale as taboo.

Perhaps that mindset will be the undoing of Democrats in 2008.  Democrats and liberals are so afraid of the race issue that they are willing to allow an unqualified, radical person like Obama to carry their party’s banner in this election.  The Dems are so terrified of alienating one base (blacks) that they will forsake another base (working-class whites.)  But alienating blacks is only one part of the equation.  The Democrats finally have a viable, black candidate.  And they draw from the guilt in order to rationalize electing a candidate that many (deep down) know cannot win the election.  It’s an exercise in suicidal tendencies.

There has been a lot of talk concerning “buyer’s remorse” when it comes to Obama.  The Rev. Wright, Obama’s association with Bill Ayers, his involvement with Tony Rezko and other questions have shown that Obama is a risky, unvetted candidate.  Yet, the Dem masses vote for him, and superdelegates continue to move his way.

I have no reason to believe that Barack cannot be sunk by his past associations and his radical leftist ideology.  He does not transcend race or ideological divides.  His rhetoric does not match his background.  The question is – will John McCain acknowledge these very serious issues?  Or will he give Obama a free pass?  White guilt is for the liberals.  If McCain gives in to those tendencies and fails to acknowledge Obama’s serious flaws, then he is truly one of “them.”

 True to form, President Robert Mugabe and his minions have managed to pervert the electoral process in Zimbabwe’s elections.  MDC candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, initially appeared to have over 60% of the vote.  That was later lowered to 50.3% of the vote.  Then, after a ridiculous delay, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission managed to shave off more votes in order to force a runoff.  It’s no wonder that MDC leaders are bitter and suspicious about the prospect of a runoff election with Mugabe.  The question is whether it is worth it.  The Economist reports…

Mr Tsvangirai faces a dilemma. If he boycotts a second round, he will lose by default. But if he agrees to compete, Mr Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party seem certain to use intimidation, violence and vote-rigging to force people to vote for the incumbent. For now the opposition leader remains abroad, unlikely to return without being offered guarantees of his safety.

A failure of leadership by South Africa’s President has complicated matters.  South Africa is only recently recovering from its history of Apartheid.  Yet by its inaction on the matter of Zimbabwe, it is imposing a different type of Apartheid on the innocent citizens of Zimbabwe.  South Africa is supposed to be the leader in affairs when it comes to the Southern portion of Africa.  Rather, they have chosen to side with a dictator who oppresses his people.

It is unclear when the run-off will take place, although it may be within three weeks of the result being officially declared. Mr Tsvangirai and the MDC may eventually agree to take part if there is a much stronger presence of international monitors than before, preferably from the United Nations. So far, the Southern African Development Community, a group of 14 countries in the region, has provided oversight. But the MDC and most independent observers say it is biased in favour of Mr Mugabe. In particular, Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, has been reluctant to oversee Mr Mugabe’s downfall.

The reasons for Mbeki’s inaction are unclear.  I have a hard time believing that he wants to prop up the brutal dictatorship of Mugabe.  In fact, there is tension within Mbeki’s own party concerning South Africa’s course of action in regards to Zimbabwe.  Hopefully, someone else in his party or in Southern Africa will take charge and take a serious stance.

The UN should take a stance.  The West should take a stance, but it is ultimately up to Southern African leaders to say that they have seen enough of the suffering in Zimbabwe.  That will make the loudest statement.  And it may even resonate with concerned members of Mugabe’s own ZANU-PF party.

The suffering and economic devastation in Zimbabwe is evident to any observer.  A boycott by the MDC is not the answer.  MDC must see this election through so that they will have a president to support their new majority in the legislature. But they need the support of other Southern African democracies to give momentum to their efforts.  It’s time for everyone to step up and drive a nail into the vampiric heart of Mugabe.  This is the best chance that the MDC has ever had.  It’s best not to squander the opportunity.