The progressive grassroots
organization Netroots recently staged a conference in Phoenix, Arizona—ground zero
on the immigration debate—that was hijacked by a lesbian and “black lives
matter” group, attempting to deny the two Democratic presidential candidates
who showed up an opportunity to speak on the issues. They managed to successfully
drown out former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, but less so Sen. Bernie
Sanders, whose supporters were in sufficient numbers to outlast the rudeness.
The “activists” claimed that they were being taken for “granted” by Democrats,
and they wanted their “voices” heard, as if we haven’t been hearing it loud and
clear for quite some time now, with extensive media support and even a U.S.
Supreme Court decision affirming gay marriage.
“We’ve been silent for too long.
We’ve been polite for too long. And our silence and our politeness is killing
us,” a Ms. Peoples claimed to the New
York Times. She and her cohorts are probably the only people who have that
impression; at least they have been receiving “positive” press, more so than
immigrants who are the targets of rationalized hate (even from them). According
to the Times, “Ms. Peoples said that
the group would have ceased chanting had they felt the candidates were giving
substantive, authentic responses, rather than ‘cookie cutter generalities’” or
at least that is how they rationalized their irrational behavior.
Actually, people who feel the way
they do who are the ones “out of touch,” just like those who voted for Ralph
Nader in 2000. For the vast majority of people on the bottom of the economic
ladder, race is an ancillary issue to the question of economic justice; but
these people just use it to justify their single-issue agenda, just like
pro-abortion activists. Sen. Sanders understands that everyone’s lives matter which is why his big issue is economic
inequality—which should be everyone’s “big issue.”
Sen. Sanders actually came off
well despite the efforts to discredit him, although some in the audience only
suggested that his “purpose” was to drive the candidate who was not there
closer to the left; I doubt that was accomplished. So now who wouldn’t be there
to face the wrath of the fringe groups? Why, Hillary Clinton. According to the Times, “Mrs. Clinton elected instead to
speak at the Arkansas Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner on
Saturday, after a brief swing through Iowa where she joined fellow Democrats
seeking the nomination for a banquet put on by the state party in Cedar Rapids.”
One of the participants of the
Netroots’ conference, Jenni Siri, a supporter of Sen. Sanders, was quoted “Her
not being here almost looks like she’s thumbing her nose at the event. She’s
acting like it’s not a big deal.”
No, she wasn’t “thumbing her nose”
and the event, or believing that it wasn’t a “big deal.” It was a “big deal”
for her. I suspect that Hillary was forewarned of the hi-jack by her
supporters, and in fact those who caused the ruckus did so because they were Hillary supporters who wanted to discredit her
rivals. Conspiracy theory? Maybe, but Clinton has a history of fanatical
supporters who will do anything for her—remember Harriet Christian of “inadequate
black male” infamy, or feminist commentator Bonnie Erbe’s demand that Barack
Obama give up the nomination he had already won because “whites will not vote
for you”?
The whole episode appears
to me to be a deliberate effort to ambush those who would dare to challenge
Clinton, who when it comes right down to it is little more than “image” than
substance. For some people, the image is all that matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment