“Small town” values
September 9th, 2008If you question the female candidate, you’re being sexist.
If you question the African American candidate, you’re being racist.
If you question the horribly-old nutcase, you’re pointing out the insanity of a fruitcake who wants to be commander in chief of the most powerful military in history yet cavalierly jokes, “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.”
Okay, the first two aren’t true.
But I digress…
Viewers of the Republican National Convention were repeatedly beat over the head with the term, “small town.”
It’s the latest poisonous euphemism from the faux “conservatives” who deride political correctness while using its toolbox, Orwell-style, to speak less-than-plainly about the social order they would impose if they had their way.
When you hear a faux conservative say “small town”, it’s pretty clear that they mean the exact opposite of their other, older euphemism, “inner city.”
The most direct meaning for them is “white” but it includes “straight and Christian.”
I’ve received a few e-mails from people who aren’t supporting Obama and they’ve been concerned about the implication that “being against Obama” risks them being labeled racist. They’ve mentioned their anti-Obama reasons as including genuine concern over his short resume, being free-market and true conservatives or, frankly, being lifelong Republicans from families of lifelong Republicans who are like Brooklyn Dodgers fans after the team skipped town: heartbroken and unable to support the Yankees. I’ve wanted to think that this sampling represents most of the GOP supporters.
But with only 36 of the nearly 2400 Republican delegates at the convention being black and “small town” values being endlessly cheered by that rich, white crowd, the convention has proven otherwise.
“Being against Obama” doesn’t imply racism. But that GOP convention sure did.
– Steve
Stumble it!
September 9th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I’m quite disappointed by the coverage Palin seems to be getting. She is being heavily talked up, and a lot of white female middle-Americans seem to support her because “they like her”, despite confessing having no knowledge at all of her political leanings. It’s kinda depressing that the US seems to once again be sliding into the same “it’s the candidate I’d have a beer with” mentality that got Dubbyah elected, and now it’s “we’re voting for the veep that I’d watch on Desperate Housewives.”
To be honest, I’d really like Palin to get elected and made president (blah blah blah, McCain’s old, blah blah, die soon, blah blah) so that America can have another decade of Republican PR and spin, mixed with an ever-declining economy and social unrest. Because I’m anti-American and cruel? No; it’s because I think some people need to be beat around the head repeatedly until they learn their lesson. IE, the candidate being as backwards, anti-intellectual, and hick-like as yourself (the average neo-con voter-sheep) is not a good criteria for electing someone into one of the most powerful offices in the world.
Maybe I’m being overly harsh on Palin, but so far I’ve seen no substance whatsoever; from her pop-unveiling to the public, through to her inane sound-bites and totally vacuous speeches, she reeks of ineptitude and mediocrity.
I mean, seriously, who could possibly think that just being a “hockey mum” somehow gives you insight into the vast global socio-political-economic factors that make the comfortable lifestyle of a vacuous self-promoting busy-body possible? It’s like saying that driving a nice car must mean you’re an excellent mechanic.