electoral equality?
i was driving home from work the other day, and tuned in to KGO radio for a traffic update as i left the Sacramento radio sphere. the host was Gil Gross, and the topic under discussion was Geraldine Ferraro's flap about whether or not Obamamessiah was qualified to run. several callers mentioned they would vote for their candidate strictly on race or gender (that would be the dems.).
now usually, i think Gross is a good fit for San Francisco radio, since he and i have very different views, and his dovetail nicely with the target audience. but he said something out loud, on air, that i've been thinking for almost this entire political season. his comment, loosely transcribed:
i agree. i guess it's only sexist or racist if it is a white man saying it.
i'm not telling anyone who to vote for. i'm just (again) agog at the pure unfairness of the political correctness of it all... why aren't those people being pilloried for their views as a white male would be using the same logic?
now usually, i think Gross is a good fit for San Francisco radio, since he and i have very different views, and his dovetail nicely with the target audience. but he said something out loud, on air, that i've been thinking for almost this entire political season. his comment, loosely transcribed:
"so if you are a woman, you should tell everyone you know that they should vote for hillary, because she's a woman. and if you are african-american, your only choice is obama. does that mean i should be going around telling everyone to vote for McCain, because he's an old white man? imagine the uproar that would cause"
i agree. i guess it's only sexist or racist if it is a white man saying it.
i'm not telling anyone who to vote for. i'm just (again) agog at the pure unfairness of the political correctness of it all... why aren't those people being pilloried for their views as a white male would be using the same logic?
Labels: politics
posted by bothenook at 23:27
4 Comments:
several callers mentioned they would vote for their candidate strictly on race or gender (that would be the dems.)
That's not a fair representation. I'm a woman and I don't plan to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary (like it will matter by the time ours rolls around, but that's another story), even if some older feminists might see it as a betrayal.
I also hope that people who actually think for themselves would decry the notion that you should vote your gender or race. It's wonderful that we have those options today, but really. Vote your fucking conscience.
fair representation? probably not, but since it's only the dem party that is wrestling with the choice between a black man, and a white woman, they are the ones i'm hearing on the radio and talking heads shows on the tube. if the situation were the same in the pub races, i have no doubt the same drivel would be bandied about.
regarding voting your conscience, you are preaching to the choir here. i think the overriding issue when casting a vote should NEVER be dictated by skin color or plumbing.
Unfortunately for me the only one that comes close to what I want in a candidate is cranky ol' white guy. And it's nothing to do with race and gender. It's because he's the only one that's almost a conservative.
Telling someone to vote for an old cranky white guy wouldn't be racist if you're an old cranky white guy. Right Myron?
Post a Comment
<< Home