You Are Among The Elite!

Monday, October 22, 2007

Something Else That I Don’t Understand

Fox News has THIS STORY that describes how Hillary and Bill dumped “Socks” when they left the White House. You remember Socks, don’t you? He was the cat that Bill and Hillary owned while he was President. Apparently they decided that he was no longer necessary as a political ploy.

I am not confused about this story. I am confused about how anyone would want to own a cat. But that isn’t the point of my post either. In this story, some of Hillary’s experts say that 25% of Estrogen-American-Republicans (women republicans) will vote for Hillary. This is the part that confuses me.

I am taking this and zooming out to see the larger picture. I don’t understand why it is so important to embrace and support someone because of their sex, their race, their ethnic origin, or their stand on whether cornbread should be made with sweet milk or buttermilk (I do kind of understand that one. Cornbread is properly made with buttermilk. My MiMi would never have supported a candidate who used sweet milk. She would also never have supported anyone who used “stuffing” instead of cornbread dressing at Thanksgiving. Despite my southern heritage, I prefer stuffing, or at least a combination of the two. Cornbread dressing just doesn’t sop up the gravy like stuffing does).

Anyway, why is it that we affiliate with particular political parties? Normally it is because those parties, or at least their candidates, agree with us in our positions. Certainly not every one, but generally speaking, at least about the top three or four issues that we consider important. If that is the case, why would someone “jump ship” just because one candidate wears the same style of shoes, or the same jewelry? How is it that a President can represent someone better if they are the same race?

Laws are laws. The Constitution is the Constitution (unless you are a democrat, then the Constitution might as well have DRAFT stamped across the top and been written in pencil) and no matter the race or sex of a candidate, he/she can’t change the history of the world because you think women should be on the battlefield and men in the kitchen baking cornbread. If you are a hyphenated-American, how does an Irish senator or dogcatcher increase the likelihood that the ship of state will be turned in your direction?

I am a male Caucasian, middle class, of Irish and English descent with a tiny bit of Cherokee Indian in my blood. Relatively recently, my wife started doing some geneology on our families. Remarkably, she was able with the use of today’s technology to make incredible progress in a short period of time. Now keep in mind that we have not verified all of her work with documents, but it is a work in progress. However, once we overcame the two month obstacle in finding my grandmother’s entry into NYC from Ireland, the investigation catapulted back to the Old World. About the only thing I really remember is that my family once owned Allington Castle (Google it if you wish. It is a convent now). I have never referred to myself in a hyphenated manner, and don’t understand those that do. I certainly wouldn’t use it as a basis for my vote.

We should use our ears and minds, not our heritage to decide the future of our country. If anyone could explain to me this phenomena and/or line of reasoning, I would be greatly appreciative.

9 Posts From Readers:

Dora said...

On the one hand, I think you make a great point. If anything, Zalmay Khalilzaid, Condi Rice, Bobby Jindal, Larry Craig and Clerance Thomas show us that even if you are minority of whatever kind, that doesn't mean you will support ideas that will benefit those minorities.

On the other hand, if the Senate were all black lesbians, would you think your interests are adequately represented?

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

I have been involved with nmany polls from Rasmussen to Zogby, Gallop to USA Today and many others.

Let me ask you this, do you realy beleive that 24 out of 100 GOP women will vote for the Hildabeast ?

Me neither! Now this is most likely how the question was asked, "would you vote for a women for President ?" Now I can see 24 out of 100 GOp women saying yes to that.

Polsters then take the generic question and make it aplicable to the ONLY female candidate which of course is you know who and WHALLA we get the 24% result.

Rasmussen and Zogby to a certain extent are fairly balanced the rest are very biased to the left in their questions.

I have taken hundreds of polls and not the online type that anyone can take and vote as many times as they wish. The polls I am refering to are the professional ones like Zogby etc. In most of them if I answered all of the questions as worded ven I would come out sounding like a flaming liberal. And that my friend is not about to happen!

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

I agree with you Ken. I don't think that republican women will vacate the GOP for Hillary. if anything, the women in our ranks are more steadfast in their beliefs than the men. it is their family values that are being assaulted, and thankfully there are differences between the sexes.

It simply brought to mind the call for people to support Hillary, or Obama because of what they are instead of who they are.

rockync said...

I am an independent voter. I refuse to follow any party line. I like to listen to candidates, look at thier record and then decide who is likely to best represent me. I would not vote for Hillary Clinton just because we share the same gender. Ethnic origins are not a consideration either.
Perhaps it's because I too make cornbread with buttermilk and prefer stuffing to cornbread dressing... :)

heidianne jackson said...

i consider myself a constitutional constructionist. i most often vote republican because for the most part the republican candidates best represent my point of view and beliefs.

if condi were running, i might find myself inclined to vote for her. however, if hillary were running as the republican candidate and rudy the democrat candidate, i'd be posting my vote for rudy.

Shaw said...

"...if anything, the women in our ranks are more steadfast in their beliefs than the men. it is their family values that are being assaulted, and thankfully there are differences between the sexes."

Here's an interesting fact. Hillary Clinton (oh, excuse me, Hildabeast) stood by her man and her marriage vows ("for better or for worse") during one of the worst things a woman can endure--a philandering husband. She didn't run off to divorce court, she stayed with her marriage, and we assume, her vows.

This apparently means nothing to the "family values" crowd, who live in an area of the country that has the highest divorce rate, BTW.

She is your worst nightmare, but why? She raised a fine young woman, educated herself, achieved much, and stood by her marriage vows in the face of humiliation and degradation.

There's a lot to admire there.

But when one is blinded by illogical hate, you don't count those attributes in the Hildabeast. If they were encountered in a conservative woman, you'd make her a queen.

PS. Rudy! Giuliani? Yeah. Right.

PS. I am a Yankee, and have always made my turkey stuffing with homemade cornbread, made with buttermilk. In fact, I put buttermilk in almost everything. Pancakes, waffles, cakes, bisquits.

swampcracker said...

I agree with Dora: You make a valid point about voting for the candidate based on character and platform, but I also agree with her assessment that there is a kind of self-affirmation in identifying with the candidate who will best serve one's interests. But this I do not understand at all:

I am confused about how anyone would want to own a cat.

Are you saying that you harbor a feline prejudice? This, uttered by a self-professed Auburn Tiger? How inconsistent! How irrational! Please explain yourself.

Robert (Conservative Commentary) said...

ROFL. I should have refined my sentence to read "...want to own a common housecat". I have an affinity for large cats of the tiger varieties.

It is consistent in the same manner that I prefer large caliber handguns, i.e. .45, to small caliber handguns. In both cases it is the stopping power that draws me....

heidianne jackson said...

interesting that you keep quoting from the boston globe op-ed on divorce rates and you, as did the globe, keep trying to make it about better quality of life/better quality of marriage, etc..

you have me so interested in this line of thought that i'm making it my next blog topic. thanks, shaw!

Other Stuff