#MSDNC’s @MHarrisPerry sorta uses conservative “diversity” arguments to defend Obama

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

I tell ya, liberals will say ANYTHING to defend their “Obamessiah” from criticism, including unwittingly using conservative arguments  to try and make their case.  As you’ll see below, Harris-Perry – supposedly one of the “respectable” liberal hosts at MSDNC who is “going places” if the left is to be believed – states that you can’t necessarily assume by looking at a person that they represent the views of others who look just like them.  Sounds good so far. But then she manages to turn her own argument on its ear by strongly implying (which I’ll highlight in bold) that you can’t just assume by looking at a conservative “minority” that they think like other “minorities” who aren’t conservative.  RealClearPolitics provides the transcript:

The optics are one piece of it of it. But, I think we want to be careful, because no one wants to assume that any given physical body carries with it a set of political ideas, so for example, you know, Clarence Thomas sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States does not mean that Justice Thomas is representing, necessarily, the positions, the issues, even the Constitutional interpretation that is shared by the vast majority of civil rights organizations and by the vast majority of African-Americans. Simply putting women in a space, for example, had Congresswoman Bachmann ended up as the president of the United States, she might not have been representative of women’s issues in the broadest sense, because so many women are, in fact on the side of reproductive rights and justice. On the other hand, it also matters to have a diverse cabinet, to have a diverse set of opinions and ideas. My biggest concern is I worry that maybe the president has lessened his diversity, in part because he suspects it will cause less of a battle with the Senate process. But, I bet that it won’t. These Republicans are so determined to stand in the way that it won’t matter whether these are white men or black women. If they’re coming from the president they’re going to get resistance.

Video:

Translation: Perry is all about having “a diverse set of opinions and ideas” as long as it doesn’t come from non-liberal “minorities” and other individuals whose thinking doesn’t line up with hers.  

If she’d have left the argument at this, it would have been perfect:

I think we want to be careful, because no one wants to assume that any given physical body carries with it a set of political ideas [….]

Which is EXACTLY what conservatives have said going back decades, and was Martin Luther King, Jr’s central argument in a nutshell: Don’t judge people on the surface but instead by the content of their character.  How often have strong conservative women preached about how just because NOW is a “women’s organization” it doesn’t mean it represents ALL women, and how many brave black conservatives have rightly pushed back against the assumption/popular myth that race hustlers like Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson “speak for the black community”?  Too  many times to count. Yet every time these arguments are made, the women are portrayed as “subservient to the patriarchy” by the elite left and black conservatives are called disgusting names like “Uncle Tom” and the like – also by elite leftists who talk a lot about diversity and tolerance in theory but don’t live it in reality, as we’ve seen over and over and over and over again, including from Harris-Perry herself.

Like in this quote, where she would have viewers believe that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann doesn’t believe in “women’s rights” because she opposes abortion aka “reproductive justice”:

….[had] Congresswoman Bachmann ended up as the president of the United States, she might not have been representative of women’s issues in the broadest sense, because so many women are, in fact on the side of reproductive rights and justice.

Unfortunately, Harris-Perry – who is a Tulane professor and also a columnist for the far left “Nation” outfit – had to “go there” with the “token black=Justice Thomas/not an authentic woman=Rep. Bachmann” tripe, which is insulting, demeaning, infantile (not a new argument from her, either), narrow-minded, bigoted and goes against the VERY DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT she claims is necessary to have in a modern and free society. How much do you want to bet that her idea of a “diverse panel” likely would include David Frum, Meghan McCain, and Michael Steele as “representatives” of “the thinking wing of the Republican party”?

This is pseudo-diversity, not the meaningful kind that where people of all kinds of differing viewpoints come together to find common ground and solutions without yelling “tokens!” and “racist/sexist!!!” when they passionately disagree. Harris-Perry and other snide, arrogant leftist group-thinkers like her, should try it sometime. I won’t hold my breath, and nor should you.

Governor Jindal shows President Obama how tax reform is really done

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Get rid of the income tax for both persons and corporations, and replace it with a sales tax. Boom:

Gov. Bobby Jindal is proposing to eliminate Louisiana’s income and corporate taxes and pay for those cuts with increased sales taxes, the governor’s office confirmed Thursday. The governor’s office has not yet provided the details of the plan.

“The bottom line is that for too long, Louisiana’s workers and small businesses have suffered from having a state tax structure that is too complex and that holds back economic prosperity,” Jindal said in a statement released by his office. “It’s time to change that so people can keep more of their own money and foster an environment where businesses want to invest and create good-paying jobs.”

(…)

“Eliminating personal income taxes will put more money back into the pockets of Louisiana families and will change a complex tax code into a more simple system that will make Louisiana more attractive to companies who want to invest here and create jobs.

That would make Louisiana the latest in a series of states considering the elimination of their income taxes in order to spur growth. I think it’s a darned smart idea, particularly as businesses look to flee high-tax jurisdictions, such as Illinois and (I weep) California. It’s the principle of tax competition in action, and a recognition that it’s bad policy to punish desirable behaviors, such as earning and saving. I hope (forlorn, I know) that Governor Brown is taking notes.

It’s also politically well-timed, coming on the heels of the worse than useless tax increase recently passed in D.C. If, as I suspect, Governor Jindal harbors presidential ambitions in 2016, a successful tax overhaul will put him in good standing as a conservative reformer when the primary race begins again.

via Ben Domenech

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Fighting for good union jobs, Obama administration buys…. foreign cars

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

I’m sure UAW will understand:

President Barack Obama’s administration, which set a goal of buying only alternative- technology vehicles for its fleet by 2015, cut purchases of hybrid and electric models by one-third last year and bought mostly Asian brands.

About 54 percent of the 1,801 alt-fuel vehicles purchased by U.S. government agencies last year were built by Hyundai Motor Co. (005380), Toyota Motor Corp. (7203), Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (7211) and Honda Motor Co., according to data obtained under a Freedom of Information request from the U.S. General Services Administration, which coordinates most vehicle purchases.

The Korean-made hybrid version of the Hyundai Sonata unseated Ford Motor Co. (F)’s Fusion hybrid as the top-selling alternative-technology vehicle purchased for the federal fleet. U.S. hybrid purchases in previous years were made almost exclusively from domestic automakers.

The problem is that they’re trapped by their own Green ideology: committed to “alternative fuel” vehicles, they have to buy from foreign companies because there aren’t enough models produced in the US. (And some have a bad habit of catching fire…)

But try to explain that to the northern auto worker who’s facing layoffs from declining sales. Wasn’t the whole point of the bailout and partial nationalization to save their jobs, no matter what the cost to the taxpayer? Shouldn’t the Obama administration “buy American?” (Including fire-proof suits?) Shouldn’t the US autoworkers being wondering what in heck they’re getting in return for their blind loyalty, votes, and millions in dues funneled to Democrats?

(And I’d be glad if they did start asking those questions, since it might provide some much-needed enlightenment.)

Honestly, I’ve no problem with the government buying cars from whatever source, just as long as they’re getting the best deal for our tax money. (Of course, by definition that leaves out almost anything that’s “Green,” because of the heavy government subsidies required to make them competitive in the marketplace.)

I’m just amused at the knots the administration ties itself in, shafting one client group to please another. One of these days, all those patronage balls the Democrats are juggling are going to come crashing down.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

#GunControl Poll: 66 percent of Virginians want armed guards in schools

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Via CNN:

(CNN) – While two-thirds of Virginia voters say they want armed guards in schools, the voting bloc is more split on their opinions over gun control laws in general, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

By a margin of 66%-29%, voters say they support the idea of placing an armed police officer in every school, a proposal pushed by the National Rifle Association in the wake of the Connecticut elementary school shooting last month.

Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell in December expressed openness to the notion of equipping school personnel with guns. Though he did not outwardly endorse such a plan, he cautioned against immediately rejecting it.

“I think there should be a discussion of that – if people were armed, not just the police officer but other school officials were trained and chose to have a weapon, certainly there would have been an opportunity to stop aggressors coming in to the schools,” McDonnell said in an interview on WTOP, a Washington radio station.

I guess this makes 66% of Virginians “gun nuts” like the rest of us who have been proponents of the idea of having armed police officers in schools – first laid out on a national scale by President Clinton after Columbine – have been characterized…?