I Can Defeat Barack Obama, Because I’m Black and Sarah Palin Isn’t

I continue to be baffled by the density of ace at Ace of Spades HQ. Apparently, he thinks that it’s quite alright for the GOP to use identity politics. Brilliant. Fiorina: I Can Beat Barbara Boxer Because I’m a Woman, and Chuck DeVore Isn’t

I think it’s perfectly acceptable to play the “gender card” as regards electability. Whether or not electability matters all that much, and whether someone’s gender really has a big influence on electability, is a side question, which people can figure out for themselves.

But to merely make mention of it? That’s dirty pool?

I don’t think it is. Fiorina isn’t exactly playing identity politics. She’s not saying, as Sotomayor did, that she’s better qualified due to her sex. Instead, she’s saying that her sex might make her more appealing to female voters. That’s not claiming superiority in the way we usually speak of it. She’s saying that people vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons — being “just like me” being one of them — and that this will be helpful.

Perfectly acceptable, huh? Okay then, I’ll be waiting for ace to be perfectly okay with the GOP nominating a Black man (or woman) as their Presidential candidate in 2012 and rationalizing it by saying “I can defeat Barack Obama, because I’m Black and (insert qualified conservative candidate here) is not.”

Apparently, ace and many others are quite alright with playing stupid-ass identity politics, just like the Democrats do. Brilliant.

How about we rewrite ace’s rationale thusly:

I think it’s perfectly acceptable to play the “[race] card” as regards electability. Whether or not electability matters all that much, and whether someone’s [race] really has a big influence on electability, is a side question, which people can figure out for themselves.

But to merely make mention of it? That’s dirty pool?

I don’t think it is. Fiorina isn’t exactly playing identity politics. She’s not saying, as Sotomayor did, that she’s better qualified due to her [race]. Instead, she’s saying that her [race] might make her more appealing to [Black] voters. That’s not claiming superiority in the way we usually speak of it. She’s saying that people vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons — being “just like me” being one of them — and that this will be helpful.

Okay then. That settles it. I have to assume that ace is quite alright with a GOP Presidential candidate coming out and saying that we should vote for them, because, being Black as they are, they are the only one who can defeat Barack Obama in 2012.

This is what the GOP has devolved into. Brilliant.

Reading the comments, at least one person finds this rationale objectionable:

I actually find her quote objectionable. She is not merely saying that as a woman she has a better chance running against another woman. Her use of the phrase “white guy” is straight out of the Democrat’s playbook, whether or not she meant it to be. It implies that Republicans and conservatives are nothing but white guys… wink, wink — racists… and she will temper the racist tendencies inherent in the Party. F#ck her.

Posted by: Usful Ijit at November 23, 2009 03:31 PM

Yep, this is nothing but Democrat Party playbook bullsh!t. Identity politics.

Also, not only is it pathetic, but it is also condescending to women. Carly Fiorina is basically saying that women are so stupid, that they will vote for a radical leftist woman like Barbara Boxer again rather than for a conservative who will improve things. Thus, if the GOP wants to win, they have to run a woman, because women are stupid and only vote for women.

And another thing… ace wonders how this is any big thing. Well, this is a sign. It’s a small sign that Carly Fiorina is a typical unethical b!tch who will use all dirty tricks in the book, instead of debating on the merits of issues. That’s a sign of her being a “McCain maverick” type RINO Republican, in the same way that a guy being verbally abusive to his woman is a sign of him being emotionally and physically abusive later in the relationship.

The fact that ace doesn’t recognize this is downright frustrating and disheartening.

The fact is that true statesmen and conservatives do not need to play identity politics. We know that the Constitution and our principles speak for themselves. All we need to do is clearly articulate them, champion them and defend them and people will be inspired.

But, if people like ace have their way, we’ll be putting up candidates all across the country who will play identity politics and… lose. Because the majority of people are not idiots as apparently ace thinks them to be. The majority of Americans want to be inspired and want to be able to trust their representatives to walk their talk. And when they hear someone resort to playing the identity politics game, that is a sign of the same-ol’, same-ol’ slick talking, spineless, unprincipled, unethical politicians of whom we’re trying to rid Washington.

The more I read through the comments… the more I realize I was correct about ace (and probably most political bloggers) all along: he’s an elitist.  He sees everyone and everything in terms of identity politics.  He doesn’t see us as fellow Americans, he sees us as voting blocs and identity groups to which to pander on issues for votes.  Just plain sad.

FINALLY! 80 comments in and I finally come across someone on a similar wavelength:

Issues, baby, issues.

I want to know what you think and where you stand on the issues. I do not want to hear vague platitudes and empty rhetoric. I want concrete statements and absolutes.

I don’t care if you’re white, black, orange with green polkadots or a woman or a man. I want to know you have an intellect. I need to know you can separate truth from fantasy. I need to know you won’t cave in to the screetching from the moonbats. I need to know you have real-world experience and real-world solutions to problems. I don’t want, nor will I accept any more BS from someone I elect to represent me. The time for games is over!

Issue, baby, issues…

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2009 03:51 PM

Nah, that makes too much sense and shows respect to too many people, let’s do ace’s way and keep playing games!  Let’s keep pandering to the least common demonimator among the populace.  Let’s play identity politics, use catchy, empty slogans, talk in vagaries and platitudes, pander instead of inform and inspire and lead.  Yeah, that’s the ticket!  That way, we’ll become an idiocracy (more so than we already have become) in no time!  Woohoo!

Oy.

Yep, spot-on. At least I am not the only one who recognizes the signs of crappy, treasonous RINOs.

we have no idea if Carly is a conservative, right of center type of candidate or who knows what.

She’s evasive and probably has no considered positions on anything, but she’s evasive and positionless in the style of people who govern fiscal-lib and grandstand social-con. Like ’80s Gore or Lieberman before his VP run, when he was a fiery preacher against dirty music and video games and shit.

Plus, she’s A Strong Woman, so she’ll be all in for any lib bill that has “Women” in the name.

She’s exactly what the national GOP wants.

Posted by: oblig. at November 23, 2009 04:02 PM

Excellent… more proof that not everyone has lost their freaking minds.  I agree with both of these…

all i know is, if you go to Carly’s site, you get a bunch of mealy mouth platitudes in an excruciating series of videos. at Chuck’s site, you get plain, no nonsense words that state exactly where he stands, and where he’s voted in the past.

as a native of the PRC, i’ll take Chuck any day. Carly looks like just another pair of Boxer Shorts. if she’s the candidate, i’ll simply skip that office when i vote. better the obvious enemy than a so called ally.

no more RINOs!

Posted by: redc1c4 at November 23, 2009 04:20 PM

******************************************

Forina is running against horrid Barbara Boxer-

TO imply that women can do better when running against another female who is corrupted to her core, is blind arrogance. I’m woman hear me roar, that’s pitiful.

If California women would even consider re-electing Barbara Boxer (since 1992) no matter who is on the other ticket, then let them re-elect their ugly slavemaster.

Screw the ‘womyn’ vote; let them suffer the 5% tax increase slapped on their botox bill, their silicon-bo0b bill while receiving fewer opportunities for those hip replacements they are going to need.

Posted by: syn at November 23, 2009 04:26 PM

A-FREAKING-MEN to this:

What’s your platform and what’s your historical record, if any, to support that platform? And do you have the capacity to investigate or understand that which you do not know?

That’s all I want to know.

If your metric is that I’m this color not that color and this gender not that one, then you fail my test. If it’s your only metric, then obviously the choice is simple. If it’s a metric among other platform metrics which are sound, your chances improve from a politically tactical POV; however, those chances coincidentally drop because you’ve substituted identity politics for actual accomplishment. That illustrates weakness. Your mentioning it emphasizes that you cannot trust your own record.

As someone who believes in rewarding merit, I’m dinging both the candidate and the philosophy that indulges in identity politics. I’ll lose elections if I have to in order not to perpetuate this lazy, obscene, and culturally damaging calculus.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at November 23, 2009 05:10 PM

Wow, this Qwinn guy must be my twin, because 99.9% of the time, we are on the *exact* same wavelength and he expresses it pretty much exactly how I would… were I (1) able to express myself as well as he does and (2) still posting at AoSHQ…

So I guess we approve of anti-male bigotry at AoS now?

Cause don’t kid yourself – that’s what this is. That’s what you’re defending. You can make yourself feel better saying “it’s not anti-male, it’s pro-female”, but that’s bullshit and you know it. It’s both. You can’t have one without the other.

I don’t want to be a part of a conservative party that seeks to exploit bigotry for its own purposes. If the woman were the more conservative candidate, I’d be all for her. But to throw the more conservative candidate overboard because he doesn’t have a vajayjay? Why don’t we just -be- Democrats.

Qwinn

Posted by: Qwinn at November 23, 2009 06:21 PM