The teeth-gnashing and garment shredding have begun. Kamala Harris is currently only trailing marginally in all crucial bounce states, which puts her on course to defeat Hillary Clinton for president twice in recent elections. For progressives, the worst piece of it is that both loss would be to Donald Trump.
Advertisement
Naturally, progressives have begun the search for the boogeyman of bigotry unto which they can pin Kamala’s ( hopeful ) loss. The “racism” cry does n’t hold the water it once did in pre-Obama days, so they default to blaming sexism for Kamala’s lack of support, particularly among males.
David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart warned the hundred or so people who tuned into PBS never to “downplay the part that sexism does play” in males leaving the Democratic Party. They provide no additional supporting supporting information beyond their own entrenched opinions.
Nor does Simon Tisdall over at The Guardian, who blames “misogyny, hidden and harmful” for Kamala’s bad poll numbers. Indeed, the misogyny is so “hidden” that he ca n’t find a single example of it. He is forced to drop again unto the conspiracy theory of dog bells, insisting that when reviewers chide Kamala for failing to job” strength”, this is simply wink-and-nod traditional password for not being “manly” enough.
He, no us, made that emotional connection between” power” and “manliness”. Projection, many? Keep in mind that none of these three dainties in bonnets are any person’s idea of a secure chauffeur down a dim alley. If” Androgynes for Harris” ever needed a poster child…
But before you begin playing the discrimination card, Democrats, remember that you are the group that chose to support a hair-sniffing elderly creeper who was facing a reliable accusation of sexual harassment instead of voting two women into workplace. Republicans are not to blame for that, really. Biden received Democrat vote, but Hillary received Democrat seats. They did n’t even support Kamala, whom you threw in the trash during the 2020 primary election.
Advertisement
Do you still vote for Kamala because you’re accusing us of no supporting her because she’s a woman, then? And since Trump is a man, would n’t that mean you are n’t supporting him? Is n’t voting for a candidate for their gender sort of, you know, the very definition of sexism?  ,
There are many causes why I’m supporting Donald Trump, and not just because he’s a person. Voting for Trump in and of itself does n’t make one a misogynist, just as voting for Kamala in and of itself does n’t make one a misandrist.  ,
The fact that we have n’t yet had a female president appeals to many moderate women, even if Kamala was n’t their first choice, which is understandable. I do n’t blame those who voted for Barack Obama as our first black president, as it happened with black voters. I understand that.
In contrast, you must be aware that Harris and Clinton’s selections were perhaps the worst the Democrats may have made out of all the female candidates that were out there. Without ever taking gender into account, their dangerous personalities automatically repress millions of potential voters. You may actually find two women out of a phone book at random, and they’d have made better applicants.
On our side, I liked Sarah Palin and I liked Michelle Bachmann. Carly Fiorina would have been okay with me. I think Condoleezza Rice, had she move, may have cleaned Obama’s time. And I think Winsome Earle-Sears, had her unusual baby not disqualified her, would be a great member. Tulsi Gabbard, Kristi Noem, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Kim Reynolds are all ladies I would happily voting for, not because they’re women, but because they’re smart, competent leaders.
Advertisement
Clinton is a sadistic narcissist while Harris is a insipid fool. They’re the adult versions of Hodor and Ramsay Bolton. I would get upset if I were a woman because the Democrats were intentionally hoisting this horse and viper as a brilliant representation of my gender. They’re unpleasant candidates, time.
And the fact that they are Democrats may explain why Republicans prefer to reject them over discrimination. Do light suburban liberals cast ballots against sexual Republicans because they are Republicans or because they are? Stay classy, progs, you squeal sexist criticisms of Kamala, the same criticism you have received of Palin ( along with the claim that her mentally ill son Trig was the product of incest ).  ,
In that spirit, maybe it will make you feel better that I thought female individuals John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich were hideous as well. On election time, I held my head and voted for the first two. And I did it because they were less terrible than Obama, no because” we bros gotta stay up.”
Finally, it’s pretty well that the party that has spent the last ten years demonizing men everywhere for simply being there ca n’t read the room enough to realize how ridiculous their sexism claims are. People are pigs, men are animals, gentlemen are pigs, men are animals, males are pigs, wait a minute! Why are n’t men voting as virtuously as we tolerant, woke progressives think they should?
Advertisement
Suddenly, just like with their bigotry, this is traditional forecast. And for a group of ideologues who kneel in dogmatic worship and revere reverence for their pagan deity called” Choice,” they sure do n’t suffer men or Republican women who choose to honor” Choice” in their own ways and with their own votes.
You ca n’t blame the Democrats for trying to make people vote for their candidate with whatever “-ism” of the day is supposed to frighten us, though. Why would n’t they try? When Democratic leaders like Paul Ryan and John Boehner were so utterly hostile of the first black leader that they refused to support him for nearly ten years, it worked half for him. John McCain was unable to criticize Jeremiah Wright, the bigot who had praised the September 11 terrorist attack on America because of the race cards.
But those frightful strategies have since lost their appeal. We’ve essentially wiped out our ranks of the quivering pearl-clutchers for whom the success of our wonderful nation depends more on a steady stream of cocktail party invites. We flyover rubees then wear their scathing indictments as badges of honor, and believe in the media is at its lowest ever levels.
I would n’t trust Harris to mop a floor. And I would n’t show Clinton the$ 1.28 in my pocket, lest she cut my throat to take it on principle. And it’s not discriminatory to state that. Over 169 million girls live in the United States. I’ve only criticized two of them. If that’s your idea of discrimination, you need to find your scalp checked.
Advertisement