Patterico's Pontifications


Privileged And Liberal White Women Shell Out Big Bucks To Admit They Are Racist

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:20 pm

[guest post by Dana]

This makes my brown skin crawl:

Freshly made pasta is drying on the wooden bannisters lining the hall of a beautiful home in Denver, Colorado. Fox-hunting photos decorate the walls in a room full of books. A fire is burning. And downstairs, a group of liberal white women have gathered around a long wooden table to admit how racist they are.

“Recently, I have been driving around, seeing a black person, and having an assumption that they are up to no good,” says Alison Gubser. “Immediately after I am like, that’s no good! This is a human, just doing their thing. Why do I think that?”

This is Race to Dinner. A white woman volunteers to host a dinner in her home for seven other white women – often strangers, perhaps acquaintances. (Each dinner costs $2,500, which can be covered by a generous host or divided among guests.) A frank discussion is led by co-founders Regina Jackson, who is black, and Saira Rao, who identifies as Indian American. They started Race to Dinner to challenge liberal white women to accept their racism, however subconscious. “If you did this in a conference room, they’d leave,” Rao says. “But wealthy white women have been taught never to leave the dinner table.”

These moneyed, white liberal women belong to a select group of malleable, non-independent thinking individuals. A group which notably excludes men and Trump-supporting women:

Rao and Jackson believe white, liberal women are the most receptive audience because they are open to changing their behavior. They don’t bother with the 53% of white women who voted for Trump. White men, they feel, are similarly a lost cause. “White men are never going to change anything. If they were, they would have done it by now,” Jackson says.

White women, on the other hand, are uniquely placed to challenge racism because of their proximity to power and wealth, Jackson says. “If they don’t hold these positions themselves, the white men in power are often their family, friends and partners.”

I simply lack the energy to do any analysis of this report. Yet given how painfully self-serving the leaders of Race to Dinner are, and the deep insecurity and neediness of its attendees, there’s really not much to say. Because honestly, the real issue with Race to Dinner is as plain as the problematic white nose on your face…

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


Rush Limbaugh Reveals Diagnosis of Advanced Lung Cancer

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:46 pm

That is very rough news. My best to the man.

Rush occasionally read stuff on the air from this blog, pre-Trump, back when this blog had some popularity and Rush supported an agenda not totally devoted to Trump. I still have warm feelings for that guy, and even though I disagree with all the time now, I wouldn’t wish lung cancer on anyone. Good luck to him. If you can’t say something nice in the comments, save your breath.

GOP Senator Warns Biden: If You’re Elected, We Might Immediately Push To Impeach You

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:48 am

[guest post by Dana]

Filed under: You have got to be kidding.

Bloomberg has the report:

Iowa Senator Joni Ernst warned Sunday that Republicans would immediately push to impeach Joe Biden over his work in Ukraine as vice president if he win the White House.

“I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened,” Ernst said in an interview with Bloomberg News. “Joe Biden should be very careful what he’s asking for because, you know, we can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden, that immediately, people, right the day after he would be elected would be saying, ‘Well, we’re going to impeach him.’”

The grounds for impeachment, the first-term Republican said, would be “for being assigned to take on Ukrainian corruption yet turning a blind eye to Burisma because his son was on the board making over a million dollars a year.”

Ernst discussed Trump’s impeachement Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union:

I think ferreting out corruption is absolutely the right thing to do”…[I]f Trump was “tying it to other things,” referring to the allegations that the president connected U.S. military aid to investigations into this political rival, that’s something she “wouldn’t have done.”

“The president has a lot of latitude to do what he wants to do…I think, generally speaking, going after corruption would be the right thing to do. He did it maybe in the wrong manner.”

Ernst said she will be voting to acquit Trump in the Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday, adding that “whether you like what the president has done or not,” she does not think it rises to the point of removing a president from office.

Ernst, who is an at-risk Repuplican in a battleground state, was recently pushing for a quick end to the impeachment:

We’ve had 17 witnesses, from the House…We do hear from people back home, but they’re like, ‘get this over with.’ That’s what I’m hearing, is that we really need to wrap this up and get the American people’s business done.

On the question of Republicans possibly pushing to impeach a President Biden, consider a sampling of the Republican response to the impeachement of Trump:

Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, was also “sad,” he told “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday morning, because Democrats wanted only to impeach Trump and prevent him from doing his “amazing” work—an observation that the President liked so much that he promptly tweeted it.

[I]mpeaching the President was, in the words of the Ohio Republican Jim Jordan “unfair,” “dangerous,” and “harmful to our country.”

And this from Kellyanne Conway:

“People will not forget about it,” Conway said Tuesday morning. “People will remember how those Democrats spent their time and the taxpayers’ money, which was a big waste. And if you waste my time, you risk my trust is what these voters will say to them. And can we stop calling them moderate Democrats? I think they’ve proven that they’re not. They are not representing the will of their people.”

“If you’re called a representative, if that’s your day job, you ought to represent the will of your people. And these folks saying, ‘Oh, it’s a vote of conscience. I’ve been struggling. I had to read all the documents all weekend.’ They would sound more legitimate and more credible if they just said, ‘I need to follow the leadership of my party, which has gone so far to the left, we can’t even see the middle from where we are anymore. And frankly, which probably dangles committee assignments and campaign money in front of me for me to make this vote,'” she said.

Even viewing the the hearing was considered a waste of time, let alone the impeachment itself:

“They’re kind of on a fishing expedition,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).


“It’s a political sideshow and I’ve got more important things to do,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “The House has its job to do. And then when it comes to us, that’s when our job kicks in.”


“It’s a sham. It’s a show trial. Not even that,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.). “Nothing rises to the level of impeachment. So, this is just a big waste of time.”

And let’s not forget these GOP responses when the impeachment inquiry was launched:

“So much for being prayerful and thoughtful, I think it’s a bad day for the country, I think this whole thing is a joke,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham…

“I guess if you’re going to come up with an inadequate case, you might as well go for the impeachment and have the circus,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., told reporters, adding that he’s glad they’re getting to it “sooner rather than later.”

Additionally, Lamar Alexander held fast that it was voters who should decide Trump’s fate, not Congress:

“If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist…It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party… Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”

Ernst’s warning provided Biden this nugget to use on the campaign trail:

They very much don’t want to face me obviously,” Biden told the Des Moines Register. “I’ve never seen a sitting president and his allies this frightened about who may be the nominee.”

Claiming that the impeachment of Trump has opened a “door of impeachable whatever” diminishes the impeachment process, as well as conveniently relieves a president of accountability for his actions. There is something hypocritical about a party that has cried foul from the Trump impeachment get-go and blamed it on everything from a witch hunt, to partisan politics and an attempt to undue an election, and yet these same people are now warning a contender from the other side of the aisle that there could be an immediate push for impeachment if he is elected. Let’s call it weaponizing impeachment. Whatever happened to letting the voters decide? Whatever happened to doing the will of the people? What about accusations that the impeachment effort was nothing more than an effort to overturn an election? Does all of that go out the window when the president is a Democrat? Shouldn’t consistency and an equal-application of laws and processes be the goal rather than straight partisanship? Because if Biden becomes our next persident, then clearly the people will have spoken and made their will known.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1109 secs.