Why Ignoring An Historic First Is Bad. And Good.

"Nothing to see here. Move along."

“Nothing to see here. Move along.”


Beyond the idiocy of the risible media and Establishment spin that the big winner of Monday’s Iowa Caucuses was Marco Rubio with his predicted third place finish, what was lost on me and probably most people was that in actually coming in first, Ted Cruz made history by being the first American of Latino extraction to win a caucus or primary in US history.

Cruz was expected to lose by a clear margin to Donald Trump and was behind by most estimates by 7 points in the polls. But he overcame that deficit to win by about 4. Whatever one thinks about Trump and Cruz, both are loathed and despised by the Establishment, the Democrat/Left and their acolytes in the media. So obviously, Ted Cruz’s win and Trump’s close finish in second had to be downplayed and spun into a Marco Rubio “victory.” That’s the “bad” referenced in the title of this post.

But how can ignoring Cruz’s victory be “good?” Recall the words of Martin Luther King Jr. from his speech on the National Mall of August 1963,

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

The fact that I didn’t even realize the historic nature of Cruz’s victory at all until Mark Levin mentioned it almost in passing on his program yesterday is striking in its significance. It means that I (and I’m sure millions of others) had Dr. King’s ethic so firmly rooted in my way of thinking and being that I was oblivious to Cruz’s ethnicity. Wow.

In fact, Cruz along with Rubio and Carson accounted for something like 60% of the votes in Iowa, which had a record turnout. And if you count the candidacies of Bobby Jindal and Carly Fiorina, as well as the fact that they are all relatively youthful, you have about as diverse a group of candidates as you can get. Not that that’s important.

And who do we have on the Democrat side?


"Venezuela/"Yet to be Indicted '16"

“Venezuela/”Yet to be Indicted ’16”


If there is one thing that I cannot abide about the Democrat/Left is their hypocrisy, especially when it comes to issues of race. They have done more to oppress, Balkanize and divide and conquer for political expediency and power than can be chronicled in this post. And yet we are to believe that they are the party and movement of justice, fairness, equality and diversity.

With that in mind, and speaking of Martin Luther King Jr., from about a week ago comes this nugget that perfectly illustrates the tolerance and open-mindedness of our betters in the enlightened Left:

Student leaders at the University of Oregon debated removing a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. from its student center, arguing that the quote was not inclusive enough for modern understandings of diversity.

"Tears in Heaven"

“Tears in Heaven”


The quote in question that they want to remove is the one I cited from his “I Have a Dream Speech.” Dr. King must be rolling in his grave.

5 comments to “Why Ignoring An Historic First Is Bad. And Good.”
  1. I had the opportunity to stroll around your neighborhood yesterday afternoon while waiting to meet someone, and I began thinking about exactly your point. I realized that race had become an afterthought for me. And ethnicity was simply an interesting detail, with the delightful possibility of good food.

    But that is rapidly changing in this country. Just take the subway in NYC during rush hour and see the anger and resentment among certain people.

    Perhaps this will be Obama’s greatest and most terrible legacy. He took a country that had, for the most part, decided, “Race? Eh who gives a shit!” and turned it into a seething cauldron of animosity and budding Balkanization.

  2. Race matters less than culture. But therein lies the problem.

    Take my town. The problem here is a culture of violence, apathy towards lives and general despair towards bettering oneself.

    The most prominent example of that is in North St. Louis, which is predominantly African-American. So when you mix in the racial agitating by the commander in chief it breeds a level of contempt based on what our agitators push (i.e. race)

    But just across a river in St. Chuck, there’s a known drug problem (meth/opioids primarily) which creates basically the same set of problems in a predominantly white culture.

    The real difference is the headline grabbing violence, not the race.

  3. I agree, but the nub of my post is that in looking at a Ted Cruz or a Ben Carson, I’m looking at what’s inside their heads and hearts, and what’s coming out of their mouths. Secondary racial/cultural characteristics are not even taken into account.

    Of course, as a white man, racism is in my DNA so there’s no getting around that no matter what I say or how I feel.

  4. I think the some of Rubio’s most… ahem… “enthusiastic” supporters resent that Cruz has undercut two of Marco’s big selling points: his ethnicity and his age. That’s the only explanation for the venom I see from some of these folks, because it’s certainly not based on policy or qualifications.

    Sucks to be them.

Comments are closed.