Submitted for your consideration, from Dana Milbank, writing about Senator Ted Cruz: [emphasis added to quotes]
… The young senator from Texas, after just nine months on the job, had managed to drag down his Republican Party to historic unpopularity. But as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went to the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon to announce a deal that would begin to repair the damage Cruz inflicted, the renegade couldn’t resist one more poke at his leadership.
“Unfortunately, once again, it appears the Washington establishment is refusing to listen to the American people,” the Texan intoned, his protruding chin bouncing as the vitriol poured from the lips above it. “The United States Senate has stayed with the traditional approach of the Washington establishment of maintaining the status quo.”
CNN pulled away from McConnell when the sore loser began talking. …
Can anyone, anywhere, imagine a well-known columnist of Milbank’s caliber referring to Barack Obama in such a disrespectful and arguably racist way? What would happen if, for example, a well-known conservative columnist wrote this about Obama?
His protruding ears wiggling as the vitriol poured from his purple lips.
Would that columnist keep his job for long? Why the double standard?
While progressive “journalists” often point to Cruz’s youth and relatively short tenure in the Senate, how many of them ever mentioned Obama’s youth and lack of experience when he ran for president? How many progressive reporters have referred to Obama as a “renegade” or a “sore loser” (which he definitely is)? Cruz is an elected representative of the people of Texas. As such, is he not due the same respect as shown to Obama? Then there’s this:
Earlier this week CNBC reporter Steve Liesman requested “Mexican music” for Senator Ted Cruz. …
[After an Internet firestorm,] CNBC Senior Economics Reporter Steve Liesman issued this apology. …
“Regarding my recent remark on Squawk Box regarding Senator Ted Cruz, I first want to deeply and sincerely apologize if my remarks were insensitive.
Second, I want to explain that it was not intended to be offensive in any way.
I thought of him only as an American senator from Texas, and in an attempt, on the fly, to choose music representing that state, I chose Mexican music.
As a musician for many decades, I’ve played and listened to tons of Texas songs infused with Mexican themes.”
This is a typical progressive non-apology apology. “If you were offended, I’m sorry.” He doesn’t own the remarks. He tries to put the onus on those who were offended, implying that they ought not be offended and are, perhaps, simply too sensitive.
Since Liesman falls back on the lame excuse that as a musician, he’s familiar with Mexican themes in the music of Texas, then why didn’t he refer to Tejano music instead of Mexican music?
Texas is a state in the USA, not Mexico. Tejano music is specifically Texan as opposed to “Mexican”, and it includes the “white” people of Texas, too, since Tejano music has roots in Germany, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, as well as in Mexico.
Liesman knows the term Tejano, but that’s not the term he used. (Interesting name. Lies man. Hmmm.)
It’s worth noting that Cruz, despite representing Texas, is not Mexican-American. He’s Cuban-American, and he was born in Canada. Then there’s this:
Chris Matthews Accuses Ted Cruz of Racism Against “Brown People” …
Why? Because Cruz said this:
Having spent the past month up in D.C., it is really great to be back in America.
To which whiter than white Chris Matthews opined:
… this isn’t a casual reference. This “We’re Americans, we white people out here in Texas, as opposed to people who live in the big cities: the ethnics, the blacks, the browns. Those people in Washington, those liberals, they’re not Americans.”
Being Cuban-American, Cruz is himself a “brown” person. Is he not? He’s as brown as Barack Obama is black.
The population of Texas is approximately 45% non-hispanic white, so less than half white. One could argue that Texas itself has as many “ethnics” as does Washington DC. (Besides, who believes that Cruz was referring to the inhabitants of DC instead of the politicians therein?)
Aren’t non-hispanic whites “ethnic”? Tell that to the Texans who are proudly Czech, German, Irish, Polish, English, among many other “white” cultures. Finally, yet another from Chris Matthews, who is referring to Senator Ted Cruz here:
This guy goes pretty far, but I think he fits in the tradition of Father Coughlin, and [Joe] McCarthy, and of course, and maybe to a lesser extent, Pat Buchanan, and [Bill] O’Reilly. These guys are hard right-wing guys, they look a lot alike — they have what we call the ‘black Irish look’ to them — they don’t smile much.
How’s that for sound scientific theory? They look a lot alike? How racist is this? What’s Matthews saying here? That those who share physical characteristics must therefore share philosophical and political characteristics? Coughlin, McCarthy, Buchanan, O’Reilly, and Cruz have dark hair; therefore, they’re all “hard right-wing guys”?
Where does that leave Barack Obama, who also has dark hair and just happens to be (allegedly) of Irish descent? Obama’s mother looked as black Irish as Cruz, and she was far from being a “hard right-wing” gal.
Ah, but clever Chris Matthews. He’s done his homework. Cruz has some Irish ancestry, although whether his maternal grandfather was black Irish hasn’t been confirmed. Cruz’s Delaware-born mother, Eleanor Darragh, is of Irish and Italian descent. Cruz’s father, Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, is Cuban.
For the record, Chris Matthews, according to Wikipedia, is the son of a father of Anglo-Irish Protestant descent and a mother of Irish Roman Catholic descent, with Matthews himself being Catholic. He “looks” Anglo/Dutch, however, like the Orangemen. Although being Irish himself, perhaps Matthews doesn’t identify with the “black” Irish of whom he speaks, who are, some say, the aboriginal peoples of Ireland–descendants of Iberians. Maybe Matthews is a “progressive” instead of a “hard right-wing guy” by the grace of whatever god blessed him with blond rather than black hair.
In any case, what’s his point with this rant? Father Coughlin was an early supporter of FDR, a socialist, an anti-Semite, and even a sometime supporter of Hitler and Mussolini. His support for Nazism (national socialism) and “social justice” puts him philosophically close to today’s progressives and socialists in the Democrat Party of Barack Obama, which Matthews wholeheartedly supports. Coughlin was far from being a “hard right-wing” guy. He was, however, a hard left-wing guy, as are all Nazis and fascists and anti-Semites.
One thing Cruz does have in common with Coughlin: Both were born in Canada. Cruz and black Irish have dark hair, but so does Barack Obama. Cruz, by the way, is not Roman Catholic, so does not have that in common with Coughlin, McCarthy, Buchanan, O’Reilly, OR Matthews.
So why is a commentator of Irish descent trying to lump Ted Cruz in with black Irish folks? Is he trying to fool the hispanics in his audience into thinking that Cruz is not “hispanic” or “brown” himself?
Is Matthews trying to fool “ethnics” in his audience into thinking that Cruz is not a person of color like themselves, but is just another “cracker”?
If Cruz, by virtue of having a mother of Irish and Italian descent, is not, therefore, “brown”, despite having a Cuban father,
then Barack Obama, by virtue of having a mother of
predominantly English ancestry, with some German, Swiss, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh ancestry
is not, therefore, black, despite having a black African father. Chris Matthews cannot have it both ways, no matter how hard he tries.
By the way, Cruz smiles. He smiles a lot. See photo above.
One thing is clear: These people are afraid of Senator Ted Cruz. They’re like rats on an electrified grid. They’re all over the place.
They don’t know which way to jump, and it’s so much fun to watch them scramble.