Sunday, April 19, 2020

He May Be a Senile Rapist, But He's Our Senile Rapist

Barbara Ehrenreich, the socialist feminist and writer, tweeted today: "I promised the grand-dots I would hold my nose and vote for Biden but since his China-bashing ad I’m just gagging and choking."

That's exactly how I feel too, but I wasn't surprised to see how dozens of people getting on her case, in terms painfully familiar to me from campaigns past.  For example: "no gagging and choking with the alternative to Biden?"  Similarly, "How in God's name have you managed to survive the Trump administration if Biden makes you gag and choke?"

If you don't like the Democrats' senile rapist and racist, you see, you obviously love the Republicans' senile rapist and racist.  It is thoughtcrime in the first degree to express any criticism of the Party's anointed one, even to entertain the thought that he or she is less than perfect.  Both of these clowns are insinuating that Ehrenreich is soft on Trump, a tactic I've often encountered over the years: If you don't adore Obama, you must want four more years of Bush; if you don't adore Obama, you must intend to vote for McCain.  The crowning irony here is that both Bush and McCain have been rehabilitated by Democrats; I guess they were never as vile as we were told in 2008.

Several replies appear along the lines of "Just do it!" and "You gotta do it Barb."  As with the previous lickspittles, I challenged them to say the quiet part aloud: Barb must vote for a senile rapist and whose only selling point is that he isn't Trump, who's stirring up anti-Asian racism because he thinks it will win the election for him.  Only one, the "How in God's name" guy, has responded so far, and he only wrote "Yes."  Even he, it appeared, isn't ready to say it right out.  Perhaps he has a sensitive gag reflex.

Another: "Just stop. STOP. Use your voice to get rid of this menace."  Although Ehrenreich's voice couldn't even penetrate this person's thick skull, she still supposes Ehreneich is so powerful that she can determine the results of the election all by her lonesome.  If Biden manages to win, of course he'll be totally helpless, as Obama was, and anyone who tries to hold his feet to the fire will be accused of giving aid and comfort to the GOP, if not an actual Republican. But Ehrenreich, a mere writer, is all-powerful, a she-devil on the order of the she-devil Susan Sarandon, who could sway the masses for Good but instead chooses Evil.

I mustn't forget this one: "If you make a list of consequences if Biden wins & another if Trump wins It helps. The election is about so much more than one person, eg SCOTUS/fed judges, environmental laws, tax policy, climate, health care, could get some progressive policies passed under a Dem President."  If you make a list of Biden's actual record, you'll remember that he isn't interested in progressive policies. As for the Supreme Court, it's especially careless to remind Ehrenreich of the real-life (as opposed to fantasy-land) justice Biden gifted us during the first Bush administration, Clarence Thomas.  Biden has already stated his opposition to a Medicare for All reform, though he reportedly is considering lowering the present Medicare age of eligibility to 60.  Progressive!

And finally, because this is as far as I can go down Memory Lane without gagging, there was this, from an admitted Canadian: "Don’t be absurd. There is no equivalence. Not even close. SMH" [Shaking My Head, for those unacquainted with Internet conventions].  Ehrenreich hadn't asserted "equivalence", indeed according to her other ankle-biters she loves Trump and only hates Biden.  But this claim turned up often in the 2016 campaign: if you said that Hillary Clinton was the lesser evil, you'd be accused of saying there was no difference between her and Trump.  I'm still trying to figure out what kind of thought process could come up with this non sequitur, but of course there is no thought process involved.