Mostly white, mostly male

The hyper-liberal online tabloid Huff-&-Puffington Post belly-ached this week that candidates backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee are “mostly white, mostly male.”

Oh, puh-lease. What a bowl of crunchy flapdoodle.

Liberals are obsessed with age, sex, race, nationality and sexual preference. Conservatives couldn’t care less.

We’re more interested in stuff like whether or not candidates support the Second Amendment, the death penalty for those who’ve earned it, controlling our borders to stop illegal aliens, drugs, disease, terrorists, murders and rapists from waltzing in, and will refuse to take more money out of our wallets.

If a Republican candidate is a 28-year-old, handicapped, deaf, dumb, blind, trans-gendered, Mexican-heritage midget – even if he/she is part Irish – I’d support him as long as he signs the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, promises to keep his hands off my AR-15 and builds the tallest, most beautiful wall you’ve ever seen on the border.

On the other hand, a liberal old, bald, fat, heterosexual, white Catholic Democrat who wants to raise my taxes, take my guns, export jobs, import terrorists and open the borders can take a flying leap.

In this election Hillary Clinton is saying we should vote for her because she’d be the first woman president in America while Donald Trump is running to make America great again.

Hello? Am I supposed to vote against Trump simply because he’s a white male? Or even more stupidly, vote for Hillary simply because she’s a woman?

But there’s something even more important to me in a candidate than philosophy.

“Crooked” Hillary, as Donald Trump rightly points out, is “a world class liar” who “may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.” Are we supposed to overlook that simply because she’s a woman? I don’t think so.

Closer to home, we have three white, male Nevada Republican legislators –— Assemblymen Derek Armstrong, David Gardner and Steven Silberkraus — who all ran in 2014 promising to oppose tax hikes.

But after getting elected they spit in their constituents’ eyes and voted for the largest tax hike in state history. Worse, that tax hike included a new “commerce tax” that 80% of their constituents had already voted against seven months earlier at the ballot box!

If a man’s word is no good, the man is no good. Ditto a woman.

So this time around do I support the Republicans who said they wouldn’t vote for tax hikes but did, or the Democrats who I know would vote for any tax hike at the drop of a hat?

Well, as John Wayne said in The Cowboys, “I can’t stand a liar.” So it looks like, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it looks like I’ll be supporting three (gulp) Democrats this fall. What a sorry state of affairs.

Chuck Muth is publisher of You can read additional columns and/or contact him at


Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment