Posted on 06/02/2011 7:25:35 AM PDT by RogerFGay
You might expect that I will lead this article by pointing to the extraordinarily weak field of candidates currently led by Mitt Romney (code-name: Chameleon). OK, that's fair. I should and in fact I already have. But there's something else. The lamestream media has started its quadrennial preoccupation with the (so-called) “women's vote”. The social policy agenda, and indeed the fate of Constitutional rule, will once again rest in the hands of radical feminists. The RINOs can't handle it.Early on, there will be much focus on the Obama agenda; the New World Order, “socializing” American industry, broader and more intensive cronyism. We'll certainly not believe candidates in the current field, who've taken credit for advancing all three during their careers. But even if another fresh, clean candidate should appear and gain in popularity, he or she will have to overcome the final barrier. A Republican candidate cannot win without winning quite solidly among men. And that's where every potential Republican nominee will be sabotaged by professional campaign advisers and party leaders.
Remember John McCain and the way he chased the skirts of “Hillary voters”? Sarah Palin said she'd do the same thing again if she had the chance. I believe she would; and then we'd find ourselves in the midst of the same spitting and snarling cat-fights as before, stuck month after month in the great competition over who's a better feminist. If there's any bright side at all, it might only be that there will be even less attention paid to MSNBC's racial slurs. But that won't save the Republicans.
The Party has a secret, and it's a doozy. When it came to the feminist vote, Ronald Reagan was farther left than Barack Obama. As Governor of California, he led the national charge to annul traditional marriage and family laws. He followed through as president, with the full support of NOW, under the Republican cover of child support and “welfare reform.” And the Party succeeded.
When Federal court challenges arose during the Clinton years, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals formally put an end to traditional marriage and individual rights at the same time. In P.O.P.S. v. Gardner (1993), the Court reclassified marriage and family law from civil law to social policy. This effectively (legally) redefined both marriage and the relationship between the individual and government. A year later, the nation saw the Republican “Contract with America” (Newt Gingrich) that whole-heartedly supported the transition and not surprisingly attempted to replace the concept of Constitutional protection with political party promises.
“Welfare reform” led to both an enormous increase in welfare spending and an all-encompassing expansion of the reach of the welfare state. Think the federal government telling individuals how to spend their money is something started by Obamacare? It's not. The welfare reforms of the 1980s opened the door. Tens of millions of American men, who had nothing to do with welfare benefits, began to experience living without Constitutional rights, in a country where one's wealth and happiness are entirely at the mercy of political whim.
Do you think spying on innocent Americans and great government databases filled with personal information began with The Patriot Act? Think again. It was “welfare reform” that authorized the tens of billions of dollars to build and operate the national computer systems and all the information gathering mechanisms (such as access to bank records, mandatory employment reporting, etc.). They said they were keeping track of “deadbeat dads” or “illegal aliens” or …. anyway, they were compiling information and automatically tracking the activities of everyone with a Social Security card.
It's no wonder that RINOs like Mitt Romney (and Newt Gingrich, and …) love to drop Reagan's name. It was all done in the name of fiscal conservatism and spun with socially conservative brain-teasers like “government enforcement of personal responsibility”.
They called the increased spending “investment” that was supposed to reduce welfare dependency and spending in the long run. The spin was in fact the brain-child of a leftist social science professor, Irwin Garfinkel. Among other propaganda, Garfinkel produced a “study” that concluded that socialists have a higher standard of living because their income tends toward equality (i.e. the masses are better off being equally poor because they're less relatively poor) and participated in far-left academic-level New World Order groups.
Working at the Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty, Garfinkel convinced then Wisconsin Governor and later to be HHS Secretary under George W. Bush, Tommy Thompson to adapt his welfare reform concept. Thompson's far-left social policy agenda on child support and welfare reform was in the 1980s and 1990s worse than Romney's health-care socialism in Massachusetts. The welfare reform revolution went national without serious public scrutiny, legally ended traditional marriage, led to the downfall of Constitutional rule, and opened the door to the national undoing.
No, the Father's Rights Movement is not dead. The lamestream media stopped reporting when public opinion swayed to their side. You may not have noticed, but every Republican presidential candidate was quizzed about this issue in 2008 – and their responses posted on YouTube. They weren't good. Meanwhile, tens of millions of men - that's a lot of voters - who have suffered greatly from the reforms are waiting for a candidate to emerge who'll actually tell the truth and lead the country back to Constitutional rule and protection of their individual rights. It's not going to be done if no one is willing to acknowledge the root cause. And those men aren't going to vote Republican if the candidate can't or won't deal with it honorably.
And they won't. If they were, they wouldn't grasp defeat from the jaws of victory by pursuing "Hillary voters." And that's why Republicans will lose 2012.
Obama can be beaten, but it may take more than one conservative candidate to do it. I am so ready for conservative wannabees and declared candidates to get on the field bringing their Trump mouth, Ryan brain, Christie precision, Palin energy, Cain real time experience and take it all to Obama. We need these egos to get on, get off or get out, and soon. Early matters.
Dick Morris capsulized what I also believe; the vagueness in our conservative tier of candidates, and the coyness of the wannabees is throwing the early energy to Romney!
True, you cannot be brainwashed. It requires a brain....
Dick Morris is the Devil.
Dick Morris is the Devil.” =========
Thank you for going off the point and heading instead up a rabbit trail. Check your pockets for some substance.
For some people it might have been about that, but the voting bloc that gave Obama his victory was one never seen before, and never before possible: the white guilt vote, made up of independent or moderate whites who still will move back-and-forth between parties in presidential elections.
Those white guilt voters just loved what they thought it said about themselves and their country to elect the first black president. It just felt so darned good. That's the voting bloc to really study for 2012.
Hopefully most of them have left their flight of fancy and returned to reality since November of 2008.
“None of the above.” If we’re stuck with early, we’re DOOOOOMMED!!!!!!!!!
Over the years, I've seen many thread hijacking attempts - but never one for your own thread.
This is a first.
Guilty white voters tend to pout and whine on the left, hoping to get the feeling that they’re “doing something” (about their guilt). So, you’re looking for even more excuses to ignore the base - again.
Do you have a circuit broken? Perhaps it’s too much for you to elaborate? What is disadvantageous for us to commit to something, anything, early?
I wrote a whole article - can’t you take that into context? Why rush to support a loser? Simple impatience?
Hey, at least I’m not one of those Palin cultists who walks around thinking “she’s just like one of us, duh!”
I wrote a whole article - can’t you take that into context? Why rush to support a loser? Simple impatience? “
Thankfully we’re not all fatalists, but enough of the friendly fire. Moving on, here.
You miss the entire point. Guilty white voters on the left will always vote for the Dem candidate, or some maybe even Nader or some other candidate even more to the left.
It's the white guilt voter in the middle, who might still move from one party to the other in presidential elections, who are the swing vote that gave Obama his victory.
This "Hillary voter" notion was and is of little consequence. Who really believes that Hillary supporters - Hillary of Hillarycare who has always been pretty far to the left - who really thinks that any significant group of her supporters would choose to vote for any Republican for president?
The were not and are not a significant voting bloc that could be won by a Republican presidential candidate.
The Reps should be going after white male voters. If McCain had won the same percentage Bush did, he would have won. IMO Obama lost the majority of Americans over the Officer Crowley incident. The post-racial President has proven to be a racist and a radical.
If Obama does not win the female vote by a similar 56 to 43 margin in 2012, he is toast. The youth vote will also no longer be a major plus for him as the majority of college graduates go back to live with their parents and without jobs. Obama is trying to put back together the same coalition that won last time--women, minorities, gays, and the young. I doubt he can do it if the economy remains the way it is and the Reps make the election a referendum on Obama.
I’m sorry R.FGay but most Americans now agree that a chimp on roller skates would make a better president than Obama. The fact the media doesn’t report it changes nothing.
Yes, since your last argument failed, this must be a conspiracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.