In other words, just another DUmocrat pushing a defeatist agenda:
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.
In other words, just another DUmocrat pushing a defeatist agenda:
Yes, yoooou’re the brave and intelligent one. Make sure the Republican nominee is a total loser. Yah, that’s the ticket.
Lots of good points here, maybe it will get back to Sarah. But strangely I haven’t seen her ever pack up with the feminists to get their votes as she clearly doesn’t align herself with them. She already demonstrates huge respect for the family, promotes her husband as a strong leader she goes to for guidance, and even enjoys participating male sports, which has won millions of men.
However, we also know, that the gender of registered voters favors on the female side. And I to have been worried when I see so many MEOW’s from conservative women. And I keep hoping they will overcome their fear of her losing the election because of the misogynic desperation of the MSM.
Actually I have been doing everything I can, when encountering these ladies is to get them to concentrate on her clear record of successes in Alaska, and especially pointing our her proclivity for pushing corrupt politicians toward the jailhouse.
AND, I point out the clear record that before McCain picked Sarah Palin in 2008, he could barely garner a ho hum in the polls. But within three weeks of Palin’s arrival on the scene they were polling over Obama by 3% and their campaign contributions had almost doubled overnight. So she was already winning once, until McCain dropped everything and rushed back to log in full support for the TARP bill, which the many of us were wanting to fail. The democrats clearly trapped him in that gig.
If we want Sarah Palin, that’s what we’re going to have to do. Is get out among the masses, point to her resume, and what actually happened in the 2008 election.
Ugh. I'll never forget my stunned reaction to hearing a guy that was a good friend for many, many years tell me: "When we found out the results the next morning, my wife and I were so happy and so proud that our country finally elected a black man as president."
The only saving grace was that he was telling me this about a year or so later at the point that he was beginning to doubt the "wisdom" of his feel-good (racist) voting choice. I still can't get over how many freakin' people thought that "finally electing a black man" was somehow a major criteria in selecting a POTUS; just another sign of how far the collective intelligence, sanity, and morality of our society has declined (all by design of course).
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.
I would like to share in your optimism, but as each day goes by, I find less and less reason to do so. I'm not even sure that "the economy" is going to be enough, I think that they will manipulate all of the BS "government statistics" at the right time to fool a lot of people into thinking that "the worst is over." Couple that with the propaganda media telling everyone that none of it was the usurper's fault, and some bogus stimulus $$$ doled out at the right time, and I just don't have the confidence that enough people will be swayed.
And if you take into account that the number of people in this country that are actually benefiting economically from the pure redistribution that has been in place far too long, it gets even more grim. And, I haven't even mentioned the monumental level of fraud and cheating that will occur (all stops will be pulled out for 2012, they are going for all of the marbles this time).
The only way that I think anything will change to provide sufficient numbers of people willing to vote for a true Conservative alternative to stop the destruction of our Republic is enough people are educated to the point that they understand what has been happening and why it has been happening. I do have faith that there are still enough people that would be willing to stand up to this and fight to end it, the only problem is to reach enough of them before the 2012 vote.
You have made several sweeping assertions in the article without bothering to provide any detailed support for any of it. Just what makes you conclude that "Hillary voters" are a major concern on the Republicans who are or might enter the 2012 presidential primaries?
What evidence is there that "Hillary voters" are a concern of this year's candidates?
The 2008 election was probably unwinnable for any Rep given the state of the economy and the historic nature of the Obama candidacy. McCain, the oldest candidate to run for the Presidency for the first time, ruled out any personal attacks against Obama, e.g., Rev Wright, Ayers, etc. I followed McCain on the primary trail for 8 days thru SC and FL. He was terrible on the stump, an old man who did as he has always done, running on his resume as a war hero. Despite all of that, Obama only got 52.8% of the vote.
As long as the Reps pick even just a presentable candidate, it will be hard for Obama to win contingent upon the economy. I would like to see Paul Ryan or Jim Demint run. Then it would be a slam dunk.
Huh? What “last argument” failed?
I did say “Hopefully” enough people will have gotten over the high of voting for a black guy. And I wouldn’t say I’m optimistic or pessimistic at this point, mostly waiting to see what candidates declare and what their platforms are.
That’s not what I said.
Actually, I sort of did say that. But it seemed clear in context (and may even be literally true in some way). The article is about focusing on the “women’s vote” and then some.
I'd like to be more tempered at this point (neither pessimistic nor optimistic), but I have been running out of reasons to convince myself that things aren't as bad as they appear to be.
Given the current field of Republican candidates, post 2012 analysis can easily be similar to your post 2008 analysis. For example - Romney does as he always has - continued to lie about who he is and what he stands for politically.
Yes, I understand your opinion. But I just don’t agree with it. You see as a card carrying PHD sociology specialist, I too, watched the 2008 election and studied it carefully. And the Sarah Palin emergence. And I don’t agree with you that if she runs and wins, we lose. Not by a long shot. There are those men who look at a strong woman and see a feminist who is simply not there. I’ve experienced it until they get to know me and see my conservative character. And I would be willing to bet the majority of those are on the liberal side. The many conservative men I’ve met are secure enough to appreciate a clear leader when they see one.
There's plenty of TOTAL LOSERS pimping their blog on this forum...most likely to push their own LOSER candidate.
I am sure that he will continue to do that, as will the current occupant of the WH. However, the colossal difference is that the propaganda media will relentlessly "expose" it with regard to the former, and continue to merrily ignore it for the latter.
Rowdy - reread the comment you’re responding to. “card-carrying member of a feminist group” isn’t a statement of opinion. I’m not being subjective. I’m stating a fact.
So there you go. The Republican candidate doesn’t just need to be a better skater, he or she needs to be a lot better. Forget all the ideas about picking up leftist “independents.” It’s bogus. They’ll be watching MSNBC anyway. If a Republican candidate can’t get back to impressing the base - forget that too. It won’t work. And the conservative base has a lot of men in it.
I would say at this point, he or she needs to own the rink (and be paying the salary of the judges!).
I totally agree that any hope of "attracting the independents" is pure folly at this point. (Personally, I believe that the number of pure "independents" is remarkably small at this point in time. I can't recall a time in our history where the choices have been more stark and clearly defined.)
Mark Levin commented last evening: "Let me put it to you this way. If we can’t win the Presidency with a conservative today, meaning this time around, we’re doomed anyway. "
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.