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.
Nice to see you again, Roger. Nicely written as always, though I don’t agree with all of it. You’re going to get flamed, of course, but you’ve always handled that well.
Don your asbestos suit, Roger. Some on this site won’t brook any criticism of Saint Ronnie.
a gay for Obama. How fitting
Mitt Romney (code-name: Chameleon)
He will be the nominee...
The GOP won the women’s vote in 2010.
I’m hardly brainwashed, but may I point out that when Reagan assumed the presidency, there was a Soviet Union
and when he left, there was no Soviet Union.
That’s all I have to know. I haven’t forgotten the threat.
/And, yes, W will go down as one of the five or six lousiest presidents ever.
Oh, and Reagan was uncompromisingly pro-life.
Anti-communist + pro-life = conservative.
In my book.
Not being confrontational, just sayin’...
Does that mean he is happy?????
Lots of references made to the 2008 election. No mention of the 2010 "shellacking" of the Dems that was of historic proportions and gained control back of the House from the Dems. It was a watershed event similar to the Dem takeover of Congress in the 2006 midterms, which foreshadowed the huge Dem victory in 2008.
In 2008, women helped deliver the presidency to Mr. Obama, voting for the Democrat 56 percent to 43 percent over Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican. Men split their votes between the two candidates almost evenly.
2012 will be one of the most vicious and polarizing elections in our history. Obama will pull the race, ethnic, and gender cards. He will have huge amounts of money. But ultimately, the economy will be the decisive factor.
The more his dementia set in the more liberal he got.
As the definition of “conservative” gets narrower and narrower and has no longer has anything to do with preserving the American way. What good was it to defeat Russian communists and then adopt Russian communism?
I forget where I heard it, but someone (maybe Bernie Goldberg) commented that people remain supportive of Obama because of superficial reasons like his smile. There are too many people who judge a Presidential election as if it is American Idol. They aren’t judging policies and have minimal depth when they vote.
Subsequent events have nothing to do with Reagan. He is dead.
You were the one who brought him up, and I am specifically addressing that.
I am afraid that no matter how you try you will not be able to defeat President Reagan in any election.
Repost this article in 2013.
Personally, I wouldn’t bet a nickel on Obama.
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.