Posted on 05/16/2012 1:03:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If “Julia” taught us anything, it’s that the Democrats' agenda — a set of cradle-to-grave policies designed to “protect” women and keep them under the auspices of government control — is doomed to fail come November.
Yesterday’s CBS/New York Times poll that found that women support Romney over Obama 46-44, revealing that playing gender politics actually doesn’t win you women’s — or men’s — votes. The fact is this “gender split” really just mimics the general vote split, suggesting that these ideas are widely unpopular.
As I’ve written before, the “War on Women” narrative is risky business, as women are more and more out-performing men educationally and professionally and even, increasingly, becoming the breadwinners in the family. With so much success, it gets hard to maintain the narrative that women are somehow grossly discriminated against and in need of government support.
Not only do all the policies the White House touts as favorable for women — Head Start, “Race to the Top,” Title IX, government-administered financial aid, ObamaCare and “free coverage,” workplace regulations like Lilly Ledbetter and the Paycheck Fairness Act — fail women and their families, but also they lead to fewer choices, less flexibility and less freedom in all of our lives.
Let’s be clear: Too often, the policies promoted by the left in the name of helping women actually end up hurting women.
Sometimes the condescension coming from the White House is just too much. Apparently women’s success has all been a function of government. Whether you’re the star swimmer on your college team or the new CEO, it’s because Washington carried you there.
What yesterday’s poll numbers reveal is not that Romney has his thumb on the pulse of American women — he certainly still needs help refining his policies and communications. But it suggests that women are tired of being talked (down) to as if they are a victim class in need of constant care.
zero is a psychological mess
It’s called “learned helplessness”, and that’s just what the far left wants in an electorate.
Reporter: Why are you here?
WOMAN #1: To get some money.
Reporter:What kind of money?
WOMAN #1: Obama money.
Reporter:Where’s it coming from?
WOMAN #1: Obama.
Reporter:And where did Obama get it?
WOMAN #1: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. I don’t know where he got it from, but he givin’ it to us, to help us.
WOMAN #2: And we love him.
WOMAN #1: We love him. That’s why we voted for him!
WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)
As an independent woman, I am really offended by the liberal mentality that women can’t take care of themselves. But this is the same attitude they have toward minorities. I remember in college 25 years ago I thought all the women programs and equal opportunities was crap. I went to a largely engineering school. The male to female ratio was 5 to 1. Come interview time, companies would interview 85 men and 15 women to fill 10 positions. 1/2 of those positions were for women. I even thought back then that it was so unfair and discriminatory to the men. Women would have multiple job offers, just because the odds were so largely in their favor.
I’m glad this back fired on Obama, because I was starting to worry about the women in this country. I’m glad they seem to think more like me.
It seems that, so far, just about everything the Dems are trying is backfiring on them. As Rush said today on his show, these guys (Obama’s campaign organization) are NOT very smart.
Obama’s Julia illustrates how he believes that American women are weak and helpless, and that they therefore desperately need his Federal aid and assistance programs.
All praise Obama. Were it not for his health reform, the delicate snowflake named Julia would not have been covered by her parents’ medical insurance at age 25. And she would have to pay for her abortions and/or contraceptives, too.
Julia loves Obama.
Curiously, Orwell’s main female character in 1984 was named Julia, but she didn’t love Big Brother as much as Obama’s Julia.
|
Womb to tomb. |
Modeling the old “Mother, PLEASE!, I’d rather do it myself” commercial, I think the Republicans could make a great little parody about Julia. The government would be “popping in” all the time, offering stupid advice, hovering...at some point “Julia” would shout at her similar to that old commercial, which I think was for Bayer aspirin. Appeal to that “I can do it myself” spirit of adolescent rebellion maybe.
Thank you Julie, errrr, Julia!
Bill Clinton has to be thinking, “You idiot, you’re not supposed to tell people you’re going to be a liberal until AFTER the election.”
While it's probably true that these guys are NOT that smart, one wonders what a really smart Obama campaign could consist of.
If he had the most brilliant campaign strategists in the world--what could they do? Run on his economic record? Hardly. Run on his singular achievement--Obamacare? I don't think so. The way he has improved the relationships between America's whites and blacks, rich and poor, men and women, union and non-union, city and suburb? If he improves these any more we'll be fighting another Civil War.
And what about his foreign policy achievements? Oh yeah, he (personally) killed bin Laden (after being told exactly where Osama was via a tip that was generated using the exact type of enhanced interrogation technique that Obama vilifies.) Meanwhile, Iran is 3 1/2 years closer to having the Bomb, Syria has been a total bloodbath, the Arab Spring in the Middle East (which Obama touted) is turning into the Muslim Brotherhood Spring, our allies don't trust us, our enemies don't fear us, and his promise to engage those enemies via dialogue has only amplified Obama's inexperience and naivete.
So, really, what could a smart Obama campaign manager really do? Keep the eyes of the great unwashed masses from focusing on the unemployment rate, the housing debacle, the price of gasoline, Fast & Furious, the GSA (and, to a lesser extent, the Secret Service) scandal, Solyndra, Light-Squared, and on and on. Bring up phony, relativity minor issues, attack his opponent's weaknesses (both real and imagined) and otherwise use sleight-of-hand and similar methods of prestidigitation to change the topic and obscure the real issues. That's exactly what they've been doing, and it's pretty much all they can do with the unprecedentedly weak hand Obama has dealt them.
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.