Posted on 10/03/2007 5:38:51 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
Ann Coulter has a new book. "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd be Republicans." Suggested subtitle ... "You Can't Fix Stupid."
I guess we now know just what sentence, paragraph or thought expressed in Coulter's book is going to be used by the MoveOn Democrat Party and the loony left in an attempt to demonize her.
Here's an excerpt from an interview with Ann Coulter by George Gurley. Here we find Coulter talking about women: "If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."
The left is sure to jump on this like a crow on a June bug. Thing is .... Coulter is exactly right. Don't take her word for it, just read "Freedomnomics" by John Lott. Here we have a renowned economist going all the way back to the late 1980s to see what happens when women get the vote.
His findings? In every single case, when women were given the right to vote the cost of government immediately began to rise as women, particularly single women, started voting for the candidates who would create more government spending programs designed to provide women with security. That magic word .. .security.
Lott found that young single women overwhelmingly vote liberal. When they marry and start a family they start voting more conservatively. That would be because their sense of security is provided by their family, and they don't want government to interfere in their accumulation of wealth.
Then, if that very same woman starts to feel that her marriage is threatened ... or if she becomes divorced ... she right back there voting for liberals again. Why? Security .. this time from the government instead of her husband. Coulter is right. Deal with it.
If Hillary Clinton becomes (God forbid) the next president of this country, it will be on the vote of young single women and divorcees.
Advance Sergeant Carl Harris, we salute you. He died so that others may wistfully choose a tea other than camomile.
Freegards, great post
LOL!
Yes,
we know we know,
we wimmens is bad!
We aren’t nearly as good, smart or level headed as you strong men folks...
I mean, you are just so so so superior to us silly widdle bitty goils.
You HAVE to run the world cuz we jez ain’t bright enough and we might just vote for stuff that you don’t like!
~~sigh~~~
“””bat”””
“””bat”””
“””bat”””
:::giggle:::
(OK, now where the heck did I put my Oscar??)
Mark
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/11-04-2004/0002356048&EDATE=
_______________________________
Women gave Senator Kerry just a three point edge in 2004. In 2004, Al Gore won the women's vote by more than ten points. That's 7 percent who switched sides.
__________________________
The US Population in 2004 was 54.5% women
More women register to vote than men. Some 68.7 million women were registered to vote in 2000 compared to 59.4 million men.
Women vote in higher numbers than men, and have done so in every election since 1964. In 2000, 7.8 million more women voted than men did. In 2004, 8.8 million more women voted.
Though more women Democratic, more women CHANGED their vote to Bush in 2004 than men changed in either direction. Add that to the overall greater numbers of women voting, and it tipped the scales, though just barely.
Also, more women are independent and swing voters than men in either party. Again, since they vote in higher numbers than men in either party, their collective votes are crucial.
Given the above, even a statistically small shift in women voters towards Republican candidate can make a big differnce in a tight elections, like the last 2 presidential elections we've had.
I'd say women's votes are pretty damn important. Political campaigns think so too. Only a handful of dinosaur males (sad to say mostly Republican males) discount women's political clout and somehow, idiotically, think insulting women will help them politically.
.... or if they are just the equal and opposite response to the bitter, modern-woman-hating troglodyte male.
I see them as the chicken and the egg. One could not exist without the other.
In all things there is balance and symmetry :~)
I like the way you think.....I love that Ann gives us this great stuff to gnash over....
Wideawakes must be mighty lonely joint these days....I see the once angry and resolute are trickling back...being an anti-freeper is boring
The reason there is some societal risk in granting women the franchise is that men and women are hot-wired differently. In some ways, this is obvious. Men are more aggressive and therefore more alert to threats to their territory and to their families (more on that later). Women are more conciliatory and more concerned about "fairness" and "equity". This is why national security tends to deteriorate in nations that are concerned with "gender equity". The more sexually egalitarian a nation is, the less concerned it becomes with its own defense. It's increasingly pre-occupied with spending money on nanny state programs.
This isn't to say that every man is conservative and pro-defense, and that every woman is the opposite. Clearly that isn't the case. But as a generality, it's true, and it accounts for the so-called gender gap in voting patterns and the leftward drift of the Western nations since universal suffrage became the norm.
It's the nature of women to be concerned about themselves. That's not necessarily bad. There's probably a biological reason for it since an individual woman's life is more valuable than an individual man's life. For example, ten women and one man on a desert island can produce more offspring than ten men and one woman. So in the real world, women are concerned about women and children, and so are men. This is why there's no discussion of men's issues among political candidates. It would sound silly if there was such a concern. But it's necessary for candidates to focus on women's issues and women's concerns in any given election.
A dynamic is thus created in which women are deemed to have interests other than those benefitting the society as a whole, and which are contrary to those of men. This is one possible explanation for why the once vibrant Western nations increasingly don't care about defending themselves, whether it's from Islamic terrorism or illegal aliens crossing the border. It's why our main concerns are how much money the taxpayers are going to spend on the next six entitlement programs.
Even simpler-—
Men measure the value of their lives on conquests and empires... in global, large concepts. Relationships are usually more surface and simplicity is key, the shortest direction between two points being a straight line...therefore A+B=C and that’s that.
Women measure of their lives in relationships, their world within reach.... in intimate, personal, familial concepts. Because they can form closer emotional/mental bonds and because they see the complex web of inter-connectedness, they also can see how A+B etc can eventually lead to Z.
One isn’t better or more important to the other. Each has it’s place in humanity surviving. And neither should be belittled or dimissmed by the other.
Societies who’ve done so have failed also.
As a former Democrat male I am against denying the vote to women. In fact three women much younger than me influenced my decision to leave the Democrats more than a decade ago. These young conservative women had very logical, persuasive arguments to topics we discussed. Most young men I know are nutty liberals. In fact where I work there was a higher percentage of women who were Republicans than the men. And half the conservative women were young single women. So it's not easy to generalize.
You nailed that one brother. On separate occasions and independently I asked my three lib sisters and my formerly lib wife why they were voting for the Democrat in a recent prez election. They all immediately said they wanted to be sure a sixteen year old should not be denied an abortion. Can you imagine that? To these lovely people the "right" of a teenage girl to have an abortion was absolutely the most important issue to them. I was stunned. I have since talked my wife into voting Repubican, but I suspect that the issue of abortion is a HUGE!!! factor in women voting for Democrats.
I asked how Bush benefitted, to which you replied: Women gave Senator Kerry just a three point edge in 2004. In 2000, Al Gore won the women's vote by more than ten points. That's 7 percent who switched sides.
That's all well and good, but what it means in the real world is that Bush lost the women's vote in 2004 by less than in 2000. The women's vote would only benefit the Republicans if they won it.
Only a handful of dinosaur males (sad to say mostly Republican males) discount women's political clout and somehow, idiotically, think insulting women will help them politically.
I don't think I've insulted women. In fact, discussions such as this one are pretty much prohibited by Political Correctness, so it isn't as if they're commonplace. If someone told me that men shouldn't have the vote, I wouldn't feel the least bit insulted.
Did I say otherwise?
I seven percent shift in women’s votes from Democrats to Republican from 2000 to 2004 years is significant, particularly in key states like Ohio. The men’s vote and the Black vote remained virtually constant in the same time frame.
There was also a slight shift in the Latino vote in 2004 (towards Republican)
I’m no statistician, but there are lots of articles which state that those slight shifts account for Bush’s narrow win in 2004
But don’t take my word for it. Ask political campaigns whether the women’s vote is important or not.
It’s also a huge factor in women supporting Republicans. I’m a case in point.
... and the outcome was most encouraging!
We just need to repeat the performance over here.
Oh geez, I didn’t mean to put you down by the way about the shoes thing! I just reread my post, didn’t mean to come off that way at all.
That’s so cool about fixing things. I am the same way. I’m the Handyman of the family, both when I was a little kid and now. How funny.
I think the word you are looking for is chattel.
Who the hell is saying THAT?! In fact, I daresay that if any of the present Republican contenders had the guts to attack this Hillary woman on the more sordid aspects of her record, it would resonate mightily with the female voter.
Hillary did everything but hold Bill's female victims down for him. Furthermore, she sure did everything she could to keep them down after Bill was through with them.
Rudy attacks her politically, which even though it's more than the others are doing, is rather pointless. Her true political agenda as a member of the Far Left, is very well hidden and her record in the Senate is laughable. No, somebody's got to come in on the Juanita Broderick Rape, and the Kathleen Willey Story, and Monica (again) and highlight Hillary's role in handling these and the many other Bimbo Eruptions.
Being a socio (maybe psycho-) path's enabler is hardly a qualification for high office.
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.