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.
Actually, so does Ann, if you take her literally, but she usually exaggerates for effect.
You can not vote with pure emotion. Girls this is the problem.
ping
That's why it is so important to marry them off as early as possible to a good, responsible man; then they will have an emotional anchor.
I support the pre-1960's model of a young woman going directly from her parent's home to her husbands' home, with no intervening "whoring & personal exploring" years in between. If she wants a college degree she would earn it as a married woman.
Prolly a good idea for young men, also.
Of course, the women’s vote helped pass the Income Tax Amendment. Many people forget that the 19th Amendment only gave women the vote in a few additional states. The vast majority of states already gave women the vote, which is how the 19th got ratified (i.e. got two-thirds in both houses of Congress and passed in three-fourths of the states).
Look at the demos of who voted for slick. regardless of Perot.
The women’s vote isn’t as dangerous in a society with conservative moral values and intact families. Though even then there does appear to be a slight tendency for women to “soften” both parties.
But once family values are lost and there are masses of single women, often with kids born out of wedlock, women’s votes trend very sharply leftward as they depend on the state to do the things husbands and families once did.
Most of the women in my office say the same thing. No substance, no reason other than that Hillary is a woman...Sounds like another ethnic group that votes on color alone....
My observation is that women may feel inadequate in a discussion or can't dominate an argument like a bigger, louder man. Surely, they want protection when they feel vulnerable and, if single, may not have a "protector" close by so they look to the government for help. They seem to overlook the fact that the most inefficient, bureaucratic and ultimately frustrating "solutions" are fostered by government agencies--compared with a private enterprise. Moreover, precedents and principles fairly administered seem to be relegated to a position of lesser importance. That said, we males have problems of our own, a subject for another day.
.
My mom has the same dream....she’s said for a long time that she’d happily give up her right to vote if all other women had to too.
Netmilsmom — See, I’m with you on that. I’d give up my vote if it would knee-cap the radical feminists as well.
xjcsa — I love your tag line. hahaha.
“There is nothing more disappointing than to engage an attractive female in conversation only to find that “the words coming out of her mouth”* are ignorant, whining, and liberal.”
If they’re attractive why do you care what they say? Just smile and buy her another drink.
Yeah! And let’s not let blacks vote either!
Or anyone who plans to vote Democratic!
What a moron
What caused the loss of family values?
Coulter is being sarcastic Lorianne. No one is seriously advocating taking away a woman’s right to vote. The point is that there seems to be a connection between being a single woman and voting for big government [Democrat]. It appears that there is a link between a woman’s marital status and her political views and voting patterns.
I agree. I take it back. Coulter’s not the moron. She understands rank emotionalism better than almost anyone. And she uses her uncanny understanding of (especially male emotionalism) to manipulate people like wet noodles.
As you can see from this thread, she’s expert.
The Suffragette movement (to give women the vote) finally succeeded in 1920 with the passage of the 19th Amendment. From what I read, the Communist Party anticipated the consequences, and supported the movement from the beginning
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.