Hey, Flyboy! Women voters agree: President Bush is a hottie!

WSJ Opinion Journal ^ | May 9, 2003 | LISA SCHIFFREN

[FairOpinion]

I had the most astonishing thought last Thursday. After a long day of hauling the kids to playdates and ballet, I turned on the news. And there was the president, landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, stepping out of a fighter jet in that amazing uniform, looking--how to put it?--really hot. Also presidential, of course. Not to mention credible as commander in chief. But mostly "hot," as in virile, sexy and powerful.

[Lorianne]

The reasons you propose for excluding women from voting are irrational because they are based on your opinion of how women make voting decisions. You can't possibly know how tens of millions of people formulate their decisions, ergo your premise is irrational and unsupportable.

Furthermore, the precedent you would presumably set of disqualifying people from voting based on their (private) reasons for voting for a particular candidate, are at odds with the entire reason for having the vote to begin with. If there is a litmus test for voting based on HOW someone is likely to vote, the arbitor could exclude any group he/she thinks will vote differently than they would. Therefore, you have basically a dictatorship. We see this in third world countries where certain groups of people are kept from the polls by fear of the ruling juntas. So the "elections" are sham.

One of the fundamental principles announced in the Declaration of Independence is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Women make up 50%of the governed.

[nopardons]

Either you are incapable of understanding the written word, or, you only see what you want to see.

Nowhere, not in any post, did I mention that a test, in order to be allowed to vote, should be based on whom, or even which party one would vote for. I said, please reread my posts, that it should test the knowledge, each voter has, in regard to the history and government of this nation; as well as it having to be taken if English. I also said that it should be simple; however, you would probably fail it and do so dreadfully, based on your replies to me. The test would consist of such questions as : What is the Electoral College ? How many terms can a president serve ?

My reasoning, for doing away with women's suffrage ( which shall never happen,was just a response to the stupidity of the article, and many women's reaction to Clinton and Bush )is so logical, that you appear to be incapable of comprehending it. I'll spell it out for you again. Many women don't pay any attention to politics. More women, than men, vote Dem. Instead of knowledge and reason, the majority of females vote with their emotions, instead of their minds. By eliminating women's voting rights, even though that would be " unfair " ( hey ... life isn't " FAIR " ! ) to some, this would ensure GOP wins, and further the Conservative Movement .

Now, prove that this is illogical, unfactual, and that I and many others do NOT know/understand how tens of millions make up their minds about who to vote for. And, re the latter, there have been 100s, if not 1,00s of studies done about precisely why women vote as they do, since women got the right to vote. In the beginning, most married women voted the same way their husbands did / were told to by a husband. boy friend, or father. In the past twenty years, abortion " rights " and how a candidate looks, were the top two reasons women gave, for how they voted.

You're quoting the DoI, inregard to why women must be allowed to vote ? WHY ? That was in response to breaking away from England. It was not about anyone's suffrage and most assuredly it didn't cover women; just as it didn't cover blacks, nor poor men, who owned no land. Ipso facto, your argument is null and void; bereft of not only logic, but substance as well.

Since my suggesrtion can never be, yoiur posts and the others who agree with you and took after me in full blown hysterics, just prove that some supposed Conservative females, are every bit as shrill, emotional, blinkereed, feminazi PC ravers, as their Dem counterparts are. Fortunately, most Conservative women aren't in this mob. LOL

[Lorianne]

Instead of knowledge and reason, the majority of females vote with their emotions, instead of their minds. Cites please. Back this up with some facts.

[nopardons]

Go do your own scut work. There have been, as I said, many 100s of sstudies done on this matter. I've read many of them. Go do a Goggle, or try reading contemporanious historical books/newspaper/records. :-)

[Lorianne]

Just as I figured. No facts to back up your BS

[nopardons]

Just as I figured; you're too lazy to do any digging and don't know history. Thus far, you haven't managed to refute a thing I've posted. Your posts are just glib, PC, fenimazi, Barbra Striesand.

[Newkid]

Exploitation at it worst.
A greedy politician, posed next to a military aircraft, wrapping himself in the cloak of "supporting our military".
How dare him use our military in such a shameful fashion. It's un-American and has no place in American politics.
To get your blood really boiling just click on this link.
http://leahy.senate.gov/vermont/guard.html

uh, uh, Is that Sen Leahy. Ooops, wrong picture.

[Lorianne]

Its not up to me to prove your lame opinions about women. It's irrational for anyone to state that they know how millions of people think.

[nutmeg]

ping!

I'm a bit late with this one... this article was from Friday, May 9. FairOpinion has also posted a bunch of comments about this article from Wall Street Journal readers in #246.

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ping list.

[MEG33]

Here is the thread

[Howlin]

You have freepmail.

[ShadowDancer]

This thread is an embarrassment. When women spoke this way about Clinton every woman here blasted them for being empty headed and brainless (and rightfully so). Now it is apparently acceptable because it is a Republican whose looks are being touted? There are very, very few times I am ashamed to be a woman. This is one of them.

[Not A Snowbird]

"Now it is apparently acceptable because it is a Republican whose looks are being touted?"

No, the difference is the Republican in question has character and leadership to back it up. The other guy had none of those redeeming qualities.

[SerpentDove]

[ShadowDancer]

No, it makes no difference in terms of their looks. Calling the President a 'hottie' is ridiculous on any level.

[Not A Snowbird]

The term "hottie" is probably not the best description for the President of the United States, I agree with you there. But the man is attractive in every sense, not just physically, and women notice that. As opposed to Bubba, who I found to be absolutely repulsive. Frankly I think the stories of the soccer moms swooning over the last occupant of the White House were either overblown or just plain fabricated.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

LOVE this article! Passed it on in e-mail.

[Temple Owl]

This was posted yesterday from the Second Thoughts Column in the County Press. It is worth reading.

E.D. Hill, the very feminine member of the popular Fox & Friends team on Fox television had a different slant on the matter. While watching the landing and seeing Dubya in his flight gear she said:

"I'll tell you what, Laura has a hottie on her hands. Look how good he looks. We sound like a bunch of cheerleaders for him but he was fantastic! You could tell he looked so stoked and so excited to be there."

This is just a personal opinion, but I think Bush just won back the Soccer Mom vote.>
Source: http://www.CountyPressOnline.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2549&dept_id=514258&newsid=8014429&PAG=461&rfi=9

[Temple Owl]

ping

[Temple Owl]

Don't forget radical members of the teachers' union, but I guess that would be covered under "hard-core leftists."