Posted on 05/25/2003 7:58:04 PM PDT by ewing
Republican pollster David Winston was the first to identify the shift from Soccer Mom to Security Mom and he warns 'What these women are looking for is solutions to make their families and children safer.
It's about solutions, it's not about partisan bickering'
Democratic political consulant Rachel Gorlin agrees, 'We cant criticize what the Bush Administration is doing unless we make it clear that the criticism is toward a new and improved approach -we are turning people off.'
It is that kind of impatience with point scoring politics that nettles women like 31 year old Stacy McDaniel, who stockpiles water and canned goods in San Diego, and plans an exit route when she goes to a ball game.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Nope, it's me as well.
Because the people on this forum who make these stupid sexist remarks are too stupid and sexist to waste time, intellectual energy and emotion on.
.......besides being decidedly UN-American, as well.
Because I am secure with who and what I am. And besides that, I just plain don't trust any female who is pro abort...especially one who has carried a child to term. Plus, I have a hard time tolerating women who are not proud to be one...they always have to prove their self-worth by whining and having fits and horning in on men's sports and things like that.
I am embarrassed by women like this. I am not mad about these remarks because I agree with many of them. The rest, well I'm just secure enough to let them go.
NINE grandchildren! Lucky you!! I've only got one... so far. :-)
We must worry about our grandchildren because those dang dems won't!
Watching Howard Dean last weekend at a Harkin townhall meeting I saw him admit that his universal health care wouldn't be as bad as the UK's and he even admitted that (paraphrasing) under the UK's plan if you're 60-65 and you need a kidney transplant they'll tell you, sorry, you're too old.
I couldn't believe it came out of his mouth!! That's the truth that will sink any dem that thinks universal health care is the ticket to winning the White House. And we must shout it from the roof tops.
Because we know that even if a universal health plan starts out providing every kind of health care we need, eventually older folks will be cut out of life saving surgery. There's no other way to keep it alive.
Even "Soccer Moms" will think it's a bad idea when they realize their babies will grow up in a country that will let them die because they're too old to receive a new kidney.
Because the people on this forum who make these stupid sexist remarks are too stupid and sexist to waste time, intellectual energy and emotion on.
.......besides being decidedly UN-American, as well.
OK, so you don't understand the difference between an actual soccer mom and the colloquial-political term "Soccer Mom". The latter refers to the Xlintoonesque use of the term to describe the emotionally driven woman voter who created a large voting gender gap in favor of Xlintoon. This term was further refined by Rush Limbaugh with his term "Arousal Gappers".
The fact that women generally are more emotionally driven than men, and thus can be swayed emotionally on a wholesale level, is well documented and has been studied through the ages. The only dispute is by what ratio women can be more emotionally duped than men. The 1996 election gave us another data point.
Don't confuse pointed hard facts as baseless sweeping sexist remarks.
Remember, I only referred to the Xlintoon "Soccer Moms", aka "Sucker Moms". I did not lump the relatively rare, intelligent, critical thinking, logical woman with that bunch of self-centered women who react and vote with their heart instead of their brain.
As I also repeatedly pointed out earlier, men are capable of being emotional and stupid too, but the fact remains that when it came to voting for The SleazeBag -for a second term-, women voted 53% for him and men voted 40% for him.
If you want to continue to call me sexist and un-American, you would be wrong about those, too. Rather than fling ad hominum charges about me, you could argue the facts.
I know the voting record of women, and that women in general respond more emotionally (and that SOME vote for stupid, emotional reasons) but your presumption that having more emotional responses negates one's ability to function well intellectualy, reveals a certain level of naivte on your part. And your presumption that men DON'T respond emotionally is also naive......I see it all the time here on Fr........they're just different emotions. (There were a bunch of emotional, angry men who voted against George H.W. Bush in 1992 or stayed home, and helped elect Xlinton too, you know).
There are stupid, sexist people who want to disenfranchise women, and THAT is un-American........just as disenfranchising any group of Americans who don't vote 'wisely' would be un- American. I've seen the same argument used against blacks and Hispanics, and it is horrific, IMO. (You're the only one who knows where you really stand on that subject, but your posts have given a pretty strong signal as to where you stand).
One of the best things about being a Republican is that we look at people as individuals, and not as stereotypical parts of a group as liberals do. With your comment about "rare, intelligent, critical thinking women," it sounds like you prefer your own stereotypical grouping.
(btw, in my 53 years of living and observation of both sexes, I'd say it could be argued that those qualities are equally 'rare' in men).
Bad assumption on your part. I didn't say that, I didn't imply that.
It looks to me like you don't think much of us women, MR Highwheeler. (I hope you don't have a wife).
But......if you by some strange chance, aren't the sexist that you have made yourself appear to be in your posts, perhaps you should try to express yourself with more clarity, so that intelligent women (and men) such as myself don't misread your intent.
What exactly IS the point in declaring the well known fact that women respond more emotionally than men, as well as declaring in the same thread that you understand why the Founding Fathers didn't allow women to vote??
Please enlighten us. On second thought.....don't. .....I'm not really interested in any more denials from you of the opinions you've already stated in black and white.
btw, Martin Luther believed that women weren't intelligent enough to read the Bible, and you know what? He was wrong. The Founding Fathers had no idea what women were capable of, and to have given us the right to vote at that time in history would never have happened. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the true capability and logic of women, and their ability to make good decisions when voting.
And one more thing, before I leave you to your blissful, thinly veiled sexist arrogance.......when guys like you start talking about wanting to disenfranchise all men because there are brainless men with big guts who sit on their couches watching football games and guzzling beer all day, I'll listen to your comments about wanting to disenfranchise all women because of brainless soccer moms.
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.