Posted on 01/05/2011 12:10:25 PM PST by pissant
Do you still stand by your words?
As far as the basis of the article and flaws, the same arguments could be made about the growth of big cities as it relates to liberalism- and blaming them. The same argument can also be made with 15th Amendment with blacks and the rise of liberalism- though you and authors like Lott are too afraid to even mention it because. The same argument about the rise of liberalism can also be attributed to the decline of Christianity, the increase of immigration, etc.
If the point of the article was not to focus blame on the rise of liberalism on women, what was it then?
The bottom line is this: there are MANY reasons for the rise in liberalism that can't be pinned on any one thing. As I have stated before on FR, and will gladly state again, there are several liberal women who I could never understand in terms of their way of thinking (just as there are men, blacks, Christians, Jews, etc.) And I also blame the rise of liberalism on conservatives as well. Why? For betraying conservative core values and trying to mainstream ideas like compassionate conservatism masked with faith, who's sole purpose is to grow government (hello Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney).
It is a bell impossible to unring. That is why I pay it very little mind. But if repealing the 19th comes up, it’s got my vote.
The point you’re missing is that politicians promising to take care of you
are not as appealing to men as they are to women, especially single/divorced women.
As Lott’s study showed, the more stable a woman felt in her marriage, the less likely she would be to vote for a politician promising social security (generally, not the specific SS program).
So it wouldn’t matter how many “liberal men” were running for office - if they didn’t get the votes, they wouldn’t be elected to impose the nanny state. Also, since promising security wouldn’t be a ticket to office, liberal politicians wouldn’t be as prevalent as they are today.
And minorities. And the unemployed. Etc.
The issue of security is an interesting one. I would argue that the more secure the individual is, married or not, the more likely they are to be conservative. And security could mean several things as it relates to faith, finances, home life, work life, etc.
Indeed. It's common sense, and this was born out in Lott's study. The more secure (ie, independent) you are, the less likely you are to vote for someone promising that security at the inherent cost of freedom and dignity.
This is the wrong way to look at this.
Lott's study shows the result of a long drawn out war for voting groups that we are losing. The side that sells dependency is winning the marketing of ideas.
In other words, the problem is NOT women, but the fault is our own- our failure to sell that independence is better than dependence. We can only look in the mirror if we are not winning demographic groups to the Right.
From knowing Rintense, I can tell you that women are not inherently liberal- she is so Right, she would make most FReepers look like Jimmy Carter in comparison.
We also need to get the Islamofascists out of our military. The enemies of America (foreign and domestic) are doing their damnedest to demoralize and weaken our military, from the Muzzies to the Homos.
Yep. With Obama leading the charge.
Thank you for the reply Sir.
A link to this will be posted on www.TeaPartyWatcher.com . -John-
Interesting site. Is it yours?
My best suggestion is that we focus as much effort on finding good delegates for the conventions, as we do looking for good candidates. (links below - 2012 Delegates)
Here's a few current threads:
Gaddafi tells Palestinians: Revolt against Israel
The California way is not sustainable. How does your state stack up?
Victor Davis Hanson
FR Golden Gate - 2012 Delegates
FR Golden Gate - 2010 Downside
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.