Posted on 11/05/2007 3:01:24 AM PST by RogerFGay
A recent Rasmussen Report states that 25% of Republican women are planning to vote for Hillary while 25% of Democrat men are planning to vote Republican.
My contention is that these women were never really "conservatives" in the first place and the men, having been true liberals for a long while, are now recognizing that the Democratic Party has a toxic future agenda for heterosexual males.
Many American men can remember how, in 1998, there was no opinion of the Monica Lewinsky issue that would appease the fury of many insecure women on the subject. If one said that Bill Clinton was a cad, many liberal women would snap back with an angry defense that he was innocent. If one said that Bill's affair was none of anyone's business there would be a harsher reaction from many liberal and conservative women alike. I personally learned to exercise my right to remain silent.
What a lot of men did not notice at that time, however, was that some "victim feminist" women were so incensed at the crime (of Bill sleeping with a younger woman) that they could not forgive the bored reactions of liberal male politicians and liberal journalists. In order to punish a male power base in the Democratic Party and give feminists total control in its reconstruction, they actually switched over to the Republican Party, where they forged an unholy alliance with self-righteous religious "conservatives" to propel George Bush into the Presidency based on his having "character" (remaining faithful to a wife his own age). I am not disparaging "loyalty to one's wife" here, but I am noting that this element was made to be far too important an issue in the 2000 election.
Over the years between 2000 and 2008, these new anti-Monica Republican women were able to transform the Republican Party into a feminism-loving institution and recently crowned their achievement by getting a record $430 in appropriations for the federal Office on Violence Against Women, an unconstitutional construct that their beloved Hillary helped create in 1995.
Of course many would argue that they had many crowning achievements during their reign over the Bush Administration, such as when an Indiana man recently received a life term on the sex offender list for having pulled a meandering teenage girl off a dangerous highway for her own safety. Noone will forget how they effectively stopped American men from saying hello to tens of thousands of foreign women via the so-called International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA) which, irrespective of its name, persecutes innocent dating websites that only promote the idea of marriage while leaving pornographic dating sites exempted from their wrath.
These women were especially needed by George Bush during the War on Terror because they could be expected to be the most obsessed with male chauvinist Muslims. You could identify them as the ones saying "Kill, Kill, Kill" the loudest. In payment, these women have basically been given anything they wanted.
But now…their beloved Hillary is polling nationally at 48% in terms of possibly getting the Presidency.
What better way to avenge the humiliation of them all being cuckolded by Bill…then to make Hillary President and him the First Lady.
I believe the Rasmussen Report poll shows that these women are now ready to return home to the party where they belong.
The question is, will they be honest enough to quit their current jobs in conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, as legislative aides for Republican politicians and as court clerks for Republican-appointed federal judges?
1) “Monica-Haters” completely mischaracterizes the Clinton problem. Suborning perjury to protect himself against sexual assault charges involving other women, has NOTHING to do with “hating” Monica.
2) Pretending that 25% of “Republican women” will vote for Hillary is beyond the pale.
Repeal universal sufferage.
I don’t see how ANY woman that has any respect for herself, could vote for the Hildabeast.
This writer should leave the attempts at humor to Dennis Miller, Phyllis Diller or someone who possesses a sharper wit than he.
Leni
Humor never really came to mind. Satire perhaps in an effort to be thought provoking - not at attempt at comedy. I’ve read articles by this author before. He’s not laughing.
Maybe someday we will retun to a system where the best qualified person for the job gets hired, the best qualified college applicant gets accepted and the best qualified candidate gets elected.
As feminism rose in power we moved further and further away from an objective meritocracy and more toward subjective selection of favorites based on group identity.
No poll can be so accurate and definitive ~
The author doesn’t seem to recognize that the resmussen report is a spoon-fed turd by a Co. just trying to keep it’s name in the newspaper, it’s not grounded in reality.
The 1960s was the start of a radical trend in the US, which has resulted in the elimination of adherence to the Bill of Rights. Feminism jumped on that train big-time, and got a huge slice using underworld tactics. At this point, the corruption is so deep, it could be very, very difficult to get the country back. If it’s going to happen without civil war, voters are going to have to stop following these two political parties like sheep. The vast majority want the stuff described in grade-school history and government classes - they just need to learn how they can use their votes to get it.
Are you just saying things for effect? Rasmussen has one of the best reputations in the business.
I don’t understand your comment.
I truly believe they release some of these polls just to be in headlines and bring in more business. If it were just a poll saying “Hillary would win the candidacy” who’d read any more of the story or remember who conducted it?
Her husband won with a lot less than 48%. The only question is, who is going to be her Ross Perot?
Bill Clinton, at a minimum, violated his own policy and is guilty of sexual harassment in the Lewinsky affair.
I don’t believe this for one minute. Surely, 25% of Republican women are not this stupid.
I have never heard that type of thing.
These people continue to live in alternative univerese.
The piece is designed to stir up the greater part of the Republican base so they will take action to campaign against the Democrats and their Feminist lackeys.
You should take into account that Republican women are a very small minority in the first place (so are Democratic men and women, and Republican men); because Republicans and Democrats are a minority to begin with. The over-riding ethic of the two-party system is to maintain the two-party system. There is no relationship between party and political philosophy; nothing to create a party faithful rank and file outside of those who directly benefit from party affiliation. For most people, it does not matter which party one affiliates with or supports, so long as there is a perceived benefit. Many women could feel that it would just be nice to elect a woman president; just to say — see “we” can do it.
Keep guessing. You might get it eventually.
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.