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?
This sort of demographic polling has been going on for a long time. It’s perfectly normal. That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing necessarily - but it is normal. Demographics is actually a subject people major in, in college.
If women will vote for Hitlery just because she is a woman then I say its time the vote was taken away from women (and I’m a woman!).
Right after they pass a law forcing sissies to smoke...
What has been wrong for many years is the interpretation of the “gender gap” in elections. And it is still wrong to focus on trends among female voters without also looking at trends among male voters. Males have been leaving the Democratic Party at about the same rate females are reportedly joining. No word yet on whether those men will support the Republican Party however, since Republicans have gone to such extreme efforts to show their hatred of men is equal to the Democrats. That puts the Republica Party in a bit of a bind.
I don’t have an answer to that one. You can leave a post with the question on MensNewsDaily where the article appears and there’s a good chance you’ll get a response from the author of the article.
We also didn’t get a 12.5% swing from 1996 to 2000. I don’t doubt that there are liberal legislative aides working for conservative politicians or liberal court clerks working for conservative jurists. I seriously doubt there are many closet liberals working for the Heritage Foundation. The author is overstating the importance of the Monica issue.
It wouldn’t surprise me however that such an unjustice would not be covered by the old media. If something has been published, it will more likely be somewhere in the free press zone of the internet.
Yeah, those Republicans straightened right up after their big losses in '06. /s
100 percent? I don't think so.
Hillary has made me do something that I though was impossible-- feel sorry for Slick.
There have certainly been a long list of “liberals” working for Congress and in the White House since the days of Reagan - himself a very far left-leaning closet liberal. Ronald Haskins headed the Republican’s congressional team in the House Ways & Means Committee on welfare reform for many years; with about the farthest left-wing approach imaginable. That eventually led to the legal elimination of the institution of marriage by federal decree and billions annually in pork-barrel funding.
It’s an odd thing in politics, but possibly nowhere more common than in the US of A: you either hate them or adore them. Right now, a significant number of women think she’s adorable.
That will change. Women aren’t as stupid as some think they are.
See #39 and #46
Uh, maybe. But there may be just as many women who would vote for a guy because he's a guy. I'd think it would be a wash.
That trend isn’t showing up in the polls. It would have to be tested by say - Rudy Guliani or whoever - making a big thing about how he’s a man and that’s better than being a woman - or some such thing. I’ll be surprised if we see that.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there are people running focus groups to look into it.
Points missed here:
Crime #1: Groping, fondling, having sex with people who work for you. This would be blatant sexual harassment in any other office setting except, I guess, the Oval Office.
Crime #2: Lying about it.
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.