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?
Interesting they fail to mention the democratic women who will not vote for Hillary.
It all goes back to the Garden of Eden. Eve votes for the snake and gets everybody in trouble.
Republican women are a lot smarter than given credit.
Maybe they are just fouling up the polls on purpose, I would if called.
There is just no way a woman who is a republican would voted for Hillary.
This is the media way to demoralize Republicans from even voting.
As for me I am a broken glass republican, especially if it involves HIllary.
yitbos
So, is he suggesting we all just take a leap into new parties?
How about a Men’s Party and a Woman’s Party but you could switch votes across party lines. Would make marriage more interesting.
I think he makes an important point regarding the effectiveness of letting a political party lose. In the two party system that’s pretty much the only way to get their attention. Once you’re really a free agent, you become a credible threat, and the world is at your door-step.
Or that 25% could be conservative women who love to mess with pollsters and throw their results.
Real classy post. Especially before breakfast. Moron.
I think the Dem Reapers should form a single party called the Women’s Party and be done with it. Those women who do not prefer radical, man-hating, feminist communism don’t have to vote for them of course. (See also response #10)
Yum. Enjoy. My pleasure.
I don’t think it was a Rasmussen poll that said 25% of Republican women would vote for Hillary. I think it was a Clinton campaign internal poll.
How long before there's a law that forces men to get married?
Did I miss something? Does Rasmussen survey only those women as their respondents that the author are making such a 'question'?
I think the above was a bit of satire.
I think they’re working on wealth transfer schemes that don’t even require marriage before they start pilfering. They just don’t want foreign women to have any legitimate claim.
I don’t think I understand your question. Rassmuson does a lot of polling on all kinds of things.
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.