The Stepford Voters: Dems see women as devices

While combating the liberals’ dishonest and sophomoric “War on Women” theme, Republican former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee said, “if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government, then so be it. Let’s take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be, and women across America have to stand up and say, enough of that nonsense.”

The apparently clairvoyant White House press secretary Jay Carney said this statement “sounds offensive to me, and to women.” How does he know this? Perhaps he’s been reading tweets from liberal newswomen, like CNN’s Dana Bash and NBC’s Kasie Hunt, who didn’t bother exercising their reading comprehension skills before reporting Huckabee’s words as they wished them to be.

Bash tweeted that Huckabee “just said fed govt shouldn’t help women w who can’t control their libido w birth control [sic].” Hunt unsurprisingly misunderstood his statement the exact same way: “Huckabee: Women ‘helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them … birth control because they cannot control their libido.” Both women soon recognized and corrected their mistakes, but the damage was done. Democratic National Committee chairman Debbie Wasserman-Schulz decided to circulate Bash’s incorrect tweet anyway, while ironically adding, “Mike Huckabee has no idea what he’s talking about.”

For Huckabee’s critics in the press to misinterpret him may be an innocent mistake, but their outrage over the message they think they heard is totally dishonest. If it were genuine, they would share Huckabee’s anger with the actual offenders. It was the Democrats whose campaign strategy was to bribe female voters with free contraceptives. As part of that effort, the Obama campaign website asked women to “vote like your lady parts depend on it.” When the insulting policy was actually being implemented, most of the media were complicit.

The feminist movie The Stepford Wives imagines a suburban community of men who want their wives to be mindless sexual and domestic machines. Among the film’s many logical flaws is that men who see women as devices do not want to marry them. They simply want to use them, and move on. That’s why it was only fitting that the star of the 2012 Democratic Convention was former president Bill Clinton, to whom women are merely the next course after the sorbet.

Clinton has an well-established reputation for liking the “lady parts” a lot better than he likes the ladies. His long and appalling history of disrespectful and destructive behavior toward women is not limited to those who spurn his advances, either. It takes an exceptional scoundrel to abuse the loyalty of his secretary, not to mention the power of his office, the way that Clinton did by corrupting Betty Currie into facilitating his perverted trysts. Like Monica Lewinsky, Currie served a mechanical function for him, and that’s all that mattered.

The Big Creep remains so popular among his fellow Democrats, and therefore the news media, that he is widely credited with propelling Obama’s reelection. This, on the basis of the unfortunately named “Clinton bounce” (no visuals, please) that supposedly resulted from his convention speech.

The mechanical function that most Democrats expect of women is, naturally, that they vote Democrat. To that end, they’ve taken the liberty of assigning to women their political beliefs. Not only must women restrict themselves to certain, specified “women’s issues,” but they must also adopt the prescribed positions on them. How else are the media to inform us whether or not a politician has a “good record on women’s issues”?

That’s why they’ve got absolutely no tolerance of women who hold an opposing viewpoint. As reviled as Republican men like Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush have been, none of them has inspired hatred of quite the depth and intensity of that which is directed at Sarah Palin, for she has committed the unforgiveable offense of being a disobedient woman.

The Democrats’ view of women’s rights is that women have a right to agree with and vote for Democrats, as well as a right to be helpless without Uncle Sugar. Moreover, if Bill Clinton tells them to “kiss it,” they have a right to kiss it.

Huckabee thinks they should do none of these things; therefore, he opposes “women’s rights.” What a pig.

-- Daniel Clark is a writer from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author and editor of a web publication called The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press, where he also publishes a seasonal sports digest as The College Football Czar.

This is Alynsky strategy at its finest. I trust everyone is familiar with Rules for Radicals by Saul Alynsky. I will focus on Rule #12 because I think it is most at play with these Reproductive Rights Communists:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Pick the target: Republicans against woman's reproductive rights. The opposition must be singled out as the target of the criticism. It does not matter if others are of the opposition because, with the proper application, they will come out and reveal themselves later. The target will try to wiggle out of the responsibility by using logic and facts to support their cause. That is the next step.

The target is "frozen": Any effort the target makes to say they are not the only one to blame are ignored. Of course, any attempts to justify their position is ignored too. This is done to set up the next step.

Personalize it: Pick out one person leading the opposition and attack them personally--Huckabee is a sexist pig. When the target is personalized, it puts a human face on the opposition. This guarantees other supporters will "come out of the woodwork" to give their support. That is when you can put them all into one group for attack. It also sets up the next step which puts the argument on a emotional level that resists any attempts at logical refute. People are lazy and will listen to the emotional attacks and ignore the logical arguments. In Alinsky's words, “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification, will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.”

Polarize it: Call them unreasonable. Huckabee is a sexist pig. Extreme. Unlawful. Immoral. Hating kids. And of course, Nazi. Anything to create an evil image in the eyes of anyone listening. According to Alinsky, “Before men can act, an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil.” This is the ends to justify the means.

How do we attack these Alinsky tactics? We turn the tables on them. We attack them using their arsenal of "rules." That means we must be ready to fight them on an emotional level. We must climb into the gutter and rub the sewer into their eyes. There is no winning them over with Christian love. Jesus turned over the tables too and called them names. This is politics.

I looked long and hard for some thinking on how to defeat these Commies (Yes, these reproductive rights people are Commies). I was stunned that more has not been written. We should have the Alinsky Method torn to shreds by now with mountains of material. I did find this good read on how to defeat them:

http://www.nonsensibleshoes.com/2009/05/how-to-defeat-alinsky-rules-part-i.html

http://www.nonsensibleshoes.com/2009/05/how-to-defeat-alinksy-rules-part-2.html

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.