Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats Think You're Stupid
Townhall.com ^ | April 24, 2012 | Armstrong Williams

Posted on 04/24/2012 8:18:35 AM PDT by Kaslin

Barack Obama thinks that you’re stupid. And, if you’re one of the 45% of us who still support him after Solyndra, after Fast and Furious, after the GSA scandal, after the voter ID controversy, after the Buffett Rule, after the Secret Service Scandal, and so on, you might be.

If you don’t believe me that he thinks you’re stupid, consider the following.

I watched Meet the Press recently, and their roundtable on the War on Women—that is, the Democrats’ agitprop to frighten women to the safe, warm, familiar cocoon of the Democratic Party. They’ve been doing it for decades, and the fact that they are returning to this tactic now tells me that they are afraid—Rasmussen has Romney up by two points already and it’s only April; he doesn’t even have the nomination officially yet; the real money hasn’t been spent yet.

The fact that they are using this tactic means that they actually believe that it will work—that is, that you are dumb enough to fall for it. The only thing more infuriating than that would be if it actually did work, and the fate of United States of America—and thereby the world—was determined by such pettiness.

Fortunately, it does not yet appear that it will happen that way. Men vote too. We can all thank God that, despite the Democratic elite’s low, cynical, deterministic view of the world,it is simply not good enough to divide people up into campsbased upon characteristics determined before they were born and slap a red or blue label on each one. People are still free, thinking beings, not just automata resulting from their genetics and environment. Thank God!

You can imagine my shame, then, to see that Republicans have stooped to the level of Democrats in playing divisive politics—and playing it on Democrats’ terms. Representative Bachmann, whom I admire greatly and who I think is a great voice for the conservative movement, debated Senator Gillibrand, for what proved to be a good demonstration that what they were doing was a waste of time.

In order to get around disputing the false premise that “forcing insurance companies to cover contraception” is the same thing as “helping women,” Representative Bachmann had to logically contort her way into arguing that high gas prices, high food prices also hurt women.

No kidding. They hurt everyone—why is it even worth saying?

Not to be outdone, Senator Gillibrand would not let Representative Bachmann get away with saying something pointless—she managed to lower the debate even further. As Democrats have done for decades, she brought up sexual liberty as being a women’s issue (as though it did not take two to, um, tango).

The meta-question was, who understands women better, Democrats or Republicans? As a Republican, I hope that the answer is neither. We shouldn’t be pitting the genders against each other any more than we should be pitting the races against each other; it accomplishes nothing for our country, no matter how many liberal base (and I mean that in more than one sense) voters donate to re-elect Obama.

I reject the whole notion that women have some sixth sense that men don’t have, or that women are affected disproportionately by economic realities. The market doesn’t care who you are—all the market cares about is what you bring to the table. That’s what makes it so beautiful.

It goes against the spirit of the Constitution, of the Enlightenment, and of classical liberalism more generally to put the genders in rivalry, or even to speak of them as having inherent inequalities. In fact, this is usually the criticism of classical liberalism—that, in contrast to previous schools of political thought, such as Aristotelianism or Thomism, it is atomistic, and treats people as “individuals” or “actors” (who don’t exist) rather than men and women (who do exist).

Conservatives should not be trying to out-factionalize the factionalizers; we should instead be returning to our principles—free markets not free healthcare; free minds, not free contraception. That’s real fairness—the blind equality of the market, not the pandering of hack politicians to frighten the ignorant into line.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 04/24/2012 8:18:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I think the Dems have gone from a Political Party to a Con Party


2 posted on 04/24/2012 8:23:51 AM PDT by molson209
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Pubbies do too!


3 posted on 04/24/2012 8:24:59 AM PDT by 1raider1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I find it disturbing that it is reported that twice the number of “Evangelicals” will vote for Obama in ‘12 than did in ‘08.

Of course, that’s exactly what that report was intended to do - discourage conservatives and Christians.

I’d be interested in what defines “Evangelical” for the purposes of the survey.


4 posted on 04/24/2012 8:32:15 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Well, you know, after virtually nominating Romneyoff, they may just be right.


5 posted on 04/24/2012 8:37:07 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

And we think Democrats are stupid, nothing surprising here. =/


6 posted on 04/24/2012 8:46:49 AM PDT by Marko413
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

My pastor made an interesting comment that I had never thought about before.

I had always thought the phonies in church thought God was not real, and they just used church for business and dating “networking”

My pastor said there are some Christians who think they are but they are not.

That explains a lot about the leftist politics of some of my fellow church members.

I tried to talk them through the truth, but some people have no passion for truth when it conflicts with their ideologies.

Since Jesus said “I am the Truth”, those who reject truth for political reasons are in for a rude awakening someday.


7 posted on 04/24/2012 8:49:20 AM PDT by MikeSteelBe (Austrian Hitler was, as the Halfrican Hitler does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Conservatives should not be trying to out-factionalize the factionalizers; we should instead be returning to our principles—free markets not free healthcare; free minds, not free contraception. That’s real fairness—the blind equality of the market, not the pandering of hack politicians to frighten the ignorant into line.

While I agree in principle with the above, I believe that Democrats generally put their ideas into better sound bites. This makes their platform and philosophy more "digestable" to voters.

It's not enough for the GOP to say, "we're for a smaller government and less spending, because we're for freedom!" There are people that would sacrifice freedom for "a little security..." It's not enough for the GOP to say, "we want the free market to fix healthcare..." -- there are too many people (to the credit of the education system), who don't know what free market principles are.

We need to do a better job articulating why our approach beats their approach, and we can't do it with generic, broad-brushed explanations. Words like "economic freedom," "smaller government," and "personal responsibility" are too abstract for many, and the Democrats will define these words for us, if we don't get there first.

8 posted on 04/24/2012 8:50:33 AM PDT by Lou L (The Senate without a filibuster is just a 100-member version of the House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Romney is going to be our man. We just proved it.


9 posted on 04/24/2012 8:52:17 AM PDT by bmwcyle (I am ready to serve Jesus on Earth because the GOP failed again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeSteelBe

Qualify them with the Barna questions:

•Do absolute moral truths exist?
•Is absolute truth defined by the Bible?
•Did Jesus Christ live a sinless life?
•Is God the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe, and does He still rule it today?
•Is salvation a gift from God that cannot be earned?
•Is Satan real?
•Does a Christian have a responsibility to share his or her faith in Christ with other people?
•Is the Bible accurate in all of its teachings?


10 posted on 04/24/2012 8:53:58 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

By splitting men into a gay vote, he won’t be our man for very long.

America will be finished soon by feminism and illegal immigration.

This is wholesale unconstitutional subversion of the nation.


11 posted on 04/24/2012 9:01:54 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Republicans Hope people are Smart, but Democrats Know people are Stupid.
12 posted on 04/24/2012 9:07:27 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (A day without Obama is like a day without a Tsunami.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The Donks still think is is all Bush's fault.
13 posted on 04/24/2012 9:08:24 AM PDT by ANGGAPO (Layte Gulf Beach Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

End Womens’ suffrage!


14 posted on 04/24/2012 9:10:12 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Republicans have stooped to the level of Democrats in playing divisive politics.
And the MSM calls them evil and dangerous.


15 posted on 04/24/2012 9:13:43 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Speaking of the party of the demented, retarded and (like their fellow Islamic Jihadist who they all admire and support) the "perpetually offended,".....just checked out the big Senate Hearing called for by "Chuck-you" Schmuker and had to chuckle.

In addition to Schumer, the only other Demo-Rat (or for that matter, Senator) in attendance was his little lap dog, Dick Turd-bin.

Nuttin but another Dog and Pony show and another not so subtle effort to influence and intimidate SCOTUS who are set to hear arguments tomorrow on Arizona's immigration laws.

16 posted on 04/24/2012 9:20:26 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

They would all say yes to those questions.

They just make up ludicrous rationalizations when I ask them how they can support certain politicians who support. anti-christian policies.

It’s called cognitive dissonance.

I call it choosing to be stupid.

One was raised as a Jew by holocaust survivors. She accused ME of acting like a Nazi who would rat out their neighbors to the secret police just because I shared truths about how her beloved democrats were engaged in very un-Christlike behaviors.

Her bigotry against conservatives really put the nazi in Ashkenazi. I expect nothing but the most complete hypocrisy from liberals, just like their Pharisee forefathers.


17 posted on 04/24/2012 9:30:44 AM PDT by MikeSteelBe (Austrian Hitler was, as the Halfrican Hitler does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Barack Obama thinks that you’re stupid.

70 million votes for him proved his point.

18 posted on 04/24/2012 9:32:19 AM PDT by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Bump


19 posted on 04/24/2012 9:33:48 AM PDT by lowbridge (Rep. Dingell: "Its taken a long time.....to control the people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeSteelBe

I’d say killing babies would be the defining issue for a Christian.
I’m sure the person in question would rationalize that somehow.

Best just to avoid that person.
Luke 10:2 - the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.

Don’t waste your time.


20 posted on 04/24/2012 9:34:50 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MrB
I find it disturbing that it is reported that twice the number of “Evangelicals” will vote for Obama in ‘12 than did in ‘08.

This is absolutely bogus.

There may be some highly manipulated, fraudulent "polls" trying to convince evangelicals to "get with the program" but BHO will receive fewer votes from evangelicals than in 2008, even with Mitt as the other choice. (They will either vote Mitt or stay home but there will not be more votes for BHO.)

21 posted on 04/24/2012 9:42:39 AM PDT by Prov1322 (Enjoy my wife's incredible artwork at www.watercolorARTwork.com! (This space no longer for rent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
[article] Barack Obama thinks that you’re stupid.

So do the RiNO's. They haven't done jack about repealing Obamacare, and they won't. Too many Fortune 500 CEO's are invested in getting rid of their company health plans and flowing the money to their bottom lines. So are their money-runner stockholders.

They won't fix the budget, either -- too much money to keep hands out of.

The country is like a man bleeding profusely from a deep wound, and the political vampires refuse to sew it up and bandage it because they all want a drink.

22 posted on 04/24/2012 9:50:47 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prov1322
BHO will receive fewer votes from evangelicals than in 2008

I should think you're right, after so many high-profile stink-appointments:


I should think evangelicals are running to the polls with clothespins on their noses this year.
23 posted on 04/24/2012 9:55:52 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
BHO will receive fewer votes from evangelicals than in 2008

Going out on a limb here but I will also posit (just from my own travels in/through a variety of evangelical/baptist/pentecostal/etc. church groups) that Bible-believing Blacks will reject BHO in large numbers.

That may not be accurately reflected in the poll results in November as the pollsters outside of Barna are clueless as to who/what a Christian is.

My discussions with those I encounter are that they were deceived once but will not be deceived again.

24 posted on 04/24/2012 10:19:24 AM PDT by Prov1322 (Enjoy my wife's incredible artwork at www.watercolorARTwork.com! (This space no longer for rent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’d say nominating the architect of socialized healthcare in America would constitute stupid.


25 posted on 04/24/2012 10:26:17 AM PDT by vmivol00 (I won't be reconstructed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Conservatives should not be trying to out-factionalize the factionalizers; we should instead be returning to our principles—free markets not free healthcare; free minds,not free contraception. That’s real fairness—the blind equality of the market,not the pandering of hack politicians to frighten the ignorant into line.

This line from the article illustrates an unfortunate truism: Conservatives, like this author, hope that the voting public is smart. Progressives know that the voting public is stupid.

26 posted on 04/24/2012 10:36:02 AM PDT by Washi (Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse, one head-shot at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeSteelBe

A friend’s pastor describes it as “atheist christians”.


27 posted on 04/24/2012 11:50:49 AM PDT by Jaded (Really? Seriously?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lou L
Words like "economic freedom," "smaller government," and "personal responsibility" are too abstract for many, and the Democrats will define these words for us, if we don't get there first.

The approach I'd like to see the Republicans take is to point out that any time the government tries to make something more "affordable" for some people, its costs spiral out of control. Start with the following analogy: imagine that an anonymous benefactor were to promise to everyone before an auction that they'd only have to pay for items half of what they bid; he'd pay the other half. Is there any reason to believe that bidders would see prices drop by 50%? Or would people end up bidding about as much as they would have before the anonymous benefactor stepped in?

Now suppose the anonymous benefactor decided only half of the buyers in the auction should be privileged. How would that affect the real prices paid by both the privileged and non-privileged buyers?

Any time the government decides to make something affordable, the following sequence takes place:

  1. The program may start out working, but...
  2. The cost of the good/service will go up.
  3. This in turn creates a need to expand the program, so...
  4. The cost of the good or service will go up even more.
This pattern is entirely predictable, and it happens in many fields, including education, housing, and health care. People need to realize--and I think the auction analogy might help--that programs whose claimed purpose is to make things "affordable" almost invariably have side-effects which do the opposite. Demand-side subsidies create runaway prices.
28 posted on 04/24/2012 4:15:32 PM PDT by supercat (Renounce Covetousness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson