Monica-Haters About to Leave Their Temporary Sojourn in the Republican Party
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?
| More from Jim Peterson
Stumble It!
November 4th, 2007 at 10:03 am
“…toxic future agenda….”
The future you speak of has been happening for over a decade now.
November 4th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Yes, but the 25% of male Democrats, who plan to switch parties in 2008, are just noticing that now or since the 2004 election.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:41 am
I agree with the sentiment Jim, and I think what you’re saying is very relevant to the 2008 election. Given your comment above, I can see your point in context. The problem does have a much longer history however. The “gender gap” touted so proudly by Democrats during the past several presidential election cycles was (of course) misrepresented – more a matter of males preferring the Republican Party than females preferring the Democrats. That wasn’t new with George Bush, although it got labeled (Nascar Dads, etc.) and the naah nah nah nah naaah nah when he won two terms was a bit more obvious.
Since at least 1948, Republicans have had the advantage in at least white male and female voters – occasionally having a greater advantage in white female voters. But there a “gender gap” is simply having a greater advantage with male voters than with female voters, while having more of both.
Democrats will divide the nation. Obviously there’s a battle based on gender. My source for white voters is a book by a Democrat who might very well be supporting the division by race as well. Maybe some mix of gender and race will work for them. Since this is obviously intentional tactic, it seems a fair question to ask candidates – but obviously one that would provoke only a dishonest response.
Great subject to take on – I must admit feeling not quite ready for it. Thanks for starting the discussion.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:56 am
There’s another important point in this article that I want to high-light. Jim points out that willingness to let a party lose is an effective practice. What else do we have in the “two party system” but that? Why do you think the party faithful are so determined to convince us that the earth will be destroyed (both sides do it, although Al Gore’s “The Inconvenient Truth” might be more obvious) if we let them lose even once? Accepting that philosophy means throwing our vote away. The credible threat of non-support is the only effective means that we have in the two party system.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:27 am
The Democratic Party has had a problem with men for a long time. Their “gender gap” (which they have often characterized as a good thing, even while losing elections) is due to having fewer men voting for their candidates. So the Democrats play to women anyway – in order to get through the primary as a winner – more female voters. This has driven even more men away. The gap must be so large now that Hillary can concentrate much of her effort directly on women during the primary – that’s to her advantage.
I have a copy of “The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma” (But I haven’t been able to muscle together the motivation to read it – just keep wondering what’s going on with voters other than white ones) — I supposed I agree with the general position said to be taken by its author, David Kuhn. Nobody’s going to win unless they capture the male vote (at the same time thinking it’s more general than just the white male vote).
Republicans have been just as feminist as the Democrats for the past 27 years, and men know it isn’t for the sake of equality. The resulting policies are hateful and damaging. Hillary will maintain an advantage among women. But she can’t win without expanding support. The Republican candidate will not be able to win without the support of men.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:44 am
BTW Jim. Your article has more than 100 responses at freerepublic.com – that’s showing a lot of interest. Mixed responses of course. Some are having a hard time accepting a large flow of “Republican women” to Hillary. In any case, this much attention to an article shows that matters; regardless of the emotional (blind Republican) knee jerks of a few of the posters.