May 17, 2013 | 1 comment
May 16, 2013 | 5 comments
May 16, 2013 | 1 comment
May 16, 2013 | 9 comments
May 15, 2013 | 3 comments
Democrats think they’re on to something, and they’re not giving up on their latest “divide and conquer” tactic, straight out of their century-long “Progressive” playbook (along with Saul Alinsky’s manual for the left) that aims to gain and keep political power by causing certain Americans to dislike or distrust other Americans.
Whether it’s pitting whites against non-whites, the rich against the not-rich, the old against the not-old (through Medi-scare arguments), or — as has been the subject of the latest full-court press — women against Republicans (because, presumably, all Republicans are men), the left’s electoral strategy is one of inculcating hate among the citizens. So much for their vaunted tolerance and diversity.
As if the reprehensible fundamental nature of the Democrats’ strategy isn’t enough, the tactics may even be worse, because Democrats can only claim a GOP “war on women” with distortions and lies. A big question remains whether women will believe it; unfortunately, many independent women voters pay only superficial attention to politics. This means that they’re likely to hear the omnipresent Democrat claims but less likely to hear explanations of how outrageous those claims are.
This past Sunday on CNN, Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz laid down a barrage of rhetoric pitting women against Republicans, talking about “turning back the clock for women” and suggesting that Republicans are not concerned about rape.
And on a recent episode of “Justice with Judge Jeanine” on Fox News, Democrat strategist Chris Hahn said that Mitt Romney and other Republican presidential candidates want to “ban contraception.”
Chris Hahn is confused about many things, but even he must know that this is an outright lie. Even Rick Santorum has not suggested such a thing — which is not to say that he’s a big fan of birth control.
Democrats are doing this because they believe it’s working. And indeed it may be. A recent Gallup poll suggests Republicans doing badly among independent women. My hunch is that the current situation is not nearly as dire as that one poll suggests, but that this is a real potential problem for Republicans. (It also shows why it is so wildly unlikely that Rick Santorum could win a general election. He personifies what the left perceives and would portray as a conservative attack on social gains by women.)
Mitt Romney, in an effort to lock up the nomination, has drifted to the right, saying things about himself like “severely conservative” which will be replayed incessantly during the general election season.
Unaffiliated women voters — to the consternation of many politically active conservative women — think little about principle, and more about how much government will take care of them and their families (for those who are not single, urban women, at least.) Thus, words like “severe” are not winners with that group.
To win them back, and to overcome the Democrat strategy of division fueled by tactics of lies, Mitt Romney (assuming he will be the nominee) will have to explain that the real “war on women” is really a Democratic “war on families”, with the policies of this president and the Democrats in Congress raising the prices of health care and gasoline so much that moms can no longer afford a wide range of things that they’d want for their children: Whether it’s better food, a family vacation, a better education, a different doctor, a bigger car, or anything else that moms (and dads) typically care about, Barack Obama has made it less affordable. What’s worse, they have done so intentionally, particularly with fuel prices.
It will not be the easiest political sale to make, but the patrician Mitt Romney will need to make voters, and especially women, think that he understands and cares about them more than Democrats do — despite not supporting policies that claim to give everything to everyone for free — another key pillar in the Democrats’ duplicitous strategy for the last 100 years.
One thing that makes the argument even more difficult is that Democrats, boosted by the “mainstream” media, demand to be judged on their claimed intentions, regardless of the devastating actual outcomes caused by their policies. Conservatives look to be judged on results, but as long as the Democrats and the media portray the GOP as “mean,” it will be an uphill battle to beat Barack Obama — a sad commentary on the American electorate (and especially on unaffiliated women voters) given the destruction the man is wreaking on the foundation of our republic.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?