Democrat Party Strategists Believe Women Are Emotionally Incontinent Idiots
Central to the Democrat Party's strategy is the manipulation of its largest voter block, women.
“Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual – or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.” –Samuel Adams (1781)
According to Democrat Party strategists, female voters are emotionally incontinent dupes, too irrational to discern and reject emotive political bait. They have proven the most dependable and easily-swayed of the collective constituencies Demos hope to rally ahead of general elections.
Female majorities have elected every Democrat president since 1960, and have been a major force in midterm elections. A look back at the Barack Obama regime, demonstrates that the Left is dependent on female voters for electoral victories and, thus, panders to women voters.
Recall that in 2012 Obama won the female vote 55% to 44% over Mitt Romney, with single women choosing Obama by a whopping 68% to 30% margin. Obama won 57% of female voters in 2008. Notably, women majorities also elected Bill Clinton. In 1992, amid accusations of rape and sexual assault, Clinton won 7% more of the female vote than male vote. In 1996 he won 55% of the female vote. He rode female voters to both victories.
The Democrats are counting on that calculus for victory in the in the next presidential election
In order to firm up one of their most dependable “grievance” voter constituencies, Democrats bait ballot hooks with what Demo strategists insist is an irresistible lure for catching a majority of female voters. The most dependable lure is support for the “LBGTQ” (those who those who self-identify lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer and exhibit sexual attraction disorientation and gender dysphoria). Despite the Left’s advocacy for these groups, there is nothing “gay” about gender confusion pathology. And for the record, there is no such thing a “transgendered.” The word itself constitutes an egregious deception. A gender disoriented person may “identify” as the other gender, or one of the now-myriad of gender variations between the two, but they will always be the same gender they were at conception – male or female.
That notwithstanding, Democrats have found a soft spot for the gender confused in the hearts of their majority constituency. But their advocacy for homosexuals is a more recent strategy – primarily since Obama’s first election.
The more traditional lure for female voters, though equally spurious, us also a gender appeal – “equal pay for equal work” built around the “war on women” chapter of their tried and true Politics of Disparity political playbook.
That enticement is a variation on the Democrat Party’s “income inequality” rhetoric. Recall if you will, that to foment class warfare sentiments among his proletariat, Obama declared that the “defining challenge of our time” is income inequality, and he promised to make that the focus “for the rest of my presidency.”
Never mind that, in a side-by-side compensation comparison corrected for experience, college major, time on the job, type of job, risk of injury and the like, the wage gap between women and men is not 23 cents for every dollar a man earns, as Obama and his minions have falsely and repeatedly claimed. Indeed, when corrected for these factors, the disparity all but vanishes. Even the liberal Washington Post has awarded Obama “Two Pinocchios” for this repeated “77 cents on the dollar” falsehood.
And, never mind that, according to the Census Bureau’s National Bureau of Economic Research, the last recession ended in June 2009 – unless you are among the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs since then. However, under Obama’s watch, the median income of women is down more than four percent in constant dollars.
Calling Obama out on this latest of his long list of lies, Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler wrote, “Unless women stop getting married and having children, and start abandoning careers in childhood education for naval architecture, this huge gap in wages will almost certainly persist. Democrats thus can keep bringing it up every two years. … [Obama] must acknowledge that average annual wages do not begin to capture what is actually happening in the work force and society.”
University of Michigan economist Mark Perry notes that references to the median salary between men and women are “meaningless” and concludes that the pay gap between Obama’s staffers is not based on discrimination, but “based on the fact that women and men are playing different roles within the organization.”
Adding insult to the injury of the “gender pay gap” fallacy, Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney was at a loss for words when confronted in a press briefing about a report that among White House staffers, the median salary for females was 12% lower than male staffers. So much for all that gender pay gap rhetoric.
And the gender-pay gap for staffers on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is endeavoring to advance Obama’s income inequality deception, is worse than that “national average” Obama keeps repeating. In fact, women at the DSCC are only paid 70 cents for every dollar their male counterparts collect.
Oh, and Obama’s Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, appointed six women to cabinet-level posts, while only three of Obama’s cabinet posts are filled by females. All this being said, the facts are irrelevant if Obama and his Leftist cadres are correct in their assumption that a majority of women voters are too ignorant discern between truth and fiction, and are incapable of forming an original thought.
Of course, that “ignorant” assumption equally applies to most Democrat voters of either gender (and all those gender-confused constituents in between). This is demonstrably true of the party’s delusional leading ladies: Former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth “Honest Injun” Warren, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters and, of course their 2016 nominee and presumed victor, Hillary Clinton.
Consider this sampling of erudite wisdom from this gaggle of Demos…
Wasserman Schultz on the difference in Democrats and the racist Tea Party folks: “The difference between the way we express our First Amendment rights and the way I’ve seen Tea Party extremists express their right is dramatically different. I don’t see any swastikas or any pictures of the president in black face or burned in effigy here.”
Pelosi on ObamaCare: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
Boxer on life after death: “Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, ‘Thank God, I’m still alive.’ But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.”
Maxine Waters on Democratic Socialism: “Guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.”
Warren, the Left’s standard-bearer, on Obama’s infamous assertion “You didn’t build that”: “People worked hard, they built a business, God bless, but they moved their goods on roads the rest of us helped build, they hired employees the rest of us helped educate, they plugged into a power grid the rest of us helped build.”
Feinstein on “sensible gun control policy”: “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
Michelle Obama on Barack’s wage gap nonsense: “He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act into law to help women get equal pay for equal work, because he knows what that pay means to families.” (Apparently he does NOT know what losing a job means to families.)
Recall if you will, this comment from Bill Clinton’s heir apparent, Hillary, on the long list of women he sexually molested: “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” The presumed 2016 Democrat presidential nominee had this to say at Andrews Air Force Base over the bodies of our Benghazi dead murdered on her watch: “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
And a Hillary bonus quote about her plans if elected in 2016: “We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good. … God bless the America we are trying to create.”
So what’s the GOP to do?
The bottom line is that any GOP candidate who can clearly articulate why Liberty and free enterprise are winning goals for women and their families, will attract enough voters, male and female, to defeat Clinton’s socialist propaganda machine. A majority of women are NOT the emotionally incontinent idiots Democrats believe they are. Moreover, there are conservative women leaders who I have more confidence in than their male counterparts, because today’s conservative women are the most articulate and forthright advocates of Liberty in the history of our Republic.
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis