"We have to double down in 2014. We’ve got to make sure we recruit more women for office, because It’s not just a slogan that when women run, women win. They do, and when women run, Democrats win."
१९ नोव्हेंबर, २०१२
Republicans "got whiter and more male, and we now have a majority minority and female Democratic caucus."
Wasserman Schultz says.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७१ टिप्पण्या:
Debbie's problem is that she doesn't know what she's talking about. But, she keeps talking anyway.
Be sure to tell Mia Love that news.
I want to give up.
Michelle Bachman, too.
Why any white guy would vote Democrat is beyond me.
Of course she means Democratic women, and yes they win because they represent a larger percentage of women. 55% of women who voted. I believe it will be even larger by 2016 unless Republicans moderate themselves.
Oh, ouch.
And when a Republican woman runs they get Democrat made YouTube videos calling them cunts and every other vile thing Democrats can come up with. And, Matt Taibbi and Don Imus crack jokes about wanting to see them star in porn. Such class. And Wasserman-Schultz cheers them on. Because she is every bit as vile.
They hate women, unless they have a D on their voter registration form.
I believe it will be even larger by 2016 unless Republicans moderate themselves.
Hmmm ... do I choose the moderate R or just vote for the D anyway?
What's this talk about the physical cliff?
I definitely think she's onto something with the woman thing.
Even though Tammy Baldwin is to the left of Lenin, it was very hard for Tommy's negative attacks to resonate. Same problem for Scott Brown with Squaw Warren.
It is harder to run legitimate attack ads against women candidates. The public doesn't seem to have such problems when the attack ads go against guys on either side of the aisle, ie. Tommy Thompson, Scott Brown or Russ Feingold.
So I guess I'm holding onto hope that female Pat Roggensack will rout whatever lefty judge the Dems put up against her.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz: The gift that keeps on giving. I hope she heads the DNC forevah! Every time she opens her mouth I expect something stupid to come out. She never disappoints.
Way to go. Marginalize the white guys. Keep the white guys away from power and influence and this country will be assured of peace and prosperity. Look at how happy and content all those countries without white guys are. Can anyone name a single useful invention or idea a white guy has produced in the last few hundred years?
I've said it once, and I'll say it again: I would voluntarily relinquish my right to vote if it meant that the ninnies who have elected our current crop of mental defectives would lose theirs as well.
Rose, so Democratic women are never the victim of the same kind of vile comments, hmmmm?
Jeezus, Inga even hates free speech for herself.
Wasserman-Schultz asserts that democratic women and non-whites have a mandate and are in effect now running the country. Thus, the near future is in their hands and they will be rewarded or punished accordingly. Of course Wasserman-Schultz will assert that Congress is still an obstacle and should be more peopled with women and non-whites. Whether she goes so far as to actively promote such bigotry in the next election remains to be seen, but I expect her to do so.
EMD, I'm moderating my own speech, I don't want to blow up the thread.
Obama share of white vote --> MS: 10%, AL: 15%, NC: 31%; FL: 37%; VA: 37%; natl avg: 39%; OH: 41%; MI: 44%; MN: 48%; WI: 48%; IA: 51%
Hmmm.... ?
Inga said...
Rose, so Democratic women are never the victim of the same kind of vile comments, hmmmm?
The Sullivanistic smearing Palin was enjoined by many of your fellow commenters here, Inga. I'm not sure what your stance was then, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were part of that slander elsewhere.
"Squaw Warren."
Yea, continue w/the inane, childish name calling just like S Brown did. That's the ticket!
And congrats to Reps for getting whiter lol as one would have thought it was too lofty a goal.
hmm, who will be the teabaggers great white hope in '16?
Indeed as the cons problem isn't pigmentation, rather it's policy ie Rubio/Cruz will not lead the ad nauseam whiners to the promised land!
Why is it bigotry? Women constitute what percentage of the American population? Are they represented in like numbers in the Congress? Are minorities represented in numbers according their population percentages in the Congress? Why must we be governed byA majority of white men, who says so?
Okay, Wasserman Schultz, if you insist; I guess I'll run. Bring on the support of my sisters! What? What? Where'd you go Debbie?
I went over to Erika's campaign kickoff party, and Debbie's not there either.
You don't think that when she said "women" she didn't mean women, do you?
"Why must we be governed by a majority of white men, who says so?" - Inga
I don't care what color or gender they are, as long as they're not libtards.
Why would she want Republican women to run, they don't represent the majority of women. Of course your own party is free to seek out Republican females to run.
Now that almost all the blue dogs (Dem white guys) are gone, the Dems are left with mostly minorities and women in the House. Well done. In 2014, the Dems can increase the percentage of women and minorities by having more of their white guys lose. Forward!
Debbie's not at the campaign offices of wyo sis or Rose.
She must not have meant "women" then. What could she have meant?
I believe it will be even larger by 2016 unless Republicans moderate themselves.
By which you mean the rest of us ought to pay for your birth control?
Unlikely they'll win against a female Democratic candidate though, in the large cities.
--Why would she want Republican women to run, they don't represent the majority of women--
Fainting couches, smelling salts & vapors.
What century are we in again?
Looks like Republican women generally represent women pretty well when it comes to the issue Emily's List cares about.
Ooh! Here's an idea! Why not vote for someone based on their qualifications and positions on IMPORTANT issues, and NOT based on their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation?
What a concept.
This is getting really depressing. The rhetoric is becoming: "women and minorities vote Democratic. Minorities are growing, so the Democrats will be in power forever." Given that the fundamental reason minorities favor the Democrats is because they're disproportionately poor, this is basically cheering the coming economic decline of the country. Woo-hoo!
Eric, nope. You folks are still stuck on the free birth control shtick. It's the personhood bills, the "legitimate rape" nonsense and other anti women legislation that sunk you.
Well, it appears that Republicans didn't get out their women to vote for their guy, I wonder why.
Was DWS referring to the NYT map with all of those little red arrows? In a lot of those states, women actually moved right compared to their male counterparts.
Strange, really.
Explain why 55% of women who voted, voted for Obama then.
Overall, women strongly supported Senator Obama over Senator McCain (56 percent for Obama, 43 percent for McCain).
From TownHall.org 2008:
Overall, women strongly supported Senator Obama over Senator McCain (56 percent for Obama, 43 percent for McCain).
What was that again?
White men, white bread, white sugar--all vilified. It's a sure sign of the coarsening of society that all things refined are under attack.
Edit fail: The italics should have been Inga's 55% comment.
Inga said...
Explain why 55% of women who voted, voted for Obama then.
More free stuff? Dreaminess factor?
More free stuff? Dreaminess factor?
Chick: Obama LOST women voters (approx. 1 to 2%) from 2008 to 2012.
Erika
I'd do the same thing, but it's not a woman problem it's a ninny problem, and the ninnies are of all sexes, races and economic levels.
EMD said...
Chick: Obama LOST women voters (approx. 1 to 2%) from 2008 to 2012.
I thought both parties lost numbers in absolute terms.
"We're worried about the future of the Democratic Party! It's apparently being taken over by atheistic Communists. They're aborting their children. This is a demographic nightmare. It's kind of creepy & pathetic. What the hell is wrong with you people? No, really, we just want to help!"
I thought both parties lost numbers in absolute terms.
Yes, but Inga was trying to rebut my claim about the NYT map that showed women getting 'redder' overall.
%s went from 56-43 to 55-45 in favor of Obama. Not a major move, but she was attempting to define a major movement for woman toward Obama in 2012 and it didn't happen.
The trolls have their marching orders.
Press Operation Demoralize (you can look it up at Professor Jacobson) to the fullest.
Inga said...
Of course she means Democratic women, and yes they win because they represent a larger percentage of women. 55% of women who voted. I believe it will be even larger by 2016 unless Republicans moderate themselves.
Did they?
Or were the majority of Republican votes re-routed on corrupted voting machines?
Going by what Ditzy Debbie says is always risky.
garage mahal said...
Obama share of white vote --> OH: 41%; MI: 44%; MN: 48%; WI: 48%; IA: 51%
And how many of those votes were flipped from Romney by crooked voting machines?
10%?
20?
shiloh said...
"Squaw Warren."
Yea, continue w/the inane, childish name calling just like S Brown did. That's the ticket!
The little weasel better hope she doesn't say too much the next couple of years or even Massholes will be so embarrassed by her, they replace her with Brown.
And congrats to Reps for getting whiter lol as one would have thought it was too lofty a goal.
Apparently, the little weasel has something against white people.
He so longs to be black, I'm sure.
hmm, who will be the teabaggers great white hope in '16?
Scare the Hell out of him if it turned out to be Susana Martinez.
Indeed as the cons problem isn't pigmentation, rather it's policy ie Rubio/Cruz will not lead the ad nauseam whiners to the promised land!
The biggest ad nauseam whiner is our own little bathtub swabbie.
As I said before, you'd think anyone that nervous lost.
Speaking of losers, where were you hiding out 10/5 - 11/5 when the Romster was winning?
Electrolysis consultant for Fauxcahontas?
Not necessarily EMD.
DWS has recognized how the white male has held America back from its true potential.
If I was a Democrat I'd be downplaying who won right now and for the next few years. You watch as they begin to portray themselves and their President as helpless to overcome the overwhelming power of the losing party. Victim-hood is their thing, and more the rest of us suffer the more they will lead us.
It'll be really fun when the whole Democrat party is on the same cycle.
George Washington was a hack.
Are they represented in like numbers in the Congress? Are minorities represented in numbers according their population percentages in the Congress? Why must we be governed byA majority of white men, who says so?
Self-selection bias. More men run for office in disproportionate numbers than women.
Also, more men are mechanics and bricklayers, too, but women don't seem to be as outraged over their lack of inclusion into the brotherhoods.
Not necessarily EMD.
You're trumpeting the 55% number as a rebuttal, not me.
Hell, I'd vote for Nicholas Sparks if the guy ran as a fiscal conservative who left social issues alone.
And we all know he has a vagina.
chickelit said:
The Sullivanistic smearing Palin was enjoined by many of your fellow commenters here, Inga. I'm not sure what your stance was then...
Inga, I also asked you about this several days ago on another thread, but no response.
Seriously, inquiring minds want to know -- what do you think of Sarah Palin? And what did you think of the treatment she received in 2008?
Women get to be minorities even when women outnumber men, and then they only count when they agree with the majority of other women?
I suppose that's how far valuing minorities goes, or valuing minority opinions or individuality or marching to a different drummer.
Oh, well.
One party is the party of conforming to the majority and?
I can think of nothing that will alienate me more than being told that I'm not toeing the gender line well enough. That alienation looks just a little bit like deep and burning anger.
As a liberal of course I didn't favor her politics. As a woman VP candidate, more power to her. If she would've been a liberal and a Democrat, I still wouldn't have voted for her, she wasnt adequately informed and often appeared unintelligent.
As for attacks on her personal life or children, that was reprehensible.
Thanks for the response, Inga.
Good to know you agree that the attacks on her were reprehensible.
If Palin was a liberal and a Democrat she would have appeared brilliantly informed about events because she would have had all the correct, majority female opinions.
Seriously, Inga.
Yes, nothing says United States more than division along sexual and racial lines. Eventually even retards get tired of that bullshit, and that's all Wasserman's got is bullshit. Mean-spirited, dark-hearted bullshit.
bull
shit
But still the minority party in the House.
I don't think so Synova. No offense to Palin meant, I was asked, I answered.
Nice Chip, call folks retards. You have a dark side, sweet boy.
often appeared unintelligent
You do realize the Couric interview was heavily edited. Katie (I hate that name) asked the same question several times until Palin just looked at her. For decades, 60 Minutes has been notorious for editing to deceive--the McCain campaign should have had its own camera there.
She's appeared on numerous interviews since then, all of them underwhelming. But hey, y'all like her, maybe she'll be willing to run again in 2016.
Repeal the ill advised 19th Amendment.
Just keep sayin' it....and we win by even bigger margins next time.
Every time Wasserman-Shultz opens her mouth I'm appalled at the blinkered, mindless ideology that comes out of it.
I HONESTLY think she sounds like an idiot.
Palin sounds like an astute individual most of the time. It helps, also, that her accent is what I grew up with.
If Debbie W-S said things I thought were smart, I'd think she was smart too.
Disagreement on policy and understanding about how the world works might feel like "wow, how could anyone be so stupid not to understand this?" but it really is a matter of point of view.
If we're allowed that. And I don't think we are... some of us.
White men truly are free.
Wasserman Schultz:
Yes! We have succeeded in destroying the evil white male!
Hip hip, Hooray! Hip hip, Hooray!
P.S. The democrat party believes in equality for everyone. Especially at the expense of the White man.
Sarah Palin appeared on the Charlie Rose in 2007 to talk about energy issues along with Janet Napolitano, who was then governor of Arizona.This was a full year before pretty much any one had heard of Palin. Charlie seem pretty impressed by her and her grasp of the issues.
Odd that.
Some say the democrat party actually targets Republican minority officeholders, nominees, and candidates for an increased campaign to oppose them. This enables a meme that the GOP is too white.
If that were the case, then the democrat party hasn't changed all that much from the days when they fought for segregation or slavery.
"As for attacks on her personal life or children, that was reprehensible."
Yeah, I'll bet you were expressing great outrage about that during the 2008 campaign, you phony.
"As for attacks on her personal life or children, that was reprehensible."
Yeah, I'll bet you were expressing great outrage about that during the 2008 campaign, you phony.
Miss Sarah is a very bright lady who is almost certainly a better politician than Willie Whitewater or Choom.
She understands she can't run for national office without more time in elective, or at least appointive, office, so she's raising as much Hell the best way she can - in the media.
And, considering she crystallized opposition to ObamaTax with those 2 magic words and drives the Lefties up the freaking wall, I'd say she's doing a pretty good job where she is.
Leftists use political tribalism to divide the voters and gain power. Democrats purposeful efforts to characterize Republicans as the white mens' party is repugnant. Their use or race to get their ends is no less evil than any other bigotry.
Why do the Democrats feel such need to actively recruit more women? Are they not volunteering in the wake of all that horrible legislation? Hmmm...
And why do some women reserve the right for their gender to place modifiers in front of rape?
Rape is rape, right girls? Especially when it is:
attempted rape
date rape
statutory rape
rape-rape
lesbian rape
good rape (oh wait, she edited that out like it never existed didn't she)
male rape
Wait a minute, how did that last one get in there? All those pink and brown boys must be making false, a.k.a. illegitimate, accusations...
Shut up Columbia University: http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/male-rape-possible.
Shut up New York City Alliance: http://www.svfreenyc.org/survivors_factsheet_38.html.
Shut up RAINN...
Shut up anecdotal evidence: A person who shall remain nameless was almost date raped by a male acting out revenge for the supposedly consensual act of rape perpetrated by his girlfriend.
Which one was socially legitimate rape?
It's just too bad that they have neither a majority honest caucus nor a majority competent caucus.
@ William
Not many white folks in Haiti. Just sayin'...
Some say the democrat party actually targets Republican minority officeholders, nominees, and candidates for an increased campaign to oppose them.
Like Allen West and Mia Love.
Leaving Ms DWS underlying motivations aside, based on the national election it looks like she is factually correct. Attacking DWS is a lot of fun, but the R's had better do some soul searching about how to fix the stats that DWS cites. Just my .02. seems to me you gotta figure out what you lost in order to win the next time.
Laura said...
Why do the Democrats feel such need to actively recruit more women?
They want to own your vagina.
"You watch as they begin to portray themselves and their President as helpless to overcome the overwhelming power of the losing party."
Begin? They've been doing that ever since the R.'s took the House. I expect to see it ramp up quite a bit if the economy heads south.
Explain why 55% of women who voted, voted for Obama then.
Emotions and ignorance. Plus the racism of black women who vote based purely on race (oops - that's an emotion, isn't it?).
They're aborting their children.
I'd support unlimited and unrestricted abortion of any child of any Democrat, liberal, or progressive, but that would be immoral.
Thank heaven the Democrats, liberals, and progressives want to do that to their own children.
I get the benefit of reducing their numbers and suffer none of the karma.
The organization running the annual New Jersey Gay Pride event in Asbury Park was taken over completely by lesbians a few years ago. Attendance has declined ever since.
I don't want to belong to an organization or a party where women run things. Women in supervisory positions are usually egotistical micro managing control freaks. And if the Democrat Party wants to fashion itself into "the party by and for women," they had better hope that there are enough emasculated Alan Aldas out there to make a majority.
Perhaps the imbalance between men and women in the Democrat party that Inga refers to has to do with the women driving the men out.
It's hard not to laugh at poor Debbie. She's such an idiot. How embarrassing.
Oh, and Inga...did you ever put a third-trimester "abortus" after a woman's health procedure on a shelf in a stainless-steel pan and let it die because its mommy didn't want it to live?
I mean, you were a nurse and all, and at least cared for the health of the mother, right?
If you've never had to do that, do you support those who do?
I expect to see it ramp up quite a bit if the economy heads south.
IF?
Good for the newly elected Dem women. I hope they are smarter and lie less than Debbie, or God help us.
McTriumph,
Like Elizabeth Warren?
Even the Boston Globe has taken notice on Warren
"As Elizabeth Warren walked through the marble corridors of the United States Capitol on Tuesday, she tried assiduously to keep a low profile. Walking arm in arm with Senator-elect Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, they passed paintings of historic politicians, busts of former vice presidents, and the doors to the senate floor they will enter once sworn in.
A small gaggle of reporters awaited one of the rising stars in Washington, and Warren knew it. She leaned into Baldwin and was overheard saying, “Pretend you’re talking to me.”
----------
Only the finest in female leadership...
If somebody said this already... go ahead and move on... just in case no one has...
Identity politics is fraught with problems for republicans... is like asking republicans to fight with one hand tied behind its back.
Ask yourself why would one side advise the other side to be more like them?
Nobody does identity politics as good as democrats... its their core value, stock and trade.
Its like Twinkies saying Oreos should be more like us... never mind that Twinkies are less healthy. Identity politics is high on sugar... eventually people will figure it out. Conservatives can help themselves / ourselves by offering a clear alternative.
Identity is tied to personalities... people are fallible, and will let you down... principles, ideas are less so.
I think any woman willing to run as a Republican is probably a lot braver than we give her credit for. Same with minorities; you really see the dirty side of humanity when a woman or minority admits to being Republican.
"As for the moaning and keening Republicans, you’ve got an amazing number of governors, and some of them are doing spectacularly well. The Dems are stuck with New York, Massachusetts, and California, who incarnate true blue doctrines, and are in a mess."
So true.
Why take the advice of blue losers?
Identity politics is so vacuous it needs to bribe people to get them on board.
"It's the personhood bills, the "legitimate rape" nonsense and other anti women legislation that sunk you."
-- Personhood bills are not the monster most people make them out to be, at least, all the ones that I've ever actually been linked to. The theoretical personhood bills, that don't exist or are drafted by Democrats as an example of what they think Republicans want to do, however, are pretty terrifying.
"Legitimate" rape has been a legal term of art for over a century to differentiate forced, physical rape and statutory rape. The fact that people continue to lie about it being a new term and a Republican creation to oppress women is just a further example of how Democrats lie to stoke division and hatred in America.
As long as you have voters who hedge their bets, Dems will win. I don't believe it's compassion that drives people to support entitlements, it's the what ifs.
There was a great scene in a Mission Impossible flick a few years back where the Bad Guy calls women monkeys - wont let go of one branch until they have a firm grasp on the next - I think that's where you get that 55%, IMO.
Identity politics works for democrats the way... the weather is a "problem".
Well, the number of never-married women with children is likely to increase indefinately. And practically all will vote Democratic.
BUT I doubt that they care about if the candidate is male or female, just so long as the free stuff keeps coming.
Peter,
A Nation of Julias?
Her statement is only true if female Republicans are not female, if minority Republicans are not minorities, or if neither exist at all.
Liberals are fond of pretending that conservative don't exist or don't matter.
It is the first step in dehumanization that often ends up in genocide.
Liberals should face up to their embrace of murder, violence, death, and destruction.
America's become the big V. Unfortunately for us, most of the rest of the world is still very male.
We know how this ends. Not well for US.
We are doomed to repeat history. The world will suffer.
Via Insty:
AMITY SHLAES: 2013 Looks a Lot Like 1937 in Four Fearsome Ways. “It’s hard to imagine stock indexes dropping by half today, or unemployment rising past 15 percent, as they did in the ‘depression within the Depression.’ But the parallels are visible enough to be worth tracing. They have to do with the danger of big government, and can be captured in a few categories.”
"arage mahal said...
Obama share of white vote --> MS: 10%, AL: 15%, NC: 31%; FL: 37%; VA: 37%; natl avg: 39%; OH: 41%; MI: 44%; MN: 48%; WI: 48%; IA: 51%"
Because southerners are bigots, right Garage? Why not spell it out, coward, if that's what you want to say?
Let's imagine a future scenario where "We’ve got to make sure we recruit more women for office".
When the litmus test becomes "Do you have a vagina?" instead of "Do you have a brain?" then it's easy to imagine the quality of candidates going down. The deeper you dig for women candidates for the sake of women candidates, the more the idiot percentage will rise (cf. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie). How is that good for society or politics? Why are people so quick to throw Martin Luther King's crowning insight onto the trash heap? Did he fight for nothing?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the presence of a vagina."
More women, and four dead Americans in Benghazi.
Women are leading us over a fiscal cliff.
Inga,
" If she would've been a liberal and a Democrat, I still wouldn't have voted for her, she wasnt adequately informed and often appeared unintelligent. "
Of course not, because you don't vote for people who aren't adequately informed and often appear unintelligent.
I love how the party most involved in racial and sexual identity politics is somehow calling republicans racist for having a majority white consituency, as if that somehow in itself is racist.
While there are probably some in the south who might vote along racial lines, mot republicans don't vote race are actually trying to be post racial (as I thought we were supposed to move towards). Meaning, republicans may be largely white, but they are not running as a white party. Democrats are peeling off all their voters into minority groups.
I hate to sound all high and mighty, but I imagine that one day we'll get to the moountain top where people are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skins.
Garage Mahal wrote:
"arage mahal said...
Obama share of white vote --> MS: 10%, AL: 15%, NC: 31%; FL: 37%; VA: 37%; natl avg: 39%; OH: 41%; MI: 44%; MN: 48%; WI: 48%; IA: 51%"
Romney share of black vote in certain precincts in Chicago - 0%.
Not one single vote.
Who's the racist again?
I love how Inga keeps saying that the dems got more women voters and if they dont change their ways they're going to lose the woman vote. It ignores that Obama actually lost women voters and almost half the women in this country in fact voted for Romney/republicans (plus or minus a few percentage points).
But then she and other dems keep calling the Republicans the White party as if that was somehow racist.
I reject that outright (that most republicans are in the party becuase they view themselves as the white party). But if Inga can accept "the black vote" and the "latino vote" why would "The White Vote" be the only voting block out of all of them that we view as racist? Is it because there are more of them? Well that's because whites are a majority in this country at the moment.
And if dems want to put all racial groups into their own balkanized minorities then they should expect whites to vote for their own self interest and ascribe racism to it.
I just love how the Democrats pull us all together as one team. No factionalizing, no pitting one group against the other, no balkanization. It warms my heart.
And Obama was touted as the first post racial president.
When in fact its the republicans who are governing post racially. Why aren't more minorities in the party? Well, one reason is, many minorities reject post racialism.
They can't get their head behind the concept of judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That works both ways you know. Certainly the racist should be chided for viewing blacks and other minorities (and majorities) based on the color of their skin but the same holds true for the minority themselves. THEY have to get past the idea of judging themselves by the color of their skin. In other words, if they are part of a "black caucus" or voting as a "black" person then they are not doing post racialism right.
jr565,
Women who voted for Romney, don't have vaginas, so we don't count.
The older women I know who voted for Obama, aren't really happy with him. And again they couldn't really say why they didn't like Romney.
Meanwhile here in Massachusetts, schools are losing funding not due to Republicans, but because there are no children.
Fewer students could mean less money
"John Portz, an education-policy professor at Northeastern University, said he thinks the enrollment decline would have to be "pretty serious" before school districts start consolidating.
"That's a major undertaking, and for many communities, the schools have a big identity with their community," he said.
Portz said he thinks school closings, especially at the elementary level, would be more likely.
"If a district's hit real hard, they will look at that, and they have to decide, do we need all these buildings?" he said. "You'll probably be more likely to see that before you see consolidation."
That should say "And if dems want to put all racial groups into their own balkanized groups then they should expect whites to vote for their own self interest and NOT ascribe racism to it.
If they do, then Latinos voting for Latinos is racist and women voting for women is sexist. And white women voting for white women pols would be both racist AND sexist. (Right Inga?)
The whole way the democrats use race is frankly obscene.
I wish more people were actually enlightened and post racial. My guess is, they would vote republican.
Rose, so Democratic women are never the victim of the same kind of vile comments, hmmmm?
What Democratic woman had a very eminent blogger spend years investigating their uterus?
What Dem has a FRACTION of the vile insults tossed at Malkin or Coulter?
Why must we be governed byA majority of white men, who says so?
Because anything led by a majority of women doesn't tend to do anything beneficial to much of anybody.
Unlikely they'll win against a female Democratic candidate though, in the large cities.
Hard to beat voter fraud.
Explain why 55% of women who voted, voted for Obama then.
There are a lot of women with no capacity to make sound decisions?
I could point to illegitimacy rates if you want further evidence of this.
Scare the Hell out of him if it turned out to be Susana Martinez.
Nah, they'd call her what they call all women.
A cunt.
Democrats are good for doing that type of thing.
Women get to be minorities even when women outnumber men, and then they only count when they agree with the majority of other women?
They get similar treatment in colleges when they disproportionately outnumber men.
I don't think so Synova
Is Biden borderline moronic?
If you answer no, then you've belied your claim.
"Liberals are fond of pretending that conservative don't exist or don't matter.
It is the first step in dehumanization that often ends up in genocide.
Liberals should face up to their embrace of murder, violence, death, and destruction."
11/20/12 8:39 AM
This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that makes you look extreme and slightly insane and it will continue to be soundly defeated and rejected.
Palladian at 10:59 am PST: "It'll be really fun when the whole Democrat party is on the same cycle."
Ha ha! Best thing I've read since the election. Thank you.
Does anyone truly believe that white males are more sexist than Africans, Asians, or Hispanics?...Well, there were New Deal Democrats who thought that we could learn much from the Soviet Unioni's agricultural policies. I didn't see the Dust Bowl show on PBS, but I bet that that interesting fact about the AAA was left out.
Why must we be governed byA majority of white men, who says so?
Why are you so racist towards white men? Lets say we get a majority of white women running htings? Why must we be governed by a majority of white women?
You say that 55% of women voted for OBama. SOunds like a slight majority to me. So why must I be governed by pols elected by them?
If whites are the majority in this country wouldn't you expect pols to generally be majority white? That would be like saying "Why must we be governed by a majority of BLACK men" if we were in Africa?
Would you feel better if we were governed by a majority of WHITE Women?
William wrote:
Does anyone truly believe that white males are more sexist than Africans, Asians, or Hispanics?...
ISn't anyone who buys that by definition racist AND sexist?
Why should white men vote for democrats? It seems to be a group that many democrats despise. INga for example has a big thorn up her crack about why she should be ruled by white men? YOu got a problem with WHITE people, honey?
Are democrats going to not elect any more white men going forward?
YOu look kind of white in your picture, maybe you possess that same evil gene.
You want to talk about building constituencies. What are the democrats offering white male voters to get them to vote democrat, other than calls of racism if they don't?
Inga wrote:
Women constitute what percentage of the American population? Are they represented in like numbers in the Congress? Are minorities represented in numbers according their population percentages in the Congress? Why must we be governed byA majority of white men, who says so?
Your ignorance knows no bounds. People are elected to office, they aren't hired by quota along racial lines. Why are you expecting some kind of parity that conforms to the population when in fact thats not how people get into positions in the govt. A few reasons why women aren't fifty percent of govt. Er, perhaps there are more people trying to get elected who are male than female. And of those who are running perhaps they are losing because more people voted for the other guy (or gal). Since women are in fact voting, perhaps in the cases where the woman loses. Why are there more blacks tahn whites playing basketball? Based on the population, you'd think that the majority of the NBA should be white. It woudl be absurd to use a quota system for the NBA, but even more so to expect quota like results during an election process.
As to why you must be governed by of majority white man, and who says so? Er, the elections say so. Whoever wins, gets to govern. That's how elections work. IF those who win happen to be majority white male, why then that's who gets to lead.
Oh I just love that Debbie. Without her to care about me, I would just die. She speaks for what I feel from the depths of my heart, I mean vagina, I mean heart.
White men suck. God, I hate having a supportive husband. Marriage, white guys, that shit is so old fashioned.
On a more serious note, why does Debbie live in a constant state of hysteria? It seems like everytime I see her face, she is pushing some kind of hysterical meme. Oh God Debbie, we are going to fucking die if you don't save us from those evil bastards, just die I tell you. Save us from those neanderthal savages Debbie. God knows I am a helpless little girl who can't think for herself. Again thank God for Debbie. Hero of women everywhere.
Good point.
Women (unmarried with children) want to be taken care of, just not by men.
But do they really think that women are better to rely on?
Debbie will take care of us.
Who better to count on than a hysterical, divisive, manhating politician. We don't need no stinkin men, we've got Debbie "The Hysteric" Wasserman-Shultz. It's a victory for women everywhere.
But do they really think that women are better to rely on?
Absolutely not, but they would never, ever, admit that to a man.
Ha ha Inga, you're one to talk about crazy rhetoric, with your nutty insistence that American fundies are getting ready to implement The Handmaid's Tale.
Erika, just never ever ever live anywhere else than the deep heart of Texas, you belong there.
My husband was a white man, he was a liberal, a physician and an intelligent kind man and father. Go figure.
Synova, unmarried women with children do not need anyone to take care of them, they do it themselves. Most work and get paid a wage that excludes them from any type of assistance. The ones who do get assistance, know its temporary, AFDC has time limits and other requirements. It is damn difficult and instead of giving them credit, you criticize them because they don't vote your way.
What a way to get more independent women to vote Republican or even Libertarain.
Libertarian.
Igna, And have some of the highest rates of poverty. :(
and we win by even bigger margins next time.
But you won by smaller margin this time.
"But you won by smaller margin this time."
EMD, congrats on winning NC and IN, truly a celebration to hang your hat on! And yes, Obama got less votes than 2008, the hurricane Sandy effect notwithstanding.
But Obama still won fairly easily, like Bush in 2004. Many Althouse cons sayin' Obama is the worst president in history aside, ie ad nauseam con hyperbole.
Laura Ingraham To GOP: 'If You Can't Beat Obama With This Record, Then Shut Down The Party'
btw, who doesn't enjoy insightful con media? blessings
True Renee, but since we are human, women and men both will make error judgements in choosing partners and many women and some men will end up single parents. Let's not demonize them. Wouldn't it be better to help them get out of poverty?
Also some are widowed with young children to care for.
Inga- of course we should care about single moms, however don't you find it disturbing that Democrats use psychological manipulation of this base to stay in power. It's almost like they don't want them to get married because then they would lose support.
You haven't noticed their snarkiness about marriage being an outdated institution. Like I should just cheer my daughter on into the direction of meaingless hookup sex (Hanna Rosen) and single motherhood (every leftwing new outlet) because marriage is so neanderthal.
Husbands are so 1950s.
And Inga, widowhood is not the same as single mom by choice.
Wasserman Schultz is right. America has become a nation of pussies and the Democratic Party is their home.
The original idea of Social Security and welfare was to take care of widows and their children.
The New Testament mentions widows and children or orphans and something about limiting charity from the church to those who actually are those things. I always understood that to mean that not only were your parents dead, so were your uncles and adult siblings, that not only was your husband dead, so were your parents and your brothers.
Because, it seems, even in New Testament times the early church encountered those who liked to get free stuff and liked not to have responsibilities for sisters who were widows and orphans who were nephews.
"True Renee, but since we are human, women and men both will make error judgements in choosing partners and many women and some men will end up single parents. Let's not demonize them."
It's not a case of demonizing. It's a case of saying something, anything, that might make someone feel bad. And feeling bad means you can't say "it's better for children to have a father and mother in the home" or anything about trying hard not to make those bad choices because all of a sudden you've called them *bad* choices and people who already made them will feel bad.
My father was too proud when we qualified for various sorts of assistance to take it. He figured we didn't need food stamps so we didn't get them. He was right. We had food, we had clothes (not, perhaps, clothes I would have liked to have as a child) and we had a roof over our heads. We were warm, dry, fed and loved. So Dad said no. Because he was proud. Because he'd have been ashamed to take help we didn't need.
That was nearly 50 years ago. Now we've got advertisements paid for by our taxes that tell people that even if they don't think they qualify they should apply for government programs. People who do have food on the table, clothes and a roof over their head and who don't THINK they will qualify for government aid are encouraged to go apply for it and take what they can get.
If you don't see the profound problem with that change in attitudes... I mean, you must see the problem with that, right?
Take what you can get. No one will make you feel bad about it. Because that's just mean to make anyone feel bad.
How do you tell a girl who *hasn't* made those huge mistakes not to make them if you can't ever accidentally make the woman who made them 10 years ago feel bad?
Tell us your plan for that.
The only legitimate conception of diversity pertains to the uniqueness of individuals. Any other definition is prejudiced and serves to denigrate individual dignity.
I would have much more respect for these "Women Good" "White Men BAD" types if they put their money where their mouth is by giving up the use of EVERY modern convenience INVENTED by a white man.
You know, if Romney won the election, I don't think Republicans would be saying that Democrats were just too brown.
Democrats need to get smacked hard for their racism.
You don't like white people?
What's wrong with being white?
Are you white?
I'm just sick of this easy, stupid identity politics from the left. It's brainless and idiotic.
"Also some are widowed with young children to care for."
Which is why we have life insurance and social security benefits, there is no such thing as 'divorce insurance' or 'my dad is a jerk insurance'.
I want to help them out of poverty as well, and I don't want women to be in unhealthy unstable relationships to begin with.
And this is my biggest criticism with the concept of sexual freedom, is that the ability to have sex with men who do not love or respect us give us no benefit.
Even we do experience sexually freedom STD and pregnancy free, it does mess with our psych on what a healthy relationship should actually look like. Where are we going to find those role models? Not in celebrities, what if all of our family is divorced as well. Sure a family can handle a divorce, especially for 'a fault' reason, but what if you're related to more people by divorce, then your are by blood?
Also many men might not be into the idea of it, if there is always some other women available for a hook-up.
"Also some are widowed with young children to care for."
Which is why we have life insurance and social security benefits, there is no such thing as 'divorce insurance' or 'my dad is a jerk insurance'.
I want to help them out of poverty as well, and I don't want women to be in unhealthy unstable relationships to begin with.
And this is my biggest criticism with the concept of sexual freedom, is that the ability to have sex with men who do not love or respect us give us no benefit.
Even we do experience sexually freedom STD and pregnancy free, it does mess with our psych on what a healthy relationship should actually look like. Where are we going to find those role models? Not in celebrities, what if all of our family is divorced as well. Sure a family can handle a divorce, especially for 'a fault' reason, but what if you're related to more people by divorce, then your are by blood?
Also many men might not be into the idea of it, if there is always some other women available for a hook-up.
Inga, where I live has jack-all to do with you accusing other people of harboring paranoid fantasies, in between your regular bouts of paranoid fantasizing.
Erika, I'm actually commenting on your personality, where you live seems match it well. You are a dry, dull young woman, who I find incredibly boring. Since you feel free to comment on my personality, I'll spare you no commentary either.
I'm glad you fit so nicely in your small minded narrow world, but you will be stuck with Democratic presidents, so you and your soul sisters should by all means continue to shrink yourselves down to fit that little tent.
Scott @7:34 am
"I don't want to belong to an organization or a party where women run things. Women in supervisory positions are usually egotistical micro managing control freaks."
This is what's known as "friendly fire" and it's NOT HELPFUL. You sound like an angry feminist in drag. Oh, the women are all so horrible boohoo I need my government to protect me.
Attack individuals, regardless of sex, on the merits. In DWS's case it's really not too difficult since she doesn't have any. Merits. Attack herd mentality in a demographic or group. But please do not buy into the collectivist lie that people are determined by their race, sex, etc. Don't perpetuate that.
Inga wrote:
Well, it appears that Republicans didn't get out their women to vote for their guy, I wonder why.
Romney got 46% of the woman vote. That's almost half and is not insignificant.
Inga wrote:
My husband was a white man, he was a liberal, a physician and an intelligent kind man and father. Go figure.
he was a racist!
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-s-constituency-groups-checklist-offers-no-options-whites-or-men
If you are white and male and a Democrat, you have to lever yourself into one of the extra categories, like "Senior" or "small business owner". Or "lesbian."
So, DEBBIE, you genius, what a surprise that the only party in town for white men is more white and more male.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा