By Sam Pierce -
Whether it is the media, operatives pushing “moderate” candidates, or liberal Democrats (wait, I already mentioned the media) helping their own, “women and independents are sure getting a bad rap. On one hand, the two groups are built up as critical voting blocks to which appeals must be made if one wishes electoral success. On the other hand, they are portrayed as immoral, foolish voters who seek diminished liberty and abolition of individual responsibility. It is a shame that what seems to be an overwhelming majority of those with a platform have been able to paint “women and independents” in such an unflattering manner.
I realize that it is necessary for political actors to create groups, formulate polls, and fabricate narratives in the interest of their candidates or causes. Are “women” a voting block? Are “independents” all of like mind? If so, how the hell are they “independent?” Can women also be independent and if they are, does that mean that all women and all independents are expected to vote the same way? Stupid question, you say? I agree, but then again, I am not the one pretending that “women and independents” are the way they are being portrayed.
Given the recent shaping of the news to deflect critical examination of President Obama’s successes (not failures, as evidenced by his disdain for his country), “women and independents” are taking center stage. What is so bad about the presentation of these all-important deciders of the future?
If one is to suspend disbelief and buy the load of fertilizer being peddled by a consortium of unsavory elements, “women and independents” are going to sit out the upcoming election or vote for the re-election of what may be the worst president in the history of our nation. What on earth could inspire such destructive behavior? What scandalous occurrence would inspire thoughtful American “women and independents” to damn their descendants to a bleak future?
Drum-roll please! There is a war on women! How do we know there is a war on women? Whatever could have happened to indicate that women’s rights and reproduction are being stuffed into H.G. Wells’ “Time Machine” and sent back into the stone age? It appears that women cannot be free, cannot have their rights… if there is freedom! Yes, you read that correctly. Unless there is unconstitutional (ewww, the icky Constitution, I must be a racist, bigot, homophobe, misogynist) federal government mandate, women will be under constant assault. Therefore, we must protect rights and freedom from rights and freedom.
On a serious note, are we supposed to believe that women are helpless and cannot make choices without government benevolence? Are we really to believe that freedom is a bad thing for “women” and the sensitive “independents?” Sadly, our societal destruction has been so efficiently successful that a majority of the electorate may indeed be dumb enough to buy the load regarding the “War On Women.”
Here is one small example of the true assault (the one on liberty in the name of “women”). PPACT, the political advocacy arm of the nations largest taxpayer fund-receiving baby butcher mill, tweeted:
With every expectation of reading the ridiculous, I clicked on the link to the New York Slimes article, “Centrist Women Tell of Disenchantment With G.O.P.” It was everything one would expect from part of the DNC campaign. (Isn’t it really stupid for Republicans to buy into the campaign finance reform garbage when the Democrats have nearly limitless in-kind campaign contributions from all the major media outlets?)
A sampling of the NYT portrayal of “women and independents” in a very poor light:
As baby showers go, the party Mary Russell attended to celebrate her niece’s first child was sweet, with about a dozen women offering congratulations over ice cream and cake.
But somewhere between the baby name game and the gifts, what had been light conversation took a sharp turn toward the personal and political — specifically, the battle over access to birth control and other women’s health issues that have sprung to life on the Republican campaign trail in recent weeks.
“We all agreed that this seemed like a throwback to 40 years ago,” said Ms. Russell, 57, a retired teacher from Iowa City who describes herself as an evangelical Christian and “old school” Republican of the moderate mold.
Until the baby shower, just two weeks ago, she had favored Mitt Romney for president.
Not anymore. She said she might vote for President Obama now. “I didn’t realize I had a strong viewpoint on this until these conversations,” Ms. Russell said. As for the Republican presidential candidates, she added: “If they’re going to decide on women’s reproductive issues, I’m not going to vote for any of them. Women’s reproduction is our own business.”
We are supposed to believe that, generally speaking, “women and independents” are as ignorant as the story depicts Ms. Russell. I would like to think that most of the women and activists who perpetuate this charade are doing it as a means to a political end, not out of such frightening ignorance. Of course, given the state of education and of our society as a whole, I suppose the ignorance argument cannot be dismissed entirely.
Planned Parenthood and the smaller abortion mills are big business. It just so happens that their profitability is enhanced by societal degradation, not to mention (even though I am mentioning it) the presence of the most rabidly pro-abortion president ever to “occupy” the Oval Office. Will the ruse work? Will “women and independents” really fall, in large numbers, for such a ridiculous misrepresentation of reality?
The odds are against common sense and liberty here, but we cannot abandon hope. I suppose we must try to have faith that a majority of the electorate is not dumb enough to believe that absent unconstitutional federal government intrusion, women will not be free. Really, what business does HHS and the late Tiller The Baby Killer’s favorite politician have deciding what insurance policies must provide?
Cross-posted from "Societal Squalor"