The Republican party and women

The Republican party is absurd.

They are ostensibly trying to prevent the re-election of a president who seeks to destroy America as it has historically existed. And what do they treat as the main focus of their national convention? Showing how much they care about women. Showing how much they want more women to occupy top positions in politics.

I’m sorry to sound so downbeat. But I do not feel downbeat. I’m simply calling it as I see it. A party that behaves the way I’ve just described is a party of absurd losers. They have already lost. It’s over.

- end of initial entry -

August 31

Jim R. writes:

I found the emphasis on women at the Republican convention smart politics. They mean to win. White women’s votes are the only ones in play.

In order to win, Romney needs basically about half of the six million votes that Obama got over McCain to vote for him. Almost all of these potential switchers are white women. They are the only ones in play.

So yes, we have a bunch of sweet nothings whispered. Lots of sexy posturing. Made to neutralize Obama’s “War on Women” stuff and persuade those who are persuadable, White women ages 30-45, who receive some minor stuff from government, but also lose by it in taxes for other people’s children (welfare) and obsessions (green nonsense) that Romney is friendly towards them and not some “Handmaid’s Tale” caricature of Christianity and faith.

Paris is worth a mass.

LA replies:

A Paris which requires such absurd gestures in order to be won, is perhaps not worth winning. What if the political consultants told the Republicans that in order to win the election, they all had to dress in clown suits and jump up and down playing on kazoos for three days? That’s the way this convention seemed to me.

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

I switched the TV to the RNC briefly and got on while Romney was speaking, and couldn’t believe I heard him say (and how likely is it I would hear exactly this part!):

“Today, women are more likely than men to start a business. They need a president who respects and understands what they do.” (From the transcript here).

I switched off immediately, especially after what Ann Romney had to say yesterday.

Pundits say that Mitt Romney is stiff and “not likable.” I’ve always liked him. He seems genuinely sympathetic. He is the “nice” guy that Ann Romney says he is. But this was a real disappointment. He has no political clout in him, and he cannot see society for what it should be.

Also, see my post on Mitt Romney’s acquiescing and submissive jaw line.

Jessica K. writes:

Watching the American political scene from across the Atlantic, it would appear that your GOP is becoming a U.S. version of our Tories, i.e. a place-holder that exists solely to fill the vacuum left by the liberals on their ever-leftward march. The end goal of complete, leftist domination is never questioned, just the speed required to get there. Rather than fighting, the “conservatives” are reduced to whimpering for a reduction in speed and offering concessions and white flags at every opportunity:

“We’re changing! Look at how diverse and progressive our convention is! Women are the future of our movement! It’s only illegal immigration we don’t like, we just LOVE legal immigrants!”

You say that you feel a Romney loss is coming. As a Brit who is currently living with a modern-style “new conservatives” establishment, I say it doesn’t matter.

Anyway, as several of your readers have pointed out, the unchecked immigration that the GOP is ignoring (coupled with an ever increasing non-white native demographic) means a several point victory in 2012 becomes a several point loss in 2016 and 2020.

Might as well get used to single-party rule sooner than later.

Clem P. writes:

How about the black Democratic woman from Massachusetts (can’t think of her name at the moment) who spoke about how Mitt as governor increased his staff to match the proportion of the female population? Especially in the higher staff positions. No mention of merit or ability, just numbers. No disparate impact for them, no sir!

September 2

Terry Morris writes:

Laura Wood referred to the Republicans as “the Stupid Party” when they threw Todd Akin to the lions a few days ago. And on the surface it did seem counter-intuitive for the ostensibly “pro-life” party to sacrifice Akin that way, thus jeopardizing their chances of retaking the Senate in November and repealing Obamacare.

But if the theme of the convention—Hail Women, we who are about to die Salute You!—is any indication, then Akin’s treatment by his fellow Republicans makes perfect sense. Effectively they’re sacrificing their pro-life position upon the altar of pro-womanhood. The two would not, under normal circumstances, be incompatible with one another, but they are incompatible under the liberal worldview, which the Republicans have adopted. Albeit in a less radical form than the Democrats for the time being, but nonetheless. In any event, there’s not enough room in the new female-worshipping Republican party for radicals like Akin. He represents the last of the remaining dinosaurs, rapidly going extinct.

Allen W. writes:

I accept LA’s reply (in the thread on Ryan’s speech) that “the only way to win in the long run is to take the principled and true stand and stay with it.” Yet James N.’s question about “the best tactics to support the strategic goal of removing Obama” remains daunting. Are crowd pleasing approaches (such as calling for more women and minorities to be elected) helpful in winning the election, and even if they are, should it be done? Allow me to phrase the question as though it were a matter of the ends justifying the means:

If the unprincipled method of the Romney campaign would win the election, while a fully truthful approach would lose it, should it be done?

LA replies:

I have different feelings on this, but my strongest feeling is that if you throw aside all principle in order to win the election, then, even if you win the election, you’ve given up so much to win it that in the long run you lose anyway.

Terry Morris writes:

Your reply to Allen W. thread expresses my sentiments exactly. My wife is not the primary disciplinarian in our family, and never will be. Were I even to entertain such a notion, or to fail to nip it in the bud were the question to raise its head for whatever reason, and to allow it to take root, how have I gained anything, and how is society better served? In reality, doing nothing to stop it, never mind encouraging such behavior, is tantamount to writing one’s own death warrant. Such a husband would ultimately get exactly what his own neglect had brought to him—destruction of his family in any meaningful sense of the term.

It is a lose-lose situation for the Republicans. They’ve sold their souls to defeat Obama, and they’ll have to pay dearly for it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 31, 2012 12:23 AM | Send