- Jan 19, 2010
- 67,557
- 61,779
- 3,605
Women
The fact that the American left is deathly afraid of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann can be interpreted in several different ways.
First of all, if both ladies are as big of fools and bumblers as they claim, why are they wasting so much time and energy trying to destroy them? If they were the idiots the self-proclaimed elitists in the mainstream media would have us believe, they'd simply fall under their own weight without any help from the insulated dodos at the New York Times.
Now if you were to accuse Paul Krugman of being anti-feminist he would probably go apoplectic and spill his martini all over the swelled headed intellectuals he hangs out with, but you have to wonder about that.
Ultra-liberals will never have a better opportunity of electing a female candidate of their own persuasion than they did in this last election. Hillary was not only the heir apparent to the left wing mantle but was infinitely more qualified to be president than a Jr. Senator from Illinois whose total experience in national politics consisted of two short years in the Senate.
Hillary is a seasoned veteran in national and international diplomacy and besides being a two-term senator from New York, she lived in the White House for eight years, and those weren't passive years spent hosting Girl Scout Troops and giving media tours of 1600 Pennsylvania. Ave.
So why, when given a woman who would probably have beaten John McCain hands down, did the majority of the media and most of the left forsake Ms. Clinton in favor of a totally unproven rookie?
Could it possibly be because she is a woman?
With all their condescending, behind the hand, snide remarks about the Tea Party, with the left claiming to be the superior ideology and while they pay lip service to championing all things feminine, it seems to me that down where the rubber hits the road, it's the conservatives who take their women candidates much more seriously.
And not without precedent.
Margaret Thatcher was known as the iron lady and was able to wield a chainmail covered fist when the occasion called for it much to the chagrin of any of the loyal opposition who were dumb enough to judge her by her gender.
Golda Meir was in charge in Israel during some of it's most turbulent times and if anybody doubts her courage or commitment they only have to remember that Madame Meir was the one who authorized the hit squad who sought out and killed the Muslims who murdered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.
If you notice the left, even the groups who openly support women's rights, are very selective about whom they tie in with. Actually if your politics are wrong your gender stands for naught.
How do you spell hypocrite? Oh well.
I don't openly support political candidates of either sex but I will say this. I would have absolutely no problem voting for the right woman candidate because I happen to think what is important is ability and character rather than what sex a person happens to be.
But on the flip side of that coin, I would never vote for a candidate simply because she is a woman, neither will I vote for a candidate because they belong to a minority nor a majority race and, care little about party affiliations but if the right Lady has her name on the ballot and I figure she's the best one for the job she's got my vote.
How about you Mr. Krugman?
What do you think?
Pray for our troops, and for our country.
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
The fact that the American left is deathly afraid of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann can be interpreted in several different ways.
First of all, if both ladies are as big of fools and bumblers as they claim, why are they wasting so much time and energy trying to destroy them? If they were the idiots the self-proclaimed elitists in the mainstream media would have us believe, they'd simply fall under their own weight without any help from the insulated dodos at the New York Times.
Now if you were to accuse Paul Krugman of being anti-feminist he would probably go apoplectic and spill his martini all over the swelled headed intellectuals he hangs out with, but you have to wonder about that.
Ultra-liberals will never have a better opportunity of electing a female candidate of their own persuasion than they did in this last election. Hillary was not only the heir apparent to the left wing mantle but was infinitely more qualified to be president than a Jr. Senator from Illinois whose total experience in national politics consisted of two short years in the Senate.
Hillary is a seasoned veteran in national and international diplomacy and besides being a two-term senator from New York, she lived in the White House for eight years, and those weren't passive years spent hosting Girl Scout Troops and giving media tours of 1600 Pennsylvania. Ave.
So why, when given a woman who would probably have beaten John McCain hands down, did the majority of the media and most of the left forsake Ms. Clinton in favor of a totally unproven rookie?
Could it possibly be because she is a woman?
With all their condescending, behind the hand, snide remarks about the Tea Party, with the left claiming to be the superior ideology and while they pay lip service to championing all things feminine, it seems to me that down where the rubber hits the road, it's the conservatives who take their women candidates much more seriously.
And not without precedent.
Margaret Thatcher was known as the iron lady and was able to wield a chainmail covered fist when the occasion called for it much to the chagrin of any of the loyal opposition who were dumb enough to judge her by her gender.
Golda Meir was in charge in Israel during some of it's most turbulent times and if anybody doubts her courage or commitment they only have to remember that Madame Meir was the one who authorized the hit squad who sought out and killed the Muslims who murdered the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.
If you notice the left, even the groups who openly support women's rights, are very selective about whom they tie in with. Actually if your politics are wrong your gender stands for naught.
How do you spell hypocrite? Oh well.
I don't openly support political candidates of either sex but I will say this. I would have absolutely no problem voting for the right woman candidate because I happen to think what is important is ability and character rather than what sex a person happens to be.
But on the flip side of that coin, I would never vote for a candidate simply because she is a woman, neither will I vote for a candidate because they belong to a minority nor a majority race and, care little about party affiliations but if the right Lady has her name on the ballot and I figure she's the best one for the job she's got my vote.
How about you Mr. Krugman?
What do you think?
Pray for our troops, and for our country.
God Bless America
Charlie Daniels
