You know, I just can’t help but find it all quite hypocritical, and even a bit slimy, that someone, especially someone who was once an advisor to presidential rapist "Slick Willie" Clinton, could go on television and with a straight face make the claim that because there are Republican candidates, who are males, who happen to be running against incumbent Democrats, who are females, what we have here is yet another very obvious example which further proves there exists, what the Democrats continue to call, the Republican Party’s war on women.
Anyway, it was some imbecile who was actually described as being a Democrat strategist, as well as being former advisor to "BJ" Clinton, by the name of Richard Socarides, who made the brilliant declaration this past Friday, that the Republicans "have zero chance of taking back the Senate." He also claimed that going after women Democrat senators "is part of the Republican war on women." Ya know, his guy can’t be much of a political strategist if this is what he sees as being the best tactic to use in going after Republicans.
So it was while appearing on CNBC’s " The Kudlow Report", that this imbecile said, "The Republicans have zero chance of taking back the Senate. I mean it’s going to get closer—the margin is going to get closer, but six Senate seats, I mean it could be very close. It could be 50/50, it could be 51-49." But apparently he felt the need to continue with his rather idiotic rant as he then proceeded to launch into what was pretty much nothing more than an all out attack on a couple of conservative donors, the Koch brothers.
He said, "The Koch brothers are targeting all the Democratic women. I mean this is part of the Republican war on women. They’ve got three women Democratic senators. They’re pouring millions of dollars on it. I do not think that the Republicans are going to take back the Senate by targeting women and using the money of the extreme right to try to fearmonger these elections." He later said "This is a war on women – three women Democratic Senators." Somehow I doubt very much that they’re being opposed simply because they’re women.
The Democrat women to whom he was referring, and who are up for re-election in 2014, are Sens. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.). It’s not their gender that’s at issue here, it’s their destructive politics. Socarides went to predict that if Obamacare is largely unpopular in the fall, he believes "it could be 50/50." In the 2014 midterm elections, 20 Democrat seats are up for election compared to 13 Republican seats. Republicans need to gain a net of six seats in order to regain control of the Senate.
Now if we’re using this jerk’s logic, can we then arrive at the conclusion that whenever a Republican woman is opposed by a Democrat male, it is for no other reason than because the Democrat has some hatred of women. And in using "Slick Willie", as well as any of the Kennedy clan, as being our examples of how it is that Democrats treat women, it becomes pretty obvious, and pretty quick, that most male Democrats have the rather bizarre tendency to view most women as being little more than a tool to be used to enhance one’s political resume.
After all, and again in using our same stellar Democrats as examples, while these guys can be said to love women, it’s usually only in the context of something kinky, and as long as the women are either lying in the prone position, or perhaps on their knees. Other than that Democrat politicians have very little use for any woman. But apparently most women are quite comfortable with that, since the majority of them seem to be only too happy to routinely vote for such sleazy characters. But in so doing they’re really doing themselves no favors.
No comments:
Post a Comment