i'd say! i was duly surprised by this unabashed show of uniform bullishness. now you know where all those OEX call buyers hail from.
from Edward Zehr:
The Politics of Osculation
Much has been made of the "gender gap," but a recent New York Times article reveals that it is marital status, not gender, that has given us the great divide in electoral politics in recent years. The article by Katharine Seelye tells us that Clinton led Dole by 26 percent among unmarried voters in 1996, while Dole had a 2 percent advantage among married voters. A New York Times/CBS News poll, taken Sept. 9, (among 843 "registered voters" which probably invalidates it up front) indicates that "Married women prefer Mr. Bush over Mr. Gore, 45 percent to 37 percent, while unmarried women strongly prefer Mr. Gore to Mr. Bush, 57 percent to 22 percent."
Ms. Seelye tells us that unmarried women over 50 are among Gore's strongest supporters, and that he is now attempting to make inroads into the ranks of married women as well. Although Gore seems to have the advantage with unmarried women, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, Bush is two percent ahead among unmarried men and leads by six points among all men.
Even allowing for the fact that the poll is probably grossly inaccurate -- many registered voters do not vote and among those who stay home on election day Democrats predominate -- this most likely gets to the root of the Republican's problem. By making it easier for women to have children out of wedlock we have created a dependent class who are hungry for ever more entitlements from the government and who value freebies over freedom. They swell the "reserve army of the uninformed," tragic victims of the American "educational" system who see the government as a kind of surrogate parent. Nor are women the only members of our increasingly entitled and burgeoning population of surrogate "dependents." The poster boy for this new class of whiny-brat parasites is the pony-tailed klutz who, during one of Clinton's early town meetings, referred to him as a substitute "father," and inquired about all the nice things "Da-Da" intended to do for him.
All of which speaks to the putrescent mess we have made of our social order. A society that is unable to raise its children without spoiling them rotten, while failing to instill in them even the most elementary values upon which the social order is based is not long for this world. If we are beginning to feel the hot breath of social disintegration on the backs of our necks it is because we have ignored the fundamentals for so long.
Now we are confronted with the grotesque spectacle of both major presidential candidates vying for the votes of ditzy dollies by making a public display of their osculatory prowess. Bush was the latest to practice the politics of osculation, planting a big, wet, sloppy one on Oprah Winfrey at the start of his much heralded command performance in her afternoon forum. If you are wondering how the balance has shifted in American politics you need only take note of the venue in which the candidates make their major appearances. Meet the Press is passe -- it's Oprah ueber alles nowadays.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. That is the new rubric which guides so many of the young, unmarried and meretricious in their ceaseless quest for a soft touch. Our graduate schools of science and engineering are half filled with foreign students these days because American kids find the prerequisite math and science courses "too difficult." Wouldn't do to have such drudgery interfere with their primary goal in life -- entertaining themselves. The real core-constituency of the Democratic Party is revealed by the demographics to be -- none other than high-school dropouts. They favor Gore over Bush by a whopping 53 percent-to-27 percent. But enough of this dour-faced carping -- bring on the entitlements.
Mr. Gore gave a teasing glimpse into his grab-bag of goodies at a recent event in Las Vegas that focused on women's health care. "I'm for tough new patients' rights legislation to make sure women get the best health care, not the cheapest," said he. The New York Times noted that "he also addressed the needs of married women, saying that parents should be able to take their children to the nearest emergency room and that women should be able to choose an obstetrician as their primary-care physician."
When did any of this become the concern of the federal government? What section of the Constitution authorizes the government to interfere in this manner in the daily lives of its citizens, taking from some in order to buy the votes of others? Never mind, we have become a government of men, not laws -- no, better make that a government of women. The ten percent or so of swing-voters, comprised mainly of veg-heads, who decide most of our elections hold the balance of power. This presidential campaign is focused mainly on winning them over. The rest of us can go hang so far as the candidates are concerned.
The Times article notes that Clinton had made inroads with the family vote until the impeachment debacle which lost for the Democrats all of the ground he had gained. (Odd, I don't recall the Times mentioning this before. All I remember is their description of the "massive backlash" against Republicans because of the "mean" way they had attempted to capitalize on the down and dirty details of Clinton's "private" life -- you know, all those rapes, attempted rapes, instances of aggravated sexual abuse, etc., which still have many good Democrats in a state of denial). Ms. Seelye writes that, "Several analysts said Mr. Clinton's personal behavior was perhaps one of the strongest factors in inhibiting voters' support for Mr. Gore, particularly among women and even more so among married women with children at home."
So a lot of us had suspected early on. But having casually tossed out this hunk of red meat (to use the parlance of the mainstream press), the Times lady proceeds to reel it back in before conservatives, starving for some good news from these worthies, are able to lay a paw on it, telling us that "analysts have identified a string of recent events that have swung women to Mr. Gore, starting with his selection of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman as his running mate on Aug. 7 and including what Mr. Gore called his 'overwhelming surge of emotion' when he kissed his wife at the convention."
No kidding. Have you ever had a conversation with a person who seems able to talk quite rationally for, oh say 20 minutes or so, and then suddenly, out of the blue, makes a statement that leaves little room for doubt that the speaker is from outer space? Any woman who would base her vote on such gushy emotionalism derived from so transparently phony a staged event as that convention kiss is in desperate need of a brain transplant. (Put that one on your health-care wish-list too, Al baby). And that goes for Dubya bussing Oprah as well. If this is the shape of things to come under the present system, perhaps it's time to consider changing our form of government. Or do you suppose that the country can survive being controlled by maundering mush-heads for as long as anyone can imagine?
You see, all it takes is one brief item from the New York Times and right away the nets are back up under the windows. No doubt that is because those in the know realize how much is riding on this election -- it isn't just the makeup of the Supreme Court that's at stake, it's the whole philosophy of government. Those who are willing to hazard making a serious mistake in their choice of leaders had better be prepared to pay the price. |
