Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Gallup: Women Give Santorum 10 Point Nod Over Romney”

Sure. But what kind of women? Prigs, probably. Bluenoses. Moral scolds. Chicks who worry more about showing a little ankle than about showing compassion for the inner-city single Mom who started life at a disadvantage because of her skin color and now has to rely on the kindly nurturing of government for her upkeep. Ladies who strive more for social conservatism than for the kind of social justice a big government technocrat provides through his benevolent policies: free health care for all! Minimum wage increases tied to inflation! An end to the willy-nilly distribution of pernicious assault weapons to just anybody who happens to be a law-abiding citizen.

So it’s not like their support really counts for much.

46 Replies to ““Gallup: Women Give Santorum 10 Point Nod Over Romney””

  1. Evan3457 says:

    This little bit of polling makes me all giggly. I’ll have to keep an eye on that.

  2. McGehee says:

    Women who don’t want The Man to pay their mortgages?

  3. dicentra says:

    Women who recognize a culture warrior when they see one, and who are sick to death of the pornification of America?

  4. newrouter says:

    the gabe

    These were and—to the extent similar race- and gender-based ills continue trouble us today in subtler forms—are great evils. Santorum’s rosy view of the past is, quite simply, insupportable, even on the terms he proposes: that Satan’s influence is greater today, having “corroded” the “strong foundation” of the early United States.

    However much he dislikes Roe v. Wade, Santorum can’t possibly believe that disfranchisement of women and the prohibition on female property ownership were a vastly lesser evil. But that doesn’t stop this ahistorical claim, quite popular among the usual suspects, that the country is going to hell in a handbasket and it would all be better if only we could return to the “good old days.”

    link

  5. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Ahistorical? How the bleepin’ bleep does that bleep make the bleeping connection between Roe v. Wade and women’s sufferage, to say nothing about women and property?

    If we overturn Roe, The Sons of Jacob will have won!

  6. newrouter says:

    aoshq has gone frumpy/parker

  7. Pablo says:

    Women who recognize a culture warrior when they see one, and who are sick to death of the pornification of America?

    No, no. Women hate him because he wants to outlaw birth control and force them to have babies constantly. Or so I’ve heard. Gallup must be confused.

  8. B Moe says:

    They can’t resist the sweater vest.

  9. leigh says:

    Rick needs to lay off the pizza or start hitting the treadmill in the morning. Those sweater vests are making him look like a muffin top.

  10. sdferr says:

    As told to us by those who’ve been through them leigh, economies of personal energy use and replenishment are hard to come by for campaigners deep into campaign seasons, for want of time mostly, though the energy deficits themselves play a part in a kind of vicious cycle.

  11. dicentra says:

    Fun with false dichotomies:

    Forbes’ Josh Barro notes the real problem:

    Let’s think back to what America was like almost 200 years ago. Slavery was legal, indeed enshrined in our Constitution by our Founding Fathers. The federal government was forcibly removing American Indians from their lands, leading to thousands of deaths. Women couldn’t vote and were limited in their rights to own property. And yet, Santorum sees Satan wielding more influence and having more success in America today than he did then.

    These were and—to the extent similar race- and gender-based ills continue trouble us today in subtler forms—are great evils. Santorum’s rosy view of the past is, quite simply, insupportable, even on the terms he proposes: that Satan’s influence is greater today, having “corroded” the “strong foundation” of the early United States.

    However much he dislikes Roe v. Wade, Santorum can’t possibly believe that disfranchisement of women and the prohibition on female property ownership were a vastly lesser evil. But that doesn’t stop this ahistorical claim, quite popular among the usual suspects, that the country is going to hell in a handbasket and it would all be better if only we could return to the “good old days.”

    [P]ut the question to pro-life women voters: “Would you give up the right to own property and the right to vote, if in exchange abortion were unlawful?” Anybody want to guess how that’d shake out?

    I usually see these tiresome arguments from the left. The assumption is that the past is a package deal: if you want to retrieve one public virtue from the past, the vices from that same era must necessarily come with it, as if there were a causal or correlative relationship between less public sexuality and ill treatment of blacks.

    Worse, Gabriel actually posits the false dichotomy between abortion being illegal and women’s suffrage, as if the two were mutually exclusive conditions.

    I get it: Ace and his crew aren’t on board with the Jesus-talk. That’s fine: they’re entitled to their opinion.

    But moronic arguments like this one are much more moronic than the usual moronicity from AOSHQ. I thought they were able to spot sophistry THIS obvious.

  12. leigh says:

    Oh I know sdferr. I just don’t dig the sweater vest since it make him look dumpy. Having to go to all those meet ‘n’ great things and eating on the fly does no one any favors.

  13. Jeff G. says:

    “Slavery was legal, indeed enshrined in our Constitution by our Founding Fathers.” I stopped reading there. There’s nothing in the Constitution that legalized slavery. In fact, per Lincoln, the Declaration and Constitution made it all but certain slavery couldn’t last.

  14. Jeff G. says:

    But moronic arguments like this one are much more moronic than the usual moronicity from AOSHQ. I thought they were able to spot sophistry THIS obvious.

    Often I try to comment over there but something in the software set up stops me.

    Or I’d tell them.

    By the way, dead on about how they’re beginning to argue: just like leftists, with sophistry, false dichotomies, panders to protected groups, etc. Malor, I guess, shares with all the leftists a distrust of old those dead white males who were so intolerant as to start a country where you were free to follow any religion, your rights were unalienable, and you were given the opportunity for self governance that was checked by competing interests and the division of power — leading to the most prosperous and successful country on earth.

    He doesn’t much like these contemporary Constitution fetishists. I wonder, would he prefer something more akin to the South African constitution? Perhaps he and Justice Ginsberg can have a drink and talk about it…

  15. Pablo says:

    Slavery was legal, indeed enshrined in our Constitution by our Founding Fathers.

    I’m sure Malor must have a better understanding of slavery and the Constitution that did, say, Frederick Douglass.

    Let me tell you something. Do you know that you have been deceived and cheated? You have been told that this government was intended from the beginning for white men, and for white men exclusively; that the men who formed the Union and framed the Constitution designed the permanent exclusion of the colored people from the benefits of those institutions. Davis, Taney and Yancey, traitors at the south, have propagated this statement, while their copperhead echoes at the north have repeated the same. There never was a bolder or more wicked perversion of the truth of history. So far from this purpose was the mind and heart of your fathers, that they desired and expected the abolition of slavery. They framed the Constitution plainly with a view to the speedy downfall of slavery. They carefully excluded from the Constitution any and every word which could lead to the belief that they meant it for persons of only one complexion.

    .The Constitution, in its language and in its spirit, welcomes the black man to all the rights which it was intended to guarantee to any class of the American people. Its preamble tells us for whom and for what it was made.

    Gabe’s a lawyer after all. Douglass wasn’t a lawyer.

  16. Jeff G. says:

    But that doesn’t stop this ahistorical claim, quite popular among the usual suspects, that the country is going to hell in a handbasket and it would all be better if only we could return to the “good old days.”

    Malor will be coming out as a liberal in less than a year, is my guess.

  17. leigh says:

    Gabe’s a lawyer? I had no idea that University of Phoenix had a law school.

  18. dicentra says:

    Gabe is gay, and so he is allergic to the days when gays were routinely beaten senseless with the approbation of society.

    I can’t fault him for not wanting to turn the clock back on THAT (nor do I want t0 return to that), but I’m surprised that he thinks everyone harking back to the past is secretly hoping to restore gay-bashing to respectability.

  19. Jeff G. says:

    I can’t fault him for not wanting to turn the clock back on THAT (nor do I want t0 return to that), but I’m surprised that he thinks everyone harking back to the past is secretly hoping to restore gay-bashing to respectability.

    And women in the kitchen, and blacks on the ends of tethers, tending to the bean fields, then delighting us with dance!

  20. dicentra says:

    I just walked into my kitchen, barefoot, and put tater cakes on the griddle?

    GOOD HEAVENS WHAT HAVE I DONE???

  21. leigh says:

    You better look pretty damned good doin’ it, too, di.

  22. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Gabe’s a lawyer after all.

    Well that explains it then.

    Gabe is gay,

    Unless it doesn’t. The political is personal.

    And identity politics is a bitch.

  23. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I think Taranto did a nice job of turning the social issues wedge on it’s head today: Why not say the Democrats are “exploiting” social issues to persuade wealthy blue-staters to vote against their own interests, while less-affluent red-staters are voting Republican on principle because they’re “repelled” by social liberalism?

    Why not indeed?

  24. newrouter says:

    “I’m surprised that he thinks everyone harking back to the past is secretly hoping to restore gay-bashing to respectability.”

    the future is “shiney” the past not so much. hey don’t do the “gravity” thing it ain’t “cool” when jumping off a “bridge”

  25. newrouter says:

    “Gabe is gay, ”

    no gabe is a product of nea “education”

  26. geoffb says:

    Malor will be coming out as a liberal in less than a year, is my guess.

    Reader pool.

  27. Ernst Schreiber says:

    That’ll only happen if Santorum wins the White House in November

    is my guess.

  28. geoffb says:

    If that happens there will be an epidemic of neo-lizards.

  29. Pablo says:

    “Will you be the generation that sat on the sidelines and watched as candidate after candidate comes up and the national media takes their ax out to try to destroy them in every way possible as they’ve done with every single Republican candidate and as they will between now and the election?” he asked. “And will you sit on the sidelines and say, ‘Boy that’s not fair,’ or will you stand up and fight back for freedom?”

    *

  30. Ernst Schreiber says:

    In fairness geoff, a number of those prospective neo-lizards are only on the right because of 9/11 and the GWOT. It’s not surprising then that as the threat recedes so does their identification with the right.

    Anyway, I think you want the last week of Jan. to the first week of Feb. in the pool, or you want Feb. 22, 2013.

  31. geoffb says:

    I’d give them some time so March 15th for the history.

    Besides it was just a pun on “reader poll”.

  32. newrouter says:

    It is fitting that on Labor Day, we meet beside the waters of New York harbor, with the eyes of Miss Liberty on our gathering and in the words of the poet whose lines are inscribed at her feet, “The air bridged harbor that twin cities frame.”

    Through this “Golden Door,” under the gaze of that “Mother of Exiles,” have come millions of men and women, who first stepped foot on American soil right there, on Ellis Island, so close to the Statue of Liberty.

    These families came here to work. They came to build. Others came to America in different ways, from other lands, under different, often harrowing conditions, but this place symbolizes what they all managed to build, no matter where they came from or how they came or how much they suffered.

    They helped to build that magnificent city across the river. They spread across the land building other cities and towns and incredibly productive farms.

    They came to make America work. They didn’t ask what this country could do for them but what they could do to make this refuge the greatest home of freedom in history.

    They brought with them courage, ambition and the values of family, neighborhood, work, peace and freedom. They came from different lands but they shared the same values, the same dream.

    Today a President of the United States would have us believe that dream is over or at least in need of change.

    Jimmy Carter’s Administration tells us that the descendants of those who sacrificed to start again in this land of freedom may have to abandon the dream that drew their ancestors to a new life in a new land.

    The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten.

    Eight million out of work. Inflation running at 18 percent in the first quarter of 1980. Black unemployment at about 14 percent, higher than any single year since the government began keeping separate statistics. Four straight major deficits run up by Carter and his friends in Congress. The highest interest rates since the Civil War–reaching at times close to 20 percent–lately down to more than 11 percent but now going up again–productivity falling for six straight quarters among the most productive people in history.

    Through his inflation he has raised taxes on the American people by 30 percent–while their real income has risen only 20 percent. He promised he would not increase taxes for the low and middle-income people–the workers of America. Then he imposed on American families the largest single tax increase in history.

    His answer to all of this misery? He tries to tell us that we are “only” in a recession, not a depression, as if definitions—words–relieve our suffering.

    Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well if it’s a definition he wants, I’ll give him one. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.

    I have talked with unemployed workers all across this country. I have heard their views on what Jimmy Carter has done to them and their families.

    They aren’t interested in semantic quibbles. They are out of work and they know who put them out of work. And they know the difference between a recession and a depression.

    Let Mr. Carter go to their homes, look their children in the eye and argue with them that in is “only” a recession that put dad or mom out of work.

    Let him go to the unemployment lines and lecture those workers who have been betrayed on what is the proper definition for their widespread economic misery.

    Human tragedy, human misery, the crushing of the human spirit. They do not need defining–they need action.

    And it is action, in the form of jobs, lower taxes, and an expanded economy that — as President — I intend to provide.

    Call this human tragedy whatever you want. Whatever it is, it is Jimmy Carter’s. He caused it. He tolerates it. And he is going to answer to the American people for it.

    Last week, more than three years after be became President, he finally came up with what he calls a new economic program. It is his 5th new economic program in 3 ½ years. He talks as if someone else has been in charge these past few years. With two months to go until the election he rides to the rescue now with a crazy-quilt of obvious election-year promises which he’ll ask Congress for–next year. After three years of neglect, the misery of unemployment, inflation, high taxes, dwindling earning power and inability to save–after all this, American workers have now been discovered by this administration.

    Well it won’t work. It is cynical. It is political. And it is too late. The damage is done and every American family knows who did it.

    In 1976 he said he would never use unemployment as an economic tool to fight inflation. In 1980 he called for an increase in unemployment–to fight inflation.

    In 1976 he said he would bring unemployment and inflation down to 3 percent.

    Who can believe him? Unemployment is now around 8 percent, inflation is 12 ½.

    And most of us have begun to realize that so long as Carter policies are in effect, the next four years will be as dark as the last four.

    But here, beside the torch that many times before in our nation’s history has cast a golden light in times of gloom, I pledge to you I’ll bring a new message of hope to all America.

    I look forward to meeting Mr. Carter in debate, confronting him with the whole sorry record of his Administration–the record he prefers not to mention. If he ever finally agrees to the kind of first debate the American people want–which I’m beginning to doubt–he’ll answer to them and to me.

    This country needs a new administration, with a renewed dedication to the dream of America–an administration that will give that dream new life and make America great again!

    Restoring and revitalizing that dream will take bold action.

    On this day, dedicated to American working men and women, may I tell you the vision I have of a new administration and of a new Congress, filled with new members dedicated to the values we honor today?

    Beginning in January of 1981, American workers will once again be heeded. Their needs and values will be acted upon in Washington. I will consult with representatives of organized labor on those matters concerning the welfare of the working people of this nation.

    I happen to be the only president of a union ever to be a candidate for President of the United States.

    As president of my union — the Screen Actors Guild — I spent many hours with the late George Meany, whose love of this country and whose belief in a strong defense against all totalitarians is one of labor’s greatest legacies. One year ago today on Labor Day George Meany told the American people:

    “As American workers and their families return from their summer vacations they face growing unemployment and inflation, a climate of economic anxiety and uncertainty.”

    Well I pledge to you in his memory that the voice of the American worker will once again be heeded in Washington and that the climate of fear that he spoke of will no longer threaten workers and their families.

    When we talk about tax reduction, when we talk about ending inflation by stopping it where it starts — in Washington — we are talking about a way to bring labor and management together for America. We are talking about jobs, and productivity and wages. We are talking about doing away with Jimmy Carter’s view of a no-growth policy, and ever-shrinking economic pie with smaller pieces for each of us.

    That’s no answer. We can have a bigger pie with bigger slices for everyone. I believe that together you and I can bake that bigger pie. We can make that dream that brought so many of us or our parents and grandparents to this land live once more.

    Let us work to protect the human right to acquire and own a home, and make sure that that right is extended to as many Americans as possible. A home is part of that dream.

    I want to work in Washington to roll back the crushing burden of taxation that limits investment, production, and the generation of real wealth for our people. A job, and savings, and hope for our children is part of that dream.

    I want to help Americans of every race, creed and heritage keep and build that sense of community which is at the heart of America, for a decent neighborhood is part of that dream.

    link

  33. Ernst Schreiber says:

    And it was a good one.

    But I”m a literalist, and Jeff said “less than a year” not “about a year or so.”

  34. newrouter says:

    “As president of my union — the Screen Actors Guild — I spent many hours with the late George Meany, whose love of this country and whose belief in a strong defense against all totalitarians is one of labor’s greatest legacies. One year ago today on Labor Day George Meany told the American people:”

    rick santorum union scum

  35. geoffb says:

    Touche.

  36. newrouter says:

    sarah palin union scum

  37. motionview says:

    Hearing people talk about slavery in America without any real historical understanding of the role of slavery in human societies drives me crazy. They may have a vague idea that the Jews were slaves in that one mummie movie, and of course the Republicans ran slavery here in the US, while the rest of the world, for the rest of recorded and unrecorded history, well who knows.
    Slavery is gone from this world (to the extent that it is) due primarily to the work of Western Christians, and the blood of more than half a million mostly white American men.

  38. dicentra says:

    Surreal Twitter convo between Amanda Marcotte and Joshua Treviño:

    Amanda Marcotte
    The abortion rate should reflect the need for it. Right now, forced childbirth is happening, a massive human rights violation.
    Joshua Treviño
    “Safe, legal, and ALL THE TIME.”

    Oh good, then we agree it should be zero.

    Well you’d better go stop that, Amanda.

    Amanda Marcotte
    I’ve had zero abortions because of the contraception conservatives are currently attacking.

    Joshua Treviño
    Okaaaay. Really.

    Amanda Marcotte
    Yep! Really. I’ve had no abortions. Are you suggesting otherwise? Please show your evidence.

    Joshua Treviño
    Not at all. Your personal inexperience with it explains much.

    Amanda Marcotte
    Actually, my personal experience disproves the conservative argument that contraception doesn’t prevent abortion.

    Joshua Treviño
    Man, how did I spend a lifetime in the movement and miss that one? Also, ask someone about anecdotes versus data sometime.

    Amanda Marcotte
    If I didn’t use contraception as you guys wish, I would have had an abortion by now, probably a few. So far, none.

    Joshua Treviño
    You have no idea how you come across, do you?

    Amanda Marcotte
    I know that you think I’m a dirty, dirty slut. But not everyone out there thinks female sexuality is dirty.

    Joshua Treviño
    Not in the slightest. I know it’s important to you that I do, though.

    The truth, @AmandaMarcotte, is that I have no interest in your personal conduct. I suspect it’s rather banal, despite the TMI sociopathy.

    How can I not give a shout-out to the patriarchy RIGHT NOW?

    Lemme say something radical: there is a moral responsibility to bring a pregnancy to term. If this offends you, then you needed it.

    I’m astounded by the lack of vulgarity on Amanda’s part, though. Maybe the meds have kicked in.

  39. dicentra says:

    Women Speak for Themselves

    Those currently invoking “women’s health” in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest.

    Dozens and dozens of female professionals as signatories.

  40. geoffb says:

    And by the by, @AmandaMarcotte, you can’t reasonably say “hands off my birth control” if you’re asking me to pay for it and pass it to you.

  41. […] Santorum The Sundries Shack: Romney’s Plan – No Spending Cuts. No Tax Reform. No Bueno. Protein Wisdom: Gallup – Women Give Santorum 10-Point Lead Over Romney William McGurn: Sex, Lies, And Rick Santorum Atlas Shrugs: OWS Letter To The Editor Says “We […]

  42. B Moe says:

    Marcotte’s warm, caring nature just permeates everything she says.

  43. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Or perhaps her embrace of the Left’s vision of No-Fault freedom has warped her natural warmth and caring.

  44. Yackums says:

    Didn’t Trevino ask Amanda the obvious questions? Namely, out of all the times she used contraception, did she ever pay out of pocket for it? And if not, would having to pay for it have prevented her from using it?

  45. Kevin says:

    Hey, the site looks cleaner. Whatever changes you made seem like a good thing. IMO.

  46. B Moe says:

    I would have asked here how old she was before she found out putting a bag over her head wouldn’t really keep her from getting pregnant.

Comments are closed.