Psych
Ann Coulter On Female Vote: ‘Single Women Look For Gov’t To Be Their Husbands’
byAndrew Kirell August 19th, 2012 From Sean Hannity’s show on FOX
Appearing on Fox & Friends Sunday, conservative columnist Ann Coulter discussed a wide variety of subjects including the recent string of perceived gaffes by Vice President Joe Biden, media bias, and the courting of the female vote. When asked why women don’t typically turn out a majority for Republican candidates, Coulter explained that “it’s the single women’s vote” which looks to the government “to be their husbands” and provide a variety of free services that the Democratic Party generally favors.
Co-host AlisynCamerota mentioned that recent campaign ads have focused on “which party would be better for women,” adding that the Republicans have been painted as not having “women’s best interests at heart”" because of their stance on abortion, among other issues.
“It seems to be working,” Camerota said. “The latest polls have suggested that President Obama has a big lead over Mitt Romney in terms of the female vote.” However, she noted, there is a poll that shows “stay-at-home moms’” approval of Romney is up. “Only 23% of President Obama’s presidency, but, I don’t know if they are a big enough voting bloc to even count when the women’s vote altogether is heading towards President Obama.”
“This is nothing new,” Coulter responded. “When both the Democratic Party and the media are fixated on which way the women are going, that is usually not a good sign for them, you know? Let’s talk about which way the country is going. Women are a slight majority but are not the entire country.”
“Ronald Reagan managed to win two landslides without winning the women’s vote,” she continued, before offering a correction to the focus of the discussion:
“It’s not the women’s vote generically, it is the single women’s vote. And that is because single women look to the government to be their husbands and give them, you know, prenatal care, and preschool care, and kindergarten care, and school lunches. These are not programs designed to appeal to Bruce Willis.”
“I’ll let that marinate,” Camerota said to end the segment.
Hey, Coulter Said It, Not Me
Transcript: From the Rush Limbaugh show
August 09, 2012
RUSH: Last night on Hannity, Ann Coulter showed up and she was asked about the return of Sandra Fluke. You know, Fluke went out there and introduced Obama in Denver. Obama said Romney is threatening women. He's going to take you back to the 1950s. What does that mean, by the way, for women: Going back to the 1950s?
(interruption)
Is that what it means? "You have to clean your house"?
(interruption)
"No birth control pills, clean the house, wash the dishes, barefoot and pregnant"? That's what that means?
(interruption)
"Gotta cook for your husband and shut up and like it"? That's what's going back to the '50s is? So Obama's saying that's what Romney wants to do. And when you finish all that, you've got to take care of the horses. Okay. So Hannity said to Ann Coulter, "Will the return of Sandra Fluke really score points with the voters for Obama?"
COULTER: He is trying to get the stupid single women voters, which is the Democratic Party base. If Obamacare goes through and Obama is reelected, you're talking about the total destruction of wealth in America. It's the end of America as we know it. There will be no innovation. There will be no growth. Great, you'll get free contraception. You won't have to pay a $10 co-pay. But it will be the end of America! Think about that. Their base is not women. It is divorced, separated, single women. It's women who are looking at the government to be their husbands. That's the base of the Democrat Party. "Please pay for my child care, my contraception, my housing, my food." It's women who don't have a man to provide for them so they turn to the government. That's the Democrat Party's base. Congratulations!
RUSH: Can you imagine what would happen if I would say that? Ha! I can't say it. (interruption) Well, she's already said it. I can't say it. I mean, I could say it but it's not going to be the same thing as if I had originally said it. (interruption) Well, no, it still wouldn't work, because even the lug-head Drive-Bys would simply know that I'm reporting what somebody else said. But imagine if Ann Coulter had not said it and I came out and said: "You know what?
"Let me tell you something about the Democrat Party base. Let me tell you who it really is. It's divorced, separated, single women. It's women who are looking for government to be their husbands because for whatever reason they can't find a man to provide for them. (gasp!) That's the base of the Democrat Party." If I or any man -- not just me, if any guy -- had said that? See Coulter can get away with it because she's a woman saying it. Coulter has also said that she thinks the problems with our welfare state, the entitlement state, started the minute women got the vote.
Because women look to government to be their husbands. That's what the soccer mom thing was all about, by the way. You remember the soccer mom phenomenon? We even said back then that the whole illusion of the soccer mom thing was that Bill Clinton loved these women more than their own worthless husbands. Then the soccer moms, that morphed into something else. But anyway, when I heard this, I went: "What would happen if I or any other guy said something like this?" I'm also wondering: How many women in this audience hearing Ann Coulter say that silently agree with her?
RUSH: Here's Dave in San Mateo, California. Hi, Dave! I'm glad you waited. You're next on the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Rush, what a pleasure to talk to you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: You know, the only thing I can thank Obama for is that because of his arrival on the scene, I started listening to you, and I haven't had a problem with that at all. In fact, you're the only guy that does this that I can listen to day in and day out.
RUSH: I appreciate that. That's a dual-edged sword, though. It's a dual-edged sword.
CALLER: I know. (chuckles) I know. It's a burden you have to bear.
RUSH: Because if somebody said, "Would you rather have Dave listening or no Obama?" I don't know. (chuckling)
CALLER: No choice. I'll tell you, you and Ann Coulter last night have been pretty kind about this Democrat-woman base description. And I just want to share something that I've observed. It seems like there's a huge difference in appearance between the conservative women that I see on TV and the liberal women. So I'd like to add a word to that description that goes along with "unmarried, divorced, single." You can add "ugly" to that, too.
RUSH: Really? Is that your observation?
CALLER: Yeah, for the most part. I mean, look at Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz. Look at Hillary Clinton. Um, there's a whole list of them.
RUSH: Yeah, yeah. Well, I am reminded of my own Undeniable Truth of Life Number 24, which is: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
CALLER: I knew you would understand.
RUSH: Yeah. (chuckling) It was that Undeniable Truth, I think (there were a couple of others) which established me undeniably as a great thinker, and contributor of great thoughts in our culture. It's not so much... Go back to what Coulter said. She says here, "The base of the Democrat Party is single, divorced, separated women who are looking at the government to be their husbands." What I've always said is that the Democrat Party, via the entitlement culture, set out to become the husband.
Particularly in minority communities.
I firmly believe that the Democrat Party used the federal government and the welfare system to bust up the family. Once the government became the provider for families, there was no need for the father/husband to hang around. And the father/husband, in many cases, didn't. That's why I've had African-Americans tell me that government is responsible for the family bust-up in the black community. And I think the Democrat Party has willingly done that.
In fact, it's a chicken-or-egg question: Which came first, the women that wanted the government to be their husbands or the government deciding to be? I've always thought that one of the express purposes of the Democrat Party in the modern era (and certainly the American left) was to bring about that end. They want as much dependency as possible however they can make it happen, and they've done it. Anyway, I appreciate the call, Dave. Thanks much.
Here is the second article from a conservative source
How the Government Breaks Up Marriages
by Phyllis Schlafly August 22, 2012
A very public marital melodrama is now playing in San Francisco. It shows the idiocy of domestic violence laws and the extremism of the feminists whose ideology paints men as innate batterers and women as victims of the patriarchy.
The target of their current campaign is the elected Sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi. After six months of demeaning publicity and headlines like “Sheriff arrested for wife beating,” last week the city’s Ethics Commission voted 4 to 1 against him. He has been suspended without pay and may soon be fired.
The saga isn’t over yet, but the story is so bizarre that it deserves to be told nationwide. The accused has my sympathy, even though he is a leftwing Democrat. Yes, I believe that leftists deserve due process and fair treatment in our criminal justice system.
The local prosecutor charged Mirkarimi with the crimes of domestic violence and child endangerment, which sound bad, but the evidence was trivial. The domestic violence charge was based on Mirkarimi grabbing his wife’s arm during a New Year’s Eve argument which allegedly left a bruise, and the child endangerment charge was based solely on their toddler (who was not touched) merely being present when this argument took place.
Mirkarimi’s wife, Eliana Lopez, never made any complaint and she publicly defended her husband. She is an intelligent adult, a former Venezuelan telenovela star, who is perfectly able to make her own decisions.
At Mirkarimi’s arraignment, Lopez declined to paint herself as a domestic violence victim. She told the judge, “This is unbelievable. I don’t have any complaint against my husband.”
Lopez added, “This country is trying to pull my family apart. This is the real violence, I believe.” She made a written statement saying that the episode was “completely taken out of context.”
Outside the court, Lopez told reporters that “this country has not allowed me to work on my marriage in a healthy way. I feel like … everybody is using my family, myself, in a political game just to destroy Ross. … This country is destroying my family.”
Mirkarimi’s trouble was aggravated by a picture taken by a neighbor — not of the argument — but only of the bruise on the wife’s arm. Lopez did not authorize the release of the picture to the police.
A picture of a bruise is meaningless, especially when no one is claiming to be hurt. Some people bruise easily. Many people get ugly bruises playing sports and apparently enjoy every minute of the game.
Lopez did not request a restraining order but Judge Susan Breall issued one anyway, forbidding Mirkarimi to see his wife or son or to go into his own house. He hasn’t seen them for many months.
Faced with defending himself at a criminal trial, Mirkarimi agreed to a plea bargain, which involved pleading guilty to one misdemeanor that does not include domestic violence. The prosecutor dropped the three original charges, but Mirkarimi was sentenced to three years’ probation, 52 weeks of domestic violence classes, 100 hours of community service, a $400 fine, and required attendance at family counseling.
Why is this minor marital argument, in which no one is complaining, the government’s business? Where are the liberals, libertarians and gays who are always demanding that the government get out of the bedroom?
Based on the newspaper reports, it appears that this country is, indeed, determined to destroy this family. The prosecutor, the judge, the cops, and the neighbor have all contributed to the problem.
Most of all, the marriage is being destroyed by U.S. laws that encourage marriage breakup, divorce, arrests when no victim makes a complaint, restraining orders designed to separate family members, hearsay used as evidence in court, child punishment that is called child protection, child-custody disputes instead of shared custody, always blaming the man, assuming the woman is incompetent to assert her own interests, police policies that require the cops to arrest somebody (guess who that always turns out to be), exaggerating a minor argument into a criminal case, and ignoring the marital privilege.
The feminist lobby has intimidated most public officials from speaking out against the abuses committed by those who allege domestic violence, but one brave San Franciscan has spoken up in Mirkarimi’s defense. Former Mayor Art Agnos said, “I know this man and this woman. They love each other. They support each other. They love their child. They want to be together again. It does not rise … to anything close to domestic violence.”
Phyllis Schafly is a founding member of the Eagle Forum.
Eagle Forum exposes the radical feminists
We support constitutional amendments and federal and state legislation to protect the institution of marriage and the equally important roles of father and mother.We honor the fulltime homemaker and her rights in joint income tax returns.
We oppose the feminist goals of stereotyping men as a constant danger to women, while at the same time pushing women into military combat against foreign enemies.
Eagle Forum successfully led the ten-year battle to defeat the misnamed Equal Rights Amendment with its hidden agenda of tax-funded abortions and same-sex marriages.