The Miracle in Masschusettes, as great & crucial as it is now & in the near term isn't gonna stave of the long term decline of the GOP by demographics

BELOW IS PERHAPS, JUST MAYBE, THE MOST INTELLIGENT & IMPORTANT PIECE OF WRITING ABOUT THE SCOTT BROWN VICTORY:

FOR THOSE WHO WANT THE STRAIGHT DOPE OF THE FOLLOWING WITH FOOT-NOTES LIKE SPEED, HERE IS A ABSTRACT FOR THE BELOW ARTICLE (aka my facebook status):

Brown's upset was great but the insuing euphoria must be balanced by the realization on the part of Republicans that while the Masschusettes triumph on January 19th is crucial in the near term its all but irrelevant in the long term for the GOP. No longer will how Republicans do in regard to current issues (such as Obamacare) decide the GOP ultimate electoral fate. That was true in 1954 when America was almost entirely white. Today, whether we like it or not, voting lines are, more or less, inseprable from racial lines in America. Latinos, who are very often, it must be mentioned, more loyal to Mexico (or other "indigenous" latin nations) than America, will and are voting most of the time on the basis of what will most benefit there own burgenoing racial group not America (and unfornutaly as we see with the issue of wheather or not 20 million illegal aliens should recieve free non-emergency health care, whats good for latinos is very often incredibly bad for the US. Even if Republicans make clear just how bad mass illegal (for that matter, mass 3rd world legal immigration) is for America, latinos will still vote on mass for open borders, increased benefits for illegals, amnesty and in order to do these things, vote for liberals down the line, for the simply reason that all those policies will help dramaticly increase the size of the latino population in the US, making latinos a more powerful voting bloc, son on and so fourth. Simply put, as far as America becomes less white the GOP will claim less and less of the elocrate. And have no doubt this correlation is not the results of the GOP being "racist"-which it isn't-or because it hasn't tried to attract non-white voters. But the GOP shouldn't be concerned by our broken boreders merely because its bad for the GOP. It just so happens that unsecured borders is bad for the GOP and catrosrophic for America in every sense (whether your concern is the economny, education, nationality unity, or so on. The fate of the GOP & of America is being decided on the Rio Grande. If we don't secure our porous border it wont matter if we on the right have finer policies & better arguments, the GOP & America will live or die by demographics.

FULL ARTICLE:

The male model Republican (Scott Brown) has beaten/trounced the obnoxious Martha Stokely in the race for the worst America politician in American history, the nation killer, Ted Kennedy's Massuchsettes Senate seat, which Kennedy basically owned for over half a century, since 1952 to be precise. This has crucially weakned the Democartic majority in the Senate and has scared the shit out the Democrats (who hopeful will heed the people's message(s) & not so things (so unpopylar among Americans in general) like push for amnesty for 20+ million illegals at a time when 20+ million Americans are unemployed for instance. Keith Oblerman condemned this handsome Republican as a "bigot" for saying that two women having a baby "wasn't normal". So if you pretend don't think/say that 2 women having a baby is normal your a "bigot". This is why I call liberals like Keith O. "polite liars". Oblerman then goes on to say that racism is the real reason the tea partyers protest against the Democrats. (cause in Oblermann world, how could anyone oppose Obama for substanitive reasons?)

If you had any doubt about the message from the GOP victories in the Virgina and New Jersey governor races, Scott Brown's victory should make it undeniably clear that the majority of Americans (they are whites almost entirely) are saying that they didn't like Bush but Obama is even worse. Bush was embarsingly inarticulate. fine. He had a dumb liberal wilsonian foreign policy. Fine. He spent too much money. Fine. But Obama is bad to whole 'nother degree. Unlike with Bush in office, one doesn't feel confident that Obama is looking out for us when he does something. It is more than dubious whether he acts out of national intrest. Indeed, millions of patriotic Americans who actually pay attention to what is going on (many of whome voted for Obama-not knowing who he was), realize that judging Obama purely on his actions as President he is clearly aPresident who sees issues through a prism utterly devoid of patriotism also known as nationalism/nation intrest. Obama's motivatations when he ignores/neglects our porous borders, pushs for amnesty and so fourth is less clear but it certainly seems to be atleast tinged by a duty on Obama's part to act to benefit of blacks (and perhaps non whites in general) even if the relevent action (like amnesty) happens to be terrible for America writ large (or actively harmful or unjust to other groups he cares less about like whites).

Many Americans much older than me have been remarking that the Scott Brown victory is the biggest upset they've ever seen in there entire lives.

However, there is a danger in dwelling mindlessly in the euphoria of Brown's upset win tonight (over a real liberal bitch, lets be honest). One must balance this very good news with the unforunate reality that the game of poltics in America has changed for worse, as i have mentioned, it is no longer the case today, as it was in 1845, 1934 or even as late as 1987 in America that the fortunes of the Republican or Democrat party will be decided by things like the succes of liberal or conservative policies. Yes, the Republicans, as the Scott Brown triumph shows will and are benefitting from the current set of issues (etc.) but only in the short term . In the long term, however the succes or failure or decline or ascendency of the GOP will be determined by what happens at the Rio Grande and the southern border of the United States. If the porous southern border is not secured soon (and they're is only a certain window of time inwhich that will be able to be done by Republicans). This is because, whether we like it or not, today and increasingly from now on, voting lines corelates with racial lines in America. Blacks almost all vote liberal, the overwhelming majority of latinos vot liberal and whites increasingly are voting and will vote more and more Republican. Thus as the US gets less white & more latino and a solidly liberal black-latino poltical colaition (on the left) grows the GOP will decline. The watering-down of America's founding stock (Britons-Scots/Europeans) will correlate exactly with the decline of the Republican party (as it will correlate with the decline of America in general, as the US gets less wealthy, less united, more violent, less among other things, intelligent (IQ-wise)).
Unforunatly the above message which should be the colloroy to celebrating the Brown win is virtually unsayable in the Mainstream Media today thanks to Poltical Correctness. (By the way, this is a prime example of why i believe the rise of poltical correctness to be the sole culprit in the death of America-for it has stopped the most important issues (immigration, etc.) and arguments from being mentioned for fear of being too un-PC. One cannot say that it will hurt America if the nation gets less-white. You simply can't if you want to wake up tommorow with the same Senate seat or TV host job you had the night before. Thus Americans are not being told, even, that the US will have white minority around 2040 or 2050 let alone what the (catosphoric) consquences of that demographic transformation will be. When i mention this fact about 2050 and what America will look like, people think i'm joking or spewing "right wing propganda" or lies. This is why i believe white Amer icans will be so inscenced and enraged when they do discover (not by being told, but by simply observing changes with there own eyes) that they, white Americans, are being demographicly being dispossosed of a nation, America, that they grew up assuming was there's (unquestionably) forever and ever.

To conclude, let me briefly add one final important point that few if any at all will even touch upon in responding to the Brown victory: The Republican talking point right now is in responce to the Brown triumph that the upset shows the people don't want obamacare and the Democrats should heed there call and stop going against those they claim to reprsent. This is the wrong point not to mention it opens the right up to charges of hypocrisy considering that a plurality of Americans wanted/want out of both the Iraqi and Afgan wars and the GOP is not inturn advocating withdrawl (but most liberals aren't smart enough to even make that argument). Republicans should point out that the Brown upset shows that the left needs to stop to completly ignore the consesus views of the people and stop showing contempt for the clear policy positions of Americans left and right and stop doing things like making a (essentially treasonist) push for amnesty for 20 million plus illegals which the overwhelming majority of Americans, left & right, despise more than merely oppose. There are not consesus views on the part of a overwhelming majority of Americans (left & right) about every issue but there are a discernable and identfiable set of policies that this overwhelming majoriity i speak of oppose (and usually downright despise as i said). These (which the overwhelming majority of Americans, left and right, oppose/hate) include:

1. Amnesty= In other words, granting citizenship (aka free access to trillions in free welfare, healhtcare, education, etc & the ability for each to bring in dozens of there relatives from abroad), over night, to 20 million people who broke our laws often more than once, in breaching our borders, identity theft, faking and stealing Social Security numbers (which will put citizens if caught in jail for years if not decades) and who are overwhelmingly poor, illiterate, non-english speaking Mexicans/latinos who have 1. usually never seen the inside of a high school 2. often been in jail or arrested in the past, 3. have hardly any work skills, and are and will always be low wage workers and who 4. are only in America to make more money and have no desire to become Americans or to switch there allegiance from Mexico to America (primarily because they perceive America, correctly, as the white man, the conquerors nation/artfice/creation and 5. a shockingly large propition of them (e.g. illegal aliens) see themselves as the footsolidiers of Reconquestidora, taking back land (namely the southwest) that is rightly theres as the decdents of the native peoples and/or, by implication, the true property of an de facto "indigenous" nation-state such as Mexico.

2. Free unlimited non-emergency healthcare for illegal immigrants. In other words: this is a policy of giving away trillions (more) of Americans tax payers money to millions of illegals (in the form of free millions in presciption drugs like OxyCottin, Zanax & Adderal (aka non-emergency healthcare)) who already as it is recieve billions of our tax dollars in the free education (17,000 a year for 1 student & there are well over atleast 5 million illegals attending public schools from kindergarten till college), college scholarships, welfare, social services & emergency healthcare (the cost of which, accounts for the majority of most hospitals deficits & has literally lead to the bankruptcy of tons of hospitals). This means, again in other words, free aderall presciptions for the 8 illegal children of a illegal family (the cost of a Aderall prescpition for one kid per year being over 3 grand atleast. By the way, as with almost all these policy listed (that relate to illegal immigrants to be precise) this policy of giving 20 million illegals free non-emergency healthcare is really only supported by illegals and there treasonist protectors such as the Hispanic Caucus and LA RAZA (spanish for "The Race"). 1 final note: Republicans must not let liberals get away with saying that they support giving just "healthcare" to illegals as they say. We must make sure America realize that illegals already receive billions in free emergency healthcare which, in itself, bankrupts hospitals all the time (hospitls must by law provide legals with millions of dollars of treatment no matter what and usually have to beg/bribe illegals to accept the plane tickets they purchase for them to fly back to there nation of orgin. The Democrats support giving illegals full non-emergency health care, we SIMPLY MUST point out (as we have failed to do).

3. Staying in the Iraq and Afgan wars of choice and charity for another 2-3 years or more. These nearly decade long wars that have cost us, some estimate, around 4 or 5 trillion dollars have nothing to do with our national intrest and are a total waste for us, a nation 12 trillion in debt and counting.

4. Continuing to hand out billions (we don't have) to almost every nation on earth in foreign aid as we have for decades without any regard to being 12 trillion in debt.

5. Imposing Cap & trade, which would be the largest tax/transfer of wealth from indivuals to goverment in our history. A de facto tax on not just business that emit carbon but the whole population who will pay much higher prices for products such as energy (e.g. electrcity) as a consquence at a time, nonetheless, when 21 million Americans are unemployed and many Americans have smaller incomes and only part time jobs. In othe words cap & trade would tax more of the smaller amount of wealth Americans have. It would also, as no one seriously denies, lead to the shipping away of hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of jobs as tons of companys who won't be able to afford doing business in America as a result of Cap & trade will and will, inturn, move to other more business friendly and less tax heavy nations and take there millions of jobs with them. So Cap & Trade will surely increase unemployment at a time, again, when 21 mil. Americans are unemployed already. These consquences ofcourse are all less than an after thought to the liberals who want Cap & trade since they are the types, liberals, who have never even contemplated the idea that corporations (which they villify so much) can even leave America in the first place. And contrary to what naive liberals like Barak Obama claim, the millions made unemployed by Cap & Trade will not all find jobs in the mythical green industrys that Obama talks so much about and claims will replace fossil fuels and nuclear power as our nations primary energy source (although it costs over 10 times as much as fossil fuels and nuclear power. And so what would we get for all these sacrficies? The left claims we would save the world. Thats a lie. Cap & Trade would have no effect on the climate for, as more honest leftists like Ralph Nader have remarked, Cap & Trade while it will surely cut alot of jobs and companys from the US economy, it won't cut any substantial amount of co2. The neglible amount it will cut will be easily canceled out and effectivly nullfied by the very co2 the coal plants China and India will build this year will emit. Ofcourse, we could cut back on co2 to a far far greater degree and not kill the economy and ship away jobs if we got more of our energy from nuclear power plants but the left doesn't care. No honest climatolgists believes Cap & Trade will have any real effect on the climate. The truth is that even if one assumes Al Gore computer model predictions of climate change are dead on (although we now know much of it was faked) even if the US and all of the EU made massive cutbacks in Co2 and imposed far more onerous carbon taxes, even that would have no serious effect. It is hubris in the to think America and a tiny cadre of EU nations making neglible co2 cutbacks that will be nullfied by the emissions of Russia, China, India, Brazil and the rest of thedevolping world will have any effect in changing the climate changes. Changing the wheather is harder than the lefts thinks.

6. Racial Qoutas, Dispirate Impact, bogus discrimination suits against Fire & Police Departments for the crime of not merely having what a certain group such as the EEOC or the SPLC deems enough African American Capitains or whatnot (even though the Departments, as is the case today, never discriminated against any race or group). These patently absurd suits which base claims, as i touched upon before, not on any actual proof of "discrimation" (ofcourse it would be in a Police Department favor in this cases if it was discovored that they had discrimnated against an un-protected race such as whites or christians). Fire Departments are onstantly sued succefully for "discrimination against African Americans" without the entrace exam for the said Fire Dpartment being shown to have "racially biased" questions. Instead, the results themselves of such exams (that are not discriminatory) if not the way the Judge desires are used as proof. This would mean that everyday public school or perhaps every college in the nation would be legally guilty of discrimination against blacks because of how blacks continually do much worse than whites on every big test. The one of insidious effects these bogus cases is, as some of us became aware this year, that hard working guys like Frank Ricci don't get the promotion they undeniably unearned on the basis not of discrimination but clearly on the back of there own hard work and indivual merit simply because they are white and none of the black testtakers got a good enough score to earn a promotion. These suits also force Police and Fire Departments in fear of future lawsuites to discriminate against whites (inwhich case they never get sued for discrimination) and are given the impetus to achieve the right racial "balance" by cutting corners or employing dubious and often illegal tricks behind the scenes with civil service exams.

7. Make free education, non-emergency healthcare, scholarships, and welfare legally available for illegal immigrants. The cost of this policy which the terrible liberal Supreme Court of the 1990's decided was unconstuinial for a state to curtail as California did when its citizens voted en masse in the 1990's to bar illegal aliens from receiving tax payer dollars (via free education and so fourth). Needless to say such a desicion is hogwash with no Constuinial legs to stand on but than against liberal jurisprudence is hogwash in general. Today the overwhelmingly majority of Americans atleast want to curtail the amount of goverment money illegals receive because we are 12 trillion dollars in debt and the Democrats are determined to make it to 15 trillion by months end it seems. Most Democrats would find even the idea of cutting any of these billion/trillion? dollar entitlments for illegals (because partially weak-chinned Republicans wont even press them on the issue) which shows what rubbish it is when they claim to be "extremly concerned" about the debt they are racking up with unholy abandon (on rubbish). However Democratic politicians probably don't touch the billions of free services illegal receive as a result of there being in the tank for the hispanic pressure groups (not wanting to jeporadize the Democratic monopoly on the latino vote). However tens perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans who voted Democratic would agree with millions on the right that, at the very least, the trillions(?) illegals receive in entitlments should be curtailed if not outright eliminated both as a means of cutting back on spending and as measure of reducing insenstives (a concept liberals need to be introduced to someday) for Mexicans to come to America illegally and for illegals here already. Cutting back or eliminating the trillions in services illegal aliens receive (the department of welfare seeks illegals out even!) would undeniable lead many illegals to go back home and make living here harder for illegals and less attractive to potential illegals in Latin America.

8. The Court overruling states which have referendums to decide whether to have gay marriage or whether illegal immigrants should receive tax payers money when the populous votes for what the Supreme Court deems to be the wrong way (e.g. against gay marriage, for tax payer money going to only citizens). I say that the Supreme Court deems"wrong" rather than "uncontuitional" because, unlike many cowardly legal scholars, i have enough honesty and gusto to point out that a liberal court (or judge) is veering utterly from the Constuition when a liberal court (or judge) obviously veers utterly from the Constuition. On what conceivable grounds could one argue that it is unconstuinial for a referendum on gay marriage in Connieticut to be held and for the populous to come out against gay marriage and for keeping the definition of marriage as "between a man and a women" (like almost every state that has dealt with the issue thus far i might add)? Would Thomas Jefferson or James Madison look on such a excercise in direct self goverment at the state level and say "Oh no, this isn't what we meant at all! In fact, we wanted to make sure in the Constuition that this kind of thing be outlawed. You see we thought that gay marriage was a absolute human right and a basic Constuitional right which we, for some reason forgot to mention, even though gay marriage existed nowhere i America in our life time and no one ever deemed that a violatation of gay American's rights."? Let's be honest, all the Supreme Court did in overruling these completly constuinal and reasonable state referendums was impose not the law or the will of the Founders but there own will/opinion(s). The liberal justices that at these moments ruled the Court had deemed gay marriage a basic constuinal right because they deemed it so and this is there job since they claim it is there job to modernize the concept of "basic rights" to this new age. To translate: we have no law, it doesn't matter that gay marriage was not a set down as a right of citizens in the Constuition or for that matter that the 14th Amendment didn't outlaw school segrgation.

Before the Thought Police lock me up...has women's suffrage benefitted America?

The Exceptions to the Generalization: sexy tea party leader & conservative St. Louis radio host, Dana Loesch

Abstract: Before the thought police jail me: would American democracy be worse off if hysterical broads passing out at Obama rallys couldn't vote? whatever your moral beliefs are about women's suffrage, has American democracy benefited from womens suffrage? take it as a thought exsperience. look at a line up of presidential potraits and see what happens after around WW1 (1919). they all get more handsome and alot dumber.why?


I have not been happy to find out as i grow into adulthood that women are really not how feminists have potrayed them. It has gotten to such a point where i can now say, without doubt, that women simply do not have, nearly, the inclination that men do, nor the temperment, for poltics. Sure, some women care about poltics-but they are such a tiny minority and usually there poltics is that of Naomi Klein liberalism. But the average women your likely to meet or know 99.8% of the time is not at all intrested in poltics in anything but the most cursory manner. It simply bores them to death. "Why would you care about such things, so far outside your day to day life?" they think. Espousing poltical ideas that cut against the grain, wheather it be at a dinner party or in a office place, to women, is, nearly, insane. Why risk fitting in just to make a point about poltics? It doesn't make sence to females who are more consumed by fitting in and getting along to go along. Women insticivly avoid the confrontation and debate that is (or atleast, should or once was) at the center of our democracy. They are bored to death by actual policy talk and simply don't talk poltics beyond the level of saying things like "Ya, i really like Obama, he seems like a really good guy.". Women are very good at, or so they have claimed to me, at reading men's faces and gaining intuitive feelings or "vibes" about men as good or bad or providers or lazy bums or moochers or losers, so on, so fourth. This may be a important evoultionary skill for women when it comes to finding mates or knowing who to not let there daughters date but a problematic tendency of evaluatation when it comes to women voting in the age of television. I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, how women assesed Obama and why they voted for him. Often, in fact probably most of the time, women's votes can be mostly accounted for as part of a paticularily female herd mentatality that can effect there voting patterns either way in elections, but also there "vibe" about a candiaite passed on mere superficialitys is certainly also a factor. Thus i kept hearing from women, the words, "he seems like a good man" when they spoke about Obama and way they supported him. Sure, there votes aren't totally devoid of substance. They usually have some views about some issues. Women, many studies have soldified, are more naturally, and quite predictably, socialistic than men. Women, i think have a harder time making desisions that good statesmen have to make: whether to waterboard a terrorist in custody, whether to secure the border, whether to grant 20 million poor, uneducated, unskilled illegal immigrants amnesty and so on, there bleeding feminine hearts pull them towards descisions that are bad for America but sastify their motherly, noturing urges that pull on there heartstrings with such issues.Speaking of women, they also it seems to me tend to be less nationalistic and more susciptible to naively idealistic one-world outlooks that consume the idea of national intrest utterly and lead women to, misplace there womenly empathy, into giving 20 million illegals unlimited free non-emergency health care on the tab of the American tax payers. This isn't to say ofcourse that women aren't conservatives and are always wrong. Though female conservatives do tend to be more into bitching about homophobia and racism than male conservatives-which is a problem with them, especially Sara Palin. And women are worse arguing, for the lack the confronational, compeitive spirit that is so essential to masculinity and when combined with IQ's upwards of 130 produce William F. Buckley jr.'s and Theodore Roosevelts. I usually hesitate to speak of women like this way cause I always end up thinking about a Michelle Bauchman or Dana Loesch. I believe and i know to be true the fact that there are alot of women who have the right views about things like gender roles (they like being womanly and don't feel oppressed), poltical correctness, and all the rest but they never seem to, sadly, be the females in the poltical arena and hardly voice there opinions accept on a blue moon when prodded to do so. It just doesn't seem women's natural inclination to talk poltics.
It seems to me that women are more naturally inclined to be much more invested and intrested on there immediate lives-meaning there husband, there kids, there friends, there mailman, there dishwasher, there garden, etc. While men, naturally, have a wider scope of intrests that extends beyond there personal everyday lives into the outside, external worlds of sports and poltics. Notice how few women participate in fantasy football. And really all commentating about poltics is is the same male If-I-ruled-the-world provided in fantasy football but for, usually, higher IQ males. (And you could make a case for investing in the stock market being another such thing.) This disparity in intrests seems to go along with evoultion and everything we know about human history and what roles women and men have played in its course. Outside the last, more or less, 100 years women have simply stayed inside and men's sphere has been outside, atleast symbocally. Men have been the bread-winners and the ones who conducted goverment while women ran internal family life. Men thus, it would seem likely, devolped the agressive, compeitive, forthright traits needed to particpate in goverment/democracy that are displayed in debates. And by the way, how many women are on the average college debating team? The fact is is that males dominantate poltics and goverment and will continue to, barring the instuition of gender quotas, continue to not because bands of female would-be candiates for office are being turned away because they have breasts but because men, simply want to run for and hold office more than women.

Another Exception to the Generlzation: sexy conservative writer, S.E. Cupp

A distinction perhaps should be made in the case of wuite localized goverment. Women, as i say, tend to be more locally orienented than men. They care mostly just about there direct sorroundings-there towns and/or countys and the issues therein. So women often run for local office more than national or state elected office and often do good jobs at both. But women have more trouble at the larger national stage. Ofcourse, there have been good female heads of states, paticularily, at times of war. Indira Ghandi, Golda Meheir, Margaret Thatcher, Elizabeth the Great (of Russia) where all great leaders and especially tough (and in my own ideal democracy they would all have a place to vote and run for office i should note). Sara Palin though seems more typical of the average women who goes into politics. She began taking up a spot on her local PTA in Wasilla, Alaska then ascended to mayor of the small town and then eventually to governor of a small (in population) state which is, lets admit, a poltical backwater which resembles what is county in a promient contiental American state more than an actual state like California or Illinois. Then Palin is nominated for Vice President by John McCain and she is completly underprepared for the national poltical stage.
Palin seemed to have never thought beyond Alaska and Alskaian issues and poltics her entire adult life by early 2008. It was little remarked upon by quite palable that the only issues she had any sort of command upon where Alskaskian issues. How many times did she fall back upon speaking about drilling in ANWR in interview during the campaign, often mentioning drilling in the artic more than once in answering questions with nothing even remotely to do with drilling for oil. How many times did Palin talk, almost incessantly, about being Alaskian and how she felt people viewed her and her fellow Alaskian to be nomads in the lower 48? I can hardly recall a interview with Palin inwhich she didn't go on a tagent about how people from the contiental United States think "us in Alaskia are all idolated and don't know whats going on, when where just like them and read all the same new and everything!". Then besides the Alaska issues, the only other issues she talked about with any proficiency at all or genuine intrest or flair where Sara Palin issues, things related directly to her and her family such as autism (because of her autistic infant son, Trigg). But all those "issue" related topics like drilling for oil and funding for autism research, where brought up by Sara when the McCain camp was forcing her to talk policy with the press in the 08' campaign. After the election everything changes and Palin dropped all that boring issue stuff for girl talk drama and gossiping fueding. She let her libido out and started giving interview after interview talking not a word about issues just getting back at Katie Couric and the evil media conspiring against her to depict her as stupid. She has appeared on TV since Obama's victory only to berate David Letterman for making a racy joke about her daughter, to go after ex-McCain staffers calling her dumb, and going after the media in general. Palin's book, "Going Rogue" has no policy-content or ideas in it, it's just a bunch of a school girl gone poltical's vendettas.
On a seperate note, if you watch Sara Palin's infamous interview with Katie Couric you'll see there's a kind of ackwardness between the two women as they walk and talk. You get the sence that there both sort of acting and that there working as if on the job and that they so want (atleast in Palin's case) to just cut this poltical crap and have some girl-talk. Especially when Couric asks Palin "Where do you get your information?" and Palin balks, as if caught of gaurd and says "Ya know, like everywhere" and Couric rebuts, "Ya, well like where?" and Palin, looking iratated, repeats, patheticly, looking oh so desperate, "Ya know like everywhere. I read em' all" and Palin looks as if she is in a nightmare and just wants to wake up. You feel at that moement that there is something grotesquely unnaturely about what your watching and that Sara Palin does not belong there and that she belongs in a kitchen in Wasilla and that asking her poltical questions is almost cruel and that feminism and demographic oppurtinism by the McCain camp has put her in a position she manifestly doesn't belong. You also feel that, if, there wasn't a camera around Couric and Palin as they walked around together or if they couldact as they wanted to that the two women wouldn't mention poltics at all, but Palin would ask Couric where to get good pant-suits and both women would complain about how tuff there scedeules where and how they didn't get enought "me" time and chat over other womanly topics i know little to nothing of and don't want to know more about. Katie Couric like Palin seems so manifestly unnatural, almost like a robot programmed and run by her, certainly, male producers and writers. She like Palin is a women who comes home to her kids and wants to take a nice long shower, watch Desperate Housewives, get a pedicure and go to bed rather than spend an hour reading National Review Online like the politico guys that hold up both Couric and Palin.
Finally, the obvious reason why the relationship women and poltics is so tenous and problematic is biologically obvious at the end of the day. Women give birth to children, and usually, with the exception of Palin it seems, are the leaders of there familys and devote a great deal of energy and focus into there children and derive, as feminists are inclined to forget, a great deal of joy and fuliment from doing so. They are thus often too pre-occupied to pay much attention to politics. Hence men do poltics and war. I mean could no one stand up in the 2008 election and say that the nomination of Sara Palin was ludcrious on the grounds that (along with being woefully uninformed) she was the mother of 5 children including newborn with autism requiring many hours of care? Was she going to breast feed in the oval office? What if a dirty bomb goes off in a Seattle Port during a Palin adminstration but she happens to be breast feeding Trigg, are the generals to wait in the hall until Miss. Presidents gets her blouse back on? And don't even mention how irrational and moody she may be on certain days every month and how that may effect her behavoir in office (a subject which would be of great importance to know if she ever once again became contender for national office as i pray she never again is).

Michelle Bachmann, attractive Republican Senator from Minnesota

In the end, we can say for certain that womens suffrage has given rise to the election of a new breed of airhead, pretty boy poltics that is within a inch of destroying this nation. When men vote alone, the appearance of politicians is a factor but not so great. However when you bring women into the democratic equatation, among many other ripple effects, the attractiveness of polticians becomes essential. Another factor, is that men don't speak as openly when poltics no longer is a backroom game for the boys (and there wives are now in the room peering over them). Women's suffrage gave rise to the sloganism and the candiate as preacher/saviour/celebrity thing epitomized by Bill Clinton and Barak Obama. Suddenly, you had to make "women feel comfortable" to be electable meaning you had to look like Mitt Romney not John Adams and also you couldn't come off as "anger" or "too agresive" you had only speak in fluffy neblous cliches and platitude about "hope", "change" and "yes we can". Also you couldn't get into details or really debate issues poltician to poltician the way Douglas and Lincoln did because that would bore women. Yes, women's suffrage has almost certainly produced a slew of terrible polticians and Presidents and has turned American politics essentially into a casting call for charcters in a TV Soap Opera or into American Idol, where former tenny boppers vote for the more attractive candiate with the more preferable facial features. The young women once crying and swooning and fainting at the Usher concert, in feminine hysterical adulation, become the women crying, swooning and fainting at the Obama rally or the John Edwards rally, passing out as the superstar enters stage left, weeping as he says "Thank you, Thank you" and begins his speech. They have turned our poltics into a rockstar event, gutted it of debate and substance entirely, all style and cliche. Now a poltician can't win if they come of as "mean" or "uncomapasionate" or "agressive", so they all must engage in inane, vapid happy talk. Women can't stand negative speeches so everything must sunny and platitude (aka Obama-rhetotic). They vote for poltician who tell them what they and we want to hear rather than what we need to hear.
Male voters do not get caught up in poltician's "charisma" or their "charm". They don't say they voted for Jimmy Carter or Barak Obama, cause they think they have "really really good hearts" or because "they seem like really good men who really care about the people". Thats too gay for men. Men vote on issues which isn't to say that men aren't sometimes uninformed but atleast they don't vote on looks. Ofcourse if a short, bald politician runs against a tall,handsome guy it will effect mae voters but not nearly to the extent it will effect women voters. And men don't react against candiates who are aggresive in there speakings style. Men don't demand happy talk from there polticians in fact they hate the "yes we can" bullshit. That's why no, women's suffrage has not benefitted American demcracy at all. Ofcourse, once again, this isn't to say all women are dumb or uninformed, they're are many very intelligent women. In my ideal democracy, there would be a mechanism for brillant women like Maggy Thatcher to become enfranchised and to run for office and the vote wouldn't be given out as a right to all men either. You would have to earn the right to vote in my democratic utopia by displaying your commitment to democracy and your taking citizenship seriously by knowing the issues. So if we could, by whatever means, find out which citizens of the United States don't and do know where Iraq is on a map or who Ronald Reagan or the FED is, i would have no problem barring those who didn't know either from voting. I think the Supreme Court should make sure that these questions for the right to vote where fair and non-bias.