Break Clinton, the Lesser's, war chest!
Okay, this is a squirrley idea, I admit, but fun to contemplate... I must be experiencing low blood sugar. I have worked on several political campaigns. One item that campaigns will nearly "kill" for are mailing lists and as for getting names on their mailing lists, the more the better. All right, so 20 million innocent folks each send in $1.00 donations to help the campaign. That's 20 million dollars - not good. But do you know how much money candidates spend just on mailings to contact those 20 million people over and over and over again? Okay, $0.50. Too much? But what a reward... And you get the same mailings regardless of what you contribute. Oh, I know that Clinton, the Lesser, has a kazillion dollars in campaign donations but wouldn't it be fun to get your $1.00's worth of literature? Admittedly, the thought of being on the Lesser's list of donors is rather scary but a small sacrifice to "save" America, yes? Then there is the likeability factor. Read a good article in National Review on Clinton, the Lesser's likeability - not very likeable. Of all of the candidates - on both sides - who is the least likeable of them all? We know you wouldn't let Clinton, the First, drive your teenage daughter home even as lovable as he is and being a philanderer plus an aledged "abuser of women", but would you let Clinton, the Lesser, babysit your kids? [Not for the same reasons, obviously. Think Cinderella's step-mother or the Queen in "Snow White and the Seven Dwrafs"] Hmm... The gurus of the polls say that single women will vote for Clinton, the Lesser, just based on gender. Well, we'll see. I have to believe that women, even single women, know that all those millions of "new programs" Clinton has ideas for that we can't afford will be funded from someone's hard-earned salary. And all single women do not escape the "tax woman." Right... Where is Captain John Smith when we need him?
<$PostedBy Beach Girlo$> <$AtTimeWithPermalink$>
3 Comments:
Beach Girl, I'm sure you have seen the discussions going around that indicate that women in general and single women in particular tend to vote for big government as replacement husbands. I think that his argument makes sense, and it certainly agrees with what I have personally observed. Single women, and married women who are concerned that they may have a divorce in their future, seem to be looking for the security that they think the government can/will provide them when the men in their lives are no longer there. The fact, combined with a strong female interest in having a woman president, seems to be pushing Hillary along quite well, despite her major negatives (major inconsistencies in her statements, proven lies, etc.). I personally am strongly opposed to her, but I certainly see a lot of people here in Iowa who think she is just great and it scares me pretty badly! -- Dr.D
BG, I do like your idea of trying to bleed her war chest. Anything to make her hurt! -- Dr.D
Dr. D - rather sad commentary, eh! So, then, single women will vote for her because they "want a man" to take care of them and married women because they "want a man". For myself, I don't think government would be a substitute for a good husband whether that good husband is cutting the grass, painting the fence, or holding his wife in comfort when she cries. And absent a husband, I say, get out there an earn one's own way. Some husbands are demanding but it takes a special breed of husband to be as cold and calculating and oppressive as the federal government that also devised the agencies to come in a take that single woman's children IF she could not provide for her children in the manner deemed appropriate to the "nanny state."
Women will never have "equality" unless they are willing to do what it takes to stand on their own. I'm not saying there are not times when they may need help, but nearly everyone needs help of some sort some time - that's what families are for...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home