“Occasionally,” writes Tina Korbe, a woman who feels Howard Dean’s party patronizes those of her sex
. . . Democrats give me the distinct impression that their positions on, say, gay marriage or immigration are based more on the desire to win votes than cohesive principles. It’s suspicious, for example, that the president’s official position is against gay marriage but “evolving.” It’s almost as though he’s just waiting for an overwhelming majority of Americans to be in favor of gay marriage before he switches his position. Reducing gays, Muslims, Latinos, immigrants and women to their concerns over gay-specific, Muslim-specific, Latino-specific, immigrant-specific and women-specific positions reduces them to something less than a whole, entire, complex person. But no person is reducible to the tiniest sliver of himself — his sexuality, his religion, his ethnicity, his immigrant status, his gender. We all care — broadly — about human flourishing. That’s what Republicans want — a prosperous, flourishing, fully human society.
She says this in response to former chair of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean who, in his latest rant, accused the GOP of engaging in “Gay-bashing, Muslim-bashing, Latino-bashing, immigrant-bashing, women-bashing every day”. Sounds like he got his information from the left-wing blogs which supported his 2004 bid for the White Rather rather than from actual interaction with actual Republicans.
Korbe acknowledges she “cannot speak for gays, Muslims, Latinos or immigrants”, but she contends that as a woman, she has
. . . found the Democratic Party’s approach to my vote far less loving and far more insulting than the Republican Party’s approach to that vote. While Democrats reduce me to nothing more than my sexuality and assume that I cannot even pay for my own birth control, Republicans appeal to me as a whole person, to my ability to take personal responsibility for myself, to work hard, to reap the benefits of my labors and to voluntarily share those benefits with whose who truly aren’t able to be responsible for themselves.
Well, Tina, you speak for me. And, I would dare say, for a good number of our blog readers. Why else would I have not rushed to excerpt your post the moment I read it.
And to my readers, I simply say this, read the whole thing. And share it with your friends.
Tina understands well what many of us thinking voters do, that we cannot be placed into blocks of voters to be used by the left any longer. We are all individuals that will think for ourselves and vote for who those that truly represent us. We will not fall for the sound bites any longer.
One of the goals of the left is to have groupthink be the way things are. Like Orwell’s 1984, people are no longer thought of as individuals, but as a cog in the government machine. Being yourself is not good for those that deem to control all aspects of our lives.
Really? By any chance did you happen to catch that 1/2 word that slipped out of Rick Santorum’s mouth the other day?
That’s all right, Kevin. We understand that a welfare gay like yourself is terrified of the thought that Obama will get tossed to the curb and that you would actually have to go to work instead of sponging off taxpayers. Hence your desperate campaign to gay-bait rather than deal with the fact that your idiot Obama is screaming that the Supreme Court has no right to declare laws unconstitutional.
We know you don’t care about the issues, Kevin. We know that you will say and do anything to keep Obama in power, take away our freedoms, and force us to pay your bills.
And that’s why we’re treating you accordingly.
That Rick Santorum would actually use the N-word is preposterous. It would take an incredible lack of discipline to use that word, especially when speaking publicly, and it wouldn’t even make sense in the context in which he supposedly almost used it.