<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MARRIAGE: BAD FOR DEMOCRATS?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/marriage_bad_for_democrats/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/marriage_bad_for_democrats/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:46:45 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Amy Denham</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/marriage_bad_for_democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-6132</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy Denham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3351#comment-6132</guid>
		<description>His argument is less than compelling.  There are some that believe the highest form of narcissism is replicating oneself.  And that marriage for marriage&#039;s sake is unwise.  And if women have such a primal desire to be protected, where does the motherly protective instinct come from?  Seems cognitively dissonant to me.  This unmarried, childless, refuses-to-be-pigeonholed-as-Democrat-or-Republican woman remains unconvinced.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>His argument is less than compelling.  There are some that believe the highest form of narcissism is replicating oneself.  And that marriage for marriage's sake is unwise.  And if women have such a primal desire to be protected, where does the motherly protective instinct come from?  Seems cognitively dissonant to me.  This unmarried, childless, refuses-to-be-pigeonholed-as-Democrat-or-Republican woman remains unconvinced.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/marriage_bad_for_democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-6133</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3351#comment-6133</guid>
		<description>Hmm, well the Jane Fonda example proves it all, doesn&#039;t it?  I mean, N=1 and all that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm, well the Jane Fonda example proves it all, doesn't it?  I mean, N=1 and all that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Joyner</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/marriage_bad_for_democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-6134</link>
		<dc:creator>James Joyner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3351#comment-6134</guid>
		<description>Indeed. Of course, Jane Fonda is pretty much a microcosm of American female society, no?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed. Of course, Jane Fonda is pretty much a microcosm of American female society, no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jen</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/marriage_bad_for_democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-6135</link>
		<dc:creator>jen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3351#comment-6135</guid>
		<description>Um, yeah. No. This happily single, mature, Republican woman disagrees with that whole idea.

One question I have: how on earth can anyone determine that they&#039;re more mature simply because they got married? Maybe they&#039;re more mature because they&#039;re older? Just a thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um, yeah. No. This happily single, mature, Republican woman disagrees with that whole idea.</p>
<p>One question I have: how on earth can anyone determine that they're more mature simply because they got married? Maybe they're more mature because they're older? Just a thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/marriage_bad_for_democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-6136</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3351#comment-6136</guid>
		<description>A silly article, really.  If a datapoint of one is meaningful, note that my radical right-wing wife was probably further to the right when she was single, I had no more money than she did when we met (we were both poor) and she is making more than me now, so I am not exactly her security blanket.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A silly article, really.  If a datapoint of one is meaningful, note that my radical right-wing wife was probably further to the right when she was single, I had no more money than she did when we met (we were both poor) and she is making more than me now, so I am not exactly her security blanket.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/marriage_bad_for_democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-6137</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3351#comment-6137</guid>
		<description>Actually it is quite plausible though I admit the arguments he presented to support it might be weak.  

Like it or not, the main plank in the Dem platform is that somehow government  (specifically Dem government) will protect you from all ills.

EARTH TO OTB COMMENTERS: When dems actively court single mothers and claim they will protect them from evil republicans is it any wonder some single mothers believe them?

The fact that single women vote dem is well documented. 

The fact Dems make the arguments that they will protect them is well documented.

So either you can either believe that Dems have been effective at selling this message or that after YEARS of focus groups and polling they are just betting their gums and Prager is nuts.

Personally when I see Dems telling single mothers for years that republicans want to kill their children and that the dems will save them--  then I hear single mothers telling me the same thing-- I sorta think the dems sold their message...

If not is sure is an odd coincidence. 

Paul</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually it is quite plausible though I admit the arguments he presented to support it might be weak.  </p>
<p>Like it or not, the main plank in the Dem platform is that somehow government  (specifically Dem government) will protect you from all ills.</p>
<p>EARTH TO OTB COMMENTERS: When dems actively court single mothers and claim they will protect them from evil republicans is it any wonder some single mothers believe them?</p>
<p>The fact that single women vote dem is well documented. </p>
<p>The fact Dems make the arguments that they will protect them is well documented.</p>
<p>So either you can either believe that Dems have been effective at selling this message or that after YEARS of focus groups and polling they are just betting their gums and Prager is nuts.</p>
<p>Personally when I see Dems telling single mothers for years that republicans want to kill their children and that the dems will save them--  then I hear single mothers telling me the same thing-- I sorta think the dems sold their message...</p>
<p>If not is sure is an odd coincidence. </p>
<p>Paul</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Little Miss Attila</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/marriage_bad_for_democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-6138</link>
		<dc:creator>Little Miss Attila</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=3351#comment-6138</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s a little truth in what Prager says. But, as usual when he&#039;s discussing sex, gender, or sexual orientation, he paints with such a broad brush that he obscures the little nuggets of truth that might be there.

He just tends to go loony when talking about men and women. A little loony.



---</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There's a little truth in what Prager says. But, as usual when he's discussing sex, gender, or sexual orientation, he paints with such a broad brush that he obscures the little nuggets of truth that might be there.</p>
<p>He just tends to go loony when talking about men and women. A little loony.</p>
<p>---</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
