If you ever wonder why the Republicans don't have more appeal to women and blacks, well, here comes Kevin McCullough to make it crystal clear:
"Women - vote irrationally. Some women will be offended by the observation but most will agree, women do not vote according to what they know. They tend instead to vote based on intuition. They get "a feeling" about a candidate and that's what they trust...Thirty year old women don't care if it's true, it makes them feel like they are part of history and for that reason alone "its time" for them to vote for a woman. Smart women understand this as well."
That last line is right out of the O'Reilly propoganda book: assert that smart people agree with you. Never mind the complete lack of evidence of same. Your audience will buy it if you repeat it enough. Goebbels would be proud.
Of course, McCullough no doubt has the psychological studies that back, with evidence, his contention of female irrationality at the ballot box. Oh, he doesn't? Of course not. That's because he made it up, just like is often done by his hero...
"Ann Coulter recently confided to me off air - that she would gladly give up her vote because she is tired of using her informed knowledge of candidate selection being overridden by four to five other women who could not even name all of the candidates running for President, much less identify what they stand for."
You first Ann. And go get an education on science while you are at it. Your continued ignorant pontifications on intelligent design have grown most weary.
As if that wasn't bad enough, McCullough has a great dismount:
"The only group less rational in its voting patterns than women are African Americans who consistently elect people who keep them poor, keep them uneducated, and keep them killing their own. "
Note, as I have documented in the past, that conservative ideologues like McCullough treat their own speculations as fact: in this case, that blacks would be better off with Republicans in office. They then use this pseudofact as the premise in arguing that those who disagree with them are irrational. It locks them into their ideology, shielding them from refutation, and growth.
With attitudes like this, it is no wonder the consevative movement, never known for its creativity, has grown so bitter and stale.