About Us

Name:Logical Party
Biography
Name:
Email: gezl@wrinse.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Defeat Looms But For Whom?

Remember Obama's 230,000 vote win in North Carolina? Hillary just recouped 148,000 in West Virginia and between Kentucky and Oregon netted an additional 150,000. We are back to pre Indiana primary numbers when she claimed she had more popular votes by counting Florida. Add Puerto Rico and there is a strong chance she will have more votes than Obama.

What will the party that abhorred the 2000 Election of Bush over Gore do then? Do they think everything will be copasetic if we disenfranchise Michigan and Florida? Do they think they can ignore big state victories by Hillary come fall, when Barack will be struggling to keep Mrs. Clinton's votes? They might not defect by 35%, but 10% is damning.

One wonders about the alienation of Mrs. Clinton; is it the fatigue, or is it misogyny that explains why long term senators and old acquaintances support Barack over her. Regardless, super delegates have a decision to make; go with the candidate who has slightly more delegates and maybe less popular vote, or go with the candidate who can win. What do they want more? That decision is a Super delegate’s purpose for existing.

Barack will be a wonderful candidate in the future, but his urgency of now, or strike when the iron is hot, brings him to the precipice of the Presidency with 2 years senatorial experience, one of which was spent campaigning. That's less experience than JFK, who got us onto the Bay of Pigs crisis, near nuclear confrontation, US Spy planes, and attempted assassinations of world leaders. Obama is on track for a McGovern defeat, or even worse, a Carter Presidency.

Super delegates need to decide if they want to be right, or do they want to be happy come fall.

Tags: campaigns  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Talk About A Monolithic Voting Block

Dick Army (R Texas, retired) said of his own party regarding illegal immigration, "God bless them; here's a group of guys who said "let's find the largest growing demographic, and find a way to tick them off!"
  
 Forty seven million people do not have health coverage, and have no idea what people are talking about when they are told "America has the best healthcare in the world." Thats because they are not part of it, and any party who declares "your on your own" when it comes to obtaining coverage will find themselves out in the cold when ot comes to forty seven million votes.
  
  And that's alot of votes.
Tags: campaigns  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Isn't Bush Allowed An Opinion?

Isn't President Bush allowed his first ammendment rights to express his beliefs regarding a tough stance on terrorism, and declaring appeasement a failure? Democrat overreaction nd hurt feelings makes one think the President touched a nerve. Do they subconsciuosly believe themselves weak?
  
Rather than wasting energy acting apalled, even though he didn't mention Democrats and cited a former Republican Senator, Democrats should spend their time declaring why their policy of immediate "musical chairs" troop withdrawal (they would redeploy if needed making one wonder "why withdraw in the first place?") is the better option.
  
Democrats should talk about Bush's appeasement of Oil companies and pharmeceuticals, of catering to the wealthy over the middle class, and of a war plan that has been a failure and has not captured Osama Bin Laden. They should point out he chose war time tax cuts rather than fund bomb resistant vehicles, body armor and additional troops so this conflict could have been done by now.
  
They should also note that his tough talk took place in Israel, because any other country wouldn't accept this position for a war that has gone on too long.
  
  Advice to Democrats: stop being so sensitive.
Tags: campaigns  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats: stop being so sensitive

Isn't Pres. Bush allowed his first amendment rights to express his beliefs regarding a tough stance on terrorism, and declaring appeasement a failure? Democrat overreaction and hurt feelings makes one think the President touched a nerve. Do they subconsciously believe themselves weak?

Rather than wasting energy acting appalled, even though he didn't mention Democrats and cited a former Republican senator, Democrats should spend their time declaring why their policy of immediate "musical chairs" troop withdrawal (they would re-deploy if needed making one wonder "why withdraw in the first place?") is the better option.

Democrats should talk about Bush's appeasement of oil companies and pharmaceuticals, of catering to the wealthy over the middle class, and of a war plan that has been a failure and has not captured Osama Bin Laden. They should point out he chose war time tax cuts rather than fund bomb resistant vehicles, body armor and additional troops so this conflict could have been done by now.

They should also note that his tough talk took place in Israel, because any other country wouldn't accept this position for a war that has gone on too long.

Advice to Democrats: stop being so sensitive.

--David DiBello

Lakewood, N.J.

Tags: campaigns  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do As I Say, Not As I Do?

Vito Fossella, another Conservative family values man bites the dust. Exactly how many more character flaws must he display before those who wish "he fight it" out see the light?
 
Don Imus once said of former President Clinton, "how can the country (constituents) trust a man his own wife can't trust?"
 
We continue to implore our children to begin to act like a mature adult. What do they see? Former Mayor Giuilani conducting affairs while in office, announcing his divorce on National TV to the surprise and chagrin of his wife, and then abandoning his children. Senator Craig passes out his business card in public restrooms, Senator Vitters, and Governor Spitzer spend their time and maybe public funds engaging with prostitutes when they are supposed to be working as trustees of the public good, Governor McGreevey using public funds to have an extra marital homosexual affair and then sending up "gay bias" smokescreens, and Rep. Patrick Kennedy and Congressman Fossella driving drunk and breaking laws, while the former spends his time in Congress creating a second family. We still pray our children act like adults. Just not these adults.
 
Last thing Republicans need is another lost congressional seat. Let's see where their character lies - upholding a standard of behavior they purport to adhere, or turning a blind eye in a machiavellian scheme to keep his seat.
 
Pride goeth before the fall; sometimes a day after.
 
David DiBello
 
Tags: Elections  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Need Dissect Results, Then Judge

Judging solely by results can be flawed if testing is skewed. It’s always good to break down the statistics. Most glaring this primary season is the fact that 90% of African American Democrats (a majority of African Americans) will not even consider Clinton, granted inflamed by Bill's frustrating previous comments, while 35% of White Democrats have voted for Obama.
 
How will that play out in a general election when that 90% number gets diluted as Independents and Republicans join the fray, and when Working class Democrats, Reagan Democrats and Clinton supporters defect simply because they view Obama as too extreme or too inexperienced?
 
If one removes the monolithic vote of Africans Americans from the primaries simply because it is out of kilter with the rest of voting blocks, Obama would have lost by now. If the black vote for Obama were spilt 60/40 in his favor, Clinton would be the nominee; the same community that declared Bill Clinton the first Black President because of his administration's policies.  
 
If the current allocation method was abandoned, and delegates assigned in proportion to total state vote, Clinton would be nearly tied. If the old “winner take all” method were used, Clinton would already be the nominee. One can also dissect the caucus state victories by Obama, where one twentieth of the population votes, and remember caucuses don't vote in general election, people do. Obama has run an excellent campaign from an organizational standpoint, but is he the best candidate?
 
These breakdowns, analyzing pitching, hits and runs, are necessary for the grand prize. There is only one thing to stave off a McGovern type defeat come fall, for "either or" to be VP choice so as to stem erosion of Democrat vote. The novelty will reinvigorate the electorate. Of course Obama might not want the aggravation of Clinton fatigue, and Clinton would rather wait out until 2012 when she can say "I told you so” (something Gore should have done now) if Obama loses. It might be a shotgun marriage created by a guy named Dean who runs the party that created Civil Rights yet seeks to ignore Michigan and Florida, and never put two and two together by ignoring nearly four hundred electoral votes without lowering number needed to win.
 
It's obvious by using the Scientific Method Clinton is the stronger candidate, but the party of Dukakis and Mondale are destined to self destruct and nominate another McGovern.
 
And if I were a Republican I would be content with glee.
 
David DiBello
Tags: campaigns  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Reform Rockefeller Drug Laws

"You can remove the cause, but not the symptom." The thinking of the Rockefeller drug laws seemed appropriate at the time because people didn't know any better; they felt incarceration would eliminate the problem.
 
Unfortuantely as seen, people in distress will resort to anything as a perceived form of relief. There is a supply because there is a demand.
 
However we now are giving borderline slaps on the wrist to those selling drugs or caught with high quantities. Perrhaps incarceration in a drug rehabilitation center for a year wold do the trick. A person will only get better when they want to, or "get sick and tired of feeling sick and tired," but at least a longer period of time than the standard out patient, hold your breathe, 90 days will help the process by osmosis - people will relearn how to live without drugs by redundancy and monitored surroundings.
 
There are reasons for the slaps on the wrist, one being doing the right thing, whether its building shelters for the homeless or addressing the drug problem with long term care is more costly. Government throws just enough money at problems so it seems its doing something while hoping for the best. This only results is high recidivism rates, and like insanity, doing the same thing over and over, making it more costly in the log run as opposed to spending the correct amount and solving the problem up front.
 
The other reason is guilt. Alcohol is the last legal drug. We want drugs to go away in a cafeteria style manner; no more pot, heroin or cocaine, but we still want our liquor. And hurting the liquor industry would be devastating to the economy, so we weigh that fact against all who lost lives in drunk driving accidents, or have damaged their lives and families through alcoholism.
 
I am sure Mothers Against Druink Driving look at that bite of infiormation as a Rocky Horror.
 
David DiBello
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PUT PRESSURE ON OIL COMPANIES (IF YOU DARE)

We just had two major oil comanies declare $16 billion profit for the first quarter. And they get subsidies! Thats where the problem lies - they are gauging Americans on their monopolistic product (we can't live without).
 
Reinstitute the windfall profit tax. We will hear cries that it will harm oil companies ability to explore other energy alternatives, just as pharmeceuticals claim research and development needs (let them get private funding as with stem cell research - that will control that cost), but they had two decades and did NOTHING. It's a canard and a scam.
 
Oil companies will never jepardize or harm their revenue supply, and they are in bed with Middle East oil cartels, which causes us political harm. That is why government intervention is needed.
 
I would switch federal subsidies from Oil Companies to Detroit to force car makers to produce two models of hybrids. I would tell the Liberals in this country if you don't want war for oil, and you don't want us reliant on foreign oil, we need a concession to drill in Anwar (Alaska).
 
We don't need to bomb or engage any Mid East terrorist state - just cut off their revenue.
 
In addition, let the Oil Companies part with some of those billions to fund the educational needs of soldiers families. The same soldiers that protect their investment and revenue source overseas.
 
As for tax cuts or tax credits, its too late; The surplus budget inherited by this administration has turned into a $10 trillion deficit and we have no room to reduce tax revenues. We are taking our medicine and paying the price for massive, misdirected, irresponsible tax cuts.
 
Thanks George Bush!
Tags: economics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Republican Crossover Vote Myth

Republican Crossover Vote Myth
 
Are we to believe that some Republicans are so enamored with Barack Obama, who possesses the most liberal voting record of all Senators, they are willing to crossover and vote for him for President? Is it his immediate troop withdrawal, calls for universal healthcare, increased education spending, or an expiration of tax cuts which he claims geared toward the wealthy Republicans find appealing?
 
Polls indicate a majority of Republicans despise the war yet support President Bush regarding finishing the job, and wealthy Republicans want their tax cuts continued as is. They endorse tax credits, ignoring the problem of rising costs, rather than federal subsidies to pay for education and health care. This stance is in complete contradiction to the Democrat platform, and contrary to both Obama and Clinton.
 
Why then the alleged crossover support for Barack? Can it be possible Republicans are voting against Hillary because they utterly despise her? She has a history of being a strong woman who believes it takes a village to thrive and government is head of that village, who wants universal healthcare and tuition coverage, who supports a more responsible troop withdrawal, and who doesn’t sit home baking cookies.
 
In addition, she reminds Republicans of her husband’s administration, who proved one can stimulate the economy and simultaneously maintain a balanced budget without excessive tax cuts (Hillary’s retort being, “what is it you didn’t like, the peace, the prosperity or the balanced budgets?”) a direct contradiction to Republicans theory of “cut taxes at all cost and the nation be damned.”
 
It’s a scam to suggest Barack the stronger candidate, given his short tenure in Congress, relative inexperience and the unknowns recently been revealed and tested. Republicans actually believe he is the weaker candidate they can beat up on and defeat come fall. Contestants always root for the weaker opponent yet bluff their competition into thinking this not true for fear of revealing their hand. It is Hillary, the powerful "tough as nails”woman who they fear.
 
Given this hypothesis, why has Rush Limbaugh suddenly asked his listeners to vote for her? If Hillary was more beatable, why didn’t he encourage his flock to vote for her on Super Tuesday to secure her as opponent? One would think if he covertly thinks Barack weaker, he should have consistently called for more crossover votes against Hillary both now and then.
 
Truth is the ditto heads are playing with fire, seeing both opponents having populist appeal and fund raising abilities, so Republicans last resort is an animal house style convention blowup for Democrats in Denver that bloodies both candidates. Limbaugh openly prays for an over turned car burning, "1968 style" gathering. This can only be achieved if neither Democrat possesses the required delegate count at primary’s end, an outcome helped through the blind neglect of DNC Chair Howard Dean.
 
Who Republicans want as their opponent might be a mute point come fall if unemployment, inflation, oil prices, foreclosures, tuition and healthcare costs continue to rise while wages stagnate due to the global economy, and their candidate espouses continuation of Bush tax cuts, a war with no end in sight, and less government intervention to fix the mess of his predecessor. In that case, the electorate will know who to vote FOR.
 
David DiBello
 
Tags: campaigns  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Top Ten Reverend Wright Pronouncements

  

10.   Why is the Easter Bunny white?


9.    Ice Hockey is the Great Satan.


8.    Has anybody seen “Friends?”


7.    Mick Jagger is the Devil


6.    God’s not too thrilled with New Zealand either


5.   Malt Liquor and Kools perfect together?


4.   If you liked my Bill Clinton impersonation, wait until you see my moon walk


3. The “Chickens coming home to roost” quote I got from Farakkan, who got it from Kenny Rogers   

2.   If Barcak doesn’t want me for VP, I’m doing Super clubs


1.   Did Judas start this way?

Tags: campaigns  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Learns Difference between Denouncing and Rejecting

Obama Learns Difference between Denouncing and Rejecting
 
One had to scratch their heads a few debates back when a Harvard educated man like Barack staggered to know the difference between denouncing and rejecting. These past weeks he has learned the hard way.
 
Obama will be seen as hesitant; we are grateful he finally did the right thing rather than wishing Wright away. His delay will cost him support from the very voters we were amazed he gained - white working class and professionals, Catholics and union workers who, coupled with the Wright episode and the monolithic results of South Carolina and Georgia will remain suspicious and rethink their vote.
 
This doesn't portray well for Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, and will also narrow any margins of victory at a time when he should be "sealing the deal." He has opened the door for Hillary to walk right back in - It ain't over til it’s over.
 
But don't get it wrong, he isn't the only one who has hedged his position trying to appease as many voters as they can. Hillary has done it with changing dialects for southern voters, McCain does it with Evangelicals and tax cutting Republicans, and Romney and Giuliani perfected the art.
 
In 1980 Gerry Ford proposed a co-presidency for candidate Reagan, as leverage to dampen Reagan’s “war monger” persona. Reagan quickly pulled the plug on that scenario. This is why Reagan was so successful; he stuck to principles and beliefs even if it meant losing an election (which he did in 1976). Why win an election that reflects something you don't believe? 
 
David DiBello
Tags: campaigns  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

REV. WRIGHT EGO TURNS GANGLAND

 

REV. WRIGHT EGO TURNS GANGLAND

After an unfortunate remark by radio talk show host Bob Grant regarding DNC Chairman Ron Brown’s death in 1996 NJ Gov. Whitman’s “people” refused to go on any future shows and asked Mr. Grant to “lay low.” This sounds like an affront and lack of loyalty, but if one has the best interests for a candidate in mind, they will see the “big picture” and opt for silence so long as their candidate remains in power or at least untarnished. Silence sometimes is golden.

Rev. Wright and by default, Barack Obama are engaged in a clash of Ego’s. Like the Bloods and Crypts, we are now seeing a minister grasp at the brass ring of publicity, his name in the limelight and his message and persona getting more face time, while Obama prays he takes his offer of a fact finding trip anywhere but on U.S. turf.

Commonsense would think with the office of the Presidency in sight for the first African American, Wright would have the best interests of a member of his congregation at heart and remain low key. Instead we see him interviewed by Bill Moyers and is scheduled to speak at the National Press club and NAACP. We have learned more about him in one week than we knew in four decades.

The result of this conflict: Barack is losing support among White Middle Class Democrats, Catholics and Union workers, and Hillary has edged into his Educated Professional White Voters. Instead of "what Barack can do for America," we are seeing hypnotic clips of the “God Damn America” sound bite which will now never go away, and there is a fear that Wright will slip again, further eroding Barack’s support.

If Wright grasped the possibilities, he would not cut his nose to spite his face and stay on the Q.T. until Obama gains power. Then perhaps Wright can be a player in the next administration, unless he is a slave to his own “suppressed anger” diatribe and believes America will not vote for an African American for president, which was not the case prior to his involvement.

Given that hypothesis, then by all means Reverend, the urgency of now dictates one grab as much face time as they can get. Just know it will guarantee the defeat you so bitterly portray.

David DiBello

Tags: campaigns  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

“NO DEBATE” OBAMA SEEKS BACK IN NOMINATION?

 

“NO DEBATE” OBAMA SEEKS BACK IN NOMINATION?

What is he afraid of? This will be the new lament if Barack Obama stubbornly seeks to avoid “yet another debate.” It’s coming from a candidate stunned by the fact he is no longer the darling of the political climate, who took body blows over the past seven weeks from the Wright debacle to the misspoken “bitterness” remarks.

Obama, in sports terms, is trying to win the nomination by playing defense; like last year’s Mets who played great ball for 75% of the season and then prayed the Phillies would lose because New York lost their winning ways, Barcak is seeking a Rose Garden defense without the benefits of the office.

Washington Week moderator Gwen Ifill feels Obama has nothing to gain by debating. This is wrong, especially after weeks where Barack has put his foot in his mouth or had one put in it for him. He has finally faced some tough questions; pressure from the electorate has forced the media to remove the pillow from behind his back. He needs to debate to get back on track and show he can win. The season isn’t over and protecting a lead is no path to victory. He has lost voters, White middle class Democrats, Catholics and more white women he previously had due to the Wright issue and the slip of “bitterness” quote. He needs to stop the hemorrhaging and get momentum back.

If he doesn’t debate, he runs the risk of losing 1 to 2% of the vote by those who see him as licking his wounds, hoping this will all just go away. He will be viewed as weak if he remains the passive candidate praying the clock runs out. Questions will arise if he doesn’t debate now; how will he handle McCain come fall? He risks losing that percentage not only in North Carolina, where he will have a comfortable cushion, but in neighboring states yet to vote, which might secure the margin of victory for Clinton.

 Obama has to get back on message and stop playing scared. Ducking for cover plays into the hands of those who say this process needs to go through until the end, so all states have spoken and a true result formed. As in sports, contests last four quarters, nine innings or three periods and the candidate needs to put this one away.

David DiBello

Tags: campaigns  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WALL STREET AND MAIN STREET: THE TWO AMERICAS

WALL STREET AND MAIN STREET: THE TWO AMERICAS
In case one missed the news of the week, it is as follows:  Magazine publishers sent reeling in first quarter; Wachovia posts $393 million loss; Blockbuster to buy Circuit City, and Delta and Northwest merge creating potential job losses; Retail chains caught in a wave of bankruptcies, and finally Citigroup posting a $5 Billion loss, declaring they will cut 9,000 jobs.
Wall Street’s response? They finished the week with a 524 point gain. Why not? Lost jobs improve a company’s P&L and balance sheet which investors love. That’s part of the dichotomy of a capitalist country no longer based on work, but wealth. A mere reminder a similar market increase occurred based on a Bear Stearns bailout which secured wealth.
The admonishment of working hard and saving money to become an investor no longer applies. Wages have stagnated and workers fear losing their job. Consumer confidence is disappearing. Costs haven’t stagnated, eating away at salaries and we are now bearing the burden of paying for baby boomers, our own social security in jeopardy. Firms, struggling to find a better balance sheet have terminated defined pension plans and workers now contribute more out of pocket funds towards their retirement, an add on cost.  We have a negative .5% savings rate, which means we officially survive on credit. What happens when that dries up?
The “greatest generation” purchased homes that were half of their final salary before retiring. Today if someone buys a modest home for $250,000 somewhere in Timbuktu and earns a salary of $80,000, they will never retire making the same, let alone double the original purchase price of their home.
Add to the problem the disparity that 90% of wealth is held by 5% of the population, and the fact we no longer produce (10% of workforce is in manufacturing – an all time low) but have become a service economy (easily shopped overseas) and Main Street is getting clobbered.
Something will need to be done or prepare for a lollapalooza of a recession, the kind that is a depression for those who lose their jobs.
Possible solutions? Gear tax cuts towards those who need the money and will place it into service, keeping our economic wheel turning, rather than giving tax cuts to the wealthy to become wealthier.  This is not an assault on the wealthy, but rather a way for them to share their patriotism, the way low and middle income families do when they send their children to war.
Like the recent tax rebate to workers to stimulate the economy, money must be put in the hands of the masses who need to spend to survive.
Declare outsourcing of American jobs as unpatriotic as flag burning. Solve the healthcare crisis which accounts for 80% of all bankruptcy filings. Spend tax dollars on education as easily as we do on making war, otherwise our future will be catastrophic.
Global competition with no safe guards has resulted in the “dumbing down” of American standards to that of the third world countries we compete against.
Our current generation will be bailed out by the old money of our parents. What will become of our sons and daughters who are already being told they will not have the standard of living as past generations? How will they survive on shrinking income and rising costs for their basic needs?
We have isolated the two Americas John Kerry spoke about. Perhaps we should  take a cue from Martin Sheen to his son Charlie in the movie “Wall Street”: Its time you learned to create things rather than live off the buying and selling of others hard work.
David DiBello
 
 
Tags: economics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MALE LIBERATION BY DEFAULT

MALE LIBERATION BY DEFAULT
J. Shawn Durham touched on one of the reasons both sexes remain single for longer periods of time – women are no longer beholden to men for economic reasons. The new sex classism points out women are more particular about a man’s job and income, where as Jerry Seinfeld reminded us men wouldn’t care if a woman was a cashier, just as long as we’re attracted.
Thankfully the days are gone when a women was beholden to a man, and in serious circumstances had to endure physical violence because she had no financial alternatives, and attitudes were against divorce. The man was King of his Castle and brought home the bacon – the only thing that mattered; home care and child rearing menial tasks.  This belief is tantamount to a rigged election or fixed game.
Within this feminine revolution the benefits to men are overlooked; basically, our liberation. To dreg up a misogynist cliché – we get the milk for free! No longer need we worry about providing for the opposite sex, being hooked by their allure and having to pay for a family, house and children and work like a robot in perpetuity.
We have our freedom. Yes we had to learn to shop, cook and clean for ourselves, but that made us more self reliant and more attractive. Our shackles of dependency are broken by default!
Financially successful women come along with their own demands and their own baggage. Once we are on the wheel there’s no way off unless the relationship ends – how far are you in your career, how much money do you make and how can you make more, the car you drive, where you live, do you have the requisite Armani and a Rolex, where do we dine on the weekends, and can you compete with AMEX for the best seats in the house? The gifts should be “off the hook” just as the man should be, and if not on the latter, there’s a pill for that. How much different is this kind of man from R2D2? I am reminded of that John Lennon song; “no longer riding on the merry go round, I just to let it go.”
If in such mismatched relationships, they will end once the parties can no longer tolerate each other’s circumstances; the woman can’t accept someone not up to snuff financially, and once the physical euphoria evaporates, the man realizes he is left with aggravation. In the matter of the latter the answer is simple – beauty is in all classes, so seek out the cashier; she’ll be more grateful, less of a headache.
The financially successful women approaching forty and still not in a committed relationship will hopefully learn to read the teas leaves; they are too demanding. If they feel, which they should, that they want it all, they are being counterproductive to that end. Many women have realized that they will have to give a little to get in return, which is why much of this controversy is a myth. Some have learned the hard way and of course there are those who have succeeded in their quest, with their men bearing the burden.
There is of course a novel approach. Men and women become involved based on chemistry and commonality; two people who feel that want to share lives together that complement one another. I believe these are called healthy relationships built on substantial values.
David DiBello
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive