Call it a cliché if you wish, but women still care deeply about their families, husbands, and children. But over the last several years the GOP has had precious little to say about these concerns.
On November 7, American voters took the GOP to the woodshed and gave them a licking they won’t forget for a good long time.
Congressman Mike Pence concluded solemnly, “I believe we did not just lose our Majority, we lost our way. I believe this happened to us because somewhere along the way we lost our willingness to fight for limited government, fiscal discipline, traditional values and reform.”
So how did the GOP fall off the wagon?
Six years ago the GOP brain-trust decided to get serious about closing the gender gap. At the 2000 Republican National Convention, someone seized on George Bush’s middle initial, and soon everyone was buzzing that “W is for Women.”
After Bush’s photo-finish victory over Al Gore, the GOP pollsters pored over the exit results. True enough, a strong showing from the men had tipped the race in Bush’s favor. But despite his “W is for Women” mantra, Bush had lost the female vote by 11 points.
Clearly a catchy slogan wasn’t going to do the trick. So word was put out to recruit more females to prominent party roles and pay more attention to women’s issues.
But that turned out to be a Faustian pact. Because when it comes to women’s issues, it’s the rad-fems who pay the piper and call the tune. Suddenly the Grand Old Party found itself beholden to the dictates and whims of the National Organization for Women.
For starters, the Bush State Department established its Office of International Women’s Issues. After US troops dethroned Saddam, our negotiators demanded the Iraqi Constitution include a 25% female quota for the National Assembly.
Many would call that rigging the elections. But the State Department claimed it was merely “increasing women’s political participation.”
Then the First Lady unveiled her high-fashion women’s health initiative, ignoring the fact that men lag on every health indicator and die 5 years earlier than women. Don’t worry ladies, there will be a nursing home somewhere to take care of you after he’s gone.
When the 2004 presidential campaign rolled around, the GOP unveiled its new and improved “W Stands for Women” slogan. Soon the GOP-fems were stepping up their demands for female “empowerment” and “strong women,” whatever that means.
A month after George Bush edged John Kerry, the Washington Times ran a defining editorial on “Gender Gap Myths and Legends.” Revealing that Kerry had lost the election because white women in Ohio had voted 55-45 in favor of Bush, the article concluded the gender gap is a “subterfuge of the radical feminist movement.”
But the Republican party apparently went fishing the day the Times ran that editorial. Because from that point on, all the GOP could do was obsess over the question, What do women want?
And things went from the improbable to the bizarre. These are some of the high points:
In late 2004 Bush tapped libber Ann Veneman to head up UNICEF. Veneman later made the claim that men were good-for-nothings who exploit their wives.
At the 2005 White House Correspondents Association dinner, Laura Bush ridiculed her husband, the leader of the free world. A few months later she publicly advised him on the preferred gender of his next Supreme Court nominee. And earlier this year Mrs. Bush confirmed in an ABC interview that she considers herself a “feminist.”
In September 2005 ambassador Ellen Sauerbrey traveled to the conservative Heritage Foundation. There she delivered a rant so filled with half-truths and larded with radical feminist assumptions, jargon, and conclusions that it left many in the room speechless.
Maybe her speech was written by Peggy Kerry, sister of senator John Kerry, who still occupies a high-profile position at the United States mission at the UN.
Then conservative senator Orrin Hatch of Utah became an ardent proponent of the family-destructive Violence Against Women Act. And RNC head Ken Mehlman kept telling everyone how the Bush administration had advanced the rights of Iraqi women, somehow forgetting to mention that the vast majority of persons who had died in Saddam’s torture machines were male.
To top it all off, President Bush began to celebrate International Women’s Day, an event that had been instituted years before by the Socialist Party of America.
Some called this pandering. Others worried the GOP was sleeping with the devil. But everyone seemed to agree this would help the GOP put a lock on the female vote.
Call it a cliché if you wish, but women still care deeply about their families, husbands, and children. But over the last several years the GOP has had precious little to say about these concerns. And all the Marxist rhetoric about female empowerment and strong women fell flat with middle Americans, male and female alike.
And on Tuesday November 7, the Republican party lost its mojo. Now, how is it going to get it back?
careyroberts@comcast.net
Read more articles by Carey Roberts
Excellent column, as usual, Mr. Carey, but based on what we know about the Stupid Party, one can only despair. These guys will never get it right. They live and die with the support of white men. So to which groups do they shamelessly pander? Hispanics, blacks, and women.
George W. Bush used to say that you're supposed to dance with who brung you, but he's always violated his own political principle. He'd pander to the Eskimo lesbian quadriplegic vote, before he'd throw any red meat the way of white men.
Either the GOP elites must be removed, or we need a third party to replace these bums and harpies.
BTW, when are you going to come out with a book-length treatment of sex politics? Inquiring minds want to know.
Comment by Nicholas Stix | December 22, 2006
"He'd pander to the Eskimo lesbian quadriplegic vote, before he'd throw any red meat the way of white men."
Sir, what in God's name are you talking about?
If you want a third party that appeals only to white men, then you want a party that will never win an election. Is that really worth it? Does the GOP's recognition of International Women's Day really justify abandoning it? Have the past 6 years really been that bad for white men?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Comment by Katzen | December 24, 2006
Republican Governor Bob Ehrlich fired one of his employees a few months ago. The reason was that the employee, Robert Smith, had said in a public discussion about gay marriage that he regarded homosexual activity as "deviant." He then went on to explain that his view on the question came from the fact that he is a Roman Catholic.
Ehrlich went to great lengths to denounce Smith, and explain that there was no room for that attitude in the Republican Big Tent.
So, as it turns out, the Republican Big Tent has no room for those who do not repudiate the Christian position on sexuality.
How is a Christian supposed to take this? How is a Christian supposed to debate gay marriage if they are not allowed to bring their Church's teachings to the table?
So WHY are we supposed to vote Republican again? At least with a Democrat we wouldn't have to see a serious Catholic made a public example of by the Thought-Police. I'd rather the man not have been appointed at all than he be appointed and then thrown to the gay-advocacy wolves.
Ehrlich successfully did more to instill fear into any state employee than any ACLU drive could have.
Ehrlich lost his re-election bid, BTW.
I, for one, was very, very glad.
Perhaps if Republicans get spanked enough in the elections, they might stop taking certain voting blocs for granted. I.e., straight white males, Christians, etc….
But I doubt it. Their solution to defeat is to keep trying to expand their Big Tent, until they stand for nothing at all.
Comment by J.D. | January 2, 2007