Men: Last Great Hope of the Republican Party
A few years ago Democratic pollster Celinda Lake sounded the alarm that the Dems needed to reach out to male voters, or else resign itself to becoming a party of the perpetual minority. At first everyone laughed her off.
Â
Then candidate John Kerry disastrously admitted in the 2004 campaign that his wife and daughters “kick me around,†and New York Times writer Frank Rich accused Kerry of being a Girlie-Man.
Â
So after the Dems counted their losses and licked their wounds, Representative Rahm Emanuel, Senator Charles Schumer, and John Lapp, former director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, sat down for a long, hard talk. They decided to put together a new game plan — one that would feature new faces, all men – check that, macho men.
Â
Why? Because “Presidential politics, but also the rest of national political leadership, has a lot to do with the understandable desire of voters for leadership, strength, clarity, and sureness,†according to Jim Jordan, John’s Kerry’s first presidential campaign manager. [www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/weekinreview/07lizza.html]
Â
So the trio drafted some go-to guys to run for the House, like former NFL quarterback Heath Schuler. They recruited Joe Sestak, former Navy vice admiral; Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran; Brad Ellsworth, an Indiana sheriff; and Chris Carney, commander in the Navy reserves.
Â
In the Senate, former Marine Jim Webb and Jon Tester, the Montana farmer who sports a no-nonsense buzz-cut, agreed to run.
Â
Maybe these guys didn’t toe the party line on abortion rights for 13-year-old girls. But they did bring an ample supply of testosterone to the line-up. And they all triumphed in their contests.
Â
Even the feminists had to admit the male electorate had been pivotal. “If only men had voted,†crowed Eleanor Smeal, publisher of Ms. Magazine, “Jim Webb (D-Va.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) would have lost.â€
Â
So what about the muscularity quotient of the Republican Party?
Â
Honestly, we’d have to say it’s a mixed bag. President Bush certainly comes across as courageous, resolute, and steady at the helm. Maybe not in the same league as a Brett Favre or John Elway, but certainly stands tall in the pocket.
Â
But during the last presidential campaign, I saw Barbara and Laura Bush speak before a televised gathering of Republican women. That’s when I realized something had gone terribly wrong.
Â
Barbara recounted the story when George W. had put his feet on the living room furniture, only to earn a stern rebuke from the woman of the house. Then she bragged how President Bush was surrounded by a gaggle of “strong women†– as if they were calling the shots. Both accounts were greeted by roaring laughter from the women in the audience.
Â
And then there was the White House Press Correspondent’s Dinner where Laura made tasteless jokes at her husband’s expense.
Â
Since when is it acceptable to announce to the world that the president of the United States is a hen-pecked husband? What’s next – Bill bragging that he’s the quarterback of the operation and Hillary is a political rookie?
Â
It’s no secret, men and women view the world through a different prism. Men value self-reliance, risk-taking, and action. Men are put off by the primping, pouting, and pontificating of celebrity-types like Rosie and Roseanne.
Â
In contrast, women are more interested in safety and security, even if it means an occasional intrusion of the Nanny State. As columnist Allison Brown put it, “Most women are natural socialists.â€
Â
Yes, we want women to support our issues. But if you lean too far in casting your message to the members of the fairer sex, you risk betraying your core principles as the standard-bearer of limited government and fiscal restraint.
Â
It’s no secret that the Republican party is in disarray. Its conservative base is in revolt, a front-runner for the 2008 race has yet to emerge, and the president’s governing strategy with the Dems remains in flux.
Â
So Republicans, it’s time to field your veteran players.
Â
No doubt, men are tired of being dissed. Remember the “W Stands for Women†campaign slogan? For every woman who was swayed by that bumper sticker to vote Republican, I’m sure two disgusted male voters decided to take their business elsewhere.
Â
Action item for the Republican National Committee: Here’s your next campaign slogan: “G.O.P. Stands for Guys.â€
Â
And look at all the big-government, civil liberties-destroying, family-intrusive programs that the Lefties have been stuffing down our throats – when are you men going to move up to the big leagues?
Â
Speaking of which, the Super Bowl is just around the corner. I’ve invited some of the gang to come over for beer and pizza. So Mr. President, consider this an invitation. You can put your feet on my furniture anytime.
| More from Carey Roberts
Stumble It!
January 16th, 2007 at 10:56 am
DINOsaurs
I laughed off an observation by a hippie-type anti-republican that the Dems were actively recruiting military types to run for office when he told me this about a year ago. I said: “What? More John Kerries!?!?” and walked away.
Big mistake. Jim Webb was a brilliant campaigner with solid conservative credentials. Which made it bizarre to see his name plastered on toyota prius’s with old Kerry bumper stickers that will never be removed.
Conclusion: The Dems wanted blood and they brought in some hired guns.
So the question becomes: Will these new faux democrats warp the party towards conservative issues or will these hired guns be whores? I think many Democrats with the prius’s have that impression. Schwartzenneggar is now the Democratic party’s bitch with him basically appeasing the left to stay in office. They like the republican fiscal conservative credentials (even if no longer applicable) as if just saying he’s a fiscal conservative means anything. In ther words: rino’s on steroids.
But can the opposite happen? Can there be DINO’s (Democrats in name only)? Time to find out!
January 16th, 2007 at 11:47 am
“So what about the muscularity quotient of the Republican Party?”
Honestly, we’d have to say it’s a mixed bag. President Bush certainly comes across as courageous, resolute, and steady at the helm. Maybe not in the same league as a Brett Favre or John Elway, but certainly stands tall in the pocket.
Actually, the GOP is in deep s***. I don’t say this with a smile on my face. I have been and Independent all my life who has never voted Democratic. I supported Bush in his first term and part of his second term. I have lost trust in Bush’s ability as President. This is after I lost trust in him as a conservative.
The GOP is in disarray. They are not even smart enough to understand that a pro-men/pro-father platform is what can save their behinds. All of the Republicans voted for renewal of the VAWA. Men’s Rights/Father’s Rights is a blind spot for the GOP. Whenever feminists say “jump” too many in the GOP still ask “how high?”.
Unless Bush pulls off a dramatic improvement in Iraq in 2007, (50-50 chance I say-either better or much worse) I believe that the political climate will be so bad for Republican’s that any Democrat could win the Presidency. Iran will certainly become a bigger issue by then. The economy may slow. Normally the people would not want to “change horses in mid-stream” during times of crisis and therefore stick with the incumbant party. Not this time. Too many Americans, while they see the threats and dangers in Iraq, Iran etc., also see that the current Administration has been incompetent. It’s a problem looking for a solution.
Hillary Clinton has already locked in the 30 and under single/married female demographics. They typically vote in relatively low percentages. Not this time. Clinton also has the professional women’s vote, especially those 50 and over. America has plenty of depressed and angry women and Hillary is their choice too.
What Bush does in 2007 will not only set a long term course for the security or insecurity of the nation itself, but it will determine the election of 2008, and it will determine if the GOP will be in the political wasteland for a good long time. This does not translate into a re-newed ascendency of the Democrats. It may provide the best opportunity in a very very very long time for a third party to emerge and displace one of the current ones.
January 16th, 2007 at 11:47 am
A couple names I’d like to float. These are solid conservatives, although I can’t say much about their pro-family/pro-father stances because I don’t know enough yet.
John Dias
January 16th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Feminist’s attitude that men are bad and women are good is disagreeable to me.
Feminists are liberal minded – in general pro-abortion, pro-divorce, pro-gay, anti-housewife. Each issue opposes traditional (read: conservative) family.
I agree with Denis that the Republican leadership does not get it that most feminists by their beliefs can not be conservative.
For me if you act like a man, yet treat men unfairly like support VAWA, divorce court, and or affirmative action, then you’re anti-male.
Great article Carey.
January 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Oh no John Dias, lets forget the Rick Perry talk even before it begins. I’ve lived here in TX since Ann Richards was governor, obviously then through the “W” years, and now Perry.
Liberals accuse Bush of being an intellectual lightweight, based largely on his speaking ability. He’s actually not a dummy. While you don’t become governor being outright stupid, let me tell you Rick Perry is an empty suit. He’s kind of a handsome guy in the vein of Mitt Romney, even has the same hotty blond wife type, but when Perry speaks, his verbage is more sophisticated than W’s but he has that vacant Barbie look in his eyes.
More importantly, just as a quick example, TX sits on approx 14 billion in surplus, but the way our laws are written, it violates budget cap legislation to use that money to buy down our property tax rate. So Parry is begging us to declare an emergency to bust the spending caps, he says so he can buy down prop tax rates, but he scares me badly fiscally.
He’s bad news, and elected as the less of evils here. he is too lightweight and would be eaten alive in the national theatre, fuggetaboutit!!
On the pro mens issue, its not just GOP who is clueless, almost everyone is. If you are not a wacko liberal who favors anti men laws, or a mens rights guy, likely you are dumb and happy w/ the status quo. I was until a few years ago, and as we’ve discussed here before, most mean and women are totally ignorant.
I’m not sure how to “raise awareness” (I hate that term), have 5k runs? wear little ribbons? …anyway, its just not an attentione getter. And John Dias, you do good work, and Ive seen your data presentations etc., but even with overwhelming facts and truth on your side, its the apathy you must beat, not the ignorance.
There are 2 seperate matters, a masculine leader, and a pro mens rights leader who can educate the ignorant.
January 16th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Pro-family (read anti-feminist) Exchange Turns Into Political Flashpoint for Feminism.
A passing exchange during a Senate hearing on Thursday turned into a political flashpoint overnight as Senator Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused one another of insensitivity in comments about motherhood and the war in Iraq.
During the Thursday hearing, Ms. Boxer told Ms. Rice: “You’re not going to pay any particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.â€
In an interview this afternoon with The New York Times, Ms. Rice suggested that the California Democrat had set back feminism by suggesting during the hearing that the childless Ms. Rice had paid no price in the Iraq war.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12cnd-rice.html?ei=5065&en=08c1ef9c52861b52&ex=1169269200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1168981802-gLYXyARqUEgwpZgWQsGm7A
I suspect that feminism for woman today is what the Ku Klux Klan for some Southerners were at the turn of the century.
Recall that the KKK was also affiliated with the Democratic Party.
January 16th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
All the Democrats voted for the VAWA as well. I thought that it “goes without saying” that the Democrats are anti-men and anti-father. People often call Democrats the “Mommy Party” and the Republicans the “Daddy Party”. The Mommy Party is pro-women and pro-mother as well as anti-men and anti-father (aggressively so). The Daddy Party is also pro-women and pro-mother and is often anti-men and anti-father (sometimes passively so, and sometimes aggressively so).
January 16th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“Most women are natural socialists.â€
That persons a damm Genius!
January 17th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Mr. Roberts, great work as always!