From the Independent Women’s Voice:
On Friday, President Obama hosted something called the “White House Forum on Women and the Economy.”
The most galling statement he made at the event was undoubtedly his proclamation that, “women are not some monolithic group, women are not an interest group,” while subsequently hosting a forum that treats women as just that.
[…]
It’s clear that the strategy of President Obama and the progressive Left is to paint the Right as engaged in some kind of “war on women.” The bad news for them is that even on the allegedly friendly turf of Massachusetts, voters aren’t buying into this “war on women” nonsense.
In a new poll, reviewed in this Politico op/ed I co-authored with pollster Kellyanne Conway, Independent Women’s Voice has found that Senator Scott Brown now holds a 47%-39% lead over Democrat challenger Elizabeth Warren, and that the Democrats’ “war on women” meme is far from resonating with Bay State voters:
Massachusetts voters who bought this ["war on women"] claim were essentially those who already supported Warren or would eventually come around to her regardless. Even more troublingly for Warren and Democrats who see this war-on-women rhetoric as the path to victory, the mandate debate appears to have given more of a boost to Brown than to Warren.
More than half of those who have increased support for Brown in the past month say the health care, birth control mandate debate influenced their vote 'a great deal' or 'some' compared with only 39 percent of those who recently increased support for Elizabeth Warren.
From what we learned in the poll, we also have some advice for conservatives on how to frame the growing debate over issues like the HHS anti-conscience mandate:
Unsurprisingly, women were more likely than men to be influenced by the debate about the Health and Human Services mandate generally, and were more likely to move in Warren’s direction. This suggests conservatives need concentrated efforts to engage women on this topic. Conservatives must explain how support for limited government and the defense of core freedoms, such as religious liberty, is compatible with support for access to health care, including contraceptive services.
Well, as women are individuals too, perhaps conservatives can merely concentrate on the whole “limited government and the defense of core freedoms” thing as always better than the governmental alternative — which is always long on promises and short on delivery, and always at the expense of personally liberty — and let the rest take care of itself.
Just as I don’t believe conservatives have to make special panders to Hispanics, they shouldn’t make special panders to women. Anyone can be conservative. And we should be performing that message religiously.
Or, if it helps, think of this way: if it’s conservatism you’re actually selling, listen to Jeb Bush’s advice for how to campaign nationally and do the opposite.
It can’t miss.
A conservative caller to Bennet during this morning’s drive noted that there was indeed no war on women. This, of course, didn’t mean that women didn’t need a promotional leg up, a point Bennet tacitly agreed with. Certainly women need the promotion in post Bill of Rights, post equal-rights society that say, men do not.
Not unlike minorities. We all need a special promotion and a special dispensation. Unless we don’t.
You used the term “collectivized thought” in another thread, Jeff. As with the piece I linked you to this morning about conservative talker’s Mike Gallagher’s simultaneous glee and great disclaimered caution over the CNN reporter using “f***ing n***er” on-air to reference a third party’s Facebook comment, it seems that the right fears not trading in progressive currency to high heaven .
The right’s thought is thereby sufficiently collectivized.
Which means that the topic of the inherent right to offend someone just because it is indeed a right goes completely missing from radar. We rush to prove ourselves righteous on the progressive scale with such a ferver that we never bother to discuss what a right really is. And especially, how they atrophy just as easily as they are removed by force.
Gotta have the harem to go along with the plantations and the bread and circus displays.
Else what’s the good of being king?
“Obama’s ‘War on Women’ Rhetoric Not Resonating”
I keep hearing that, and I hope it’s accurate. But I also remember hearing that Romney beat Obama in the swing states up until about a month ago. Now I hear that Obama wins, mostly because of women. Something’s not right.
“…listen to Jeb Bush’s advice for how to campaign nationally and do the opposite.”
Or Karl Rove, YMMV.
Kevin – all you have to do is check poll samples and read the pro-O! puff pieces and set your filter for “wishcasting”…
The government declared a War on Poverty, and poverty is doing better than ever. Then the government declared a War on Drugs, and the drug trade has never done better. Then there was a War on Terror, and we now see terrorists taking over the governments of a number of countries. If I were a woman, I’d be damn happy if the government promised a War on Me, because such declarations seem to have the exact opposite effect as an Obama investment.
Can I declare War on the Government or does it have to be the other way around for it to work?
If you declare war on the government,
Janet RenoEric Holder sends sharpshooters to your house to “help” you.“Kevin – all you have to do is check poll samples and read the pro-O! puff pieces and set your filter for “wishcasting”…”
*fingers crossed*. I’m also hoping that’s what it is.