One thing I do hate about being a woman is having to put up with the rather widespread male propensity to tell me how I will vote — based on nothing more than the piddling fact that I am female.
How absurd this is.
At the moment, this particular pique of mine has settled on an all-knowing line from Michael Savage, who has decided to amp his radio ratings by offering Newt Gingrich $1 million to drop out of the presidential race. Among Mr. Savage’s list of reasons Newt simply cannot possibly win the general election is this gem, gleaned from Savage’s crystal ball, no doubt:
He’s cheated on two wives and left both of them while they were both seriously ill, which will destroy his chances among female voters. [emphasis mine]
Red State editor Erick Erickson shares this view and thinks the women’s vote is in the bag for the anyone-but-Newt candidate.
Notwithstanding the fact that Gingrich’s own daughter, Jackie Gingrich Cushman, has refuted the hospital-bed-divorce-papers myth, there remains plenty of unexplored female-thinking territory in these blanket assumptions.
As a mature woman — now 60 years old — I have been married to the same man since 18, am very much the traditionalist, and would seem to be the poster girl for this line of thinking about Gingrich. I must admit that a few months ago, when the well-populated field of Republican candidates was all pristine and preening purely, I wrote that it would pretty much take a cold day in hell to get me to vote for Newt of the infamous Scarlet A.
Of course, that was then.
Republican choices narrowed and Mitt and Newt, barring a sudden rise from another candidate, are apparently the last men still standing.
So, how might the women’s vote go, if the election were today?
I’ll give it a whirl with my own female crystal ball.