Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and the Mystery of the Female Vote
I see Mitt Romney and I have a very hard time not thinking Ward Cleaver. Worse yet, I look at Mitt Romney’s poster-boy-for-50s-American-husband character type and can’t shake the thought that he is a walking, talking version of a male Stepford Wife.
Which is not to say that Ward (or even an imaginary Stepford Husband) did not possess some good qualities. In all the years I spent as a child watching America’s beloved Leave It To Beaver I don’t recall seeing Ward raise his voice, much less lose his temper. No, he was the quintessential metro-sexual before there was such a word. He was as mild-mannered and cerebral as Romney. Ward was the consummate modern husband of his era, not nearly so Wall-Street rich, but every bit as devoted and as perfect the family man as Mitt.
This type of man certainly appeals to a great many women. He seems safe. He seems utterly morality-bound. He seems predictable. He seems so devoted to polite manners that he would rather be boiled in oil than embarrass you. He comes off as a team player in all regards, always willing to lay down his own interests like a doormat in pursuit of common goals. He would never be confused with John Wayne — too macho in a trigger-happy world.
There is much to like about Mitt. And I can guarantee you that there will be many women who will vote for him in the Republican primaries on these safe-bet factors alone. Women are known to be somewhat risk-averse and we do tend to crave security.
On the other hand, I can also guarantee you that there will be many other women who are as revolted by Mitt’s too-nice-to-be-true guy appeal as are attracted to it. For all his wonderful assets, Romney comes across to many women as an animated version of the Ken doll they played with as children.
Real women have known too many real men to identify with a plastic-patriarchy just because it’s dressed up in monogamous garb — we outgrew being Barbie when we hit our teens. If Newt’s adulterous past poses a risk to women’s need to protect monogamy, Romney’s Father Knows Best aura poses a return-to-patriarchy threat that sends chills up the spines of most modern women.
Anyone who believes that modern Republican women are not feminists needs to get out more amongst us. We vehemently reject the one-size-fits-all 50s version of marriage and family. Sarah Palin, of the moose-hunting, sharp-shooting, long-distance-running, career-for-me-too brand, is not a conservative female icon for nothing. In Palin’s genuine feminism, of the “we can have it all without hating our wombs or our men” variety, there is no room for Ward Cleaver. And a Stepford husband has about as much appeal as a Ken doll in all his neutered glory.
We Boomer conservative feminists have spent the last 40 years or so of our lives re-creating marriage for the 21st century. Many, many of us have lost first and even second marriages in this treacherous endeavor. We’ve cast off many Ward Cleavers in the process, as they failed to make the leap from unquestioned, staid breadwinner to full partner in all marital facets. For every man who has left a wife for a mistress, there is a wife who has left a husband unwilling to change with changing times and changing demands. Many women have also run off with their lovers.
For some reason, this is a reality nearly impossible to grasp for some of our male conservative spokespeople. It isn’t just men who leave women; women also leave men.
And I dare say you simply will not find a handful of modern women – either conservative or liberal – who steadfastly believe that the institution of marriage can be saved by reverting to the ’50s model, seemingly so perfectly represented by Mr. and Mrs. Mitt Romney. Marital fidelity is indeed sacrosanct to nearly all women, but so now is equality and role-sharing. While there may be small pockets of fundamentalist religious women who still believe a woman’s place is only in the home, these numbers are melting faster than a popsicle in the August sun. Even full-time, conservative, female homemakers today have marriages that bare scant patriarchal resemblance to their mothers’ and grandmothers’ unions.
And for all the good points about the Romney marriage, it comes across to many women as a throwback to a time they have fought madly to escape.
Well, I’m another woman and Christian conservative. I am 100% with the Newt.
“Newt is a proven fighter and doer, who dares greatly, with a passionate love of America.” The kinda guy we need for a time such as this. His understanding of history, our founding, and government, along with his strategic mind are what is required to restore our Republic.
“And for all the good points about the Romney marriage, it comes across to many women as a throwback to a time they have fought madly to escape.”
It occurs to me that we could do a lot worse than have our culture saturated with relationships like that “throwback” Romney marriage. How quaint. A long-term marriage, an intact family, a husband who speaks lovingly of his wife, children and grandchildren.
Can’t have THAT. Better to have our culture saturated with marriages in which the husbands cheat on their wives, then divorce them to marry their mistresses. And then lather, rinse, repeat. Yes, there’s an ideal we’d really like our children to aspire to.
If a man’s own wife can’t trust him, who can?
As Don Imus has lamented, Gingrich is a repulsive human being. He isn’t interested in “restoring our republic.” First and foremost, he’s interested in Newt Gingrich. His conduct over the years, both personal and professional, proves that. He’s as arrogant, narcissistic and self-important as Obama.
I’m a woman, married almost 40 years, and will not vote for Gingrich under any circumstances. He is not a good man, and he doesn’t belong in the WH.
Well said. I read this article with astonishment over how nasty it was and am glad others agree. Where do you even begin to comment on such reflections? I am speechless. I may not like Mitt, but it sure isn’t because he’s a “Stepford” husband. That may be the only thing he has going for him as far as I’m concerned. And how is it Todd Palin doesn’t qualify for the same label? Would Mitt be the cool, modern husband if he snowmobiled instead of was a braniac? Perhaps some anti-intellectualism served here rather than an actual analysis of views on gender and marriage?
Most women are going to vote for the man who has the most sex appeal and promises them the most. That’s how we got the great beguiler we have now.
ouch.
Maybe I’d understand a little better if I were gay, but “sex appeal”? Him? The Hawaiian metrosexual? He’s about as masculine as Kermit the Frog.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Patrick thinks age is a major factor in sex appeal. I paid limited attention to the democratic primary because I wasn’t going to be voting in it, but I think he was the youngest candidate. He was certainly a lot younger than McCain in the general election.
Hmph, from what I saw during that last election, as many men were swooning for Obama as women were. I personally didn’t see it. As for this race, I like Perry, but if I have to choose between Gingrich and Romney, I’m going with Gingrich. Romney has all the fire and personality of a sack of mud. Someone should check his pulse. Gingrich may have flaws, but hey, so do we all. I’m not looking to marry him. I just want him to kick that fraud out of our White House and then straighten out this country.
The Obama campaign in 2008 was fueled on charisma, demagoguery, and liberal guilt that longed to erase the stain of slavery and persistent white racism. Charisma is often produced by narcissism. Women are trained to be narcissists in this society and in others. So I would guess that Obama’s appeal to women was that of kinship. On Obama’s blatant narcissism see http://clarespark.com/2010/04/05/is-potus-crazy/.
I’m not voting for a boyfriend, I’m voting for a President. Newt’s fine.
Shiver makes a very good point. I think it would have been better taken if she wasn’t trying to twist it to make women want to vote for Gingrich instead of Romney.
The fact is, men ALSO don’t like Gingrich because he cheats. Men also realize that a man who lacks impulse control and is willing to lie to his wife will exhibit the same traits in his commitment to his constituents. It’s just a factor we consider before choosing the least worst we have been presented.
I get what she’s saying about Mitt. That said, this piece doesn’t make me any more likely to vote for Gingrich. Given the current field of candidates, I’d vote for him if it wasn’t becoming 100% clear that he talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. “That ain’t lipstick on my health mandate, ya know I love ya baby.”
Hit the road, Newt. If I can’t have GI Joe, I’ll take Ward or Ken over Charming Guy With a Guitar singing me I Gave My Love A Cherry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Riddle_Song) …any day.
Sure, I’ll take Newt over Obama. But then, I’ll take Weekend Bernie before him.
Romney may be a flip-flopper, but Gingrich is something worse: He’s unscrupulous. AFAIK, he has no moral compass whatsoever other than maximizing his own self-aggrandizement.
I don’t want that type as Chief Executive or Commander in Chief. Unscrupulous narcissistic leaders are prone to adventurism, both foreign and domestic.
haha. So true, Gingrich is just like Obama. Both come home with lipstick on the collar, reeking of perfume, carrying chocolate and wine.
Given Obama v/s Gingrich, I’d vote Gingrich – as at least he will SAY he loves me (Obama will say it is my own fault) and Gingrich will only run my credit card up $25 for the chocolate and wine. Obama will charge my credit card $200 for one little chocolate and give me a $500 bottle of wine that his buddy Vinny sold him for $3 out of the back of truck. Then he will attempt to flatter me on my good taste.
What a crop of losers. I’d think it was funny if it wasn’t so damn sad.
Where is my John Wayne?
Your John Wayne is Rick Perry… who clearly isn’t smart enough to be President. At least he’s not smart enough to beat Obama in a debate. And let’s face it, with his record over the past 3 years, it should be easy to beat Obama in a debate.
No, the primary process has exposed all our candidates warts and blemishes… even Ken doll Mitt who has none.
Newt and Mitt are the two most likely to continue our nations disastrous Big Gov’t expansion. Perry, Bachmann and Santorum, the three most conservative, are also religious fanatics… which is a turnoff for most voters. Paul would allow the barbaric Islamists to proliferate unchecked. That leaves Huntsman. If he’d promise to appoint Obama Ambassador to Nigeria I’d have to vote for him.
If it’s a question of Romney or Perry, I’ll pick Perry.
If it’s a question of Romney of Gingrich, I’ll pick Gingrich.
If it’s a question of Perry of Gingrich, I’ll pick Gingrich.
It’s not a question Romney v. Perry or Perry v. Gingrich.
Gingrich is the only one who’s done anything like what needs to be done, I have no reason to think he won’t do better from the Oval Office and with a better Congress.
“As Don Imus has lamented, Gingrich is a repulsive human being. ”
Imus = misanthrope, everyone is repulsive to him. He’s repulsive to himself. Have you heard the man much?
“And for all the good points about the Romney marriage, it comes across to many women as a throwback to a time they have fought madly to escape.”
Bunk. In many ways, I think women would be very happy with a lot less feminism and lot more June and Ward, assuming the men they found REALLY were like Ward. What has “ultra” feminism gotten women today? They have the same right to try and claw their way up the corporate ladder as men do, they get to be as cold and as insensitive as a lot of men are out there, they get to work at the same jobs and be tormented by the same bosses as men are, they get to openly swear, drink, and complain just as much as men do, and they also get to be as unfaithful and as careless, casual, and apathetic about marriage as many men are. They also get to smoke too much, eat too much, and die at young ages of heart disease, just like men. In short, they get to be and act just like men. And they wonder why divorce rates are still high and why the number of single family homes is still way too high? When you always wanted to be treated like one of the guys, don’t be surprised when you are, and then have to deal with all the problems that go with it.
In many ways, women used to be the anchor in the family. Their quiet (or sometmes, not so quiet) fortitude used to not only keep the family in line, but also men, too. I’m betting it gave men the structure they actually needed to be good parents and faithful husbands. But when that’s not good enough, when women want to marry a combination of Dr. Phil, Brad Pitt, and Conan the Barbarian, women tend to get unhappy when their expectations are not met. In short, feminism says you can actually HAVE a perfect fit in an off-the-wrack kind of world. And that type of thinking doesn’t help anyone, women or men.
The problem with feminism is that it never really acknowledges that men and women ARE different. By thinking everybody is the same, it only forces everybody apart more. Feminism went from being a very valid quest for equal rights in the workplace to stating that everybody in each sex is exactly the same, and that’s just not the case. So like I said before, be careful what you wish for. Women today are treated just like men and now are unhappy with the results.
So maybe June and Ward had something there. Maybe, just maybe, putting family and marriage first above all other personal feelings was something to shoot for, not avoid. I actually like to believe that there are still people like Romney out there, that he’s not to be looked at like some wierd biological experiment gone horribly awry, that HE and HIS WIFE should be the norm today and NOT the exception. And if a guy like Newt will lie as many times as he did to his own WIVES, what do you really think he will say to get elected, let alone stay in power?
So before you knock June and Ward too much, make sure they ARE the norm these days, NOT the exception. Because, if they are not, there has to be a very good reason why they are not, and feminism has A LOT to do with it. OK, all you feminists out there, go ahead and take your best shot. It’s what you do best.
And, to Ms. Shiver, I recommend you read Wendy Wasserstein’s “Isn’t it Romantic” before you take a lot more shots at Romney’s personal life. It pretty much sums what feminism is all about and how it affects marriages today. And THAT play was written about 25 years ago. Not much has changed since then.
Little respect is due your comment, which is itself bunk.
Many conservative women feel just that way, and a far greater fraction of independent women do. They are hiring a President, not a husband.
To go by his history, they can expect him to cheat on his wife, get a balanced budget, shrink government, and move Boehner right.
Romney they can expect to move Boehner left, he’ll improve little, but he won’t cheat on his wife.
Well put. Bravo!
Excellent! Romney is, I’m sure, a wonderful and faithful husband. But I’m not looking for a husband. This is going to be a gutter brawl and I just can’t picture him winning any more than McCain did.
The others are good people, but for one reason or another, I can’t see them as beating Obama.
I might not agree with his Newt’s personal life — but I probably wouldn’t have agreed with George Washington’s or JFK’s either. However, I believe Newt will seriously challenge Obama. I believe he can handle a gutter brawl. And I believe if he’s elected, he’ll push to balance the budget. I also think the ME will take him seriously. So, Newt’s my man.
I’m a woman and feel you’ve hit the nail on the head – for me at least. I’ve given this a lot of thought and have come to the same conclusions you have.
Great comment. I would add that the 50s sitcoms were not really an accurate picture of family life in those days. They didn’t really show all the responsibilities women assumed and the many opportunities they had, if unpaid ones. The picture of 50s women seems to have been drawn by a bunch of bored, financially comfortable feminists who never got their hands dirty. The women of my mom’s generation could do almost anything and were respected by their husbands and other men for their competence and character. They, in turn, chose their partners for their competence and character.
Liberty,
You still not understanding it. The time for electable, nice looking, young, “he seams so honest and stable” has gone! You can stop pretending that you know women. I’m a man who has been married for 30 years, and I’m still learning.
With the exception of “females”, women today are looking at this election critically, with understanding that they(women) need a president, not a boyfriend or a lover. Things have gone terribly wrong since last election or two.
Ding, ding, ding, Skydiver. You hit the nail on the head and you win the kewpie doll. Your comment hits the core of what I was going to post. If you want to vote for a steady marital relationship (albeit it planned), vote for the Marxist who is currently in office. Better yet, if that’s as far as your pseudo-analytical thinking will take you, please do us all a favor and don’t vote at all. We need someone who can turn this country around – or at least give it a start to doing that – and not someone who just looks good. I, personally, keep expecting someone to pull the string behind Romney’s head to see what canned response he’s going to give next. Further, I would never vote for someone who says one thing just to get elected, as Romney did with his weapon ban in Massachusetts. I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and you don’t ban weapons and then say you’re for the Second Amendment. It doesn’t work that way, folks. There’s no right side of the mouth, don’t pay attention to the left side of the mouth room in this election. At least Newt is a historian and this country has been sorely lacking in its ability to not only know its history, but to learn from it and not repeat those errors made in the past. It’s only from making people aware of history and the dearth it has wrought (i.e., Europe in the first third of the 20th century, and the Marxism being frought on us now) that we are going to get ahead. Of the current candidates, I must back Newt because he has that historical background, and at least he does have some leadership as well as political accomplishments. Sure, the good-old-boy mentality in Washington doesn’t like him, but maybe it’s time to get rid of some of those good-old-boys too. Move on past Ward Cleaver, people. He’s gone, as is his generation (which I lived through). I’m an Allen West fan myself, but since he’s regretfully not in the race, I will move on to someone who can begin the righting of this ship. Stop living in fairytale land; we MUST get rid of the White House occupant now and move to someone who is not a proven RINO. I am a female and this has nothing to do with a female/male vote; nothing to do with who has the best hair (after all, that’s what got us Slick Willy). This election has to do with saving our country. Learn that and move toward that.
I’m with ya sister — Going for Newt because he’s smart and while not perfect, I think has the guts to fight for our country. I do wish Alan West was running though — maybe VP?????
Liberty,
I like your comment. However, I believe we still have a better cultural, and social fabric, right here in the USA, than exists anywhere else in the world. In spite of the struggles brought to us by feminism, we are truly a free people. There were a lot of unhappy Junes back in Ward’s day. Women who aspire to be more than the quintessential housewife (nothing wrong with being a housewife) actually can be. Yet women in many parts of this world are treated worse than slaves… by men who ought to be in prison for the way they treat their women. (Think of the Middle East) Thank God we have evolved beyond that.
Wayne,
The interesting thing is that back then women weren’t all stay at home wives either. I am continually surprised by people I meet who had female relatives who got college degrees and were very active in careers and volunteer work in the 40s and 50s. I always thought such women didn’t exist back in those decades, but they certainly did.
Liberty:
I think the problem may be that girls always go for the bad boys no matter what pain they might risk. The good and stable boys are too boring for them. Isn’t that the appeal of the James Dean type?
The issue isn’t whether female conservative voters can overcome any qualms about Gingrich’s past to support him because of his policies and drive. Female conservative voters are naturally going to look more favorably on a conservative candidate, despite his negative past.
The issue is that female *Independent* voters won’t support Gingrich. They’re not sold on either the GOP platform or the Dem platform. Mostly they vote for the candidate they trust. And they won’t trust Gingrich, given his personal history plus his questionable involvement with Freddie Mac.
Gingrich can win female Republican voters. He can’t win any other female voters.
I think this is the correct analysis. We have to vote with the Independents in mind; the winning strategy has to consider the Independent undecideds. Perhaps Perry will pull out ahead.
I admit I do fantasize about some Allen West/Paul Ryan combo being drafted.
West/Ryan sounds great…. but it’s too late for that. Anyone who didn’t subject themselves to the grueling vetting process (debates) is not to be trusted. We have to take our best pick and get behind them…. and hope Ron Paul doesn’t pair up with Gary Johnson and mount a serious third party challenge… which would insure Obama’s re-election.
I have rarely heard such drivel in my life. The ‘independents’ are unsold on the Dem platform. They want a refund on hope and change.
If Romney is the nominee, the GOP platform is gov run healthcare, humanity is warming the planet, and gun control. Why should independents or conservatives go for that?
When Gingrich was last doing good work, Hillarycare was killed, the budget was at least temporarily in surplus, and welfare reform was forced on Clinton–even if the MSM let him get away with claiming it was his idea. All thatthat sounds like too much to trade for Mr. Perfect Hair.
Sadly, I don’t think the average undecided voter takes all those things into consideration. We have accept the reality of the widespread sound-bite depth of political knowledge.
I do hope that, in the solitude of the voting booth, combined with the diligence of True the Vote, “anybody but Obama” will be the order of the day. I also hope that the youth vote that turned out for Obama in 2008 will stay home and play video games.
I realize that my previous post makes it look like I support Romney. Actually, I am very unhappy with both Romney and Gingrich, for many, many reasons. If either is elected, it is imperative that the House is retained and the Senate be gained, to keep them in line.
Who says it is down to just these two candidates? The MSM. We have let them make the rules for too long. Unfortunately, the people I would feel happy to vote for are not running, or are faltering in the race. That is why I mentioned Perry.
As a registered independent, I think there is this widespread misconception of us as wishie washy fence straddlers. As a constitutionalist, I see the political factions of our system as part of the problem plaguing our republic. I re-registered as independent after pondering how the Trotskyite wing of the party is its identifier. I simply do not wish to be identified with socialist. If I identify as Republican, I do just that.
Bingo, many independents are conservatives disgusted with the GOP establishment. I have been involved with local conservative groups and have seen a large presence of unaffiliated voters actively involved in the 2010 elections and now focused on 2012. The independent voter is not understood by the media and political pundits / consultants. I have also seen friends who were Democrats join the unaffiliated ranks because they no longer identify with the party of M. Moore, Obama / Reid / Pelosi and the rest of the hard left. I resent the way people are grouped into voting blocks. I am an American who is very concerned about our country. My vote has nothing to do with my race, ethnic background, gender or income level. Which candidate is for smaller government, cutting spending, protecting our rights and enforcing the rule of law, SCOTUS matters, I will support a candidate who believes in conservatives. No more Souters which is my concern with Romney, he has Sununu as an advisor, he was key to the Souter nomination under Bush 41 and look at his rulings on the court.
I still can’t wrap my head around the fact that after three years of this loser in the WH that what we have come down to is Mitt or Newt! Really??!! We couldn’t do better than this? I’m so dejected right now I don’t even want to play anymore – meaning I’ll stay home on election day. I know I’m not the only one who feels this way. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I’m tired of that choice.
lolly,
I understand your frustration at our current crop of Republican candidates for President, but if you decide to stay home on election day you will be casting a “vote” for the GREATER of two evils. Please vote when the time comes.
Many of us are frustrated. Focus on the Senate / House and state elections. Find candidates to support and get involved, with technology today, we can make calls to support candidates, they don’t have to be in your state. We need governors who will stand up to the Feds, there are many races you can make a difference in. Gov. Walker in WI will need outside help with the potential recall election, I am willing to make calls on his behalf. The key is get involved behind those you believe in, so if not the POTUS race, find a race you can engage in. Hang in there!
Yeah, I guess it’s a Mormon thing to take promises and covenants seriously. To work at marriage as if it was as important to you as a career. To think of your children when you become discouraged and feel like giving up. To put others needs ahead of your own and serve those in your life to the best of your ability. I guess that makes Mormon women throw backs. But there are some things people who think that way forget.
A wife and mother is not a servant. She’s a partner, a teacher, a nurturer, a friend, a mentor, besides her career outside the home. A man and woman who are true partners give and take with no concern over who gives more at any given time. They understand the give and take necessary in marriage.
It so much easier to give up, to run away from our problems, only they follow us no matter where we go. While Mr. Gingrich infidelity is troubling it is not for the reasons many people think. Morality aside his behavior calls into question his ability to deal honestly with others. It calls into question his loyalty to those he says he cares for, or for whom he has the responsibility to care for. If he can “fall out of love” with someone how do we know he won’t “fall out of love” with us? What reason do we have to think he’ll be loyal to us after he’s elected.
That concern and the concerns over Gingrich’s stand on immigration, on government spending, on being an DC insider keep me from supporting him. I guess I’ll hold my nose and vote for him if he’s the nominee.
Anyone is better than what we have right now.
Are you claiming it’s a Mormon thing to tolerate in a polotician consistently screwing up the basic political questions of the day, because they singularly as opposed to serially monogamous?
No I’m not. I’m addressing the ideal that we should overlook someone’s obvious issues because “he’s not the other guy”. I was addressing the idea of how women vote, not whether Mr. Romney should be the nominee. Mormons as I’m sure you’re not aware are, by and large educated, free thinking individuals. We don’t all support Mr. Romney, less of us support Mr. Huntsman and even fewer will even claim Harry Reid as a member of the same church. j
My point was that promises, covenants and the like are important signs to us of a candidates integrity. Mr. Obama while an apparent serial monogamist, feels free to throw the Constitution and Bill of Rights under the bus and has had a habit of that kind of behavior since he became a figure in politics. The best example was how he dealt with his grandmother (he insinuated she was a racist). That one debacle should have alerted us that this man would stop at nothing to get what he wanted.
I also find it fascinating that, when Romney is criticized, his religion is brought up. Shouldn’t that be the same for other candidates. Gingrich the philander, just like a Catholic, right? Or any of the rest of the field. After all if religion is a litmus test for one candidate shouldn’t it be that way for everyone? And if you’re going to paint people with such a broad brush don’t leave anyone else out.
After all, people of a certain religion, gender, ethnicity or any grouping you’d care to mention are all alike. Right?
seanmahair, you are spot on. Newt, like Obama and Clinton, wants the presidency so that he can “Be served” rather than serve. Newt hasn’t the character needed to be president. Covenants are not to be broken and Newt has no time to be bothered with such impediments to his latest fascinations. Obama lies: Clinton lies. Newt is not as dangerous as Obama to this country, be he would do some damage if elected. I do not know why Mrs. Shiver finds it necessary to wander into the tall grass of fifties television shows and science fiction movies to relate to Romney. This is the same condescending attitude that network television and other main stream media types have toward Christians.
Off the subject but on my mind is the word “govern”. In the USA, do we really want someone who can “govern” us? I am hearing that word way too much.
There are no competent candidates because anyone smart enough to do the job knows that the job is not only thankless, but also hopeless;
There will be no political reform until _after_ the 2nd Great Depression,
and it will be carried out from the bottom up, by those states still solvent after the shock wave from the EU implosion hits the US.
Grown women, as opposed to overage girls, are ruthlessly pragmatic survivors;
When they see the prices of the necessities they need for their families
skyrocket out of reach, they will vote for candidates who can get the economy
back on the tracks, and they will not care where he parks his locomotive.
Which brings to mind an old saying, one still exchanged (in whispers)
between wives in the 50′s: ‘I don’t care where my husband has lunch,
as long as he comes home for supper.’
And a movie reference: ‘Shy People’ wherein Barbara Hershey’s character
recalls the time when she was a young, clueless, pregnant wife, and her
brutal beast of a husband forced her to go help pile up sandbags on the
levee to keep the flood waters out of the town; After the flood, someone
tells her that is there had been just one less person doing the work, the
levee would have failed, and everyone in the town would have been drowned
in the flood.
If all the above is to gloomy-doomy, go watch ‘Pleasantville’ instead. >:)
I think this whole discussion is silly. Yes, women tend to vote for the promise of ‘security’ and yes, women will be voting for a president, not a boyfriend. However, women, conservative or otherwise, are not going to parsing their choice through a Ward Cleaver versus the serial philanderer prism. Most conservative women realize neither Romney or Gingrich are conservatives. So let’s face it, we’re all (men and women alike) going to vote for anyone who is not Obama.
I’ve never once “cheated” on a woman with whom I have had a committed relationship. Either dating or when I got married.
To some women, that made me “too nice, too safe”. I completely understand the need for a “little danger” in the roller coaster to make it fun. I’ve dealt with it on numerous occasions. “You are such a NICE GUY”…as if that was the mark of someone who was missing a certain spark.
Other women appreciated it. A matter of taste, I suppose.
Don’t get me wrong…I see Mitt as a bit too “shrink wrapped”, so this isn’t about Mitt. A lot of women liked the “bad boys”. Some of them even married one or two or five. Thought they could tame them. That they would “change”.
Sort of the original “hope and change”.
I think Tim Pawlenty was probably a “nice guy” too. And, Leo Durocher said that nice guys finish last in any race…and certainly an argument could be made that held true for Pawlenty.
I think Paul Ryan is a genuinely nice guy. I think John Thune is a genuinely nice guy. I think Bobby Jindal is a genuinely nice guy. I think Eric Cantor is a genuinely nice guy. I think Mitch Daniels is a genuinely nice guy.
Maybe we just don’t want nice guys to lead us. We prefer our serial cheaters who then deny they had “relations” with THAT woman.
Maybe we don’t want a man of his word, someone who believes if you have his hand you don’t need his signature. Too old fashioned. Terribly atavistic. Not “cool” enough to be deceitful.
Certainly couldn’t have a job as a journalist…and wouldn’t fit in with most politicians.
I would never presume to tell a woman how to ultimately vote. If honor, integrity, stability, loyalty, faithfulness and rock solid scruples are “too safe”, some of us won’t be chosen.
Having said this, I do not believe that Newt’s personal life up until now is a disqualifier. If he had all the other elements I thought important to do this job and he was a shoe in to beat Obama, I would overlook personal life items, although not think any more highly of those actions.
His personal actions in the White House, however, reflect on us as a nation. If he is of low character during his tenure, I would not like that.
I realize how old fashioned this makes me sound. And, I realize that being polite, loyal, and “gentlemanly” is completely out of step with the Hollywood Hedonism.
Don’t get me wrong…I’m no angel. But loyalty and honor still mean something to me. To America. To Israel and our allies. To any woman to whom I have given my heart. I don’t have principles of convenience, don’t like lying, and don’t like disguising my intentions…in order to fool people into doing what I want.
Heaven knows…Democrats despise that type of guy. Maybe in this modern world we simply finish last.
I don’t think Romney or Gingrich fit the mold.
And, I don’t think the guys who do fit the mold are running.
Pity.
Winning post on this thread! And no, it’s not merely women’s taste, it’s maturity.
I’m going to work on a list of men in powerful government/political positions I’ve known who haven’t in SOME fashion cheated on their wives … There, that didn’t take long. If you take the religious position that the thought is adulterous or that intimate acts short of intercourse are adulterous, the answer would be close to none. Even if a man is principled or, more likely, cowardly enough to never be the instigator, there are plenty of women in and around politics and government who’ll trip you and try to beat you to the ground.
Maybe in Romney’s case the Mormonism is more powerful than ego and testosteron or maybe he’s an old-fashioned well-off guy who knows how to make sure his wife’s cut comes off the top and who is always very discreet. What I don’t get about Gingrich is, first, how he let himself get caught/outed and, second, why he married women he met while screwing around. Everybody’s always so down on “cheating” men, but there are one Helluva lot of women out there to whom a wedding band is an irresistable challenge. If you’re sitting at a hotel bar or in a tony watering hole with no collision avoidance device on your left hand, you’re just some horn dog, but with a wedding band you’re both safe and a challenge.
When I was in government, by the time I had supervisory and hiring and firing authority I had become very handsome. When I was hanging with committee chairmen and such and had some influence, I was very attractive. And by the time I was an appointee, I was outright irresistable. Yet, I remained my same old ageing, balding, paunchy, bad-tempered self; funny how that works.
All the debates did for me (and I watched them all) was convince me that most of the candidates are flawed, some more than others. Mitt is a two-faced flip-flopper and the kind of politician that makes me cringe, not because of his marriage, looks or debate performance, but because he does not instill trust, show character or convince me he is more than an expedient politician in a time when we need a solid, principled leader. Gringrich is a big government guy who just wants to push his form of big government and that bothers me, not his lack of fidelity. At the moment, I lean Perry. When he announced, I said he would never win because he can not talk. (I live in Texas and hear him a lot.) However I am now convinced that talk got us into this pickle and so I am now looking for someone with a proven conservative track record. I like Bachman, but fear she is too much of a diva to handle adversity. For me, it is the fiscal and foreign policy that matters, not social impediments. Poor Santorum oozes loser/loser and Ron Paul is both crazy and dangerous in spite of some solid ideas.
A few questions (unrelated to politics but nonetheless interesting):
1. Is there anyway to get Newt to stop mentioning ‘Callista’ every time he opens his mouth?
2. Does Callista garden? There is a veggie patch out back that needs tending.
3. Is hairspray and hair dye included in taxpayer funded perks for those who live in the WH? How about silk pillow cases for coif control and care? Because every potential candidate, except Ron Paul, has ‘hair issues. In fact, Newt and Co. have big ‘hair issues.’
As for ‘Ward’ – he’s not into that ‘Big Love’ stuff now is he? Cuz’ I’ve never seen ‘June’ in a poof-bun and apron-floor-length-pastel ensemble. Have you? But then again, we don’t really know what she wears around the homestead.
How about Mrs. Perdue…I mean Paul? Do her and Frank…I mean Ru…I mean Ron get along? Or, with them, is it all about the chicken?
What we do know is that Rick S. is a great guy, faithful husband, and committed family man.
Michele B. is the quintessential American girl, Mom and an outstanding smiler!
Huntsman also has impressive hair and 3 lovely daughters who, when no one is looking, may wear a similar outfit to Mrs. Romney’s.
Truthfully, at the rate we’re going unless Chris Christie or Jeb Bush save the day the only thing left to wonder about is which up-and-coming designer will be dressing Michelle for the January 2013 inaugural ball.
I don’t believe thinking women vote much different than thinking men. Its the unthinking ones, men and women alike, who are like reeds blowing in the wind. Whoever the talking heads on CNN approve of this week.
Given our countries fiscal condition, it seems to me that Mr. Paul is not as kooky as some would have us believe. Now that we have exited Iraq, just what is the strategy to exit Japan, Germany, Serbia, Korea, or Afcrapistan? Playing the socialist empire sure has had its consequences. I recommend some read Sun Tzu on the matter.
Good point. If I could count on Paul to exercise even punitive military action, when appropriate, I would be a supporter. But he sounds like a pure Isolationist to me. I think he’d allow the Islamic Horde to run rampant over the land for at least 4 more years.
It’s interesting that Gingrich is being subjected to the same abuse that true blue conservatives are subjected to…in many cases by the self-same true blue conservatives who scream at the top of their lungs about the abuse THEY get from the msm.
So if you have bought 100% into the meme that we can’t let the msm pick our candidates, why do you buy into the meme that it’s ok for Steyn / Coulter / Beck / Savage to pick our candidates.
Personally, I do my own thinking, and I think there is a lot of bullshit being flung around about Newt. Thomas Sowell is a pretty conservative guy, and he says that Newt actually achieving major conservative accomplishments is a lot more important than Romney talking about achieving them. Makes sense to me.
And if Newt it the wild-eyed, unstable, dangerously flippant candidate he is being portrayed as by the republican establishment and their new allies in the hard-right conservative media, what does that say about the wild-eyed, unstable, dangerously flippant pundits who are attacking him? It looks like the kettle calling the pot black to me.
As if Romney will get a free pass from the msm for being without sin. Give me a break.
A conservative Catholic president would make me very happy. Peace:)
To those of you who wonder why better candidates on the Republican side are not running, I offer a theory that I have not heard before. It was prompted by my observation of the Republican establishment’s apparent reticence in its approach towards criticizing Obama. Romney refused to refer to Obama as a “socialist” when prompted on the O’Reilly show the other night. Perhaps these first-string candidates don’t want to be in the position of having to criticize Obama because they know in their hearts that they would have to do just that. These 2nd string candidates simply don’t have the stomach to really go after Obama.
Romney wouldn’t use the word socialist because that’s another strawman battle for Obama. He did use the word failure, which I think is stronger criticism.
Jay Cost had an interesting piece about that subject a few weeks ago.
Americans have traditionally voted for governors, senators, vice presidents or 5-star generals, with few exceptions (Garfield was the Speaker of the House).
If you look at it that way, there are only about 40 to 80 people who are qualified by traditional measures. Of the Senators, only about 10 really have the national exposure to have a chance, and many of the governors are too new at the job to feel ready to run. That reduces the potential field to maybe 25 or so, and many simply weren’t interested or didn’t choose to run; Palin, Christie, Jindal, McDonnel, Daniels, etc.
The point of Cost’s article was to point out that Romney has been pretty lucky this year because the field self-winnowed.
But I think something else is at play when it comes to the “weakness” of the field. We simply now know a hundred times more about the candidates than we knew even 20 years ago. And when you know a lot about someone, you know a lot about weaknesses as well as strengths. I think Romney and Gingrich are actually among the strongest presidential contenders in the last several decades. We just know them too well to love them. If, for example, JFK’s faults had been publicized in his time, or for that matter, Obama’s faults, then who would have voted for him? He certainly wouldn’t have been considered King Arthur, would he?
(Huntsman and Perry are also good candidates by historical measures).
I have no problem with Ward Cleaver. We need a no-nonsense, professional businessman with executive experience, expertise in economics and stability and honesty in the home front, and the person that fits that bill is Mitt Romney. As a female and a minority, I am appalled and insulted by Obama and Obama’s failed and disastrous policies, including Obamacare, billions in wasted taxpayer dollars for his stimulus programs and their manufactured shovel-ready jobs and his fundamentally wanting to transform this great freedom-loving country into a socialist, wealth-distributing, anti-capitalist, government-growing banana republic with millions of brainwashed people dependent on the government and continue to be enslaved by the Democrat party.
Newt Gingrich is the quintessential Washington insider whom his own conservative House members went against when he was House Speaker because of his ethics violations and because Gingrich is all about himself.
Only Mitt Romney has the requisite Washington-outsider, solid business and pro-free market experience to rid us of Obama and his corrupt cronies in 2012.
I began reading this article with interest, thinking that someone would finally point out that most women of the 21st century don’t voted based on uniquely female concerns, but rather based on the same concerns that men have, i.e. the economy, national security and a general conservative or liberal bent depending on their own views of the proper role of government. Indeed, the author herself states that whether a person is female is a “piddling fact”- a viewpoint with which I agree.
However, she then goes on a three-page tear viewing the election through pink-colored lenses. What women will or won’t think, will or won’t do, how they will or won’t be marketed to by some campaign or another. In other words, she does exactly what she accuses her male colleagues of doing. Making assumptions about voting behavior based on sex.
“The women’s vote,” “The black vote”, “the white-working class vote,” is just a lazy and increasingly inaccurate way of trying to parse data. Sex, age and race happen to be the variables that are measured- and then huge assumptions are made as to what that represents. And on those assumptions some fairly bigoted statements are made. When talking about elections, it amazes me how people can toss around terms like “the hispanic vote” without feeling the least bit sheepish about lumping entire segments of the population together like that. If we made those kinds of generalizations about behavior in any other setting, it would be considered racist. But not with electoral politics. And, of course, the self-styled “leaders” of these “voting blocks” reinforce this pigeonholing at every turn because their very existence depends on voters believing in identity politics.
The fact that, especially in close races, polls often fail to call the outcome ought to be a sign that something is wrong with the data. Furthermore, it behooves the Republican Party to quit cowering in the face of identity-politicians of all stripes and appeal to voters based on the things we all care about. It’s pretty clear by now that the way to social and economic hell was paved with very good liberal intentions. If we can’t prove that to the people those policies have hurt the most, then there is no future for them or for us.
I really find ‘Game Theory’ annoying but dang me if this essay isn’t ringing some bells. The lady just wants someone macho great way to vote – go for the scum bag.
whatever candidate makes it to the final superbowl with obama is the one we should all rally behind. we either take back our country or lose it to these commies; and, believe it, they are commies.
i just did a search of chavez and obama and it really reminded me of how the two of them conspired in 2009 to overthrow the Honduran democratic government using the “responsibility to protect” u.n. military doctrine.
if you don’t vote you may well wish you could go back and have a do over. this man is trying to destroy our way of life, and he has just about succeeded.
“Anyone who believes that modern Republican women are not feminists needs to get out more amongst us. We vehemently reject the one-size-fits-all 50s version of marriage and family. Sarah Palin, of the moose-hunting, sharp-shooting, long-distance-running, career-for-me-too brand, is not a conservative female icon for nothing. In Palin’s genuine feminism, of the “we can have it all without hating our wombs or our men” variety, there is no room for Ward Cleaver. And a Stepford husband has about as much appeal as a Ken doll in all his neutered glory.”
YES! THANKFULLY!
I would hope women would vote for the Republican, even if it means voting for Michele Bachmann, which I would think would be the subject of a far more interesting study of female voting patterns.
I firmly believe that our government is being infiltrated by the communist party and that Obama is the number one suspect. It is also my firm belief that a communist takeover of our government will spell the end of the only serious experiment in self government in the history of the world. Our founders were in a very unique situation which I am afraid will not occur again. We are the grand experiment in governance. We are the great political revolution and it looks like we are failing and removing the only true hope and dream of the entire world. And we are worried, in this piece, whether more women prefer Romney or Gingrich?
Ms. Shiver finds Romney “revolting,” a “Stepford husband,” a “neutered” Ken doll. He’s a Ward Cleaver!!! A M-M-M-Mormon patriarch!!!
Of all the objections to Romney one might have — and I, for one, have PLENTY — that has to be the most idiotic and ignoble.
Well Put!
Related, though not focused exclusively on women, Sowell had a great piece about Mitt vs Newt over at Real Clear Politics the other day. I think Rush read it on air:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/20/the_past_and_the_present_112470.html
For me, it’s Perry and no one else even comes in second. Perry, both in the primary (Texas for me) AND in the general!
Thomas Sewell likes Newt, as a woman, I like Newt. Who else has actually done anything?
Perry has actually governed a state , safeguarded an economy, and protected the energy industry. Other than that, nothing. Didn’t write a lot of books or sucker Freddie Mac.
Ward Cleaver!!! LOLOLOLOLOL. Precisely perfect!!! I will never be able to look at Mitt again without thinking about June in her shirtwaist and pearls saying “Whatever you say, dear.” I was trying to talk myself into liking Mitt as the “electable” candidate, but you may just have ruined that for me.
Ward Clever was the dad most of us wished we had back in those days. Many of us got chumps like Obama, Shumer, Edwards, Cuomo, Reid, Corzine, Weiner, Axelrod, Holder, and Blagojevich among many others.
Divide, Separate, Label, and identify.
Sorry, that is for the Progressive Liberal Ideology.
Individualist thinkers who chose to align with the TeaParty
are not lumped categories of mind numb robots.
We all share similar Goal but are not the brainwashed sheep voters of the left wing.
Honor and integrity, and constitutionally sound ideology are paramount.
Thorough investigation of passed Record is equally important.
Electability is
TRUST
Gingrich’s wife Calistra strikes me as one of the coldest women I’ve ever encountered on television. Probably a reflection of Newt’s inner soul. Thus, unless Perry can keep himself from coming across as the blockhead he appears to be, it looks like Romney.
Which brings to the fore a question. Even though the two Republican women in the news of late, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin have infinitely warmer souls than Gingrich, how come they are not even in the running? Is it their lack of stature behind the podium? their soprano voices? lack of natural born gravitas? or sensitivity to criticism? Come to think of it, three years ago Hillary Clinton appears to have come across as lacking these three qualities, and in possession of that one liability. Even among Americans born without a bull—t detector, liberals, she came up short.
As a woman voting for a President, I admire guts more than I admire fidelity. Newt over Romney. We need someone with fire in the belly. Mitt doesn’t have it. He’s Ken Doll. I don’t want a Ken Doll for President. I want a man (or woman) who will FIGHT. Right now, the one most likely to do that, polling high enough to do that is Newt. As a woman, I also admire a man for his intelligence. Newt has demonstrated his intelligence to me. Romney? Well, his hair looks nice.
Most women aren’t evaluating presidential candidates on the basis of marriageability anyway. At least, I’m not.
http://theleastobviousanswer.blogspot.com/2011/12/romney-will-be-picard-and-gingrich-will.html