The gnashing of teeth and rending of garments have begun. As of right now, Kamala Harris is trailing slightly in every vital swing state, putting her on track to be the second female presidential candidate to lose in recent elections. For progressives, the worst part of it is that both losses would be to Donald Trump.
Naturally, progressives have begun the search for the boogeyman of bigotry unto which they can pin Kamala's (hopeful) loss. The "racism" cry doesn't hold the water it once did in pre-Obama days, so they default to blaming sexism for Kamala's lack of support, particularly among males.
The dozen or so people who tune in to PBS heard David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart warn them not to "downplay the role that sexism may play" in men leaving the Democrat Party. They offer not a shred of evidence outside their own ossified opinions.
Nor does Simon Tisdall over at The Guardian, who blames "misogyny, hidden and pernicious" for Kamala's poor polling numbers. Indeed, the misogyny is so "hidden" that he can't find a single example of it. He is forced to fall back unto the conspiracy theory of dog whistles, insisting that when critics chide Kamala for failing to project "strength," this is simply wink-and-nod conservative code for not being "manly" enough.
He, not us, made that mental connection between "strength" and "manliness." Projection, much? Bear in mind that none of these three bonnet-clad dainties are any woman's idea of a safe escort down a dark alley. If "Androgynes for Harris" ever needed a poster child...
But before you start tossing the sexism card, Democrats, remember that you are the party that refused to vote two women into office and instead cast more votes for a hair-sniffing octogenarian creeper who faced a credible accusation of sexual harassment. You can't blame Republicans for that one. The Democrat votes were there for Biden, and they were not there for Hillary. Nor were they there for Kamala, whom you tossed to the 2020 primary curb without a single vote.
And if you're accusing us of not voting for Kamala because she's a woman, does that mean that you are voting for her because she's a woman? And wouldn't that imply that you are not voting for Trump because he's a man? Isn't voting for a candidate for their gender sort of, you know, the very definition of sexism?
There are many reasons why I'm voting for Donald Trump, and not one of them is because he's a man. Voting for Trump in and of itself doesn't make one a misogynist, just as voting for Kamala in and of itself doesn't make one a misandrist.
I'm not lost on the fact that we haven't had a female president yet, and the allure of that prospect is compelling many moderate women to vote for Kamala, even if she wasn't their first pick. The same happened with black voters and Barack Obama, and I don't begrudge those who voted for him to be our first black president. I understand that.
Conversely, you must understand that, of all the female candidates available out there, the choices of Harris and Clinton were probably the absolute worst choices the Democrats could have made. Their toxic personalities instinctively repel millions of prospective voters without ever factoring in gender. You could literally pick two women at random out of a phone book and they'd have been better candidates.
On our side, I liked Sarah Palin and I liked Michelle Bachmann. I would have been fine with Carly Fiorina. I think Condoleezza Rice, had she run, would have cleaned Obama's clock. And I think Winsome Earle-Sears, had her foreign birth not disqualified her, would be a tremendous candidate. Tulsi Gabbard, Kristi Noem, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Kim Reynolds are all women I would proudly vote for, not because they're women, but because they're intelligent, competent leaders.
But Harris is a vacuous moron and Clinton is a remorseless sociopath. They're the female equivalents of Hodor and Ramsay Bolton. If I were female, I would be mortified that the Democrats were artificially hoisting this donkey and viper as a shining representative of my gender. They're horrible candidates, period.
And the fact that they're Democrats might explain why Republicans vote against them, rather than sexism. Do you white suburban liberals vote against female Republicans because they're female or because they're Republican? Our criticisms of Kamala, which you squeal are sexist, are the same criticisms you lodged against Palin (along with the accusation that her mentally challenged son Trig was the product of incest — stay classy, progs).
In that vein, maybe it will make you feel better that I thought male candidates John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich were horrible as well. For the first two, I held my nose and voted for them on election day. And I did so because they were less bad than Obama, not because "we bros gotta stick together."
Lastly, it's pretty rich that the party that has spent the last decade demonizing males everywhere for embodying irredeemable evil simply by their existence now can't read the room enough to realize how hypocritical their accusations of sexism land. Men are pigs, men are pigs, men are pigs, men are pigs, men are pigs, wait a minute! Why aren't men voting as virtuously as we tolerant, woke progressives think they should?
Again, just like with their racism, this is classic projection. And for a group of ideologues who kneel in pious genuflection and dogmatic worship to their pagan deity of "Choice," they sure don't suffer men or Republican women to honor "Choice" in their own ways and with their own votes.
Still, you can't blame the Democrats for trying to guilt and shame people into voting for their candidate with whatever "-ism" of the day is supposed to frighten us. Why wouldn't they try? It worked twice for Obama when Republican leaders like Paul Ryan and John Boehner were so absolutely petrified of criticizing the first black president too harshly that they let him run roughshod over us for nearly a decade. The race card prevented John McCain from criticizing Jeremiah Wright, the bigot who celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attack on America.
But those scare tactics that worked so effortlessly before no longer hold sway. We've largely purged our ranks of the quivering pearl-clutchers for whom a steady flow of cocktail party invites is more important than the future of our great nation. Trust in the media is at its lowest numbers ever, and we flyover rubes now wear their damning indictments as badges of honor.
I wouldn't trust Harris to mop a floor. And I wouldn't show Clinton the $1.28 in my pocket, lest she cut my throat to take it on principle. And it's not sexist to say that. Over 169 million females live in the United States. I've just criticized two of them. If that's your idea of sexism, you need to get your head checked.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member