Much like the First Lady on Scandal, Obama, Inc. has no problem using babies for political gain. While campaigning in Rhode Island for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gina Raimondo last Friday, Barack Obama declared:
“Sometimes, someone, usually Mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. That’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”
Tying motherhood to the workplace proved to be a well-timed twist on the tired old War on Women routine. That same evening, Drudge picked up on a New York Times page one headline that read
Dems second-guessing strategy of focusing on women’s issues over economy
before it was quickly softened to
The article revealed that Dems are
…second-guessing the party’s strategy of focusing more on issues like abortion and birth control than on jobs and the economy.
The danger for Democratic candidates is that their advantage among women could be so reduced by dissatisfaction with President Obama and the country’s course that it is not enough to offset Republicans’ usual edge among the smaller population of male voters. Should that happen, a party pollster, Geoff Garin, acknowledged, “They’ll lose.”
Conservatives should not fail to recognize Obama’s Rhode Island line as an acknowledgement of his and his party’s political failures. Yet, tied to the War on Women’s dead weight, they can’t free themselves from their own rhetoric even when attempting to bring the economy into the discussion at the 11th hour. And while some working dads may appreciate the idea of increasing government programs so mom can get back to earning a paycheck, the pay gap myth remains lost on male voters seeking real solutions to the economic problems they’re facing.
…Tuesday’s results, Mr. McInturff added, would tell “whether it is possible that the single-minded focus that most Democratic candidates attached to the ‘war on women’ meant they never conveyed an economic and jobs message that might have led a higher chunk of the persuadable male vote to vote Democrat.” …Nonetheless, on Friday the president was in Rhode Island to speak — as the White House announcement put it — “on the economy and the importance of pursuing policies that help women succeed.”
Policies that “help women succeed” also happen to be policies that drive a wedge between mother and child, effectively marrying a woman to her job and chaining her to the State through a series of federally and state funded programs designed to care for her baby, because she and her partner physically can’t be in two places at once. Why these couples cannot live off of one income is never discussed. Instead, political officials who toss promises like coins into a fountain during election season simply refrain from explaining that these programs designed to economically engineer equality come at a hefty price for Mom and Dad Taxpayer.
Perhaps men don’t resonate with the equal pay myth because they see it for what it really is: A way to replace the responsibility of husbands and fathers with the provision of the state. Obama’s declaration wasn’t about single women suffering because of deadbeat dads. It was about career women choosing work over motherhood on the premise that they don’t want to miss out on a raise or two, not women who are a household’s sole income. The subtext of the message was perfectly clear: He got you into this mess, we can get you out of it.
But all of that truth is hidden underneath the funny math of “equal pay” and quieted by catcalls of “War on Women”. It isn’t enough to call them out as hypocrites, or bullies. They are liars running on a platform of social engineering for a more perfect union, and they’re using babies to charm their way into voters’ hearts while carefully snapping on the chains of dependence. Voters shouldn’t fool themselves. This Administration doesn’t give a crap about building strong families, despite the fact that families are the data-proven key to economic success. They just need to use mommies and daddies and, most importantly, babies as a front to get votes. As they say in the world of Scandal, when it comes to campaign-hungry politicians, “Nobody likes babies.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member