Skip to comments.Could Romney’s Woman Problem Get Even Worse?
Posted on 07/03/2011 9:13:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In the past few weeks weve seen the media scrambling to promote a cat fight between Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
As the UKs Telegraph recently wrote:
The first shots have been fired in what could become an ugly battle between Sarah Palin and her potential rival Michele Bachmann for the Republican presidential nomination.
A Republican consultant who declined to be named because he is aligned with a rival camp, said: The claws are out. Its the cat fight everyone has been waiting for Queen Sarah being taken on by the Palin mini-me. This is all obviously designed to blunt Palins power and momentum. But could over-the-top tabloid coverage of two popular GOP women actually backfire and diminish establishment favorite Mitt Romney, instead of giving him the predicted edge?
Certainly a made-for-TV girl brawl between two outspoken Tea Party stars has at least the potential to overshadow Romneys White House run, just as Hillary vs. Barack quickly eclipsed every other Democrat candidacy in 2008. In a cat fight scenario, Romney could suddenly become the mouse in the room small, insignificant, and barely noticeable. Its not like he can just suddenly grow ovaries (though we wouldnt put it past him to try.)
If it plays out this way, Romneys 2012 estrogen deficit would prove to be just the latest challenge for a man with well-documented woman problems.
As The Atlantics Nicole Allan put it last year, Mitt Romney does not know how to look good while competing with a woman.
How will he look competing against two women? Hmmm Im going to go out on a limb and predict it wont be pretty if Romneys past is any indicator.
Despite his high-profile endorsements of several women last year, lets recall that Romney and the Massachussetts GOP establishment awkwardly forced out a popular female radio host who was running for Ted Kennedys seat in 1994, preventing her from even appearing on the Republican primary ballot so as to clear the way for Mitt. Next up was the first female Massachussets governor (Republican Jane Swift) in 2002, who once again, was driven off the primary ballot by Mitt and the state establishment GOP, as Mitt needed that office to pad his presidential resume. None of this went over particularly well with women, as you can imagine.
Romney again faced charges of chauvinism after participating in a male-candidate-only fundraiser in Arizona last fall, ditching the two female Congressional candidates, during a midterm election that was hailed as the Year of the GOP Woman.
Compounding the misogyny index, his aides continue to make anonymous sexist comments about Gov. Palin, instead of challenging her on her record.
But in what has to be considered the most bizarre outbreak of Romneys Woman Derangement Syndrome yet, he pretended to get groped during a photo-op with New Hampshire waitresses last month. Apparently, it was some warped attempt to connect with women voters. Fake sexual harrassment? How weird is that?
Yes, Romney may have a grand money-raising operation, and the best GOP consultants money can buy. But will he be able to break through the potentially historic candidacies of Palin and Bachmann and their attending media frenzies without looking completely boorish in the process?
Its doubtful he will have the political muscle to force both Palin and Bachmann out, since so many of us are so fed up with the GOP machine: Were not going let them pre-select our candidate.
And contrary to the conventional wisdom of the GOP machine, Palin and Bachmann are not interchangeable. As Michele herself strangely and proudly stated the other day Im no Sarah Palin clone. Thats right, Michele, youre not. You have no executive experience, have never won a statewide office, have never run on a national ticket, nor balanced a $14 billion budget three times. Thanks for pointing it out. Oh, and youve never stared down Big Oil, signed the largest vetoes in your states history, nor had a conservative film maker ante up $1 million of his own money to document your political career.
While were at it, Im pretty sure Governor Palin would never run for a seat in Congress, just to turn around and start campaigning for the presidency on the taxpayer dime six months later. Shes not wired that way. Moreover, unlike Bachmann who rejects the label, Governor Palin is a proud feminist, laying claim to the womens movement begun by Republican stalwarts Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
The truth is though theyre both attractive conservative women, there are big distinctions between Palin and Bachmann. They appeal to overlapping but not identical constituencies.
Contrary to popular thinking, Palins support transcends the social conservative evangelical base: she does have a big evangelical following, but she has also attracted conservative gays, minorities, libertarians, veterans, business owners, Catholics, Mormons and independent Democrats. (Remember all those Democrats for McCain in 08 who were really Democrats for Palin?) Recall that Palin had an 88% approval rating governing Alaska, the least religious state in America where nearly two-thirds of the voters are unaffiliated with either party. In contrast, Bachmann was elected in a predominantly Republican district, and because she hasnt won a statewide office, she has never proven her ability to attract right-leaning independents.
For Romney fans or anyone to suggest that Palin and Bachmann completely cancel each other out is ludicrous, especially given the die-hard nature of Palins support. Lets not forget Palins potential base is much bigger than Bachmanns. Sixty million voters already cast ballots for Palin once. How hard would it be to get 15 million or so to do it again to win a primary? The bigger question is whether Romney will be able to convince more than four million GOP primary voters (his 2008 total) to suddenly support the man who couldnt beat McCain and who ultimately inspired Obamacare.
Ideally, and forgive me for saying this, but two opportunists like Bachmann and Romney might cancel each other out, leaving the rest of the votes for the true reformer in the race, Governor Palin. Lets recall that Mitt has been called the GOPs version of John Kerry. And, Bachmann, with her legislative-only resume, and gift for self-promotion, has been compared to Barack Obama. Sounds like those two will be fighting over the same electoral pie, if you ask me!
What cracks me up is that Bachmann is being propped up as the Palin alternative. From Fox, to CNN to MSNBC, so many commentators are suggesting that Bachmann is the better version of Palin. It begs the question Why is no one contrasting Bachmann to Romney, the guy who is actually in the race, you know, the guy at the top of the leader board? Could it be that Palin is seen as the de facto front runner, the pink elephant in the room? Will this race be all about who is the real Palin? I relish that thought because, obviously, there is only one REAL PALIN.
Deliciously, Romney may find himself fighting a two-front war for relevancy with Bachmann on the far-right, and Palin in the center-right: Two confident Tea Partiers, with committed constituencies, eating his (and Obamas) lunch, every day, for the next nine months. While Bachmann is swatting him gently over abortion flip flops, Palin will be ferociously assaulting his fiscal positions on cap and tax and healthcare mandates. After positioning himself as the Reagan Republican in the last cycle, will he now morph into Rockefeller Romney in a year when the party is primed to lurch rightward? Or will he just resort to outright sexist attacks on the two crazy women. That should go over really well with the electorate that sent a record 27 GOP women to Congress and governorships last year.
You may totally disagree with my gender-heavy assessment. Thats OK, Im a former lefty and I dont understand GOP politics all that well. In fact, I dont really care to understand GOP politics all that well.
But from where Im sitting the faux frontrunner still has a woman problem.
And not even a fake pinch-in-the-butt can turn that around.
But could over-the-top tabloid coverage of two popular GOP women actually backfire and diminish establishment favorite Mitt Romney, instead of giving him the predicted edge
Michelle Bachmann and Barack Obama - now there’s two women in a mud wrestling contest! (Kudos to El Rushbo)
Naw. Sure, some media attention, but they will just split the conservative vote, along with Cain and Santorum and Paul, that much more. Romney, meanwhile, will trounce Huntsman and Pawlenty among the moderates. Only when one clear conservative emerges, whether it is Palin or Bachmann or perhaps Perry, will Romney have competition.
This writing is about on the intellectual level of notes passed between junior high kids during a bitterly-contested class election.
In other words, it’s about the best that our media and political elites can muster these days.
That is a very different analysis. It could be on the money!
Jane Swift was a liberal, to the left of Romney. This reductio ad ovaries is unbecoming of conservatives.
Boy, that one sticks out.
I guess she's getting the oxymoron vote.
Does your tiny little party even have any homosexual members, that you are aware of?
Au contraire, Romney has no woman problem.
He has a “man” problem. And a “Michigan” problem.
That problem is labelled ‘Thad McCotter.’
This must be looked at a level of the state, in this case Michigan.
We now have two candidates from MI in the presidential race.
And MI is the first big industrial state in the primaries.
MI is totally a red state now on the state level, all state-wide elections went GOP.
If McCotter, a very popular congressman knocks out Romney in the primary, it’s over for Mitt.
McCotter may go nowhere in a national election, but clearly he is in a position to toy with the Electoral College in this state by knocking Mitt out.
Who knows, maybe that’s why he is running.
Did you know that your party just handed a powerful national finance position to an open homosexual, one that doesn't make any bones about his desire to recruit more homosexuals and homosexual supporters as Republican candidates?
Do you have any problem with that?
GOP leadership opens door to homosexual rep
Fred Jackson - OneNewsNow - 6/30/2011
Homosexual Republicans are celebrating what they see as a major victory for their cause.
According to the Log Cabin Republicans, the Republican National Committee -- which is the central arm of the Republican Party -- has named the homosexual group's executive director to the RNC's Finance Committee. That committee is the fundraising arm of the RNC.
The Log Cabin group says R. Clarke Cooper will play a "critical" role in raising funds for the party's efforts to elect Republicans to the White House and across the country. Cooper says he will be working to elect what he calls "pro-equality Republicans."
Bob Kabel, a former national chairman of the Log Cabin Republicans who now chairs the District of Columbia Republican Committee, lauds Cooper's new role and references the GOP's "winning strategy for 2012, one based upon inclusion and the conviction that with a big tent the GOP can recapture the White House."
By the way, I’d rather be a “tiny little party” than to be part of a “big” party that has sold its soul to those who promote perversion.
” This writing is about on the intellectual level of notes passed between junior high kids during a bitterly-contested class election. “ ====
I thought the very same thing. It defies reality that Bachman is made out to be the interloper, of all things! Spectacular! We have a declared candidate who shined in the debate, is busy running her race, giving Romney the bum’s rush, and then we’ve got a fan base for someone who isn’t even running shrieking that Bachman is in this person’s way. Laughable, at minimum.
I’m not the chairman of the Republican Party, I’m just a fat old disabled veteran sitting at my computer. You, on the other hand, are the chair of a political party. Why don’t you give the RNC Chair a call on Tuesday and ask him those questions?
Well, since that’s the situation you find yourself in, good for you!!
Right, but you don't seem to have any problem with being on the other end of that equation. Odd.
The Alan Keyes cult leader has shown up, I guess he is going to become a dedicated anti-Palin troll.
Well, since that’s the situation you find yourself in, good for you!!
Why? His actions, and those of his committee, answer any questions I have. Money trumps everything.
He has been for some time now. Take a look at his posting history.
I don’t even mention Alan Keyes. But strangely, you do, on thread, after thread, after thread. Looks like he’s living rent-free in your skull.
My posting history here goes back about five and half years longer than yours, newbie.
Yet I seem to be on the side of the vast majority here. And have been since September 2008.
You run the con man’s personal cult, and you don’t like mentioning it when you are trolling.
As usual, you don’t have any idea what you’re blathering about, troll.
You do realize that your constant harassment from thread to thread to thread, over many months, is a violation of FR’s rules, right?
What, you think the "vast majority here" support the RNC handing candidate decision-making over to radical homosexuals and their money?
I read all of 2ndDivisionVet’s posts, and almost all the Palin threads, that is why I am on this one.
You are the Party Chairman that trolls on Palin threads, trolls can’t keep Palin supporters off of Palin threads.
You can’t run Alan Keyes’ pseudo-party and be stupid, so I know you realize what I meant. I’m on the side of the probable next president and you’re flacking for the man who gave us Senator and then President Obama. Peddle your fish elsewhere.
Rather than troll here and hijack the thread, why don’t you go start a thread on that topic.
Alan Keyes created Barack Obama.
Alan Keyes is the perennial candidate conman, and now after giving us Obama, his little cult leader is trying to clear the field for him again.
See, now you’re just lying. I’m not “flacking” here for anybody. I came on this thread simply to protest the sophomoric nature of the article you posted.
Blah, blah, blah.
So, troll, how do like Log Cabin Republicans being given power over Republican candidates in 2012?
You don’t own this website, jerk. I’ll post comments to any thread I find interesting, as long as the proprietor allows me to do so. Thanks. Now go bite someone else’s ankles.
Unlike with some voting blocks, inroads can be made particularly on a strong fiscal message.
Palin suggested as much on her bus tour when interviewed by Greta. She was asked about Santorum's social conservatism and Palin said a fiscally conservative message would draw voters in 2012.
You seem to have bought into the media stereotype of militant socialist, atheists gays as being all there is. They are common but disproportionately noisy. Intolerant hypocrites, they openly hate those homosexuals who don't share their political agenda or disdain for religion.
Great. You can have ‘em.
Did you even read post 27?
Just stay away from me.
As a cult leader, Alan Keyes probably has very strict rules on who is allowed to vote for him.
Very sharp analysis, I think.
I vaguely remember some of the details of Romney’s ‘woman problem’ before the one he’s currently faced with, but all his apparent “problems” with women could be used against him by the Dems,first and foremost, another reason why they pray it’ll be him they run against.
“Im a former lefty and I dont understand GOP politics all that well. In fact, I dont really care to understand GOP politics all that well.” Statement by the author Nicole Coulter.
This is the stupidest article I have read in a long time. And I have read some pretty dumb ones lately.
The author starts with an idiotic quote from an unidentified (and probably nonexistent) source. She then goes off on a tangent inventing a cat fight and then she rattles off all kinds of silly gossip. Finally she states she really is a “former lefty” and doesn't understand what she is talking about.
Please spare us this inane gossip and stupid comments.
So far, I’m really enjoying this catfight between you and Eternal Vigilance.
As a skinny disabled vet, I’m damn glad you are here.
I can understand why they would be at odds, they essentially appeal to the same demographics for their core constituents.
Gays are 4% of the population.
Jews are 2% of the population.
Muslims are 1-2% of the population.
Catholics are around 25% of the population.
Based on these numbers, I would not try to appeal to gays at the risk of offending Catholics.
The problem with even pretending to be nice to gay Republicans is that they’re going to be constantly whining about gay stuff, constantly pushing for us to blend our position with the Democrats. It’s nice enough to say “oh, but they just happen to be gay, they support all of our agenda otherwise.” And we can’t appeal to lower middle class, blue collar Catholic Democrats because our strongest draw with them was our clear advantage on traditional moral issues.
Think of this. What would happen if we said “Homosex is a mental illness and science is unclear on what causes it, but evidence points to hormones. We need to study those homones
and work on a cure through medical means. As a matter of public policy, it is simply not a good idea to encourage extinctionary behaviors. It’s a mental illness, much like depression, which can be remedied with a simple pill which Merck (see Guardisil / Perry) Perry can say “I’m giving Merck $1 Billion dollars upfront for a medical cure to gay”.
Start with “stop drinking soy milk”. Ban anything that is thought to cause gay, like certain plastics or plastic components.
Marcus is going to prove a fatal problem, but he is opening up again the idea of curing gay. Prayer doesn’t seem to be working all that well with him. And truthfully, there are some people out there who think it’s a missed opportunity to start seriously talking about curing gay, when the guy talking about curing gay thinks that prayer works better than science when clearly it’s not working as well with him as one would think science might be able to do if we put forth a big War on Gay.
There’s always been a cure for “gay.”
It’s called “repent.”
Have you seen the video of Marcus Bachmann, the audio, any pictures? You know that story that’s coming sometime, certainly if Bachmann wins the nomination.
I’m talking about a full cure. There’s probably some biological component to it.
This is conduct, that if everyone did it, would cause the exinction of humanity in less than 120 years.
So, you know, it’s not just a moral problem, it’s a societal problem, that could be solved with science, because it’s not just another thing, like marijuana, that bothers some people, but it’s an extinctionary behavior, and that’s a serious serious problem.
Catholics already vote democrat.
Some Catholics vote Democrat, some vote Republican, and they’re a very very large group. With the proper moral values, we can move a significant number of them to vote for us. LePage did great with Catholics in Maine. He’s a tea party Conservative. He didn’t get country club republicans, he got catholic working class dems. And he won in a 3 way race with a liberal dem (who got 19%) and an establishment dem/indy (2 points less than LePage). We won that because they liked his ethnicity and his religion. I’d like more Catholics on board, and fewer mentally ill people who want to be celebrated for their sodomy. Blacks and hispanics will appreciate our stance as well. Gays are just not popular, and the people who like gays are almost all Democrats. Republicans typically are not as fond of the gays. If the Republican Party is trying to devise a systematic way to get Republican voters to hate Republican candidates, it’s to embrace gayness.
So, gays are 4% of the population.
Catholics are 24%. How do we get as many Catholic votes as gay votes we lose.
Let’s assume all the gays are voting for us. And we want to give all the gay votes, gay strategists, to the Democrats. We can just trade, maybe. We’ll keep paying their salaries,
put they work for Democrats, they call themselves Democrats, and we never talk to them again. We can take Chris Matthews. He at least understands white working class Catholics. Here’s a list of conservatives Chris, pick one out that the white working class Catholics will like. We won’t have to worry about offending gays with our message.
Ok, so we have an 8 point swing.
Let’s say the Catholics currently get 75% and we get 25%
That’s 18% of Catholics to Dems, and 6% to Reps. How can we make up for the loss of 8 points of gay votes.
Well, if we go from 75/25 to 50/50 with Catholics we make up
12 points. Dems would lose 6 points and we’d make up 6 points 12/12.
There are just many many more Catholic votes than gay votes, and that’s the vote you want. Skip the gays entirely.