Skip to comments.Women Decide for Whom the Buck Stops
Posted on 10/19/2012 6:17:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
There's a new woman voter out there. Empowered women are holding themselves to the same standard they hold men to, and it's showing up in the public opinion polls. Female concerns over the debt and the deficit, not the usual gender issues, have dramatically increased as the Nov. 6 election bears down upon us.
The Gallup Poll now shows Mitt Romney trailing the president by only a point among women who are likely to vote in 12 swing states. This follows a Pew Research Center poll taken after the first presidential debate showing that President Obama's 18-point lead among women had shrunk to a tie, 47 percent to 47 percent.
"In every poll, we've seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told USA Today after the first debate. These polls find women increasingly concerned with the deficit and debt, just like men. The social issues continue to be more important to women than to men, but these issues no longer dominate the discussion.
Hillary Clinton's famous needling of Barack Obama four years ago -- "the buck stops in the Oval Office" -- suggested that he didn't have the leadership qualities required in a president. She reprised the theme this week, inadvertently or not, when she fell on the president's sword to take the blame for the national-security fiasco in Libya.
Her attempt to rescue the president with her declaration that "the buck stops with me" follows the litany of mixed metaphors in search of someone to blame for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in the terrorist assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The president stands accused of "throwing Hillary under the bus," she's accused of "getting Obama off the hook," and the State Department has become the "broken link" in "the chain of events" of a major security failure. The "failure of intelligence" contributes a new definition of incompetence at the highest levels of government.
When a president hides behind the skirt, or actually the pantsuit, of his secretary of state, it's enough to tempt even a feminist to put national security above the social issues.
Mrs. Clinton can't like the position she has been relegated to, taking responsibility for the president's own debacle after weeks of White House misinformation. Her lame lamentation that she wanted to avoid "some kind of political gotcha" so close to the election makes her look less than authoritative even as it renders the president as weak and confused. She was busy enough trying to defend the robotic Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, for her repeated description of the Benghazi terrorism as "spontaneous" protest of an obscure anti-Islam Internet video that almost nobody, in the Middle East or elsewhere, has seen.
Ironically, Hillary fell on the president's sword from a perch in Peru, where she is attending a conference devoted to, of all things, "women's empowerment." It hasn't been a good fortnight for the ladies in leadership positions. Candy Crowley, the moderator of the second debate, got it wrong when she misconstrued Obama's use of the word "terror" in his Rose Garden remarks speech the day after the Benghazi tragedy, and had to concede that Romney was correct that the president refused for two weeks to say that the death of his ambassador in Libya was an act of "terrorism" and not a violent movie review.
Many women are exacting a heavy price for the president's alienation of affection. Susan Crown, a pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage Chicago businesswoman, is one prominent example. She is a fallen-away Obama fan who campaigns this year for Romney. She argues that the so-called war on women is actually an economic war on everybody. She observes that the annual household income has dropped by an average of $4,000 since the president took office, a fact emphasized by Mitt Romney in the second debate, with the acid observation that, "I do not think Barack Obama has ever taken an accounting class."
In the second debate, Romney looked deeper into the dark side of Obama accounting, finding that 3.5 million more women are living in poverty than before he took charge of the economy. Women understand that an economy with 7.8 percent unemployment, when half of college graduates can't find good jobs, is not good for anyone.
In the first presidential debate Romney destroyed the straw man that the president constructed to represent the challenger. In the second debate, he destroyed the prospect that the straw man could be resurrected. Three weeks on, women and men will finally decide for whom the buck stops.
Was the brain included in those “women parts” the President was talking about a couple of weeks back?
***There’s a new woman voter out there.***
A little beside the point, but I wonder if this is an indication that Sarah Palin will now get a fair shot for ‘16 or ‘20.
I hope so.
I think the "D" behind leftist politician names stands for 'Degrading'. They degrade blacks to the welfare plantation & racial issues and they degrade women to their 'women parts'. I can't speak for blacks, but women are voting with their smarts, not their parts and I suspect Obama & the Dems will find that out Nov. 6.
The second big reason (probably the BIGGEST reason today), is that Tax burdens have FORCED women in the household to bring additional income to keep up with rising costs, and those ever-overbearing Taxes.
It is very rare today to find a married household with a stay-at-home-Mom, and it shows in the societal behavior of children and teens, un-mistakedly.
The natural child-bearing/child-rearing of the past has been tampered with, and we get society as we have it today.....It's not NICE to fool Mother Nature.
I'm praying that the number of MATURE women, not the Fluke-type immature women, are going to go and vote with their heads. There's too many Hollywood/State-Run-Media-indoctrinated women out there who think THEY are "cool", "trendy", and have bought into the loose lifestyles and hype.
Liberals, especially shrieking, contempt-filled feminists, are always harping about how men think with their private parts. Yet now, they’re telling us women to vote our “lady parts.” Disgusting, but typical lib logic.
Since Obama is having trouble getting women to support him by trying to get them to vote for him by thinking with their sexual organs, he might have to switch strategies and try to get men to vote for him by getting them to think with their penises.
Look for ads promising free Viagra for men if Obama is re-elected.
That is such a great insight, PM. We hear this stuff about women all the time, but what if it were reversed.
What if we had Obama arguing nationally for free rubbers for men.
Can you imagine a single man whose vote would be swayed by that? Surely women see how dumb the contraceptive argument has become.
Vote for me because I'll get you a free pill??? a free diaphragm???
That is such an empty, ignorant, national level campaign strategy. C'mon....surely there's more than that!
It's an insult to any woman, I'd think. What female voter could it possibly appeal to except Sandra Fluck...and she's so well-heeled already that you know she's lying.
Freebies appeal to people who aren’t principled or smart enough to realize there is a price paid somewhere for that freebie. The contraception/abortificant freebies are designed to not only appeal to the “freebie” crowd, but also to those whose main issue is abortion. It makes no sense, but the way this mandate to insurance companies was framed was that the administration was making sure womens’ rights are protected (abortion).
Fortunately, or unfortunately depending how you view it, more and more women are realizing that the economy has taken more choices away from them than offering “free” birth control will ever make up for. Try buying groceries or other items for the household on the same, or lower, income as four years ago. All the coupon shopping in the world still can’t make up for the increases that women see at the checkout.
How about all the women who have had their children move back in with them....or those who have been forced to move in with their parent(s)?
How about all the women who have lost their homes, their savings accounts, their small business....the list goes on.
The hope is gone. The people who will vote for obama are committed liberals, those who are scared to lose their freebies, and the total morons (which includes the liberals, of course).
You are absolutely right, of course.
I can't help but think of the inner city grifter politician who has to choose between offering a bottle of booze or a diaphragm as a bribe for a vote.
I'm guessing he wouldn't have to spend even a second figuring that one out.
Switching the freebie contraceptives along with Viagra to men is a great way to ruin the Marxist’s vacuous stunt.
I love it.
wouldn’t it be fun to see what iowahawk or mark steyn would write on a topic like that: Vote for Me and Get Free Viagra and Rubbers!
“Hi I’m Bob...and I EXTENZ my support to Barry!”
Obama’s new slogan...The Fitty Cent Stops Here.
Thanks for sharing your view, dear xzins!
There's documentary evidence on a wall in Pompeii that a man running in an election for city office paid someone to chalk up walls with the slogan, "Vote for Jucundus. He gives good bread." People used to hope out loud, when the subject of Jucundus and Roman elections came up, that things wouldn't come to that in America.