How lame has Wendy Davis's candidacy for Texas governor gotten? Now she and her supporters are suggesting that Greg Abbott would defend a ban on interracial marriage. The only problem with that insinuation is that he himself is in an interracial marriage and he proudly touts his wife's heritage in his campaign. Oh, and such a ban would be unconstitutional since the Supreme Court 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia. As Allahpundit writes, perhaps the reason she is running such an awful campaign is that she's really running to be an MSNBC commentator, not a Texas governor.
That point is often made half-jokingly by righties to needle Davis over her dumb, quixotic quest to win election in one of America’s most conservative states as an abortion crusader, but it would help explain some of her bizarre moves lately. As Guy Benson says, she accused Abbott 10 days ago of being a disabled man who doesn’t care about the disabled; now she’s accusing him of being a man in an interracial marriage who somehow opposes interracial marriage. None of that makes sense as a serious tactic to win a statewide election in Texas but it does make some sense as a way to get the attention of the sort of angry liberal given to watching MSNBC. Both of those attacks on Abbott depict him as a callous hypocrite who disdains people from more marginalized parts of the population, the very core of the lefty caricature of Republicans. It won’t help her become governor, but then that battle was lost months ago. Might as well shiv Abbott a few times during her last few weeks in the spotlight to maximize her value to hardcore liberal partisans going forward.
But then, what do the Democrats have other than to demonize Republicans as Neanderthals who want to keep women barefoot in the kitchen? Mona Charen writes,
Republicans, whipsawed by the results of 2012 races that featured large gender gaps, particularly among single women, and aware that women have trended Democrat for decades, seem bewildered. A Karl Rove-commissioned study found that women voters consider the Republican Party “intolerant” and “lacking in compassion.” Consultants, gnawing nervously on polling and demographic data, implore Republican candidates to emphasize economic questions and soft-pedal the social issues. The candidates themselves, uncomfortable with the whole subject and wondering why they can’t just discuss the capital gains tax, mumble about how much they love their wives and eye the exits.But there are topics that Republicans can talk about instead of giving into the Democratic caricatures of Republicans who are obsessed with reproductive issues. As Charen argues, the real problem for Republicans with single-women voters is that women are risk averse.
Democrats are running against monsters. They are running to protect American women from the hostile, patriarchal, domineering men of the Republican Party. (Chivalry is not dead!) In the Democrats’ ghoulish caricature, Republicans are not just wrong on the issues that women care about, but are barely above criminals. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, used rhetoric only slightly more florid than the Democratic norm when she said of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, “What Republican Tea Party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.”
As the American Enterprise Institute’s Karlyn Bowman has noted, women are consistently more risk-averse than men. They are more skeptical of military force, for example, and more likely to express nervousness about nuclear power. Women express more anxiety about terrorism and about health scares such as Ebola. Guns make them uncomfortable, and they dislike “stand your ground” laws. Financial planners find that men are more open to risky investments than women, who prefer safety. Bowman notes that when pollsters ask fanciful questions, such as whether one would accept the offer of a ride in a spacecraft, “the gender gap becomes a chasm.”And there are ways for Republicans to fight back against the ludicrous Democratic charges that the GOP opposes equal pay for women.
Risk aversion may be the key to understanding women’s votes. It would explain single women’s support of the Democratic Party, with its “Life of Julia” promises of government support. Married women, with husbands to rely on, are less drawn to Big Brother. The crude shorthand that single women are looking to the government to be a husband is probably accurate to a point.
Equal pay for equal work, for example, has been the law since 1963. No Republican opposes it. They should heap scorn on the accusation and then emphasize Republican support for flex-time laws and job sharing, measures that are particularly helpful to and popular among women. Republicans have even gotten some chuckles pointing out that using the bogus measures Democrats always employ about the economy — simply adding up salaries and then comparing men with women without regard to time on the job, skill level, or any other factor — the White House and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are paying women less than men....
The electorate, as the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Henry Olsen observes, is like a three-dimensional chessboard. Single women tend to support Democrats, but you can slice it another way and say single women tend to be black and Hispanic. The Democrats’ playbook is to Balkanize voters and appeal to each constituency separately, often with scare tactics. This leaves the field open to Republicans to rip away the fright mask and craft a message that appeals across categories. They needn’t win a majority of resistant groups to win elections; losing single women, blacks, or Hispanics by smaller margins would do the trick. So would drawing more men or married voters to the polls.
Republicans should not fear women voters. They are not an army of Sandra Fluke shock troops. They are repelled by perceived extremism, and they are interested in whether a candidate can improve daily life. If Republicans don’t believe their ideas are better for women as well as for men, and if they lack the confidence to make their case forcefully, especially when they are caricatured and slandered, they should find another line of work.
Noemie Emery refutes the premises underlying Matt Bai's new book, All the Truth is Out, that Gary Hart this sharp candidate brought down by a new wave of media focus on candidates' personal lives. Er, no.
So the administration is now arguing that Obamacare exchanges can't survive without federal subsidies.
Mary Landrieu tries to convince voters that her 7,300 house in Washington, D.C. is not a mansion. Sure.
Another day another hint of Kay Hagan's self-dealing corruption.
Just a week after Sen. Kay Hagan (D., N.C.) recommended a North Carolina judge to President Barack Obama for a seat in the U.S. District Court, the judge ruled in favor of a company partially owned by Hagan’s husband.
The senator’s husband, Charles T. “Chip” Hagan, was a managing member of Hydrodyne Industries LLC when it sued a regional water authority for drawing water out of a river that had one of its hydroelectric dams built on. The lawsuit sought millions of dollars in damages and was carried out by Chip Hagan’s legal firm.
Superior Court Judge Calvin E. Murphy ruled the case in favor of Hydrodyne, setting the table for the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority to pay millions in damages to companies including Hydrodyne.
Murphy’s ruling was made on Oct. 23, 2009, just nine days after Sen. Hagan sent his name to Obama to be nominated for a lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court for Western North Carolina.
Barack Obama keeps sabotaging Democratic candidates by stressing how these senators running for reelection already vote with him to support his agenda. I'm sure they appreciate that.
And who says that there is no voter fraud going on? And it was all caught on video.
The every witty Mark Steyn is out with a new collection of his essays and columns, The Undocumented Mark Steyn. Sounds like a fun read.