There has been much written about the Republican Party not being “inclusive.” Democrats and liberals often describe the GOP as the “party of old white men.” Thus, many on the other side believe that the GOP is increasingly relying upon an increasingly insignificant part of the electoral demographic- white males. While it may be true that in 2012 Obama won the “Hispanic vote,” the “black vote,” the “youth vote,” and the “women’s vote,” all of this simply plays into the Democratic/liberal propensity to play the identity group game. The only problem with that is it makes an assumption that all blacks, all Hispanics, all women, and all people under the age of 24 accept and believe in liberal or Democratic Party principles. What makes the Democratic Party make such assumptions is simple- their policies buy off these groups. For blacks, its liberal social welfare programs that enslaves them to the government. For Hispanics, its liberal immigration reform and open borders. For the young, its unlimited access to college despite one’s ability to succeed in college coupled with the government underwriting their financial obligations. For women, it is creating the image that the GOP is “at war” with women on a single issue.
While it may be true that as recent as maybe 10 years ago the Republican Party was more white, male-dominated than today, Democrats fail to see today’s reality. It is this Party that claims the Republicans are living in the past, yet everything about the Democrats indicates that it is they who are “living in the past.” This can be seen in their adherence to old New Deal or Great Society programs which date to the 1930s, 1940s, and 1960s. That is, their policies are at least 50 years old. So it would come as no surprise that the talking head of the Democratic National Committee, Florida representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would “tweet” this on August 7th:
The GOP’s having a hard time recruiting female candidates. With their policy stance on limiting women’s rights, is anyone really surprised?
Let us leave aside elections in 2013 for a moment and proceed to the 2014 midterm elections. One needs to ask Ms. Wasserman-Schultz exactly how many female Democratic Governors are there? The answer is one: Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire. And how many Republican female Governors are there? Let’s see: there is Jan Brewer in Arizona, Susana Martinez in New Mexico, Mary Fallin in Oklahoma and Nikki Haley in South Carolina. That looks like the GOP is up on the Democrats 4-1 as far as female Governors goes. Granted, they may not be what Wasserman-Schultz considers her ideal “female” governor, but they satisfy the biological definition nevertheless. In the Senate, Democrats have 16 and the Republicans have 4 although the Democrats would likely say there are only two real women in Murkowski and Collins since they often vote with Democrats. In their worldview, conservative female Senators like Kelly Ayotte and Deb Fischer are not “real women.” In the House, obviously the Democrats enjoy a huge advantage, but get outside the liberal strongholds of California and New York and certain urban areas elsewhere, and the numbers do not look so great. Does a female Democratic candidate in the mold of DWS or a Nancy Pelosi really have a realistic chance of electoral success in a state like Arkansas? In fact, we cannot even use Pelosi since she is a female prototype created at some robotics company in La Jolla, California.
But, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is talking about (or more appropriately, tweeting about) recruiting female candidates for office. Just looking at 2014 Governor or Lt. Governor “recruits,” the GOP has Lesil McGuire in Alaska, Debra Hobbs in Arkansas, Susana Martinez in New Mexico, Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Miriam Martinez in Texas and Cindy Hill in Wyoming while the Dems have Heather Mizeur in Maryland, Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire, Linda Lopez in New Mexico, Alyson Schwartz and Kathleen McGinty in Pennsylvania, and Elizabeth Roberts in Rhode Island. That puts the count at 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Other than perhaps Hassan and Schwartz, the remaining female Democrats are long shots. Hence, it would appear that the female Democrats that DWS apparently accounts for are, in fact, losers. Among the GOP females, perhaps only Hobbs and Hill do not have realistic chances of being their party’s nominee.
Regarding the House, let us put aside liberal strongholds like California and New York and areas representing large urban areas where the Democrats can run a bisexual horse and it would probably win over a Republican. In this area, Democrats lead Republicans 26-18 in female representatives. Although they could do better, the actual numbers are not as bad as people like DWS make them to be. Her problem is that women like Virginia Foxx or Renee Elmers or Cynthia Lummis do not fit her picture of the ideal woman. To liberals like DWS, they do not truly represent women unless they walk and talk lockstep with the likes of NARAL, Planned Parenthood and NOW. In fact, one could say that it is liberals like DWS who are the true sexists and at war with any woman who does not meet their checklist of preconceptions. What can be more sexist than pigeon-holing women and stereotyping them based on a single issue like “reproductive rights?”
Liberals love the war mentality and metaphor and why not? It has served them well in the past. Of course, when it comes to true wars, like that on terrorism, they change the name and drop the “war” moniker. They wouldn’t want to upset the feelings or sensibilities of Muslims. Yet, they have no compunctions against essentially denigrating women who happen to disagree with them on certain issues. The Democrats may have had the few female recruits with a decent or about even chance of making a 2014 midterm race be competitive- Michelle Nunn in Georgia and Alison Lunderman Grimes in Kentucky come to mind. But, there are certainly strong female possibilities also running. Wendy Rogers in Arizona’s 9th district and Mia Love in Utah’s 4th district readily come to mind. One would defeat a white male Democrat (in Utah) and one would…well, this isn’t fair. Currently, Arizona’s 9th District is represented by Krysten Sinema, a bisexual, so depending on which way the wind blows, Rogers could defeat a male or female? Leaving sexual preference du jour aside, we’ll go with genetics and say a female. Furthermore, in the longer term, there is a more than capable stable of female Republicans who can make the step to higher office should they decide to do so in the future.