Despite what liberals, Democrats, and the legacy media (but I repeat myself) would have you believe about us dudes on the right, most of us love strong women. From the time I was very young, all of my female examples were tough women; my Grandma was a tough old farmwife who raised six kids on a small plot during the Depression. My Mom was likewise a tough farmwife and rural lady, and now I'm married to a woman (going on 33 years now) who is, like me, a Desert Storm veteran and who has more physical and emotional courage than anyone I've ever known. The ranks of the right are replete with strong, capable women. 

But the Democrats? Not so much, it seems. The Democrats have tried the whole "historic first" thing twice now in trying to land the first woman president in the White House. They tried in 2016 with Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, Dowager-Empress of Chappaqua, who lost to Donald Trump. They tried again in 2024, with Kamala "Queen of Word Salads" Harris, who lost to... Donald Trump.

You'd think they would be recognizing a pattern by now.

Of course, the reason Her Imperial Majesty and the Word Salad Queen lost wasn't because they were women. That's what the left is claiming, of course, with strident cries of "sexism." But that's not it at all. The two Democrat candidates failed in the elections because they were awful candidates; one was mean, arrogant, and entitled, while the other was inarticulate, poorly informed, and frankly not very bright, despite which and all evidence to the contrary she expected to win, right up until the last moment.

Which begs the question: Will the first woman president be a Republican? Well, the Dems sure aren't doing very well. An op-ed at the Washington Examiner raises some interesting points on that score.

Both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Kamala Harris lost to President-elect Donald Trump in earth-shattering fashion. During their respective runs, Clinton and Harris were viewed as inevitable and deserving. Each was conferred the special ability to make history by becoming the first female president, ending the United States’s patriarchal domination once and for all. At least, this is the narrative they sold.

Each campaign should have been about the best Democrat for the job, who just happened to be a woman. Instead, the campaigns were so focused on breaking a glass ceiling that all things became secondary to the biology of their candidates. 

That's precisely right. These candidates were about "OMG HISTORY-MAKING" rather than actually picking a candidate that would, you know, win the election. Of course, they tried that route with Joe Biden, and look where that got them. What the Democrats don't seem to understand about elections, especially the one that just concluded, is that the American people are looking for a bit more in the Chief Executive than melanin content and whether the candidate is a setter or a pointer.

And that's why the first Madam President is likely to be a Republican - and won't that send the Democrats into a tizzy!

Time will tell who becomes the first female presidential candidate for the Republican Party, but it’s safe to say she won’t focus on sex and gender above all else. There’s no reason to exclude the achievement of making history, but that should never be a main motivation for any candidate. It’s a tiresome, superficial strategy that clearly does not work. Beyond that, the nation deserves so much more than a leader who includes among her top goals the desire to soothe progressive sensibilities.

As it happens, I have a few thoughts on who that first candidate could be - although, if things go well, we will hopefully be looking at President-elect JD Vance four years from this day (and when that happens, I intend to be right here writing about it).

See Related: BREAKING: Kamala Harris Finally Calls Donald Trump to Concede

WOW: A Preview of Kamala's Tuesday Night Speech Shows She Is 'Unstable' and 'Obsessed With Revenge'

But the GOP has many strong, capable women that could fill that role. Tulsi Gabbard, new to the ranks of the Republicans, not only appears to have the zeal of the convert but has already made the run once on the other side - and she is not only smart but thoughtful. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been a successful governor, always a good stepping-stone into the White House, as has South Dakota's Kristi Noem. There are, of course, many more.

So will the first Madam President be a Republican? It's hard to say, really; predictions are hard to make, especially about the future. But here's something to chew on: if the GOP nominates a woman to run for president, the decision won't be because of her skin color or chromosome balance. It will be because she is strong, capable, and committed to the principles of liberty and property - to a strong, prosperous America. In other words, she won't get the nod because of her sex, but because she is who the GOP chooses as the best candidate.

That's a lesson that the Democrats could stand to learn. But, if this election just concluded is an indication, let's hope they never figure it out.