Ashley McGuire has an interesting piece up at the Public Discourse about how conservatives let progressives frame the social issues during the last campaign, which was absolutely true. It is clear now that Mitt Romney took Mitch Daniels disastrous advice and called a truce on social issues.
McGuire says one of the real problems was the lack of attractive spokeswomen on social issues, those capable of fighting back against the “war on women.”
The Right needs to get some Sandra Flukes.
In general, the Left is very good about finding female policymakers and talking heads to rally the troops on issues that affect women. During the Planned Parenthood / Komen Foundation debacle, during the (ongoing) HHS mandate debate, and on anything related to abortion, equal pay, and so on, there is always a woman leading the front from their camp.
This past election cycle, whenever anyone so much as uttered the word “woman,” liberals trotted out Fluke, Wasserman-Shultz, Pelosi, Boxer, Gillibrand, Maddow . . . et alia.
The Right brought out . . . ?
We need more women out front. We should be actively cultivating a horde of Sandra Flukes. Carly Fiorina and Jane Norton should not have lost their races. Republicans should focus with special care on electing socially conservative female officeholders, especially senators and governors.
Admittedly we have less of a selection from which to choose, probably because socially conservative women are more likely to be home taking care of their husbands and children, rather than spinning on Sunday talk shows about how full-time moms like Ann Romney have never “worked a day” in their lives.
But nonetheless, it’s pretty simple. Think less crinkly faces and less gray hair. More lipstick and highlights. The women are there. Find them. Fund them. Elevate them.
On this point I think McGuire is simply wrong. Conservative women are known to be far more attractive then their progressive counterparts.
Who did the right bring out? The right brought out Michelle Bachman, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, Dana Perino not to mention activists like Lila Rose, Penny Nance and even my wife, Cathy. The list could go on and on. You may think that a few of these women were faulty vessels for our issues, but you cannot say they are not babes. Lots of great highlights, lots of lipstick, and not a “crinkly face” among them.
To be sure, McGuire is a welcome addition to them. She is smart, articulate and exponentially better looking than Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Sandra Fluke!
December 14th, 2012 | 2:13 pm
As one of the “crinkly faces” I am compelled to add that one of the problems with the right is that we concentrate too much on image and not enough on credentials and expertise. Every one of the women mentioned by Austin is a babe who ALSO has credentials and expertise (he could have added my daughter, Charmaine Yoest), but too often the right brings out lightweights up against the women of the left’s power and gravitas (look at McGuire’s list — lots of variety!). We have to cringe too often when our side is represented by someone who is ill-prepared and not representative of the high-calibre of women on the right.
December 14th, 2012 | 3:24 pm
I don’t hink she was comparign liberal women to conservative women. She was bemoaning the fact that most social conservative spokesmen didn’t wear lipstick becasue they were men.
Here was her message:
“Let the Women Do the Talking”
especially on rape. especially on contraception. get at least some women on healthcare and jobs.
December 14th, 2012 | 4:38 pm
Having had a wonderful lunch with Janice Crouse quite recently, I can say without hesitation she is not a crinkly face.
Regarding Jane Norton, I think she lost because her campaign and the PACs that supported it tried to play Buck’s “high heels” comment both ways.
Let’s face it. Conservatives are mean, at least that’s the line the old line media will always take. So conservative women can’t play for sympathy like Fluke did. Perhaps, to take the Norton/Buck example, instead of playing the outrage card, she should have reminded her primary opponent of something like the old saying about Ginger Rogers:
She did everything Fred Astaire did. But she did it backwards and in high heels.
December 15th, 2012 | 12:17 pm
I mean “dye-ers” – very different!
December 16th, 2012 | 12:50 pm
Focusing so much attention on the physical attractiveness of potential female spokespeople is not going to help matters in the least.
Perhaps conservatives should spend less time trying to find “babes” and more time trying to find capable, conservative women who are natural leaders and competent lawmakers.
By they way, the silly focus which side has the more attractive “babes” does NOTHING help dispel any stereotypes of misogynistic conservatives.
December 16th, 2012 | 12:57 pm
And I do understand that this post and McGuire’s post do focus on the relevant, and important attributes needed for successful conservative spokeswomen.
However, the fact that the conversation degenerated so quickly back into how attractive these smart and capable women are does no good.
December 17th, 2012 | 11:28 am
I don’t know where everyone else is looking that they never see conservative spokeswomen, speaking out about the so-called “women’s issues.” I run into them in every conservative forum I regularly encounter.
But it’s heads we win, tails you lose. Kathryn Jean Lopez makes an argument that women aren’t allowed to make, and we’re told she’s too fat, too Catholic, and too undersexed to be allowed to have a voice. Then the liberals complain that only old men are speaking out for conservatism, because the women who do it don’t count anyway.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact