The role of women in the past election

[AKC]

Strong women may very well have held substantial sway in this past federal election, but what’s surprising is the difference variety of “strong” women in the eye of the hurricane. After reading some of the campaign accounts of both camps it strikes me that Bush probably gained 5 or 6 points among women by surrounding himself with strong, intelligent women like Karen Hughes, Condoleeza and his nationally adored wife while Kerry was apparently subjugated by a different strong woman, a wife who can accurately be characterized as a bit loony. There was also talk of bringing Kerry’s first wife into the campaign but wiser heads seem to have prevailed in keeping a woman who apparently been in “seclusion” since ’88 suffering from mental health issues below the radar. I’ve got to believe that this difference in the candidates own choices of the types of women they choose to surround themselves with was hardly lost on the female voters around our country, an area the Dems hoped to exploit but fell well short of pre-election expectations.

 

While traditionally not much weight is given to the influence of the First Lady on voter tallies, it may well have been a big part in the outcome of this past election. Democrats may do well to rethink their own vetting process in the next cycle by looking at the totality of their candidate’s assets and liabilities.

[CoachChuckDickerson]

Soccer Moms became Security Moms. Had nothing to do with who Bush surrounded himself with. It was on factor. Fear.

[Mickey]

Strong women may very well have held substantial sway in this past federal election, but what’s surprising is the difference variety of “strong” women in the eye of the hurricane. After reading some of the campaign accounts of both camps it strikes me that Bush probably gained 5 or 6 points among women by surrounding himself with strong, intelligent women like Karen Hughes, Condoleeza and his nationally adored wife while Kerry was apparently subjugated by a different strong woman, a wife who can accurately be characterized as a bit loony. There was also talk of bringing Kerry’s first wife into the campaign but wiser heads seem to have prevailed in keeping a woman who apparently been in “seclusion” since ’88 suffering from mental health issues below the radar. I’ve got to believe that this difference in the candidates own choices of the types of women they choose to surround themselves with was hardly lost on the female voters around our country, an area the Dems hoped to exploit but fell well short of pre-election expectations.

 

While traditionally not much weight is given to the influence of the First Lady on voter tallies, it may well have been a big part in the outcome of this past election. Democrats may do well to rethink their own vetting process in the next cycle by looking at the totality of their candidate’s assets and liabilities.

150391[/snapback]

 

How surprising. You find that Mrs Bush is "nationally adored" while Kerry's first wife and second wife are both lunatics. How clearly objective. I also think women would appreciate your point that they cast their votes based on what they thought of each candidates spouse rather than the actual candidates and their policies.

 

Kerry did far better among women than did Bush. Why not conclude that therefore woman found him to be the better candidate because they weren't impressed with the "nationally adored" Mrs. Bush or Condoleeza or the brought out of retirement just before the election Karen Hughes?

[AKC]

How surprising.  You find that Mrs Bush is "nationally adored" while Kerry's first wife and second wife are both lunatics.  How clearly objective.  I also think women would appreciate your point that they cast their votes based on what they thought of each candidates spouse rather than the actual candidates and their policies.

 

Kerry did far better among women than did Bush.  Why not conclude that therefore woman found him to be the better candidate because they weren't impressed with the "nationally adored" Mrs. Bush or Condoleeza or the brought out of retirement just before the election Karen Hughes?

150559[/snapback]

 

You can hide from the truth, it's become a way of life for the left, but national polls show that Laura Bush is one of the most adored first ladies since numbers began to be taken for them (I assume you adore Jackie O, who had similar numbers?). One does not have to admire Karen Hughes and Dr. Rice to realize they are strong, stable and intelligent, not the kind of women who would prescribe gin soaked raisins for the arthritic!

 

But hey, if you submit a resume early Shrum may have some openings for partisans in blinders like yourself- Good luck in '08!

[blzrul]

As I woman I can honestly say I NEVER consider a candidate's spouse. Never. It's immaterial and a non-issue. It's a judgement based on superficialities, no different than judging by the candidate's hair color, cut or suit or personal mannerisms.

 

I don't adore Mrs. Bush and I don't hate her. I never think of her just like I never thought of Pat Nixon, Lady Bird Johnson, Nancy Reagan, Roslyn Carter, Barbara Bush, Hillary, etc.

 

I likewise don't adore either Karen Hughes or Condi Rice. They are both smart women, no doubt about it, but I wouldn't want to be like either one of them.

 

And by the you'd find that anyone who ever met me, and quite a few who haven't, consider me to be a VERY strong woman. So I guess I am in a better position to judge than some.

[Mickey]

You can hide from the truth, it's become a way of life for the left, but national polls show that Laura Bush is one of the most adored first ladies since numbers began to be taken for them (I assume you adore Jackie O, who had similar numbers?). One does not have to admire Karen Hughes and Dr. Rice to realize they are strong, stable and intelligent, not the kind of women who would prescribe gin soaked raisins for the arthritic!

 

But hey, if you submit a resume early Shrum may have some openings for partisans in blinders like yourself- Good luck in '08!

150587[/snapback]

Do national polls indicate that both of Kerry's wives are lunatics?

As for the "nationally adored" one, is that what the polls said, that people "adored" her or is that your spin on a poll that simply said people had a "favorable view" of her or "liked" her?

[DC Tom]

As I woman I can honestly say I NEVER consider a candidate's spouse. Never.  It's immaterial and a non-issue.  It's a judgement based on superficialities, no different than judging by the candidate's hair color, cut or suit or personal mannerisms.

 

I don't adore Mrs. Bush and I don't hate her.  I never think of her just like I never thought of Pat Nixon, Lady Bird Johnson, Nancy Reagan, Roslyn Carter, Barbara Bush, Hillary, etc. 

 

I likewise don't adore either Karen Hughes or Condi Rice.  They are both smart women, no doubt about it, but I wouldn't want to be like either one of them.

 

And by the you'd find that anyone who ever me met, and quite a few who haven't, consider me to be a VERY strong woman.  So I guess I am in a better position to judge than some.

150681[/snapback]

 

Not judging, but...

 

Even Hillary Clinton? I know a lot of people who supported Bill Clinton's campaign in part because they thought his wife's professional background and abilities would be a decided asset to his presidency. Events didn't necessarily turn out that way (though not for lack of trying, really), but I could certainly understand their point of view.

 

Making a judgement based on Teresa Heinz-Kerry's abrasive personality or Jackie Kennedy's taste in hats is pretty obviously a stupid way to back a candidate, but do you really think that if a potential first lady brings real skills to the table she still should bear no consideration?

[Chef Jim]

As I woman I can honestly say I NEVER consider a candidate's spouse. Never.  It's immaterial and a non-issue.  It's a judgement based on superficialities, no different than judging by the candidate's hair color, cut or suit or personal mannerisms.

 

I don't adore Mrs. Bush and I don't hate her.  I never think of her just like I never thought of Pat Nixon, Lady Bird Johnson, Nancy Reagan, Roslyn Carter, Barbara Bush, Hillary, etc. 

 

I likewise don't adore either Karen Hughes or Condi Rice.  They are both smart women, no doubt about it, but I wouldn't want to be like either one of them.

 

And by the you'd find that anyone who ever met me, and quite a few who haven't, consider me to be a VERY strong woman.  So I guess I am in a better position to judge than some.

150681[/snapback]

 

Do you really think that any first lady has no say in a President's decision making process. Most husbands, me included, trust our wives opinion enough to ask what they think of certain things. You must have a pretty low opinion of woman if you think that none of the First Ladies are capable of an influential opinion.

[blzrul]

Do you really think that any first lady has no say in a President's decision making process.  Most husbands, me included, trust our wives opinion enough to ask what they think of certain things.  You must have a pretty low opinion of woman if you think that none of the First Ladies are capable of an influential opinion.

150775[/snapback]

Would you please point out to me where I said ANY OF THAT in my post?!

 

Unlike you, I do not PRESUME. Certainly I believe that husbands and wives talk. But as an outsider who doesn't know EITHER person or the dynamics of their relationship outside what they feed to the public through the press, making a decision based on a spouse would be a very shallow judgement indeed.

 

If that's part of your judgement process, that's you, not me.

[DC Tom]

Would you please point out to me where I said ANY OF THAT in my post?!

 

Unlike you, I do not PRESUME.  Certainly I believe that husbands and wives talk.  But as an outsider who doesn't know EITHER person or the dynamics of their relationship outside what they feed to the public through the press, making a decision based on a spouse would be a very shallow judgement indeed.

 

If that's part of your judgement process, that's you, not me.

150802[/snapback]

 

You could have just responded to my post. I think I said generally the same thing...but I was much nicer about it.

[blzrul]

You could have just responded to my post.  I think I said generally the same thing...but I was much nicer about it.  

150815[/snapback]

Actually I didn't see your post, sorry. And no I never paid much attention to Hillary either. I never heard of Clinton until he ran for President, I don't pay attention to Arkansas and never will, and didn't care who he married or anything else.

 

I know people who know Hillary, now, and who like her.

 

If I don't give a rat's ass what after shave a celebrity wears, or what car he/she drives, why would I care about the spouse of a politician?

 

The sad fact is these days Eleanor Roosevelt would be put on an ice floe.

 

And you were nicer but I don't have to be nice to CJ because he is always just looking to attack anything I say.

[Chef Jim]

Would you please point out to me where I said ANY OF THAT in my post?!

 

Unlike you, I do not PRESUME.  Certainly I believe that husbands and wives talk.  But as an outsider who doesn't know EITHER person or the dynamics of their relationship outside what they feed to the public through the press, making a decision based on a spouse would be a very shallow judgement indeed.

 

If that's part of your judgement process, that's you, not me.

150802[/snapback]

 

It sure is easy to torque your wingnut. And if you don't ever consider the candidate's spouse, maybe you should. If memory serves me correctly didn't one come close to drafting a government policy on healthcare that was a disaster?

 

And I do believe calling a spouse of a candidate superficial is pretty much the same as saying their opinions are not influential?

[AKC]

Do national polls indicate that both of Kerry's wives are lunatics?

As for the "nationally adored" one, is that what the polls said, that people "adored" her or is that your spin on a poll that simply said people had a "favorable view" of her or "liked" her?

150687[/snapback]

 

Run and hide if you can't face facts- it does nothing to save the diminishing significance of the Democratic Party.

 

Try this poll from Seattle- last I checked hardly a bastion of right leaning politics:

 

http://www.kgnw.com/poll/viewall.asp?ID=2863

 

As far as his first wife, I understand she was institutionalized and continues to suffer from mental health disorders. Here's the dictionary version to answer your question:

 

lunacy

 

\Lu"na*cy\, n.; pl. Lunacies. [see Lunatic.] 1. Insanity or madness; properly, the kind of insanity which is broken by intervals of reason, -- formerly supposed to be influenced by the changes of the moon; any form of unsoundness of mind, except idiocy; mental derangement or alienation.

 

I think it's fair to say either of his wives pictures could appear after the definition!

[blzrul]

Run and hide if you can't face facts- it does nothing to save the diminishing significance of the Democratic Party.

 

Try this poll from Seattle- last I checked hardly a bastion of right leaning politics:

 

http://www.kgnw.com/poll/viewall.asp?ID=2863

 

As far as his first wife, I understand she was institutionalized and continues to suffer from mental health disorders.  Here's the dictionary version to answer your question:

 

lunacy

 

\Lu"na*cy\, n.; pl. Lunacies. [see Lunatic.] 1. Insanity or madness; properly, the kind of insanity which is broken by intervals of reason, -- formerly supposed to be influenced by the changes of the moon; any form of unsoundness of mind, except idiocy; mental derangement or alienation.

 

I think it's fair to say either of his wives pictures could appear after the definition!

150904[/snapback]

 

So what? Who cares?

[blzrul]

It sure is easy to torque your wingnut.    And if you don't ever consider the candidate's spouse, maybe you should.  If memory serves me correctly didn't one come close to drafting a government policy on healthcare that was a disaster? 

 

And I do believe calling a spouse of a candidate superficial is pretty much the same as saying their opinions are not influential?

150858[/snapback]

You have no knowledge (1) how informed the spouse is (2) what the spouses's REAL opinions are (3) what the spouse actually SAYS (4) how receptive the candidate is to the spouses's opinions.

 

That being the case why would ANYONE weight a spouse heavily one way or another?

 

One doesn't know how influential - or not - the spouse's opinions are. So if you want to ASSUME, well go right ahead.

[Mickey]

Run and hide if you can't face facts- it does nothing to save the diminishing significance of the Democratic Party.

 

Try this poll from Seattle- last I checked hardly a bastion of right leaning politics:

 

http://www.kgnw.com/poll/viewall.asp?ID=2863

 

As far as his first wife, I understand she was institutionalized and continues to suffer from mental health disorders.  Here's the dictionary version to answer your question:

 

lunacy

 

\Lu"na*cy\, n.; pl. Lunacies. [see Lunatic.] 1. Insanity or madness; properly, the kind of insanity which is broken by intervals of reason, -- formerly supposed to be influenced by the changes of the moon; any form of unsoundness of mind, except idiocy; mental derangement or alienation.

 

I think it's fair to say either of his wives pictures could appear after the definition!

150904[/snapback]

I am still waiting for an answer to the questions I posed. All you have done is present an undated local radio station poll where the respondents indicated they thought Theresa was hurting Kerry's chances. You go from that to concluding that she is a lunatic? I wonder, did you know of that poll before your assertion that she was a lunatic or did you dig it up afterward in an attempt to justify the conclusions you already reached with no research beyond the last Limbaugh rant you listened to?

 

So, it is your "understanding" that she was institutionalized? Do you have anything better than your "understanding" by way of proof? Forgive me if I am reluctant to slur a total stranger based on your "understanding".

 

Again, I await your links to polls showing that Mrs. Bush is nationally "adored" as opposed to "liked", "respected", etc. 51 million people voted against her husband so apparently not everyone "adores" her or is stupid enough to cast their vote based on their personal like or dislike for the candidates spouse.

[AKC]

I am still waiting for an answer to the questions I posed.  All you have done is present an undated local radio station poll where the respondents indicated they thought Theresa was hurting Kerry's chances.  You go from that to concluding that she is a lunatic?  I wonder, did you know of that poll before your assertion that she was a lunatic or did you dig it up afterward in an attempt to justify the conclusions you already reached with no research beyond the last Limbaugh rant you listened to?

 

So, it is your "understanding" that she was institutionalized?  Do you have anything better than your "understanding" by way of proof?  Forgive me if I am reluctant to slur a total stranger based on your "understanding". 

 

Again, I await your links to polls showing that Mrs. Bush is nationally "adored" as opposed to "liked", "respected", etc.  51 million people voted against her husband so apparently not everyone "adores" her or is stupid enough to cast their vote based on their personal like or dislike for the candidates spouse.

151117[/snapback]

 

There is little more unAmerican or gutless than making broad challenges to the intelligence of Americans based upon their voting for someone they believe would better protect the liberal bastions of America.

 

Proportionately the red states are overepresented in the body bags returned from all our modern conflicts. In the current conflict we face, one clearly against a religious culture centered in the Middle East, it is not the Tastee Freeze in Oldham, Alabama that is threatened, nor the Civil War Statue in Wickham, Kansas. What is threatened are the same cowardly liberals in our big cities who will hold their children out of serving in the military.

 

How ironic that the finest among us, those who would go to protect the liberal cities like New York, could be attacked by those same gutless liberals for protecting them! You truly should reexamine your own inability to exhibit appreciation for this wonderful country we live in by showing- if not respect for those who would die for your right to whine- at least the self-control of not calling into question the intelligence level of those same heroes.

 

One measure of Patriotism is showing the restraint to avoid insulting those in the military with more balls than you have yourself. If you excercised that a tenth as often as you do your right to B word about the unfairness of the failures of your political party of choice you might just begin to understand the reason why the proudest Americans live in those Red States you hate so much.

[Terry Tate]

While traditionally not much weight is given to the influence of the First Lady on voter tallies, it may well have been a big part in the outcome of this past election. Democrats may do well to rethink their own vetting process in the next cycle by looking at the totality of their candidate’s assets and liabilities.

150391[/snapback]

If votes are influenced by First Ladies' assets, I'd recommend Democrats nominate Carl Dean next time around. He's married to Dolly Parton.

[DC Tom]

If votes are influenced by First Ladies' assets, I'd recommend Democrats nominate Carl Dean next time around. He's married to Dolly Parton.

151154[/snapback]

 

First Lady Dolly Parton.

 

Well...given that there doesn't seem to be a single politician capable of doing the job, we may as well vote on the comedy value of first ladies. Dolly Parton in the White House would be a hoot...

[VabeachBledsoefan]

You can hide from the truth, it's become a way of life for the left, but national polls show that Laura Bush is one of the most adored first ladies since numbers began to be taken for them (I assume you adore Jackie O, who had similar numbers?). One does not have to admire Karen Hughes and Dr. Rice to realize they are strong, stable and intelligent, not the kind of women who would prescribe gin soaked raisins for the arthritic!

 

But hey, if you submit a resume early Shrum may have some openings for partisans in blinders like yourself- Good luck in '08!

150587[/snapback]

Please be real, Laura Bush is not even in the picture. If anything she is a Stepford first lady. Hillary and Barbara Bush were more in the forefront. I'm sorry but the everyday American is not mentioning her as "adored", Jackie O was adored.