-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- William F. Buckley, Jr. - ON THE RIGHT Tuesday, February 1, 2000 ------------------------------------------------------------ IN SEARCH OF FEMININE FAVOR In my travel during the week, the conversation fastened on the question of women and their vote. What first brought up the question was the poll showing that George W. Bush had slipped behind John McCain in popularity among Republican women voters in New Hampshire. Bush is still ahead nationally, but there, too, he has slipped by almost 10 points from the lead he once enjoyed. What is it that accounts for such movements? Are there basic questions involved? In a conversation with a prominent author, I was told that he had begun a novel after confronting a datum head-on. It is that (he informed me), 70 percent of the novels sold in America are bought by women. My friend had resolved now to write a novel designed for women. What was the formula he'd pursue? I wanted to know. He winked and told me to look out for his novel when it was completed, and published. I recalled that there had been much surprise when Vice President George Bush tapped Dan Quayle for his vice president at the 1988 Republican convention in New Orleans. But Walter Annenberg was not surprised. The super-competent businessman, art collector, diplomat and philanthropist had it figured out: He said that in the spring of 1988, Vice President Bush was running behind the likeliest Democratic contender, Michael Dukakis, among women voters by 12 points. Two years earlier, Dan Quayle had defeated his Democratic opponent in Indiana in the race for senator, winning with a 12-point advantage among women. So ... Mr. Annenberg reasoned that Quayle would be a likely running mate. Now perhaps that was an easy point to make in that context, given that Quayle is Hollywood-handsome. On the other hand, George Bush is pretty handsome. In fact, contrasted with Dukakis, especially when wearing a helmet, Bush was Adonis running against a frog. But however tempting it is to throw away conjectural explanations for women's attraction to one or another candidate, there has to be some reason for these imbalances. What is the adviser to Bush telling him to do in the closing days of the New Hampshire contest? He hardly has the opportunity to go to war and prove that he can be as heroic as his opponent, or as his father. Is there a crystallizing difference between the two in the matter of public policies? Both men oppose abortion, though perhaps Bush more resolutely. And anyway, many women are fervent advocates of choice and are thinking not, Shall we go Bush or McCain, but rather, Shall we go Bradley or Gore? The whole business of appeal to women rose to the level of caricature last fall when it was revealed that Al Gore had hired himself a woman to instruct him in the special means of depicting himself as an Alpha male, not to be confused with a mere Beta male. The whole business was laughed out of court, but there we are again, with rejected conjecture but without anything solid to put in its place. How do Republicans set out to attract women voters? The long view of things has to come to terms with the implications of the gender question. There is approximately zero resistance to the idea of giving a high office to a woman, and we live in an age in which Great Britain has had not only a queen called Elizabeth, but a truly Elizabethan prime minister. Sprinkled about Asia there have been women chiefs of government and of state. In America it is probably true that some would harbor a little skepticism about voting for a woman for president. But the reason for that is as simple as that it is hard to imagine a situation in which a man would fail to win the presidential race, given that there are so many men engaged in the business of politics. Elizabeth Dole is the only female presidential contender since the movement by Walter Mondale in 1984 to purchase feminine approval by lifting Geraldine Ferraro for vice president simply failed. On the other hand, he'd have failed, in 1984 against Ronald Reagan, if Joan of Arc had been his running mate. The identification of the Republican candidates with the idea of the family has got to be the strongest point when the contest narrows from intra-party contention to contention between Democrats and Republicans. Whether it will be McCain or Bush we have yet to know. But one of them will be battling Gore or Bradley. And that will be the time responsibly to raise the question: What do we expect in the way of behavior from our chief of state? Gore is not responsible for the delinquencies of Clinton, but he is associated with them. That damned spot he cannot efface, and no focus group can teach him how to do that. End of ON THE RIGHT <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
