Goodbye Soccer Mom, Hello 'Security Mom' [and they are going GOP]

Time ^ | May 25, 2003 | Karen Tumulty

[ewing]

Republican pollster David Winston was the first to identify the shift from Soccer Mom to Security Mom and he warns 'What these women are looking for is solutions to make their families and children safer.

It's about solutions, it's not about partisan bickering'

Democratic political consulant Rachel Gorlin agrees, 'We cant criticize what the Bush Administration is doing unless we make it clear that the criticism is toward a new and improved approach -we are turning people off.'

It is that kind of impatience with point scoring politics that nettles women like 31 year old Stacy McDaniel, who stockpiles water and canned goods in San Diego, and plans an exit route when she goes to a ball game.

[ewing]

Good point, the Democrats will always lose in that debate..

[luckystarmom]

I personally think it was the men's vote in '92 that lost that election. Lots of normally GOP men voted for Perot, and Bush lost the election. My husband was one of those men, and a lot of the men that I worked with voted for Perot.

I voted for Bush.

[luckystarmom]

You said what I was thinking, but a lot better than me. It was the men that got Clinton elected in the '92 election. Most of the republican women stayed the course, and voted for Bush.

[luckystarmom]

Our current President is a real man.

[ohioWfan]

I don't appreciate anyone.....male or female.....cavalierly talking about giving up MY right to vote because some women vote stupidly.

Some men vote without thinking too....in fact MOST men vote without the thought that I put into it, and I don't hear anyone talking about disenfranchising them.

Until that discussion is in play (or you are willing to advocate that blacks be disenfranchised because their voting record is worse than women) the discussion of women not voting is not only pointless, but decidedly unAmerican.

The debates taking place nearly a century ago about women's suffrage are of a different era, and in that sense also irrelevant to the discussion.

What we need to do is educate women to understand that the ideals of Conservatism are what will serve them best.......not engage in silly discussions about taking their (our) rights away.

[ewing]

Correct, it goes both ways..Perot bamboozled the male GOP faction in 1992 much like Clinton seduced the soccer moms in 1996. (and the Nader faction helped take down Gore in 2000-both sexes)

[ohioWfan]

Exactly......using statistics about women's voting as a scapegoat for the reality that many conservative men jumped ship and allowed the election of the debauched one is inexcusable, IMO.

You can use statistics to support any position you want to, and in this case, the position is indefensible.

As I said, the lesson to be learned from this is that women (and men) need to be educated to understand that Conservative values are what make America strong, and that THIS President will defend those values far more effectively than any liberal will.