Mark Steyn, the MASTER, MEGA PING!!
Posted on 11/17/2002 9:48:47 AM PST by Pokey78
If you were a newspaper editor and you were trying to figure out what big analysis piece to splash over your front page the Sunday after the election, what would you go with? Well, the Valley News, the biggest daily in the western part of New Hampshire, surveyed the scene the morning after: A state that had been high up on the list of Democratic targets had instead voted for an all-Republican congressional delegation, an all-Republican executive council, a Republican governor, and a 75 percent Republican state Senate and general court. Nevertheless, the editors dutifully looked up "Post-Election Analysis Features You Can't Go Wrong With No Matter How Many Times You Trot Them Out" in the Columbia Journalism School Book of Lame-O Cliche Stories You Can Serve Straight From the Freezer and turned in a somnolent front-pager headlined "Women Candidates Fared Poorly In Midterm Elections."
As it happens, certain women candidates fared rather well in the elections: Elizabeth Dole and Katharine Harris, for example. On the other hand, the Widow Carnahan in Missouri and Kathleen KENNEDY!!! Townsend flopped out. I wonder what could be the reason for the remarkable disparity in how these women fared. Might it have something to do with the fact that the former are Republican women and the latter Democrat? Perish the thought! Pondering the fate of the Widow Carnahan and Jeanne Shaheen, the Valley News and its interviewees--spokeswomen for the National Organization for Women, etc.--thought that women's issues such as ''reproductive rights'' had been overshadowed by the way Bush had gone around whipping up a lot of "fear" about obscure fringe issues like national security.
If you were really interested in doing a story on women and the elections, it would be this: "Women Candidates Backed By So-Called Women's Groups Fared Poorly." The women who had the bad luck to be endorsed by the abortion absolutists at NOW, NARAL and Emily's List bombed big time, which might suggest even to our dopey press that perhaps the rent-a-quote spokeswomen don't represent quite as many women as they claim to.
The other story that might be worth going with is ''Young Women Hot For Republicans.'' Indications are that, in this month's election, the famous ''gender gap'' from which the GOP's country-club old-boys executive-men's-room sexists are always said to suffer was wiped out among young voters. To be honest, I've never really subscribed to the ''gender gap'' theory. After all, a gender gap cuts both ways, and in recent years the Democrats have arguably suffered more from their lack of appeal to men. But on Nov. 5, guess what? Among female voters under 30, as many voted Republican as Democrat. The Dems are the party of old women. Oh, OK, ''mature'' women.
But come on, does anyone honestly vote like this? If I've got a choice between Condi Rice and Ted Kennedy, I'll go with the broad. If it's Don Rumsfeld vs. Nancy Pelosi, I'll vote my gender. And, believe it or not, most feminists do the same thing: If it was Elizabeth Dole vs. Bill Clinton, the need to elect women would take a back seat to the need to elect a ''pro-choice'' serial pants-dropper. The only people who think in these terms are folks like Judy Woodruff, who late in the evening on CNN, with Democrat hopes crumbling to north, south, east and west, suddenly decided that there was a pressing need to discover how ''women'' were doing in this election and commanded the back-room psephologists to unearth the relevant data. Now Judy is all a-twitter because Nancy Pelosi has become the first woman in Congress to be elected party leader.
Who cares? Just about the least interesting thing about Pelosi is that she's a woman. What's interesting is that she's a Haight-Ashbury leftist who voted against war with Iraq. That's likely to prove more relevant in the two years ahead than whether she looks better in a bikini than Walter Mondale. What is a ''women's issue'' anyway? To some, it might be the sacred constitutional right to avail oneself of a partial-birth abortion. But to others it might be the war on terror. After all, if there's one single issue that distinguishes Western values from Islamofascism, it's the treatment of women. Imagine being forbidden by law to go to school or leave the house unaccompanied. Imagine the state deciding what clothes you can wear. Imagine being prevented by law from feeling sunlight on your face. I'd say voting for people who liberate women from theocratic fascism is a women's issue.
Most American voters aren't interested in candidates because they're women, or because they're widows, or because they're triple-amputees, or because they're last-minute iconic replacements for suddenly deceased senators. Believe it or not, right now they're interested in a couple of overriding issues. A not insignificant segment of the electorate has moved in one direction and, if the Democrats aren't to do worse next time (the Senate seats they're defending give no cause for optimism), they have to figure out a way to get that segment to move back toward them. Who is this segment? And why does it prefer the Republicans? Some of us reckon we know. But the media keep yakking on about ''women's issues'' and all the other pre-9/11 trivia as if all the king's cliches and all the king's bumper stickers can put Humpty Dumpty Democrat together again.
It's not just the Democrats who'd benefit from a little self-examination. What about all those network boobs who gave us the fawning puff pieces about how Bill Clinton's crowd-pulling rock-star charisma is bigger than ever on the campaign trail? Sure, he pulls crowds--of Republicans, to the polls. And, as bad as the Wellstone ''memorial service'' was, it wasn't as lousy as the media coverage of it. On the following morning, CNN's Jonathan Karl reported that ''the overflow crowd came as much to celebrate Paul Wellstone's life as to mourn his death,'' and referred only to the ''impassioned appeal'' made by the senator's son. The boos for Trent Lott? The walkout by Gov. Jesse Ventura? The totalitarian hectoring by Wellstone aide Rick Kahn as he singled out attending Republicans by name and demanded they switch sides? Jonathan Karl sat through all of it and evidently thought none of it worth mentioning. It was the same with Jodi Wilgoren in the New York Times, whose report of the event--''Mourning In Minnesota''--seemed blithely unaware of its tenor. Kahn's partisan bullying was described only as a ''spirited eulogy.'' Karl and Wilgoren missed the story: They saw what millions of American TV viewers saw, but they were either blind or averted their eyes.
Remind me never to complain about ''liberal media bias'' again. Right now, liberal media bias is conspiring to assist the Democrats to sleepwalk over the cliff.
Sorry.
I should have added the */sarcasm* tag for clarity (my remark was tongue inserted deeply in cheek).
Oh, I like that one. We have to start getting that one out and around.
I could have gone the rest of my life without that image and not felt the loss. That's just irresponsible journalism.
Please put me on your Steyn ping list.
As Ragab notes, almost all nonprofits exaggerate their membership figures somewhat, but NOW appears to be one of the select few who take such exaggerations to outrageous levels. Ragab notes that in its 501(c) filing for 1999, NOW reported income from memberships at $2,903,383. Since a yearly individual membership to NOW costs $35, that would yield about 89,500 paying members.
Possibly less than 100,000 members and they are considered the "voice" of the American woman by the media. Yah right!
Wow, it's been a long time since I've had to crack a dictionary to look up a word I've never seen before.
pse-phol-o-gy (see fol'uh jee) n.1. the study of elections. [1950-55; < Gk psêpho (s) pebble + - LOGY; so called from the Athenian custom of casting votes by means of pebbles]
LOL .. Thanks for the Ping John ..That was FABULOUS !!!
There is so much truth in Mark's final statement, and the left wing media has no idea that its refusal to document what the libs are really like, is hastening the end of 1960/70's lunatic lib party.
Remind me never to complain about ''liberal media bias'' again. Right now, liberal media bias is conspiring to assist the Democrats to sleepwalk over the cliff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.