Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Can Republican Men Criticize Hillary?
Carly Fiorina is articulate, thoughtful, and accomplished. For those who keep track of such things, she was the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business, and she ran a credible, if unsuccessful campaign for a U.S. senate seat from California. In the early going, she is receiving enthusiastic responses from Republican audiences. Though I’ve long been skeptical of non-politicians running for president of the United States, I’m open to the possibility that she has what it takes — but only if the premise is that she is offering something besides estrogen. This is not a slam at Fiorina but rather at the presumption out there that only Carly Fiorina can really “take it to Hillary” because she’s the only Republican candidate who needn’t fear the charge of sexism.
If Republicans accept this gag rule, they are in trouble, because 18 of 19 or so possible nominees are burdened by testosterone.
Here’s how Democrats prefer to arrange matters regarding women: They claim that nominating the first woman for president is a huge advance for all women, proving that women are just as competent as men. Yet they demand that their particular woman be insulated from the usual vigorous debate that is essential for democracy. Any criticism of Hillary Clinton is presumptive sexism, while her attacks on opponents are unrestricted. Neat trick if you can pull if off — and she can if Republicans accept the bridle.
In a sense, Hillary Clinton has been using the victimized woman angle for her whole political career. Her popularity soared during the Lewinsky scandal, for example, when Americans sympathized with her for enduring her husband’s satyriasis. In her 2000 senate race, she was losing to Republican Rick Lazio, until her campaign picked up on a moment in a debate when he crossed the stage to ask her to sign a pledge. As set ital Mother Jones end ital recounted:
In the hours and days after the debate, Clinton’s team worked mightily to turn this interaction to her advantage. Clinton aide Ann Lewis told the press that Lazio had ‘spent much of the time being personally insulting.’ Howard Wolfson, another veteran Clinton hand, said Lazio was ‘menacing’ to Clinton.
‘They saw this opportunity and they drove it and that’s the clip that was on TV over and over again,’ [Lazio said]. The next day, media outlets began to embrace Wolfson’s portrayal of Lazio as a sexist bully . . . Jon Stewart titled his segment on the debate ‘Rodham ‘N Creep.’
In 2008, Mrs. Clinton’s comeback began when she seemed to be patronized by Barack Obama’s “you’re likeable enough” comment. Patti Solis Doyle, her campaign chairman, summed it up: “Whether it was during the Lewinsky scandal or whether it was when Lazio was bullying her, people seem to like damsel-in-distress sort of thing, which is sad to me, but it helped her [as first lady] in ’98 and it helped her in 2000 certainly.”
There’s a different standard for Republican women. South Carolina’s Democratic gubernatorial candidate called Gov. Nikki Haley a “whore” without creating national outrage. And then there was the treatment meted out to Sarah Palin.
The American electorate signaled in 2014 that there are limits to its tolerance for “war on women” hooey. It failed miserably in Virginia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, and elsewhere — most spectacularly in Colorado, where then Sen. Mark Udall earned the moniker “Mark Uterus.”
The best response to the charge of sexism is ridicule. Any female candidate who hides behind her own skirts to avoid robust debate is not striking a blow for equality or dignity. Rather than displaying fitness for the job of commander-in-chief, she’s conveying her weakness and inability to compete. Any male candidate who pulls his punches is patronizing her. Anyone who takes her on (within the bounds of civility) is according her respect.
Fiorina, by the way, has answered any and all questions, including pointed accusations of poor business management, with calm confidence, while also displaying wide-ranging knowledge on a number of issues. She has challenged Hillary Clinton to “name an accomplishment” – a tough but fair question – but then, Mrs. Clinton is avoiding nearly all questions. Male Republicans too can comb her State Department and Senate careers for material without fear. She’s asking to be taken seriously. Oblige her.
Published in General
Plus she seems to be a fighter which is what the GOP ticket will desparately need at least one of, two will be better.
Hillary is why a woman needs to be on the GOP ticket, at least as veep. Two men can’t criticize Hillary, even if one is hispanic or black. I wonder if we can get Mia Love to go lesbian, then we have the holy trinity of black, woman and gay. Talk about untouchable.
Let everything that has breath criticize Hillary.
Carly for Veep. I’d prefer Susana Martinez, but if she ain’t gonna make herself available, Carly is numero uno.
I am not running for president but I too have been burdened by testosterone. Mona I am glad that you have finally brought this dilemma to the forefront. It is a serious burden that few women understand.
How can you not love Ricochet? Great comments.
The response to charges of sexism should be, “Are you equal or not? If you’re equal, then be equal”.
Although I respectfully disagree with this (Romney fan here), I find myself in the unusual position of liking Fiorina despite her lackluster accomplishments at HP. I was impressed by her solid race in CA and her willingness to take on the EPA in defense of the Central Valley. She has chutzpah.
Her recent commentary on taxation (she’s a student of the Paul Ryan school of pro-growth, lower rates across the board with no increase in the child tax credits) has impressed me as well.
I’d be pleased to see her run in the primary and get a spot either on the ticket or in a GOP cabinet.
It’s inevitable that Republican candidates cannot criticize the magisterial Mrs. Clinton with being accused of being sexist. That’s why I’m doing all I can to do it for them. I don’t care if I’m called sexist. Just don’t call me fat because then I get all weepy.
Here’s just a sampling:
http://ricochet.com/a-driving-lesson-from-chappaquiddick-to-chappaqua/
http://ricochet.com/news-of-the-future-the-clinton-white-house/
http://ricochet.com/former-member-of-the-church-of-billaryology-speaks-out/
http://ricochet.com/are-you-ready-for-hillary-supporters-a-park-bench-encounter/
http://ricochet.com/hillary-bills-great-game-its-like-deja-vu-all-over-again/
http://ricochet.com/hillarys-versatile-new-logo/
http://ricochet.com/hillary-cadaver-clinton/
http://ricochet.com/avert-your-eyes/
http://ricochet.com/?p=237225
http://ricochet.com/should-congress-seize-all-of-hillary-clintons-private-emails/
I think these are great things to think and talk about, and I think it is important for Republicans to figure out, now, how they are going to deal with it beyond the primary, and someone is going to have to start criticizing Clinton in front of an audience that is now paying attention.
Having said that, I think that Fiorina lent credence to the notion that a Republican man can’t criticize Clinton. I don’t recall the forum, but when asked why she would make a good Republican candidate, one of her reasons was that if she was the nominee, Clinton’s ability to use the War on Women as an argument goes away.
If the Republican nominee does their job right, that argument goes away whether the nominee is a man or woman.
IMO, a male Republican candidate will not be perceived as bullying a woman opponent if he runs against Obama’s foeign policy record in particular and the slide toward statism in general. I am and I think most voters are alarmed at how quickly the world has become a more dangerous place under the Obama/Clinton reset/withdrawal. All the Republican candidate has to do is stay on message and mind his manners in the presence of a much older woman, and the voters will go into that private booth and vote for “change.”
Women who hide behind their skirts (in any field) make it hard for the rest of us. On one hand you pound the table for equality in all things, yet tell the world that you require handling with special gloves and should receive a pass because you are a woman. You can’t have both.
Debate, media questions, and/or anything to do with character, capability, health, and work-record are all up for discussion. Gender and how it will impact your ability to hold office should not be part of the discussion.
My suggestion is to take on Hillary as an equal. I expect a campaign and subsequent debate with the same standards used for all male candidates: intelligent, dignified, and spirited. Anything less is unacceptable.
I have not seen much evidence that Republican politicians are burdened with testicles or spines…..
This doesn’t concern me, much. It’s almost a textbook example of generals “fighting the last war.” This is an open election. There is no incumbent.
Consequently, any attempts to “weird” the GOP nominee won’t matter, unless he/she is weird.
The Gods, Gays, Guns bit Rove ran in 2004 was the mirror image of Obama’s 2012 War on the Womyns. That is, both campaigns were designed to guarantee that each incumbent’s base showed up at the polls because each challenger was unacceptable.
Neither of them ran particularly socially ideologically oriented campaigns in 2000 or 2008. Yeah, both candidates addressed social issues, but they tended to talk around them.
Why? Because the “swing-voters” will often default to the incumbent, yet are open to persuasion when there is no incumbent.
This is my pet hypothesis, I’ve presented it previously, and I think it’s correct.
For the duration of this campaign I suspect the press will designate Fiorina an honorary white male.
She was a CEO, and at one point favored rather short hairstyles. It will be depressingly easy for them.
Why should she be different from any other GOP candidate? Rubio and Cruz aren’t even real Hispanics like Julian Castro.
This race will not be won by trashing Hillary!.
If the GOP cannot field a candidate who inspires, who gives hope, who can communicate they give a damn about Americans, Hillary! wins.
In a race between two miserable lying politicians, why not try a lying woman this time?
In a race between Hillary! and hope, she loses big time.
I can’t like this comment enough. When a candidate can inspire and demonstrate genuineness he can stand up to false accusations without “trashing” the opponent. Nobody likes a scold.
We aren’t really talking about trashing Hillary, are we? We are talking about standing up to her charges of sexism in a way that is effective. Yes, our candidate needs to put forth a vision for the country. But they can’t simply ignore Hillary and her charges of sexism that will most certainly come.
Every on of the candidates, if they are serious, should be strategizing on how they are going to deal with it.
Actually, I want Susana Martinez to lead the ticket, and have Carly as VP. Martinez is as well accomplished and successful as Scott Walker, and has shown she can lead effectively in a deep blue state. Fiorina would benefit by having the experience of elective office (currently lacking from her otherwise impressive resume.)
The benefit of having no standards for Democrats is the ability to change narratives and history at will.
Just as the election of Barack Obama now means nothing toward proving that white people aren’t racists, the election of Hillary Clinton will not be permitted to be used to prove that men are not misogynists.
Conclusions govern facts, not the other way around, for Democrats.
The trick with this sort of thing is to make playing the gender card an issue unto itself.
Look, if Hillary wants to be held to a lower standard because she is a woman, I’m sure mentioning over and over again that she wants to be held to a lower standard won’t bother her.
Romney was a governor.
That’s kind of where I was going with my comment. We need to discredit the dynamic of demanding special treatment in the name of equality.
Yes he was for one term but I’ve always identified him as a successful businessman first and foremost.
I say AMEN! However, Susana his given no indication she’ll run, nor has she expressed interest in the bottom of the ticket. This leaves us with Carly, and the fact that her record as a CEO is already being attacked means she is feared by the left (which includes the media) . . .
I am unquestionably one of the most pro-business members on this site which is precisely why I can’t get too effusive over Carly’s tenure at HP. But as I mentioned earlier on this thread, she presented impressive political skill sets running against Boxer and I think having her on the ticket could, at the very least, make the Democrats spend a little money in CA as we are going to have to do in Texas when Hillary taps HUD secretary and former mayor of San Antonio Julián Castro for her running mate.