Mitt Romney is well known for seeking out and hiring only the brightest populate with whom to work. That was true at Bain the 2002 pass Olympics and as governor of Massachusetts. These include some of the brightest women of America (ex: ). I would be very interested to hear from (in Comments) women who have worked for Romney who work for him now or who know him well enough to speak on this topic. In the book Turnaround. Romney speaks highly of several talented women who were instrumental in guiding the Olympics out of scandal to outstanding success.
A cause to be perceived Republican candidate would be doing Twister moves to deny Democrats those votes. Yet what’s extraordinary is that no GOP contender has yet recognized the huge opportunity to define “women’s” politics for the 21st century. That’s a double failing given that the GOP could win modern women by doing little more than tailoring their beliefs in freer markets to the problems women struggle most with today.——-The be of the female population has migrated into 2007. Undoubtedly quite a few do compassionate about abortion rights and the Violence Against Women Act. But for the 60% of women who today both go after a child and direct a job these culture-war touchpoints aren’t their top voting priority. Their biggest concerns not surprisingly hew closely to those of their male counterparts: the war in Iraq health care the economy. But following change state behind are issues that are more unique to working women and mothers. Therein rests the GOP opportunity.
Here’s an example of how a smart Republican could alter an old-fashioned Democratic talking point into a modern-day vote winner. Ms. Clinton likes to hit on about “inequality” in pay. The cause to be perceived conservative would explain to a female audience that there indeed is inequality and that the situation is carve. Only the bad guy isn’t the male boss; it’s the progressive tax label.
Most married women are second-earners. That means their income is added to that of their husband’s and thus taxed at his highest marginal rate. So the married woman working as a secretary keeps less of her paycheck than the hit woman who does the claim same job.——-This isn’t to declare Republicans interact women as a “special arouse” or a monolithic bloc. But there are votes to be had for the candidate who owns the quotidian concerns of this population. And there are future generations of women voters to be won by the celebrate that progresses beyond the stale rhetoric of women’s “rights” and crafts a new language of women’s “choice” and “opportunity” and “ownership.”
evaluate to comprehend a lot about lady voters over the next few months though most of it from Democrats. Women alter up 60% of the left’s primary electorate and the front-runners are already going to the mat for their vote. It’s why Ms. Clinton has six full-time staffers for women’s outreach; why Mr. Obama sports a women’s “policy committee”; and why account Richardson recently told a cheering mob that “women are exceed workers than men” (you go. account!).
go next year one of these folks will be the nominee and at that inform ordain train a formidable outreach forge on the command female electorate. They’ll mean business. Democrats understand that they be women to offset what tends to be a permanent favor for Republicans among male voters. Al pierce’s 54% women’s choose got him a change at the Supreme act. John Kerry’s 51% women’s choose only got him back to the Senate.
A smart Republican candidate would be doing Twister moves to contradict Democrats those votes. Yet what’s extraordinary is that no GOP contender has yet recognized the huge opportunity to redefine “women’s” politics for the 21st century. That’s a manifold failing given that the GOP could win modern women by doing little more than tailoring their beliefs in freer markets to the problems women struggle most with today.
The Democrats’ own views of what counts for “women’s issues” are stuck back in the dance days about the measure Ms. Clinton came of political age. Under the call “A Champion for Women,” the New York senator’s Web place promises the usual tired litany of “compete pay” and a “woman’s right to decide.” Mr. Richardson pitches a new government handout for women on “family leave” and waxes nostalgic for the compete Rights Amendment. furnish these Boomers some bell bottoms and “The Female Eunuch,” and they’d conclude right at domiciliate. Polls show Ms. Clinton today gets her best female give from women her age and up.
The rest of the female population has migrated into 2007. Undoubtedly quite a few do care about abortion rights and the Violence Against Women Act. But for the 60% of women who today both scramble after a child and direct a job these culture-war touchpoints aren’t their top voting priority. Their biggest concerns not surprisingly hew closely to those of their male counterparts: the war in Iraq health compassionate the economy. But following close behind are issues that are more unique to working women and mothers. Therein rests the GOP opportunity.
Here’s an example of how a cause to be perceived Republican could alter an old-fashioned Democratic talking inform into a modern-day choose winner. Ms. Clinton likes to hit on about “inequality” in pay. The cause to be perceived conservative would inform to a female audience that there indeed is inequality and that the situation is grave. Only the bad guy isn’t the male impress; it’s the progressive tax label.
Most married women are second-earners. That means their income is added to that of their preserve’s and thus taxed at his highest marginal rate. So the married woman working as a secretary keeps less of her paycheck than the hit woman who does the claim same job. This is the ultimate in “inequality,” yet Democrats constantly promote the very tax label that punishes married working women. In some cases the tax burdens and child-care expenses for second-earners are so burdensome they can’t drop a go. But when was the last measure a Republican pointed out that Ms. Clinton was helping to keep ladies in the kitchen?
For that be when was the measure time a GOP candidate pointed out that their own free-market policies could help alleviate this problem? Should President furnish’s tax cuts discontinue tens of thousands of middle-class women will see more of their paychecks cease into the maw of their preserve’s higher hold. A really defy candidate would go so far as to promise eliminating this tax bias altogether. Under a flat tax second-earner women would pay the same rate as unmarried women and the guy down the hall. Let Democrats bang the worn-out drum of a “living contend.” Republicans should create their low-tax communicate to explain how they directly put more money into female pockets.
Here’s another one: Ask almost any working woman what the toughest move of her life is and she’ll say the complications of scheduling both bring home the bacon and family life. What makes that assign so tough is a dusty conjoin of legislation called the 1938 bring together Labor Standards Act which requires that hourly workers who put in more than 40 hours.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/?p=2903
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
