'Should America Elect a Woman to the Presidency Just to Achieve Gender Balance?'
By Citizen Conservative (10/02/07)
Now that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive favorite to become the presidential nominee of the Democrat Party in 2008, she and her Democrat colleagues must confront the fact that nearly 50 percent of voters are unfavorably disposed toward her candidacy.
Clinton and her team of political professionals will need to convert at least some of those voters in order for her campaign have even a remote chance of succeeding.
Which is why feminists and those who advocate for Clinton are already playing the "Sexist" card in order to shame voters into electing a member of the weaker sex to serve as president.
The idea is to convince voters that We the People have violated the U.S. Constitutional promise of equal opportunity since a woman has never been elected to the presidency. We the people have discriminated against one half of our population for the innocent act of being born female.
With a bit of luck and a few hundred million dollars in campaign funds dredged up from unsavory sources by Norman Hsu, the Democrats hope to convince people to vote for Hillary for one overwhelming reason: She is female.
Expect blatantly sexist slogans like "After 230 Years, America Needs A Woman President," and "Bring America Into the 21st Century--Send a Woman to the White House!" to clog the airwaves, print media and broadband venues over the next fourteen months.
Mind you, I am not opposed to a woman serving as U.S. President.
However, when deciding which level to pull, or which Chad to hang, intelligent voters should avoid supporting a candidate solely on the basis of his or her gender. That is decidedly "old school!"
As we Americans have learned over the past six plus years, the world is incredibly complex and dangerous. We need a knowledgeable and credible chief executive to navigate the United States through the most difficult time in our nation's history.
Thus, before voting the prudent question should be "Who is the most qualified candidate?" Reproductive piping should be irrelevant.
In order to earn my vote, a candidate should reflect the following values, background and positions:
* A person of integrity and high morals.
* Protector of traditional American family values.
* Knowledgeable of world affairs, leaders, and political nuances.
* Capable of earning the respect of American men and women in uniform and leading same as commander-in-chief.
* Dedicated to the national defense and homeland security.
* Patriotic, to a fault.
* An unabashed "America First" zealot.
* Obsessed with the rule of law, including enforcement of all laws.
* Not smitten with the idea that he/she is personally above the law.
* Uses competence rather than diversity in staffing decisions.
* Fiscally prudent. Believes in low taxes, small government.
* Strong proponent of American sovereignty, culture and language.
* Dedicated to ending and reversing illegal immigration.
With all of those attributes, or most of them, a candidate would be well equipped to serve America with honor and success--regardless of which sex one happened to be born into!
So the answer to my original question is: Having a woman president would be terrific, provided she possessed the capabilities and qualities needed to succeed in office AND provided that she was the most qualified candidate.
What could be more fair?
(Printer friendly version) Email: Citizen Conservative
