This morning, like every morning, I watched "Good Morning America." Not surprisingly, last night's presidential debate was the top story. Interestingly, both Elizabeth Vargas (in for Robin Roberts) and Lara Spencer said that they were a little "taken aback" by both candidates' demeanors. Vargas said, "As a woman...it was a little much. The interrupting and talking over [each other] drove me a little crazy." George Stephanopoulos replied, "A point I've heard a lot. A lot of women turned off by that." Later in the show when Vargas was talking to the political analysts about the debate, she said, "Lara and I were talking, Beanna and I were talking, a lot of other women are agreeing with this assessment...they both seemed a tad aggressive, overly aggressive toward each other." Matthew Dowd, one of the political contributors replied, "You have to be strong and forceful without offending people." Vargas countered, "When they're both trying to get the female vote, I wondered if they alienated a lot of the women out there."
I have been accused of being one-sided in my presentations of political issues, so I immediately turned to Fox News. Fox was not talking about women's reactions to the debate at all. Frank Luntz was talking to "undecided" voters in Nevada and all but one said that Romney was "substantive," "pleasantly surprising," and "believable." The man who didn't say something "nice" about Romney said he was "average." Luntz ignored that man and, with a gesture of an open hand, asked the seven or so voters who said positive things about Romney why they liked what they heard. They gave their reasons and Luntz listened with eye contact and head nodding. Luntz then turned to the man who had said what he had heard was "average," pointed with a finger, not an open face-up palm, at him, and said, "Now you didn't hear that. Why." It was hardly a question. Luntz turned away with his eyes on the floor and didn't respond to the voter's answer, which was, "I didn't hear anything new." Needless to say, Luntz's obvious disregard for a voter who isn't sure if Romney is our country's savior or not really turned me off.
In terms of what I heard on the news, as a woman, I appreciate that ABC actually talked about the women's opinions. I'm not sure if I agree with it, but at least they talked about it. Fox didn't. I actually went to foxnews.com to see if they had any women's reactions that maybe I had missed; they didn't have one story on women in regards to the debate.
In terms of what I saw in the debate last night, as a woman, I didn't see anything wrong with the candidates' demeanors at all. I like the fact that Obama pushed the envelope. He was aggressive. He did interrupt Romney to correct his statements that were blatant lies. I want a President and a Commander-in-Chief who is aggressive. It is hardwired in women to want someone who will protect us, and I think Obama will protect me and my rights.
As a woman, what offended me most last night was Romney still not saying whether he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act or not. The fact that Romney will not say that women deserve to earn the same pay that men earn for doing the same job is extremely offensive to me. Why should I believe in someone who doesn't believe in my rights as a woman? Why should I vote for someone who doesn't necessarily think that men and I should have equal pay for equal work?
Wow--"equal pay for equal work..." That echoes the civil rights movement. We are still having to fight for civil rights even now in the 21st century. To me, this is an incredibly sad reality. How is it possible that the same demographic that runs around thinking that America is the best country in the world is also the same demographic that supports a candidate who will not commit to equal rights for women? We are not the #1 country in the world, if I can't expect the same treatment that men receive. We are not the best country in the world, if I still have to be concerned about my future children having equal rights.
Come on, America. Let's support a candidate who supports our country's women. Women are 51% of this country's vote. How is it possible in the 21st century that a candidate who doesn't support over half of the country's voters, even has a shot at taking the White House? Let's have some pride.
"Be the change you wish to see in the world." --Gandhi
No comments:
Post a Comment