Despite what liberals, Democrats, and the legacy media (but I repeat myself) want you to believe about us on the right, most of us love forceful women. Even when I was very adolescent, all of my female role models were tough women; My grandma was a tough venerable farmer who raised six children on a miniature plot of land during the Depression. My mother was also a tough farmer and country woman, and now I am married (for 33 years) to a woman who, like me, is a veteran of Desert Storm and has more physical and emotional courage than anyone I have ever known. The ranks of the right are full of forceful, capable women.
But the Democrats? Not as much as it seems. The Democrats have tried the whole “historic first” thing twice now by trying to put the first female president in the White House. They tried it in 2016 with Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, Dowager Empress of Chappaqua, who lost to Donald Trump. They tried again in 2024, with Kamala “Queen of Word Salads” Harris, who lost to… Donald Trump.
You’d think they’d see a pattern by now.
Of course, the reason Her Imperial Majesty and the Word Salad Queen were defeated was not because they were women. This is, of course, what the left claims with shrill cries of “sexism.” But that’s not it at all. The two Democratic candidates failed in the elections because they were terrible candidates; One was mean, arrogant and presumptuous while the other was taciturn, ill-informed and frankly not very shrewd despite everything and all evidence to the contrary expected a winuntil the last moment.
This begs the question: Will the first female president be a Republican? Well, the Democrats certainly aren’t doing particularly well. Over at the Washington Examiner, an op-ed by Kimberly Ross is discussed some captivating points in this regard.
Both former foreign ministers Hillary Clinton and vice president Kamala Harris lost to the elected president Donald Trump in an earth-shattering way. During their respective elections, Clinton and Harris were seen as inevitable and deserving. Each was given the special ability to make history by becoming the first female president and ending the patriarchal rule of the United States once and for all. At least that’s the narrative they sold.
Every campaign should have been about the best Democrat for the job, who happened to be a woman. Instead, campaigns became so focused on breaking a glass ceiling that all things became secondary to their candidates’ biology.
That’s exactly right. These candidates were more about “MAKING OMG HISTORY” than actually picking a candidate who, you know, would win the election. Of course, they tried that route with Joe Biden, and look where that got them. What Democrats fail to understand about elections, especially the one that just ended, is that the American people look to the chief executive for more than just melanin content and whether the candidate is a setter or a pointer.
And that’s why the first woman president will likely be a Republican – and won’t that make the Democrats upset?
Time will tell who becomes the Republican Party’s first female presidential candidate, but it’s unthreatening to say she won’t be focused primarily on sex and gender. There is no reason to exclude the achievement of making history, but that should never be a candidate’s primary motivation. It’s a tiring, superficial strategy that clearly doesn’t work. Furthermore, the nation deserves so much more than a leader who places among his primary goals the desire to appease progressive sentiments.
As it happens, I have a few thoughts about who that first candidate might be – although if things go well, we’ll hopefully be working with President-elect JD Vance in four years (and if that happens, I plan to be) . I write about it here).
See related: BREAKING: Kamala Harris finally calls on Donald Trump to concede
WOW: A preview of Kamala’s speech Tuesday night shows she’s “unstable” and “obsessed with revenge.”
But Republicans have many forceful, capable women who could fill this role. Tulsi Gabbard, up-to-date to the Republican ranks, not only seems to have the zeal of a convert, but has also made it to the other side before – and she’s not only shrewd but thoughtful. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was a successful governor and always a good stepping stone to the White House, as was South Dakota’s Kristi Noem. There are of course many more.
So will the first woman president be a Republican? It’s really demanding to say; Predictions are challenging to make, especially about the future. But here’s something to think about: When the GOP nominates a woman for president, the decision will not be made based on her skin color or her chromosomal balance. That’s because she is forceful, capable, and committed to the principles of freedom and property – for a forceful, prosperous America. In other words, she’s being nominated not because of her gender, but because she’s the one the GOP picks as the best candidate.
That’s a lesson Democrats could learn. But if the just-ended election is any indication, let’s hope they never find out.
