For the last year, we’ve watched all the hand-wringing from
Republican insiders in Washington. Fresh off a whipping in 2008,
they were all scared to take on the President in a campaign.
“Attack Pelosi and Reid,” we heard so many say. “Don’t make this
a referendum on the President, make it about his
policies.”
Outside the Beltway, Tea Parties were taking the President
on directly, and with wins in Virginia, New Jersey, and
Massachusetts — well-run campaigns, each of which tapped into
the grassroots angst and anger — we started to see some cracks
in the Obama veneer.
Still, it has seemed at times that the Republican
establishment in Washington was, how to put this nicely …
cowed.
They’d all beat up on the President’s policies on talk
radio and cable news, but when it came time to put money behind
it — i.e. campaign advertising — there was a reticence to take
on The One.
As of last night that changed. Why? Well, it seems it takes
a woman to man up to Obama. The President is on the road in
Colorado today to do three fundraisers for his loyal ally,
appointed Senator Michael Bennet. When Air Force One touches
down, he’ll be greeted by TV ads from GOP Senate candidate Jane
Norton that lay down a pretty tough message. Norton, talking
straight to the camera, calls the President out, reciting back a
line from his 2008 convention speech in, appropriately enough,
Denver. Obama said then that he promised to “go through the
federal budget line by line eliminating programs that no longer
work.” We all know what happened to that promise, and Norton
holds his feet to the fire. “You should balance the budget or
decline to seek re-election,” she says. Not much nuance there,
huh?
It’s the first time that a major statewide Republican
candidate has directly taken Obama on. And in a state that he
carried handily — one of those “red to blue” states that were
supposed to herald a new era of Democratic governance.
I can think of a few reasons why it’s a woman who is the
first to politically take on this President head-on — and kudos
to Norton for doing it. People will say that people will be more
willing to accept the message from a woman than from a man. That
Norton’s personality makes it possible for her to be this
aggressive on the campaign trail.
But I think there is something bigger going on here. Eight
years ago, after 9/11 people talked about how all those “Soccer
Moms” were becoming “Security Moms.”
And these slightly more independent women voters were
inclined to go with the candidate who would make their families
safer.
Well, I think all those “Security Moms”— watching the man
who promised them a more fiscally responsible government, who ran
up enough debt to saddle our children and grandchildren with
historic levels, and who has failed to make our nation safer and
more respected around the world — are now “Accountability
Moms.”
The “Accountability Moms” want results. We want fiscal
discipline and soundness. We want security for our children, with
the economy and against enemies foreign and domestic. We want and
strength and safety, so that when our sons and daughters go to
war, it is for good reason and with good resources to fulfill the
mission.
We’ve had it with promises. We want action with
forethought, and in the great tradition of America’s values and
principles set forth by our Constitution. And beyond that, we can
handle our own lives and those of our families.
Who’s with me?
