The most amazing thing about Scott Brown’s Senate campaign is that his victory last week has seemingly become all things to all people and giving right-wing pundits an opportunity to portray their own narrow agenda as central to his win.
For some, Brown’s win was a sign that voters don’t like President Obama or Nancy Pelosi, for others it was proof that people oppose health care reform, or abortion, or immigration.
But Phyllis Schlafly offers a different take, claiming that what voters were really doing in this election was rejecting Martha Coakley because of her feminism:
Democratic Party leadership has shown that it cannot or will not stand up to the incoherent, man-hating attitude of feminists like Coakley. For example, after they had a tantrum and demanded that the majority of jobs created by Obama’s stimulus be given to women (instead of to shovel-ready jobs), even though most of those who lost jobs in this recession are men, President Obama dutifully acquiesced.
It’s no wonder that non-college-educated men voted overwhelmingly for Brown against Coakley by a massive 27-point margin. The Democrats are lucky enough to elect some feminists, but feminists are just too unappealing when running against a masculine man such as Brown.
Brown’s driving a 2005 GMC pickup truck (which Obama sneered at) symbolized the elitism of Coakley, who drives a foreign car. While Coakley was sipping wine with drug and insurance company PAC representatives, Brown was shaking hands with the voters.
Commentary about Brown’s appeal to women is diversionary — it was male voters who overwhelmingly pulled the lever for him. Men are fed up with the feminist mindset and delivered a clear message in the Massachusetts election: give us a candidate who stands up to the feminists, and we will cross over from Democrat and independent to elect a Republican.