Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Executive Branch/The Presidency

What Will Be the Hot Issue in the 2008 Election Cycle?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:43:00 EDT

IWF's Michelle Bernard weighs in over at the Washington Times.

Young Women and Politics

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:25:00 EDT

Laura Sessions Stepp had an interesting article in the Washington Post this week looking at young women's attitudes about gender politics:

I recently met with a group of high school and college women who had come to D.C. for a leadership conference. I wondered whether they felt -- as many women in my generation do -- that Hillary Clinton suffered in the Democratic presidential primary from rank bias against women. So I asked them: Did Clinton's sex play a part in her losing the nomination? And did her loss dissuade them or their girlfriends from wanting to pursue political careers?

Their answers were no and no.

More details here.

The Feminist Mistake

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:08:00 EDT

Over at Reason, Michael Moynihan argues against the notion that sexism sunk Hillary Clinton's campaign.

In Case You Missed It

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:56:00 EDT

On Friday, IWF chairman Heather Higgins had an article over at HumanEvents.com, examining the notion that Obama has moved beyond race.

Read her article here.

SOTU Links Galore

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:46:00 EST

If you missed last night's speech, the text is available here.

Text of the Democratic response is available here.

A SOTU word game slider is available here. (Hat tip: The Corner)

SOTU Preview

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:50:00 EST

President Bush's last State of the Union address is tonight. If you're looking for a preview, this is a good place to start.

What do women want?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:18:00 EST

IWF president and CEO Michelle Bernard asked that question over the weekend in an article in the Nashua Telegraph. The answer, it turns out, is quite simple:

Women want policies that improve the lives of our families and increase the safety of our nation. Women want an America that is, as Abraham Lincoln stated, "the last, best hope of Earth."
Earlier this month, women from around the country met in Manchester to participate in Lifetime Television's "If I Were President" Forum. This nonpartisan coalition of women sought answers from the candidates about how they would handle many of the domestic and foreign-policy issues of particular concern to women.
Candidates who listen to women find that women aren't that different than men: Women want policies that generate the stability and security necessary for women to successfully balance family and professional life.

To find out what else women want, read the whole article here.

All Eyes on New Hampshire

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:04:00 EST

Over at National Review Online, IWF's Carrie Lukas contributes to a symposium on the New Hampshire debates that took place over the weekend and what the landscape of the race looks like going into tomorrow's primary. Check out Carrie's views and much more here.

IWF in New Hampshire

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:29:00 EST

If you're in New Hampshire, check out this event tomorrow:

IWF's president, Michelle Bernard, will be participating in the "If I Were President" forum and breakfast, which is being held by the Lifetime Television/Every Woman Counts coalition. The forum will take place at the Manchester, New Hampshire, Radisson Hotel and include hundreds of New Hampshire women-many of whom are still undecided voters-and the national and New Hampshire leaders of coalition member organizations.
A straw poll will be conducted at the event and Democratic and Republican presidential candidates will have the opportunity to address women on the issues that matter most to them-from education and healthcare to terrorism and the War in Iraq.
WHAT: "IF I WERE PRESIDENT" FORUM AND BREAKFAST
WHEN: Saturday, January 5th - 8:30 to 10:30 a.m.
WHERE: Radisson Hotel Ballroom, 700 Elm Street, Manchester, New Hampshire

More details here.

Hillary's Christmas Gift for the American People: Higher Taxes

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:04:00 EST

Hillary Clinton has just released a very telling new ad. She is wrapping presents with labels like "Universal Healthcare" and "Bring Troops Home" and pretends to be searching for "Universal Pre-K," which she finally finds. All of these things are wrapped up with a nice bow for the American people.

Of course, Hillary is being generous in the same way that someone who steals a credit card to buy their family a bunch of pricy presents is: all of those items would have to be paid for by the taxpayers--and would be incredibly expensive at that. As Kathryn Lopez says in National Review's The Corner: "A Republican candidate could play the footage pretty much straight and have a negative ad."

Charlotte's Web

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:41:00 EDT

In her weekly column, Charlotte Hays takes a stab at answering quesitons from the presidential debates.

Check it out here.

Hillary Clinton's Risky Scheme

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:18:00 EDT

Senator Clinton recently announced her plan for yet another new government subsidy for the middle class. This one is to encourage investment: if an individual puts away money for retirement, the government would match some portion of it, depending on their income level.

But as George Will points out in an op-ed today, in the past Senator Clinton has tarred the idea of investing in the stock market as a "risky scheme." Senator Clinton opposed proposals to allow individuals to use a portion of their Social Security contributions to fund personal retirement accounts as "a dangerous gamble that would make retirement insecure by linking retirement savings to the stock market. Echoing a trope from Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, she said investing retirement funds in the stock market was a "'risky scheme.'"

Will uses this as just one example of Democrats' attempts to pander to the middle class with promises of government largess.

It's important to note that not only are Democrats like Senator Clinton promising a slew of expensive new taxpayers-provided programs for favored voters, they are also ignoring the problems in existing programs. Senator Clinton, for example, has yet to provide any hint of what she would do to solve Social Security's financial problems, as I wrote about here.

Investment in the market is a good idea, but creating costly new government entitlement programs is not. Let's hope that Senator Clinton applies her new love of saving and investment to the federal retirement program that's already exists.

You Can't Beat Something With Nothing...Or Can You?

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:21:00 EDT

Over at National Review Online, IWF's Carrie Lukas examines some of the presidential hopefuls' Social Security reform plans. As Carrie notes, candidates seem eager to tell voters what there aren't going to do about Social Security rather than providing a detailed plan to deal with the challenges facing the failing Social Security system:

"This week, presidential hopeful Barack Obama penned an op-ed providing insight into what he might do as President to reform Social Security. Most of his piece focused on what he would not do to solve Social Security's problems: "First, I will fight against efforts to privatize Social Security...Second, I do not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on our seniors."

"In other words-as anyone who seeks the Democratic nomination must-Senator Obama bows to the powerful AARP senior lobby, vowing not to do anything to affect the payments given to this richest cohort in our society. He also promises them a tax cut for good measure.

"The only change he recommends considering for Social Security is to raise taxes. Specifically, he proposes eliminating the cap on the amount of income taxed for Social Security. He claims: "If we kept the payroll tax rate exactly the same but applied it to all earnings and not just the first $97,500, we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."

"Yet this massive tax increase would not, in reality, eliminate Social Security's deficit. Under current law, the highest earners' benefits are calculated based on the amount of income they paid payroll taxes on. If the wage cap were eliminated, and Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, and other multi-millionaires paid taxes on all their earnings, then the amount that they would be due at retirement would also soar. A recent Social Security Administration study of eliminating the wage cap found that this massive tax increase would only give Social Security an extra seven years before beginning to run deficits."

A Daily Show Clip to Brighten Up Your Day

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:10:00 EDT

Anyone looking for a dose of humor for the day should check out this clip from Monday night's Daily Show. You'll notice a picture of IWF President and CEO Michelle Bernard about three minutes into the clip.

The Week that Was

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:15:00 EDT

The Conventional Wisdom is that President Bush shouldn't deliver a speech on Iraq last night. For once, the conventional wisdom is right. No one can begrudge the president, who has had the courage not to go by his poll numbers, the right to speak. But his speech, which was so much like others he has given about Iraq, was unnecessary. Others had made the point for him better during a pivotal week.

Here is Charles Krauthammer on the Petraeus testimony:

For all the attempts by Democrats and the antiwar movement to discredit Petraeus, he won the congressional confrontation hands down. He demonstrated enough military progress from his new counterinsurgency strategy to conclude: 'I believe we have a realistic chance of achieving our objectives in Iraq.'
The American people are not antiwar. They are anti-losing. Which means they are also anti-drift. Adrift is where we were during most of 2006 -- the annus horribilis initiated by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's bringing down the Golden Mosque in Samarra -- until the new counterinsurgency strategy of 2007 (the 'surge') reversed the trajectory of the war.
It was being lost both in Iraq and at home.

Kimberley Strassel notes that 'good military policy is good politics.' The week was a turning point, she writes, but adds that there are still many hurdles, including:

Republicans would do well to absorb the military-success lesson, and quickly, because big challenges remain. The John Warners and Chuck Hagels of the world aren�t yet ready to relinquish their self-proclaimed roles as 'brave' GOP war dissenters; expect them to team up with Democrats on creative legislative language that might yet tie the military's hands. An even bigger challenge for Republicans will be to find the courage to follow President Bush's lead and make clear to the American public that true success in Iraq may involve a troop presence for many years.

And John Podhoretz is more positive on the president�s speech than I was:

The president's reduced standing among fellow Republicans and independents has run parallel to a corresponding rise of opposition to the Iraq war. They turned on the war because they believed the facts on the ground dictated an American defeat.
The facts on the ground tell a different story now. It's very difficult to turn pessimists into optimists, especially if they were optimists who gave up.
Bush has to try, and in his speech last night, he gave some pessimists reason to revisit their change of heart.

A National Review Online symposium also--by and large--gave the speech higher marks than I did. Clifford May thinks that the president did something important.

State of the Union Address 2007

Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:00:00 EST

Carrie Lukas writes...

The President's speech was stronger than I expected. He avoided the typical State of the Union laundry list, and focused primarily on broad themes and big issues. He made important calls for spending restraint, entitlement reform, school choice, comprehensive immigration reform, and offered a specific proposal to improve our tax codes treatment of healthcare insurance. Unlike other tedious State of the Unions, he didn't waste time proposing federal programs to reduce steroid use or curb gang violence, which, while they sound nice, are not federal issues. Instead he set a broad domestic policy agenda (that was entirely economic-no social issues discussed at all) and focused on building support for the War on Terror and his foreign policy goals. That's entirely appropriate for a President. He managed to strike a bipartisan, unconfrontational tone, but that also didn't seem like he was cowed by the new Congress or his sagging poll numbers. Overall, a solid showing for the President.

A. Yasmine Rassam writes...

On Iraq, the President was sober and conciliatory. He asked both sides of the aisle in Congress to give his new strategy involving augmentation of the troops in Baghdad and AlAnbar a chance. But he was clear about the context in which the Iraqi operation is playing. Abandoning our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, would lead to a wider conflict in the Middle East and would give our enemies victory in their declared war on our values.

The President spoke of the advances democracy made in 2005 in both Afghanistan and Iraq, with free elections and permanent constitutions, leading AlQaeda and other extremists to strike back in 2006 with the destruction of the golden mosque in Samarra, Iraq�an event designed to foment the sectarian violence that we are witnessing now.

The new strategy in Iraq has two major components: a commitment by the elected government of Iraq to control the violence in Baghdad by confronting violent groups and death squads from both Sunni and Shia extremists; and a commitment by the US to help that process in Baghdad while following up the positive signs in AlAnbar where tribal leaders are increasingly turning against AlQaeda terrorists. Both of these initiatives would require additional troops to give them some permanence.

Above all, President Bush was clear about the overall struggle against both Sunni (AlQaeda) terrorism and Shia (Hezbollah) terrorism: that it would be long-term, strategic, multigenerational. It is the defining struggle of our time and as such deserves the sense of national unity that will ensure victory.

Charlotte Hays writes...
The most beleaguered president in our history went to the Capitol tonight and gave a fine, and at times very fine, State of the Union address. George Bush was gracious to the Democrats and, more surprising, did not show the war fatigue he must feel even more than the rest of us. There was a little too much of a grab bag in the domestic portions of the speech (for some bizarre reason, ethanol is always good for a round of applause), but he didn�t propose a tax hike to pay for health insurance (as I predicted). Quite the contrary, he proposed tax cuts to help the uninsured. Glad to be wrong. But I'll leave the domestic aspects of the SOTU to Carrie Lukas.

Iraq was the overhanging issue of this speech, and on that Bush delivered. This was one of his best speeches on Iraq.

"This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in," he said. "Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory."

The president didn't fall back on irritating and repeated rhetorical devices (such as "stay the course" or referring repeatedly to Saddam as "the dictator"- both of which, of course, are obsolete, as we are changing the course and the dictator has met a richly deserved fate) and his summary of recent history in the Middle East was concise and specific. Is this the first time he has referred to Sunni extremists and Shiía extremists?

Bush can't retreat because he regards the war in Iraq as part of (and a very important part of) a decisive existential struggle--not a matter of polls or scrambling for cover, as the Democrats and some Republicans on the Hill do. David Corn of the Nation predicted that Bush would speak but nobody would listen. I think Corn is wrong. The president used his time well to explain what will happen if we do not follow through:

"If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country... and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.

"This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now."

That was the challenge to those who want to retreat. George Bush got an A tonight.

Allison Kasic writes...
President Bush is to be applauded for pushing several free-market domestic initiatives in tonight's speech. The President's economic points were right on the mark: we need a balanced budget (without raising taxes), earmark reform, and entitlement reform to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Bush's push away from universal health care and toward individual choice is also a move in the right direction. Reducing the tax burden for individual insurance coverage will allow for increased flexibility in our healthcare decisions. Bush drove this point home saying, "we must remember that the best healthcare decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors." That was one of the best quotes of the night. I wish Bush had spent more time devoted to entitlement reform--to push the new Congress to action on Social Security. Otherwise, Bush's attitude toward the new Democratic majority was entirely appropriate. He managed to walk the fine line between being conciliatory and standing his ground (he did an especially good job of this balance in regards to the war on terror).

To schedule an interview with Carrie, Charlotte, Yasmine, or Allison, please email Kate Pomeroy at kate.pomeroy@iwf.org.