Mitt Romney and the GOP lost, but it wasn’t for lack of money. They spent a lot; they just didn’t get enough bang for the buck. Billionaire Sheldon Adelson alone donated $150 million. But Romney lost anyway, especially among unmarried women. Which is why I think that rich people wanting to support the Republican Party might want to direct their money somewhere besides TV ads that copy, poorly, what Lee Atwater did decades ago. My suggestion: Buy some women’s magazines. No, really. Or at least some women’s Web sites. One of the groups with whom Romney did worst was female “low-information voters.” Those are women who don’t really follow politics, and vote based on a vague sense of who’s mean and who’s nice, who’s cool and who’s uncool.You see, it wasn't that Republicans spent most of the year calling women sluts, calling rape a gift, offering strange theories about women's bodies, putting the term "transvaginal ultrasound" in the national lexicon -- or that Romney himself said he wanted to defund Planned Parenthood. No, it's just that lots of dumb broads who are too busy getting pedicures and facials to follow politics just have this silly idea that Republicans are "uncool" and "mean."
Since, by definition, they don’t pay much attention to political news, they get this sense from what they do read. And for many, that’s traditional women’s magazines — Redbook, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, the Ladies Home Journal, etc. — and the newer women’s sites like YourTango, The Frisky, Yahoo! Shine, and the like. The thing is, those magazines and Web sites see themselves, pretty consciously, as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.Uh, really? Take a look at the latest issue of Glamour. Why, it might as well be Mother Jones! Anyway, I'm sure Putz's idea will be a big success. What should this new GOP women's magazine be called?
(crossposted at C&L)