Lori Ziganto & Daughter GracieOn my Sweet Sixteen birthday, my daddy bought me the super fancy hard-cover of George Will's book The Morning After. My mother, endearingly dubbed Daft Scottish Mom, listened to Rush Limbaugh daily and often proclaimed, "Och, my wee Rush! He's nae daft, that one." Suffice it to say, I've been a Conservative for quite a spell. But it wasn't until I became a mama that I fully grasped the importance of Conservatism and what it truly means, in practice not just in theory.
I realized that not only are Conservative ideals best for the country, but they are particularly good for women and their children. We need less Nanny State and more Mommy State (without the incessant laundry. Someone needs to hurry up and invent laundry that folds and puts itself away. Kindly arrange.). Mamas nurture not with the intention of taking care of you forever, but in a way that teaches you and enables you to succeed, or fail, on your own.
A Nanny is paid for by someone else to make you feel protected and policed, often protecting you from yourself. A mommy fights for you and protects you, but she does it by teaching you how to protect and take care of yourself. You need a mommy, not a nanny, to teach you personal responsibility and how to solve problems on your own for a lifetime.
This is why we are seeing more Conservative women moving to the forefront. Not as perpetual victims railing against The Patriarchy (tm), but as fighters and leaders who embody my personal motto -- walk softly, but carry a big lipstick. See, we dames have learned by living, often in our awesome small towns, none of which are bitter in my experience. We manage budgets that are often super tight. We make it work by cutting out things that aren't cost-efficient, sacrificing non-necessities, and by using the free market to shop at Costco or Walmart and not fancy pants Whole Foods. We do not do it by whining about needing more nor by coveting the earnings of others.
Conservatism also enables women to embrace motherhood, not regard it as a punishment. Conservatives know that motherhood does not diminish a woman and it is not detrimental to her career or aspirations. Rather, it strengthens her and is an attribute in and of itself. After becoming a mother, my pro-life convictions were further strengthened and it is Conservatives who value life. Because of this, they value women. The real 'War on Women' is perpetrated by the pro-abortion Left. See, if you devalue and diminish the life of unborn children, then you also devalue the life bearers.
I do not want my daughter to grow up sneered at as a gender traitor for not toeing the faux feminist line because she dares to be pro-life. I don't want my own President to teach my daughter that her value and her rights are predicated on her legal ability to kill her own unborn children. And I don't want her growing up to be taught that women are perpetual victims in need of a Nanny State Government to save them.
I want to teach her to love freedom and how to hold onto it tightly. There! Mommy made it all better.
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 53
Your extreme position that any time a pregnancy ends before going to full term is a "killing," condemns even women who miscarry as "killers."
It's not an "extreme position" that if you force something to stop living, you have killed it. Your semantics don't change reality, or fool anyone. Abortion involves killing something - and I am being intentionally ambiguous there, because of the predictable "mass of cells", "it's not a baby yet!" that is the battle cry of the Left. Whatever you call it, the intent of the abortion is to kill it.
But playing along with what you've written - an overwhelming number of Americans believe Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have been good for the country, and relatively few support benefit cuts
You actually didn't address what I wrote at all. I specifically targeted the people who are "unwilling" to take care of themselves, whose safety net you claim we must fund. The pew pole you cited, showing majority support for banning public smoking, supports my arguement that people are tired of paying for someone else's poor choices, not your idea that you can be an idiot and expect a tax-funded rescue plan. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (when not being abused) have nothing to do with poor choices
This is where they step in and say, "Well we don't want women to have abortions, but we don't want to provide welfare to the undeserving lazy mothers either. And we have to concede that eventually adoption of these children would decline. So, lets all do as our pal Newt suggests and take the kids from loving, but poor, parents and raise the children in an orphanages instead. Plus, lets help abolish child labor laws and the minimum wage too and put these kids to work so they can earn their keep. That way we can plausibly be pro-child and anti-welfare at the same time." That has awsome idea written all over it! Hahahaha.
Angel - just because the SC has made abortion legal, does not mean it's not killing. It's alive - abortion performed - it's dead. You can get as verbose as you want, and it doesn't change the fact - it's killing, with the government's blessing, yes, but still killing.
Also - I've conceded Social Security and Medicaid are not part of the problem, so pressing me to "do some research" doesn't strengthen your position that we need a social plan to rescue elective losers from their own lack of ambition. Unless your position is that all SS and Medicaid recipients are losers. Is that your position?
I saw Rush in your first paragraph...you have nothing to offer.