“[W]e are effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives.” – J.D. Vance in July, 2021, appearing on Tucker Carlson’s former Fox News show at the time.
It’s safe to say that no one – especially politicians – closely monitors what he or she says at all times, and it’s equally true that remarks made years before to illustrate a point to a friendly interviewer aren’t normally expected to turn up in current campaigns for high office as being offensive to the masses. This doesn’t mean that past utterances aren’t fair game – Republicans use them all the time, especially in relation to Democrat nominee-to-be Kamala Harris and fifty-plus years’ worth of gaffes committed by incumbent president senile Joe Biden – but it doesn’t take much to set the chattering class off on wild flights of fancy these days.
Democrats’ mission in life is to prove all Republicans are “deplorables”, namely racists, sexists, xenophobes, homophobes, every-type-of-phobes – basically, prejudiced bigots who hate everyone but people who look and think like them. This DEI-brand of politics is particularly effective when targeted towards the reactionary uninformed low-information-type voters.
To that end, recently chosen Republican vice president candidate J.D. Vance has been embroiled in a bit of controversy of late for a smidgen from an on-air conversation he had three years ago as a guest on a conservative talk show. Democrats have appropriated the Ohioan’s spur-of-the-moment words to purportedly reveal Vance’s mindset as he campaigns alongside GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump to regain the White House and install policies that will set the nation on the correct course after a full presidential term of corruption, malfeasance, incompetence and intentional destruction under Harris’s and Biden’s “leadership”.
The ride won’t be smooth. In an article titled “Vance says ‘childless cat ladies’ comment taken out of context and blown up by Democrats”, Conrad Hoyt reported at the Washington Examiner earlier this week:
“Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) said his controversial comments about ‘childless cat ladies’ were ‘taken out of context’ and blown ‘out of proportion’ by Democrats because that is ‘what they always do.’
“The running mate of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has sought to defend his 2021 comments after they sparked backlash last week. Vance was referring to Vice President Kamala Harris and other top Democrats on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show at the time when he said there were ‘childless cat ladies’ running the United States who ‘want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.’
“The Ohio Republican, speaking with Fox News’s Trey Gowdy on Sunday night, attempted to clarify his remarks, alleging Democrats such as Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, have become ‘anti-child and anti-family.’”
Just about anyone who possesses an ounce of objectivity in his or her body understands what’s going on here, but it’s also instructive of the lengths Democrats are going to unearth anything underhanded that they think they can use to tarnish the reputation of the very direct-talking and likable J.D. Vance, an accomplished lawyer and author with a beautiful daughter-of-Indian-immigrants wife and three beautiful multi-ethnic (like Kamala Harris) children himself.
What, Democrats have to go back three years, to a Vance appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show to find something allegedly detrimental? And they chose the “childless cat ladies” quip as a focal point? (Note: The hags on “The View” took special exception to it.)
Vance’s remark was admittedly sarcastic, but J.D. made a point by his choice of words. The Democrats most certainly are anti-family with their policies that foster taxpayer funded abortions, no-week limits on legality (late term is a-okay with them), rampant inflation, anti-energy exploration, anti-energy use, excessive taxes, excessive regulations that harm small businesses (many of which are family owned and operated), estate taxes, new interpretations of Title IX (women’s sports exclusive of biological transgender males) and a host of other proposals that make it harder for “normal” people to function.
In other words, this is about much more than “childless” couples, cats or lifestyles. It’s about good ol’ fashioned American values.
Looking at the big picture, there’s a difference between women who are childless because of circumstance or health reasons and those who avoided bearing and raising children because of personal choice, utter laziness or a swinging lifestyle. Most of us have known solid-to-the-core childless couples and it’s never occurred to me to confront them with, “Since you don’t have youngins’, are you automatically just cat people”?
While I don’t know – and don’t really want to know – why Kamala Harris didn’t have children, the effects of her absence of perspective shows up in her interactions regardless of her reasons. It seems to me that people who’ve raised children, myself included, realize quickly that the innocence and aura of physical (not psychological) vulnerability recedes quickly when you’re up against immature beings who definitely have impulse-driven minds of their own.
Women like Kamala Harris handle young people like they’re fully grown intellects who just inhabit smaller bodies. Discipline in appropriate amounts is what most parents think kids require. Kamala probably figures they need suckers and Slurpees and gift cards to make them happy. It’s how liberals treat people. I’ve witnessed it myself.
It’s also my thought that women who champion abortion so strongly are basically safeguarding the “rights” of child-rearing age XX chromosome human beings to decide whenever they want whether they’d prefer a career, fun, vacations, multiple relationships or simply to be unburdened by the sheer physical and psychological and financial demands of having children they’re responsible for. Why sugarcoat it? Kids change everything, particularly young ones, and there’s no getting around the fact that a growing number of women don’t want to be bothered with the inconvenience.
Then there is that percentage of women who opt to avoid the hospital’s labor and delivery floor because they’ve got their own version of a God complex – they’re “saving the earth” by abstaining from… full-term pregnancy. Particularly unintentionally humorous are those women who cite “climate change” and overpopulation as rationales for their stated positions. These are many of the same leftist know-it-alls who champion unfettered illegal immigration and open borders, too.
Apparently, negligently overpopulating their own communities with lawbreakers is okay with them. Won’t there always be competition for resources?
My question for them is, assuming that you would desire some semblance of normalcy in your everyday existence – you know, one man, one woman, if that even exists anymore in today’s hopelessly confused culture – do you express your concern for remaining childless because of the environment, etc. to the one you’re dating?
Does wanting to avoid having children make these individuals awful people? Not necessarily. But it makes them selfish. No one in the Western World would suggest that a woman must bear children out of duty and responsibility to society at large, but it’s a fact – the world would not survive without a next generation of human beings to learn and govern and work and pay taxes and, well, create the next generation after them.
Liberals hate the phrase, but it’s always been that way. And Vance indicated in subsequent interviews after this controversy broke that the Republican party must promote strong families as part of its platform. Does anyone disagree with that premise?
Self-centered women most definitely would take issue with J.D. Vance’s use of the words “cat lady” to describe the selfish, me-first, fun-at-all-cost women like Kamala Harris, but the Republican party would not appeal to this demographic group to begin with. While some conservatives would agree that the abortion issue can be discussed and debated, Democrat-supporting women see the “right” to terminate a pregnancy as a one-way street that only leads to female serfdom if any limits at all are proposed.
Put it this way… I doubt we’ll see J.D. Vance receive an invite to talk with the crows on “The View”. They’re not interested in anything other than their viewpoint, and hearing out Pro-life believers isn’t in the cards. Democrat women act as though their lives and careers and choices have been severely limited by the conscious efforts from men to subjugate them.
Does anyone know of such men who think this way?
If there are, they won’t be finding females who want to procreate with them. A few months ago, Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker (speaking at a Catholic college commencement ceremony) advocated that women should want to bear children – and raise them as a higher duty – and he was roundly pilfered by liberals in the culture who thought he was suggesting that a woman’s sole place is barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen.
Hardly. But having children is essential for the reasons outlined above.
As a childless woman, Kamala Harris certainly seems qualified to stump for abortion, but are she and the Democrats the right ones to talk about what families – and children -- need? Remember how she treated the kids in the NASA video?
One accusation (among many) that’s often leveled at Kamala is that she lacks genuine character. One gathers just by observing her and hearing her cackling giggle that she’s about as phony as anyone – man or woman – could ever get. Hearing Harris, it’s impossible to keep from imagining her doing the voiceover of a cartoon witch. Someone who scares children, not teaches them.
And needless to say, the impressive staff turnover in her vice president’s office and testimonials about her harsh personality hasn’t helped her improve her image – or her approval ratings.
Who knows, the term “childless cat woman” may be too kind to encompass what Kamala Harris is about.
For those who objected to Vance’s sarcastic quip from three years ago, they’re only looking for something damaging to pin to J.D., an articulate spokesman for Donald Trump’s MAGA campaign. Notice how Democrats don’t want to engage in a deep exploration of the issues – where they’d clearly come out on the short end. They’d much rather dwell on “childless cat women.” What a joke.
Joe Biden economy
inflation
Biden cognitive decline
gas prices,
Nancy Pelosi
Biden senile
January 6 Committee
Liz Cheney
Build Back Better
Joe Manchin
RINOs
Marjorie Taylor Green
Kevin McCarthy
Mitch McConnell
2022 elections
Donald Trump
2024 presidential election
I am considering not voting for Trump--because of Vance.
I watched the Vance interview at the border. It was my first exposure to how he expresses himself and what he has to say. I was impressed. He is intelligent and articulate. He was asked some difficult questions and he answered all of them in very logical fashion. And he didn't cackle!
I know exactly what Vance was talking about. In fact, I have one in my family. They're feminazis who aborted their children during the child-bearing age. Then they were suddenly thirtysomethings and realized that the old biological clock was rapidly ticking away. So they substitute cats (dogs, birds, whatever) for children. JD Vance was spot on, and he shouldn't apologize because these women, and there are a lot of them, are a huge problem voting-wise.
I personally do not trust or like Vance. Mental health of others should not be a subject for disparagement.