GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin
Jul 8th, 2009 | 68 responses
During my appearance on CNN.com/LIVE on Monday (7/6), I mentioned that one of the side effects of soon-to-be-former Alaska Governor and GOP Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s decision to not run for re-election as governor and to resign as of July 26 is that, seeing that she has done it (run for her state’s highest office and then leave it with 18 months to go) and justified those decisions with a variety of rationales, who is to say that she has not opened a floodgate for potential female primary candidates for the GOP presidential and vice presidential nominations? Male candidates become “career politicians” all the time, from both parties, right? Why not the women? If we’re breaking down barriers, why not let the ambition women have be overt, just like the men’s, to keep climbing higher in politics?
This thought path got me thinking:
Could we see a female-female GOP ticket for president and vice president in 2012?
Why not?
In addition to Palin’s decision-making leading me to wonder outloud about this possibility, there are the multiple groups that continue to support women who want to engage in a political life and even enter politics.
Then, there’s the galvanizing fact that since January 2009, our country has gone from having 42 male and eight female governors, to, by the end of July 2009, having 44 male and six female governors (Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius moved to cabinet positions in the Obama administration and that took us down to seven; Palin’s departure before the end of her first term leaves us with six).
Napolitano was replaced by a woman, so the remaining six will be:
1. Arizona – Jan Brewer
2. Connecticut – M. Jodi Rell
3. Hawaii – Linda Lingle
4. Michigan – Jennifer Granholm
5. North Carolina – Bev Perdue
6. Washington – Christine Gregoire
This Women’s eNews article explains how we got into this situation, but here’s the gist:
There are currently eight female governors, and one–Democrat Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware–is retiring, to be replaced by one of three male nominees.
The other seven gubernatorial races this year feature all-male slates.
This year’s field of female nominees is down from the record 10 that ran each year in 1994, 2002 and 2006, according to the Center for American Women and Politics.
That’s partly because there are only 11 governor’s races this year, far fewer than in midterm election years, which host more gubernatorial elections.
And then there’s the fact that the U.S. is only 72nd in the world in the number of women in its federal legislature (17% are women in the Congress overall; in the state legislatures, it’s about 24%). The top 10 countries on that list – all but the last two with 40% or more of its national legislature being female?
Rwanda
Sweden
South Africa
Cuba
Iceland
Finland
Netherlands
Argentina
Denmark
Angola
And, with Palin deciding she must go now, we will have barely over 5% of our country’s governors being women by next month.
Totally unacceptable.
So, who have I thought of, literally just off the top of my head? The top three, and most seriously potential contenders for a presidential or vice-presidential run, based on the GOP’s Palin-as-VP benchmark for the GOP:
1. Kay Bailey Hutchison – Hutchison is running to win the GOP Texas governor nomination against incumbent Rick Perry. Whether or not she wins, why shouldn’t she be considered a serious presidential or VP candidate? Again, if Sarah can be…
2. Sarah Steelman – Steelman won big marks from some conservative segments for pushing a tiny pilot project that was composed of investment funds that were 100% devoid of companies that dealt with Iran. She was Missouri Treasurer for four years but lost in her bid to become governor in a narrow primary loss. Her Wikipedia entry says,
“Treasurer Steelman may run for the United States Senate against incumbent Claire McCaskill in 2012 or run for governor against incumbent Jay Nixon that year. She may also run for the open seat in 2010 due to Kit Bond‘s retirement.”
If Sarah can do it, why not…Sarah? Steelman that is.
3. Meg Whitman – Whitman is best known for her success and decade-long tenure as President and CEO of eBay, but she actually started out at P&G in Cincinnati, yeah Ohio. She spoke at the RNC’s convention last year and has raised several million dollars toward her CA gubernatorial primary (Arnold Schwarzenegger is term-limited). Wikipedia has a nice portraiture display of CA candidates and potential candidates, and Carly Fiorina is in the bunch under the GOP but might run against one of CA’s U.S. Senators, Barbara Boxer. Still, if we learned nothing from John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin and its impact on predicting political trajectories, we’ve learned not to count out anyone as a potential 2012 GOP female-female White House ticket.
Read the rest of the possibilities, for a total of eight good potential candidates, at the original Writes Like She Talks post.
68 Responses to “GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin”
“Sadly, this post wouldn't be necessary or even generating comments if the reality was that women were always perceived as just people. But they haven't been and so this is where we are.”
But what is it that feminists want now (or demand, or dogmatically “require”, as C. Stanley put it so well?) Why substitute “well-to-the-left-of-the-public-as-well-as-often-blatantly-partisan-Democrat” for “people”?
(Note: This applies to other leftist groups in the Democratic Party camp, like black Americans. The Democratic Party and liberalism in this country isn't merely “inclusive” but demands ideological, political, and often blatantly partisan dogma as credentials of these “people's” _authenticity_, in their view.)
“The ACLU can't be knocked as liberal when you've got a SCOTUS whose 5-4 decisions this year in particular show a huge amount of activism “
I'll just note that in addition to misusing “activism” here too freely and loosely, this was a logical goof of the first order. What matters is the nature of the ACLU; it's irrelevent what you may believe, true or otherwise, about the behavior of other parties. (Also, even if the current Court _were_ activist, that is in no way a logical or ethical or any other kind of defense of the ACLU.) And we know the nature of the ACLU. (Like other parties such as unions, it's effective a left-Democratic auxiliary.)
“You are very comfortable, it seems, in calling this 'liberal' or 'radical' or whatever – labeling. I prefer to describe what I feel they do or don't do”
I do both at the same time. The “labels” are accurate descriptors, not mere nomenclature devoid of anything in addition to their character elements.
Maybe the reason the ACLU is a “left-Democratic auxiliary” is that conservatives don't care about civil liberties.
Ryan @10:30am today:
Got it – thank you.
Re: the pipeline metaphor – well….she said with a smile. This is the whole thing! Palin and Obama (and others, esp. if you read The Fix and his article today about how hard a time the White House and Rahm are having recruiting people) demonstrate that that assumption about how a long the pipe might be re: # of election cycles is totally up for grabs. I, personally, think that that is NOT necessarily a good thing. But I also think it shows how we should ALWAYS be looking at candidates on a case by case basis – different things take different lengths of time to mature/ripen – political candidates/politicians may or may not be any different, don't you think?
To DLS @ 12:22pm today -
Hmm. I'll think about these points. The re-emphasize your previous comments, but I'm not sure I agree or disagree anymore or less with you on them. For ex., sure – we've come to think that judicial activism is a term of art, but a la Frank Luntz and many others, such terms have come up for grab. Sometimes I like that, sometimes I don't. Activism in and of itself is nonpartisan, IMO. Which is to say, I think the concept of Judicial activism has been irreparably altered specifically by this Roberts Court. That might come to be one of its hallmarks, really.
And kind of like conservative women embracing their own brand of feminism. There are just a lot of phrases up for grabs, and not being a lover of labels, I find that to be natural and interesting, but also dangerous.
The whole thing about feminism, abortion, academia – I don't related to what you're expressing. I understand what you've written, but it's just not something I think about much at all – it involves a very tiny portion of individuals and I would not want to overstate the influence. That is, of course, just my opinion/feeling about it.
To DLS @12:28 -
You are going to have to ask someone else – I don't speak for “feminists” as you see them. I don't know what more to tell you. I'm just not the right person to respond to that question. I would urge you to not label and compartmentalize so much but again, just IMO.
@DLS 12:33
I disagree and I'm happy to throw down my JD/MSW dual licensure as a lawyer and social worker. I stand by my opinion and I disagree with your position. Nothing personal. I just completely disagree.
@DLS 12:36
Yeah, again, I will disagree w/you here. There's no such thing as an accurate label unless all the people using it – speaking it and hearing it – agree on what it represents. And that's just not the case with several of the labels you've used.
@Ryan “40 minutes ago” (that's what it says as I type this!)
That's a great perspective re: the ACLU. I do actually feel that they protect civil liberties all along the spectrum, but I like what you wrote because you open the window on the nuance of how civil liberties are perceived, defined and, ugh – I can't believe I'm writing this – labeled.
They might protect civil liberties all along the spectrum but if they're involved then it tends to mean that someone is infringing on another's civil liberties. Now consider conservative attitudes towards gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. Who do you suppose is going to get the short end of the stick?
Ryan – well – I just haven't reviewed enough cases of theirs lately – I tend to watch for religion and youth-related cases but otherwise don't monitor regularly. I think we need to be careful and not push something that seems to be a common perception that, in fact, might not be. I'd be persuaded by stats etc but I don't really know, beyond the meme kind of thing pushed about the ACLU. (I'm going a bit easy on them because I do know people who work for the ACLU and frankly, one of them, a Harvard grad, is very conservative so…I just wouldn't be as sure as you are.)
Mary Fallin – Lynn Cheney – 2016
“There's no such thing as an accurate label unless all the people using it – speaking it and hearing it – agree on what it represents.”
I made accurate statements of fact, and the “labels” (or whatever other name you may wish to substitute in place of “terms”) are accurate if they are clear and correct, which they are. I suppose in a rare or odd case you could raise an example, such as demanding a specific wavelength to officially define a specific color, but that's carrying things to rare and odd extremes, and is exceptional, not the norm.
Funny you mention agreement, as it is applicable to the (real) problem of judicial activism.
“And that's just not the case with several of the labels you've used.”
Well, if some would insist that “red” mean green instead, (which is a valid analogy to judicial activism, substuting one's own views and wishes for what was intended and agreed on, and what may correctly may be inferred from this or retroactively applied to it, and having judges rather than the legislature state what a law _should_be_), I really don't think that matters, Jill. Unanimity obviously is never required to define a term.
” I don't speak for 'feminists' as you see them.”
There are no alternative “visions.” The extremists characterize and taint contemporary feminism.
“I think the concept of Judicial activism has been irreparably altered specifically by this Roberts Court”
It's not like past decades, thank goodness. And Sotomayor, controversy and all, isn't that threatening.
“Maybe the reason the ACLU is a 'left-Democratic auxiliary' is that conservatives don't care about civil liberties.”
Plenty of suitable people also have been led to believe the “Conservatives are anti-science” myth, a more common and useful current political weapon and rationalization for Democratic politics and policies.
DLS – we're really veering apart at this point on the comments you're quoting and commenting on. That's the value of a blog, but my prior reflections in this thread about those assertions you're making reflect my opinion still.