An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Forget Bipartisanship. Democrats Need To Do What is Right on Health-Care Reform.

Did You Hear About The Drunken Badger? »

GOP Can Field All-Female 2012 White House Ticket w/out Palin

Posted by JILL MILLER ZIMON in Health, Miscellaneous, Politics, Society, War.
Jul 8th, 2009 | Comments

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.

  • DLS
    "Totally unacceptable."

    I'd say "unrepresentative," but have no fear, there are women who will run eventually, no doubt about it.

    Prior to the Obama triumph on Super Tuesday, the smart money was on Clinton to win not only the Dem primary, but the general election, too. As I was saying frequently, "Get ready to say it again -- 'President Clinton.'"

    In the 1980s, Jeane Kirkpatrick distinguished herself and she would have been great to succeed Reagan (even if she would have been the target of misogynistic attacks by NOW as well as other lefty groups).

    Choosing Ferraro for VP in the past was baffling. In L.A. we all asked, "Who is _she_?" as nobody had ever heard of her, as opposed to Dianne Feinstein from San Francisco, whom everybody knew of since Moscone and Milk were assassinated.

    I presume with additional years of experience _and_ exposure, we'll see more female candidates emerge, just as we'll see more black, Hispanic, etc., candidates emerge for all kinds of leadership positions.
  • DLS
    By the way, Jill, what's wrong with a token male as VP? After all, not only does that reach out to the substantial male majority of GOP-leaning voters, but that's what Joe Biden has proven to be now as Obama's VP (including with foreign policy, for which he was primarily supposed to have been selected).
  • I agree in part with your conclusion, "I presume with additional years of experience _and_ exposure, we'll see more female candidates emerge, just as we'll see more black, Hispanic, etc., candidates emerge for all kinds of leadership positions."

    The part I don't agree with is the experience - there are POC and WOC and women who have the experience already - and Obama and Palin both contribute to the lowering of that bar. Now, it's a matter of political party structures and bias. Ohio is actually a great state for observing in this regard - Jennifer Brunner v. Lee Fisher for Dem US Senate nomination.

    I was at Georgetown during Kirkpatrick's tenure and I just don't believe she was ever much of a politician, so I didn't see it. However, someone did mention to me today the suggestion of Condi Rice - I think she'd make a great addition to the list I wrote, but I'm not sure she's remotely interested in a elected, political career.
  • Smiling re: the token male. Aw...I don't know - we've had male-male tickets on the GOP side up until last year - I suggest they give it a rest for a few cycles. :)
  • jwest
    Lynn Cheney ‘12
  • DLS
    "re: the token male. Aw...I don't know [...] I suggest they give it a rest for a few cycles."


    "UNACCEPTABLE!" -- Rush Limbaugh
  • DLS
    "we've had male-male tickets on the GOP side up until last year"

    Almost the same record on the Demmie side. Let them go first. [grin]
  • DLS - I'm all for the Dem side going first with the female-female ticket, but, it has been said, tho I don't know exactly why, that people think the GOP will be the first to run a woman as president.
  • DLS
    Palin-Coulter '12 "Bring 'em on!"
  • Jwest - GREAT suggestion for an addition - Lynn Cheney - of course. But - now - I have to look her up - has she run for anything yet? I know, Meg Whitman hasn't. :)
  • DLS
    "people think the GOP will be the first to run a woman as president"

    Not out of tokenism, either, but featuring a serious contender. It's because women like Kirkpatrick, to name an older example again, where shown to not all kowtow to NOW extremism or other liberal-to-radical notions (which the Left implicitly demands women "should" support, to be a "real" woman, just as one has to be liberal and Democratic to be a "real" black, for example) and this radical element of U.S. liberalism that includes the worst parts of feminism repels many more voters than it attracts. That there are women in the GOP, or are conservative, is largely a quiet progressive phenomenon, despite the more notorious examples in recent times like Ann Coulter (deliberate controversy and provocation for notoriety).
  • DLS
    "Lynn Cheney - of course. But - now - I have to look her up - has she run for anything yet?"

    She was at NEH. Now, imagine her today or Sarah Palin (gasp) as "Secretary of Culture."
  • jwest
    Jill,

    The one thing that the ’08 elections have taught us is that public office experience is not a factor for a Presidential candidate.
  • Ryan
    What if the Republican primary voters choose a male candidate who happens to think that the best VP candidate also happens to be a man?
  • DLS
    Ryan -- that shows that the GOP, Republicans, non-liberals are "sexist," of course. Just like they're "racist," especially if another white male happens to be selected.

    Jill -- this is the best thread in days. And it's not really about Palin (or Sanford or Michael Jackson).
  • DLS
    "public office experience is not a factor for a Presidential candidate"

    2008:

    1. Thumbs Down on the GOP

    2. Barack Obama is attractive and charismatic!
  • Ryan
    Well, I'm not going to say they're not sexist, although since it's traditional to discriminate against women that sorta makes it a conservative position by default.

    Jill - usually when you complain about some group being predominantly or entirely male you at least pick one with a few more people. The all-male 2012 GOP ticket starts at 25% for complete randomness... and picking a national ticket is very, very nonrandom.
  • kritt11
    Mary Cheney :-)
  • Working backwards just because: Kritt11 - No argument from me! She's a mom AND has a same-sex orientation. :)
  • Ryan -

    I confess to a blonde moment - and I'm blonde, so my apologies to myself and blondes. I don't understand what you are getting at here:

    "Jill - usually when you complain about some group being predominantly or entirely male you at least pick one with a few more people. The all-male 2012 GOP ticket starts at 25% for complete randomness... and picking a national ticket is very, very nonrandom."

    I do object to the characterization of me as complaining, but that's minor. Could be because it's late in the day, but what exactly are you saying? Sorry.
  • Ryan, in regard to this comment you left, "What if the Republican primary voters choose a male candidate who happens to think that the best VP candidate also happens to be a man?"

    The voters should choose who the voters want. But you and I both know that the options offered will reflect decisions made at a few different levels at which there must be consideration of a broad range of options. I'm submitting that the eight or nine women I mentioned, plus Liz Cheney, Condi Rice and whomever else others come up with, also be considered. People were lobbying for Palin long before many of us ever really knew anything about her. So - I am starting early by putting a bee in people's bonnets and saying, don't forget - there are a lot of qualified potential GOP candidates for 2012's White House run, and at least several of them are women.

    It's about priming the pump and filling the pipeline, Ryan, and then making sure that the decision makers who offer up the options for the voters to choose make choices that won't make voters roll their eyes. Part of Palin's appeal was her being a woman - McCain said it and we all knew it. So - why not again?
  • Jwest - if I didn't say it in this thread, I must have elsewhere but I agree that the bar has perceivedly been lowered re: experience. McCain did that by giving up the argument against Obama when he brought on Palin. It never became an effective argument against Obama once Palin was on the ticket. I think that's a huge mistake - and I wrote about that long before Obama became the nominee (you may recall, I was not an Obama supporter during the primary and continue to be less than thrilled with him in general).

    I don't think we've seen the end of the debate over the role of experience just because McCain made a mistake (in my estimation, a mistake).
  • sinistarx
    My state's (Washington) Governor is Christine Gregoire. :)

    The GOP would likely be first to the plate with a female candidate, as they do need a big distraction to swing things back to them, and an all-star white male ticket won't cut it.

    I fear that the pool of candidates is small. Finding a female candidate that has the qualities of (if not actual experience) leadership, is teflon to scandal and has enough of the 'current' conservative playbook but is appealing to the masses is going to be hard to discover. Like with Gov Palin, we will get someone who is 1 of these and have a PR machine that will distract us with slick, well-produced propaganda to browbeat us into supporting her.
  • I'm really really REALLY going to take issue with your implication that "The Left" "implicitly demands women "should" support, to be a "real" woman" "NOW extremism or other liberal-to-radical notions."

    That's never been my experience - never. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of any feminist group and I've voted Dem FAR more often than GOP.

    What "worst parts of feminism" are you even contemplating when you say "this radical element of U.S. liberalism that includes the worst parts of feminism repels many more voters than it attracts?

    I mean - really - I think you've got some old notions that women themselves, who consider themselves working for women's rights or issues or leadership or strength just don't hold. And those that do, make a far smaller proportion than I think you think is out there.

    But I'd like more clarification - because I really don't see the observation you seem to have seen.
  • Sinistarx - in addition to Gregoire, what do you think about some of the other names mentioned? And, specifically, I think about them in comparison to the men that are being offered up, early as it is:

    Huckabee, Romney, Jindal, Sanford still maybe?

    Really - some of these women - they are amazing in what they've accomplished. I just don't see any of these guys being any better if at the same level.

    What do you think?
  • DLS
    "What 'worst parts of feminism' are you even contemplating when you say 'this radical element of U.S. liberalism that includes the worst parts of feminism repels many more voters than it attracts'?"

    The fake "sexist" and "sexism" charges levied at anyone and everything that the extremists don't like is one example of what repels so many people. Also the attitude that to be an "authentic" woman you must be liberal and Democratic, and that of course non-liberal people and the GOP are "anti-female" [sic] (and of course, women who dare to be non-liberal or Republican are conspicuously not defended or subjected to the same attacks the radical lefties don't reserve merely for non-liberal men).

    The extremist, radical, as well as too-blatantly ideological and political parts, Jill, in other words.

    An contemporary example of related poor behavior, but more so in this case an object of scorn and laughter at their expense (even if they're unable to grasp that), not loathing or outrage, is this notorious little tirade after Kennedy chose to endorse Obama rather than Clinton last year:

    http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_012808.html

    I was going to direct you to Feminista to show you what the militant feminists look like, the "animal welfare" equivalent of the worst of PETA, but apparently "www.feminista.com" is no longer alive and unwell.

    * * *

    "I think you've got some old notions that women themselves"

    I freely confess to the foregoing in a truly _literal_ sense. That is to say, I'm among those who were sold all along on the earlier, decent, geniune, pre-radicalism-and-blatant-political nonsense associated with not only women's rights but civil rights (I've never been racist or sexist). Yes, my "old" (non-PC-enough) notion is (how a _good_ bumper sticker put it when I saw it in Seattle) the amazing conception that women are PEOPLE!
  • DLS
    "I really don't see the observation you seem to have seen"

    You might also believe the ACLU is apolitical and defends all rights equally, Jill, even though that organization is obviously liberal and political and selective, and has made the letter "C" in the acronym frequently be claimed to stand for "Cafeteria" (for its selectivity, i.e., its hypocrisy) if not "Communist" by its many detractors.

    It's kind of like so many who encounter the obviously liberal media and deny there is any liberal bias (like denying the roundness rather than "objective" flatness of the earth).
  • sinistarx
    Jillmz- Well, Gov. Gregoire really has that job via 2 very contentious elections, with election fraud being the central argument thrown at both sides. I'm not sure that her performance to date warrants an elevation to the national level, nor do I think she has distinguished herself in the Democratic Party to be considered.

    Comparing her to the likes of Huckabee, et.al, I'd say she is about average. No personal scandals that have come to light, but politically has had the advantage of a majority Democratic Legislature to get things done. Honestly, I think that since we live in a State that hasn't met a tax it doesn't like, the GOP has had its hands full keeping this state business friendly.

    I would lean towards a Governor that has faced political hardship and succeeded in lifting their State's profile in the categories that matter:low unemployment, low crime, high production, good transportation network, heavy tourism, and so on.

    I fully expected John McCain to tap Kay Bailey Hutchinson over Sarah Palin for the VP nod, as she would have brought stability to the ticket and didn't have the baggage that the other female contenders had. She actually might be the candidate to beat in 2016, but not sure if her profile will be raised enough (or the GOP reassembled) for 2012.
  • DLS
    "Honestly, I think that since we live in a State that hasn't met a tax it doesn't like, the GOP has had its hands full keeping this state business friendly."

    (NOTE: See remark at bottom as well as this response here.)

    That's no different than when I was there (1992-6). It's no surprise that Boeing was looking at relocating its future assembly work to Wichita -- you realize that, don't you? Or why numerous people register their vehicles in other states? (NOTE: This also applies to California, which also is business-unfriendly and has exported many people as well as jobs, as I can attest, as well as to other business-unfriendly states.)

    The big question will be, will such problems (and related ones, like environmental activism and extremism) be compounded by similar activities by the Dems in Washington? The climate bill is ugly...

    * * *

    "Mary Cheney"

    If not President or VP, certainly a Cabinet or other federal post if her experience qualifies her for this, which could be part of a stairway toward the VP or Presidential position eventually...

    * * *

    "She's a mom AND has a same-sex orientation."

    Jill, are these things pluses (or should-be's) for a candidate, or more "position gap"-filling attributes?

    (When I hear "a mom" I think of Patty Murray, from Washington, in the Senate.)
  • Any idea about women serving as Lt. Gov. or AG in their states? No reason why it has to be the top spot. Women in the House could also choose to run - though I think the last President who came from the House was Gerald Ford, and his route was a one-time deal. Of course, it might be that the next President won't even hold office until the mid-term elections.
  • RE: DLS after my last comment before a batch of other comments:

    Okay - this is a helpful clarification. Yeah - I don't pay too much attention to extremes on either end unless they really prevent me from pursuing issues that are important to me. Observe, notice, flag but then leave it alone. Because the reality is, just as with moderate conservatives, those of us more in the mainstream rather than the radical end you perceive need to make that mainstream or at least reasonable visage more obvious and promiment. Taking time to bellyache about the rabid people is wasteful - IMO.

    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. My state rep recently said that as a conservative GOP candidate for state treasurer, he wants to take back America to where the founding fathers wanted it.

    That idea is absolutely vile to me - slavery? women with no vote? And so on. Just cannot accept that. But there's no need to go banshie on it either.
  • DLS re: comment that mentions ACLU:

    We're going to have to agree to disagree here. 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'm thinking in particular about cases like the one about age discrimination - did you read that one? It's shameful IMO what they did to precedent).

    I really, again, just live with the ACLU. The represent people I abhor and they represent issues which, if no one else raised a ruckus, would irreparably alter the freedom we have in this country. They're a group I'm very glad exists but with which I definitely don't always agree.

    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 - labels are of very limited value when you're trying to decide what's got value and what doesn't, IMO.
  • Sinistarx:

    This is a great standard or criteria to consider when considering who we would want to be a leader or president:

    "I would lean towards a Governor that has faced political hardship and succeeded in lifting their State's profile in the categories that matter:low unemployment, low crime, high production, good transportation network, heavy tourism, and so on."

    100% agree. I guess the tougher question is, why don't we then follow through and analyze for that? :) I would say it's that liberal media bias, but I don't actually believe that. :)

    I agree w/you on McCain and Hutchison too - I thought she would have been SUCH a smart pick! Truly. I said at the time of the Palin pick that it was a horrible miscalculation of the electorate and I think many more people would have had a harder time choosing between the two tickets if he'd had someone like Hutchison.

    The sensationalism that seems to govern the candidate campaign season is just so upsetting to me - I know we know better, but we just keep doing it.
  • Father_Time
    Good. Let the GOP run an all woman ticket. They will fail to win.

    It is much easier to pick apart the GOP Social Darwinist arguments publicly from women whom state they believe in them.....because they really don't.
  • Father Time - I think the GOP women I mention have proven themselves, sometimes multiple times over, to be far more than GOP talking heads who adhere to strick ideology - it's part of why I think some of them would truly make great VP or presidential picks.
  • CStanley
    I thought that Jodi Rell seemed pretty intriguing and wondered if McCain would consider tapping her. I presume several factors weighed against her though- she was probably too moderate to balance out McCain with the base of the party, and perhaps being older weighed against her due to McCain's age. I also noted, as you have, Jill, that CT voters seem to answer polls about her pretty approvingly yet the residents that I know seem somewhat unenthusiastic. Perhaps she lacks charisma and is seen as more of a work horse. That's actually my kind of candidate, but unfortunately celebrity seems to be more valued these days.

    One thing I also noted in researching her background is that she never graduated from college. I wonder how THAT would have played out in national politics, given the thrashing that Palin took over her lack of Ivy League pedigree. It's funny but I personally never paid any attention to the alma mater of candidates because I've (naively, I suppose) felt that our system was enough of a meritocracy that the many, many graduates of smaller or less prestigious universities could rise to the top in their careers. Now that the discussion has come up comparing Obama's representation of meritocracy as opposed to what Palin would have represented- it's the first time it's really occurred to me that all POTUSes since Reagan have been Ivy Leaguers. I wouldn't deliberately seek out a candidate who wasn't, but at the same time I hope that trend doesn't continue to the point of making the office into an exclusive one.
  • ThurmanHart: Sure! Those would be great too - especially AG (being a lawyer myself I would love to see more women become AGs). You are absolutely correct re: trying to raise the proportions across the board in terms of elected officeholders.

    I do think that in addition to Clinton and Palin's presence helping crack the ceiling a bit more, we also see that you can run for VP or Prez from a variety of other positions or backgrounds - I think it's crucial to breaking whatever powerful political networks exist that keep people from getting "in" and running successfullly, that we recognize skills and qualities, and not just titles.
  • CStanley
    Just a quick side point to the one that DLS made about extremism and litmus tests among feminists, Jill- one thing I've noticed even among less extreme liberal feminists is that the prochoice position appears to be part of the orthodoxy. It's quite common in my experience to hear or see Democrat females or feminists say that conservative women are not representing women's issues if they have a prolife stance. I think that's something that has changed (for the worse, in my opinion) in the feminist movement in my lifetime- I believe that there used to be room for both prolife and prochoice positions but now the 'abortion rights' position appears to be dogmatic to many feminists.
  • CStanley - nice to see a comment from you here. :) I hope you are well.

    Yeah - isn't that interesting about Rell re: the enthusiasm gap so to speak? I totally sense the same thing and cannot figure it out, but it does seem to be very real (the gap that is).

    About the education thing - well, that's one reason several of the women I list are so intriguing too - because they do not come from Ivy Leagues yet they show just how successful and tough and persistent they've been. I do notice, as I have before and as I've read somewhere, that the GOP female leaders or succeeders if you will tend to come from business - hey, was it you who said that to me once!? :)

    And that seems to be true about some of the women I've named - Liz Cheney, Meg Whitman I think of right away.

    Basically, given the expansion of experiences/background of our population, it only makes sense that the leaders we select reflect that. BUT...that doesn't mean we pick just anyone - it should never mean that, with extremely rare exceptions which I can't at the moment think of. lol
  • CStanley re: your second comment re: side point to DLS comment:

    Yeah, you know, I've never been a staunch member of any movement but I do understand what you're describing. I've experienced that as an issue related to individual privacy rights, the government being allowed to supplant its interests for a woman's and so on. These are, after all, some of the reasons why the legal underpinnings of Roe have been challenged.

    So maybe the focus has changed? Not sure. I would never say and I do not believe that women who prefer small govt, lower taxes and the 2nd Amendment (just as examples, promise) don't represent women if they also have a pro-life stance.

    BUT - they definitely have, IMO, a kind of split personality when it comes to individual rights and who gets to make which decisions for us. This extends to usual conservative opinion on the death penalty (supporting it) while still being pro-life over an embryo.

    The issue is complicated by it being backed up to religion and moral assessments of human life, as well as who governs us.

    And, despite all these nuances, spin and campaign tactics and media presentation try to reduce it to sound bites and good and evil and all that. I tend to be big on pushing the existence and importance of nuance, no matter how it complicates matters. But as soon as we give up on that, everything is susceptible to being collapsed as you describe it.
  • CStanley
    I do notice, as I have before and as I've read somewhere, that the GOP female leaders or succeeders if you will tend to come from business - hey, was it you who said that to me once!? :)

    Heh, yeah, I think that was me.
  • CStanley
    BUT - they definitely have, IMO, a kind of split personality when it comes to individual rights and who gets to make which decisions for us.

    BUT- the 'split' is logically defensible if one considers the fetus as a second person involved in the situation, a person with right to life which would supercede other rights of the other person involved. I appreciate people who might not agree with that stance but can see the rationale for it, and that's the kind of respect which seems to be lacking in so many quarters today. Obviously abortion is a divisive issue with strong emotional overtones, but I find it most distressing that it is so divisive particularly among women (kind of an offshoot of the divisiveness about motherhood in general if you know what I mean- the way that career women are sometimes unable to applaud mothers who stay at home to raise kids and vice versa for those on the mommy track to give kudos to the women who juggle both roles.)

    I wonder why women seem to view the choices of other women as judgemental toward their own choices, you know? It's a shame we can't all appreciate the difficulties of the unique choices and decisions that our gender faces and feel confident about the indvidual choice we each make without having to invalidate or repudiate the other options which may be best for other women and families.
  • Cool re: CStanley was the one who said something to me and I remembered! lol
  • CStanley
    Oh, one more quick aside since you briefly mentioned the death penalty. It's true that more self-identified conservatives support it than do self-identified liberals, but the difference is not that overwhelming- IOW, it's not really clearly defined as a right vs. left position as you might think. Here's the most recent data I could find:
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/gallup-poll-who...

    Personally I'm opposed to it (and I do personally agree that that's the consistent prolife position, though I can also respectfully disagree with those who feel that abortion takes innocent lives while the death penalty takes the life of the guilty.) I also think I've personally encountered more liberals and left leaning moderates who support the death penalty than I have conservatives, though it doesn't always come up in conversation and I may be underestimating the number of conservative friends and acquaintances who are in favor of it.
  • to CStanley re: why women view choices of other women as judgemental toward their own:

    Well, I think this is a confounding and conflated issue that is really hard to untangle. The first thing that came to my mind was the fact that pro-life groups want to say that it's not about the choices or the judgment, it's about murder and killing and unborn lives and the sanctity of life - at least, that is how I interpret that, from what I've heard - not what I personally believe or feel.

    And so then it's the pro-choice women who either 1) might feel that a judgement is being made on them making a choice to abort or provide that choice for women who want that choice or 2) feel strongly that the government shall not abridge the right protected in Roe for a woman to make this decision, as a result of the courts finding a right to privacy in making this decision.

    So - I kind of see the pro-life side as disrespecting the law of the land, right or wrong though they may feel that law is, by pro-life individuals in the name of wanting to prevent murder - not just "judge" the choices of other women.

    Do you know what I mean?
  • Re: Death penalty comment from CStanley - I don't think I actually know anyone who has ever told me that they support the death penalty, but I haven't outright asked that many people. The people with whom the topic has come up I believe are all against it.
  • CStanley
    Jill- I understand why abortion is divisive in that way- I meant that I'm more confounded by the divisiveness of issues of motherhood/childrearing. I think if there were more mutual respect for those choices, it would be a sort of foundation for respect on the harder issues like abortion.
  • Re: CStanley comment on respecting choices: Maybe. I'm not sure. I'd agree that starting anywhere re: giving space and respect would be a good thing when it comes to those issues.
  • Ryan
    Jill - you've previously commented on things like the reconciliation committee for some bill (stimulus?) which had 10 members, all men. With something like that, it would indeed be highly unlikely to be that skewed with a random selection, even though the process was undoubtedly not random. If there are only two people involved then it's much more likely that a completely unbiased process would produce an all-male ticket.

    Also, filling the pipeline is probably a useful metaphor, but keep in mind that the pipe is a lot longer than one election cycle. Equality can take a while to produce visible results.
  • DLS
    Jill,

    1. 49 comments so far. I told you that this is the best thread in quite a while (as measured, at least, by the number of comments it has attracted).

    2. Judicial activism is a term that is quite clear, and doesn't merit being used if a courts' decisions merely aren't what you want (not liberal enough, or not liberal frequently enough). True critics such as I of the illegitimate practice know the difference between correct use of the term and misuse of the term, be it out of ignorance, to seek dimunition of the term's effect when correctly used, to confuse, or elsewise.

    3. I deliberately chose not to comment on something, as I occasionally do in order to let others mention it first, and it has been mentioned now: abortion. Even those of us moderates and even those who truly are conservative who support abortion rights are repelled by the extremist, militant, and worse stance that is frequently taken by feminist groups, far out of the mainstream (government should provide abortion to all, even minors, demanding no parental consent or even notification, etc; blind, maniacal devotion to and defense of Roe v. Wade, which was an obvious truly activist ruling by the Supreme Court; pro-abortion, as-militant-as-possible "litmus test" along with absolute acceptance of Roe v. Wade for any candidate Justice of the Supreme Court, etc.), as well as the accompanying dishonesty and slander about people who oppose such extremism, and its frequently accompanying dishonesty and slander of such people that they are "anti-woman" [sic], with the implicit presumption that the militant extremists define what is the "true" [sic] position of and for women. This also goes for other occasional farther-left "causes" on which "authentic" women are expected to hold the (politically) "correct" position, such as the "comparable worth" cause.

    4. I could also have added yesterday the bizarre phenomenon in academia of what is claimed to be "scholarship" related to feminism (and women's studies), which is a combination of schizoid word-and-phrase-salad psycho-babble and predictable adherence to a radical (sometimes militant and extremist) left-wing political ideology, along with related excursions into an alternative universe, claiming, similar to what the Afro-centrist kooks* have, that conventional, "establishment" science as well as the economy and society are "patriarchal," wrongly contrived (typically to "dominate" or "suppress" women, minorities, etc.-- Evil Western Culture) and there are legitimate alternative female versions of these, that in fact are superior), and that people should be "discovering" patriarchal "privilege" [sic] everywhere and feeling guilty about it and flagellating themselves to atone for this -- but I didn't mention it earlier because these people truly are fringists and ordinarily don't merit attention. However, they are part of feminism's true baggage.

    * Birds of a feather -- PC-lockstep far-left types. Same "problems," same "solutions" -- quite typical.
  • DLS
    "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.)
  • DLS
    "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.)
  • DLS
    "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.
  • Ryan
    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. :)
  • Ryan
    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.)
  • GaryJohnson2012
    Mary Fallin - Lynn Cheney - 2016
  • DLS
    "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.
  • DLS
    " I don't speak for 'feminists' as you see them."

    There are no alternative "visions." The extremists characterize and taint contemporary feminism.
  • DLS
    "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.
  • DLS
    "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.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC