« Why John McCain Picked Sarah Palin For Vice President
Networks And Conventions: No News Is Bad News (Guest Voice) »



What Republicans Really Think About Women

August 31st, 2008
By DAVID SCHRAUB, Assistant Editor

Print Print

Often-times, when Democrats run a candidate for office who is not a White male, Republicans unleash with a familiar refrain. “He’s an affirmative action candidate”, to Barack Obama. “She only got there because of her husband”, to Hillary Clinton. And when these candidates do well, it’s not evidence of any merit on their part, or that voters critically evaluated them and decided they were best for the job. It’s because of “identity politics”: Blacks mindlessly voting for Blacks, women mindlessly voting for women.

I always kind of assumed that this was an argument made in bad faith. But the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin to be McCain’s VP candidate made me realize that conservatives really do seem to believe it…..

Read the rest of this post



This entry was posted on Sunday, August 31st, 2008 at 12:44 pm and is filed under Vice President, Sarah Palin, Voting, Women, Sexism, Republicans. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 15 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    FACTS to support an allegation.

    History of the Senate. Women.

    13 Republican Senators.
    22 Democratic Senators.

    Currently there are 74 Women serving in the house and 13 in the Senate.

    History of Women in the US House.

    73 Women Republicans
    145 Women Democrats

    Governorships. History.

    29 Women in 21 states plus one in Puerto Rico.

    11 Republican
    10 Democrats.

    Currently 8 Republicans and 10 Democrats are Women governors in this nation. 18 states currently have females as governors.

    There seems to be a misconception that The GOP is a good ole boy network who just hates women. The facts do not support this conclusion.

    I understand that Hillary was bashed by the GOP for being Bill Clintons wife and a hated enemy. However she was equally bashed by the Democrats and the Obama crowd for the same thing. Hardly a fair comparison unless you want to conclude that Democrats believe the same thing that you assert Republicans believe.
    • ^
    • v
    People don't post things like this to make a fair comparison, they post them to try to score political points for a candidate. Nothing wrong with that, but lets just all be realistic and recognize the piece for what it is. The first comment above, however, is a more serious look at the issue and incorporates real data. I applaud the comment, as it brings a certain reality back to the subject.
    • ^
    • v
    David, I agree with you, thanks for the post. You said, "My mother, who was a Clinton supporter, called her selection an insult to her intelligence, and other former Clinton fans seem to agree."

    My mother who was torn between McCain and Obama finally settled on Obama. She's speechless when it comes to Palin and does not understand at all why McCain would pick her. When she and I talked about the political aspect (of Palin being a woman and was meant to appeal to women voters, etc.) my mother said she couldn't imagine anyone actually voting for the woman. It's the whole experience thing...
    • ^
    • v
    There's too much conflation in this article. I agree with Neocon that Republicans in general don't have much of a problem with women. Some other minorities perhaps, but not women. The real question is: to what extent was the selection of this particular woman (Sarah Palin) by this particular Republican (John McCain) cynical?

    That to me is a good question. And I'm not at all convinced that the answer is no. But to lump guys like Michael Steele and Alan Keyes in the same basket is as unfair as saying Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice were sequentially selected as Sec't of State on the basis of identity politics. Republicans are not a bunch of ogres any more than Democrats are a bunch of saints. Both are capable of doing cynical things, things that put the needs of an election first rather than America first. The real question is... which does Palin's selection represent?
    • ^
    • v
    Neocon, "I understand that Hillary was bashed by the GOP for being Bill Clintons wife and a hated enemy. However she was equally bashed by the Democrats and the Obama crowd for the same thing."

    I actually started out by liking Hillary, then I saw how divisive she was so I progressed to trying to like her. Finally I ended up against her because of some of her votes (I even forgave her support for Bush for invading Iraq, though a lot of folks didn't).

    There are plenty of reasons to dislike Hillary that have nothing to do with being Bill Clinton's husband (I'd love another 4 years of him in the WH) and everything to do with her.
    • ^
    • v
    Ricorun, I agree with David on this. I'd like to agree with you (and to be honest this is a question I struggle with so I may end up with your same position... maybe not today or tomorrow....). But to throw out why I agree with David....

    It's the people who elect the public officials, not the party's leadership. If the GOP leadership (and same goes for Dems) has a choice between supporting a popular female candidate over a less popular male candidate, the GOP leadership will support that woman candidate over the man. My point being that the GOP doesn't have to be "women friendly" to have women guvs, senators, etc. To be sure if a woman is strong and has the qualifications then the GOP will support and respect her. But that doesn't mean the GOP supports women as a whole. I think the GOP is "male-centric". The GOP's first choice is to put a man in a position and "see how he does." Whereas with women in the GOP I think the attitude is, "She's proven herself so we can support her for this position."

    Another way to look at the argument is why are there so many Log Cabin Republicans (the gay/lesbian Republican group)? Clearly the Dems are much more favorable to gay and lesbian issues than the Republicans. Why any gay or lesbian would actually support the Republicans is beyond me. After all if you're straight, would you support a party that believes you should not marry the man (or woman) of your choice? Would you support a party that believes it is legal for you to be fired if you are straight? Would you support a party that believes a landlord can evict you from your home because you're straight? Probably not and these are the Republican positions when it comes to gays and lesbians. I don't think anyone can even begin to call the GOP "gay-friendly".

    I think the same holds true for women in the Republican Party. The Dems have more "women-friendly" policies than the Republicans do, yet there is something that attracts gays and lesbians and women (and others such as blacks who are in a similar position) to the Republican Party.

    Many people believe that Republicans are fiscally responsible (though they're only fiscally responsible if it hurts their enemies- if it means gains for themselves, then suddenly they become irrationally fiscally irresponsible). Gays and lesbians, women and others are drawn to the Republican Party for a multitude of reasons. Just because there are gays and lesbians and women, etc. in the party doesn't mean that the GOP values them. The GOP will only consider them worthy once they have proven themselves. Whereas with white men, the GOP puts them in positions without those white men having to prove themselves beforehand. I speak generally here because for every rule there is an exception.

    So Ricorun while I'd like to have the same position as you on this issue, I find it hard to get myself there, try as I might.
    • ^
    • v
    Blacks do not always vote for blacks. However, blacks always vote for Democrats. The error in running candidates like Michael Steele is the belief that blacks could ever be convinced to vote for a Republican no matter what his ethnicity.

    The real question is whether black or even most women can ever be convinced to vote for the conservative party. Given the pandering that the Democratic party does toward minorities and women and how the Democrats are always willing to throw away the Constitution if it benefits their power blocks, there is no way that any conservative party can appeal to most women or many non-whites.

    The real quesiton is what will the future of the U.S. be when white males stop being relevant to the political process. Will the Democratic Party give up its hatred of white males. While those in power push to make white males as poor, uneducated, and as criminal as blacks?
    • ^
    • v
    Will the Democratic Party give up its hatred of white males.

    Dude... you've crossed the line into self-parody.
    • ^
    • v
    Chris,

    Look at the barackobama.com homepage and select the People tab. The two groups that are missing are males and whites. It is obvious that Barack Obama's advisors believe that he can win without bothering to appeal to white males. My guess is that the elite white progressive staffers who fill Senator Obama staff have nothing but comtempt for middle class and blue collar white males. They did not attent elite prep schools or the Ivy league, so they are nothing more than tax slaves in their eyes.

    The reaon David has to believe that blacks will vote for whites in large numbers in the future is that he has to believe that when want to run for Congress in 20 to 30 years that the large numbers of blacks, Hispanic, and Asians will be willing to vote for an elite white male. Of course, he will have to be very careful of where he want to live.
    • ^
    • v