(5/10/09) Republican women: A minority in a minority (Politico)

[VotingHillary]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22342.html

Women make up almost 51 percent of the U.S. population but less than 10 percent of the House and Senate GOP — a gender disconnect that could make the Republicans’ climb back to power even steeper than it would be otherwise.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) notices that she’s part of a shrinking minority every time she heads to the Senate floor for a vote.

Republican women in the House say they feel the problem — literally — when their male colleagues nudge them to the front of GOP press conferences to break up the solid lines of middle-aged white men in neckties.

Indeed, Rep. Kay Granger — the first and only Republican woman to represent Texas in the House — says Republican women have to work to make sure they’re even represented at public events in the first place. “We pass the word to make sure we’re there at this ceremony or that photo-op, because there are fewer of us and we’re spread more thinly,” Granger said. “We’re working in a very successful manner, and we want to make sure that’s shown.”

The numbers make that difficult.

Out of 435 members of the House, just 17 are Republican women. Of 99 sitting senators, just four are Republican women.

Of course, there are fewer Republicans than Democrats of either gender in the two houses. But even on a percentage basis, Republicans suffer a gender gap. Twenty-two percent of House Democrats are women, but only 9.5 percent of House Republicans are. In the Senate, nearly 23 percent of the Democrats are women, but only 10 percent of the Republicans are.

The problem isn’t new; former Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) remembers being struck that no Republican women were on stage while President George W. Bush signed a ban on partial-birth abortions in 2003. “I looked at the stage and said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me,’” said Musgrave, who was sitting in the audience.

More:

The problem is also geographical. As political realignment shifts the GOP territory south, Elder said female candidates are vying to get elected in a region least hospitable to women, while Democrats are getting elected in the West and Northeast — areas that are more welcoming to female candidates.

More:

Snowe says there’s also a political dimension. As the Republican Party sheds moderates, it also sheds women.

“[We] as a party are saying we’re not supporting Republican moderates. That’s a terrible message to send,” said Snowe, who with her Maine counterpart Susan Collins represents 50 percent of the Republican women in the Senate. “It tells everyone else in America who might have an interest in running as a Republican moderate, they’re going to have to think twice. The messages coming out of the national party are critical. They’ve got to be embracive and inclusive of political diversity. They can’t on one hand say we’re going to build a majority and then say we only want people with certain characteristics, like white males from the South. That’s a concern to me.”

More at the link. Really good and accurate assessment of the Republican Party's problem when it comes to women. In fairness, if you look at the percentages regarding Democratic women elected in comparison to the percentage of women in the country, Dems don't have much to brag about either.

Biggest question...why aren't women supporting women candidates?

[mavfin]

Bad thing is, the social conservative wing of the Republican Party's response to this was to say that Snowe was a RINO traitor, anyway, so they can ignore anything she says.

They just keep burying their heads in the sand.

[VotingHillary]

They just keep burying their heads in the sand.

More like up their....ah, never mind.

[sojourner]

More like up their....ah, never mind.

The obvious solution to this problem, based upon past evidence, is to get the EEOC involved and establsh a quote system.

[mavfin]

The obvious solution to this problem, based upon past evidence, is to get the EEOC involved and establsh a quote system.

Um, no, I'll pass on that.

[Suzan]

I'm beginning to think it's not just hype from the Dems. The Republicans really are putting themselves out of business--and they're being led off the cliff by the social conservatives.

I'd love it if it was a moderate woman who saved them.

[VotingHillary]

I'm beginning to think it's not just hype from the Dems. The Republicans really are putting themselves out of business--and they're being led off the cliff by the social conservatives.

I'd love it if it was a moderate woman who saved them.

and Snowe may damn well be the one that does.

[Lealy]

and Snowe may damn well be the one that does.

Not going to happen. With that vote for the boondoggle of a stimulus she is going nowhere. She and Collins may do fine in their state but not in general. It is one thing to buck the social conservatives but not the physical conservatives. Because their are fewer social conservatives but even some dems are more physical and that just won't fly.

[Alces95]

Not going to happen. With that vote for the boondoggle of a stimulus she is going nowhere. She and Collins may do fine in their state but not in general. It is one thing to buck the social conservatives but not the physical conservatives. Because their are fewer social conservatives but even some dems are more physical and that just won't fly.

What is a physical conservative? I thought it was a quick typo but then I saw it twice...

I hope she tries in the national scene, she would be great.

[Jobu86]

What is a physical conservative? I thought it was a quick typo but then I saw it twice...


I was wondering that too...

[Spang]

I think she means fiscal.

[Lealy]

I think she means fiscal.

Yes you are right.

[Jobu86]

It's OK. I wrote "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes" until I think sophomore year of college.

[Suzan]

It's OK. I wrote "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes" until I think sophomore year of college.
LOL, good one!

I'm more gifted at verbal bloopers than written, but how about these gems, found in various resumes:

Experience: “Stalking, shipping & receiving”
“I am great with the pubic.”
A candidate listed her e-mail address as pornstardelight@*****.com

[Alces95]

Yes you are right.

You still may be right - she may not be connecting well with the amish! :D

She still is liked up here (New England)... but - there isn't a fiscal conservative in sight it seems!

[Suzan]

I liked physical better

Me too, Alyce. I'm still pondering what a physical conservative might be. :thinking:

[sojourner]

It's OK. I wrote "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes" until I think sophomore year of college.

I have it easy. I am an engineer. No one expects me to be able to spell.

[musgrrl]

I'm beginning to think it's not just hype from the Dems. The Republicans really are putting themselves out of business--and they're being led off the cliff by the social conservatives.

I'd love it if it was a moderate woman who saved them.

I think it's necessary for this particular strain of Republicanism to die off so the party can rebuild itself again. The idiots that hate any moderate voice in the party and call people RINOs are destroying themselves and I can't wait until they are all gone. We need a two-party system, but the current Republican party is not what we need right now.

[Laura Cereta]

Biggest question...why aren't women supporting women candidates?


Excellent question! I've weighed in on this from other threads so I'd love some feedback from others:

Why aren't women supporting women candidates??? Anyone?

[Classical Liberal]

What the Republican party needs is not "moderation" per se, but people who can articulate the conservative views very well. That's what Reagan did so well.

According to those in the media, if you believe very much in the following:

Limited government
Low taxes
Fiscal conservatism
Free-market capitalism
Strong national defense
Are pro-life
Are pro-family
Believe marriage should be between man and woman
Believe Supreme Court Justices should be constructivists, and that the Constitution only should be changed through formal amendment via the legislature, not believe in judicial activism,

etc...you are a "radical right-winger." I think it will be disastrous for the Republican party to move away from most of these principles. These views constitute an alternative view to the Leftism of the Democrats and are what the Republican party was defined as under Reagan.

Whenever Republicans try being "moderate," they get their butts kicked. I think it's fine is Republicans welcome in certain Republicans who sway on some issues, perhaps such as abortion, gay marriage, etc...but the CORE principles of the party need to remain the above I think.

Remember, this recent election is almost part-and-parcel IDENTICAL to the 1964 election when the Republicans were SMASHED by the Democrats. Look up some of the speeches by Lyndon Johnson. He sounded exactly like Barack Obama. The rhetoric was incredible. No wonder he crushed Barry Goldwater.

The Republicans were then run out of the Congress by a slew of pro-Johnson Democrats who came in on the coattails of Johnson.

The Republican party, in its traditional sense, was declared finished. Political scientists were saying if the party did not become more "moderate," it was going to be dead for good.

Within a few years, it made a comeback. Then Nixon won office. Then Watergate happened. Then Jimmy Carter won the Presidency, and the Republicans were "finished" again. Four years later, Reagan won. Then George H. W. Bush. Then in 1992 Bill Clinton won, and the Democrats had full control of the executive and legislative again, and the GOP was once again "finished." Then two years later, the Republicans won back the Congress. Then in 2000 George Bush won (YEAH YEAH I know some of you say he didn't really win, that's a separate discussion, but for the sake of this dicussion, I mean he became President).

The Republicans now had control of both the Congress and the Presidency. Then George Bush won again in 2004. Political pundits said this election "proved something," and that it was likely we would be seeing a permanent Republican majority from now on (even though Bush had won by a small margin I believe).

Well we see how that "permanent Republican majority" turned out! Two years later, and the Democrats took back Congress. Then Barack Obama won the Presidency, and now the GOP is back to square one and it's the same stuff, the GOP has to "become more moderate or it will die," etc...the pendulum will swing back in time.

Look at the United Kingdom. Labour party practically drove the economy into the ground in the 1970s, so then the Conservative party (Margaret Thatcher) won and fixed things, but then they, like the GOP, got corrupted, and became hypocrites (you saw Conservative party members who talked about family values being caught cheating on their wives, etc...), the Conservative party was run out and "New Labour" took over (Labour re-branded itself as "New Labour," as the former Labour party were hardcore socialists I think).

Well "New Labour" has since run the UK fiscally into the ground, so now it looks as if the Conservative party is on track to make a comeback, and if New Labour manages to win in 2010, they're going to have to get the public finances under control.

So I mean the pendulum swings. The GOP needs to get people who are articulate, and can explain Republican principles properly, and ADHERE to them.

One problem I think with President Bush was he 1) didn't adhere, at least fiscally, to the principles, and 2) didn't keep a good dialog with the American people going.

The GOP will make a comeback, adhere to their principles at first, then if they keep getting elected, they'll turn into slackers and start spending too much, having corruption problems, etc...and the pendulum will once again swing back to the Democrats.

[Spang]

Why aren't women supporting women candidates??? Anyone?

For the same reasons men don't support male candidates.

[Jester]

For the same reasons men don't support male candidates.

uhm ....... the president is male so obviously you aren't tapped into reality, scarecrow.

[Classical Liberal]

Women don't automatically support women candidates because they don't just vote for someone because they're a woman, they vote for them (or should) based on their policies.

That was the problem with the black vote, too many voted for Barack Obama solely because he was black.

People need to get beyond ethnicity, sex, sexual preference, etc...

[Spang]

uhm ....... the president is male so obviously you aren't tapped into reality, scarecrow.

I didn't support John McCain, George W. Bush, John Kerry or Al Gore.

[Spang]

That was the problem with the black vote, too many voted for Barack Obama solely because he was black.

Most black people vote Democrat.

[Classical Liberal]

Most black people vote Democrat.

Very true, the black vote really came out for Obama though, then again, I wonder how it would have been if Barack Obama had been a Republican. That would have been interesting.

[Jester]

Most black people vote Democrat.

Explain the primaries. All you are doing is defending a point, badly.

[Jester]

I didn't support John McCain, George W. Bush, John Kerry or Al Gore.

And all four thank you personally for your nonsupport.

[sojourner]

uhm ....... the president is male so obviously you aren't tapped into reality, scarecrow.

Reality isn't Sprang's thing.

[Laura Cereta]

Women don't automatically support women candidates because they don't just vote for someone because they're a woman, they vote for them (or should) based on their policies.



There were so many young women in 2008 that agreed with Hillary's policies but wouldn't support her because they needed to prove they were "post-feminists." We can hide our heads in the sand and pretend that women jump to support a female candidate who shares their views but I don't think that is often the case. I believe the question deserves further probing.

[Spang]

Explain the primaries. All you are doing is defending a point, badly.

I didn't follow the primaries. I didn't start following politics until the general election.

[sojourner]

I didn't support John McCain, George W. Bush, John Kerry or Al Gore.

See, I told you reality wasn't his thing.

[Spang]

See, I told you reality wasn't his thing.

Are those people not real?

[Jester]

Are those people not real?

YouTube - Wizard of Oz-- If I Only Had A Brain

[sojourner]

Excellent question! I've weighed in on this from other threads so I'd love some feedback from others:

Why aren't women supporting women candidates??? Anyone?

I will probably get flamed for this (if people still use that expression) but I think women are biased against women. At work I have seen women undermine other women’s changes for advancement with no advantage to themselves. I am not sure why, but I think the same holds in politics.

[Laura Cereta]

I didn't support John McCain, George W. Bush, John Kerry or Al Gore.

Who did you vote for in those elections?

[Spang]

Who did you vote for in those elections?

I've only ever voted for Barack Obama.