Speaking Of That Tiny Tent…
By Mitch Berg
In the previous post, I decried the intellectual provincialism of the (usually) female voters who claim their vote will be based on gender first and foremost.
I have never, ever, met a guy who claimed he’d vote “men first”. I suppose such a guy exists out there; an angry fathers’ rights advocate, a militant gay, someone – but if I met such a guy, it’d be a first.
In the meantime, I’ve known quite a few women (and a few men) who claimed – as I noted in my previous post – that a pair of Y chromosomes was basically all they needed to earn their vote (although presumably they’d make exceptions for Michele Bachmann and Mary Kiffmeyer).
And I knew, in the pit of my gut, that I’d find more on the subject by reading the Twin Cities’ media’s most reliable Tic flak, Lori Sturdevant.
And it goes without saying that the key to the story will be a “Republican who is disaffected by the current state of the party”:
The story was that one longtime Republican backer of womenwinning (which at the time was called the Minnesota Women’s Campaign Fund) phoned another to announce that she was organizing a Republicans for Choice rally at next September’s GOP national convention in St. Paul. It was the sort of thing the two of them used to love to do 25 or 30 years ago — back when there was something called the GOP Feminist Caucus and when Minnesota’s Republican leadership had not yet alienated or exiled almost all of its backers of legal abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment.“Can I count on your support?” Sally Pillsbury asked Marilyn Bryant.
“I’m sorry,” replied Bryant, “but I’m supporting Hillary.”
So is womenwinning. The still officially multipartisan state organization sends money only to candidates who are female, prochoice and viable, and this year found itself able to endorse a candidate for president for the first time.Bryant, a womenwinning founder, explained her choice last week: “I’ve seen women move into the professions — business, law, medicine — with great success. But in politics, it’s been a terribly slow process. I’d love to have the opportunity to vote for a woman for president, especially a woman who’s as articulate, smart and qualified as Hillary Clinton is.”
That longing among female voters — some of them former Republicans like Bryant — is getting much credit for Clinton’s resurgent victory Tuesday.
Ms. Bryant just rattled off a condensed litany of real feminism’s genuine triumphs: women are completely integrated into pretty much every facet of American life. Indeed, in many areas, the pendulum has overcorrected; women are almost 2/3 of our college students today; primary and secondary public education is downright hostile to boys, and it’s having an effect on boys’ attitudes about seeking higher education that will eventually bite this nation in the butt.
To keep women’s votes coming the way they did in New Hampshire, Clinton has to make sure they see her the way Bryant does: articulate, smart, qualified, and a woman to boot — and not the way her opponents cast her in Iowa: too calculating, cautious, controlling and connected to a certain previous administration.
Clinton emerged from New Hampshire as both the establishment and the feminist candidate. That’s a complex and somewhat contradictory dual identity that no previous major presidential contender has borne. She’s traversing uncharted territory.
A lot of politically ambitious women are watching her for a lesson in how to do it…Minnesota House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, state Senate Assistant Majority Leader Tarryl Clark and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner — would have to decide how early and how often to play the gender card if they run for statewide office in 2010 or beyond.In the wake of Clinton’s New Hampshire experience, all three played it boldly Wednesday.
January 21st, 2008 at 8:49 am
“I’ve never, ever met a guy who ….”
You haven’t travelled in a large enough cirlce, perhaps it’s because you live in a Tiny Tent.
I’ve never ever met a woman who said she wouldn’t vote for a man either, but that of course wasn’t the question, now was it?
Also, I’ve never ever met a woman who said she was ONLY voting on sex, or even foremostly on sex. If Hillary were completely unqualified, I don’t know one single woman who’d vote for her.
Build some more stawmen as you like, but this is silly.
January 21st, 2008 at 8:59 am
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/21/business/main3733861.shtml
By the way, nice stimulus package. When the economy is going well.. cut taxes, when it’s going poorly, cut taxes. One trick pony, well the trick never once worked, not for Reagan, and sure as heck not Bush – this is a joke and the world knows it. So when you worry about your tent, it might be time for you to worry about whether your tent has enough ideas within it too. This economy has suffered horriblly from frozen wages. The promised re-investment never came and for most families, $300 or even $1000 really doesn’t matter spread out over a year. Perhaps you should spend your time worrying about actual issues – rather than creating fictions of these legions of people who are voting for Hillary foremostly because she’s a woman. Given a choice between two near equals, they’re voting for her – as is their right. If, even for a moment, you want to pretend that the Right wing didn’t pillory Bill for letting ‘his wife wear’ the pants – lets remember all the fun loving things that Phyllis Schlaffley has had to say, shall we. Yes, the right has been a paragon of equal liberty and rights, hasn’t it? Yet again, Mitch, it’s condemn with the same finger attached the same hand that doesn’t have 3 others pointing back, but 3000. There have been SOOOO many righties I’ve known who have said deragutory things about women candidates, I couldn’t conceive of the number, soooooo many who said, even if more than equal, that they’d NEVER VOTE FOR A WOMAN.
You don’t have a leg to stand on making complaints of counter-discrimination. It may well in fact be happening, but compared to the past injustices foisted by the right wing, it’s a fly in the beehive. I don’t condone it, but if someone feels the candidates are close to equal, and chooses then to vote based on gender, that’s their right, and I won’t tell them they’re wrong. However, someone voting against someone because oh say, “he said our troops are terrorists” well, that would be just plain stupid. Find out the facts – rather than listening to biased political hacks tell you how to vote… oh, but that NEVER happens does it, Mitch?
January 21st, 2008 at 9:54 am
When the economy is going well.. cut taxes, when it’s going poorly, cut taxes. One trick pony, well the trick never once worked, not for Reagan,
pretty strawman, here let me kick it over
Dow closing on Nov 3 1980 = 924.49
Dow closing on Jan 20 1989 = 2239.11
looks like an economy in decline to me
This economy has suffered horriblly from frozen wages.
Not frozen by the government (like Chavez is doing to wide acclaim in Venezuela ) -but stagnant because 20 million illegals have sucked the bottom out of the market for middle class non-professional wage earners. When Mexico starts flooding our country with lawyers, scientists, doctors, nurses, and accountants there will be a sudden Tic groundswell of support for an effective fence and mass repatriation.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:06 am
rather than listening to biased political hacks tell you how to vote…
Which is why 99.44% of the candidates endorsed by the drive-by media, without fail, turn out to be liberal democrats.
And frankly, even tho I don’t get a whole lot of time to listen to the radio, I have yet to hear one conservative host tell me who to vote for. I hear LOTS of hosts tell me who NOT to vote for. Which is fine since I’d never vote for most of those people anyway.
So yeah, peev.. DON’T VOTE FOR FRED THOMPSON.
Just doing my political hack duty.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:20 am
Oh yeah, and how is a conservative talk show host listing the reasons they don’t like a candidate “telling me how to vote”, yet the incessant media drumbeat for anything left of Stalin is “encouraing independent thought”?
The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.
Oh, and here’s my derogatory remark about Hillary:
When she teared up at that small diner? Either:
A) It was completely calculated and contrived (which I feel is the more likely choice)
or
B) She really did break down and lose control of her emotions. In which case that disqualifies her right there in my mind. IF she can’t keep control of her emotions on the campaign trail in the FIRST state of 50 that she supposedly might campaign in, how is she going to handle the possibility of a bomb exploding in a major American city, killing thousands or tens of thousands or more? A president who loses control of their emotions is not what ANY country needs.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:55 am
You haven’t travelled in a large enough cirlce, perhaps it’s because you live in a Tiny Tent.
Er…OK?
I’ve never ever met a woman who said she wouldn’t vote for a man either, but that of course wasn’t the question, now was it?
No, not really.
Also, I’ve never ever met a woman who said she was ONLY voting on sex, or even foremostly on sex.
I’ve met quite a number of women who DO vote primarily based on gender. And the Sturdevant piece covers a few of them.
Build some more stawmen as you like, but this is silly.
INIGO MONTOYA: I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
It’s no strawman. Take it up with Lori Sturdevant.
By the way, nice stimulus package. When the economy is going well.. cut taxes, when it’s going poorly, cut taxes. One trick pony, well the trick never once worked, not for Reagan, and sure as heck not Bush – this is a joke and the world knows it.
“The world”?
“That a man’s reach exceed a grasp, or what’s heaven for? (Samuel Johnson).
The tax cuts worked for Reagan (to Clinton’s benefit) and they worked under Bush.
So when you worry about your tent, it might be time for you to worry about whether your tent has enough ideas within it too.
Speaking of “one-trick ponies”, you need to come up with an approach to, let’s say, “supplement” the whole “I know you are, but what am I, and you’re worse anyway” approach you seem to take in pretty much every discussion.
Just saying.
Perhaps you should spend your time worrying about actual issues – rather than creating fictions of these legions of people who are voting for Hillary foremostly because she’s a woman.
Actually, PB, given that it’s my blog, I can not only decide exactly what I’ll write about – I can write about all things of interest to me, in any depth I choose!
But the “fiction” was one that Lori Sturdevant wrote about; if you think the “vote for women” bloc is fictional, take it up with her, since it directly attacks her credibility as a journalist.
Yet again, Mitch, it’s condemn with the same finger attached the same hand that doesn’t have 3 others pointing back, but 3000.
Oh, good lord, Peev – give that one a rest.
There have been SOOOO many righties I’ve known who have said deragutory things about women candidates, I couldn’t conceive of the number, soooooo many who said, even if more than equal, that they’d NEVER VOTE FOR A WOMAN.
Ah. OK.
Name them.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
“”pretty strawman, here let me kick it over
Dow closing on Nov 3 1980 = 924.49
Dow closing on Jan 20 1989 = 2239.11
looks like an economy in decline to me “”
Ooooo, can I play!
http://finance.yahoo.com
Nov 03, 1992 — 3,252
Jan 20, 1993 — 3,241
Jan 19, 2001 — 10,587 (Jan 20, 2001 was a Saturday)
Jan 20, 2005 — 10,471
Jan 19, 2008 — 12,099
January 21st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Nov 03, 1992 — 3,252
Jan 20, 1993 — 3,241
Insert: End of Cold War (Thanks, Ronald Reagan!), realization of “Peace Dividend” (Eric Lindeman noted that the end of the Cold War actually put more money into the economy than the Reagan cold-war-time deficit took out).
Also:
November 7, 1994 – day before the referendum on Hillarycare: 4,693.32
November 7, 1996 – the end of the first “Contract With America” term: 6,219.82
Jan 19, 2001 — 10,587 (Jan 20, 2001 was a Saturday)
Insert: the beginning of a war, a recession.
Jan 20, 2005 — 10,471
Jan 19, 2008 — 12,099
Just in the interest of being complete.
January 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Actually the strawman would be to glean the condition of the economy based upon Dow Jones Index.
January 21st, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Actually the strawman would be to glean the condition of the economy based upon Dow Jones Index.
Hence, I don’t do it.
However, if only for comparison’s sake, it can be a useful, if not complete, metric.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It helps if you add the unemployment rate. What was it in 1980s?
1980-01-01 6.3
1980-02-01 6.3
1980-03-01 6.3
1980-04-01 6.9
1980-05-01 7.5
1980-06-01 7.6
1980-07-01 7.8
1980-08-01 7.7
1980-09-01 7.5
1980-10-01 7.5
1980-11-01 7.5
1980-12-01 7.2
1981-01-01 7.5
1981-02-01 7.4
1981-03-01 7.4
1981-04-01 7.2
1981-05-01 7.5
1981-06-01 7.5
1981-07-01 7.2
1981-08-01 7.4
1981-09-01 7.6
1981-10-01 7.9
1981-11-01 8.3
1981-12-01 8.5
1982-01-01 8.6
1982-02-01 8.9
1982-03-01 9.0
1982-04-01 9.3
1982-05-01 9.4
1982-06-01 9.6
1982-07-01 9.8
1982-08-01 9.8
1982-09-01 10.1
1982-10-01 10.4
1982-11-01 10.8
1982-12-01 10.8
1983-01-01 10.4
1983-02-01 10.4 (Peak)
January 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
It helps if you add the unemployment rate. What was it in 1980s?
lets look at the rest of it:
1983-03-01 10.3
1983-04-01 10.2
1983-05-01 10.1
1983-06-01 10.1
1983-07-01 9.4
1983-08-01 9.5
1983-09-01 9.2
1983-10-01 8.8
1983-11-01 8.5
1983-12-01 8.3
1984-01-01 8.0
1984-02-01 7.8
1984-03-01 7.8
1984-04-01 7.7
1984-05-01 7.4
1984-06-01 7.2
1984-07-01 7.5
1984-08-01 7.5
1984-09-01 7.3
1984-10-01 7.4
1984-11-01 7.2
1984-12-01 7.3
1985-01-01 7.3
1985-02-01 7.2
1985-03-01 7.2
1985-04-01 7.3
1985-05-01 7.2
1985-06-01 7.4
1985-07-01 7.4
1985-08-01 7.1
1985-09-01 7.1
1985-10-01 7.1
1985-11-01 7.0
1985-12-01 7.0
1986-01-01 6.7
1986-02-01 7.2
1986-03-01 7.2
1986-04-01 7.1
1986-05-01 7.2
1986-06-01 7.2
1986-07-01 7.0
1986-08-01 6.9
1986-09-01 7.0
1986-10-01 7.0
1986-11-01 6.9
1986-12-01 6.6
1987-01-01 6.6
1987-02-01 6.6
1987-03-01 6.6
1987-04-01 6.3
1987-05-01 6.3
1987-06-01 6.2
1987-07-01 6.1
1987-08-01 6.0
1987-09-01 5.9
1987-10-01 6.0
1987-11-01 5.8
1987-12-01 5.7
1988-01-01 5.7
1988-02-01 5.7
1988-03-01 5.7
1988-04-01 5.4
1988-05-01 5.6
1988-06-01 5.4
1988-07-01 5.4
1988-08-01 5.6
1988-09-01 5.4
1988-10-01 5.4
1988-11-01 5.3
1988-12-01 5.3
1989-01-01 5.4
from 7.5 when he took office and inherited Jimmy Carters mess, to 5.4 when he left – not bad when you’ve got a tic congress spending money like sailors on leave