Rose Colored Blinders

Like most Americans, I like to think I’d vote for the right person for President. Indeed, the record is incontrovertible; in every single election since I turned 18, I have, without exception, in retrospect picked the best candidate.

The factors I use to choose my candidates for President (indeed, for every office) are the ones I wrote here, and they always will be.

“Gender” and “Race” are not two of them. I will vote for a black handicapped lesbian conservative over a white male liberal weenie, early and often, every time.

Now, as it happens, most female politicians are Democrats – DFL in Minnesota – and ergo unacceptable. Not because they have ovaries, but because their politics weaken the nation, the economy, the culture and the family.

I suspect Lori “DFL Flak” Sturdevant will read that and find a sexist under the rock. To Lori, writing on behalf of the masses of “feminists” who want a woman, any woman, in office, gender is the subject.

(Provided the woman is suitably left of center):

Aviva Breen, the former director of the Legislature’s Commission on the Economic Status of Women, grimaced when asked about the presidential race. Her expression better matched the reality of Clinton’s situation than did the candidate’s own bravado after winning the meaningless West Virginia primary the night before.    

“This was our chance to vote for a woman for president,” Breen sighed, sounding resigned to the nomination of Barack Obama by the Democratic Party. Clinton “was the only one from our generation to come so far. … There’s no one else in the wings.”

And why do you suppose that is?

Why is it that after a generation of female pundits exhorting (liberal) women to run for office (as liberals), we are down to one female contender – and she’s just a legacy, to boot?

Why, oh why?

The answer is closer than you think:

Moments later, as if in response, trumpets sounded the “Rocky” fanfare, and the annual event’s traditional march began.

Into the cavernous hall processed female elected officials, each of them the recipient of campaign cash from the organization formerly called the Minnesota Women’s Campaign Fund.

It was an impressive assembly — both the several score elected officials on the stage and the 750 supporters who cheered their arrival. Perhaps more notable, however, were some conspicuous absences. Minnesota House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Senate Assistant Majority Leader Tarryl Clark and several chairs of key legislative committees couldn’t come to Minneapolis that noon. They were embroiled in negotiations in and around the governor’s office at the Capitol.

In other words, they were right where the feminists who founded womenwinning 26 years ago always hoped elected women would be — in the thick of the making of state government’s biggest decisions.

Sturdevant is a fossil from the age when there were two parties in Minnesota – DFL and DFL-Lite – so we can forgive her the omission; that last bit should have read “they were right where the feminists who founded womenwinning 26 years ago always hoped elected women would be — carrying water for the nannystate.

There are are, and have been, scads of highly capable female politicians, of course; in Minnesota…:

  • Joan Growe – “moderate”, to be sure, but a highly capable politician
  • Carol Molnau – partisan bickering about MNDoT aside, a highly accomplished political fixer in her own right, who’s held up her end of a Pawlenty Administration that has been like the 101st Airborne at Bastogne; holding out against incredible odds, giving much worse than it gets.
  • Pat Pariseau – one of the best trench-fighters in the Minnesota Senate. Indeed, many of the GOP’s notables in the Senate are women. 
  • Of course, Michele Bachmann, after a disproportionally-successful career in the Minnesota Senate, went on to win by the biggest margin of any winning Republican during the slaughter of ’06, and will likely do even better this year – against a full court media press.

Nationally?  Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Condi Rice got farther on the basis of their accomplishments than any other women in American history.  Alaska governor Sarah Palin is on the fast track to bigger things; in ’12 or ’16, she is a solid contender to be on the top of the ticket.  And while Christine Todd Whitman is far from a conservative’s darling, she wasn’t chopped liver, either.  There are more, of course.

Of course, womenwinning doesn’t want to think about any of them.  They’re conservative.  And so even though each of those women has a better story to tell the young women and girls of America than virtually anyone in the womenwinning camp, to them (and to Lori Sturdevant) they don’t exist. 

Indeed, I’ll stand by my prediction from 2002; the first female president of the United States will be a conservative Republican. 

Gender parity is still a long way off at the Capitol. The state has yet to elect its first female governor. But the 2007-08 Legislature is 34.8 percent female. That’s a respectable fifth-highest such percentage in the country.

If gender-based bean-counting (and strict adherence to the DFL’s audaciously-hopeful statism) is the biggest measure…

I’m not be obtuse in saying that, by the way.  Note Sturdevant’s next bit:

With swelling female ranks came more female clout. That’s particularly evident in the House, where a woman has the top job and women head 12 committees.

So what is “female clout”?

I’ve noticed this from any number of female DFL pols, including my own state legislative reps, Alice “the Phantom” Hausman and Ellen “womynandtheirchildren” Anderson; the notion that females are a unified, monolithic bloc with female issues and a female agenda.

Of course, when pressed to name a “female” issue other than abortion – which is far from monolithically decided, even among women?  During the ’04 campaign, polls showed that while the pro-“choice” position dominated among unmarried women and women with no children (the core of the liberal feminist vote), among married women with children it was a decided minority position.

So – are women a “special interest group” based simply on their gender?

Is this a good thing?

If so – should men start voting based on gender issues?

9 thoughts on “Rose Colored Blinders

  1. Mitch (and anyone else)…what are your thoughts on this. I find the idea that the Lt Gov’nr spot, but never the Gov’nr, has to be a female so idiotic. It is soooo condecending. To me it says “well, we don’t really want a woman on the ticket, but I have to put one somewhere and only the Lt Governor postion is open”.

    I never liked Skip Humphrey, but have to give him credit for having the balls to pick who he wanted to be his running mate, not exclude 50% of the potential picks because of gender.

  2. There’s only one reason why Pat Pariseau shouldn’t be governor: she doesn’t want the job. (She ever changes her mind, she’s got my vote, and all the shoe leather I’ve got walking from door to door.)

  3. So what is “female clout”?

    After almost 26 years of marriage, my conclusion is absolute power.
    Absolutely.

  4. Funny Mitch, I remember you saying you voted for Reagan the SECOND time – I thought in the past that meant you had admitted to voting for Carter in 1980 – or were you not old enough? I was 16 in 1980 – you?

    Either way, if you think, for a moment, you picked the better candidate in 2000, you’re freakin insane. Gore was 10,000 times better than Bush on policy, on ethics, on integrity, on bipartisanship, on foriegn policy. Bush has been a disaster – hands down.

    Undoubtedly you also voted for GHWB in 1992, and Dole in 1996, and, outside the fact that Clinton was slimey, I think the record shows pretty well who the better President was between Bush the Greater and Clinton. Between Dole and Clinton, I liked Bob Dole – but I’d have to give Clinton the nod for his prior work at that point.

  5. Gender bias, btw, certainly isn’t a good thing – men can represent women, women, men. Blacks can represent whites, whites can represent blacks – contrary to what the blacks of Milwaukee thought in 1990.

    That said, it IS rather ironic to hear a conservative who downplayed Kerry’s service, claiming Bush’s lack of service wsan’t an issue – then support a man (McCain) – who rather than address the issue of the woeful state of foriegn affairs and his complicity in underfunding it – berate Obama strictly on the point of Obama’s lack of a service jacket.

    Now, I happen to think it’s just maybe possible that a civilian can do the job of President – seemingly Ronald Reagan was someone you liked- and to claim he was a serviceman is a little bit of a stretch even you I think would avoid. Shall we follow McCain’s example and reduce every point to simply whether or not you are a ‘member of the club’? If so, I guess then Barack can’t be President – he’s not white, and McCain will never fully or well represent blacks, or hispanics.

    Talk about infantile logic – or maybe it’s just that he doesn’t want to talk about the issue.

  6. “Gore was 10,000 times better than Bush on policy, on ethics, on integrity, on bipartisanship, on foriegn policy.”

    Gonna need some proof on that.

  7. I will never forget how NOW aided and abetted Frank Lautenberg’s smear campaign against Millicent Fenwick.

  8. Pingback: 2008 Shootie Awards | Shot in the Dark

Leave a Reply