While trying to explain both why the Republicans have so few women in the Senate and why they should run more women as candidates, Nathan L. Gonzales of Roll Call offers this observation:
One seemingly obvious way to avoid Republican men’s temptation to offer their biological views on abortion and choice is to nominate a woman.
He’s obviously hearkening back to Senate candidates Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana who both lost five years ago when they expressed their views on pregnancies that result from rape. Akin said that rape pregnancies don’t happen and Mourdock said that they’re God’s will.
Presumably, no woman would ever say something so stupid and offensive. I guess that’s the argument. But isn’t it sad that anyone would think this was a necessary precaution? And how does that work when trying to recruit women to run? Please represent this party that is full of rape-baby apologists?
I read analysis like this and it’s not so much that I think it’s wrong exactly as that I just don’t ever want to get to the point where I think it’s normal.
How about recruiting women to run because you think they’ll be good politicians and excellent public servants?
And how about having a party that’s not so chock full of nutcase men that you think women’s primary value is that they won’t say something so dumb and toxic as to lose you a winnable seat?
IOW — the problem for the GOP wrt to women’s reproductive health isn’t the GOP’s position but the lack of vaginas among GOP office holders. Sounds like someone is tilling the soil for Liz Cheney’s promotion to the Senate.
Again, none of these people seem to realize that the retrograde attitudes are the selling point, themselves — they’re not some regrettable drawback everyone’s overlooking when they vote Republican or vote for Trump.
When Trump supporters see that wall of old white men celebrating the House’s health care bill passage, they think, “Good!” They think, “Finally someone’s standing up to those socialists and ‘social justice warrior’ ‘elites’ with their ‘fascistic’ imposition of ‘diversity’ ‘agendas’ on the rest of us!”
They love it — they’re finally being listened to. Until we understand this — really understand it — we’re not going to get anywhere with the electorate.
I hope you are aware that Democrats do have voters. We are talking about finding 3-5% more of them. I’m not certain how moving the lines again on abortion is going to lead to anything but more accusations that the Democrats don’t stand for anything. So fine. The new “moderate” position on abortion is that it is legal through six weeks, requires approval from a panel of physicians plus a visit to the district attorney (which I guess is more moderate than a visit from the police), 2 visits to the clinic (which is more moderate than 3), a 48 hour instead of 72 hour waiting period. Anything other than that is considered too lefty feminist pandering to social justice warriors. Good, the party has now stood up to its lefty SJWs. I’m sure people will be flocking to this new moderate Democratic party that has listened.
identifying the Dem(s) advocating the “moderation” you describe.
most of us here do understand it.
Roughly 2/3 of Trump voters are either hard-core deplorable assholes or people who view the Republican party as a religion and will die before they vote Democrat. (or both). We’re not going to touch those people. We need to touch some share of the other 1/3 of Trump voters, and some share of non-voters.
Good to hear the term “deplorables” again. They are who we fight. Scum is a good one too.
some people think that term was one of Hillary’s big mistakes; I disagree.
The “enjoyable” thing about such a very close election is that you can blame Hillary and the Democrats’ losses on literally anything they did or did not do. Whatever part of the candidate and the Party bugs you most, that’s to blame!
What I’d like to hear from those who pick up the “she didn’t campaign in Wisconsin” rock and throw it at Hillary is this: explain why Russ Feingold lost.
It seems to be fit here to copy a few excerpts from Graeber’s “Debt: The First 5,000 Years” from my post at ET.
Culture wars against liberals thousands of years ago?!
Further, citing Gerda Lerner:
And then Greece:
Shortage of eligible men has left women taking desperate steps to preserve their fertility, experts say
Giving up alcohol opened my eyes to the infuriating truth about why women drink
Let’s do a little census of the current women in the US Senate.
Lisa Murkowski – Alaska – The Murkowski name is important
Joni Ernst – Iowa – Veteran and hog castrator
Susan Collins – Maine – Up from Congressional staff
Deb Fischer – Nebraska – Up from the Nebraska legislature
Shelley Moore Capito – West Virginia – The Moore name is important
From family connections to conventional career moves to hypermasculine signalling. There was only a brief time that the Republican club in the Senate actually wanted to admit women on their own accomplishments.
GOP recruitment of men doesn’t even use the criteria that they’ll be good politicians and excellent public servants. I doubt if Chuck Grassley could ever meet an honest test of that standard. Much less those since his first election. Feigned ideological conformity, proven money-raising, and rabble-rousing are the primary GOP qualifications for the US Senate. And kissing Mitch McConnell’s ring.
Because the abortion issue is the uniting issue of the relgious right that avoids saying “white supremacy”, that confines the pool of women only to certain types.