Showing posts with label Progressives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Progressives. Show all posts
Friday, January 10, 2014
Harry Reid (D-NV) – Brings Partisanship to New Heights – Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) – works with Coburn (R-OK) on Bill – Sick of it All Yet?
An article in the New York Times speaks to the power plays by the Majority Senate Leader, Harry Reid and his “uncompromising” position on anything Republican. Apparently, there have been bills brought forth by Republicans which Democrats of like mind might have voted for or against (with dialogue), yet Senator Reid stops all from being brought to a vote on the Senate Floor(New York Times). Reid, the Majority Leader, has the job of traffic cop when it comes to legislation and whose legislation is brought forth, voted upon and sent to the President’s desk for signature. When he blocks one party entirely, he’s playing partisan politics, which, one might suggest, will not turn out well for the current party in power (Democrats, which Reid leads by the nose).
Playing nice, at the moment, is the newly elected Progressive from Massachusetts, Senator Elizabeth Warren, with of all people Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Apparently they have co-written legislation on transparency with corporations specific to tax breaks, and the people’s money (both personal and tax) when it comes to banking. The referring article by the Huffington Post notes Coburn as an arch-conservative. - Coburn releases the annual government waste book available here, at www.coburn.senate.gov From this point of view, it’s a reasonable match, as Coburn is shouting government waste from the rooftops, and Warren is shouting corruption and waste as well. The bill will be on the Senate Floor, but the question remains, with Reid’s inability to allow anything with a Republican Label go to the floor, what happens to Warren and Coburn’s noble quest?
Reid is now in a position to play this either way – for example: He may shut it down entirely as it would appear that a Republican has something to offer and to be bi-partisans should it go to the Senate floor for a vote or, he can allow the vote – giving the one most likely to run for the Democrat Nomination for President (Elizabeth Warren), a leg up so to speak.
Meanwhile, all the worthwhile and the worthless legislation that both parties are writing (as that is the job they are hired to do), sits and nothing gets done – and Reid rules over a do-nothing Senate – if he were slightly less moral, one might liken him to the mad ruler of Rome, Caligula (referring to the madness of Power).
As the general voting public on both sides including rank and file Democrats and Republicans as well as Tea Party and Progressive, are growing more leery by the day of the partisanship shown on both sides. It is as if two big bullies are running the nation – into the ground. Which brings up a point – if one of each of what is seen as the more radical factions of both parties, actually makes a run at the Presidency and or any office for that matter, and avoids the general label of D or R – it follows that that individual would endear themselves to the public – the voting public.
A perfect example of such is the recent brouhaha over Chris Christie and his Turnpike Scandal. Not a fan of the Governor on some points, the level of partisan rhetoric coming from the Democrats, and stony silence from the Republican’s is ridiculous. The man took responsibility for something he was unaware of, and that shows leadership. Of course, the Republicans have some grievances with Christie as they felt he should not have embraced the President during the crisis of Hurricane Sandy, while Mitt Romney, the second worse candidate in recent memory, was trying to unseat the worst President since Jimmy Carter. Blaming Christie is ridiculous, as Romney was not supported by either the right wing evangelicals as well as the Tea Party! – When 20 million voters stay home, it’s time to change strategy. Not likely as they are having Bush delusions (Jeb Bush) and the Democrats are currently in love with Hillary Clinton. One might suggest that none of those mentioned in the preceding, will actually make it through the nominating process.
Which point, one of the most progressive individuals one might meet, suggested, who cares about Christie, why is this even news? This is referring, of course, to the labels - again.
Keep it up Harry, the DNC and the RNC and soon we will have new parties develop which are long past due. The public is becoming increasingly aware and increasingly Independent (or not affiliated with any political party)
Monday, December 09, 2013
Ted Cruz speaks to personal beliefs, takes heat – Texas Editorial bemoans competition from the “right”.
Senator, Ted Cruz, on the passing of Nelson Mandela was respectful, and spoke to the true measure of the man and his struggle to end Apartheid in South Africa -for which he apparently took some heat from Tea Party activists who are fans on Facebook. Cruz, along with a contingent of 20 Democrats, will be going to South Africa to say farewell to Mandela. (CNN). Understanding that there are those who we may be in political disagreement with on some points, the fact that he man himself, was fighting diligently for his people, at great personal risk, and succeeded in ending a system that was so far from equitable, speaks to his measure- rather than any Communist trends that he may have adhered to. The problem with the right, as with the left, is those members of both sides that allow for no compromise, regardless of any situation. Good for Cruz for showing understanding.
In Texas, as elsewhere in the nation, there are multiple challengers to incumbents, and that has two of the Dallas Morning News crew with their panties in a bunch Although placed under “Political News”, it is truly editorial in format, suggesting that challengers to Congressional offices, from the Tea Party or far right, should not be taking place, as these individual s have “no experience”, at all. Funny how both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat value “experience” in Washington which was not the general intent of the founders. The general intent for the House specifically, was to have a multiple of individuals serve, be they merchants, farmers or doctors of the day, when the term was up – they returned home, and someone else took their place. Additionally Congress was only in session for a few months (another plus in the past). Forgetting a moment that the challenger offers no experience, what they do offer, is a choice for the voter. The problem with having choices is that one might choose someone not to the liking of the two over at the Dallas Morning News. They, along with others in the industry and in politics may be in for a bigger shock than expected when the dust settles in 2014.
The anti-incumbent sentiment has grown, and for both sides of the aisle, so one might anticipate should this hold (and since Congress nor the Senate, show any signs whatsoever of changing their ways), the 2014 elections may turn into a free-for-all. By that, one might anticipate changes to the right, center and yes, far left, in all forms, in all districts. It is the distastes for all things Washington that has produced an opportunity for those who have never served, to go to D.C and put in their two cents.
If one thought the 2010 elections were specifically historical – then one might want to hold that thought for something that in theory and perhaps in practice, may trounce the records.
With the news holding slightly better approval ratings that said Congress, one might wonder if media news, as well as celebrity, etc., would hold any sway for a very angry and disgusted group of Americans – the Voters. It will be interesting to say the least.
Thursday, December 05, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
US Chamber of Commerce - Washington Lobbyist Team with GOP to Unseat Tea Party – The changing of the Party Guard.
Inside the beltway of Washington D.C. are those who make up the government, the elected officials and the lobbyists/special interest groups who determine legislation, regardless of the impact it may have on the nation. It is a way of doing business that has developed, one which can change the tone of political discourse in a heartbeat, given the right amount of cash. Lately, the exploration of a need for a third political party to end the apparent stalemate in D.C. has put those lobbyist in the driver’s seat on edge, so much so that one particular group has decided to invest in a strategy with the national GOP to stop those who would be more constitutionally prone – the Tea Party.
An AP article in the Gadsden Times entitled: “Business, GOP establishment: Tea party is over” speaks of the alliance of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National GOP to spend millions in an attempt to move the Republican’s in Congress from Tea Party to “Center-Right”. The AP report notes that the group is halfway to its 8 million dollar goal to build a “war-chest” to fight Congressional races. The usual Democrats are thrilled that there is such a schism in the GOP, and plan to take advantage in these races. Two races are highlighted in this article, both in Michigan.
There are two important aspects to consider, the U.S. Chamber is a lobbyist group, in DC. Who represents the interests of Chamber Members across the U.S., but being in D.C. can be lucrative, and, as the group is Bi-partisan in nature, similar to Unions, those at the head tend to make decisions more in keeping with Washington politics rather than the universal interests of the group (See ThinkProgress.org’s article on the Chambers help in winning and losing elections in 2010, very few were Democrats, mainly Republicans). Secondly, raising eight million dollars in D.C. should not be that difficult of a challenge, especially for the GOP and the U.S. Chamber, so what gives?
The Tea Party according those in the media, pollsters and the National GOP and DNC, are somewhat “Dangerous”, but to whom? Why is the National GOP so leery of the group that brought them the possession of the House of Representatives? Simply put, it is the attachment of the National GOP to the Tea Party (which is, when on weighs all points, Independent in nature), which ended, not in obedience by those Tea Party members as anticipated, once safely surrounded by those more senior members of the Houses, it was the fact that they stood alone, opposed their “own party”, and shut down the government for fifteen days. A shut-down that very few, outside of the media, knew or even cared about, that had more to do with the debt ceiling and finance, which fewer understood.
The Tea Party is less of a political party and more of a political ideology, with various fractions, that could, if members so desired, form an actual political party. Instead, those members tend to run under the Republican brand, in order to get elected, a rather disingenuous way of getting around the fact that they do not have a political party per se, to stand upon. Not unlike the Progressives who have run successfully as Democrats, and have successfully unseated those Tip O’Neil Democrats, the Tea Party members are doing the same with the GOP. It is a change in the two major political party’s makeup, one to the very left and one to the very right, with little room in the middle.
There are enough of these members to hold the lien on both sides of the political aisle – they are less of a third political party and more of a coup. That’s the danger and why those who would maintain the status qua (the moderates such as the McCain’s, Graham’s, Boehner’s, etc.) are having conniption fits and calling names.
It’s just that simple. If it were in the true nature of the political party formation (Libertarian’s, Green Party, etc.) there would be little material support for that group to say, best a standard Republican or Democrat, or so that’s the school of thought – Not enough cash from fewer members to oust one of the major party players. Therefore, those that wish to change from the right and from the left, do so by aligning themselves with a major party. The most astounding outcome in this whole process is, using one example; both the Tea Party Members and the Standard GOP are surprised when there is a disagreement. If the founders of this nation had their way – one would imagine more of a mixture of ideals and political parties, rather than two large political parties holding sway over the states. It is, one would imagine what those grassroots activists, progressive and tea party, would dream about. To this mind, it is nothing more than – bluffing. To unseat two Conservative (Tea Party) Republicans’ in Michigan, by running Center Right (Moderate) Republican’s in a primary against said Conservatives, should the moderate win, then the seat would go to the Democrat – it is what the National GOP does best – especially in general elections. The DNC, to be fair, has had more practice with their Progressives, who now are in full control of the party, but it took decades to reach the point where they are today. To wit, this is just the beginning, and it is doubtful that those in the GOP have the ability to turn back the tide at this point in the game. That will mean more losses for standard GOP elites and more wins for those Tea Party type insurgents. It is taking time, but they need only look to the Progressives to see the end in sight.
Would it be better to have four, five or six major political parties? Of course, more would get done for the people as there would have to be more compromise, and the lobbyist would have to spread themselves thin, having less influence overall on the outcomes of legislation. It is changing the Major Political party from the inside out that is the preferred route for those who fear the deep pockets, rather than rely on the trust of the American People and build as best they can, over decades a third party.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
As the GOP Turns – The Old Guard and New Guard – Nothing More than Evolution
There’s that old adage: “history repeats itself”, that should be taken into account prior to ringing death knells on political brands, or “rebranding” if one prefers to parse words. The fact that, as we age, younger individuals move up the ladder, so to speak, bringing with them a “new” (or old, as the case may be), political point of view – one that fits neither of today’s establishment parties. Therefore, of one individual in that generation tends to lead in the political arena, it is what it is, a changing of the guard and with that a whole can of worms opens. Suffice it to say, that there has always been a right and a left, liberal and conservative thought, which those in power generally use to divide and conquer – some to their own demise (consider the French revolution). The Old Democrat party has been long gone for decades, only no one apparently noticed. The brand is there – the dutiful “D” printed on each ballot – but the formerly fiscally sound, social justice fighters, working class party – is now the party ruled by academic elitist, who have little experience outside of a classroom, and a philosophy that is decidedly socialist. The Democrat brand was co-opted by the rise of one Ronald Reagan, who, at the same time, rebranded the Republican Party – leaning on the tax cuts of John F. Kennedy, and challenging the establishment GOP, he embodied the working man - he drove the party elites and the media crazy. Over the following decades the two parties appeared to meld into the ebb and flow of partisan politics, with rare exceptions, one was either a “Democrat or a Republican” – there was no challenge to the status quo, and the political dynasties emerged – the Bushes, the Clintons, their respective allies in the Senate and the Congress and on K Street (where the lobbyist and political action committees reside.) Reagan was the last reformer, otherwise the Republican Party, like the Democrat Party, has been the dutiful “R” on the ballot.
Suddenly the media and Washington are on high alert, as a group of individuals who are not necessarily Republican, as in “rich old white men” (as opposed to the “rich old white men” that run the Democrat Party.) are suddenly calling themselves “conservatives” running as “Republicans” and winning elections, hearts and minds. There is about to be a shift – one would hope that the scenario of three or four (optimal) parties emerging from the two old behemoths would emerge, yet, the common approach would be to co-opt one or both of the established parties. Enter the “libertarians”.
Libertarians follow a political thought process based on personal liberty, with a strong emphasis on the U.S. Constitution. Those millions of Tea Party Strict Constructionists are also likely to lean “Libertarian” – so are most 18 to 25 year olds, a demographic that rarely votes, but if, as a group, they find someone relatable, they will vote in droves. (An unintended consequence seen under Reagan.)
Although the dutiful academics, installed in the schools across the nation, from kindergarten through one’s Doctorate, have been preaching the message of “progressive” philosophy for the past 40 years, it has become stale in its practice. The economic impact of the progressive Congress under Nancy Pelosi, followed by the election and reelection of President Obama, and the consequences of “bigger, more encroaching, government”, has begun to wear thin. For some it is the lack of opportunities, for others, it is the obvious installation of a “class system” – those who have, those how have not. Those who would promise to make everyone equal, everyone wealthy, and everyone on the same playing field, by virtue of the all important government - apparently cannot deliver on that promise.
Therefore, the sudden emergence and popularity of Rand Paul and Dr. Ben Carson are seen by the media as upheaval in the Republican Party – as dutiful “Democrats”, they report on the demise of the GOP, or the “upheaval” within the GOP – it is nothing more than growing pains, or an evolution – of a more centric, inclusionary political party, one that is based upon a fiscal policy that is morally sound, while holding the 10th amendment sacrosanct.
Therefore, one might suggests, that those that would be king, the McCain’s, the Clinton’s, will have to make way for those Doctors who will stand up for both fiscal sanity and humanity, but most importantly individual liberty and responsibility – the opportunity to become a success (rather than one of the “masses” – yes, Libertarian, and/or Conservative – but appealing to those who are sick and tired of the “old brands” that have run the nation with little differences between the two political parties since Reagan left office.
Suddenly the media and Washington are on high alert, as a group of individuals who are not necessarily Republican, as in “rich old white men” (as opposed to the “rich old white men” that run the Democrat Party.) are suddenly calling themselves “conservatives” running as “Republicans” and winning elections, hearts and minds. There is about to be a shift – one would hope that the scenario of three or four (optimal) parties emerging from the two old behemoths would emerge, yet, the common approach would be to co-opt one or both of the established parties. Enter the “libertarians”.
Libertarians follow a political thought process based on personal liberty, with a strong emphasis on the U.S. Constitution. Those millions of Tea Party Strict Constructionists are also likely to lean “Libertarian” – so are most 18 to 25 year olds, a demographic that rarely votes, but if, as a group, they find someone relatable, they will vote in droves. (An unintended consequence seen under Reagan.)
Although the dutiful academics, installed in the schools across the nation, from kindergarten through one’s Doctorate, have been preaching the message of “progressive” philosophy for the past 40 years, it has become stale in its practice. The economic impact of the progressive Congress under Nancy Pelosi, followed by the election and reelection of President Obama, and the consequences of “bigger, more encroaching, government”, has begun to wear thin. For some it is the lack of opportunities, for others, it is the obvious installation of a “class system” – those who have, those how have not. Those who would promise to make everyone equal, everyone wealthy, and everyone on the same playing field, by virtue of the all important government - apparently cannot deliver on that promise.
Therefore, the sudden emergence and popularity of Rand Paul and Dr. Ben Carson are seen by the media as upheaval in the Republican Party – as dutiful “Democrats”, they report on the demise of the GOP, or the “upheaval” within the GOP – it is nothing more than growing pains, or an evolution – of a more centric, inclusionary political party, one that is based upon a fiscal policy that is morally sound, while holding the 10th amendment sacrosanct.
Therefore, one might suggests, that those that would be king, the McCain’s, the Clinton’s, will have to make way for those Doctors who will stand up for both fiscal sanity and humanity, but most importantly individual liberty and responsibility – the opportunity to become a success (rather than one of the “masses” – yes, Libertarian, and/or Conservative – but appealing to those who are sick and tired of the “old brands” that have run the nation with little differences between the two political parties since Reagan left office.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Progressive Strategy – Demean Women in Politics to Distract from the Issues
One understands that politics are dirty, and that when one enters the political arena, be it a male or a female, they are subjecting themselves and often their family, to the proverbial microscope of the press. No matter how frivolous a charge or alleged “scandal” might be, and no matter the position sought, a “leak” of the most ridiculous sorts, suddenly becomes “national news”. That said, the disparity between the opposition attacks against women, regardless of party, is fairly prominent, and especially true this past week as the nation has less than 42 days to determine the shape of the 112th Congress, and incidentally immediately following, the candidates for the Presidential primaries for 2012.
One which stands out more than most is the embattled “Tea Party” Candidate Christine O’Donnell, of Delaware. O’Donnell: If one Googles' O’Donnell is the search engines News feature, they will find thousands of articles regarding a videotape of Ms. O’Donnell as a teen, making a silly comment about being involved with Wicca (witchcraft). Of course, Mr. Maher, the HBO talk show host, who if one reviews his past videos will find remarks made by the host that would elevate Ms. O’Donnell sainthood.
For example the video below shows a younger Maher, comparing dogs to “retarded children”. This is the same man who is taken seriously when dismissing a Senate candidate for a comment made while a teen. That said, the media jumped on this nonsense and moved it to the spotlight, which certainly distracts from the issues at hand that affect voters in Delaware. Ms. O’Donnell’s opponent on the other hand, is an avowed Marxist and believes in increasing the size of the U.S. government Of course, nothing to concern Delaware voters about Mr. Coons, also dubbed Harry Reid’s Pet must, according to press logic, be the better candidate.
Aside from the ridiculous, serious charges have been leveled against Ms. O’Donnell, specifically regarding a lean placed upon her by the IRS, which is running in an ad throughout Delaware, what the ad fails to mention (given that it is a DNC ad), Ms. O’Donnell received an apology from the IRS for their mistake. In fact, for every spurious accusations against the woman, she has asked and answered with full documentation (the actual documents) on her website here at Chrstine2010.com. Meanwhile, nothing is being asked and answered by either candidate about issues. But, as a woman, the “witch” tag is sticking and the word “teen” has made its début.
Although one could argue it is partisan politics (dirty, agreed), it is an attack on O’Donnell personally and as a woman. (Bill Maher remarks in his video with a then high school age O’Donnell “what’s with the 90’s hair?”.
Speaking of hairstyles: Hillary Clinton, the woman who should have been President (opinion with a basis in fact (i.e. popular vote in primary dismissed by super-delegates in favor of the brilliant Obama who has failed to show his brilliance) is to this day, under the fashion microscope, this time, her faux pax is a hairstyle. How silly. Yet, in some ways, not at all, as it is the beginning of firing “salvos” should the former New York Senator decide to run against this particular sitting president as rumors suggest. This article by the New York Daily News, goes into detail on Clinton’s “new hairdo” for a UN meeting. Apparently, Clinton had worn a banana clip of sorts, looking as if she had more to worry about, and chose a “banana clip” to get the hair up and away from her face. Herein lies the crux – perhaps Ms. Clinton’s hairstyle is big news to those who hit the salon on a daily basis, but for those of us who work for a living, it looks familiar, and comfortable, and lastly “normal”. The end result, in trying to dismiss Clinton via hair, or what she wore on a particular day, etc., is that she becomes more human to the rest of nation that might find themselves in that same pantsuit situation.
One can, however, bet the house that should John Kerry assume the role as Secretary of State, (rumored to be replacing Clinton as she seeks a way out), then the press will undoubtedly not fixate on the type of tie he wore on a particular day, or the cut of a suit.
Finally, Sarah Palin, who has been criticized on wardrobe, and more, continues to be a target, as she has taken a prominent place in politics and is possibly one of the 2012 candidates for President. One can anticipate the attacks on Palin to be "ramped u a bit" and, should Clinton join her from the opposite side of the aisle, attacks on her as well, not on the issues but on what both women wore, their makeup, their hairstyles, ad nauseum.
This is nothing new in the political arena, when women attempt to cross over into a predominately male “club”. The first woman to break the political glass ceiling (Vice President, not President), Geraldine Ferraro, was also treated with the same hair brush, discussions regarding her were national news.
That was in 1984. A mere 26 years ago, which is current in the scheme of women in politics.
Two stunning Women and politics facts:
1920 - Given the right to vote – last “group” to be given that right.
Ongoing - Categorized as a minority (seriously women and minorities)
Observations:
Are considered to have broken the glass ceiling by merely being a, candidate
Progressives for all their “solidarity” are as sexist as a men’s only club.
However, there are more women candidates for state and federal offices in 2010 than in previous years, specifically in the GOP. Philosophically, (Feminism) and legally (EEO) regardless of party or politics, women should be treated no differently than their male counterparts when applying for the same position, be it in the private sector or the public sector. It is far past time, for there to be two qualified candidates for the nations highest office, and should those candidates be women , then all the better. As the press would be forced to speak on issues, rather than what dress one wore, or what hairstyle the other chose for a particular meeting.
One which stands out more than most is the embattled “Tea Party” Candidate Christine O’Donnell, of Delaware. O’Donnell: If one Googles' O’Donnell is the search engines News feature, they will find thousands of articles regarding a videotape of Ms. O’Donnell as a teen, making a silly comment about being involved with Wicca (witchcraft). Of course, Mr. Maher, the HBO talk show host, who if one reviews his past videos will find remarks made by the host that would elevate Ms. O’Donnell sainthood.
For example the video below shows a younger Maher, comparing dogs to “retarded children”. This is the same man who is taken seriously when dismissing a Senate candidate for a comment made while a teen. That said, the media jumped on this nonsense and moved it to the spotlight, which certainly distracts from the issues at hand that affect voters in Delaware. Ms. O’Donnell’s opponent on the other hand, is an avowed Marxist and believes in increasing the size of the U.S. government Of course, nothing to concern Delaware voters about Mr. Coons, also dubbed Harry Reid’s Pet must, according to press logic, be the better candidate.
Aside from the ridiculous, serious charges have been leveled against Ms. O’Donnell, specifically regarding a lean placed upon her by the IRS, which is running in an ad throughout Delaware, what the ad fails to mention (given that it is a DNC ad), Ms. O’Donnell received an apology from the IRS for their mistake. In fact, for every spurious accusations against the woman, she has asked and answered with full documentation (the actual documents) on her website here at Chrstine2010.com. Meanwhile, nothing is being asked and answered by either candidate about issues. But, as a woman, the “witch” tag is sticking and the word “teen” has made its début.
Although one could argue it is partisan politics (dirty, agreed), it is an attack on O’Donnell personally and as a woman. (Bill Maher remarks in his video with a then high school age O’Donnell “what’s with the 90’s hair?”.
Speaking of hairstyles: Hillary Clinton, the woman who should have been President (opinion with a basis in fact (i.e. popular vote in primary dismissed by super-delegates in favor of the brilliant Obama who has failed to show his brilliance) is to this day, under the fashion microscope, this time, her faux pax is a hairstyle. How silly. Yet, in some ways, not at all, as it is the beginning of firing “salvos” should the former New York Senator decide to run against this particular sitting president as rumors suggest. This article by the New York Daily News, goes into detail on Clinton’s “new hairdo” for a UN meeting. Apparently, Clinton had worn a banana clip of sorts, looking as if she had more to worry about, and chose a “banana clip” to get the hair up and away from her face. Herein lies the crux – perhaps Ms. Clinton’s hairstyle is big news to those who hit the salon on a daily basis, but for those of us who work for a living, it looks familiar, and comfortable, and lastly “normal”. The end result, in trying to dismiss Clinton via hair, or what she wore on a particular day, etc., is that she becomes more human to the rest of nation that might find themselves in that same pantsuit situation.
One can, however, bet the house that should John Kerry assume the role as Secretary of State, (rumored to be replacing Clinton as she seeks a way out), then the press will undoubtedly not fixate on the type of tie he wore on a particular day, or the cut of a suit.
Finally, Sarah Palin, who has been criticized on wardrobe, and more, continues to be a target, as she has taken a prominent place in politics and is possibly one of the 2012 candidates for President. One can anticipate the attacks on Palin to be "ramped u a bit" and, should Clinton join her from the opposite side of the aisle, attacks on her as well, not on the issues but on what both women wore, their makeup, their hairstyles, ad nauseum.
This is nothing new in the political arena, when women attempt to cross over into a predominately male “club”. The first woman to break the political glass ceiling (Vice President, not President), Geraldine Ferraro, was also treated with the same hair brush, discussions regarding her were national news.
That was in 1984. A mere 26 years ago, which is current in the scheme of women in politics.
Two stunning Women and politics facts:
1920 - Given the right to vote – last “group” to be given that right.
Ongoing - Categorized as a minority (seriously women and minorities)
Observations:
Are considered to have broken the glass ceiling by merely being a, candidate
Progressives for all their “solidarity” are as sexist as a men’s only club.
However, there are more women candidates for state and federal offices in 2010 than in previous years, specifically in the GOP. Philosophically, (Feminism) and legally (EEO) regardless of party or politics, women should be treated no differently than their male counterparts when applying for the same position, be it in the private sector or the public sector. It is far past time, for there to be two qualified candidates for the nations highest office, and should those candidates be women , then all the better. As the press would be forced to speak on issues, rather than what dress one wore, or what hairstyle the other chose for a particular meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
