(Advertisement)

COMMENTARY: Women's Vote Carried Obama

Posted: November 20, 2012 at 9:27 a.m.

Finger-pointing is well under way by, for and about the national Republican Party in the wake of its disappointing defeat in the 2012 presidential election. That’s a necessary step toward rebounding.

This story is only available from our archives.

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

HOW WE SEE IT: NWACC enters third presidentia...

How much of a difference can one person make in a large organization? When that person’s name follows the title “president,” the answer should be “a lot.” But history tells... Read »

Next Story »

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Christians Not Just In One ...

I just read a letter by Phyllis Farish [Nov. 16] in which she states that the presidential election was lost not only by the Republicans, but also the Democrats and America... Read »

Across the world, countries which have more women in office tend to be more peaceful and freer from corruption.
The U.S. has actually been lagging in this respect behind many other nations.

Posted by: Coralie

November 20, 2012 at 3:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Women have been able to vote and run for office longer than anyone posting here has been alive. If a women runs and wins then the people have spoken. Why do people insist on classifying everything by race, gender, etc. It is a bunch of bull feathers.

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 21, 2012 at 12:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Identity politics is the strategy of the left, because they have no interest in a person's competence. What is truly sad about this country is that most of the so-called progressives would label Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. an Uncle Tom because he dreamed of a day that people would be judged on the content of their character.

Posted by: IrishMensa

November 21, 2012 at 10:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank and Irish, look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
India, Australia, Ireland, Iceland, Canada, UK, most of Latin America, etc.
"In all, more than 50 countries have chosen a female head of state or government at some point in their history; Switzerland has had five female presidents, more than any other country."
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2...

Posted by: Coralie

November 24, 2012 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

If a woman wins, a womans wins. What is the point behind discriminating any which way?

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 25, 2012 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, so you think that there has been no discrimination against women in the political sphere here in the U.S.?
How then do you explain so many other countries with women as heads of state, including several Muslim countries? And why it has been so hard to get women into top places on the ticket?
Nobody suggested discriminating against male candidates just because of their gender.
+
You obviously don't recognize structural discrimination. This is the sum of obstacles either in laws, custom, or institutionalized discrimation. For instance, 40 years ago in Pennsylvania I tried to set up my own bank account for my own paycheck and the bank wouldn't let me do that because I was married.
I've read that an obstacle to women running for office here is in the primary system. The political bosses just don't tend to pick women candidates as often.
+
Tank, I suppose you also think that as soon as the 13th Amendment was passed, former slaves had full citizenship rights and equal opportunities.
It does not occur that they started out with no property or assets or education, That''s part of structural discrimination. Of course the newly freed slaves and their descendants for several generations were politically and often forcibly deprived of their citizenship rights here in the South.

Posted by: Coralie

November 25, 2012 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Countries with the most women in parliament.
We're not in the top 10 here:

1. Rwanda 49%
2. Sweden 45
3. Denmark 38
4. Finland 38
5. Netherlands 37
6. Norway 36
7. Cuba 36
8. Belgium 35
9. Costa Rica 35
10. Austria 34
Before the recent election, the U.S. was tied for 80th place with Morocco (17%). That is below the world average of 19.5%
http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

Posted by: Coralie

November 25, 2012 at 3:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

If a woman wins, she wins. Are you suggesting we implement affirmative action in government office?

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 25, 2012 at 7:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm not proposing it, although several countries have done just that.
I would simply like people to be aware that for whatever reason(s),our country appears to have some prejudice against electing women to national office.
And by choosing an unqualified person such as Sarah Palin for VP candidate, John McCain showed his own contempt for women leaders.

Posted by: Coralie

November 26, 2012 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Better to have a woman with common sense than a man with none like Free.

Posted by: Moneymyst

November 26, 2012 at 5:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

Just because a woman has not been elected to the US Presidency, doesn' t mean it is due to prejudice. Additionally, affirmative action is nothing but discrimination. That is why several countries have outlawed it. A concept the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have supported today, at least as far as race goes.

http://books.google.hu/books?id=zoHbV...

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 26, 2012 at 8:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

You want to talk about certain females holding higher office? What do you think about Amb. Susan Rice?

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 26, 2012 at 8:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

You can't just say "And by choosing an unqualified person such as Sarah Palin for VP candidate, John McCain showed his own contempt for women leaders" without providing citations.

C'mon, you libs here insist on "proof" every time a conservative makes a statement, so ante up! Give us examples of why Palin was unqualified.

Was it because she was only a governor? Wait, no it couldn't be that because Clinton and Carter were governors and aren't they poster boys for you libs?

Oh wait, I know. It's because she was never a community organizer. Everyone knows how qualified they are for office.

And no one knows about her background and history. Wait, I'm wrong again, that's Obama who has those secretive years and no college transcripts to prove he ever achieved passing grades in any classes.

But, please tell us why Palin is unqualified so we can all put that worry to rest.

Posted by: patrioteer

November 26, 2012 at 9:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Some women that immediately come to mind that I would be more than happy to vote for: Sec. Condoleezza Rice, Star Parker, Gov. Nikki Haley, and Phyllis Schlafly (if she was 10-20 years younger).

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 26, 2012 at 10:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, they don't want to hear that.

We are demonized as anti-women if we don't support liberal women for office. I could add some names to your list of women I could vote for, both white and black. Liberals play the race card if we don't support black politicians even though I would vote for a conservative black man or woman if they were qualified. In addition to Rice and Parker, men such as Allen West, J.C.Watts, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes...

Posted by: patrioteer

November 27, 2012 at 12:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pat: "You can't just say "And by choosing an unqualified person such as Sarah Palin for VP..." without providing citations.">>

Here are some....

"She doesn't know anything."
--John McCain's chief campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, referring to Sarah Palin.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/0...

It would seem that "knowing something" would be a necessary qualification, don't you think?

"Naming Palin makes Bush think less of McCain as a man," a Republican official familiar with Bush's thinking told the Daily News.
"He thinks McCain ran a lousy campaign with an unqualified running mate and destroyed any chance of winning by picking Palin." --The New York Daily News, http://tinyurl.com/cgsb57e

From a book [by], former Bush staffer Matt Latimer:
"'I'm trying to remember if I've met her before. I'm sure I must have.' [Bush's] eyes twinkled, then he asked, 'What is she, the governor of Guam?'"

"This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for. She hasn't spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let's wait and see how she looks five days out." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11...

"Two-thirds of registered voters in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say she’s unqualified for the job..."
"...just 27 percent, see her as qualified for the presidency, also essentially unchanged. Sixty-seven percent say she’s not qualified; this peaked at 71 percent in February."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/...

Some of Sarah Palin's greatest hits: http://crooksandliars.com/node/24948

D.
------------
"Sarah Palin: Phenomenally Unqualified"

"We are talking about someone that could move from being Mayor of 8,471 people to the Presidency of the United States in less than two years..."

"Not only has Palin only served as governor a meager 20 months—she served as Governor of Alaska. A state containing only one town with a population over 100,000 and only four over 10,000. A state with more reindeer than people....

I put on my history hat and searched all weekend to find a less qualified candidate for Vice-President in America’s history, and let me tell you it was a daunting task. By comparison, Sarah Palin makes Dan Quayle look like Winston Churchill." http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index...

Etc.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 27, 2012 at 12:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Joe Biden=Commodore 64
Sarah Palin=IMAC i7

Posted by: Moneymyst

November 27, 2012 at 1:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Joe Biden served in the Senate for 36 years, was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and Judiciary Committee.'
Not a towering figure but knows his way around the politic s.
Moneymyst, you seem to have a tic, that you will disagree with anything fayfreethinker says.

Posted by: Coralie

November 27, 2012 at 2:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank says "Just because a woman has not been elected to the US Presidency, doesn' t mean it is due to prejudice."
What about the low rate of election to the Senate and Congress compared with the parliaments of other countries?
Putting the two together suggests some kind of structural discrimination.

Posted by: Coralie

November 27, 2012 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tanks says"Affirmative action is nothing but discrimination. That is why several countries have outlawed it."
There are several different versions of affirmative action. It looks like many more countries have introduced it than have banned it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmat...

Posted by: Coralie

November 27, 2012 at 4:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

One has a duty and obligation both to himself as a human being and a child of God to, of course, disagree with anything Free comes up with on his own.

Posted by: Moneymyst

November 27, 2012 at 5:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"Putting the two together suggests some kind of structural discrimination."

It suggests nothing but the fact that fewer women have been elected in the US.

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 27, 2012 at 8:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If it walks like a duck...
Since you're a military man, what do you think of the scandal that the services have not protected servicewomen from rape nor given them justice after it occurs?

Posted by: Coralie

November 28, 2012 at 1:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

One thing we all can agree on is the Islam countries sure know how to treat women.

Posted by: Moneymyst

November 28, 2012 at 3:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, note all 19 of the new Republican House committee chairmanships are white men.
That's not a matter of the public vote.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11...

Posted by: Coralie

November 28, 2012 at 5:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst, how is that relevant? We're doing fine because somebody else is doing worse?
The U.S. is rated 22nd on international poll about which countries are best for women.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10...

Posted by: Coralie

November 28, 2012 at 5:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Though Iran is remembered in the West mostly for its repressive ayatullahs, women there enjoy a relatively high degree of liberty. Iranian women drive cars, buy and sell property, run their own businesses, vote and hold public office. In most Muslim countries tradition keeps ordinary women at home and off the street, but Iran's avenues are crowded with women day and night. They make up 25% of the work force, a third of all government employees and 54% of college students. Still, Iranian women are--like women in much of the Arab world--forbidden to travel overseas without the permission of their husband or father, though the rule is rarely enforced in Iran.
Women in Turkey are the most liberated in the Muslim world, though Malaysia and Indonesia come close, having hosted relatively progressive cultures before Islam came to Southeast Asia in the 9th century. In Turkish professional life women enjoy a level of importance that is impressive not only by the standards of other Islamic countries but also by European lights."

http://www.time.com/time/world/articl...

:

Posted by: Coralie

November 28, 2012 at 5:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"Since you're a military man, what do you think of the scandal that the services have not protected servicewomen from rape nor given them justice after it occurs?"

It is dissapointing as when an offender violates someone (regardless of gender as men do get raped) in any community and walks away virtually unscathed when considering equity of punishment vs. the crime. Personally, I think all convicted rapists should face capital punishment. The crime is on the offender, not the organization.

It looks like Time is saying a whole bunch of women in Iran work for the government or are in Iranian schools. That probably works great for keeping them indocrinated with anti-Western (specifically anti-Israel/US) propoganda.

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 28, 2012 at 9:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

90% of the teachers and the principal in my son's middle school are black females... They are the ones that applied and got hired.

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 28, 2012 at 9:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, what does that prove about the lack of women senators and representatives, or the treatment of women in the armed forces?
I don't know what the ratio of black and white students is in your son's school.

Posted by: Coralie

November 29, 2012 at 2:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The continued insistance to classify every person by race, creed, gender etc. creates discrimination. Again on the women in the military thing, the crime is on the offender, not the organization.

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 29, 2012 at 5:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/14/health/...
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfr...
SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL especially if it conflicts with your prejudices.

Posted by: Coralie

November 30, 2012 at 4:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

I have served with a number of women and have proudly served under a female commander. I wasn't proud because they were females. I was proud because the were good at their jobs. If you are saying I have prejudices against women in the military, you are flat wrong. I know the amount of training my troops and are required to take in regards to EO and assualt, and I do not believe the military is doing anything wrong targeted at women.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

November 30, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I do not believe the military is doing anything wrong targeted at women."
" Military Sexual Trauma (MST) in the form of sexual harassment and assault remains a significant concern for female soldiers. Twenty percent of female veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been identified as having experienced MST (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2010). According to the Department of Defense, approximately one in three military women has been sexually assaulted compared to one in six civilians (Foster & Vince, 2009).

"Prevalence of military sexual assault among female veterans ranges from 20-48%, and 80% of female veterans have reported being sexually harassed (Foster & Vince, 2009). Despite the implementation of prevention programs and improved reporting mechanisms, female soldiers continue to experience sexual harassment and assault and are reluctant to report incidences. Of significant concern is this under-reporting of MST and a lack of information about services for survivors of MST."
http://www.dol.gov/wb/trauma/traumagu...

That sounds very wrong, and-- unless one in three military men has been sexually assaulted-- it seems to be targeted at women.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 30, 2012 at 8:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

Who is targeting women? It sure isn't the organization.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 1, 2012 at 3:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )