Government media is wringing its hands at the predicted losses their party will suffer at the hands of an informed electorate this fall. All options to fight back are on the table, including spinning the failure of liberal policy into a yarn about rejection of female candidates.
Nearly a quarter of the 56 female Democrats in the House are considered vulnerable, including once rising stars like Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Betsy Markey of Colorado and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio.
[…]
Even if female GOP hopefuls like Sharron Angle in Nevada, Carly Fiorina in California and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire make it to the Senate, the elections will still quite likely bring a net loss of women in Congress.
But the impact will be more than just a gender numbers game: It could have broader implications for policy and the political culture of the Capitol in an era in which women have made a significant impact on the House and the Senate, ranging from passing legislation such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to establishing a Democratic Women’s Working Group and holding key committee leadership positions. The impact of more women in Congress has also trickled down to smaller, cultural changes, like installing breast-feeding rooms for new mothers on the Hill.
The article makes no mention of the history being made on the other side of the aisle – also in the name of women.
An unprecedented number of Republican women are running for their party’s nomination in U.S. House and Senate primaries — or are already on their way to battle Democrats in the fall midterm elections. So many are campaigning that many conservative women are anticipating strong gains in their congressional numbers come November.
In the Senate races, 14 Republican women are running, up from just three in 2008, according to the Center for American Women and Politics. In the House, 94 are in the running, compared with 46 at about the same point in the political cycle two years ago. Most interesting, there are 106 women who are challenging incumbents for House seats, and over half–60 of them–are Republicans. According to Debbie Walsh, the director of the Center, this is a sign that GOPwomen are more likely to throw their hat in the ring than ever before.
USA Today ratchets up the ridiculousness:
The prospects for female congressional candidates have been hurt by a combination of a tough political landscape for Democrats — women in Congress are disproportionately Democratic— and the nation’s economic troubles. Hard times historically have made voters more risk-averse and less willing to consider voting for female candidates. [my emphasis]
The perspectives of both the Politico and USA Today piece presupposes two things, the latter more blatantly than the former: that a tougher political landscape brings forth an emotional environment that eschews estrogen in leadership positions; and that the country is rejecting these candidates based on sex and not on policy.
Take a look at what Americans have been saying for the past year:
54% Say Passing No Healthcare Reform Better Than Passing Congressional Plan
57% of Likely Voters Describe Democratic Congressional Agenda As Extreme
Independent Voters Favor GOP in 2010 Election Tracking
48% See Government Today As A Threat to Individual Rights
71% in Arizona Now Support State’s New Immigration Law
Most Say Tea Party Has Better Understanding of Issues than Congress
U.S. residents ‘losing faith’ in American Dream, new poll shows
CNN Poll: Majority says government a threat to citizens’ rights
Americans Tilt Against Democrats’ Plans if Summit Fails
CNN poll: 56 percent oppose stimulus program
Obama’s 47 Percent Approval Lowest of Any President at This Point
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Of course, MSM pays no attention to Republican women when they do well but when female Democrats don’t do well, media gets the vapors. Pay attention to the presentation:
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says the beleaguered economy has made it harder for women in both parties to win.
“It’s always been tougher for women to get elected in a tough economy because voters tend to think women aren’t as good on the economy,” she says. “They don’t want to take risks in a bad economy, and they perceive women as being riskier.”
Earlier in the piece:
Bottom line: Independent analysts predict that the number of women in Congress — currently 56 Democrats and 17 Republicans in the House, and 13 Democrats and four Republicans in the Senate — will decline for the first time in three decades.
Let me get this straight: liberal women have dominated the female makeup in congress for quite some time. They mostly voted party line, casting yes votes for issues towards which the American people were vehemently opposed, votes on health care, stimulus, EduJobs, et al. Logic dictates that if the American people disagree with your egregious spending and recklessness with other economic issues, they’ll likely demonstrate that at the polls come November.
This isn’t a repudiation of sex, this is a repudiation of liberalism. It’s asinine to assert a sexist element exists in the electorate as a way to deflect from the candidates assuming responsibility for casting votes detrimental to the economy. It’s the tactic Democrats have used for years to spur their long-exploited voting block into action, but its effectiveness has dissipated with voter disconnect and apathy.
If the implication in the aforementioned pieces were true, that this election is a set back for women, then how do the authors explain the voter intensity in primaries in which conservative women were the victors? Oh – because conservative women don’t count in the realm of “women’s rights,” because the arbitrary definition of
By refusing to acknowledging the success that conservative women are making in politics, the MSM in these cases does history – and equality – a disservice by going AWOL in their duty to tell the story of how women on both sides of the aisle can succeed in politics and capture the hearts of voters.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.