Day: March 10, 2012

Republican Congresswomen: More Conservative Than Republican Congressmen!

It might be shocking to discover that Republican women in the House of Representatives come out statistically more right wing than Republican men in the House, on average.

A National Journal study shows that Republican women in the 111th Congress were a more conservative bloc than the men, and the most ever in modern Congressional history!

The most conservative women, among the top 50 most conservative include Jean Schmidt of Ohio, who just lost her seat in the Ohio primary; Michele Bachmann, who lost out in her quest for the GOP Presidential nomination; Mary Fallin of Oklahoma; Virginia Foxx of North Carolina; Sue Myrick of North Carolina; Lynn Jenkins of Kansas; and Kay Granger of Texas.

Overall, the Republican women voted more conservatively tnan 80 percent of the entire House of Representatives.

One other female representative also continues to be right up there in pride of being very conservative–Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee–who has had the ranking overall in recent years of being the most right wing, although dethroned by Jean Schmidt in 2010.

It is shocking to see how these and other GOP women stand by as women’s rights are being challenged and restricted. It is as if they are not women at all, but aliens from outer space!

Republicans And Women: Going Backwards From 1920 To Now

With the massive assault on women’s rights being waged by Republicans in the Congress and in the Republican state governorships and legislatures and on conservative talk radio, one would think that the Republican Party has always been this way.

But actually, just the opposite is true!

It was a Republican and a woman, Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin of Montana, who sponsored the woman suffrage amendment, which became the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920.

It was a vast majority of Republicans in Congress who promoted the proposed Equal Rights Amendment , along with the vast majority of Democrats, when it passed in 1972 and went to the states.

It was President Richard Nixon who gave his strong endorsement to the ERA after its passage in 1972.

It was President Gerald Ford who campaigned for the ERA when he became President in 1974.

It was First Lady Betty Ford who not only campaigned for the ERA, but also supported other feminist causes and the reproductive rights of women, despite conservative criticism.

When one particularly looks at the contributions of Gerald and Betty Ford to the advancement of women’s rights, there has to be nostalgia for the “Good Old Days”!

But ironically, supposedly, as time passes, things get better, right?

But in the case of women’s rights and the Republican Party, the situation is the reverse: the past is far more advanced than the present.

But Republicans will pay the price this fall, when millions of self respecting women will march to the polls, ignore even their “religious” and “good Christian” husbands who want to keep them subservient, and will vote out the Republicans who are taking away the rights of women, and vote in more women and more men who believe in true equality of the genders!

Mitt Romney Does Not Work Well With Others: Forecast Of An Isolated Presidency If He Wins

Mitt Romney, the front runner in the Republican Presidential nomination race, has already revealed himself to be very stiff, formal, and aloof from the problems of ordinary Americans.

Now we are learning that he is much the same in dealing with other politicians.

Romney acts as if he is the Chief Executive Officer of a corporation, who isolates himself in his plush offices, makes policy with just a few aides, and then expects that everyone will follow his lead and avoid challenges at group meetings, where he expects to announce his decisions on policy, and everyone joins in unison in support of the initiatives he has promoted. He does not like criticism or alternative ideas, as he has great confidence in his own ability and intellect.

This was Mitt Romney as a corporate leader, and it is the prescription for disaster if he is President of the United States.

One might ask how one can conclude that this is so. The answer is that we have learned that this was his approach in his one term as Massachusetts Governor from 2003-2007!

Having to deal with a Democratic state legislature which was 85 percent against him, one would think he would realize that he had to deal with the opposition by getting to know members of the legislature, and conducting lots of meetings trying to bridge the gap in a bipartisan way, but that was not Romney’s style at all.

Interviews with Massachusetts politicians who served under Governor Romney reveal a man who avoided contact with them; never learned the faces or views of most of them; avoided socializing with legislators; came across as emotionally remote; overused the veto pen to no effect, but set a record of 844 vetoes, the most in Massachusetts history; worked as an outsider from the beginning to the end of his governorship; openly criticized legislative leaders that he needed to work with and in the process turned them away from any cooperation efforts with him; acted as a control freak in wanting every action of the legislature to go through the governor’s office; and failed to give recognition to those legislators present at public events (a policy that Barack Obama is a master of).

It is clear that Mitt Romney may be a corporate leader of great talents and skills, but that is NOT going to get things done with the US Congress, whether his own party controls, or particularly if the opposition party has control, which is probably quite likely, or a split Congress, which would create a nightmare scenario far worse than the one Barack Obama faces now with the 112th Congress.

Face the facts, Mitt Romney can only relate to wealthy people of corporate mentality, to his family, and to the Mormon Church. With the kind of obscene wealth he has, he can go on enjoying his life, but we need a more hands on President of the United States to deal with the rest of us folks, and we already have one named Barack Obama!

In other words, Mitt Romney is no Franklin D. Roosevelt, no Lyndon B. Johnson, and no Ronald Reagan! He is more like Herbert Hoover or Calvin Coolidge, and we know where that ended up!