Pet zebra, macaw found in truck outside Dubuque bar
Obama visiting wind energy plant in Newton Thursday
Firefighters locate drowning victim on Cedar River
Police called 18 times regarding Isaiah Sweet’s behavior towards grandparents, records show
Local family fitness programs aim to combat rise in teen diabetes, prediabetes
Officials critical of inconsistent alcohol laws for boats and motor vehicles
Jennifer HemmingsenI'm a columnist and member of The Gazette's editorial board. I live in Iowa City. Twitter: @jhemmingsen, or Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hemmingsenyah |
|
No girls allowed
Congesswoman Michele Bachmann, R-Minn, announces that she is running for president in 2012 in front of the Snowdon House at the Grout Museum District in Waterloo on Monday, June , 2011. (Cliff Jette/SourceMedia Group)
Michele Bachmann says she thinks the country is forward-thinking enough to elect a woman president.
But are Iowa Republicans ready?
I wish that wasn’t such a great question.
The fact that it’s become a campaign issue this week — after endless campaigning and vetting and debates — is a pretty depressing indication that some might not be.
Not if evangelical leaders like the Revs. Cary Gordon or Albert Calaway are any kind of representative sample, anyway.
In these final hours before the caucuses, those two men are urging the Minnesota congresswoman to back down from her comfy fourth-place position and give the guys a chance at the nomination, for a change.
Gordon, of Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City, told reporters that the cold, hard truth is that some Americans just won’t vote for a woman — not that he endorses that view.
Since the party’s number one priority has to be ousting President Barack Obama (America’s first black — oh never mind), voting for Bachmann is just not a risk Iowans should take, Gordon says.
It’s the same baloney female political candidates have been hearing for ages: Sure you’d be a good representative, honey, but not this round. Let’s leave this important race to the boys.
Research consistently shows that female candidates are every bit as electable as their male counterparts — when they run in winnable races.
The reason women aren’t better represented in elected office isn’t that voters are afraid of girls, but that female candidates aren’t nominated or supported by their parties in competitive contests.
Instead, they get garbage advice like Calaway, of Indianola, gave Bachmann via the press: Step down and hope that another candidate will peg you for his helper.
“I’d personally love to pronounce Rick and Michele as lawfully wedded running mates,” Calaway told the Des Moines Register. Just eeew.
But even the marriage analogies, cracks about migraines and questions about “submitting” to her husband aren’t enough to torpedo a candidate on gender alone.
Time’s running out for stubborn holdouts clinging to the idea that there’s something fishy and unstable about the double-x chromosome — especially when it comes to elections.
Is Iowa forward-thinking enough to vote for a woman president, or governor, senator or congresswoman?
More than that.
We’re smart enough to vote for the candidate we feel will best represent us — regardless of gender.
Comments: (319) 339-3154; jennifer.hemmingsen@sourcemedia.net
“I wish that wasn’t such a great question.”
Sorry Jennifer, but I think its a ridiculous question. Do you really think people are urging Bachmann to drop out because of her gender? Nobody cares about gender. But that doesn’t fit with some people’s view that Republicans can’t do anything without it being based on race, sex or some other “evil” motive.
Bachmann simply isn’t the best Republican candidate for president. Not because of gender, but because of views on the economy, lack of foreign policy experience, and her stand on some social issues.
Will: Those are some legitimate criteria to use in evaluating a candidate, but they weren’t the concerns of these two evangelical leaders. They explicitly said Bachmann should drop out because she is a woman.
I guess I missed that. What exactly did they say? Too often people “read between the lines” to come to those conclusions. I just like to know for sure. If they did say she should drop out because she’s a woman, then they definitely are not, “any kind of representative sample,” and they should be held to account for such “outdated” views.
If I got it wrong, I apologize. But like I said, too often we’re told someone said one thing, when what they said was something different (the recent “Gingrich wants to force poor kids into sweatshops” meme being an example).
Here’s Gordon: http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/71933581-e901-520c-947c-da4519adaf60.html
And Calaway’s “marriage” comment: http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/17/iowa-religious-leader-asks-bachmann-to-combine-with-santorum-condemns-rest-of-field/
And then there are the more subtle cases, like Vander Plaats’ call to urge Bachmann to drop out and throw her weight behind Santorum, even though she’s consistently polled higher than the former senator — sometimes significantly so: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70747.html.
So Gordan says he thinks _other people_ won’t vote for a woman, which makes Bachmann less electable. My response to him would be to ask, “Who are these “others”? “Do they really exist?”
I guess that could pass muster as saying she should drop out because she’s a woman. Saying you’re not voting for Bachmann because others won’t vote for a woman really is a pretty lame excuse.
Calaway? I’m not seeing how him believing Santorum is a better candidate qualifies as telling her to drop out because she’s a woman. That’s reading way too much into it in my opinion. Not that his “marriage comment” wasn’t more than a little weird.
As for the Vander Plaats stuff, its similar to Calaway. They see two candidates splitting the “Evangelical” block. To have a prayer of either being nominated, they need one to drop out. It would be better if the one who dropped out backed their remaining pick. I see no evidence that either of them prefer Santorum because of his gender. Again, that seems to be reading too much into it.
Splitting the “evangelical vote,” if there even is such a thing, is good, Will!
And what makes you say that Jeff?
Do you have that much of a disdain for people of faith,
Did you not read any other comments, Todd?
Perhaps you have disdain for people who don’t share your “faith.”
So Todd, why do you conflate “conservative evangelical christians” and “people of faith?”
Do I have to explain syllogism to you!?
Uh, Todd, one can have faith and NOT believe in a religious deity.
I don’t think it’s a good or a bad question. It’s just a question some people will always ask. Regardless…Cary Gordon and Albert Calaway. legends in their OWN minds, and no more true evangelical leaders to the state of Iowa than ~I~ am, are NOT representative of Iowa, republicans or otherwise, and it is ridiculous to make a generalization based on their statements. It continues to amaze me, though I suppose it shouldn’t, that there is a notion promoted and perhaps even propagated by the press, that “certain groups” will vote (or not vote) for a “certain candidate” based on the most superficial of reasons…such as being a woman. Or being black. Or being handsome. Yes, there will always be a very few who vote with those criteria, because there will always be a certain percentage of idiot votes. Most of us though, vote based on a much more complex set of criteria. All that said…I’m not reluctant to admit that if women want my vote for a female presidential candidate, they are gonna have to step up their game….because I’ve yet to see one I’d have faith in. Of course…this year…the pickings are slim across the board.
“Gordon, of Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City, told reporters that the cold, hard truth is that some Americans just won’t vote for a woman — not that he endorses that view.”
Yeah, and we heard the same tripe about black candidates, before Obama was elected. The REAL issue here is Bachmann’s stated policy positions, which render her unfit to be President.
Or, look at Hillary Clinton: she lost the 2008 nomination fair and square to Obama, not because she is a woman, but because she did not run a campaign which could compete with Obama’s.
Look at two of the GOP women who serve this country today, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Both are capable, Snowe in particular has been an effective legislator, and neither stands a chance of earning their party’s nomination because they are not “politically correct.”
The problem is NOT that Republicans are sexist; the problem is that the GOP is dominated by an activist base which adheres to a faith which tells them women must be subordinated to men.
While it’s really sad that Iowa is one of only two–Mississippi being the other–states who have yet to elect a female representative to Congress, it’s not for lack of trying. Both Democrats and Republicans have in recent times put forth a female candidate for Congress, Roxanne Conlin for Democratic Senator, and Mariannette Miller-Meeks for Republican House. Neither won their respective race, but at least they ran and fought the good fight.
It’s not about electing a woman to a higher office just for the sake of doing so, it’s about electing the RIGHT candidate, regardless of gender. In the case of Conlin and Miller-Meeks, neither were the right one for the job, as determined by voters. The right woman for the job will come along some day, it just hasn’t happened yet for Iowans.
I don’t know Lori. When a woman is consistently not the right one for the job, to the point where a woman is nver the right one for the job. It might be worth considering why.
It’s not that women aren’t “right for the job,” but — as I said in the column — they’re not supported in competitive races. Conlin ran against one of the most entrenched incumbents of our lifetime and Meeks ran against an incumbent in a Democratic-leaning district.
Incumbents have tremendous advantages in fundraising and name recognition — so much so they are typically reelected 80-90 percent of the time, no matter who is running against them (the numbers are just slightly lower in the Senate than the House): http://www.cusdi.org/reelection.htm
There’s nothing gender-specific about that. That’s modern politics.
Parties that “allow” female candidates only to throw themselves against the great, hulking machine of incumbency aren’t doing those candidates any favors, and they know it. All the action is in open-seat races, for which relatively few female candidates are given an honest shot and solid party establishment support. It creates the illusion (which you kindly refer to) that women can’t win, when in fact the reality is that woman candidates have tended to be encouraged to run in unwinnable races.
I agree that that’s what both Conlin and Miller Meeks ran into Jennifer: strong incumbents. And the Golding-Mathis race is an excellent example of an open seat race where two female candidates were given solid support by their respective parties.
I’ve also been remiss in not mentioning that Iowa once had a female candidate run for governor: Bonnie Campbell.
…again, against an incumbent — then Gov. Terry Branstad.
Okay, Jennifer, but Dave Loebsack defeated Jim Leach in ’06, taking advantage of anti-Republican feeling. Miller-Meeks had an opportunity against Loebsack: an anti-Democrat year, running against a MUCH weaker incumbent than Loebsack faced.
Could it be that Miller-Meeks ran a poor campaign? And, she was the only woman in the GOP primary, and beat her foes handily.
Yup, those numbers also mean that challengers will win against an incumbent 10-20 percent of the time. In this case,the stars were aligned just right — Loebsack was able to woo registered Democrats away from a Republican incumbent (and even then, not all of them. He won that first election 51-49 percent) in a great Democratic year. Anyone challenging Loebsack after that would have to tackle the incumbent bias *and* the Democratic edge. The loss was a simple numbers game.
Jeff,
Miller-Meeks did NOT run a bad campaign by any stretch of the imagination.
If you look at the county by county results… Loebsack did very poorly in counties outside of Linn and Johnson County–where the registration numbers were stacked heavily in his favor.
Miller-Meeks even won in some traditionally Democratic counties such as Wapello and Muscatine county and came within a few hundred votes of beating him in Lee county..
Without those big cushions that Linn and Johnson County gave him…Loebasack might very well be out of a job today.
Do you have a point, Todd?
Jennifer, that is an intriguing observation. I do wonder if its “real” or not. Seems to boil down to a simple question, if I’m reading correctly.
Are women nominated more often when they will run against an incumbent than when they won’t?
It seems the data should be available to answer that question.
Yes, there is a ton of data on the issue. Just google around a bit, something like “female candidates in open elections”
That’s true as well Joel.
So the far religious right wing lives in a kind of Stone Age of the Mind. This surprises anyone… how?