Help Wanted: Women Voters

I am all for promoting equality in both races and gender. Equality in both pay, recognition, & also in the eyes of the law. Everything should be based on merit and qualifications & sometimes equality can become a barrier for that. But that barrier was in the past when there were less women in the highly professional markets. Now for each professional field the ratio of job seekers between males and females is drawing ever more close to equality in the number of applicants with equally distinguished merits & credentials.

Recently in the political spectrum the Tea Party Movement has been making headlines as taking out inccumbants not only from the GOP side but also scaring the Democratic ones to retire early. The Tea Party Movement is made up of Independent voters who felt betrayed from the last elections, majority are conservatives, & also includes Democrats. Another group of individuals that rarely get mentioned as members of the TPM are Immigrants & Miniorities who also come to voice their concerns. The sharp change is that TPM houses Majority of Women activists, the party is made up of 60% women & 40% men voters. Majority of women supported the Democrats in their sweeping elections last time around. This recent shift that has occurred is really upsetting to the political incumbants and political campaigns are on "RED ALERT".

The Democrats are trying to find a answer for this shift. Their answer? Well start promoting women to fill the vacant seats. I only make this judgement based on the recent comments by Pelosi stating " Women are going to decide the future elections..." and then seeing the appointee for the Supreme Court.

Do you guys remember that SEIU Andy Stern quit? Well I think he quit to allow for a Women face to represent the organization so people would be less tempted to make remarks on the activites of corruption SEIU is known for. And a new Women president was chosen recently to represent the SEIU. It makes me wonder, what other positions are left vaccant that are going to be replaced with women candidates?

Again I do love to see equality, but to make equality a political chess piece to be used only when it is of most benefit is pretty lame and disingenuous.

SEIU Selects a new President

The Service Employees International Union selected Mary Kay Henry, head of the union's health care division, to lead the 2.2 million member union. She replaces Andy Stern, who is leaving after 14 years of high profile, and sometimes divisive, leadership.

Henry said she hopes to "restore" SEIU's relationship with other labor unions through a series of "listen and learn discussions." However, she said, there have been no talks at SEIU about rejoining the AFL-CIO.

"We don't think it's about how the labor movement is structured," Henry said Saturday.

The Service Employees International Union selected Mary Kay Henry, head of the union's health care division, to lead the 2.2 million member union. She replaces Andy Stern, who is leaving after 14 years of high profile, and sometimes divisive, leadership.

Imagine a candidate for the U.S. Senate who has never taken a public stand on almost any policy issue. Imagine that her campaign consists of asking people for their support because, according to friends and colleagues, the candidate is smart, fair, and good to others. When her friends are asked what her views are on various political matters, they reply that they don't know-but that they're confident she'd make an excellent senator.

Pelosi: "Women Will Decide The Outcome Of This Year's Election"

I could be over reaching here with my assumptions but I would never put it past either political party to reach to lows that were not reached before.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

Pelosi: Climate change is a women's issue

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) addressed the Copenhagen climate change conference today, framing climate change as a women's issue.

“Women have the most to gain and the most to lose in the climate crisis," she said. "The impacts are not gender-neutral; as the primary users, managers, and stewards of natural resources, women feel the consequences first."

Wasserman-Schultz: GOP gave women 'back of the hand'

On a conference call (.mp3) with reporters today, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz seems to have upped the rhetorical ante in the push to cast Republican parliamentary tactics as sexist, comparing their repeated interruptions to violence against women.

She told reporters she wanted to "express and underscore my concern over essentially what amounts to the Republicans' 'back-of-the-hand' treatment

Political campaigns are hard at work to bring as many voters as they can to their side. Women voters tend to be more principled and disciplined as once they make up their mind to vote one way, it is hard to change their mind to vote another way unless some real hard undisputed evidence can be presented but that doesn't even work. So with the Democratic base losing ever more women voters, its all hands on deck.

Originally posted by prionace glauca
I could be over reaching here with my assumptions but I would never put it past either political party to reach to lows that were not reached before.

And if he had appointed a man, you'd be claiming that Democrats were trying to get the male vote?

Women are becoming more prominent in government and business. Get used to it.

Like I have said in the opening line, I am for equality and the importance all genders serve. So don't tie with me being a sexist here.

We'll have to see some other appointees to the unfilled positions and to support my assumption regarding influence for more women voters.

I'm all for equality between males and females also.

I thought she was appointed for her experience, principles, and political viewpoints though, not because she was a female.

Call me crazy, but i dont think the fact that she is a female mattered. A person is a person, who cares whether the new justice has a hole or a stick down there.

Originally posted by prionace glauca
We'll have to see some other appointees to the unfilled positions and to support my assumption regarding influence for more women voters.

Why are you only looking at unfilled positions? Why not look at ALL the positions he has appointed during his presidency so far?

As of the end of April, there have been 285 men and 139 women that he's appointed.

Tracking Obama's Appointments

I'm not trying to say that you are consciously sexist. I'm asking you to look at the inequality that permeates people's minds when it comes to politics. I'm pointing out that when a man gets appointed, no one mentions anything about his gender. It's all about the person, his positions, his history, his capability to do the job. But when a woman gets appointed, people start wondering about Obama's motives behind choosing a woman... Do you not see the inequality there?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You still are stuck on the sexist wavelength. Anything I post, you will construe it to be sexist. I don't think it will even help if I told you that I voted for Hillary in the last election, became an independent, now support the views of women like Malkin, but I think you wouldn't consider women who are conservative women anyway.

Originally posted by prionace glauca
Anything I post, you will construe it to be sexist.

That's not true. It has nothing to do with you. This isn't personal. I just think it's odd that a nomination for a woman brings accusations of 'trying to get the female vote', while a nomination for a man NEVER gets that accusation.

If you can't see that, then that's ok. You don't have to agree.

I think you wouldn't consider women who are conservative women anyway.

And you have absolutely NO reason to think that. I have never in my life said anything to indicate that. You're making things up now... Look, I just wanted to point something out. You don't have to be so defensive. Jesus...

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but honestly I don't find women to be as interested in national or global affairs as men.

Honestly the percentage of either really isn't that high, but just on average between the two women seem more involved in their lives. This is not an insult in any way, and it's said women enjoy a higher quality of life than men (which I believe), so this could be a contributing factor.

reply to post by prionace glauca



How many racists do you know that always preface their remarks with....
"I'm not a racist, I have a lot of black friends"??

Do you believe them?

However I do agree that more women are becoming more conservative. As the GOP abandons the anti abortion stance and leaving the religious right, twisting in the wind.

The conservative movement actually needs to concern themselves with the Latino vote, a huge demographic, that they most likely have lost due to the Arizona stance of racially profiling them. This will have an enormous national impact! At one time the Hispanics were basically family oriented, Catholic, conservative and helped the GOP win elections. No More, as this AZ deal has sparked an political awareness, voter cohesiveness against the right wing. Latinos are going to vote in record numbers in Nov.

I foresee a real problem for conservatives if the Libs can mount a unified effort by attracting more minorities and youth that the RNC has thrown under the bus; to basically become the party of angry old white men, with no real platform other than the anti Obama stance.

I do believe there will be some changes in the coming Nov. midterm elections but not the drastic "cleaning house" that the likes of Rush and Sean predict.










[edit on 11-5-2010 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by prionace glauca

 

How many racists do you know that always preface their remarks with....
"I'm not a racist, I have a lot of black friends"??

Do you believe them?

However I do agree that more women are becoming more conservative. As the GOP abandons the anti abortion stance and leaving the religious right, twisting in the wind.

The conservative movement actually needs to concern themselves with the Latino vote, a huge demographic, that they most likely have lost due to the Arizona stance of racially profiling them. This will have an enormous national impact! At one time the Hispanics were basically conservative and helped the GOP win elections. No More!!

I foresee a real problem for conservatives if the Libs can mount a unified effort by attracting more minorities and youth that the RNC has thrown under the bus.




[edit on 11-5-2010 by whaaa]

Neihter GOP or Conservatives have backed away from Pro-Life stance. The women are attracted to the conservatists side because of principles like Family First, Religious Freedom, Smaller Government, Privacy,....

I know Obama sure does believe in family, just like he threw grandma under the bus during the campaign, or when he threw Father Wright under the bus not once, not twice, not thrice, but quadrice. Religious freedoms are under attack by the left/liberals/progressives as they seek to ban praying in public parks or places that recieve any public funds. Just look at what happened in GA Senior Center, they were banned to pray before eating meals because the meals were subsidized by government funds...it got overturned today after a big stink was made about it.

As far as young voters and women flocking to Liberal land..that is not happening. Just look at the make up of a majority of independents. As more and more parents wake up to propaganda of bull# being fed to their children, liberals are bleeding votes left and right. So the push for amnesty is their next big hope.

Conservatives are different from the GOP, and alot of INDEPENDENT thinkers are realizing that. Liberals who are waking up from their Kool Aid drinking zombie states are joining the TPM left and right. GOP doesn't have any voters in a trance. GOP left its prinicples at the door after they supported the bailouts, they should have let free market take over and let these entities fail.

Either who neither GOP or Democrats are safe, Conservatives who value freedom and religion are taking the fight up. And the WOMEN are leading that fight, no matter what trickery or gimick the dems want to throw out there.

i've read countless posts, not only here, but on other sites as well, about women crying for equal this and equal that.

They never, once, however, ask for equal responsibility.

They want their cheese on a silver platter, but don't want to go through the pains the rest of us have to endure.

Not all women are like this, of course, just the majority of the ones on the mountain tops screaming for equal pay, but not equal responsibility.

Originally posted by Snarf
i've read countless posts, not only here, but on other sites as well, about women crying for equal this and equal that.

They never, once, however, ask for equal responsibility.

They want their cheese on a silver platter, but don't want to go through the pains the rest of us have to endure.

Not all women are like this, of course, just the majority of the ones on the mountain tops screaming for equal pay, but not equal responsibility.

Agreed, but this is also not simply a function of females, but the males who refuse to ruffle the frightening feathers of the female population. They are an equal (and sometimes bigoted) part of the problem.

The day women start asking or men start suggesting to have females sign up for Selective Service, work in direct combat roles, starting doing dangerous jobs at even a reasonably respectable percentage, to name a few, then we can talk.

I, however, already endorse these actions. I believe in real and earnest equality.

Most men and women, currently, do not.

Peace
KJ

Originally posted by prionace glauca







Neihter GOP or Conservatives have backed away from Pro-Life stance. The women are attracted to the conservatists side because of principles like Family First, Religious Freedom, Smaller Government, Privacy,....

What in holy hell are you talking about?

The GOP and Conservatives as exemplified by the Bush Administration with...

Family first.....breaking up families by send them off to fight a dumbass war!
And economic policies that require both parents to work.

Religious Freedom....demonize and entire religion and declare war on 2 Muslim countries.

Smaller Government....Did Bush make the govt. any smaller?

privacy....Dept. of Homeland security, Domestic spying, Patriot act.

Right, women will be embracing those principals in droves

I'm surprised that you haven't noticed that political realities are much different than goofy rhetoric.


Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense!!







[edit on 11-5-2010 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa
What in holy hell are you talking about?

The GOP and Conservatives as exemplified by the Bush Administration with...

Family first.....breaking up families by send them off to fight a dumbass war!
And economic policies that require both parents to work.

Religious Freedom....demonize and entire religion and declare war on 2 Muslim countries.

Smaller Government....Did Bush make the govt. any smaller?

privacy....Dept. of Homeland security, Domestic spying, Patriot act.

Right, women will be embracing those principals in droves

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense!!

edit on 11-5-2010 by whaaa]

What the hell country do your allegience lie with?

Family First.....Those same Brave Americans who fought in those wars VOLUNTEERED for the fight. They were not CHOSEN as Obama seeks to do.

Religious Freedom....Have you looked around you, how people of different faiths are treated in the USA. Do you have any IDEA of how much TOLERANCE of people of different faiths Sadaam, Afghanistan, appreciated? It wasn't a battle against religions because if it was we would be fighting that same war here.........Step away from the HATER AID.

Smaller Government.....Last I checked when Bush was the POTUS in the period when there was a INCREASE in Private Sector jobs not in the Public/Federal Sector.

Privacy....... No administration is innocent of traversing the line of privacy. Goes for the administrations in the past and the current administration.

So I suggest you drop your Kool Aid drinking habbits as it is destroying your common sense approach without yelling "Bush this and Bush that".

Originally posted by prionace glauca




What the hell country do your allegience lie with?

I proudly served in with the USAF and you question my patriotism because I have different political ideas than you.

Typical...perhaps you haven't seen this. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pay close attention to no. 5.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by whaaa]

Originally posted by whaaa

I proudly served in with the USAF and you question my patriotism because I have different political ideas than you.

I highly doubt you work with the USAF otherwise you wouldn't have said this...

Originally posted by whaaa
Family first.....breaking up families by send them off to fight a dumbass war! And economic policies that require both parents to work.

And you believe that Bush picked you to go fight a war, then you are not a patriot....You are only in the armed forces for yourself. Get out of it if you hate fighting for America.

Originally posted by prionace glauca

Originally posted by whaaa

I proudly served in with the USAF and you question my patriotism because I have different political ideas than you.

I highly doubt you work with the USAF otherwise you wouldn't have said this...

Originally posted by whaaa
Family first.....breaking up families by send them off to fight a dumbass war! And economic policies that require both parents to work.

And you believe that Bush picked you to go fight a war, then you are not a patriot....You are only in the armed forces for yourself. Get out of it if you hate fighting for America.

Both erroneous assumptions. I served before both Daddy Bush and "W" in peacetime. But admittedly I had a wonderful time in the "wild blue yonder" and a Masters thru the GI Bill, courtesy of the American Taxpayers. Thank You!!

No. 18 huh? www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm guilty of this one as well. Sorry!







[edit on 11-5-2010 by whaaa]