What women's rights look like when the two sides come together as one.
What women's rights are when women are no longer manipulated by party rhetoric.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

No Woman VP

Cynthia Ruccia

OK---is it this:

or is it this:

Or is it really more like this:

So we're not going to have a woman VP this go round. That sucks-----really it sucks big time. I suppose I could have a giant tantrum about the whole thing. I mean, NOW what are we going to do?

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'm keeping it in perspective. This presidential race just got infinitely less interesting for me. No history will be made for women in this regard in 2012. Yawn.

HOWEVER, I've got to remember that this is one battle lost, albeit a big battle. I'm disappointed in Mitt Romney, but not enough to not vote for him. Sorry Obama fans. For me this election isn't about the war on women or any of the other concocted memes. I still have not forgotten that the Obama machine ran one of the most sexist campaigns in order to win in 2008. The O-gang used every sexist tool at their disposal to vanquish Hillary Clinton (or steal the nomination depending on who you talk to). Then they turned around and did it again, only worse, against Sarah Palin. That group will never be anything BUT sexist to me. And I haven't forgotten that Mitt Romney chose not to go down that road when running against Michele Bachmann. He could have used all of the sexist tools out there, but he didn't.

I'm not saying that the Republicans aren't guilty of a boatload of sexism themselves. I'm just saying as I always do that when the Republicans use sexism, at least they don't tout themselves as the party for women while they're sticking the shiv in like the Democrats do.

And at least Romney chose boldly and not the typical white bread choice that many feared. If it had to be a guy, I would have preferred Chris Christie. OMG would I have loved watching him stick it to the Obama folks day in and day out with the outstanding talent he has for that. Sigh. I guess he can still do it anyways and I'm sure he will. However, my second if-it-had-to-be-a-man choice was Paul Ryan. With Ryan, Romney is taking a huge risk, and I am glad to see him take it. Ryan is a serious guy with ideas worth talking about. Not that the Democrats are going to talk about any of that. No siree. The Dems are ready with the rhetoric that Ryan wants to take away your Medicare, Social Security, birth control, your Planned Parenthood, your future. My hope is that the Romney machine is ready to deal with that stuff effectively. After all, I think we deserve to have the debate on how we are going to manage our financial future as a nation, and Ryan is the only one out there willing to stand up with a respectable plan and take his lumps and defend his plan. And his plan is NOT about gutting Social Security, Medicare, taking away your rights as a woman, etc. Those are just rhetorical scare tactics used by the Dems to keep their voters in line. I only pray that we can get past that and get on with the fix. Ryan is a bold choice for having the guts to stand for something and Romney has to get credit for taking this principled and rather tough stand. It could go either way for him. It is a gamble.

So where does that leave us women who were hoping for a woman VP? There's no sugar coating that this is a huge disappointment. It would have been terrific had our favorite scenario played out. But alas, it hasn't so we need to take stock and move ahead.

So what good came out of all of this? First of all, for the first time, multiple women were considered as viable VP possibilities. I know that that idea seems like a loser's booby prize, but it really isn't. I can't remember a time when so many women's names were being bandied about in such a serious fashion. Names like Condi Rice, Nikki Haley, Susanna Martinez, Kelly Ayotte, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. These are names we heard not once or twice, but over and over again. Women with experience who were given the gravitas we haven't seen being given in such a large and serious way by the MSM ever. It shows that the Republicans have a deep bench of great women and we haven't heard the end of any of them yet. Ok, we didn't cross the finish line, but the fact of the critical mass of all of these women is no small matter.

Secondly, the whole idea that we have never had a woman president or VP is an idea that is gaining some momentum. Of course that momentum is awfully SLOW in coming, but there is momentum in that direction nonetheless. We need to keep the conversation going about why we have never had a female president or VP. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and we need to keep talking talking talking about when will the U.S. EVER have a female chief executive. People are being prepared to reach the moment when they realize that it has been a huge oversight that we've never had a woman at the top and that it is time to remedy it. We should be writing and talking for the next 4 years about all of the amazing women on both sides of the aisle who would be awesome leaders of our great country. It apparently will take more time for this idea to sink in.

But we mustn't be discouraged. Discouragement and quitting won't help anything. All they accomplish is taking longer to reach the goal. And I still believe that the goal of a woman president or VP will create more progress for women than anything else. Once people get used to seeing a woman in charge, it will be easier to see women running more things. And there is no more symbolic leader than the president of the U.S. The ripple effect of a female president would be stunning for the future of girls everywhere and to reach that long-yearned-for goal of female power parity.

One other side note to this election cycle is that there are more women running for Congress than ever before on both sides of the aisle. There is talk that we could even end up the election season with women holding 20% of the seats rather than 17% of the seats. I know, I know. That isn't much better and that is true. But at least it's forward motion. We ought to help that momentum out whenever possible.

Lastly, the 2008 cycle brought out all of the good and the bad about women running for the highest office in the land. We need to keep building on the good. The subject of women's lack of leadership is being discussed at the highest levels. Both political sides have spawned many groups to help women get elected to office, groups that didn't exist before 2008. And as much as some people hate to admit it, we owe a debt to John McCain for having had the guts to put Sarah Palin on his ticket. The presence of Palin caused a renaissance and resurgence of females into government on the Republican side, something that was badly missing on the political landscape. I get so sick of all of the snickering, sophomoric bloviating against Sarah Palin. Much good has come for women because of her presence on the ticket. We need to be touting that loudly all of the time. It has proven our point that a woman at the head of the ticket will open many doors for others. Let's keep the good talk going and soon enough the good times will roll for all of us women. Our time is here.........


  1. totally bummed

  2. But Ryan DOES want to take away Medicare, Social Security, etc...or at least water them down so much they're useless.

    1. I don't think that Ryan wants to do either. He does want to make changes, and that is a great discussion to have. We need to have the conversation without all of the scare tactics and more of the facts.Maybe if we had that kind of conversation a consensus could be reached that would be palatable to more people.

      Either way, I'd have loved to see a woman as VP......

    2. Medicare was done away with when the Affordable Health Care Bill was passed . The bill took 500 million out of Medicare to pay for everyone who didn't have healthcare . In 2014 People on Medicare will have their monthly rates they pay out of Social Security for Medicare go to 247.00 . You can look it up in the bill on line. They pay now 99.00 per month base

    3. Obama also already gutted Social Security. Where do you think that tax cut he gave to "95% of workers" came from? It came from shaving percentages of SS tax. So he has already cut the program at a time when it is facing insolvency in the near future. If Bush had tried, he's have been beheaded. But hey, IOKIYO.

      He also segregated women's healthcare and permanently installed the Hyde Amendment with an executive Order. Stupak Amendment anyone?

      And Obama and Democrats both told women they were on their own with fair pay when they chose to pass the Lily Ledbetter act and NOT the Fair Pay Act, which was up at the exact same time.

  3. The Republicans couldn't have picked a whiter, more male ticket if they tried.

    I'm really not seeing anything that motivates me to go vote for either ticker, quite frankly. Its just the old boys newtor/politics as usual crap.

    1. The Dems couldn't have picked a more male ticket either. They should have put Hillary on the ticket when they had the chance to unite the party. It would have made 2012 a cakewalk for them. But no----it had to be 2 guys. There's plenty of criticism to go around on both sides on that score.

  4. Well, hope the Cabinet is 50%

  5. I've been a political consultant for over 20 years now--what happened to Hillary is called political war. She is a big girl and knew what she was getting into; if she didn't, she wouldn't have accepted the position of S.O.S. and be so loyal to Pres. Obama. She, us will move on and fight another day in the not-too-distant future. Most politicians (male and female) I know carry the "Art of War" by Sun Tzu with them as a political bible. I know, I know, very patriarchal, but it is an art and Hill & Bill are masters.

    Also, Cynthia, I must respectfully disagree with your contention that the "war on women" is merely a Dem meme. It is alive and very well in Texas, where the Repubs have vanquished Planned Parenthood. That is a vital part of my community in San Antonio, especially for poor women. The Right in Texas are TOTAL COMPLETE WACK jobs and envision progress as disbanding most women's rights. This particular wave with Ryan at the helm are beyond regressive and water-boys of the NRA. They will never have my vote.

    1. I just think that the Dems believe that they have cornered the market on what women's issues are and that their definition of these "rights" is very narrow.

      I'm an Independent which means I march to my own drummer, and I don't think that asking government to get out of funding PP is a war on women. I also think that PP can stand on its own two feet and provide funding without government dollars.

      I only say that because we women are being forced to fight this part of a battle that is narrowing our options. I can't speak to what you refer to as the "total complete wack jobs" the right are in Texas since I am not there. But I wish we women could get together and start fighting for power sharing. Instead we are fighting for a "women's agenda" that doesn't benefit us.

      As for Hillary and Bill, when she decided to run, she said that someone had to try to see what would happen. I don't think that neither she nor her husband expected the sexist blowback to the degree that they encountered it. We'll know better next time.

  6. Voting for Romney is no help to women. Revenge against Obama for being sexist is no help to women. Maybe the question - in terms of helping women - is who ends up on the Supreme court. I think the two women Obama appointed are terrific. One can not dismiss those appointments - incredibly important for women - and they ARE women! Huge.

    1. I take exception to your comments about Romney and Obama. I to this day can't understand how the Obama supporters can give a pass to the crass sexism that he and his campaign used to win. His actions defined him, and the blindness of his supporters is disturbing. Clearly someone who thinks that that sexism was ok isn't really looking out for the interests of women. Sorry.....

  7. No, we don't have a woman as VP but there are far more important considerations here than gender in the White House. Paul Ryan nor Mitt Romney for that matter want to shoot down Medicare although Obamacare has already done just that if you read that area of the bill. I have a major interest since I am nearing that age. What Paul is suggesting is a reworking of a system that will guarantee that Medicare and Medicaid will BE THERE for people at 55 and under and future generations. You are hearing this from a Hillary worker who has put much effort into the differentiation of plans.

    Read the bills! Obama's plan through Obamacare ties direct cuts to Medicare to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) increases or decreases which means he will be directly cutting benefits with monies--perhaps 3/4 mil in the beginning! Paul's bill is tied to the Consumer Price Index and will maintain a system that can no longer be maintained by ANYONE. Additionally, there are many other issues that are causing doctors in my DC area right now to refuse to take Medicare patients immediately due to the upcoming "define as you go" Obamacare bill!

    We need to be informed to protect our rights! Obamacare is a bad bill and we all want to take care of our elders and people in need but it has to be done now in a manner that provides the US a way to maintain the system. Entitlements are key to the deficit and the deficit is key to the economy which is key to everything else from jobs to our rights!

    Paul Ryan also shown great ability to work with both parties in drafting compromises. It is Harry Reid and his power in the Senate that is preventing these compromises from happening! That is the man that has to leave his position along with Obama if we want things to happen in Congress. Many DEMS are on board with Ryan under some new compromises that will eventually lead to an already COMPLETE CHANGING OF MEDICARE under Obamacare. The program has already been seriously altered by Obama guised within that bill!

  8. There Is One More Road To Cross----welcome to my blog since I don't remember you commenting before (I could be wrong?).

    I agree with you totally. and there are so many more effects with the healthcare law that are preventing a whole host of business people from all sides of the spectrum to do things while we wait for the consequences.

    While all of us, myself included, continue to have to figure out how to survive in the current climate, I still can't forget that women hold little power in this country. If women held positions in proportion to our numbers, maybe our problems wouldn't be as bad. I'd sure like to find out!!

  9. I know people feel passionately about sexism in 2008, but in a way ageism played just as big if not a bigger role. Ageism ironically between younger feminists and older feminists, and then the heavy hitters, Oprah Winfrey, Nancy Pelosi, Maria Shriver, and Arianna Huffington all decided it more important to influence the democrat outcome in 2008 rather than let the voters decide.

    This in turn gave the male dominated late night talk shows and cable news show the excuse they needed so they could look cool to their younger skewing audiences, aka, ageism again, and take their shots at Hillary Clinton.

    If Winfrey, Shriver, Pelosi and Huffington had remained neutral during the actual contest, I don't think the male dominated late night talk shows and the cable news shows go on the attack quite as much.

    People over the age of 49 ARE NOT valued by broadcast channels because people in their fifties carry the most debt and in theory have less spending power than those who are younger. If you don't believe me, NBC canceled Harry's Law even though it was their number one rated show specifically because too many older people were watching it.

    The math came down to around 3 to 4 million over the age of 49 viewers equals about 350,000 viewers under the age of 50.