More women in Congress? Whoop-de-do.

  • Article by: GAIL COLLINS , New York Times
  • Updated: December 8, 2012 - 7:52 AM

Remember the days when women banded together in bipartisan battles on behalf of their sex? Not happening now.

  • 21
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
probsolverDec. 8, 12 8:16 AM

Who cares if they are men or omen as long as they have fiscally sound positions on the issues.

18
18
ddellwoDec. 8, 12 8:27 AM

The question I have is why is the premise of "bi-partisanship" always that Republican's moderate to the Democrat's wishes, but never the other way around? Where is the "hue and cry" over why Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer never moderate to the Republican's wishes? And people wonder why no one trusts or respects the folks in the media any longer?!

16
35
guessagainDec. 8, 12 8:49 AM

ddellwo==== " The question I have is why is the premise of "bi-partisanship" always that Republican's moderate to the Democrat's wishes, but never the other way around?" Because the Democrats start from reasonable positions (ie., we need spending cuts AND rate hikes on the top 5%) while the GOP says "We will never raise rates on the top 5%." The Democrats have already compromised somewhat when they start negotiations; time for the Teapublicans to agree to rate increases on the wealthiest Americans. That is the nature of compromise, and the Democrats do it far more willingly than do the Republicans.

40
13
workforit1Dec. 8, 12 9:17 AM

This article is ridiculous to start, but since we are here, let’s talk about. Do you think the fact that there is more women in the house or senate that there is more legislation being done with emotion vs fact? Do we legislate with how we wish the world would be vs what the world really is? Is there a direct correlation between more nonwhite males and death spiral that this country is in? I know you do not want me to say it, but think about it. I just saw Barbara Walters say that Honey Bo Bo was one of the top 10 interesting people of 2012… OMG! This is where we are at. Society is less intelligent then they ever have been, and are concerned about topics that are just nonsense. Our grandparents are rolling over in their grave. Trust me.

10
27
mn2niceDec. 8, 12 9:35 AM

What I find outrageous is the fact that the United States Congress and the United States Senate voted to reject a treaty which would have said the United States stands by protecting those people in the world who are disabled and are subject to discrimination on that basis alone. It is preposterous to think that we are that stupid to turn away a much needed treaty because of a few people who wrongly believe it takes away our soverignty as a nation. Give me a break. Is it no wonder why the United States is frowned on so much by the rest of the world. This was a no-brainer, and yet they said no. Incredible!

23
5
liora51Dec. 8, 12 9:41 AM

Actually, this is a good sign that women are not defined as much by gender.

12
5
mn2niceDec. 8, 12 9:51 AM

And by the way, why are we celebrating 17 women in the Senate or 39 or 55 or any number of women in the House? Both institutions are still to this day "good old boys clubs," and they do their darndest to keep it that way. Women rarely are given any real power (a young white male Republican is the Budget Committee chair in the House), except that Nancy Pelosi was the first woman Speaker, and she is a Democrat. Sexism is alive and well in the Republican Party. They varnish it over with sweetness and smiles, and then suggest women should be happy they are there at all. The record stands on its own. And it ain't purddy. A male never has to prove himself worthy, but a woman does every single day of her life. You ever want a really good lesson on the status of women, Google Australian PM Julia Gillard's speech before Parliment on the sexist attitudes of the Opposition Leader, a man. She is Australia's first woman PM, and she can hold a candle to any man.

18
8
drichmnDec. 8, 1210:13 AM

"Where is the "hue and cry" over why Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer never moderate to the Republican's wishes?" ... why would they ever agree with the Republican woman who opposes family planning for poor women?

24
6
lordhawhaw1Dec. 8, 1210:20 AM

Anyone who doesn't take people one at a time instead of lumping them together like this writer has got problems. I hate to think there are people out there that cast their vote not based on the candidates' positions but on their gender or perhaps their race. The could have used Bill Clinton as a more recent and well known example of a womanizer to make her point but instead the writer chose a Conservative who passed away nearly ten years ago. That indicates to me this writer would still not be happy even if all 100 Senators were female if they were also all Republicans.

11
15
boris123Dec. 8, 1210:42 AM

guessagain: your spin: "Because the Democrats start from reasonable positions (ie., we need spending cuts AND rate hikes on the top 5%) while the GOP says "We will never raise rates on the top 5%...." is spinning down the drain like all other waste.. Conservatives and enlightened liberals understand our government's problem with money is not un the collection of monet, but rather it is in the reckless spending of money and squandering it on services and programs for which government was never intended. Once government demonstrates tractionable improvements in the operations and delivery of services for which government is intended and actually removes and reduces waste, only then can you legitimately consider increasing tax rates. To do so before any improvements compounds the waste and squandering of valuable resources. This is the position of moderate conservatives that liberals need to grasp and understand.

4
16

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT