USA Today proclaims midterms “The Year of the Setback” for women

posted at 1:40 pm on October 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Perhaps a better headline would be: “Republican women run record number of races; women hardest hit.”  USA Today’s Susan Page laments that a number of women could lose their seats in Congress and the Senate in the midterm debacle for Democrats:

Blanche Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1992, a time when women gained so much ground in the House and Senate that it was dubbed the “Year of the Woman.”

Now, the Arkansas senator, who faces Republican John Boozman in November, is fighting for her political life in what could wind up being called the Year of the Setback.

The prospects for female congressional candidates have been hurt by a combination of a tough political landscape for Democrats — women in Congress are disproportionately Democratic— and the nation’s economic troubles. Hard times historically have made voters more risk-averse and less willing to consider voting for female candidates.

Bottom line: Independent analysts predict that the number of women in Congress — currently 56 Democrats and 17 Republicans in the House, and 13 Democrats and four Republicans in the Senate — will decline for the first time in three decades. The drop would come two years after a string of breakthroughs, when Hillary Rodham Clinton was the first woman to vie seriously for the Democratic presidential nod, Sarah Palin the first woman nominated for national office by the GOP and Democrat Nancy Pelosi the first woman elected speaker of the House.

To illustrate the danger, USA Today offers this picture of an endangered candidate:

Who’s that?  Why, it’s Barbara Boxer — whose opponent is Carly Fiorina, one of the record number of Republican women who ran for nominations in the midterms.  Not only does that tend to dispute Page’s lamentation, the caption describes perfectly why Boxer and a number of her colleagues are in trouble this year.  Boxer “has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate,” the USA Today captioner helpfully informs readers.

The point of Congress isn’t to provide women with safe jobs.  In fact, the entire problem with Congress is that too many incumbents think they have a right to keep those seats from some misguided sense of privilege.  No one owns those seats except the voters in the districts and states.  When incumbents stop listening to the voters, they should get tossed out of those seats regardless of whether their DNA contains a Y chromosome or not.

Blanche Lincoln failed to listen to her constituents, as did a number of Democrats, both men and women, who will find themselves on the unemployment line shortly after the first of the year.  That has nothing to do with their gender.  If the Republican men and women who replace them — and there are plenty of both in these elections — make the same mistake, they will suffer the same fate.  It’s about policy, not about imposed diversity, and articles like this are simply absurd.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The point of Congress isn’t to provide women with safe jobs.

Of course not!

That honor goes to the CBC.

mankai on October 4, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Can’t help but post this….

ted c on October 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM

I thought it was a setback when Obama didn’t appoint a minority for Secretary of State like Bush did…

/s

Skywise on October 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Who’s that? Why, it’s Barbara Boxer

AHHHHHH, My EYES!

upinak on October 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM

And Lisa Molluski too. Don’t forget her.

forest on October 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Good lord, how low will this country have to sink before we can start choosing the best people for the job?

Our “historic” black President has completely crapped the bed, can we all agree on that? Does it make any difference what his skin color is? He’s terrible and many people voted for him simply on the basis of his skin color. How’s that working out?

I read today this is the first Supreme Court with three women on it. Super, who gives a hoot in hell?

“Do they know what they’re doing” is an after thought with our hopelessly out of touch media.

NoDonkey on October 4, 2010 at 1:47 PM

I don’t care who’s in Congress, whether they have breasts or pen!$e$, vag!na$, facial hair, no facial hair, mustaches, are fat or skinny-ALL I care about is getting people into Congress who are leaders.
We don’t really have any of those.
We just have power hungry, narcissistic opportunists out for themselves.
And they need to all go away, no matter what their sex is.

Badger40 on October 4, 2010 at 1:48 PM

But, are those GOP challengers “Womyn” women?

/s

cs89 on October 4, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Murkowski should have used a different excuse for her write-in scheme: “This is a woman’s seat!”

Bishop on October 4, 2010 at 1:48 PM

This is just side splitting silly. The year of the goner, liberal women and their carefully crafted image of disguise and deception.

tarpon on October 4, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Good lord, how low will this country have to sink before we can start choosing the best people for the job?

NoDonkey on October 4, 2010 at 1:47 PM

We haven’t sunk far enough yet; look at the likely 2012 candidates.

Dark-Star on October 4, 2010 at 1:49 PM

That’s OK. 2012 will be the “Year of the Comeback.” Not that liberals will ever admit it. Or honor it.

Liberals are such hypocrites.

inviolet on October 4, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Susan page, the next wh press secretary?

cmsinaz on October 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM

LOL at the Boxer picture. She’s going to be replaced by another woman, idiots.

joe_doufu on October 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM

I would go further to add that lots of women aren’t in Congress, CEO jobs, etc bcs so many women like to actually raise their own children and such.
And praise to the women who are able to stay at home doing it rather than having some nanny raise their kids for them.

This affirmative action mentality is sickening.

Badger40 on October 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Well, don’t you kknow that conservative women are not real women as one esteemed feminist told us helpfully?

promachus on October 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Female politicians whose jobs are endangered by conservative women represent a setback for “women”?

They don’t even try to hide the ridiculous Leftard bias anymore.

Cicero43 on October 4, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Angle replacing Reid…Haley…so many women, but hardly a liberal among them.
The question is, does McCain count as a woman?

right2bright on October 4, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Carl Fiorina.

portlandon on October 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM

I’d like to thank USA Today for allowing us in their sad little world where a record number of GOP women running doesn’t count.

thebrokenrattle on October 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM

When I heard Matthews recently say ” We’re talking about women, Republican women, but women none the less”, I simply hated him and the people he was talking with.
The Dems don’t really like strong people of any race ,creed, or sex.

bbz123 on October 4, 2010 at 1:54 PM

upinak on October 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Oh come on…it’s not THAT bad is it?

FontanaConservative on October 4, 2010 at 1:54 PM

And Lisa Molluski too. Don’t forget her.

forest on October 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM

You sly dog! Have you, too, been enjoying the fun that Taranto at “Best of the Web” has been having with the write-in candidate’s name?

onlineanalyst on October 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM

The way to turn the tide is to campaign for O’Donnell, Angle, Haley, Carly, Meg, etc. That way you can have all the women you want…

right2bright on October 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Do I need a J-School degree to determine that Carly Fiorina secretly posesses a second chakra?

MNHawk on October 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Good lord, how low will this country have to sink before we can start choosing the best people for the job?
Our “historic” black President has completely crapped the bed, can we all agree on that? Does it make any difference what his skin color is? He’s terrible and many people voted for him simply on the basis of his skin color. How’s that working out?
I read today this is the first Supreme Court with three women on it. Super, who gives a hoot in hell?
“Do they know what they’re doing” is an after thought with our hopelessly out of touch media.
NoDonkey on October 4, 2010 at 1:47 PM

More and more people are taking notice that it’s the Left that is always looking at skin color or external factors in judging people, and yet they have the conjones to project their racism, sexism and what-everism on the right.

Once enough people have seen the light, those gutter tactics will no longer be useful to them.

That day can’t come soon enough for me.

Chip on October 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Don’t you know you can be a real woman or minority unless you think the way liberals tell you to? I think they call it “Diversity”.

trubble on October 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM

CAN’T be

PIMF

trubble on October 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Ms. Page is just jealous because conservative women are HAWT!! and she’s nawt…uh, not.

AubieJon on October 4, 2010 at 1:57 PM

“Republican women run WIN record number of races; women hardest hit.”

Let’s roll !!

pambi on October 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Oh come on…it’s not THAT bad is it?

FontanaConservative on October 4, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Oh man, all that picture is missing are green snakes for her hair.

DrAllecon on October 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM

I strongly urge all Alaskans to write in Laney Neurkowsky.

carbon_footprint on October 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM

(darn, forgot preview… LOL)

“Republican women WIN record number of races; FUGLY women hardest hit.”

pambi on October 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM

They’re just laying the groundwork for depicting Pelosi’s fall as a setback for women in America.

Christien on October 4, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Whoopie Goldberg explains that conservative women aren’t “women women.”

Cicero43 on October 4, 2010 at 1:59 PM

And they need to all go away, no matter what their sex is.

Badger40 on October 4, 2010 at 1:48 PM

That may be a problem. People may not realize what they are electing until after the fact.

upinak on October 4, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Oh come on…it’s not THAT bad is it?

FontanaConservative on October 4, 2010 at 1:54 PM

I haven’t had enough coffee yet!

And for some reason HA isn’t refreshing very well.

upinak on October 4, 2010 at 2:01 PM

I’m going to be glued to the TV on November 2nd. I want to see liberals break down and cry on live TV.

“Chicago is out?!?”

Mord on October 4, 2010 at 2:01 PM

If the truth is on your side argue the truth. If the truth is not on your side argue some meaningless accident of birth.

snaggletoothie on October 4, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Don’t look now but the 2016 replacement for the DOTUS is beginning his assault on AMERICA today with his…… “SHUT UP AND LISTEN or I’ll give you a THUMPIN’” Tour of Chicago…..

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/rahm-emanuel-chicago-mayor-neighborhood-tour-race-candidacy-announcement-20101004

PappyD61 on October 4, 2010 at 2:03 PM

And by “women” they mean “abortions”

pedestrian on October 4, 2010 at 2:04 PM

In the entire history of the United States, no state has ever elected a non-white female Governor of a state. The GOP is on the verge of getting TWO of them elected (Nikki Haley and Susana Martinez).

Yeah, I can see why Susan Page is distraught.

BradSchwartze on October 4, 2010 at 2:06 PM

A more honest label:

USA Today proclaims midterms “The Year of the Setback” for (liberal) women

Vashta.Nerada on October 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Ms. Page is just jealous because conservative women are HAWT!! and she’s nawt…uh, not.
AubieJon on October 4, 2010 at 1:57 PM

.
Blatantblue would hit it.

LincolntheHun on October 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM

OMG is that Barbara Boxer or Alice Cooper?

Caper29 on October 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM

So Republican women are not women? What are they?

PatriotRider on October 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Boxer “has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate,” the USA Today captioner helpfully informs readers.

To the editorial board of USA Today, that is supposed to be a good thing.

Vashta.Nerada on October 4, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Don’t you know? ‘Mama grizzlies’ aren’t considered women; that aren’t liberal enough (nor- for that matter- ugly enough) to qualify.

michaelo on October 4, 2010 at 2:10 PM

USA Today proclaims midterms “The Year of the Setback” for women

Yessiree. Y’all who are libtard wimmin, y’all jes set back there on yer sofees and we neanderthall menfolk along with our bodacious wimminfolk will vote yer precious leetle beehinds outter office.

Y’all has worked hard enough wreckin’ the country, so it’s time for y’all to have a year of settin’ back — or mehbee settin’ back fer the next century or two or three.

y’all don’t come back now, y’hear?

FlameWarrior on October 4, 2010 at 2:11 PM

This USAToday article assumes most Republican women candidates will lose. This is wishful thinking on the part of the author.

theCork on October 4, 2010 at 2:13 PM

When Hillary Clinton left the Senate to become Secretary of State, she was replaced by Kirsten Gillibrand, another woman.

If Barbara Boxer (CA) loses to Carly Fiorina, one woman is replaced by another, and the number of women Senators would remain the same.

If Barbara Mikulski (MD) wins re-election, as expected, the number of women Senators would remain the same.

If Blanche Lincoln (AR) loses to John Boozman, but Judd Gregg (NH) is replaced by Kelly Ayotte, the number of women Senators would remain the same.

If Patty Murray (WA) loses to Dino Rossi, but Harry Reid (NV) loses to Sharron Angle, the number of women Senators would remain the same.

If Lisa Murkowski (AK) loses to Joe Miller, but Chris Dodd (CT) is replaced by Linda McMahon, the number of women Senators would remain the same.

If all the above scenarios play out, the number of women Senators would remain the same, but the number of Republican women Senators would increase by 3. It’s not the gender, it’s politics!

In all the other Senate races, the both major-party candidates are men, so the gender balance of the Senate would remain the same no matter who won.

Steve Z on October 4, 2010 at 2:16 PM

People may not realize what they are electing until after the fact.

upinak on October 4, 2010 at 2:00 PM

And again I will point out the stupidity of the liberal voting bloc ensconced mostly around America’s Big Cities.
If it walks like a duck….
But then I have been accused on here for making things too simple.
Like crrap6 says I make the Constitution too simple, therefore I should be mocked & admonished.
Bcs we all know that document is wayyyy to complicated for mere mortals to understand. You must have a law degree to properly understand it!
And after all, how can you really know something until you vote for it?
Forget about educating ourselves.
Just vote! Blindly! It’ll be OK in the end bcs I’ll get my gumint EBT card along with my Medicaid benefits.

Badger40 on October 4, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Boxer “has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate,” the USA Today captioner helpfully informs readers.

Aren’t they implying that a liberal voting record is always a pro-woman voting record?

LastRick on October 4, 2010 at 2:17 PM

USA Today proclaims midterms “The Year of the Setback” for women …

… whose sex can be reliably determined only with a DNA test.

ya2daup on October 4, 2010 at 2:24 PM

So… the fact that Jud Gregg (a Republican man) is retiring and the GOP nominates Kelly Ayotte (a woman), while the Democrats nominate Paul “Hot Dog” Hodes (a man), is just a lil’ inconvienent truth? And what about if the polls are to be believed and Ayotte wins?

crazy_legs on October 4, 2010 at 2:25 PM

ALL I care about is getting people into Congress who are leaders.
We don’t really have any of those.

Badger40 on October 4, 2010 at 1:48 PM

I don’t want leaders in congress, just employees who will do what we, their employers, tell them to.

Vashta.Nerada on October 4, 2010 at 2:27 PM

If Blanche Lincoln had bothered to listen to the people of Arkansas instead of to Harry Reid and the DNC she might not be packing her bags right now. For that matter if she had backed HRC in 2008 instead of Barry, the Democrats here might not have abandoned her as well. Blanche made her bed and she has to sleep in it. That has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has to do with her being politically braindead.

NoLeftTurn on October 4, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Weirdos.

I’m assuming we’ll have EEO numbers that must be met for the federal government to get federal contracts… uhhh… oh wait… nevermind.

Or…

Perhaps they can institute cumulative voting with a twist? Female candidates get 6 votes to every male candidates 1?

Surely that will fix the obvious violation of the Voting Rights Act we’re witnessing.

ButterflyDragon on October 4, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Perhaps they can institute cumulative voting with a twist? Female candidates get 6 votes to every male candidates 1?

Given the amount of women running on the GOP side – the Dems still lose!!

crazy_legs on October 4, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Can’t help but post this….

ted c on October 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Trying to explain the economic crash since the Dems took over Congress? Interesting theory, but I think you’re really just blaming Bush…

karl9000 on October 4, 2010 at 2:56 PM

And by “women” they mean “abortions”

pedestrian on October 4, 2010 at 2:04 PM

BINGO! Give brainiac the fluffy doll!

Merovign on October 4, 2010 at 2:58 PM

.
Blatantblue would hit it.

LincolntheHun on October 4, 2010 at 2:07 PM

You’re in trouble now, mister!
I’m tellin’!

Lanceman on October 4, 2010 at 2:59 PM

why Boxer and a number of her colleagues are in trouble this year.

As much as it pains me to say it, I’m very concerned that Boxer is not in trouble this year. I think the only thing I’ve seen from Fiorina’s campaign has been the Senator Ma’am clip. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has an anti-Boxer ad out, which helps somewhat, but I’m afraid that Boxer is out-campaigning Fiorina, at least in the L.A. market.

I really hope Fiorina steps up the campaign this month, otherwise I’m afraid Boxer will be reelected.

malclave on October 4, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Funny that they should single out Boxer, as win or lose that seat will be occupied by a woman.

Which is just one more silly shrimp on USAT’s barbie. The premise that having fewer women in Congress is a “setback” for women is just another example of the stupid, facile analysis the lefties try to foist on us all. Sorry, but counting noses is no way to decide either fairness or to who’s benefit a particular electoral outcome redounds.

MJBrutus on October 4, 2010 at 3:31 PM

As much as it pains me to say it, I’m very concerned that Boxer is not in trouble this year. I think the only thing I’ve seen from Fiorina’s campaign has been the Senator Ma’am clip. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has an anti-Boxer ad out, which helps somewhat, but I’m afraid that Boxer is out-campaigning Fiorina, at least in the L.A. market.

I really hope Fiorina steps up the campaign this month, otherwise I’m afraid Boxer will be reelected.
malclave on October 4, 2010 at 3:10 PM

..I am volunteering a lot for Carly’s campaign and we are working at an 8-to-1 cash disadvantage out here. We could sure use some financial assistance if you can see your way clear to donate. ANEEE-THING WILL DO! If you are a (legal) Californian, please consider volunteering for the campaign. We can use your help phone banking, walking precincts, of just plain showing up and the headquarters and offering to stuff envelopes.

..we are a lot closer than even the polls suggest and, let’s face it, if Boxer isn’t dumped this year, you’re all stuck with this sclerotic, arrogant, elitist, liberal puss-bag for the next six years!

Thanks for your help!

The War Planner on October 4, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Democrat woman elected to Congress: Great Advance for Civil Rights
Republican woman elected to Congress: The Republican Taliban Gains Ground

Nope. No bias here!

tom on October 4, 2010 at 4:40 PM

Good lord, how low will this country have to sink before we can start choosing the best people for the job?

“…to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men.” (Emphasis mine)
Daniel 4:17 ESV

“lowliest” is rendered in some translations as “basest”.

oldleprechaun on October 4, 2010 at 4:41 PM

who will find themselves on the unemployment line

and with a great pension

burt on October 4, 2010 at 4:53 PM

There is a rule everyone seems to be forgetting: The Dem party is composed of men and women who are of various ethnic backgrounds. On the other side of the aisle, there are only Republicans. They have no gender or ethnic backgrounds.

Oleta on October 4, 2010 at 4:54 PM

What this article seems to ignore is that the most powerful voice in USA politics (to use that annoying parlance of USA Today – to replace the word “America” with “USA”) is a Conservative Woman, the E.F. Hutton of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

turfmann on October 4, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Well, don’t you know that conservative women are not real women as one esteemed feminist told us helpfully?

promachus on October 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM

I agree. Conservative women right now, are the only real men I see in the Republican party.

And thank God for them!

TugboatPhil on October 4, 2010 at 4:57 PM

I read this in between classes. Pure Joe Geobbels.

hawkdriver on October 4, 2010 at 8:33 PM

If the libs are true to form, any Republican women elected won’t be “real” women, just as Clarence Thomas isn’t a “real” black man.

nkviking75 on October 4, 2010 at 8:50 PM

Yet ANOTHER reason why I don’t read the multi-colored fish wrap…

Khun Joe on October 4, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Gee…you KNOW the most important part of a candidate has nothing to do with achievements, character, voting record or energy.

It has to do with..I don’t know lets ask Oprah and Letterman.

IlikedAUH2O on October 5, 2010 at 10:18 AM