Incumbent Rethug Gov. Will Not Seek Reelection
Maybe I just missed this, but popular incumbent Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell has announced that she will not seek reelection in 2010. This may be why.
This is a likely D pickup, and former Lie-bermann nemesis Ned Lamont is one of the candidates.
Hmmm, just musing here. Wonder how Rell polls against Chris Dodd for that Senate race. Or Linda McMahon…
In other political news from Talking Points Memo, looks like it’s time for Olympia Snowe to pull an ‘Arlen Specter’ before the Rethugs do it for her:
A new survey of Maine from Public Policy Polling (D) has some dire news for Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), with the moderate Republican potentially losing her 2012 Republican primary against a generic conservative challenger — and by a landslide, no less.
Yikes!
Tags: Chris Dodd, Jodi Rell, Linda McMahon, Olympia Snowe, Politics
As for Snowe, I could realisticly see that happening. Frankly, I don’t know how long she can go on existing in what the GOP is becoming. She’s not particularly conservative (maybe less so than a few Democratic Sens), and a (not to be mean) not particularly hot woman. That definitely puts her down 0-2 in the count, as far as conservatives are concerned.
I’m a Connecticut native, and I have very few bad things to say about Gov. Rell, especially in comparison with her predecessor John Rowland. Under Gov. Rell’s watch (and with her signature), CT became the first state to allow civil unions without being forced to by the state’s judiciary branch.
I don’t know what you’re talking about Scott…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SenSnowe-1997.jpg
I’d say more natural looking than others, but certainly not unattractive.
I think we have reached a “shake out” point for more than a few well known pols of both parties.I’d rather see them defeated that pull a Thurman Adams and die in office like Ted Kennedy. But Maine like the rest of the East is going Blue, and in a hurry. Snowe and Collins may hold on,but if not they will Not be replaced by Conservatives.So Bring that primary you happy Club For Growthers!
Love to see you cost the ‘Pubs seats,
ARE YOU BOYS ACTUALLY DISCUSSING A SENATOR’S HOTNESS? AGAIN?
Jesus Christ, Brooke. Take a breath, turn of your little caps lock thingy, and reread what I wrote. What I was saying was that for conservatives, a woman’s attractiveness seems to be a valid qualification (like her conservativeness, my other point). Meatball was only making a reply regarding that qualification (and a rather respectful one, at that). Maybe it’s time to dial back the misogyny detector a bit.
Scott, with all due respect, let’s look at this. I know that your point is that ‘Conservative men, unlike us cool ones, evaluate women on the basis of their looks.” I can think of several ways to make that point, but the one you chose was, “she’s a (not to be mean) not particularly hot woman.”
Now, your qualifier indicates that you knew it was a wrong thing to say, but wanted to say it anyway.
Picture yourself saying, “The story of Harvey Milk is the story of an inspiring political activist, even though, (not to be mean) he was a fag.” Or “Barack Obama is great speaker, for a colored guy.”
I don’t view this as misogyny. I view it as an unfortunate verbal habit that persons of good conscience (as all here) can learn to correct.
Saying, “What the GOP is becoming is leaving Senator Snowe behind” is a valid point. And I left it alone at that. However, when we’d gotten, in the second post to an EVALUATION of Senator Snowe’s look, with link, even, I thought it was time to point it out. Pardon the shouting, that may have been a bit much, but I meant it partially humorously. I can see that didn’t read. 🙁
Brook, im gonna go ahead and agree with scott here. The Right Wing Hate Party has demonstrated, even bragged that THEIR women, elected and private sector are hotter than liberal women. The proof is Sarah Palin. the ONLY thing she has going for her is her MILFY looks. I’ve flat out called former gov Minner ugly, because, well the woman looks like a kindly old troll.
I could say “no offense”, but it most likely is offensive so i’ll just say sorry.
The Hate party is a bunch of vapid pigs. Pointing out that a woman, while probably staggeringly more intelligent than ANY of us here, wouldn’t be considered a cover girl is not sexism. Especially if the comment is used to point out the piggieness of the party to which she belongs. She is losing support in her own party while Rush and Glenn lust over Palin.
btw brooke, how did you feel about that shirtless on the beach pic of Obama?
Sorry to change the subject, but is that little picture really mrs. xstryker? Wow, she’s hot!
I agree, the Right seems to think evaluating their women re:hotness is appropriate.
The question is, does the Left?
First of all, I apologize for incorrectly reading (and subsequently matching) what I thought was your level of anger and disbelief. To my defense, it was right before lunch and I was hungry. My sandwich was staring at me like the money from those GEICO commercials.
But to the point, I don’t apologize for my original comment. My words were carefully chosen for several reasons. My qualifier was inserted because I found what I had to write to be distasteful, but necessary. Since there has been a good bit of discussion and several threads about the conservative view towards women, I have to think that this is not a radical idea. Your problem seems to be largely with use of the word “hot”.
I used it because it felt like the kind of word the type of conservative I was refering to would use. I remember seeing bumper stickers last year about Alaska saying something like “Coldest state, hottest Governor”. I’m a bit insulted and confused as to why you seem to be equating it to “fag” and “colored”. Maybe the word just insults you. If so, I’m sorry that you are insulted. That was not my intention.
As for evaluating women re:hotness, I hate to inform you, but all men do it. The difference is, mature men don’t let it affect how they view the woman. I can say that I find Ruth Ann Minner unattractive, and I can say that I find her to be short. Neither characteristic has anything to do with how good or bad a politician, or a person, she is. In fact, some of my best friends are short. 🙂
That is me, and I’m a terrible politician.
But to seriously answer your question, no, I don’t think that candidates or pundits on the Left are given more attention or following because of their looks. I think it happens more on the Right because the conservative movement is led to a greater degree by men. Additionally, those men are more likely to have old fashioned, “women in their place” mentalities. These types of men tend to put more emphasis on women as “pretty things” and less on them as people with real ideas.
As an aside, although, as I’ve said, I find this whole topic distasteful, I think it needs to be exposed. It is a good thing for the progressive movement (and for women) that people be shown how conservatives view women and women’s rights.
You don’t see a possibility that the “all men do it” defense is kind of problematic? Or that dividing women into “hot or not” trivializes them, no matter what side of the ‘hotness scale” they happen to fall on? Or that this might be related to other issues, such as the problem Democratic/liberal women, among others, may have with being told to suck it up re: stuff like, um, the Stupak Amendment?
*shakes head*
And see, Mrs. XStryker, due to my being a mature man, I do not hold your appearance against you. (That, and there is a good statistical probability that Mr. XStryker is bigger than me.) 🙂
The “all men do it” thing is not meant to be a defense of anything. It’s a fact. I really don’t want to keep going down this road, but all humans evaluate others on their physical appearance. It doesn’t have to be on the scale of “hot or not”, but we’re wired to do it to some degree. The point is, and I’ll broaden it to all, mature men and women don’t let others’ physical traits control how they view them in non-sexual situations.
And how in the heck did you get from that to Stupak? Trust me, I am no happier about that than you are. Maybe at the next Drinking Liberally I’ll tell you the story of how something idiotic like this could have profoundly affected my life recently.
Brooke,
The Stupak amendment is awful, horrible, no-good, nasty and will never see the light of day after the conference bill is produced. The Senate won’t accept it. On this issue the Senate turns out to be the good guys. So yeah, suck it up and get a bill passed.
We knew from the outset that we weren’t going to get what the nation needs – single-payer-universal health coverage. But we got a vote – an actual vote – in the House this time and we’re going to get to a bill for the President to sign into law.
It has taken sixty years to build the monster that is American health care. We’re not going to drive a stake through its heart in one year.
This is a first step. But, like the saying goes, every journey begins with one step. I don’t understand the “if we can’t have everything we’ll settle for nothing” mentality.
Rebecca, you won’t see that mentality from me. But I’d like to see a little more OUTRAGE that any Dem voted for a #HCR amendment that eliminated well-woman care. You don’t see the work I do, trying to round up support for ordinary political business and having to try to explain why the leadership didn’t have those morons horsewhipped. It just undermines the message, and it’s BAD. And I can’t send anyone here, if the next email I get is going to say, “WTF? Who’s running a hotness poll?”
I’ve been doing this a loooong time, Rebecca. And I hate the damn internet, because you used to be able to get those off the cuff remarks kept to a minimum, and now one moment of stupid is the lead story forever. Sux.
Brooke, i have a serious question.. it is one that i personally dont have a definite answer for.
If the health care bill with a public option hinges on the issue of abortion… i.e it passes with no federal money or help whatsoever for abortions, or it dies if there is any, where do you stand on the bill?
I am very much pro-choice, but the cold hard truth is, women who are in a situation where an abortion is their only option are only a small percentage of the people who will be affected by the passage or non passage of this bill. I know that comment wont win me very much love here, but it isn’t like lack of govt help will outlaw abortions, and how much of point are we willing to make here?
Well, I’m glad I don’t have to answer that question, because “abortion” is just the tip of the iceberg on Stupak and the hcr bills. Abortion is the buzzword. According to “The Nation” :
“None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological “well visit,” leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from “cost sharing,” which means that, depending on what’s in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.” http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091116/lerner
For many women, and under many existing insurance packages, the OB/GYN or equivalent IS the primary care provider for women. You can’t have a pap smear without a pelvic exam…so covering the test doesn’t provide any help. It’s like covering dental X-rays without covering dental visits or cleanings. You don’t have tests if you aren’t in the office. It set the bar to women’s health so high that many more women may disappear from the healthcare system until in need of emergency care… much of which care they won’t get if Stupak stands.
That’s what the problem is. The problem is that women, while being more than the sum of their parts are being treated here as less.
point taken. I did not know the extent of the amendment and didn’t realize what a piece of shit it really was. Yes, of course women should have full coverage for their “lady” doctor. it would be the same as not covering and testing having to do with “man stuff”
Call me a sexist, or a reverse sexist, or a sexcialist, or whatever you want, but I have a really hard time imagining a legislature made up of primarily women making it difficult for men to get necessary medical treatment. Maybe legislating equal use of remote controls (my wife would vote for that), but not denying medical care.