Congressional Candidate Erika Harold Must Be Over the Target

Erika Harold, Republican candidate for the 13th Congressional district, is being described as "a glimmer of hope for the Illinois GOP" and "a formidable candidate". Those very reasons just may be why, months before the 2014 GOP primary, Harold is already being attacked.

Harold has a compelling background. She is multi-racial woman in her early thirties and a Harvard educated lawyer. Harold is also a former Miss America. She won the coveted crown in 2003 and used the scholarship money she won to pay for law school. Harold is challenging an incumbent Congressman, Rodney Davis, who just took office earlier this year. In 2012, shortly after the GOP primary, Congressman Tim Johnson retired. The Republican party in the 13th district was tasked with finding someone to take Johnson's place on the November ballot. Candidates were asked to put for their names if they were interested in being considered. From those names, four preliminary candidates were chosen. Both Rodney Davis and Erika Harold were among these candidates. A series of forums were held where these potential candidates shared their views. GOP chairs from the counties represented in this district were then charged with the task of choosing the candidate to represent the party in November's election. Davis, a longtime Congressional aide and the interim executive director of the Illinois GOP, ultimately became the choice of the county chairs. The voters of 13th district were never given a choice. That, in part, is why Harold is running. Harold told the Washington Examiner in an interview earlier this month, " I think it’s important for the party that the primary voters within the district have the final say on who represents them going forward".

In that same interview, Harold also spoke about oft-spoken political "war on women":

“If I thought that the Republican Party wasn’t a welcoming place for women, I wouldn’t run, because making sure that women have the ability to pursue their aspirations both professionally and within their families is something that’s very important to me,” Harold replied when The Washington Examiner raised the topic during a phone interview conducted in two parts on Thursday and Friday. 

Harold added that she wants “to show that principles of economic freedom and limited government are not part of the ‘war on women’ but can actually empower women.”To that end, she suggested that “it’s important for our party that we do promote strong women in the Republican Party, because that’s a great way of showing that, not only is there no war, but that we support women that want to stand for conservative principles.”

Harold articulates a clear message about the empowerment that the free market can bring women and her belief that the Republican party is welcoming to women. Unfortunately, Harold has been targeted by people within her own party. On Wednesday, the Montgomery county GOP chair, Jim Allen, a supporter of Davis, launched a sexist and racially charged attack on Harold through an email, saying:

Rodney Davis will win, and the love child of the DNC will be back in Chicago by May working for some law firm that needs to meet their quota for minority hires. ...The little queen touts her abstinence. Now, Miss Queen is being used like a street walker and her pimps are the Democrat Party. These pimps want something they can't get.

Allen's attack is not only vile and absurd; it is demonstrably false. Harold got to where she is on her own merits, not as a result of a law firm's need to fulfill quotas. As someone who was a delegate to the 2004 RNC convention and who strongly espouses conservative principles, she is hardly a "love child" of the DNC. Harold responded by noting that such comments had "no place in the public discourse" and that she wanted to remain focused on a positive campaign. Sadly, sexually charged attacks are common place when conservative (and minority) women take on the establishments of their own party. Sarah Palin has been referred to as the " supreme commander of MILF-istan" by pundit Tucker Carlson and referred to as a Spice Girl during her mayoral campaign in the mid 1990s.  Indian American South Carolina governor Nikki Haley was called a "raghead" and  was hit with allegations of an affair by men within her own party during her 2010 gubernatorial run. 

The Davis campaign and RNC chair Reince Prebius rightfully called for Allen's resignation, and on Thursday, Allen resigned from his chair. To borrow from a World War II term, if Erika Harold is taking flak; she must be over the target. Flight crews knew that if they were taking flak from the enemy, they must be over their target (doing their job effectively). Those who choose to take on the establishment of their own party are often attacked. Women like Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley especially can attest to that, but that puts Harold in pretty good company.

Crossposted from the New Agenda.

Media Message: Judge a Woman by the Height of Her Shoes, not the Height of her Character

With the Olympics in full swing, one author at the Boston's Metro.us posited an intriguing question, what if all Olympics sports were photographed like women's beach volleyball? The author noted that he had performed  a Getty image search for women's beach volleyball. He found that overwhelming, the photos were of the women's rear ends, not an action shot of a player making a dig or block. He then posted a photo essay of similarly cropped photos of male athletes---gymnasts' rear ends and divers' torsos--noting the awkwardness of those photos (See here). The female athletes were photographed to highlight their physical appearance and sex appeal, not their athletic ability.

Similarly, there seems to be a difference in the way both that female politicians are photographed and written about as well. It begs the question, what if male politicians were photographed and written about the same way that female politicians are?  Too often female politicians' physical traits are highlighted while their policy positions and experience are minimized. In 2007, then Senator Hillary Clinton famously spoke on the Senate floor and her blouse revealed a little bit of cleavage:

That incident provided not only late night fodder, but the basis an entire article the Washington Post. about Senator Clinton's cleavage and overall style. The article was 12 paragraphs long, and only one sentence even touched on the policy issue she was discussing.

Late last year, Congressman Barney Frank spoke on a the House floor wearing a not-so-flattering shirt:

To be sure, this incident became fodder for the political blogosphere, but it certainly didn't become mainstream media frenzy that Hillary Clinton's cleavage appearance did.

In 2008, much ado was made about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's appearance--her glasses, her clothes, her shoes. In fact, this photo of her shoes in the foreground and a young male supporter in the background accompanied was an image captured by both AP and Reuters photographers:

What if multiple photographers decided to make Vice President Joe Biden's legs and shoes the subject of their shot?:

Of course, this image was not the subject of a photographer. It was an image that I had to crop myself, and it was difficult to even find an image that wasn't a head shot of the vice president or from the torso up. There certainly weren't any photos of the Vice President's legs in the foreground and a young woman in the background.

Earlier this election season, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann appeared on the cover of Newsweek with this bizarre, wide-eyed expression (not to mention biased, sexist title):

For photo shoots, many pictures are taken and with today's technology can be immediately checked digitally for closed eyes and other imperfections. Why was this photo chosen of likely the dozens that were taken? Certainly a photo like the one below of President Obama never made its way onto a major news magazine:

Pictures are often with a thousand words. They speak volumes about how the photographer, writer, or editor is trying to portray a politician--as a competent leader, a sex object, a crazy person, etc. However, focusing on a women's style over her substance isn't limited to photos.  Washington Post writer Diana Reese  used her platform at the Post's "She the People" feature to criticize Sarah Palin's clothes at a recent campaign rally/BBQ for Missouri Senatorial candidate Sarah Steelman:

When Palin took to the makeshift stage in the middle of a Missouri farm field, she was dressed more for the part of Hollywood celebrity than serious politician. I know someone’s going to remind me that just last week, I said it was sexist to focus on the wardrobes of women in politics. 

But it was hard for me to take Palin seriously dressed as she was. 

First, her shoes: Five-inch wedges. Her black capris weren’t quite skin-tight but tight enough, and her t-shirt with its Superman logo (a Steelman campaign shirt emblazoned with “Our freedom. Our fight.”) emphasized her figure. She never once removed her oversized sunglasses. 

I’m sorry, but I’d like my minister, my doctor and yes, my politicians, to look and dress for their parts.

Palin stumped for Steelman at an event that took place at a blueberry farm, and she delivered her speech from a trailer that can be attached to a truck. It wasn't a flashy event, and Governor Palin is known for her down home appeal. The candidate herself, Sarah Steelman, was dressed in jeans and boot . It was a very Midwestern, down-to-earth event. It wasn't a big dollar fundraiser at a fancy location. Palin wore one of the campaign's t-shirts-- standing in solidarity with the Steelman campaign workers who were also wearing "Superman" ( man of steel--Steelman, get it?) shirts. Additionally, it was a hot, sunny evening, and Palin usually wears glasses. Was Palin supposed to wear her normal glasses the whole time and squint or take her prescription sunglasses off and not be able to see? Governor Palin gave a very solid stump speech focusing on Steelman's plans if she was elected and noting her reformer credentials. All of these were apparently lost on Reese. She decided, as she notes in this piece, that she should call out sexism about the cost of a female political figure's clothes if it's Michelle Obama, but also apply a different standard to Palin by criticizing Palin's choice of clothing at a low key, Midwestern campaign event.

Women can't expect their counterparts in the media--be they writers, editors, or photographers--to stop being sexist in their portrayal of female politicians when they themselves focus more on the height of a political figure's shoes than the height of her character or the weight of her words. As depicted above, the media's sexist portrayal of women is bipartisan. In order to counter that, it would behoove all women to make sure the voice against sexism is a bipartisan one as well.

Crossposted from The New Agenda.

Judging by a Human Standard: Politics by Policy, Not by Prada

Last week, former New York Times editor and author Ed Klein spoke about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s 2016 prospects in a radio interview:

“At this very moment that we’re speaking right now, Brian, [the Clintons] are already thinking seriously about running in 2016,” author Ed Klein told Fox News host Brian Kilmeade. “She’ll be 69 years old. And as you know — and I don’t want to sound anti-feminist here — but she’s not looking good these days. She’s looking overweight, and she’s looking very tired.”

Klein, a former New York Times magazine editor continued to comment on her appearance.

“I think she’s going to take some time off, get back into shape. And if her health holds out– that’s a big if, of course — if her health holds out, there’s no question in my mind she and Bill — two for the price of one — will run in 2016.” 

In just a few sentences, Klein notes looks, age, weight, and health in the context of a potential future presidential run for Clinton. To be sure, Senator John McCain and President Ronald Reagan came under scrutiny for their presidential runs when they were in their late 60s and early 70s, but very rarely, if ever, does a male politician’s weight or looks become an inhibitory aspect of a potential run for office. For male politicians, experience, policy, and relatable aspects of their personal story are discussed to determine their potential as a candidate for higher office. For a female politician, those important aspects seemed to be dwarfed by her looks—whether her looks are praised or criticized. In the eyes of pundits and the media, the hairstyle on top of a female politician’s head becomes more important that the ideas inside of that woman’s head. Rarely do the media mentions if a male politician opts for a pinstriped suit rather than a solid colored suit, but if a female politician decides to wear glasses rather than contacts or decides to wear her bangs differently, it becomes a point of media discussion.

Male and female politicians are going to present policies using different rhetoric and perspectives, but it becomes a detriment to the electorate when those policies aren’t adequately reported upon simply because a female politician decided to wear her hair up the day she gives a wonkish speech. Our culture—whether it be politics, business, technology, sports, entertainment, or any other aspect—should be discerned by a human standard. There shouldn’t a feminine standard where female politicians are judged by their appearance and their experience and ideas are eschewed, and a masculine standard where male politicians’ appearances are ignored and only their ideas and experience are considered. There should be a human standard where all are judged solely by what is important for a given political or professional position. A female politician should be discussed in terms embracing Keynesian or Austrian economics , not in terms of going au natural or wearing Maybelline or Prada vs. Kenneth Cole.

 Klein’s comments prove yet another reason why more women are needed in politics and every other aspect of professional life and culture. Sexism is still a part of our culture, although things have begun to improve in some respects. However, this goes beyond explicit sexism. Perception is often dictated by reality, and the reality is that only about 17% of all Congressional seats, 12% of Governor’s seats, and 24% of state legislative positions are held by women. The media and the electorate both are relatively unaccustomed to seeing women in roles of political leadership. Such a disparity prevents the media and the electorate from being accustomed to how a female politician presents herself in the context of her experience and policy—her appearance, her voice, her rhetoric, her mannerisms. Thus, how women portray themselves is pushed into the foreground while their experiences and ideas become pushed into the background. Only when our society is more accustomed to seeing female politicians will this perception be overcome. Is this a proverbial Catch 22? No, instead it provides yet another opportunity for women to continue to turn hurdles into springboards. As former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, “you may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.” The more women continue to pursue public office, the more our culture will judge by a human standard of experience and policy.

Crossposted from The New Agenda.

The 2012 GOP Nomination: Only One Woman Need Apply

During an interview this weekend, Governor Romney was asked," Jon Huntsman is considering a race for the White House. Like you, he is a moderate, Mormon, former Governor who believes in anthropogenic global warming. Is there room in the race for both you?" Of course, that question was never asked. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson aren't asked if there is room for two libertarian Republicans in the race. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are not asked if there is room in the race for two Catholic men who spent time in the House during the 1990s. None of the male candidates are asked if there is room in the race for other candidates who are perceived to be similar.

However, today on FoxNews Sunday, Governor Palin was asked such a question:

Chris Wallace: You would seem to be closest politically of all the candidates to Michele Bachmann, Congresswoman Bachmann. You're both Tea Party activists. You're both social conservatives. Is there the room in the race for the two of you, or would you split the same base of voters?

Governor Palin: No, we have differences too. I have many years of executive experience too, and she has her strengths that she will add to the race. There's certainly room.The more, the merrier. The more competition, the better.

To be sure, Chris Wallace asked several substantive questions on subjects ranging from the debt ceiling to Libya to Medicare reform. However, those strong policy focused issues become diluted when interviewers and journalists bring up such topics. Congresswoman Bachmann herself was questioned similarly, and said that she and Governor Palin were not "interchangeable".

Journalists, pundits, and political opponents like to cast Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann as political clones and that there is not room for them both. Just as Chris Wallace did to Governor Palin, ABC reporter, Jon Karl, recently framed a question to Congresswoman Bachmann in such a way the two women "occupy the same space". Michael Reagan suggested yesterday that Congresswoman Bachmann should step in the race and Governor Palin out of the race, and Charles Krauthammer claimed it was Bachmann's turn, as if there was some kind of gender quota. As Nicole wrote recently, Romney aides desire for both women to get into the race so that Romney can juxtapose himself against the "crazy women". An aide to one of the male candidates recently stated about Congresswoman Bachmann, " [s]he basically is Sarah Palin. In terms of her appeal to a specific part of the electorate, the two are about as similar as any two candidates get."

Governor Palin has consistently stated that she welcomes competition in the race. It is best for the voters to see the character, experience, and policy stances of all who throw their hats into the ring. While Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann indeed are both women who have Tea Party appeal, their political experience differ. Congresswoman Bachmann has experience in the state and national legislatures. Governor Palin has an executive record at the local and state levels. Those with executive experience have to make sole decisions, approve or veto spending, manage staff, appoint officials, etc. In Governor Palin's case, as governor of Alaska, she held the second most powerful executive state office in the country based upon budgetary and appointment authority, veto power, and other factors. She had the power of line item veto that could only be overridden by a vote of 75% of the legislature, and she could appoint people to offices like the attorney general, which is an elected office in many other states. Additionally, it has been a hundred and thirty years since a Republican was elected President whose highest elected office was in Congress . Whether it be executive political office or executive military experience, the electorate tends to prefer Republicans with executive experience.

There are no doubt some similarities between Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann, as there are similarities amongst all of the candidates. However, to imply that only one of these women should run for President is not only absurd and sexist, it disrespects the electorate's ability to make a choice for themselves and distinguish among the candidates. Additionally, the Democrats laughably claims the GOP is "anti-women", yet this election season represents the first time two women from a major party would compete for their party's presidential nomination. What say you, libs? As Governor Palin has said, "the more, the merrier". Let these women decide their intentions, and let the voters determine their fates.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

George Will Plays Political Genetics and Endocrinology Professor on ABC's "This Week"

Today on ABC's "This Week", George Will, as is common for him, chose to provide unsubstantiated and disparaging remarks on Governor Palin's potential presidential run. When asked if she is going to run for President, Will first replied:

Two things are infinite. One is the expanding universe, and the other is media attention to Sarah Palin, who's a genius at manipulating it. She has several political problems, the first of which is there's no undecided vote in this country anymore about Sarah Palin, surely.

Governor Palin manipulates the media attention? Really? To be sure, the media is fixated on every move Governor Palin makes, but to assert that Governor Palin manipulates media coverage is a false. Unlike with other potential candidates, the media has become fixed on the minutiae of Governor Palin's life and their own created "nontroversies", not the substance of her policies stances or her record. When Governor Palin made a humanitarian trip to Haiti, the media made the trip about the fact that she had a "hair stylist" (aka Bristol Palin)when she was there.When Governor Palin chose to attend today's Rolling Thunder rally in Washington D.C. at the request of a retired Rolling Thunder board member, the media asserted that she had not been invited. When she laid out a serious 5 point "Palin Doctrine" about the proper use of military force, the media focused on her reference to President Obama as "our president", rather than calling using his last name in her reference. Governor Palin does not manipulate the media; the media misrepresents her.

Will also asserts that Governor Palin has "several political problems", but he only chooses to list one--a rather weak one at that. Will asserts that too many people have already made their mind up about Governor Palin, and there is no changing it. Well, that settles that! Governor Palin and all other candidates and potential candidates can fly home.There's no need to waste time over the next year to visit states, meet voters, and give speeches! George Will has spoken. No debates are needed for candidates juxtapose their positions and records against one another. People will not change their mind about Tina Fey Governor Palin. That's just it. That is what campaigns are for to help the undecideds make up their minds and to hopefully change the minds of those in disagreement.With Governor Palin, so many people have made their decision based upon a media caricature of her. So few know that she cut spending in Alaska by more than 9% and that Alaska has a $12 billiion surplus now due in large part to her policies, but people think that she can see Russia from her house. Correcting the misconceptions, setting the record straight, and controlling the message on one's own terms is what a political campaign is all about. In Iowa next month and throughout the country in the coming months, a film depicting the truth about Governor Palin's record and resignation will premiere, providing her with a opportunity to address the caricature, lies, and misrepresentations.

Should she chose to make an official campaign, she will control her own message, something she could not do as part of the McCain campaign, and will be able to juxtapose her record and stances against that of the other candidates. Will conveniently leaves out the fact that Governor Palin is within the margin of error as the front runner for the GOP nomination for President, and more than one in five GOP voters do not have an opinion yet on who should be the nominee for President. That kind of blows a hole in Will's assertion, does it not?

Will's most egregious claim comes in his next statement:

Second, the threshold question. It's not usually asked, but it's in everyone's mind in a presidential election. Should we give this person nuclear weapons? And the answer is -- answers itself there. That doesn't mean she can't be without political consequence.

George Will's hollow argument becomes that Governor Palin--that capricious, empty headed woman-- is simply incapable of handling military power responsibly. By his assertion, that question is so obvious that it answers itself. As usual, there is nothing to back it up. Why does Will think Governor Palin is incapable? Because her highest office was at the state level as governor? Surely not, as that would render Governors Romney, Pawlenty, Johnson, and Roemer incapable too. It must be noted that in addition to serving as the commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard, Governor Palin also served as the official commander of the Alaska State Defense Force (also known as the 49th Readiness Brigade).This is a group of volunteers, often retired military personnel, who supplement the National Guard's work, which sometimes involves assisting in homeland security and FBI activities. Only 24 states have such defense forces, and Minnesota, New Mexico and Mississippi are among those who do not, meaning someone like Governor Pawlenty has less "experience" than Governor Palin. It also means that someone like Bill Clinton also had less "experience" along those lines than Governor Palin had.

Will's assertion likely lies in something more along the lines of Governor Palin's genetic makeup, rather than her political experience. That's right. People who have a pair of X chromosomes, instead of a X and a Y chromosome can simply not be trusted with such information, in his mind. That extra X chromosome, or estrogen, must give female politicians some uncontrollable urge to press the proverbial red button without consultation or hesitation, according to professor of political genetics and endocrinology, George Will. This has been a common assertion American politics.When Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President in 1984, it was asserted that there might be a time when she may have to push the proverbial button to fire missiles, but she might not be able to if she's just done her nails. Of course, in 2008 as well, sexism was used as a political weapon against both then candidate Hillary Clinton and Governor Palin especially when it came to foreign policy. George Will gives no reasoning as to why he feels that Governor Palin is not to be trusted with the responsibility of the America's nuclear arsenal. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Governor Palin would make a flippant decision about America's nuclear arms--whether in deploying them, converting them, or destroying them.Meanwhile, we have a president who signed a treaty with Russia that allows them to move nuclear weapons closer to America's NATO allies and does not allow America to convert nuclear systems to conventional systems and who seems to not be serious about addressing Iran's nuclear program. Those are both issues of great concern that Governor Palin has addressed. Governor Palin would not handle America's nuclear weaponry with carelessness, but she would address the potential of enemies' nuclear arsenal with seriousness, unlike President Obama.

George Will was, however, magnanimous enough to say that Governor Palin still is of political consequence. How generous! Perhaps she can become a Republican cheerleader when it comes to nuclear and national defense. It would give whole new meaning to the "D-E-F-E-N-S-E" cheer often shouted at sporting events, would it not? However, as Nicole and myself have written, Governor Palin is a point guard, and you do not ask a point guard to become a cheerleader. Governor Palin has often noted that such criticisms and underestimations only give fuel to the fire in her belly. Governor Palin will choose her political path; it will not be chosen for her by the ostrich-like pundocracy. Needless to say, it is the "We the People's" Will not George Will that will ultimately determine the results of the upcoming primary and general elections.

H/T to multiple C4P contributors

Update: Josh Painter has a good post up on George Will, "the Republagogue", here.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Non-Pithy Comments on Fox News' Sexism

"Credentialed ignorance is still ignorance"- Thomas Sowell

Today, Governor Huckabee was on Fox News Sunday, where he was asked about Governor Palin. My criticism today (though it was last weekend) is not necessarily with Governor Huckabee's response, but with Fox News' decision to ask this Governor Huckabee a specific question: " Does [Governor Palin] have the experience? Does she have the knowledge to be President" (see the 8:20 mark of this clip). This isn't the first time that a Fox News personality has asked that same question. Most notably, in Governor Palin's first time on Bill O'Reilly's show, O'Reilly asked Governor Palin if she herself was smart enough to be president?! Has O'Reilly ever asked other prominent politicians and potential presidential candidates if they,themselves, are smart enough or knowledgeable enough to be President? No, he hasn't. Why is this question asked of Governor Palin or about her?

The answer to that very question is one of sexism and elitism. The likes of Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and President Obama haven't been asked by "journalists" if they are smart enough or knowledgeable enough to be President. The one thing that these three individuals have in common, other than their view of Governor Palin as a political threat, is that they all possess a pair of XY chromosomes, something that Governor Palin lacks. The intelligence of male politicians are usually not questioned. Many people bases their perception of Governor Palin's intelligence on one interview more than a year a half ago and a caricature on late night TV. May I remind such individuals, including those producers, editors, and personality who work at Fox News, that true intelligence is not manifested in edited words or a satirical characterization. True intelligence is found in the application of knowledge and life's experiences. True intelligence is what a certain Alaskan governor may call common sense.

Governor Palin did not attend an Ivy League school as the likes of Obama, Romney, and even the Left's former favorite punching bag, President Bush. Governor Palin's education came from a state university in Idaho, but her intelligence came from soaking up life experiences and learning from the past. If anyone has read the Governor's book or watched her speeches, you see that Governor Palin's intelligence comes from recognizes the successes of others and learning from the failures of the past, hence her constant invoking of Reagan. Governor Palin is a sponge when it comes to her life experiences. She soaks up everything around her and applies it. If you take a look at how she has responded to questions regarding the Gulf oil spill, she has discussed what the state of Alaska has done to deal with relationships with oil companies and oil spills. She learns from experience.

Regarding the aspect of Governor Palin's experience, people tend to poo-poo the fact that Governor Palin stepped aside from the governor's office early. However, Governor Palin accomplished all of her goals as Governor of Alaska in just 2 and a half years, including moving forward on ethics reform, the transcontinental pipeline, and forward funding education among other things. This is only as governor, not to mention the experience she has had a major, city council woman, and oil and gas commissioner.

While I still view Fox News as the best source on television, I'm disappointed in the boys at Fox who want to question her intelligence and experience when she has overwhelming amounts of both. Experience is her teacher; common sense is her intelligence. Those are qualities that an Ivy League education cannot buy.

My apologies, Bill O'Reilly, for my lack of pithiness.

Crossposted here and here.