So, did today's democratian snivelfest help or hurt local women in politics?

.
I've been in local politics at a close up and personal level around here since, oh, the 1990 elections.

I've learned a few things about female candidates... and certainly male, as far as that goes. And the first thing I learned from working on so many campaigns is this: it is an advantage to run if you're female, and a disadvantage if you're a male running against a female.

The second thing I learned is that, regardless of gender, the best candidate will usually win every time.

Now, I get that the democratian set the table to get this "whoa is me" outcome. But this was such a cloyingly sickly sweet whine fest that I have to wonder: if women candidates really feel this way, will I ever vote for one again?

Here's where I take note of the democratian's deliberate failure to address gender and racism in much of any other forum.

For example, I can't recall reading their complaints about the lopsidedly high numbers of female college students on campuses around the country... now steadily striding towards 60% as a result of affirmative action.

And I've certainly missed their take on, say, athletics, where the majority, by a large number, sure seem disproportionately black... at just about every level... either as a racist OR gender issue, where political correctness has run amok and slaughtered dozens of male sports programs, using Title IX like the Nazi's used the Nuremberg Laws to enslave an entire people.

No, instead, we get a gaggle of victims... a group of whiners who believe that their position in life and the political difficulties they believe they face are based on their gender.

Nothing could be further from reality.

When it comes to campaigns, females have a built in advantage based on their "I am woman, hear me roar" shtick.

Everything else being equal, a woman will win every time.

You see, in this day and age, we condemn people who vote for a candidate if they happen to be white. We call that racism. Of course, the 95% or so of the black vote that went for Obama? That was, I'm sure, just coincidence.

And what, exactly, do we call it when, as a matter of course, when faced with a slate of candidates, if, as in say the 18th last August, there is a single female running against 7 males?

We call that "winning."

Yes, I am well aware that Ann Rivers came in second in the primary.

But she came in second in a vote where something on the order of 67% voted against someone who was ultimately destroyed in the general. Dennis Kampe came in first in the primary... but he never had a chance in the 18th District.

And taking it a step further, Ann defeated everyone else BECAUSE, in large part, she had two things going for her: First, she was the best candidate. Second?

She is a she.

Women will sprint across party lines and demographics to vote for another woman in ways that were men to do so, would result in their instantaneous condemnation and charges of gender bigotry.

And gender bigotry is what that entire article amounted to.

Just for one example: if Jeannie Harris is moronic enough to run for re-election, she will be destroyed at the polls because she is the caricature of turbo-charged PMS on wheels.

It will not be her gender that causes her humiliating defeat and finally ends her abusive arrogant political career.

It will have been her abusive and arrogant nature, now undeniably cemented into our lexicon with her gavel down nonsense that will be the fitting epitaph on her political tombstone.

And her gender had/has nothing to do with that.

Pam Brokaw lost to Tom Mielke in the midst of the Obama tsunami because she was a political coward who refused to take stands on the issues most pressing to the people of Clark County where Tom easily and frequently made his positions known. Brokaw was silent on those issues because she knew... and David Barnett knew (Based on the $75K or so he dumped into the race at the last minute) what those positions were... on the comically horrific CRC and the economic black hole of the megacasino organized crime venture.

Not even gender can overcome cowardice. But it will make an average candidate better because many more women will vote for other women because of gender, all other political considerations aside, then men will vote for other men because of similar equipment.

Men do not sit around wondering, "gee, can the candidate understand me and my views because she's got other plumbing?" Women actually believe, in much larger numbers, that given the opportunity, a woman will be much more likely to understand and support their view on issues then a man... and this works all the way to nonsensical issues like "women's caucuses" or the "congressional racist caucus" (whoops, I mean, the Congressional Black Caucus, taxpayer subsidized racism and bigotry.)

During my time on legislative staff, I repeatedly saw political and demographic lines disappear as women banded together as if they didn't represent anyone BUT women. Deals made... between women, because they were women.

In fact, there is gender bigotry practiced in politics... but it is much more a result of women interacting with other women then because of anything men do, or fail to do.

Even Sarah Palin, who I am no particular fan of, plays the gender victim card. Hillary Clinton is a master of the craft.

When, for example, Linda Tracy says this:

Linda Tracy: I was running unopposed in 2007. And they literally went out into the neighborhoods and grabbed somebody and put him on the ballot to run against me. But he got transferred, he moved, and he got canceled out from the ballot — he still got 200 votes at the election.

There were 200 people who decided to vote for the man, instead of me. You do get feelings like, no matter what, we’re not going to get the votes, we’re not going to get the money.

she apparently disregards the real reason this vote went against her: like the current tribal kool aid drinking city government, there was and is a hard corps block of voters who have repeatedly bent over, and WILL repeatedly bend over for the megacasino and who will do anything to defeat anyone opposed to it... much like Tracy will likely be defeated the next time she runs.

These people voted for the phantom because Tracy has opposed this town-crushing effort... not because she wears a skirt.

And I, for one, believe that this outcome will be a result of her positions to protect her town, now completely sold out by the "Jim Irish Mafia."

Politics is combat without bullets. The rag, for example, has used me for bayonet practice because I oppose their downtown mafia-centric agenda that ignores the positions of the community and the people they allegedly serve.

That is the price you pay to play. And I assure the reader that none of these whiny, sniveling Barbie dolls have fought the hand to hand of the trenches that many men have, and do, continue to fight every day.

I look at this snivelfest and I ask myself: there are people who SERIOUSLY think that "women in combat" is a good idea? Really?

In closing, I offer this up: that we have so few women in office, if they truly revel in this kind of self-inflicted victimhood, is no great loss.

If this is too "tough" for you, then get the hell out. We don't need or want anyone, regardless of their gender or race, who view themselves as poor, overpaid, overworked and put upon "victims" leading anything in government today.

All in all, this was a sickening display of victimhood, and I will never vote for any of these people, ever... and their gender has nothing to do with that decision.
.