Aa
After criticism, GOP adds woman to chair House committee
NBC News has learned that Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.) will be named chair of the House Administration Committee. Miller did not serve on the committee during the 112th Congress.
Lack of diversity has been an issue for the GOP, and many strategists believe that the party’s problems with women and minorities led to President Obama’s re-election.
Miller has been in Congress since 2003, and her highest committee level post is on the House Homeland Security Committee.
The House Administration Committee deals with the pertinent administrative business of the House. The committee can decide such mundane things as whether or not the House cafeterias will use paper or Styrofoam plates -- or more serious matters such as benefit packages for congressional workers and how the Library of Congress operates. The Committee also monitors the expense accounts of House members.
House Speaker John Boehner issued this statement: “From ensuring the House runs efficiently and smoothly, to making Congress more open and accessible, Candice has a big job ahead as chairman of the House Administration Committee. In her new post, Candice will provide the leadership needed to keep operating costs down, save taxpayer dollars, and help lawmakers use new technology to better engage with their constituents. And her experience as Michigan secretary of state will be invaluable given the committee’s oversight of campaign finance and election laws.
Lack of diversity has been an issue for the GOP, and many strategists believe that the party’s problems with women and minorities led to President Obama’s re-election.
Miller has been in Congress since 2003, and her highest committee level post is on the House Homeland Security Committee.
The House Administration Committee deals with the pertinent administrative business of the House. The committee can decide such mundane things as whether or not the House cafeterias will use paper or Styrofoam plates -- or more serious matters such as benefit packages for congressional workers and how the Library of Congress operates. The Committee also monitors the expense accounts of House members.
House Speaker John Boehner issued this statement: “From ensuring the House runs efficiently and smoothly, to making Congress more open and accessible, Candice has a big job ahead as chairman of the House Administration Committee. In her new post, Candice will provide the leadership needed to keep operating costs down, save taxpayer dollars, and help lawmakers use new technology to better engage with their constituents. And her experience as Michigan secretary of state will be invaluable given the committee’s oversight of campaign finance and election laws.
It might be easier to find a qualified female if there were more to choose from.
77 Female House Members
53 Democrat
24 Republican
17 Female Senators
12 Democrat
5 Republican
"You reap what you sow".
77 Female House Members
53 Democrat
24 Republican
17 Female Senators
12 Democrat
5 Republican
"You reap what you sow".
Are you saying that if the Republican-Party came out and said, "We're appointing all men to the committee positions, because we don't have any qualified women in our ranks" that you and I wouldn't be having this discussion?
Do you not see how the Republicans couldn't win this isuation either way they went?
If they'd not appointed any women, the cry from the Left would have been: WHY DIDN'T YOU APPOINT ANY WOMEN?!? ARE YOU ALL SEXIST PIGS????
If they do simply appoint a "token", as there happened to not be any truly qualified women among their ranks at this time, they cry from the Left would have been: YOU GUYS SIMPLY APPOINTED A WOMAN BECAUSE YOU'RE FEELING PRESSURE TO DO SO!!!! YOU GUYS ARE ALL A BUNCH OF SEXIST PIGS!!!!!!!!
Do you not see how this is a lose-lose scenario for Republicans?
(By the way, in case you didn't notice, what I described above is EXACTLY what actually happened)
Do you not see how the Republicans couldn't win this isuation either way they went?
If they'd not appointed any women, the cry from the Left would have been: WHY DIDN'T YOU APPOINT ANY WOMEN?!? ARE YOU ALL SEXIST PIGS????
If they do simply appoint a "token", as there happened to not be any truly qualified women among their ranks at this time, they cry from the Left would have been: YOU GUYS SIMPLY APPOINTED A WOMAN BECAUSE YOU'RE FEELING PRESSURE TO DO SO!!!! YOU GUYS ARE ALL A BUNCH OF SEXIST PIGS!!!!!!!!
Do you not see how this is a lose-lose scenario for Republicans?
(By the way, in case you didn't notice, what I described above is EXACTLY what actually happened)
I'd agree that Boehner is an idiot for appointing her. I think he's a bigger idiot by falling into the "bigot" game.
"MrsP: "... If anything, they're IDIOTS for nominating someone that wasn't qualified just to nominate. THEY are the ones that "felt pressure"..."
I'm not sure I get what you're eluding to but I meant If they were going to appoint a woman, appoint a qualified one. Speaker Boehner is an idiot for appointing her. If they don't have any qualified women, he should have just said so instead of just appointing whoever....
I'm not sure I get what you're eluding to but I meant If they were going to appoint a woman, appoint a qualified one. Speaker Boehner is an idiot for appointing her. If they don't have any qualified women, he should have just said so instead of just appointing whoever....
They cant win for losing? Well, Tru that!
If someone called me a Republican/Conservative, I most certainly WOULD NOT tke it as an insult.
If the person on the receiving end of my comment felt it was an insult, maybe that's very telling in and of itself.
MrsP: "... If anything, they're IDIOTS for nominating someone that wasn't qualified just to nominate. THEY are the ones that "felt pressure"..."
Do you not see what you did, by making that statement? Please tell me you're not THAT blind.
The Republicans DON'T nominate because they felt there weren't any qualified women. So what do they do? They caved in, and nominated someone as a "token" simply to appease everyone. And when they DO, you berate them for it.
It's not THEIR fault they don't have any Republican women that they felt were appointable. Maybe none have come up the ranks? Maybe there's just none to choose from?
They're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't.
They can't win for loosing.
If the person on the receiving end of my comment felt it was an insult, maybe that's very telling in and of itself.
MrsP: "... If anything, they're IDIOTS for nominating someone that wasn't qualified just to nominate. THEY are the ones that "felt pressure"..."
Do you not see what you did, by making that statement? Please tell me you're not THAT blind.
The Republicans DON'T nominate because they felt there weren't any qualified women. So what do they do? They caved in, and nominated someone as a "token" simply to appease everyone. And when they DO, you berate them for it.
It's not THEIR fault they don't have any Republican women that they felt were appointable. Maybe none have come up the ranks? Maybe there's just none to choose from?
They're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't.
They can't win for loosing.
I know it has got to be tiring being antagonistic all the time (Insert eye roll and sigh).
My responses have NOTHING to do with political parties, etc. If I think the response is INTELLIGENT AND WELL SPOKEN, then I will respond in agreement.
You know NOTHING about me.
My responses have NOTHING to do with political parties, etc. If I think the response is INTELLIGENT AND WELL SPOKEN, then I will respond in agreement.
You know NOTHING about me.
Well said SM.
Me too.
Mike
Mike
I just wanted to say that it is okay for someone to give a shout out to another member that has comments they most closely agree with. Londres was paying Mrs.P a compliment and saying she agreed all in one.
One thing I don't like is throwing around titles like "democrat" or "republican' like they are an insult. I happen to be friends with Londres and think that maybe if we lived in the same place, we would have different political opinions. But that is just one area we differ on with many more being in complete agreement. Politics is just one aspect to people and I do respect those here who are Democrats or have more liberal views than I do.
One thing I don't like is throwing around titles like "democrat" or "republican' like they are an insult. I happen to be friends with Londres and think that maybe if we lived in the same place, we would have different political opinions. But that is just one area we differ on with many more being in complete agreement. Politics is just one aspect to people and I do respect those here who are Democrats or have more liberal views than I do.
True for all of us...sux being human but such a privilege too, eh?
Thanks for the vote of confidence but I've shown time and time again that I can "F-up" anything, given enough time and rope. LOL
El,
Take a look at Brice's comments...This is a very good model for you to learn from. It is fine to disagree. Try to make your point clearly and respectfully.
In turn, you will garner a lot more respect, imho.
Take a look at Brice's comments...This is a very good model for you to learn from. It is fine to disagree. Try to make your point clearly and respectfully.
In turn, you will garner a lot more respect, imho.
"IMO< the Republicans are IDIOTS for caving into this"
If anything, they're IDIOTS for nominating someone that wasn't qualified just to nominate. THEY are the ones that "felt pressure".. They could've not addressed the issue but they "caved" like you said...It also backfired because the whole point was to nominate a qualified woman in their party. It's very clear now, that they don't have any qualified women to fill these positions and to me that is SAD......
If anything, they're IDIOTS for nominating someone that wasn't qualified just to nominate. THEY are the ones that "felt pressure".. They could've not addressed the issue but they "caved" like you said...It also backfired because the whole point was to nominate a qualified woman in their party. It's very clear now, that they don't have any qualified women to fill these positions and to me that is SAD......
Really EL?
"MrsP........you saw the situation for what it REALLY was. :<))) You know your politics..."
You're kidding, right?
So because the Democratic party appoints "tokens" into positions with committee's, and the Republicans don't, and MrsP pointed out that fact, all of sudden she's a political genius?!?
You're easily impressed. Not really all that surprised that your a Democrat/Socialist.
IMO< the Republicans are IDIOTS for caving into this, and appointing a "token" to a meaningless position. If I was a strong Conservative woman, I'd be INSULTED.
Baa, baa black sheep... have you any wool?
You're kidding, right?
So because the Democratic party appoints "tokens" into positions with committee's, and the Republicans don't, and MrsP pointed out that fact, all of sudden she's a political genius?!?
You're easily impressed. Not really all that surprised that your a Democrat/Socialist.
IMO< the Republicans are IDIOTS for caving into this, and appointing a "token" to a meaningless position. If I was a strong Conservative woman, I'd be INSULTED.
Baa, baa black sheep... have you any wool?
Especially when it is someone somewhere's job to create the stink.
There are times when life just stinks.
And I'm accustomed to that.
And I'm accustomed to that.
This woman who was earning her way to possibly eventually have one of these positions on merit is now brought into the pubic eye as having the job because of the stink people were making. This is unfortunate.
I agree, sm!
I agree, sm!
Actually, I read an article that said she wasn't really qualified (had never even served on that committee), but they put her in the position because of the stink everyone was making.
Yes! I agree, and I also agree that they shouldn't have caved...based on pressure to have one of the positions held by a woman. Now, you actually have more qualified men being passed up for the job because of the pressure to appoint a woman. That in itself, is discrimination. That shouldn't be okay with anyone. It's a double standard to justify that as okay because we're talking about a woman (or a minority).
There are plenty of women holding GOP positions in the country...we shouldn't be keeping a tally, or judging their decisions. It's just ridiculous.
The GOP going out purposely and finding women to satisfy this need to have women in these positions isn't genuine or honest. I want to see women in these positions because they're capable, and have earned it. It's insulting to women to be chosen as a "token", and that's exactly what happened here.
Yes! I agree, and I also agree that they shouldn't have caved...based on pressure to have one of the positions held by a woman. Now, you actually have more qualified men being passed up for the job because of the pressure to appoint a woman. That in itself, is discrimination. That shouldn't be okay with anyone. It's a double standard to justify that as okay because we're talking about a woman (or a minority).
There are plenty of women holding GOP positions in the country...we shouldn't be keeping a tally, or judging their decisions. It's just ridiculous.
The GOP going out purposely and finding women to satisfy this need to have women in these positions isn't genuine or honest. I want to see women in these positions because they're capable, and have earned it. It's insulting to women to be chosen as a "token", and that's exactly what happened here.
Like I had said in the previous post on this subject, I think the 'stink' does an actual disservice to women in the long run who would like to have these positions. This woman who was earning her way to possibly eventually have one of these positions on merit is now brought into the pubic eye as having the job because of the stink people were making. This is unfortunate.
In all honesty, I'd take the job and prove I could do it and do it well. I'm proud like that and I guess they are saying she is the most closely qualified woman which is still a baby compliment.
But the whole thing is not great for how this woman must be feeling.
In all honesty, I'd take the job and prove I could do it and do it well. I'm proud like that and I guess they are saying she is the most closely qualified woman which is still a baby compliment.
But the whole thing is not great for how this woman must be feeling.
"Personally, if I were her, I'd not accept the position.... It would keep her integrity intact. She could easily say that she is not qualified. She can bow out graciously."
100% Agree!
100% Agree!
No, no... its absolutely not her fault. I think its a double edged sword for this woman though. If she accepts, she will get labeled as taking a job she isn't qualified for and if she denies the position, I'm sure there are some that will say that she is perpetuation the problem we are talking about.
Personally, if I were her, I'd not accept the position.... It would keep her integrity intact. She could easily say that she is not qualified. She can bow out graciously.
Personally, if I were her, I'd not accept the position.... It would keep her integrity intact. She could easily say that she is not qualified. She can bow out graciously.
Well it's not her fault. The speaker should've found a qualified woman..She should refuse the appointment. This goes to show that the GOP men don't take the gender issue seriously....Some of you here may think that I was just saying appoint a woman and that's it! OBVIOUSLY you want a smart, qualified, and capable woman for the job. This to me is the bigger issue of the GOP being out of touch with hat reality is to today. It's really sad if they do NOT have at least 1 qualified woman. They need to look within their party and have more diversity. I'm not saying they don't have diversity, but they need MORE..
"I’m 100% percent against discrimination; I’m also 100% against advancement based on Gender or Race. "
Me too!
"I’m 100% percent against discrimination; I’m also 100% against advancement based on Gender or Race. "
Me too!
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
