I've been thinking about a recent comment at this post:
"...I stand by my post, anyway. They're both (Hulshof and Steelman) fiscal twits. How she became treasurer is beyond me, unless it's that pretty face of hers."
I was just joking around when I wrote the above referenced post, Hulshof needs to stop negative attacks against Minority Candidate but in light of that comment and the "Our Voice" column in the News-Leader today, I think perhaps it does need to be addressed more seriously.
The idea that it might be Steelman's "pretty face" that got her the job as treasurer didn't set well with me, even though I'm not someone you'd traditionally use as an example of a feminist.
For the record, I'm not a very big fan of political correctness. I like analysis based on fact a lot better than political correctness and I don't claim to be a highly savvy political analyst. It should also be noted that my attention is not as focused on state and national politics as it is on local government issues, but when a man gets a job for which he is perceived as unqualified, either rightly or wrongly, might it be that he got it because of his "pretty face?"
Or, did he, perhaps, "sleep his way to the top?"
The News-Leader's "Our Voice" column today reads:
"Steelman's problem has its roots in her take-no-prisoners style."
"...opposes big government, understands agricultural and crime issues and is willing to take a tough stand for what he thinks is right."
When Steelman fails to have a plan for tackling every issue, the "Our Voice" column insinuates that she's against having a vision at all:
"...our biggest problem comes with her lack of vision.
It's more an anti-vision"
"Our voice," on Hulshof's lack of vision on certain issues? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt because he's more *diplomatic* than Steelman?:
"He has sidestepped -- to some degree -- questions on health care for the uninsured, an overburdened Public Defender's Office and the future of higher education funding in the state.
He said he will be fine-tuning his thoughts on some of those issues -- especially health care -- in coming weeks, if he wins the primary.
We hope he does."
Apparently, there's no such "hope" for Steelman.
I was joking when I asked, "What does he have against a woman Governor?"
Now, I wonder if the issue doesn't deserve a bit more serious handling than that.
I'm not super sensitive in regards to looking for examples of "glass ceilings," as they apply to women, but the commenter on the post I referenced above laid out some statistics regarding my use of the term "minority" in my original, referenced post. I have no reason to question his facts:
"...according to the last census, in 2002, 51 percent of the population of the U.S. are female. Males outnumber females 105 to 100 up until age 29. In age groups from 30 on up females outnumber males."
But, I think a more pertinent question, however, might be, what is the male to female ratio of registered voters in the country?
...and, of course, I don't hold the commenter responsible for the way the editorial board of the News-Leader treated Steelman as opposed to Hulshof in todays "Our Voice," column, but I do wonder when was the last time he suggested that a male political office holder might have got his job because of his "pretty face?"
It's being rumored that the Republican establishment supports Hulshof. I wonder if, like the News-Leader's editorial board, they like Hulshof's approach better than Steelman's.
My interest is less in who the News-Leader's editorial board endorses than who the voters endorse. The News-Leader's editorial board simply seeks to influence the voters.
Is the consensus thought of the people who will be represented by either Hulshof or Steelman that there be more diplomacy when dealing with issues in our state government?
Perhaps Hulshof speaks softly but carries a big stick, I don't pretend to know.
Steelman's voice, which seems to be playing well among voters, might actually be her big stick.
I'm thinking voters might choose that "take-no-prisoner's style" voice, a voice that seems to be promising to speak with and for the voters rather than a voice speaking down to voters after reaching consensus with other politicians.
The primary vote will establish what the people want.
I hope, whichever candidate the voters choose, the Republican establishment will accept the winner diplomatically.