The Senate Isn't Really an "Old Boys Club" Any More

I can understand why Mark Tracy was annoyed by the hype about the role of Susan Collins in settling the shutdown, but his takedown is really an overreaction.

Tracy notes that there are still only 20 women in the Seante. True! On the other hand, he claims that "11 of the top 12 Senate officials are men." But he's apparently counting (his link) the VP and the president pro tempore; the latter is a symbolic designation, while the VP isn't even a Senator, and really doesn't have a role in the Senate at all most of the time. I think he's also counting Harry Reid twice, for whatever that's worth. So it's really one of nine in party leadership positions. I suppose whether that's different than one of 12 is a judgement call, but might as well start with the right number.

Moreover, it's not really clear that the extended party leadership is the right place to look, anyways. That same page Tracy cites shows that women are chairs of the Senate committees on Appropriations, Budget, Agriculture, Environment and Public Works, Small Business, and Intelligence (also Ethics, Indian Affairs, and Joint Economics). Those are important, substantive, positions; women aren't quite chairs of half the Senate committees, but it's a third of the regular standing committees plus the most important (Intelligence) of the others.

Indeed, while Tracy's initial version of the shutdown story is about how "all the important players" were men, he acknowledges at the tail end that Patty Murray and Barbara Mikuski were in fact key figures.

One more point. What's missing in Tracy's account is the most important factor: party. It's pretty straightforward; when Democrats are in the majority, women are going to be important. After all, 16 of the (about to be) 55 Democrats are women.

Which gets to what's really important: the reason that the key players on the Republican side were men is because all but four Republican Senators are men. And since women are also overrepresented among the relatively moderate Republicans, it's even less likely that they'll be involved in cutting a deal which needed mainstream conservatives on board.

It's true that the Collins compromise was pretty much irrelevant to resolving the shutdown. But while there's still a long way to go to parity, it's really not fair to say that the Senate is still an old boys' club. It's not 1990 any more.

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Felicia Day, 34.

And quickly to the good stuff:

1. Dan Drezner wishes everyone would go on vacation.

2. Scott Lemieux has more on Shelby County.

3. Wow, Stuart Rothenberg goes medieval on a piece which was, to be fair, well deserving of it.

4. Ann Friedman on speaking as a woman.

5. And Patrick Egan on public opinion, Roe, Loving, and Windsor.

Sunday Question for Liberals

Mother's Day, also. I know it's impossible to separate this question from whatever one thinks about Hillary Clinton, but give it a try anyway: How important to you is it for the Democrats to nominate a woman for president in 2016? How important is it for you for the Democrats to nominate a woman for VP if they don't select a woman for president?

Sunday Question for Conservatives

For Mother's Day...I suspect I've asked this in the past, but since we're in the recruitment season for 2014: Republicans have elected some women governors, but have fallen far behind Democrats in electing women to the House and Senate. Is that a problem? Any idea of why it's happened? What, if anything, should Republicans be doing about it?

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Pablo Schreiber, 35.

Some good stuff:

1. Josh Barro notes: "There is still no Republican health policy agenda."

2. Adam Serwer on the guest worker problem and the provisions in the Senate immigration bill.

3. The Hawaii Democratic Senate primary, reported by Scott Bland.

4. Do Members of Congress have any idea how the ACA works? Aaron Carroll says: looks like they don't.

5. And Molly Ball on women running for office.

Sunday Question for Conservatives

Why do you think Republicans have had so hard a time electing women to office? Do you think it's a problem for the Republican Party that they should try to do something about?

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Stan Musial, 92.

The good stuff:


1. Excellent article on women in politics and the remaining barriers by Kate Sheppard, but it isn't quite true that Heidi Heitkamp is the "first woman to represent North Dakota in Congress, ever." First woman elected to do so, but when Quentin Burdick died in 1992, Jocelyn Burdick served for two months.

2. Really good point about unintended consequences and Senate reform from Sarah Binder. Something I need to keep in mind more often: what we "see" happening in the Senate may not reveal to us the full options that both sides have under the rules. So if one rule is changed, that might just mean that other options get exploited. 

3. And Sarah Kliff on ACA implementation and ignorance.

Tweet of the Day

Claire McCaskill:

Too funny. First power meeting with E Warren and D Fischer? In the Senators Only Women's bathroom. Gonna need a bigger bathroom.

McCaskill, who was first elected in 2006, may or may not realize it but the women's bathroom near the Senate floor goes back only to 1993; before that female Senators had to walk down a floor.

Twenty women still isn't anywhere near parity, but it's getting a lot closer. It's still amazing how long it took for women to start winning seats in the Senate at all; as recently as the first Senate serving with George H.W. Bush, there were only two women in the Senate, which was as many as there had ever been. Two. In 1990.

My brother has been all over the story of how the Republicans have fallen far, far behind on nominating women for office; the Senate breakdown, McCaskill's bipartisan tweet aside, now has a 16D/4R breakdown -- yes, Republicans have the same number of women in the Senate that they had in 1995. And it looks as if they'll drop four in the House, meaning they've gained a total of three women in the House from their 1995 total of 17.

But as David points out, Democrats have nothing to be overly proud of on this score; "not totally embarrassing" isn't something to brag about. Still, at least they've decisively moved away from how they were in the 1980s. Perhaps the Republicans will do the same at some point.

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Karen Dotrice, 57. That's Jane Banks -- and, on Upstairs Downstairs, Lily. Not bad!

Sure is a lot of good stuff today:

1. These are the maps I really like of the 2012 election.

2. Downballot, 2012 was apparently not such a good year for women running for office. Abby Rapoport discusses. I wish we had a partisan breakdown, though. See also Ann Friedman on Year of the Woman talk.

3. Aaron Blake on GOP Senate candidate quality. Not definitive, but consistent with everything else I've seen.

4. Totally agree with Mark Blumenthal about this one: "Crowning a single "best pollster" now on the basis of just one poll from each organization is a futile and misleading effort." Plus more about what to expect as the vote-counting continues. Excellent, informative post.

5. I pretty much agree with everything Scott Lemieux says about the phony idea that Nixon was a liberal on domestic policy. Congress matters! So does context. Meanwhile...I've fallen behind, I know, on Watergate. With the election out of the way, I'll get back to it soon.

6. Dan Larison says some really smart things in this post (especially the second to last paragraph), but truth is that I'm just going to be a sucker for any post entitled "The GOP, 'Real Parties,' and Factions." The idea that Larison is reacting to -- that a major political party in a two-party system in a nation of 300 million could be a Burkean party united in the pursuit of an idea -- is about as wrong as you can get. Perhaps if I get to it I'll write more about it; suffice to say that as weird as it is for conservatives to pretend (as they often do) that groups only exist among other people, it's even weirder to invoke Madison while pretending one's side isn't motivated by self-interest. Ah well. Back to Larison: I'd suggest next time he go with "What the GOP,  'Real Parties,' Factions, the San Francisco Giants, and Elvis Costello have to do with the New Star Wars Movie," if he really wants to get a link from me.

7. Or just put a picture of Harold and Kumar up. Noah Smith on makers and takers.

8. And young voters, Facebook, and experimental treatments, reported by Rebecca Rosen (via my buddy Christine). Key point from Don Green: the Obama young voter cohort may well keep voting for Democrats for a long time.

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Al Holland, 59.

The good stuff:

1. David S. Bernstein argues that the GOP is the home of institutional sexism.

2. What to do when fact-checking isn't enough, from Garance Franke-Ruta. Not a solution, but worth reading.

3. And Dan Larison on the GOP ticket's national security and foreign policy credentials, or lack thereof.

Catch of the Day

Today's goes to National Journal's Matt Berman, who noticed something big in data on Congressional staff salaries: in offices of Democrats, women made 97% of what men make, but in the offices of Republican Members of Congress women make...ready for it?...$10,000 less than men, or just 84% of what men make. That's on the House side; the Senate side differences are smaller, but the partisan gap remains.

Berman doesn't go beyond the numbers to find out whether the disparity is because Republicans hire fewer high-level women or because Republicans pay women less for the same job. My guess is that it's the former, but that's just a guess.

Of course, this goes with the huge partisan gender gap for Members of Congress. Recall that there are currently 12 Democratic women in the Senate compared with only 5 Republican women, and 49 women are Democratic Members of the House compared with only 24 Republican women. It's also worth remembering that the gap is almost completely a post-Thomas phenomenon: the Congress elected in 1988 had only three more Democratic women than Republican women. And it's not going away anytime soon, as David S. Bernstein has been reporting.

Whether this has either electoral or policy consequences is an open question, but an interesting one, I'd say. Regardless, it's another useful piece of information, no? I think so -- and nice catch!

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Paul Weller, 54. I'm not really a fan of the rest of his career. But I certainly am a fan of The Jam. If I thought that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was something to care about, I'd be outraged that they're not in. If The Clash is Hank Aaron, The Jam is Frank Robinson ...probably not quite as good or quite as important, but are you absolutely sure? (Analogy is for quality only, not career shape or type, obviously).

I seem to be sort of music-obsessed this week, birthday-wise; hope everyone doesn't mind to much. On to the good stuff:


1. Yesterday I linked to and discussed Sean Trende's article on Barack Obama and Appalachia; today I'll have to link to Ed Kilgore's very nice post on Trende. Gets it exactly right.

2. Conor Friedersdorf vets "The Vetting." As I've said, I think there's essentially zero chance that any of this stuff could have any effect on the 2012 election. And no question that the particular methods used by the folks he monitors are useless for anything, and certainly the best way to tell what Barack Obama is going to do in a second term is to study his public actions during his political career and, even more importantly, the Democratic party. But is it entirely useless to understand our presidents better? I guess my position is no, it isn't. My usual rule of thumb is that personality explanations for presidential actions should only be considered when other explanations (party, skills, political context) don't seem to help, but that doesn't mean that personality never matters.

3. Redistricting at the state legislative level seems to have been particularly rough on women, reports Sara Libby.

4. And I have to say that I really enjoyed the Tom Nawrocki's list of Top Ten Rock Hits With a Trombone Solo.

Catch of the Day

Goes to David S. Bernstein, longtime GOP Women in Congress chronicler, who notes that of the 71 House districts to hold primaries so far, only six have been won by women. What's more, of the three women who are GOP Members of the House in those districts, one lost, and another will face a tough race in the fall; none of the other four appear to have realistic chances of winning in November. So, as he concludes, "in these 71 districts, there are currently three Republican women in Congress; that number will drop to either two or one after the November election."

David recently visited Plain Blog world headquarters, but that's not what gets him the CotD! It's an excellent observation. You would really think that this is something that Republicans could solve, but it certainly appears that they are either uninterested or unable to do anything about it. I don't know whether it's fair to call Republican policy proposals popping up in the House and in state legislatures a war on women, but it's certainly clear that there's a large and, I think, increasing gap between the parties in terms of candidates.

Nice catch!

August 5, 1971

Emery:

---
Both Krogh and Young say they went to Ehrlichman sometime in early August; Krogh states it was on August 5. Krogh remembers telling Ehrlichman that to gain access to the Ellsberg psychiatric records "something other than the regular agencies would have to be undertaken." Ehrlichman was told that "we did have individuals in the unit and individuals available who had had professional experience in this kind of investigation." Young remembers that "Ehrlichman simply listened and, in effect, said 'let's think about it.'"
---

The quotations are from grand jury testimony from Plumbers Krogh and Young. So just to be clear...we have a guy who leaked info to the press, and has been indicted and will be tried in the courts. However, in order to influence public opinion (OK) and the jury (not okay), the White House has decided to basically do massive opposition research on the guy (legal as far as it goes, but would you want a massive WH operation looking into Julian Assange in order to smear him in the press?), including possibly breaking into his shrink's office to steal his file (not even remotely close to being legal). All this but the last bit is going on at the repeated insistence of the President of the United States, and the #2 guy in the White House has been briefed on all of it.

Now we wait for the CIA to actually produce their personality profile of Ellsberg, and for a specific plan to be proposed and approved.

Oh, and how about a bonus, from Haldeman's diary. It's from the next day, August 6:

---
[President Nixon] went over to greet the Girls Nation group in the State Dining Room. He did a superb job with them, speaking on the role of women in government, and so forth, but then emphasizing that the real role of women is as wives and mothers, and he gave a very eloquent pitch for considering the importance of that role, too, as contrasted to women's lib.
---

That's 1971 for you...I'm sure Nixon was just way eloquent. Aren't you?

Women in Politics, 1984 vs. 2011

Aviva Dove-Viebahn has a column up at TNR today that bizarrely makes the claim that:

Ferraro’s nomination signified hope—a hope that a country mired in institutionalized misogyny could one day see its way to true equality between the sexes. Now, 27 years later, her death compels me to wonder whether we’ve seen much progress.

True equality may not be here yet, but if she's really wondering about progress, she needs to learn a lot more about what the American political system was like in 1984 compared to how it is now.

Why was Gerry Ferraro -- a Member of the House with relatively little experience and what turned out to be real vulnerabilities -- the person Walter Mondale selected to be the first woman on a national ticket? Mainly because there were so few alternatives. In 1984 (all facts from CAWP):

There were two women in the Senate, matching the then all-time high. Both were Republicans. Over the three election cycles leading up to 1984, the Democrats nominated a grand total of four women for the U.S. Senate. Currently, 17 women serve in the Senate (12 Democrats).

Governors? There was one woman out of 50 in 1984, a Democrat who had just taken office that year. In the previous three election cycles, the Democrats had nominated a total of three women for governor (and the GOP hadn't nominated one since 1974). Currently, there are six women servings as governors, down from a high point of nine.

In the House, Ferraro was Secretary of the House Democratic Caucus -- the only woman in a leadership role in either party, and one that Democrats had traditionally held by a woman, at least sometimes, since the 1940s; no woman from either party had ever held any other party leadership position in Congress. Nor were any women chairs of a House committee. Nada. Things, of course, are different now (especially for the Democrats).

In 1984, there had been one female Supreme Court Justice ever; there are three now. There had never been a woman at the top of any of the big four cabinet departments (State, Defense, Justice, Treasury).

I suppose I should also mention that women now serve in senior military posts, too.

Yes, it's true that women who run for office are still attacked in ways that, as Dove-Viebahn says, amount to basically thinly veiled sexist stereotypes. The golden age of perfect equality isn't here...indeed, it's not unreasonable to take a pessimistic view of where we are now, although my tendency is to be more optimistic. But to say that there's no progress, or little progress, or in any way to diminish the differences between 1984 and 2011 is to really miss a major, significant shift. Back then, Ferraro was one of at best a half-dozen of even somewhat plausible candidates for VP, and all of them were going to raise legitimate (not, that is, gender-related) questions about their qualifications. That's never going to be the case again.

Monday Movies Post

The policies of a great nation are molded by prominent men, but behind these men stand women, guiding their husbands' destinies -- using the same devices that the feminine sex has always used throughout the ages.

The hand that rocks the cradle rocks the Capitol, which only goes to prove that wives are women in Kankakee or Washington, D.C. 

That's how "First Lady" (1937, d. Stanley Logan) begins.  Not quite "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....", but an interesting introduction to what they're going to show us.  It's from a play by George S. Kaufman and Katharine Dayton, and stars Kay Francis as the wife of the Secretary of State and granddaughter of a president.  Here's the plot: Francis wants her husband to be president.  She's also feuding with the wife of a Supreme Court Justice, who also wants to be married to a president.  The two of them scheme and plot, but Francis wins out in the end.

As a movie...well, it's a play put on film, nothing more.  Lots of people in rooms talking, so you first of all have to like that sort of thing.  The cast is OK; Kay Francis is quite good, and Walter Connolly, as the eccentric Justice ill-suited for politics, is good fun in one of the pure comic roles.  No one else is really memorable.  Stanley Logan, a former actor, was directing his first movie...it wouldn't take, and after four tries he wound up acting again.  So pretty much the movie stands or falls on the humor that Kaufman invested in it, and on the whole, I'd say that from the evidence here (which is all I know of it) it's not his strongest work, but there are plenty of good bits.

So, the politics.  Two things to mention; I'll start with the less interesting one, which is that everyone in the movie takes it for granted that presidential nominations are arranged by agreement of a handful of people at Washington dinner parties.  Not that the people's representatives are excluded; they're there, in the persons of a newspaper publisher, on the one hand, and a women's "purity" movement leader, on the other.  But the question posed in the movie is always going to be who manipulates who there in Washington; it's taken for granted that whoever wins that battle automatically has the nomination. 

Ah, the manipulation.  See, the reason to watch movies like this is to see how people at that point thought about men and women, without, of course, the knowningness that goes into the making of Mad Men (not that I'm complaining about that one; it's just different).  Here's the thing: women, at least in First Lady, aren't idiots or dingbats.  Kay Francis's character is, easily, the smartest person in the piece.  Nor does she depend upon "the same devices that the feminine sex has always used throughout the ages," unless those devices include ghosting Senators' speeches, understanding the incentives of political actors, and generally acting as a politician -- just like, as she tells a portrait of her presidential grandfather, himself and Lincoln.  In other words, our hero in this drama, while not allowed to govern herself, would clearly appear to be perfectly capable of doing so.  Except for one thing.  As I said, the plot concerns a feud between Kay Francis and another Washington wife.  What's the feud about?  The other woman stole Francis's cook!  And so we're back to "wives are women in Kankakee or Washington, D.C. "  Now, it's true that the men in Kaufman's world aren't exactly statesmen and scholars, and they're easily enough manipulated by Francis and her rival.  So I can imagine a reading in which both men and women are simply not up to the job of running the nation.  It's also worth noting that the star isn't defined by her relationship to men per se (she's defined by her relationship to her grandfather, but not her romantic interests).  And yet...the notion that she's really a strong, serious woman is just undermined by that damn cook.

I should mention that this movie does have one great virtue for an American movie set in the political world: absolutely no Mr. Smithism (it helps, of course, that this one predates Capra's movie).  So for me at least that makes it pretty watchable.  I'll give it a mild recommend, with my emphasis being on this one being particularly worth trying if you're interested in pre-WWII ideas about women and politics.

A Dem Palin? Not Needed

The Sunday NYT carried an unusually useless op-ed yesterday, asking for a "Palin of Our Own" for the Democrats.  Anna Holmes and Rebecca Traister note that Sarah Palin generates a lot of publicity, and conclude:

The left should be outraged and exasperated by all this — but at their own failings as much as Ms. Palin’s ascension. Since the 2008 election, progressive leaders have done little to address the obvious national appetite for female leadership. And despite (or because of) their continuing obsession with Ms. Palin, they have done nothing to stop an anti-choice, pro-abstinence, socialist-bashing Tea Party enthusiast from becoming the 21st century symbol of American women in politics. (emphasis theirs).

Let's start with the second point, that Democrats "have done nothing to stop" Palin from becoming the "symbol of American women in politics."  This is our old familiar bugaboo, the idea that one party lets the other "get away with" things.  Liberals have exactly zero ability to affect which Republicans are featured on Fox News or what those Republicans say, and have almost zero ability to affect how Republican pols are perceived by the people who watch Fox News and otherwise get their news from inside the conservative bubble.  Beyond that, it's hardly surprising that the GOP nominee for VP, who has since had a bestselling book, maintained a high public profile, and is considered a leading candidate for her party's presidential nomination, would be, well, very visible.  There is nothing that "progressive leaders" could do about that.

Now, as far as the other part: have Democrats somehow failed to support and promote women pols?  Well, here, one can make a case that Democrats could do better -- but absolutely not a case that Democrats are doing a worse job than Republicans of supporting and promoting women.  Holmes and Traister complain that Hillary Clinton has been mistreated by Democrats, that "Democratic leaders never really celebrated Mrs. Clinton’s nation-altering place in history as the first female candidate to get so close to a major party’s presidential nomination," and that "she is most appreciated when she plays well with others in the Senate or the State Department."  This is preposterous nonsense.  While I would agree that occasional portrayals of Clinton before, during, and after the campaign play to misguided stereotypes, I'm not sure what exactly Holmes and Traister want here.  Clinton was certainly celebrated at the Democratic Convention in 2008; that she was then selected by Barack Obama for Secretary of State, which is generally considered the most prestigious and visible job in the cabinet, is exactly the opposite of ignoring her.  (Plays well with others?  What's that supposed to mean?  Other than Clinton, like all pols, is a lot more likely to receive intraparty attacks during contested primaries, which is hardly news). 

Beyond Clinton, we're told of "the left’s failure to nurture and celebrate female politicians."  Assuming they're talking about liberal Democrats (and not the actual left, where Cynthia McKinney is probably as nurtured and celebrated as anyone, I suppose)...well, what about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?  Doesn't she count?  Or Barbara Boxer?  Claire McCaskill?  Amy Klobuchar?  Patty Murray?  Barbara Mikulski?  Jeanne Shaheen?  Maria Cantwell?  Should I keep going?  I haven't finished listing the thirteen Democratic Senators who are women (compared to four Republicans -- one of whom just probably lost her primary for renomination, one of whom lost a gubernatorial primary earlier this year, and the other two of which (Collins and Snowe) are hardly "nurtured and celebrated" by conservatives).  I haven't listed the 56 Democratic Members of the House who are women (compared to 17 for the GOP).  It's true that there are as many (3) female Republican governors as Democrats, but below that there are far more statewide elected Democratic women.  And don't forget that 70% of state legislators who are women are Democrats.  So, I don't know about nurturing and celebrating, but as far as nominating and electing, the Democrats certainly shouldn't be looking to the GOP for examples.

Oh, and as far as Palin's supposed crop of new women, it's basically a handful of high-profile candidates and little else.  As the Boston Phoenix's David S. Bernstein has been documenting, it's possible that the GOP could actually wind up taking the House without electing any new female Members of Congress, which is really an astonishing situation (they'll probably elect a handful of new women to the House, but a GOP takeover would almost certainly decrease the number of women in Congress).  Looking at the Senate...Republicans have (probably) lost one Senator to a primary defeat.  They've nominated Fiorina, McMahon, Angle, for competitive seats, and may nominate Ayotte -- but the Democrats have Lincoln, Boxer, Carnahan, Marshall, and Murray in competitive seats, plus another two incumbents who will easily win reelection.  So a Democratic landslide will increase the number of women in the Senate; a GOP landslide will almost certainly reduce it. 

Holmes and Traister say that "Democrats often prefer their women fulfilling...diminutive models of behavior.  Well, I suppose that Barbara Mikulski is, in fact, short, and Barbara Boxer isn't very tell, either.  If that's what they mean...well, beyond that, does anyone think of Mikulski or Boxer, or Pelosi and Clinton, or Napolitano and Granholm, as, and I'm sorry to say it, shrinking violets?  I don't think so. 

Frankly, the New York Times should be ashamed of itself for running this piece, which is an insult not only to all the Democratic women in office, but actually to the few Republican women who do still hold elective office, none of which Holmes and Traister bother to mention (yes, there are some who haven't quit their jobs).  I suppose it's possible that Holmes and Traister just don't realize that there were hundred of first-rate and important women pols before Sarah Palin, and there are hundreds now, even though none of them are president or vice-president.  And, again, I'd like to see more women nominated, by both parties.  But what they're saying...it's really just nonsense, and the Times should have known better.
 

Read Stuff, You Should

My version of the tab dump, beginning as usual with something that you really should not read.  In this case: I'll recommend to stay away from Sara Mosle's post today about Nancy Pelosi.  Apparently, she's the first "trailblazing...feminist icon" who doesn't have "an incoherent personal style or a messy/nonexistent love life or family life."  She seems to be referring to Hillary Clinton (and at that, see Matt Ylgesias)...I guess I don't know all that much about the "personal style" or "love life" of Barbara Jordan, or Pat Schroeder, or Liddy Dole, or Bella Abzug, or Diane Feinstein, or Barbara Boxer, or Shirley Chisholm, or Madeleine Albright, or (although she says these don't count) Sandra Day O'Connor, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Sonia Sotomayor, but none of them seemed to violate Mosle's qualification of being "comfortable and confident in her own skin."  Nor did Gerry Ferraro or Sarah Palin, although I'll admit that I'm not a big fan of either...maybe that's who she was talking about when she talked about "messy...family life," as if that's rare among men in politics.  Ach, I've talked about it too much already...but I do want to say that while Nancy Pelosi is a first-rate Speaker, the rest of that is useless.

On, finally, to the good stuff.


1. Health care.  I can't remember if I linked to this one already, but either way Andrew Sprung loves him some Pelosi.  So does Yglesias.  Kevin Drum looks to the future (it's the best post-passage post I've seen so far).  Alex Massie appreciates what he sees.  Greg Marx on choices for reporters. 

2. Yglesias puts the final stake through the heart of the Ponnuru/Lawry exceptionalism idea.

3. Ezra Klein looks at the long-term deficit from a different angle.

4. Ross Douthat is, in my view, a dull columnist but an excellent blogger; a good part of that is he's honest, as this example shows.

5. Not so honest?  Marc Thiessen, as Jane Mayer explains.

6. TNC on Andrew Sullivan -- I recommend the full lecture, by the way; it's top-notch.

7. Brendan Nyhan: Obama, Reagan, midterms.

8. And to wind it up...Steven Rubio looks at a magazine because it's there (if you click, read to the last line); Andrew Gelman does cutting-edge research; and a totally off topic recommendation.

Election Day

Hey, it's the United States of America -- lots of days are election days. That's one of the things that makes it a great country. This one is of more than local interest, though -- MA Dems are nominating a candidate for Ted Kennedy's seat. Via TPM, polls close at 8PM, Eastern Time. And via this guy, internal polls last week were all over the place, but the question was whether Martha Coakley's lead was holding or shrinking; she's winning, and I'd guess she'll win.

Should that happen, and then assuming that any Dem will win the general and wind up in the Senate, Coakley would be the record 18th woman to currently serve in the Senate -- and would give women 14/60 or 23% of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.

I'm not certain, but I believe that Pennsylvania is the largest state that has never had a female Senator. However, I heard that Arlen Specter is willing to considering switching.

The GOP and Women

Great update from Boston Phoenix reporter/blogger David S. Bernstein on Republican women in office. It's a three part set of posts, and I recommend all of it, but the bottom line is that the GOP continues to move away from supporting female candidates:

Women currently make up 14% of GOP governors (3 of 22). The party is likely to increase its total share of governors, but probably the same number of women

Women currently make up 10% of GOP Senators (4 of 40). The party is likely to end this cycle with as many, or perhaps more Senators, but probably the same number of women.

Women currently make up just under 10% of GOP US Representatives (17 of 177). The party is likely to end this cycle with quite a few more members of Congress, but probably the same number of women, or perhaps one or two more.

Interesting, although it's worth adding a bit of caution (as David does) that it's still early enough that new candidates could emerge.

(Disclosure: I'm not sure exactly who this David S. Bernstein is -- there are just so many David Bernsteins out there -- but I heard a rumor that this one can't hit a wiffle-ball knuckle-curve to save his life in backyard games, or at least he couldn't when we were a little younger).