Replies

Thank you for that well thought out response. We’re basically on the same page. I’m a bit leerier about than you are about females in positions of power. How many in the US Senate, HOR and Governorships have let us down after exhibiting so much promise, in campaigns and in prior experiences?

How many in the US Senate, HOR and Governorships have let us down after exhibiting so much promise, in campaigns and in prior experiences?

True, but that is part of the nature of the beast. By definition, traditionally minded women are less likely to devote their lives to public office or political involvement, as their primary responsibility is being a wife an mother. Every so often you get a high powered woman who can do both, or for whatever reason, does not get married, freeing her for other things. I would trust a Sarah Palin, or if she ran for office years ago, a Phyllis Schlafley.

I think we have to look for other marks. The whole Harvard/Yale thing may create a concurrent allegiance that can compete with true patriotism, religion and family.

I am now suspicious of judges (not so much politicians in general) who get along too well and are too social. That was the ONLY alarm that went off in my head with Justice Roberts. He loved being on good terms with people, and going to parties, and being well-liked. Scalia didn't go to so many of those functions, was comfortable with having fewer friends and more enemies. In general, women are more likely to fall into the former category. I give regular politicians a pass on this because it is practically mandatory for all but the very few who for whatever reason don't have to do personal fundraising (because of notoriety, wealth, or being well-positioned in the right district).