Women politicians more effective than men?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Turns out you can add politics to the list of things that women do better than men. It's a long list.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/01/25/art.fem.politocian.jpg caption=""]
The Daily Beast reports on a new study that shows female politicians are among the most productive and persuasive ones in the country.
This research in the American Journal of Political Science is the first to compare the performance of male and female politicians. It shows women do a better job at securing pork for their home districts and shaping policy.
From 1984 to 2004, women politicians won about $50 million more a year for their districts than men did.
As for policy, women sponsored more bills and attracted more co-sponsors than their male counterparts. The female politicians' bills also made it further through the legislative process and got more media attention.
The authors say this is because women do a better job at "logrolling, agenda-setting, coalition building and other deal-making activities."
They suggest women make better politicians because they have to. Consider that women hold less than one in five of all national seats, so the ones who make it to Washington better be pretty good.
The study concludes that in order to overcome any bias against women in leadership roles, these female politicians have to work even harder to be seen as equals.
Sound familiar?
They call their study "The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect," a reference to the first African-American player in Major League Baseball. He was also one of the greatest of all time.
The comparison here is that because of racism during Robinson's era, black baseball players had to be better than whites to make it to the big leagues.
Here’s my question to you: Why are women politicians more effective than men?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano be fired?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In light of the botched Christmas Day terror attack - some are suggesting it's time for heads to roll in the Obama administration. And quite a few fingers are pointed at Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/01/06/art.napolitano.jpg caption="Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano."]
For one thing she couldn't wait to utter the inane comment, "the system worked," right after someone tried to blow an airplane out of the sky. She later clarified her remarks…but the damage was done.
Republican Senator John Kyl, from her home state of Arizona, told reporters he no longer feels "totally safe" with his former governor in charge of homeland security... Kyl said this with Arizona's other Senator - John McCain - by his side. Quite a different tune from last year - when both Republicans cheered her nomination. Other Republicans have actually called for the secretary's resignation.
Defenders of Napolitano say it's one of the toughest jobs in government - managing 20-plus agencies and a nearly $50 billion budget. And there is precious little in Janet Napolitano's background that qualifies her to be in charge of homeland security.
At the end of the day, the buck stops at the top. It's one thing for President Obama to express righteous indignation - which he did yesterday - but quite another to lead by example. The president is already developing a reputation for being indecisive, wishy-washy, governing by consensus, etc. Here's a chance for him to break out of that.
Besides, if he fired Napolitano, it would likely get a lot of other people's attention in government.
Here’s my question to you: In the wake of the latest attempted terror attack, should Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano be fired?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Does Gov. Rendell owe Gov. Napolitano an apology?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/12/03/art.napolitano.ap.jpg caption="Rendell mused that Napolitano would be perfect as the head of the Department of Homeland Security because she has 'no life.'"]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Ed Rendell is the governor of Pennsylvania. He's been in politics long enough that he should know you don't say stuff around an open microphone that can come back to bite you in your situation.
And if you're a male chauvinist you should be extra careful.
Yesterday Rendell was commenting on the nomination of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to be the head of the Department of Homeland Security. There was an open microphone nearby and we were treated to Rendell's musings that Napolitano would be perfect for the job because she has "no life." She has "no family." She can work 20 hours a day protecting the homeland.
These are the mutterings of a moron. CNN's Campbell Brown wrote a commentary in which she asked if Michael Chertoff, the current head of Homeland Security or Tom Ridge, the first head of Homeland Security were hampered in the performance of their duties by the fact that both men are married and have children.
At the same time we move forward and elect an African-American president we have the governor of Pennsylvania dragging his sexist knuckles along the ground insulting a fellow governor.
Governor Rendell did issue a clarification today during a press conference on budget reductions. Rendell said what he meant to say was that Janet Napolitano is a person who works 24-7 just like him.
Here’s my question to you: Does Ed Rendell owe Janet Napolitano an apology for saying she has “no life?”
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments