Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Barbara Jordan.
    Ms. Dole (Sec'y of Transportation).
    Patricia Schroeder.
    
    Don't know what their politics are, and have heard that Jordan isn't
    around anymore, but they have been well known, and have contacts.

                    Carol    

Yeah for Barbara Jordan.  She's a professor of Law in Texas these
days.  I heard her on the news a few weeks ago skewering the current
government.

Martin.

    Pity Ayn Rand is dead. Then again, a woman who can think
    more clearly than most everyone else wouldn't stand a
    chance.

    Another vote for Barbara Jordan.  I'd also support Shirley Chisholm,
    for whom I helped campaign in 1972.
    					Steve

    I'm also a fan of Barbara Jordan but another woman who is considered
    by many Republicans to be on a fast career track for the job is
    Jeanne Kirkpatrick! (No comments)

    
    I nominate Pat Schroeder...She is the Sr Congresswomen from Colorado.
    She is a Feminist and proud of it.  She is on the Armed Services
    Committee with a bunch of "good ole boys" and has a real common
    sense approach to military spending.  She is working on women/children
    type issue lately.  The thing I like best is she hasn't sold out
    to get where she is AND she knows HOW to get things done in spite
    of it.  She'd be a great president!

    Amen to Pat Schroeder!  She has to be at least twice as competent
    as any of the announced candidates.
    
    --bonnie

    I heard on yesterday's news that she is thinking of running.

     One reply in this note indicates that the writer doesn't know anything
     about the politics of the women she named, but she'd support them
     anyway.  Other notes have ticked off various potential candidates, but
     I haven't seen a word to describe why this or that women ought be
     considered.  What is Schroeder's plan to reduce the budget deficit?
     What policy does (E.) Dole propose for Central America -- would she
     continue funding the contras?
     
     Is it any more sensible to vote for (or against) a candidate because
     the candidate is a woman than if she were Italian or white? 
     
     --Mr Topaz

    Ease up there, I think it's safe to assume that the noters knew
    a little more about their favorites than gender. Since none are
    announced candidates (not yet, I don't think), their positions may
    not be formulated, much less publicized.
    
    Chuck

    	Don't know anything about politics, but I'd vote for
    	Shirley Chisholm and Barbara Jordan any day. They both
    	seem to know what's going on.
    
    	Scott

    I've listened a lot to what Shirley Chisholm and Barbara Jordan
    have said over the years, and when Chisholm did run for President,
    I agreed with her views on the topics of the time.  Both appear
    to me as intelligent, honest and hard-working people who would
    really try to do the best job they could for the country and its
    people.  I'd vote for either of them in a minute over any of the
    currently announced candidates (though there are also some men
    I'd vote for if they were running).
    
    As was said, neither is an announced candidate (or is even
    considering it, from what I can tell), so it's hard for me to
    tell what their views are on the global issues of today.  But I'd
    trust them to do the job well.
    
    However, I do agree with Don's scorn of those who would vote for
    anyone just because she or he belonged to some particular class
    of people without knowing ANYTHING about their politics.  And in
    particular, I'd vote against Jeanne Kirkpatrick any day.
    
    					Steve

	I mean, how about Phyllis Schafly? As prominent a woman as any
	mentioned so far, politically active (even an activist) and
	experienced at getting her agenda across...
	
	:-)
	
	Mike

    Yeah.  Phyllis Schafly travels around the country to tell us
    other women to stay at home.  :-)
    
            Carol

    Sure, Phyllis would make a great president, and could see to it
    that women are put back in their place.   (sarcastically)
    
    Seriously, I'm with those who like Pat Shroeder.  I live in Colorado,
    but not in her district, so I can't vote for her :^(.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    If Phyllis were to get elected, I'd move!   Enough is TOO MUCH!!
    
    
    The trouble is, it seems that all the hard-working, honest, intelligent
    people that you'd want to have as president are not interested in
    the job!   So look what sorts of people ARE interested: power-lovers,
    axe-grinders,...

    Unfortunately, Phyllis is probably the best at "playing the game"
    one needs to play in order to get elected. (Who was it that said
    that the things a man (sic) has to do to become President make him
    (sic) unfit to hold the office - Truman?)
    
    
    Yes, I'd support Barbara Jordan, but I hear tell she is ill, which
    is one reason why she left politics. I also heard that the other
    reason is the aforementioned "game playing".
    
    Dawn
    

    How'bout our dear mayor, Diane Fienstien!

    First let me say that despite the fact that America was to a large extent
    founded on the basis of "no taxation without representation", I, as
    a resident, but non-citizen am taxed, but not allowed to vote. However
    not to follow that rathole: assuming I *could* vote then the following
    applies to Pat Schroeder
    
    She has said that if she runs she wants to be judged on her past voting
    record "on nuclear power, arms control, defense etc". I would vote against
    her, having listened to her speak at length on several occasions on
    C-span, and read reports of her speeches...
    
    Nuclear power: she's a "blanket anti" she appears to believe that all
    nuclear power is de facto bad and that existing nuclear power stations
    should be converted to conventional fuel (at whose expense she doesn't
    indicate).
    
    Arms control: she's a "blanket anti" she appears to believe that guns
    in and of themselves are evil devices that induce their owners to adopt
    psychotic tendencies, and strong homicidal leanings.
    
    Defence: as far as I can see she believes in massive curtailment across
    the board of all plans to develop replacements for current weapon systems,
    together with a global withdrawal of US forces closely akin to the
    isolationist tendencies of the inter war period that most historians
    largely blame for the onset of WW2.
    
    However I do agree with her when she speaks on domestic policy and
    especially welfare. Unfortunately if she implements her foreign policy
    domestic policy may well be in the hands of the Supreme Soviet before
    the end of her Presidency...
    
    /. Ian .\

    I'd like Jack Kemp if he'd stop sucking up to the anti-abortionists.
    Fat chance. Expect I'll not vote this time either.
    
    "Ronald Reagan ? The principle of 'the lesser of two evils'
    has limits."    Ayn Rand

    re: .22 --
    
    Thanks for putting that in about Pat Schroeder's broad-scale
    stands -- I don't recall ever hearing her speak on anything except
    limited issues and domestic matters before.  
    
    Her experience and expertise in matters of foreign policy are certainly
    a major question.  
    
    That's one of the troubles with choosing someone for the job.  There
    are so many necessary skills and information that you need to do the
    job of President well, and almost noplace you can learn them except on
    the job.  Not to mention that the skills it takes to get elected aren't
    much use once you're in the White House and trying to deal with a
    crisis in the Gulf of Suez or whatever.  It's a wonder we do as well 
    as we do. 
    
    --bonnie, thinking about giving up again

    Re: .24, .25
    
    Not voting is the worst possible thing you can do.  You're not
    letting your opinion be heard, and will have absolutely no right
    to complain about whoever does get elected.
    
    If nothing else, vote AGAINST someone!
    
    Re: Jeanne Kirkpatrick
    
    Great - just what we need - a Reagan clone.  No thanks - I'll
    vote against her if I ever get the chance.
    
    				Steve

    
    Well, if somebody wanted to vote for Jack Kemp and then decided
    not to vote, I don't think I'd cry too hard.
    
    It would be lovely to see a woman (Democrat) run for President,
    but I think the most important thing is voting the Republicans out
    of the White House.  The Republican platform is anti-woman,
    anti-choice, anti-black, anti-poor, anti-gay... the list goes on.
    There are exceptions; I can envision a local race, for example, where 
    a liberal Republican *might* be a more attractive candidate than a 
    conservative Democrat, but as a party, The Republicans seem to value 
    buying weapons over providing food, shelter, and medical care for
    people who need it.  
    
    
    Justine
    

�    ... but as a party, The Republicans seem to value buying weapons over 
�    providing food, shelter, and medical care for people who need it.
     
     Killing the hawks does not always increase the dove population.
     
     Can you be sure that a Democratic President would have policies notably
     more pro-socialist that the present incumbent. Or would they merely
     spend less on defense (without increasing the welfare budget)?
     
     /. Ian .\

    re .27
    hear hear!!
    
    Lee

    	Enough of the nonsense about the Reagan Presidency being
    against social programs.  Reagan and his advisors have taken a basic
    stance against creeping socialism at the federal level.  The states
    must assume the responsibility for the social programs.  The federal
    gov't must enact the laws which insure that the states assume their
    responsibilities.
    
    	I believe it is long passed the time when a woman should be
    the president or the vice president.  I believe the first woman
    to hold either of these jobs will be on a Republican ticket.
    
    	The Democrat Party (it is not the Democratic Party), if they
    win the next election, will set in motion a series of events, based
    on massive increases in federal taxes, which will result in another
    depression.  The taxes will be necessary to pay for the increase
    in social programs mandated and run at the federal level.  If you
    believe my opinions are grossly in error, please spend a few moments
    reflecting on the wonderful Carter years.  Once you have properly
    digested the Carter years, I will recommend additional reading (a
    decent Economics 101 text and the Federalist Papers might add some
    light).
           
    	I am not a lover of Reagan, nor am I a Republican.
    
    Douglas

re: .31:

I actually lived in a country that had a "democratic socialist" government.
Citizens of that country enjoyed a higher standard of living, a lower overall
infant mortality rate, longer vacations (legal minimum is 5 weeks/year),
longer life span, lower crime rate, and (when *all* of the hidden taxes are
added up) a comparable tax rate for the middle classes. 

Democratic socialism creates wealth by

-- making education cheap and accessable, even to people without family
   savings.

-- making health care cheap and accessable, because keeping people healthy
   is cheaper than curing their illnesses.

-- raising the quality of life.  The three extra weeks vacation pump
   money back into the economy, both directly (tourist/leasure industry)
   and indirectly (requiring larger workforces).

-- minimizing unemployment and eliminating "the culture of poverty,"
   thus removing one of the major causes of crime.

These are all, of course, women's issues.

Martin.

    Thank you Martin.  As a proponent of "democratic socialism" I believe
    that we would all be better of with bread instead of bombs.  I also
    do not fear "the evil" soviets.  Tell me what they would do with
    all the uppity women in this country?
    
    (By the way that last sentence is tongue in cheek.)
    
    _peggy		(-)
    			 |	Since the Goddess is in all
    					there is good in all
    

    I've found it very interesting, that in a note titles "Ms. ____
    for president in 88" The names Reagan, Kemp, Rudman, and Nunn have
    been offered as candidates. 
    
    Argh.
    
    Dawn
    

From U.S. News & World Report  Aug. 3 1987 p.13 "Washington Whispers"

I won't type this all out, but a lengthy item points towards Rep.
patricia Schroeder entering the Democratic Presidential race.
"(A)ides say her mind is made up: She wants to run."
"Even if she doesn't become the party's nominee, a strong showing
could put her in line for the vice-presidential slot or - if the
Democrats return to the White House - give her bargaining power to 
win one of the two cabinet positions she has long coveted, Secretary
of Defense or Attorney General."

In light of .22 I am frightened at the prospect of this person as
Secretary of Defense. As Attorney General she would be better than
Ed Meese, but who wouldn't ?  As Vice President she would be 
effectively neutralised as Bush has been. I think that is the
most likely outcome, and the best.

One thing for sure, if she runs, the Democratic field will hence-
forth be known as "Snow White and the seven dwarves."  You heard
it first right here !  ]:-)

    re: Schroeder announcing
    Too bad she wasn't announced back when they had all the Dem candidates
    wives together to say what they'd do as First Lady. I wonder how
    the whole thing would have changed if they had to invite a gentleman
    to do the same thing... :-}
    	Mez

    Mow the lawn :-)

    What do they call Mrs. Thatcher's husband??

    
    Maybe what we need is a lesbian president, so we can have a woman
    president and a First Lady, too...
    
    :-)
    
    DFW

.40>         What do they call Mrs. Thatcher's husband??

    I think they just call him "Denis". They don't seem to make a big deal
    out of the fact that he's the spouse of the head of the government.
    Would it have been different if the PM was a man (that is, would the
    PM's wife be required/expected to do various things that Mr. Thatcher
    doesn't do?).

    					-- hs

     The Thatcher/US comparison isn't really valid, since Thatcher is only
     the head of the government, while the US President is both head of the
     government and the head of state.  In the UK, the latter position is
     held by Elizabeth II, where HRH's Chief Squeeze, the Duke of Edinburgh,
     dutifully marches a respectable distance behind her. 
     
     --Mr Topaz

    "HM's Chief Squeeze", Don..."HRH" is oor Charlie (and Andy, and...)
    
    						in pedantry,
    						=maggie

     re .44:
     
     Indeed.  (I'm so used to writing notes about Margaret -- the royal
     one, that is -- and flatulence that I lost my head.)
     
     In somber chagrin, 
     
     --Mr Topaz 

RE: .27

"The Republicans seem to value buying weapons over (the Democrats) providing
food, shelter, and medical care for people who need it."

How about electing someone who will just leave us all alone, and let us spend
our tax dollars the way we feel we should?

I guess that makes me a Libertarian...

Jim.