One of the Republican National Committee's New Year's resolutions in 2013 was:
The RNC must improve its efforts to include female voters and promote women to leadership ranks within the committee. Additionally, when developing our Party’s message, women need to be part of this process to represent some of the unique concerns that female voters may have.
This was one of the ways they hoped to achieve that:
The Republican Party committees need to understand that women need to be asked to run. Women are less likely to run for office on their own, and we should be encouraging and championing their desire to seek elective office. Additionally, the Republican Party must recognize the unique challenges that female candidates face when running for office, as well as the unique opportunities female candidates provide in winning elections. The Party should provide training programs for potential female candidates that includes fundraising guidance, digital strategy, etc.
I know, I know . . . even the recommendations come off as patronizing -- "let's coax out these shrinking violets and take up a collection for childcare so the poor dears can make time to run." They can't help themselves.
I'm sure that most Republican politicians would prefer not to bother with such fluttery issues as courting women to compete against them, but needs must when the Devil drives . . .
Per the RNC:
In 2012, President Obama won women by 11 points, whereas Governor Romney won married women by 11 points. However, it is important to note that 40 percent of female voters are single and that Obama won single women by a whopping 36 percent.
At the RNC's urging there was a springtime flurry of woman-to-woman outreach going on.
Project GROW (Growing Republican Opportunities for Women):
. . . designed to promote the role of women within our party while encouraging more women to become an intricate voice in our American Democracy.
I'm not too sure that I'd trust that "promoting" the role of women means the same as
improving or
expanding the role of women within the party and, for the life of me, I have no idea what to expect when the "intricate voices" start being heard throughout the land.
Then came the odd little program known as "14 in '14," which sounds a little like Desperate Housewives Do Politics, to capture the female 18 - 40 age group.
The program’s focus is on building relationships and a strong network of messengers for the Republican Party. The RNC is recruiting and training women who are committing 30 minutes a week for the 14 weeks leading up to the November election to help recruit other women, identify voters, support other Get Out The Vote efforts, and be Republican messengers in their communities.
Right Women, Right Now is an initiative launched by Tennessee House Speaker Beth Harwell to find women to stand as GOP candidates.
But, enthusiasm aside, according to Eliza Carney of Beltway Insider:
. . . female Republican fundraisers, PAC organizers and candidates remain badly outgunned by their Democratic counterparts, particularly in Senate contests. Democratic women in this midterm’s most competitive Senate races uniformly raised more than their GOP opponents. Polls in the Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire and North Carolina Senate races all show sizable gender gaps.
And here's why Republicans won't be fixing that situation anytime soon . . .
Just this morning, Talking Points Memo reported that Freedom Partners, a Koch brothers linked group was suddenly canceling $1 million worth of ads in Detroit where Terri Lynn Land is running for a US Senate seat that Republicans haven't won in 20 years.
For a minute or two it looked like Land might be able to pull it off, but now, closer to game day, it looks very much like donors might be pulling the plug on her.
Six days ago, Tim Alberta wrote in National Journal:
Terri Lynn Land is officially her party's nominee for Michigan's open Senate seat, and Republicans are less than inspired.
it gets worse:
"She wasn't anybody's first choice, for a variety of different reasons. And we're seeing why," said one longtime Michigan GOP heavyweight who asked not to be identified because of his friendship with Land.
But none if it – awkward interviews, sloppy campaign finances, debate performances – may end up mattering. Even with Republican Gov. Rick Snyder atop the ticket this year and poised to win reelection, Land's allies acknowledge her climb is a steep one. Her best chance of winning, they suggest, is keeping her head down and hoping for a GOP landslide.
You might remember Land as the woman who believes that working women are not really
that interested in equal pay, or, perhaps as the woman who couldn't possibly be participating in a war on women because . . .
WOMAN!!! doh
Maybe not the best candidate but, at least, she was the right sex, this year. Everyone makes mistakes, though, even Republicans - here's another one:
Erika Harold, a biracial, former Miss America-turned-Harvard Law School-educated attorney in her 30s, would seem to be the type of congressional candidate the Republican Party would break its neck to back in a race.
But, as she barnstormed across Illinois' 13th Congressional District in a maverick effort to defeat first-term incumbent Rep. Rodney Davis in March's primary, Harold came face-to-face with an extreme example of the types of challenges female GOP congressional hopefuls sometimes face.
In Harold's case, she was shut out and, ultimately, shut down.
Her requests for party data on voters who had previously cast ballots in Republican primaries was denied, according to media reports. She was shunned at political functions and potential donors were warned to stay away, she said.
Republican officials told Harold to consider running for another office.
Why?
"She chose to run against a sitting member of Congress," Andrea Bozek, spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, a GOP organization which helps candidates seeking congressional office, said last week. "There were plenty of other races she was encouraged to run for. We're a member-driven organization."
You know what? I'll take it. It certainly explains this:
Maybe one of these days Republican women will figure that they are casualties in the War on Women, too.