Sunday, July 24, 2011

Despite progress, women only occupy a scarce number of council and mayoral seats in surrounding towns - The New Britain Herald (newbritainherald.com)

By Steve Collins        New Britain Council Members
Staff Writer
Posted by Frank Smith at 24.7.11

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Way to go Herald, you even slipped in a free plug for Suzanne Bielinskias as she runs for common council. You suck herald and your one sided reporting will put you out soon enough.

July 24, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...

I don't care about sex or race of eleted officials as long as they work for ALL the people and p;ut politics aside. That does NOT happen whether it is local,state, or federal government. That's why we are in such a mess!

July 24, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...

Perhaps that is becuase Deomcrats have historically fought to prevent women from even having the right to vote.

Just like blacks owing their equal rights to the Republican Party, it was the Republicans who over heavy Democratic opposition in the various state legislatures voted to ratify the 19th amendment to grant women the right to vote:

August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures.


Democrats have always been the party of oppression while the Republicans have been the champions of individual liberty and rights for over 200 years!

If it were up to the Democrats, women would still be barefoot and pregnant forever!

July 24, 2011 at 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats--DEMOCRATS WERE DETERMINED TO NEVER ALLOW BLACKS TO ACHIEVE EQUAL RIGHTS--INTENT ON ENSLAVING THEM FOREVER UNDER DEMOCRATIC OPPRESSION!

THANK GOD FOR THE REPUBLICANS FINALLY FREEING THEM FROM THE CHAINS OF THE DEMOCRATS!

July 24, 2011 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...

" Anonymous said...
Way to go Herald, you even slipped in a free plug for Suzanne Bielinskias as she runs for common council. You suck herald and your one sided reporting will put you out soon enough.

July 24, 2011 11:22 AM"

DITTO ON THIS COMMENT AND THE SAME IS TRUE FOR EVA M. DID YOU SEE HER COMMENT? TALK ABOUT DUMB.

July 24, 2011 at 2:42 PM
Anonymous said...

Eva M. has always shown herself to be so dumb that I have often wondered if there is even enough brain power in her head to even control breathing.

July 24, 2011 at 8:22 PM
Anonymous said...

Did you ever notice how attractive and slim that female Rebublicans are?

If these Democratic women were not getting paid, do you think that they would be on the Council?

We need to go back to the at large system. We are electing bad candidates from neighborhoods where there is not much choice and we are stuck with Mcnamara's choice. " It is not working out for us".

July 25, 2011 at 6:32 AM
Anonymous said...

"We need to go back to the at large system. We are electing bad candidates from neighborhoods where there is not much choice and we are stuck with Mcnamara's choice. " It is not working out for us".

July 25, 2011 6:32 AM

True, the comment above says what needs to happen; it won't because of Democrat numbers on the Common Council.
In 2002, the current way Nb elects the Council was changed. The change was engineered by none other than our do-nothing, State Rep., Tim O'Brien and forged through by dirty tricks expert, Phil Sherwood and a last minute, tie breaking vote by Charter Revision Commission Chairman, William Rivera.

There was another, more fair plan offered, a plan that would have preserved Minority Party (any one) Representation, a plan that would have elected all Council members from the five existing "Wards."

Each ward/district would nominate three candidates but only a maximum of two from any one of the parties would be elected.

July 25, 2011 at 7:34 AM
Lou Salvio said...

Frank:
Another BS story about "equality" and inequality!
Just because more than 51 percent of the overall population are women does NOT mean that 40% or 50% of elected officials should be women.
When you start electing or appointing by a numbers quota, you stop getting the best people.

This attitude hasn't worked for racial, ethnic, educational (magnet schools) or gender considerations. And please, don't confuse this with Tile IX things, glass ceiling stuff or other worthwhile subjects.

Simply because someone is a woman, or a man for that matter doesn't mean they be good public officials, mayors, legislators, etc. And to say that woman are more empathetic, c'mon Eva; Ilsa Koch, Marie Antoinette, Casey Anthony? Help me, I need oxygen. As MLK said, it's "... the content of their character ..." As far as this story is concerned, there's nothing new here, I give it a BIG YAWN! "

July 25, 2011 at 7:47 AM
Lou Salvio said...

Frank:
Another BS story about "equality" and inequality!
Just because more than 51 percent of the overall population are women does NOT mean that 40% or 50% of elected officials should be women.
When you start electing or appointing by a numbers quota, you stop getting the best people. Do you remember Phil Sherwood insisting that Sylvia Cruz' replacement had to be a Puerto Rican?

This attitude hasn't worked for racial, ethnic, educational (magnet schools) or gender considerations. And please, don't confuse this with Tile IX things, glass ceiling stuff or other worthwhile subjects.

Simply because someone is a woman, or a man for that matter doesn't mean they be good public officials, mayors, legislators, etc. And to say that woman are more empathetic, c'mon Eva; Ilsa Koch, Marie Antoinette, Casey Anthony? Help me, I need oxygen. As MLK said, it's "... the content of their character ..." As far as this story is concerned, there's nothing new here, I give it a BIG YAWN! "

July 25, 2011 at 7:51 AM
Anonymous said...

Based on this convoluted whacked out Democratic logic there would be many towns in Connecticut where it would become illegal for a black or Hispanic to run for office because their populations are overwhelmingly white.

Given the long history the Democratic Party has for opposing equal rights for blacks and fighting to stop women from being allowed to vote, could this be their true motive?

It is hard to know for sure because when Democrats speak, you can't pay any attention to what they say and must follow what they do. Their long fight against giving blacks equal rights is a perfect example of this "Democratspeak" double talk. While purporting to be all for civil rights in public, the Democrats in the Senate used every dirty trick to block passage of the various civil rights acts. Because of the oppressive Democrats, it took Republicans a decade to overcome the Democrat's determination to prevent blacks from gaining their equal rights as Americans, and even when they no longer could prevent it, the Democrats filibustered for days in their last ditch efforts to stop blacks from being equal to whites. When he was a Senator, JFK himself voted against blacks having equal rights to him, but for some unknown reason blacks seem to revere the very man who went on record saying they are not his equal because of their skin color.

It is unfathomable that any black person would ever willingly affiliate with a party that has such a long record of blatant racism or that any woman would affiliate with the same party that fought long and hard to prevent them from having the right to vote.

Apparently Democrats have become so good at lying that they can even convince their former slaves that they are the champions of equality against the facts that they were in fact the slave owners and oppressors.

July 25, 2011 at 11:50 AM
Lou Salvio said...

"There was another, more fair plan offered, a plan that would have preserved Minority Party (any one) Representation, a plan that would have elected all Council members from the five existing "Wards."

Each ward/district would nominate three candidates but only a maximum of two from any one of the parties would be elected."

Frank:

To clarify the cpmment quoted above, a little, there would still be 15 Council members, three elected from each Municipal election voting district. But, as the commenter above has said, no more than two from each district from the same party. In this way, "MINORITY PARTY" representation would be preserved. It's important to differentiate between "minority" representation and "minority party" representation. The election of Council members would not be limited to Republican or Democrat parties but would include electing persons from other parties who were qualified in some way to run for office.
I hope this is not more confusing.

July 25, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...

Imagine that, blacks flocking to register with the party of former slave owners, the same party who fought to prevent them from having equal rights. Who would have imagined?

July 25, 2011 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Eva M. has always shown herself to be so dumb that I have often wondered if there is even enough brain power in her head to even control breathing.

Eva M. Nickname - New Britain's "Tokyo Rose".

July 25, 2011 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...

and always thought the M. stood for "Mushbrain"

July 25, 2011 at 10:20 PM
Anonymous said...

Mushbrain would at least imply that somewhere in that empty cavern there is actually a brain.

July 26, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Web Tracking
Online Florist