Double Standard for Women: Democrats and Republicans on Common Ground

As one Christian woman to another, I fully support Maine Republican House member Amy’s Volk’s legislation to erase prostitution convictions from the records of human trafficking victims. My God, what if Mary Magdalane had a rap sheet? We might not know He is risen.

But let’s put aside the merits of the legislation, and assume we are on common ground when it comes to having compassion and doing what’s right for those forced in to sex slavery.

What Maine’s political party chairmen did and said following the dismissal of Volk’s legislation by Democratic leaders is of interest to me.

"This is a Republican party and a conservative legislator who is desperate to try to realign a gender gap that their party faces at the polls, and a representative who needs to kind of soften her hard edges,” said the Democratic Chair Ben Grant, justifying the partisan smackdown of Volk’s bill.

Anyone who knows Representative Volk will attest she is hardly a woman with hard edges. “Curvaceous” is more like it. But it’s not her body Grant is talking about. For lack of a Christian term, it’s her chutzpah.

Grant’s remarks were offensive, like GOP Chairman Bennett said to his base, before dramatically demanding an apology while invoking Volk’s religion.

“For the Democrat Chairman to say that Rep. Volk is just trying to ‘soften her edges’ sounds patronizing and sexist...Rep. Volk is a Christian woman who feels strongly about helping people recover from difficult situations; she was involved in an effort at her church to raise money to fight human trafficking well before this bill came out….”

Did Bennett say something about Christianity and fundraising? That’s a familiar tune straight from the conservative hymnal. It’s not that Volk is feisty, she’s doing God’s work.

Either the weight of Catholic guilt or polling prompted an “apology” of sorts by Grant. His remorse was couched in intellectual terms, as if “patronizing and sexist” can be disproved with research or ignored like a whiny two-year old in the back seat of a Prius.

"I made several ill-conceived remarks last week about Representative Volk's proposed legislation. Since that interview, I have looked into the matter further and now understand that the issue of human trafficking does occur in all 50 states…”

Grant’s remarks questioning the need for legislation to protect human trafficking victims were ill-conceived, no doubt, and his apology noted.

But what about the remark that Volk needs to soften her hard edges? Grant blurted out what many believe but dare not say. Snarky is for guys.

The challenge for women regardless of party in the blood sport of politics is to succeed without appearing to want success. To win a fight without being scrappy. What’s admired as “bold” in men is scorned as brash in women. What’s sharp is shrill.

The Democratic Party and many “liberals” are theoretically feminist but fall short of always valuing women equal to men. There is a double standard about what’s politically correct. Likewise, theoretically the Republican Party is for “small government,” except when it comes to dictating what women do with their bodies. Prostitutes might not have a criminal record in their world, but they also have no choice.

More Than a Few Good Men

Its harder than ever to get unbiased reporting. Every ideology has its own channel, every bully their own pulpit. Social media gives anyone with a device a voice, and reduces complexity to sound-bite. The Center for Public Interest Reporting disrupts this frenetic pace just in time for the 2014 elections, and offers up the opposite of all-inclusive, short and new.

So move over Woodward and Bernstein. John Christie’s epic investigative report, The Book on Paul LePage: The ‘biggest, baddest person around’ crashes Augusta’s ‘nicey-nicey’ club, is a gripping mind-numbing narrative that reads like a very, very long Hollywood screenplay. Culled from an exhaustive number of interviews with men of Maine, Christie’s piece is jam-packed with breathtaking revelations of the inner workings of Maine’s governor and those whose jobs depend on him.  

The breadth of Christie’s Rolodex is impressive. Several important people connected to the 2010 gubernatorial race, including former GOP challenger Peter Mills, were interviewed. After losing the primary for his second time, Mills, dubbed “student of the budget” by Christie, confessed that LePage’s controversial pension reform legislation is his “single biggest achievement.” Numerous similarly profound remarks are quoted in Christie’s masterpiece. Not mentioned by Christie but worth noting is that citizens can read even more of what this Maine Sage has to say on Twitter @MaineTurnpike, where Mills works thanks to a LePage appointment.

Eliot Cutler, the unenrolled candidate who lost in 2010 to LePage, was also interviewed by Christie and quoted several times in the “book” allegedly about LePage. Cutler has never held public office and is running again for governor, but graciously found time to offer Christie this juicy tidbit, “I’ve put good practices in place in government...it’s hard work and it’s collaborative.” 

For this incisive self-analysis, it’s no wonder Cutler is described by Christie as the “classic good government independent.”

Contrast these two 2010 election casualties, Scholar Mills and Classic Good Government Cutler, with the third, “stalwart Democrat” Libby Mitchell. 

Mitchell won the 2010 democratic primary in a crowded field, and lost the general election. Of the 34 people interviewed for Christie’s investigation, Mitchell, the first woman in any state to be elected both Speaker of the House and President of the Senate with decades of experience as public servant, was not among those interviewed. The public owes Christie a debt of gratitude, however, for boiling down her expansive career to just one sentence. That takes real journalistic skill.  

Christie speaks for Mitchell briefly and with confidence, and that’s what matters.  He tells us Mitchell “did not make the pension debt an issue and believed future investment returns would solve the problem - a view the Democratic-appointed head of the pension board did not endorse.” 

What does Mitchell herself have to say? Who is the so-called “Democratic-appointed” pension expert who disagrees with her, and why? Perhaps these questions, answers, and primary sources are slated for Christie’s much awaited sequel.

What’s most telling is Christie’s airtight confirmation of what many have long suspected: Men lose elections because they are too smart; women lose elections because they aren’t smart enough.

Investigative journalism takes more than wit, and is not suited for the faint at heart. In this respect, Christie is a tiger in that jungle some call Augusta. It took guts for him to ask Severin Beliveau, a “partner in one of the state’s leading law firms” whose “bona fides are as long and as impressive as his success as a lobbyist” how he feels about Maine’s governor. Christie’s relentless, hard-hitting journalism paid off when he uncovered that Beliveau, who has gobs of business and money tied up in state politics, has nothing but good things to say about the chief executive and all state agencies he appears before. 

“There’s been an almost dramatic change in the attitude in the state agencies,” Beliveau conceded, no doubt sweating over the possibility he revealed too much to this intrepid reporter. “They’ve become more respectful, more helpful, willing to find a way to solve a problem.”

Shocking words from the Godfather of Maine politics!

And it's hard to fathom that in one of the most politicized environments in the state's history, Christie was able to track down as many consultants he did who are "neutral” with no opinion whatsoever. Citing him 8 times, Christie describes Alan Caron, for instance, “one of the most cited centrists in the state.” Caron’s objectivity and Harvard education are obvious in this bold revelation that, “the cup is half full and half empty when it comes to Paul LePage.” 

Christie’s Leviathan has more than 70 quotes from 26 men, not including the dozens of quotes from LePage. We can accept what these learned men say is true because Christie went to great length investigating and reporting their credentials. Mr. Woodbury is a no ordinary economist. He is a “Harvard-educated economist.” Mr. Clair is the Chairman of the state’s Consensus Economic Forecasting Commission, the CEO of Good Health Care Systems, a former non-partisan staffer to the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee, and holds a master's degree in public administration from Syracuse University. Mr. Caron has his master’s degree in public policy from Harvard. Mr. Peterson is a Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Linsky teaches public leadership at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. 

In the public’s interest, Christie doesn’t limit his “sources” to the upper crust, though. A man with zero credentials, Al Diamon, speaks the universal language all men understand when he is quoted saying LePage is “a boob.”

Refreshing is Christie’s chivalry. He works hard to spare the tiny handful of women identified in his opus from being “labeled” or boxed-in by degrees or professional experience. As the majority of the “public” whose interest Christie gallantly seeks to protect, his concern that these females might be stereotyped as elitist, pompous or even affected by credentials is noble. Christie’s sparing use of 11 very short quotes from just 7 women demonstrate his very excellent point: When it comes to women, less is enough. 

In fact, only two women quoted by Christie are burdened with reference to education at all, and in the case of Pola Buckley, the article is as “understated” as possible. Buckley is, a "CPA" lucky to be “appointed by the Democratic Legislature.” 

By omitting reference to Buckley’s MBA and previous experience as the CFO at a major manufacturing company and analyst at a Fortune 500 Company, the public won’t be lulled into thinking she is over-confident.

Maybe there just wasn’t room in his 19 pages of “journalism” for Christie to report the credentials of women in this “who’s who” of Maine politics. He strikes the right “balance” by not mentioning Emily Cain’s Harvard education, for example, or Mayor Karen Heck’s award-winning and impressive resume. Libby Mitchell has a law degree, but that’s nothing the “public” wants to know.

Christie’s work reminds us there are countless courageous and thoughtful heroes earning a living as political elites in Maine. What political consultant Dan Demeritt said of his former boss, Lepage, captures the spirit and grit of these men, and will undoubtedly serve him well in 2014. 

“I would walk in front of a train for him,”  he told Christie, who had no choice but to publish this very moving and selfless statement - something every Maine citizen should know. 

Every word in Christie’s 10,000+ word article is pure gold. A must-read for all Mainers, indeed all who call themselves Americans.

It's a Soap Opera Running an Airbnb with my Thrifty New England Husband

No one likes to lose and nobody wants their losses hung out to dry. Last November I did both when I ran for the United States Senate.

It wasn’t just losing the election. That was no surprise. It was losing by so much. The magnitude was sobering.

Worse was the post-election mourning period. It was like death—nobody knew what to say.  Neighbors avoided eye contact at the IGA. Party invitations dried up. My tweets were retweeted no more.  

Public rejection is not a confidence-builder.  It is hard work and hard on relationships.  The agony of defeat doesn’t stop the world from turning though, it just adjusts the focus. I knew I was writing my own script. I needed to take on a new challenge and succeed.

The big purge was step one. We had a massive yard sale to clear the deck and help clear my head. Good-bye futon mattresses, lava lamps and bumper stickers! Sayonara old toys, palm cards, T-shirts and yard signs.

Truck loads of stuff was carted out of my life, creating space for opportunity and hope to creep back in.

The Dill for U.S. Senate campaign office became the Pillar Suite—a place for people to come and enjoy a beautiful coastal town in Maine. We have a listing on the chic Airbnb website and host guests from New York City, Montreal, Los Angeles and beyond.

And it turns out I’m not such a loser after all.

“Cynthia was a terrific host, ” said Jordan from Waitsfield, Vermont.

“Cynthia took great care in giving us fresh dishes and rinsed out the coffee pot for us each morning,” commented Christine from Brooklyn.

“As a host, she was VERY accommodating and responded quickly before and during the trip to all my inquiries (thank you!). I would definitely stay with Cynthia again…”

Our guests love the robust coffee, fresh orange juice and Greek yogurt I leave in the shiny new refrigerator. They appreciate the maps and brochures I carefully organize on the desk. They snack on the variety of granola bars I arrange in a pretty clay bowl. They sleep well in the sheets and blankets I bought on line at JC Penny.

Don’t get me wrong. Life as an Airbnb hostess is not without its challenges.

Ten months ago, I worried about crafting pithy position papers on national issues, now I fret about finding soap small enough to satisfy my husband’s thrifty nature. You see, the small bars of Dove we purchase for the Pillar Suite cost as much as the large bars and both get thrown out long before their utility is expired. The waste is killing my one and only.

So, we scour our house for unused hotel soaps and bottles of body wash. We compare soap prices at CVS to Hannaford’s and Whole Foods.  We consider alternatives, and watch YouTube videos about recycling by boiling soap lumps with pieces of balsam or lemon peel.

It’s a struggle, but we’re up for it. Every day and every guest present an opportunity. Life is exciting and rewarding.

As long as we can re-invent ourselves to serve and bring comfort to others the American Dream lives on, I’m happy to report.  

Maine Dems and the Bluegrass State

When GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell worked like a maniac to kill a bipartisan transportation bill championed by Susan Collins that would put people to work fixing bumpy roads and crumbling old bridges, the senior senator from Maine publicly offered no explanation.

“I can’t speculate on why. All I can tell you is he has never worked harder against a member of his own party than he did against me today.”

McConnell's efforts to squash months of hard work included standing guard at the voting desk in the austere senate chamber while sheepish GOP senators flipped their "aye" committee vote to "nay."

Was Collins the only Republican joining Democrats on a terrible bill? Or was it Republicans abandoning one of their own and good legislation for purely political reasons? 

McConnell says he was only protecting the Sequester. That awful, foolish legislation opposite the transportation bill. He says Congress should not be spending tax payer money on things tax payers need and want. He intends to prove by example that government is the problem in the hope he can get re-elected to further disassemble it. 

Apparently most Senate Republicans agree with him, while Washington Democrats describe our Maine Republican senator as a Profile in Courage.

Independents meanwhile wring their hands about abuse of the filibuster they could help change with just a bit of courage and gumption. 

So what about the 2014 election, and Maine's profile in the U.S. Senate?  

Running against Senator Collins will be a memorable, rewarding, expensive and very lonely experience for most Democratic contenders. Trust me.

Our own party apparatus in the capital city will leave our Democratic candidate left to fend for herself, not because she is a terrible candidate but for political reasons. 

A compromise is surely in order! Maine Democrats can help elect Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Kentucky Democrat running against Mitch McConnell.

Braun, Spitzer, Garcia, Weiner, Deen and Me

I wish to apologize to anyone I may have disappointed.

I apologize first, and most importantly, to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better. I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good and doing what is best for the Party (sic). But I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.

I feel sick about it. I'm truly, truly sorry. And I hope we can kind of settle things down and hopefully move on. 

In fact, I beg for your forgiveness ... please forgive me for the mistakes that I've made.

You see me in the grocery store and feel so awkward. You bump in to me on the beach or at the court house and don’t know what to say. You are embarrassed and humiliated, and I take full responsibility.

I have hurt the people I care about the most and I am deeply sorry. I have not been honest with myself, my family, my constituents, my friend and supporters and the media.

So...we good?

America's Changing Voice

The world listened intently when Barack Obama spoke about the killing of Trayvon Martin. 

The President recounting the story of being followed in a department store and feared on an elevator was disarmingly personal, and very generous. He gave powerful voice to otherwise ignored black teenage boys. 

No other American president, Democrat or Republican, could match the depth of Obama’s remarks about the corrosive bias that pervades the lives of black men because they never walked in the shoes of a black man. Obama not only can relate to Trayvon Martin, he was Trayvon Martin.

National and international events are interpreted and reported by white men in the U.S. but because “liberal” and “conservative” angles are offered, we are made to believe there is balance in perspective. But of course there’s not. 

We are a better nation because we got an authentic reaction to the death of a 17 year-old black boy from our president, speaking from the heart as a black man. 

Imagine an America when events unfolding around the country and the world are interpreted and reported by our president speaking as a woman. 

Justice Is Not Blind

If you serve an incapacitated person alcohol and let them borrow your car, it’s no surprise that if they hit and kill someone, you will be held accountable. You will be punished and have to pay for the harm caused. The chances are you won’t repeat the mistake.

The laws that apply to you and me are meant to deter bad behavior on the one hand, and provide justice to those harmed on the other.

It may come as a surprise that the same rules don’t apply to the manufacturers and sellers of guns. These companies have a unique law on the books that shields them from legal liability. In light of the recent shooting tragedy in Falmouth, Maine, now is a good time to talk about whether Cabela’s should be held to the same community standards of care as everyone else.

The last thing on Thomas Leighton’s mind, of course, is whether he should sue Cabela’s, the company that sold the weapon his mentally ill son used to murder his wife of 48 years. He’s understandably busy coping with a death and criminal trial.

My heart breaks for the Leighton family.  I didn’t know her, but when I read about Shirley Leighton and that she would talk about her son and cry, I cried. It’s tragically unfair that this hard-working devoted wife, mother and grandmother was shot in the head by her own child as she tried desperately to get him the medical help he needed.

No words can describe the agony that the Leighton family must be experiencing on so many levels. Their story, however, begs for a solemn and respectful community conversation about our values and the justice system.

It’s not fair that after 48 years of marriage, Thomas Leighton has to spend the rest of his life alone questioning what he should have done to protect his wife.

It’s not fair that only after he killed his mother, will Andrew Leighton get the institutional support and medical attention he obviously needs to treat his mental illness.

The shocking reality is that Cabela’s will likely not be held accountable for selling the obviously incapacitated and deranged Andrew Leighton the gun he used to shoot his mother, or giving him the bullets that killed her on May 3rd.  And this isn’t fair either.

The silence of corporations following a tragedy compared to the massive amounts of corporate “speech” used to lobby members of Congress is stunning. In 2005 the NRA’s top legislative priority for its members was passage of “The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act,” a law that grants manufacturers and sellers of guns and ammunition immunity from lawsuits. Millions and millions of dollars were spent lobbying to get this legislation passed.

Since corporations are people in the eyes of the law, spending huge sums of money to get laws passed like the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act is apparently a legitimate exercise of the First Amendment right of free speech. With rights comes responsibility for the rest of us. Why should corporations get one without the other?

In the aftermath of the Leighton tragedy, the law will likely be used as a shield against any potential claims brought by the family seeking justice for Shirley’s murder, even though Cabela’s apparently sold  AndrewLeighton the gun used to kill when he was at the height of a mental health crisis and obviously impaired beyond reason.

Treating powerful special interests differently is not what laws are supposed to do.

The law that was passed to shield the gun industry from responsibility for selling incapacitated people like Andrew the guns they use to kill people like Shirley is a bad law. There is nothing to deter profit seeking corporations from doing harm, and there is no method for people harmed to seek justice.

Some will argue the law protects the gun industry from “politically motivated” lawsuits that could bankrupt weapons makers, but the U.S. gun industry racked up over $10 billion in sales in 2012, and $900 million in profit. It can afford to be held accountable for bad acts.

In America, real people are hauled in to court when they breach the community’s standard of care. A jury of their peers determines an award of money damages that will deter irresponsible and reckless behavior going forward, and fairly compensate for the harm caused. If gun corporations have a First Amendment right to lobby the United States Congress with millions of dollars in order for them to sell billions of dollars worth of weapons, they should be subject to the same standards as the rest of us, and take responsibility for reckless behavior.

If we want to deter corporations from recklessly selling guns to incapacitated people, we must subject them to the American system of justice and hold them accountable in a court of law.