when i say the bills, you can see the categories i am talking about. i am talking about things that fundamentally affect women. anything from bills about their health specifically to marriage bills are top custody bills. . .

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2013] >> if you look over here, the yellow is democratic women, the pimping is -- the pink is republican women, the -- you can see how successful they were in pushing their agendas through. shockingly, the democrats are much more successful at getting their women's issues bills through. interestingly we have two states where republican men are quite successful at the same time. why? they were both transitioning

into republican controlled chambers. that's arkansas and texas, which kind of bookend here, both of which have changed over to republican. so it gives a little evidence foffer that long-term party change as well. here in the republican controlled chambers, you see a stark difference. republicans become more successful. particularly republican men are the most successful about legislating about women's issues. particularly republican men have the least to say about women's issues. they introduce the fewest bills and they pass the fewest bills. the south dakota democratic women did not even introduce anything, so they had nothing to pass. so while this is better, i saw all these partisan differences and they did not really match with a lot of research prior to that. so i am working on now trying to understand both of these party changes at the same time, especially this long-term change in how democratic and republican women see women's issues. but i wanted to point something

out. i think i mentioned what has been termed the party gap. i see a big difference between democratic women increasing and increasing their election to office and republican women, as someone put it, flatlining. in some of the state legislatures that is not quite the case. if you look across the bottom you see that party gap where they are increasing in state legislatures. if you look ated sd, arizona, you see there is a strong republican presence. in washington, that is actually true, too. so this is a party change and the women elected to the washington state legislature for four sample years. 1973, 1983, and 2003. you will see that the party gap is actually closed a little bit in the washington state legislature. i picked washington mostly as a

sample case. i have several other states i'm working on. that they consistently have a large number of women in their statehouse. so they are very interesting to the study. what difference does it make? very quickly i'm going to focus you on the contrast. these are the bills introduced in the same women's issues category. you can see in 1973, note the scale goes up to two, that there are not a lot of women's issues legislation introduced, and it is primarily introduced by democratic men. that starts to change a little bit in 1983. but republican men and democratic men are still largely controlling the women's issues agenda. i will point out here, this is when republican men started to introduce a lot of bills about those morality issues. as the republican party picked that up under reagan. in 1993, which is the year of the woman, all of a sudden, you see a big difference. you see women start to control

the legislation in these issue areas, particularly democratic women who have a pretty good advantage at this time. you may not remember that. but i will point out, 2003 and 2004 is when there was a very close democratic majority in the washington house. you see it becomes much more diverse. you see republican women and democratic women introducing bills to the women's issues agenda as well as men from both parties. i will point out a couple issues. men like to focus on punishment when you talk about issues. if you talk about the sex offender category, everyone wanted to regulate the sex offendor category. most regulations were focused on what kind of punishment. increasing punishment, keeping track, et cetera. women tended to focus on more societal explanations, particularly democratic women. in discrimination and health

areas, republican women and democratic women look similar. they introduce similar types of legislation. but when it comes to things like child support and child care and child custody, when republican and democratic women introduce bills, they actually introduce very different options. so that parity law that i mentioned before actually comes from washington state. in the 1993 session there were competing bills over and over to either keep the parity law on the state party books or get rid of it. i think that is a great example of the kind of competing agendas that get introduced. so just to conclude, i find evidence of short-term and long-term party effects. the long-term party effects are kind of the most interesting with this party gap. where we see parties electing different parties of women. what i can show is it has a real and important part in the outcome. thanks very much. [applause]

>> i'm barbara palmer. dennis and i have been working on this since 1998. this really gives you that individual psychological picture in the decision to actually run for office. that decision making that goes on at the individual level. and dennis and i are big picture people. we like to muck around in data. we have been looking at historical trends since 1900 trying to figure out if there are patterns that can help us explain why we have so few women in congress and in state legislatures. that is the perspective that we're coming from. to sort of dove-tail into

something that was said, women don't see themselves as qualified. this is an amazing quote attributed to he will more roosevelt. she said, "we will have reached true equality when there as many stupid women in politics as there are stupid men." [laughter] so richard has already told you some of knees numbers. i am going to repeat them to drive home the point here. in 1962 when you looked at the women in the u.s. house, there were 11 of them. there were six democrats and five republicans. so the partisan distribution among the women in congress was really remarkably equal. that was true for a really long time. however, 50 years later, as we look at the partisan distribution of the women that were elected in 2012 to serve in congress, the story is really very, very different. the split between democratic and

republican women is nearly 3-1. among the record number of 78 women elected to the house, 58 are democrats and only 20 are republicans. among those 20 in the senate, 16 are democrats, four are republicans. this gap is getting wider and wider and wider every single election cycle. we know since the early 1970's we have seen the steady if not very slow and steady increase in the number of women who have been serving in congress. there is something else going on here. if you disaggregate those numbers by party, you get a very different sort of story. this is why i think your research sort of dovetails with this really, really well. since the 1990's we have seen this huge party gap developing. it is not true just in congress. you don't just see this in the u.s. house and senate, you also see it in state legislatures. that's what dennis will be

talking to in just a minute. so we know that we have very candidate-centered elections. basically, if i wake up tomorrow, and i want to run for whatever office as a republican, i can. there is nog nothing the republican party at the national, state, or local level can do to stop me. if i get the requisite number of signatures to get my name on the ballot, i run in the election. we have a decentralized system for running candidates. at the same time we know parties do play a very important role in the recruitment of candidates. particularly at the state level. i can give you just an example from my home state of minnesota, for example. in about 10 years ago, there was a representative who was part of the democratic party in minnesota, the d.f.l.ers, and she got fired of being one of a handful of women in her own party's caucus. this is an interesting story of how agenda and party sort of

interact. she was looking around the house chamber in minnesota thinking, this is ridiculous. so she went to party leaders. it was going to be a bad year for democrats in the state. nobody wanted to be in charge of candidate recruitment for the parties. she stepped up and said, i will be in charge of candidate recruitment. but i am going to make recruiting women candidates a priority. i will open a female candidate for every single state legislative seat there is. the old boy network were like, go ahead. go for it. whatever. like that's going to happen. and she did it. she single-handedly in one election doubled the number of democrat women in the minnesota statehouse. i am not saying it went from one to two. it went from about a dozen to over 20. and the following the election cycle, she went back and asked the women who had lost to run again, they did, and they won. so they saw another spike in the

number of democratic women in the minnesota house. so the good news and bad news in that story. the good news is that in one election cycle there was huge change. and one party -- it took a party leader who happened to be a woman to make it a priority. it is not that there is, again, discrimination, i just don't think it is on the radar screen. especially for the national party and for state parties. it is not a priority. and the organizations that have started that are out there to do recruitment for the parties have really started at the state level. the republicans started doing this back in the 1980's with the lugar excellence in public service series, which was created in indiana in 1989. there are programs like that now in about a dozen states across the country. the democrats started doing this called emerge america. it started in 2002 and they have this in about a dozen states as well. these are programs external to

the parties. they are focused on recruiting women for their parties, but they are external to the party organization. so what i think is interesting, in 2010 the republicans talked a lot about how they needed to get on the ball and start redruting -- recruiting women candidates. they recruited kathy mcmorris, the head of the national republican committee, to get out there and recruit candidates which is something republicans had never done before at the national level. a lot of republican operatives said, you know what? women can actually do better in the -- in a lot of areas is they they are perceived as a bias. they get that, you know, that assumption made about them that they are not part of the old boy network. which can help when you have some scandals going on.

my favorite example of this is nicki hailey's race. she ran for governor of north carolina. she said, look, i'm different, i'm not part of the frat party politics we have seen in our state for a couple years. she was running after the out-going republican governor ran into a little bit of trouble. if you may remember, he sort of disappeared for a couple days and was off the grid for a while, and then he said he was hiking the appalachian trail, and he wasn't. yeah. it turns out he was actually in argentina visiting his mistress. you know this is true because you can't make it up. and the state legislature started an investigation and started impeachment proceedings. my favorite line from that whole story is of course his wife is the one that literally threw his stuff on the lawn of the

statehouse and wrote a book. she said she was trying to explain this to their two sons. they had a 13-year-old son. she was trying to explain what was happening, what as going on with their father. the 13-year-old said, quote, "oh, my gosh, this is going to be worse than elliott spitser." [laughter] the point is, when party leaders make this a priority, you can see change. the problem is, it just hasn't been a priority. the point is, i'm going to turn it over now to dennis to show you the numbers. kelley: i want to crush >> i want to crush any illusions that what we do is glamorous. what we do involves looking at those individually. just as one anecdote, we code

whether any primary candidate listed in the single result is male or female. now, that strikes forward a lot. barbara, no problem. how about pat? rob? so it also involves digging through some archival of anything we could find at that point. now, barb said we're interested in sort of the big picture over time. there are three steps in getting to the house of representatives. you have to put yourself out there, first of all, to run in a primary. and this pattern will become very, very familiar. so we start here in 1956, and you see sort of basically partisan equality. it tells you until the -- until you hit the late 1980's, and then the percentage of democratic women seeking the

nomination starts to exceed the equivalent percentage among republicans. the next step, who gets nominated in these primaries? there we go again. and interestingly, you see particular spikes of -- that open up that gap and then it continues in rows. so flat line, jump for the democrats, continues slow growth, and republicans relatively stable over time. this is the number of women elected to the u.s. house of representatives. and the one thing everybody talks about, the year of the woman, in 1992, but that year of the woman was disproportionately democrat. and it was a great year. there were three issues there, if you recall. the house banking scandal forced

a lot of incumbents to retire. they just don't get it in the wake of the clarence thomas hearings, and probably lesser known, why there were open sealts, that was the last year a member of congress could retire and convert campaign funds to personal funds. so a lot of people got while the getting was good. if we move over, women as a portion of their party's delegation, the gap is even more exaggerated. so democrat women are nearly 30% of all democrats in the house. republican women under 10% of the party's majority. this is aggregating over six-year cycles in the senate. we see a similar pattern.

so running from house nominees elected to the house, elected to the senate, and just to show this isn't restricted to the national level, and going back to -- there are your lower chamber of state legislatures, upper chamber of state legislatures. so essentially our conclusion from this that we can speculate is that there are forces in our political culture that have led to slow, steady growth in women seeking office and being elected. slow, steady. but those forces somehow operate disproportionately to create a very wide and alarming, according to republican discussions within the party, different between the reputation

of women in the democratic party and the republican party. thank you. now we're going to have suse step in and sort of reflect on her experience in light of what the academics may have established. [applause] >> from the nonacademic perspective. i am a lawyer by training and i do not have background in this. i love coming to panels where i can get in deep with the academic research. i have several comments. just to sort of take them in order, one of the things that richard talks about as one of the obstacles is that women don't think that they are as thick skinned as men. so what we find when we train our young women, and this is both talking to our women under 40 candidates and with the high school and college, we now train young professional women, too, we find that they often will say

they don't have the personality to run for office. so they would like to run. often they will say i really would love to to this, but i am not a good public speaker, i can't ask for money. literally they will say i can't ask. they will say they are too scared to go on camera, et cetera. what we have found is that a lot of people do stereotype themselves as "i am not this type of person." honestly, one week of training is all most of our students get. in one week of training, it is more than enough to get them on their way to not just being comfortable with these skills but actually being good at these skills. that was actually kind of a revelation to me. when we first did this i thought we would have to keep working with them over the year to really engrain it. we have an example of a student who came into the program that

absolutely refused to do some of the trainings. well, tried to refuse. we don't allow them to refuse. they would go off and run for student government at school. they would realize they are not rocket science. all of these skills are things you can learn. likewise, one of the other seven of those reasons that dr. fox talked about was talking about how women do most of the house work. we were talking about this at dinner. women do do most of the house work and do impossible jobs and do well at all of those things. the truth is, that's not good relief for men or women that women do so much of that. what we have started to realize, and we haven't done this yet, but i hope another group will pick this up, what we really need to be doing is training the men, too. when we talk to high school girls, we need to talk to high school boys, too, about responsibility and about fairness and equity as you go --

grow up and get married and have a family. these are things that can be taught. tracy was talking a lot about the fact about which issues are pressed when you have republicans in the legislature or democrats in the legislature, and the differences between men and women. one thing we hear often, how do you make sure you are only training the good ones? it is an interesting question. you know, it assumes i only want a woman elected to office if she is going to believe exactly what i believe. frankly, i usually hear this from really liberal democratic women. they are, well, how do you make sure you will not get a sarah palin in the mix? what i really believe, and we were talking about diversity

early, the democratic women, the democratic men, the republican women, the republican men, they are all pushing different issues. what we really want is we want to see a lot of different perspectives on a lot of different issues. you really need to have all of them there. the fact we talked so much about -- the panel talked so much about partisanship, it is something we talked about almost every day. it is so difficult to convince republican young women to be trained in our programs. it is something we think about all the time. it is difficult for us to get -- sometimes to get republican women to understand this cause. bud palmer who is on this board knows how hard we work on all of this. when we get high school girls to come into our programs, i think a lot of high school girls are still looking at their parents' politics. they grew up in a republican family, then they are still going to be thinking that way.

if they grew up in a democratic family, the same way. once they move into college, they start thinking for themselves. many of us say the reason they are now democratic is that they don't feel as comfortable a home in the republican party that they care about -- if they care about women's issues. we had this great panel a couple years ago where we had the head of the d.c. republican party and then we had the head of the maryland democratic party. and the democratic woman was talking all about the trages that they do for women, how they work actively to recruit women to run for office. how they actively -- they do a lot of panels and training so that women will feel comfortable and supported as they run for office. then it was the republican woman's turn. she talked about a whole lot of other thimmings, but they did not talk when training at all. during question and answer

someone raised their hands and said, tell us about what training you do for republican women in d.c. which is a small group, by the way. she said, well, we do lots and lots of training, but our trainings are co-ed. we don't see any reason to just train women. we think women and men, they are not so different, we train them together. the truth is, there are not very many republican trainings anywhere. there are so many big democratic groups that do all of this recruitment training. women's campaign forum. i could go on and on. barb talked about a lot of them. on the republican side, there is hardly anybody. the truth is that there is some magic to training women in a group of women. there really is something -- the women do still have a different enough set of obstacles that they need to be trained on their own so they can understand how things are different and how to overcome those obstacles.

let me see what else i wanted to tell you all about? the last thing, richard was talking about social media for young people. social media is one of the main reasons they think they don't want to run for office. they have seen the effect. they know the photos they have online. and these are not girls gone wild. these are top students. they are students who have done all the right things, but it is difficult in this day and age to escape without a photo of something that looks compromising. maybe you have a drink in your hand. there is a fasmse example of a woman named crystal ball. i don't know if you remember her story. she ran for congress in virginia. she ran a very good campaign. she raised a lot of money. but she woke up one day to find -- actually, the story is, she was at a very conservative

meeting. with a whole lot of retirees. as she was speaking, her phone buzzed. she saw a text from her husband that said, as soon as you are done, get out of there quickly and talk to no one. she wondered what was going on. she got out of there and called her. he said there are photos of you from a party. she was a young woman. the party was when she was 20. they are only slightly compromising. i don't know if anyone has seen these photos, but i think for many people, that would have ruined their campaign. that would have been it. here are these photos on the internet leaked and everybody saw them. she decided to confront this head on, and she talked about these photos and she said i was not doing anything wrong. she said this is a young woman

having fun. she was able to attack it head on. while she did not win her race, she saved her reputation. she will go on to do other great things, i'm sure. social media is something we need to talk to girls about, to be very, very careful, and then confront things head on if they go get called on it later. so thank you all. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the panelists who both went through odessies in airports and delays to be with us today. . .

ambition to run 30 years later in life. >> we survey the women in the house, the u.s. house, and half of them had participated in student government in high school or college. there is a drop-off. that is why i think going to college and not just running for president, but running for student government, it has a huge impact later on. >> i should preface this by saying that my discipline is english literature.

it is a question about words and categories. it is mostly directed at tracy, but everybody they used this term, how do you decide what is a women's issue? not that i think it is a bad turn necessarily although i think it is horribly over use. i am also wondering what happens to efforts to explain how the gender gap. since 1982, if you introduced the word feminist into the mix and i recognize the problems in defining it, i think he can be done for the purpose of political science and research. that is my question. >> that is the $64,000 question.

particularly for me, since my interesting is understanding women of both parties, i wanted to take a really broad definition. there are categories that disproportionately affect women, but anything can fall in those categories. something, and for republican women is business grants. that falls into my category of the quality of discrimination. republican women sometimes will phrase something in a gender with it on the surface doesn't appear to be gendered. not to said democratic women can't do that, but the issues are more easily matched with their party. i think that business grants are a good example.

you see it sometimes with foreign affairs, made a particular country. on the surface, it doesn't have anything to do with gender, a republican woman says, as a woman with two sons in combat and as a mother, the language is gendered but the bill is not necessarily. i can say a difference between the work i have done as some of the previous work is that i include conservative bills and don't define it as just women's issues. some people don't like that have some people do. i find it hard to understand how republican women legislate on women's issues. >> it could be a spark. something that i think tracy mentioned, you had a reversal

from a bipartisan approach in the early 80's. they filtered it out, and seriously, if you go back to that time, the most prominent woman associated with opposition to the era was phil chapman. it would be interesting to see to what extent that developed as a stereotype regarding attitudes toward women at that time. obviously, other factors have come in, but i think it is both a political and cultural phenomenon that opens that up. it is a continuing matter for research. >> when i was a republican --

[laughter] i wanted to run for the legislature. i had just had a baby the week before. i wanted to be a delegate to the national convention, and i was told by more than one of the republicans, remember i was end of the beginning. i was supporting him. they told me i could not do this because i did not have any money. you had to have money to be a delegate in the republican party. it doesn't bother democrats or democratic women. and also, when it comes to something like social media, the republicans that i saw, they are more influenced by the opinion of the men in the party.

the word feminist is a no-no, but democrats don't have that kind of problem. if they're caught with a drink in their hand, they say, so? you show it, there is a lot more guts when it comes to taking a chance in the democratic party. i went to republican convention in fort worth, and they had votes on era and the equal rights amendment for young people. and abortion. they both failed. i thought, what am i doing here? i can see these vast differences. for years, republicans did not speak ill about other republicans. democrats don't have a problem

with that either. out a republican primary, and i would say maybe republican women won't have this problem anymore. have things changed? >> i am doing a project the compares legislatures over 50 years, how changes have happened over time. one thing i have noticed is around the time you see this split between the democratic and republican parties, you also see a change in the type of republican woman that is elected. in to give you a really good example, one of the women who in the legislature was introducing bills defending women's rights

to get divorced and custody issues, things like that. the republican party was introducing covenant marriage. there is a fundamental opposition that did not exist in the 1970's. there was a more general non- opposition. >> first off, thank all of you for this session. i am the former steering committee chairmen. for those of you that don't know, it is a democratic .olitical pac

when we look at the disparity between democratic and republican women, the left and the right say the same things. trainn't they want to women or have these programs? we also have a staff and training program. we train young individuals to be staffed so that they immediately go to a candidate's campaign. why isn't that happening on the right? >> i can give you an example of a recent development that i think it's fascinating. about a month ago, a group of republican women got together and told the old boys, we are done with you. it is too extreme, you have such a narrow range of issues that

you're talking about. it doesn't appeal to a broader look publicans or women. they got voters to support them and they have created their own organization. i can't remember the name of it, but the primary focus is to recruit republican women. the only requirement is a need to be fiscally conservative. they have stated, we don't care what your position is on social issues. we want to ask you about abortion or gay marriage. what we do care about is going back to fiscal conservatism. and they have gotten a lot of trust within the states. if they appear to have some pretty substantial financial support and i think it will be interesting to see what happens. this is something i know is

going on in minnesota. i think it gets to both of your point about this. >> this morning, i looked up, republican women who were either defeated or got out because they were tired of it in the house, it is nancy johnson in connecticut, deborah pryce in ohio, maryland, washington, and melissa heart of pennsylvania. part of the reason they got out was feeling the pressure of the possibility of our primary challenger from the social right. others were defeated because of moderation and not getting established support when they were facing a tough race.

that is something that i think was addressed as well. >> [inaudible] is there evidence to show that women are not voting for women? >> i have done the math on this. since 1980, there are about 2% or 3% more women that vote nationally. it is small, but consistent. most of that gap is explained by convicted felons. >> your turkey -- talking about the turnout rate? >> yes, in terms of turned out,

the gap between women showing up more, if you take out convicted felons, it disappears. in terms of a party, is reflected in what your sen. >> women don't vote for women. some suggest that maybe they are more predisposed, have a vote party mostly. vote party,d mostly. >> the fact that contributes to polarization, have any of you look at how the polarization can be applied to races where women have lost?

and have you seen any instance in which there are lessons we can learn on how to deal with that? >> it is driven not necessarily by the voting rights act, but connected by gerrymandering and how the districts are drawn. we played around with this and people sort of like it. we have women friendly districts in which we look out the census data and the demographics of districts that like women. they are distinctive. women are most successful of the republican side for simplicity. those are going away because

there gerrymandering for conservative. socially and economically. they are making banharn women- friendly. >> with the same factors, and it turns out that you can. women of both parties are likely to do the best for the urban loft renewal districts. there is a neighborhood downtown that fits perfectly, but it has been gerrymandered.

women tend to win in districts that are smaller and more compact. they tend to be more urban. they do worse in these districts like you have in texas. it is ironic that you live in ohio, who have lost seats. because of the kinds of demographics. they have been carved into six districts. some of which are hundreds of miles long. all six of those are represented by men. i think the voting rights act is a piece of this, but a as a

general attempt at this extreme partisan gerrymandering that is going on. and we have a very partisan process, and i happen to live in a district where i watched them do get out, which was fascinating. my district is called the new mistake on the lake. if they run along lake erie, it could be challenging. at one point, the district is contiguous. i can say that it has a huge impact on policy, a couple of examples. they are more polarized than the u.s. house.

it was sort of shocking, they can't cooperate on anything. they can shut down the ability of democrats to pass bills which typically does not happen in the state legislature. they were sort of a messy pool for a long time because they have these districts that were kind of republican but still collecting democrats have been trying to catch up. the last 20 years, they have become a partisan legislature. that really does not match with what is currently going on in the texas house and it is really amazing how that has changed. >> i am a fan of the burnt

orange. most of my work experience has been in austin, and i wish that all my hard hit were as progressive as most people think it is. working with successful women in law, business, education, all of them the work for either separated or divorced or some kind of issue with their family. i am wondering if it plays a role in women getting involved in politics. when it comes down to sacrificing family, do not want to support you. i am worried if maybe that is part of the issue in addition to that. it is like, i want to have you by my side. whereas women, when it comes

down to choosing, they want to keep it together. is that an issue? how do we train men to except there will be women that are more successful than they are? >> i think suzanne has all the answers. >> i talked about a lot of other issues. which is something that always comes up, even high-school girls are thinking about this. it is the growth that are more conservative that think they're not going to be able to have a family and be a leader. the head of the u.s. mint was talking to a very large group of young women that wanted to be leaders in do something with their lives. a young woman raised her hand and said you have not talked about family. can you tell us how you were

able to balance work and family? one woman said, i would never be where i am today if i stopped and had a family. i thought that was the most devastating enter you could give. maybe some don't need it and they don't want it. but i think a majority of women are going to get married and they're going to have babies at some point. to say if you're going to do that you could never do this, it is a terrible message. we really showcase the women in congress that have young children. cathy rodgers actually has a special needs child. there are not very many women in congress that have young children at home, but there are enough, and they talk about one of the most powerful things, a panel where this was the question and one of the

congresswomen stood up and said this is hard on my family. she had a 13-year-old kids and said i'm not going to tell you this is not hard on my family, my children understand that what i am doing is really important and i am helping other people. i think you have to give that message, it is important that women do these jobs. and because they want to have children, they can't and you lose out on a whole generation of women running. >> this is one of the most complicated findings because women are professional and still doing a lot more. we found it does not prevent women about thinking of running for office.

it did not mean you were less likely to think about it. we haven't figured out exactly why they think it would. the r three-candidate, far more complicated. the olive knowledge in, they say that my staff does all of the work. these men have a lot more freedom to think about if they want to run for office and if it will seem like a third job. but is not stopping them from thinking about it. maybe it is an advantage in the modern era. >> did you want to have the last question? >> hello, just a short comment to barbara's point about the eleventh in minnesota, and a follow-up of why this happens in texas. it is important to realize that

one of the things that happens is that the conservative wing took over the minnesota republican party and got clobbered. there are a number of republicans that are winning again in minnesota. and they feel that they have to move to the center and get rid of that. in texas, that conservative wing has tended to dominate the party and they are winning all the time. they have no incentive to change what they are doing. a lot of what we are looking at, we find in terms of parties that start looking for new enters. when the republican party decides we can't win at the national level, you will find the republican party is starting to be much more active in worrying about getting women as candidates. but to the degree where in

texas, life is grand. it is not a problem the the party has, there are so few women active because they feel they can't control it. >> this is great. it will have come a long way. we have looked at some of these, the relationship and everything. the former congresswoman from colorado, when asked how she can be a mother and congresswoman, she said something to the effect of a brain and a uterus, i use them both. she was running for governor and she kept coming out, qualified.

why are we so intent in finding qualified women to serve with all the unqualified men. >> it was a great exclamation, thank you. we are adjourned for 15 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> c-span, created in 1979 and brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> of the next, the third program in our series, influence and image, followed by discussion about supporting global transportation systems