Your comment “She can’t keep her husband interested,” comes off as incredibly sexist and inappropriate.

Wow. That’s the most out-of-line paragraph I’ve ever read here. No wonder the GOP has problems attracting young and middle-aged women. You should be ashamed.

Michael-
It’s hardly a surprising statement coming from a cheerleader for a party that looks to Sarah Palin for leadership. Her biggest skill seems to be keeping the GOP men “interested” (ironically, picturing her as a cheerleader).

In your warped view of the world, Larry’s failings as a husband are not only Dawn’s fault, but to such an extent that she’s now unqualified to challenge Pat Meehan?

Michael do you realize that your bio claims that you are a law professor at Rutgers? If a female student is unable to keep you “interested” that that affect your evaluation of her future in the legal profession? Because it certainly seems to be part of your criteria for a “law maker”.

I suggest that you take Rayman Solomon (the Dean at Rutger’s Law School) out for coffee and explain your views on what qualifies a woman to run for Congress. Maybe he can help you start a discussion group and invite all the female professors. I think I know what kind of conclusion would emerge from such a group:

“Maybe some people need an early vacation.”

Kevin and KG-
The sad thing about the GOP is that Mr. Livingston is probably one of their smarter members.

Nice mechanical comments, but none of you has made even the slightest case for why Stensland should be running for Congress. I’m still waiting to hear.

Wait, where did you make the case that she should or should not run?

I don’t think she should run for congress because she would restrict a woman’s right to choose and likely comply with Republican obstructionism, among many other reasons why most Republicans shouldn’t be in Congress. I also don’t think she has the policy knowledge in many areas, but I could be wrong.

None of my reasons are because Larry Mendte is scum or because she is a woman. The second part of that paragraph almost implies that she should’ve stuck with Larry Mendte because Craig Williams “always showed up with the same woman”.

Michael –

From the looks of it, you were going for off-color humor with the remark – that would fit in with the tone of the article as a whole.

I for one am willing to not psychoanalyze you, not draw big conclusions about the GOP because of it, and move on.

All it will take is an apology, a la:
I only intended that comment as a joke. Looking at it again I realize I was out of line, I regret writing it, and I apologize.

Michael,

Are you saying that married people have inappropriate relationships ONLY because they have “lost interest” in their spouse? Or that people shouldn’t run for office if their spouse has lost interest in them whether an inappropriate relationship happened or not? There are probably a number of male candidates whose wives have lost interest in them.

I’m confused on that part but it is clear that you think a woman is only useful for public office (or any job?) if she is sexually attractive. That’s really offensive and very short-sighted. Madeline Albright is divorced. The Secretary of State has had a troubled marriage. Margaret Thatcher was no beauty queen when she took office. Yet they seem to have managed to get through a workday.

Oh, and I think SC Gov. Sanford’s wife has lost interest in him. Should he resign?

Many places would fire you for that sexist comment about Dawn Stensland. There is so much wrong about what you said – but most of all it shows the problem the Good Old Boys in Delaware County will have with Stensland if she runs – I’m certain they will say something equally stupid and sexist.

I’m still waiting for a single qualification that Dawn Stensland has for public office. I haven’t heard it yet. With candidates–and comments–like this I think we’re looking at a very good Republican year, indeed.

Michael,

We are responding to what you said. You did not give any reason why she SHOULDN’T run, other than your remark about her marriage. So it appears that you are saying people with marital problems shouldn’t run on that basis.

I can think of two reasons she should run, without doing any research on it. 1) We need more women in public office so there are fewer men in office who think women’s sexuality is all they have going for them, and 2) having covered the news of the region for a number of years she is probably better informed than a lot of other candidates.

The pathways women take to power are different than those of men. The male path to political power is often through business and the military. Women tend to come through activities relating to their children (Sen. Murray of Washington as an example, or PA’s Valerie McDonald Roberts).

I will answer your question – and then you answer mine:

Dawn Stensland is qualified because the Founding Fathers say she is. They encouraged people from all walks of life to find success in their careers and then serve by running for Congress.

There has been a proud history of this with farmers, frontiersmen, businessmen, doctors, soldiers and, yes, journalists leaving their chosen fields to serve.

Are you suggesting that only lawyers, politcians and political appointees can run? That would have eliminated some of the great leaders of our day. Or is it the fact that she is an attractive woman that makes her less qualified?

Dawn is a bright, succesful journalist who has knowledge of the events, people and issues of the area. If she chooses to run, she will be immensely more qualified than most who run.

Now to my question – how does an event that she had no control over in her personal life effect in anyway her qualifications to serve? Saying “she couldn’t keep her husband interested” is the most sexist comment I have read in a long time. And if you wish to have any credibility at all you should apologize. OR we should get more information on YOUR ability to satisfy women – does that make you less qualified to write for this site? No – it is equally ridiuclous and no one’s business.

Now apologize and move on or beseen as a sexist pig who is so outdated and ull of pride he does not have the spine to admit to his own mistakes.

“Let me get this straight. She can’t keep her husband interested,”

This confirms my suspicion that you are twisted political hack looking for some attention. Not getting much at home these days, eh, Michael?

[...] PA2010 blogger Michael Livingston recently scoffed at Dawn Stensland’s rumored run for Joe Sestak’s seat in the 7th district: Dawn Stensland—Let me get this straight. She can’t keep her husband interested, and she wants to take on Pat Meehan in the 7th? Last year’s candidate (Craig Williams) didn’t win, but he always showed up with the same woman. [...]