…and aren’t like to have one any time soon?
Item: Department of Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer (above) is resigning from the Trump administration, the White House announced today. She was facing an internal investigation into allegations that she used agency resources for personal trips, and that she was having an affair with a member of her security team.
Item: Pam Bondi, Trump’s Attorney General, was forced to resign after multiple botches, a series of episodes of unethical conduct in the Justice Department, and being responsible for one of the most unprofessional appearances before a Congressional committee of any Cabinet member within memory.
Item: Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had to be fired in the midst of another sexual misconduct scandal as well as blatant misuse of department funds and making inflammatory and inaccurate public statements regarding I.C.E. activities in Minnesota.
Item: Hillary Clinton…well, do you need more? This week bipartisan scumbag (and longtime Clinton pollster) Dick Morris confirmed that the Bill & Hillary was pretty much a sham and a marriage of political convenience well before Bill was elected President. Admittedly, there is always reason to doubt Morris as well as the blog that first published this “bombshell” last week, but is anyone surprised? Hillary also launched the fake “Russian collusion” hoax after lying about her secret server, and had the “Worst Loser Ever” title for failed Presidential candidates locked up until Donald Trump dethroned her.
Item: Kamala Harris managed to unseat Hillary for the title of “Most Incompetent Presidential Candidate of a Major Party,” after being a babbling, useless, DEI Vice-President for four years.
Then consider how objectively awful the most prominent female elected officials around the country are. Nancy Pelosi…the Squad…Marjorie Taylor Greene…Jasmine Crockett…Lauren Boebert. Not only the elected officials either: this week we learned that the one qualified, intelligent woman making up the woke division on the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan, was a ringleader in the plot to delay the Dobbs decision’s release, even though the politically motivated stall put the lives of the conservative Justices at risk.
Could someone possibly be a worse big city mayor than Karen Bass in Los Angeles? Can anyone imagine D.C.’s Black Lives Matter pandering Mayor Muriel Bowser as Presidential material? Rep. Katie Porter, who once poured scalding mashed potatoes on her husband’s head and who held a “Fuck Trump” sign at her state party’s convention, is the leading Democratic female candidate for California Governor. NY Governor Kathy Hochul endorsed Mamdani: I can’t wait to hear how she tries to talk her way out of that one. Stacey Abrams was supposed to be rising star, but she proved to be a Machiavellian opportunist. On the GOP side, that description fits both has-beens Nikki Hailey and even has-beenier Sarah Palin.
I could go on—Susan Rice, Lori Lightfoot, the Massachusetts Woke Twins, Gov. Martha Healey and Boston Mayor Michelle Woo, and speaking of the Bay State, fake Native American Senator Elizabeth Warren— to just top off the iceberg—but the point is that the XX side of our society isn’t generating talent that justifies all of the wishing and hoping for a female POTUS.
I have theories about why our system and culture doesn’t produce competent and trustworthy female leaders in sufficient numbers, as well as why those it does produce tend to be corrupt and incompetent power-abusers. I will leave those theories for another day.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack,
I would suggest that we have not had much luck in Presidents since Eisenhower who have all the right stuff for being President. We have had some who have done some good things but most of them had/have their own Achilles heel. Identifying some women who are little different than many male counterparts as the reason for the lack of a female president fails to accept the fact that the American public wants a politician and not a leader. I would suggest that their are probably some number of women with the requisite skills and demeanor needed for the job but they may not want to subject themselves to the meat grinder of campaigning for office. It is not that they lack the stones to do it it is just that they have higher priorities than competing for power.
To be elected you have to have mass appeal. In today’s mass media driven society being telegenic, outspoken, and a willingness to compromise principles to garner votes. Would the American electorate even consider some woman that looked like and had the qualities of Golda Meir? Moreover, the electorate wants promises that the candidate will do things for them at no cost to them. Trump promised tax cuts and ending illegal immigration, Bernie wants to tax the billionaires, and Medicare for all, Hillary and Kamala lost because they offered nothing but XX chromosomes and racial identity. In Bernie’s case, he makes grand promises that cannot be delivered except through massive bankrupting debt. Nonetheless, it was the promise that attracted a following and not the actual delivery.
Trump may be somewhat of an exception because he follows through on what he promises but he is still a politician insofar as he reads the public and gives them what the largest market wants. That is what any entrepreneur does. He reads the room and then says lets go where you wanted to go in the first place. That is not the same as having to convince people to do something that will cost them something which is what leaders do.
Male candidates have relied on the “good old boy network” which was decried by females as an unfair block to their success in business and government. That system now has competition from what could be called the good old girl network such that many women favor women candidates and women vote more often than men. It does not matter if the the female candidates are as Machiavellian or corrupt as a male they just want a women making policy. The same is true for Black candidates and their racially similar supporters.
The majority of politicians of all genders who get involved in politics are ambitious but probably lack the skills to actually execute a plan and/or manage a large scale enterprise. As a result the field of quality candidates with the political savvy and management skills is limited. Consequently, as for candidates for the highest office in the land who have the leadership, temperament, and management skills embodied in one person, it is damn near impossible to find. Those in power make it difficult to encourage those with the requisite body of skills to run because those in power will seek to destroy any new entrant that could threaten the very cushy way of life so many established politicians have achieved for themselves.
If we could ban the campaign tactic of slander and innuendo and force candidates to outline exactly what their positives are and why their ideas will do a result in better outcomes for all instead of playing one group off against another we might just get better candidates. In other words, we need fewer “juicy stories” about an individuals failings and more stories on their past successes.
Agreed, Chris. That is why a Gavin Newsom, adept at visuals, marketing and messaging, and seasoned with a bit of arrogance, are so effective. While Jack is musing about reprehensible women politicians, men have no real reason to crow that they are somehow superior to women. I mean, most recently Swalwell and Gonzalez had to step down due to scandals. Others should be grabbed by the scruffs of theirs necks and unceremoniously tossed out in the street to be feasted upon by hungry rodents.
jvb
Among those listed who invite open derision, disgraced former Dolton IL Mayor and…um…born-again GA Righty Tiffany Henyard certainly deserves mention.
PWS
Jack: of you haven’t already, I strongly recommend reading Helen Andrews’ essay on what she’s calling the “Great Feminization”:
https://share.google/KvGz481SVxInALQ0z
Thank you. That’s a very powerful piece of work.
I think she’s right and wrong. Look at history and how many men killed other men over different beliefs and religions. The Spanish Inquisition was pretty male, as was John Calvin.
Where I do think she’s right is that women want to silence speech in a specific way (hurt feelings vs doctrine). In the West, there’s also polling showing women in academia are more likely to want to suppress research that is politically incorrect, which is a HUGE problem and a threat to the reason academia is supposed to even exist. Women are also the driving force behind transing kids. That’s just straight polling.
So to me, the story is complicated. People like me would want an open academia with a lot of debate, so I would be against a lot of suppression and encourage people to argue out their ideas, even if someone’s feelings got hurt (ex with recent studies showing transgender surgery does not produce long term emotional stability). It doesn’t matter how people “feel” about the facts when you are in a setting that is supposed to be about pursuing truth.
Academia is not a tea party or a dinner party or a therapy office.
Chris Marschner gets it right. Jack, you’re better than this.
I do not understand why gender is offered as an explanation for the failure of a political figure. Was Hillary Clinton’s run for the Presidency doomed because she was a woman? Weren’t her unlikable character and lack of ethics not more important factors in her loss? Kamala Harris’s run for the Presidency was doomed not because she was a women, but because she was an unqualified and incompetent DEI candidate, who was lifted upon the shield without a proper primary after Biden’s Presidential debate failure. I do not think we can draw general conclusions about the inability of women to run a country as President, or be a good politician based on a number of examples of political failure. I might be tempted to offer counter examples of male failures, such as Eric Swalwell or President James Buchanan to illustrate the futility of this line of thinking. To be honest, almost all political careers end in failure, either by being forced to step down or by losing an election; true political success is the exception and not the rule.
Do I believe that women cannot lead a country? Let’s go around the world or look at history. Margaret Thatcher was the greatest Prime Minister of the United Kingdom after Winston Churchill. Golda Meir is one of the greatest Prime Ministers of Israel. Indira Gandhi (India), Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan), and Cory Aquino (Philippines) deserve to be mentioned with honor. The reign Queen Elizabeth I propelled England to greatness at the international stage.
So whatever theory there is for the lack of success of women in American politics, let’s not jump to conclusion that the biology of psychology of women is the leading factor. I am fine with criticism of DEI, but I am not too interested in theories that are basically sexist. All politicians need to be judged based on their own accomplishments, merits, and failures regardless of gender. Therefore I consider the fact that the three persons who had to resign from the Trump Administration (Noem, Bondi, Chavez) are al women as basically irrelevant; under Trump I many men resigned or had to resign (Michael Flynn, Reince Priebus, Anthony Scaramucci, General Mattis and many more).
If only women voted, far left Democrats would win every election. If only men voted, Republicans win every election, but it wouldn’t automatically go far right. There is a very strong gender divide in this country. Its not a clean break 100%, but it predicts winners of elections, which means it’s onto something.
We are talking about the West where women have been indoctrinated into far left feminism, so I keep my generalizations limited to only the West and not women overall.
I am open to being wrong though and looking at our politics in a different way.
I am tempted to forgive a female politician who has an affair with a member of their security team. After all, they’re traveling together, he’s in excellent physical condition, and he’s being paid to pay attention to her, day and night! What’s not to like? Even if she thinks that the relationship is “consensual”, he might not feel that he has the right to resist, being in a subordinate position. Now, I know from personal experience that mixed-gender teams CAN operate in a chaste and professional way, but I can also appreciate the temptation.
It is only acceptable if you accept that women are not in control of their emotions and men are. Consider a male mentor and an adult female student/mentee and run through this same thought process. Even considering that women in such roles may initiate the relationship, it is still very, very wrong and unacceptable. If you accept that women are unable to resist such situations and men can, then women are not qualified to be in positions of authority.
Late to this party, but, I think you guys have missed Jack’s point.
It’s not that women can’t be great leaders, it’s that our political system has produced awful ones, and the only woman who was close enough to win was so terrible she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And was beaten by loose cannon Donald Trump!
I’m very much looking forward to Jack’s analysis of this.
BB
I understood Jacks point which elicited my conclusion that the electorate tends to favor aggressive and attractive candidates far more than the characteristics necessary to be an effective leader and manager. Perhaps, we might use the cognitive dissonance scale here. Women have cultivated a persona of harmony and cooperativeness and when they are seen as behaving like competitive males they get downgraded. Because males have been sociologically defined as competitive aggressive and more morally bankrupt than women bad behavior is expected so scandal can run off their backs easily. Biological sex is a non- determinant in power seeking behavior and seeking office requires someone who has the desire to be the decision makers for others. No politician seeks office to represent constituents they pander to constituents to obtain power. I think that the propaganda women have used to establish themselves as more caring, thoughtful and responsible than males serves to hurt those women who are seen not as the paragons of virtue narrative they have crafted for themselves when they run for office.
A new player enters the game… Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) has resigned in response to her being indicted for stealing money from FEMA- Covid operation. She was also about to suffer sanction from the House ethics committee promoting an almost certain vote to expel her.
“A grand jury indicted Cherfilus-McCormick for allegedly conspiring with her fellow defendants to steal $5 million “through their family health-care company on a FEMA-funded COVID-19 vaccination staffing contract in 2021.””
https://legalinsurrection.com/2026/04/indicted-florida-democrat-rep-sheila-cherfilus-mccormick-resigns/
Here’s another one. Deputy Assistant Directory of DNS, a 29-year old woman is dismissed after being sued for defrauding a man out of $40,000 in a ‘Sugar daddy’ scheme. She looks exactly like you think she would look. She allegedly used her DHS credentials to get around security at airports and get other preferential treatment as well.
How does a 29-year old get to be a Deputy Assistant Director? She just got a doctorate, master’s, and bachelor’s degree all from the same mediocre(?) school (I had never heard of the school before now). Typically, getting your advanced degrees from your undergraduate alma mater is a warning sign of an inbred sub-par student. She has had no time to gain any experience. From her ‘professional’ photos and her background, what do YOU think is the reason for her employment in this position?
(a) Her stellar academic record and insightful experience.
(b) Her parents are influential.
(c) She slept her way to the position.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2026-04-23/senior-dhs-counterterrorism-official-suspended-over-sugar-daddy-scandal
d. DEI, baby!