I hope that was an op-ed and not concidered news. I also hope they had something to counter that point of view, but I somehow doubt it.

EDIT: I see from actually clicking on the link that it was an op-ed piece. Still seems way slanted though for a 'mainstream' publication. I'd be interested to pick up that issue and see if they had any balance for that article.

From NYT on the Senate vote for Women Suffarge http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1920womensvote.html

The Vote in Detail.

The roll call on the amendment follows:

FOR ADOPTION - 36.

Republicans - 36.

Capper, Cummins, Curtis, Edge, Elkins, Fall, Fernald, France, Frelinghuysen, Gronna, Hale, Harding, Johnson, (Cal.,) Jones, (Wash.,) Kellogg, Kenyon, Kayes, La Follette, Lenroot, McCormick, McCumber, McNaty, Nelson, New, Newberry, Norris, Page, Phipps, Poindexter, Sherman, Smoot, Spencer, Sterling, Sutherland, Warren, Watson.

Democrats - 20.

Ashurst, Chamberlain, Culberson, Harris, Henderson, Jones, (N. M.,) Kenrick, Kirby, McKellar, Myers, Nugent, Phelan, Pittman, Ransdell, Shepard, Smith, (Ariz.,) Stanley, Thomas, Walsh, (Mass.,) Walsh, (Mon.)

AGAINST ADOPTION - 25.

Republicans - 8.

Borah, Brandegee, Dillingham, Knox, Lodge, McLean, Moses, Wadsworth.

Democrats - 17.

Bankhead, Beckham, Dial, Fletcher, Gay, Harrison, Hitchcock, Overman, Reed, Simmons, Smith, (Md.,) Smith, (S. C.,) Swanson, Trammell, Underwood, Williams, Wolcott.

Paired.

Ball and King, for, with Shields, against: Calder and Townsend, for, with Penrose, against; Gerry and Johnson of South Dakota, for, with Martin, against; Gore and Colt, for, with Pomerone, against.

Absent and Not Paired.

Owen, Robinson, and Smith of Georgia. The vote came after four hours of debate, during which Democratic Senators opposed to the amendment filibustered to prevent a roll call until their absent Senators could be protected by pairs. They gave up the effort finally as futile.

Wait, which party was against? Which party attmepted to filabuster?? Was it the Democratic party? I guess that would mean the Republicans discovered "feminism" first and the Dems decided to use it some 60 years later.

The Democrat party was against ending slavery, against Women's right to vote, and against ending segragation at the onset of each. They then adopted (and hijacked as their own) the republican stance on these issues when they became more popular. If you look throughout the history of this country, Republicans, NOT Democrats, have been the overwhelming instrument of change and progress on major social issues. The Dems hijacked that mantra as well.

It's a shame that the republican party of the last 8 years has lost it's edge and gotten complacent. I think McCain-Palin might just shake them up a bit.

If you think ours is bad, you are ignorant of what a truly broken political system looks like. I recommend you do a quick study of Italy; that is a political system that is obviously broken.

Oh, don't mistake me, I firmly believe we have one of the best governmental systems ever made.

It's just that that's a low bar to hurdle, and there's a crapload of room for improvement.

The Democrat party was against ending slavery, against Women's right to vote, and against ending segragation at the onset of each. They then adopted (and hijacked as their own) the republican stance on these issues when they became more popular. If you look throughout the history of this country, Republicans, NOT Democrats, have been the overwhelming instrument of change and progress on major social issues. The Dems hijacked that mantra as well.

It's a shame that the republican party of the last 8 years has lost it's edge and gotten complacent. I think McCain-Palin might just shake them up a bit.