English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Are there currently any black or female Republicans holding office in Congress? If not, have there ever been?

2007-02-01 14:36:29 · 6 answers · asked by Ashley 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

6 answers

I got curious and did some digging for you.

Female Republicans currently in the Senate:
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Susan Collins (Maine), Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas)

Female Republicans formerly in the Senate:
Gladys Pyle (South Dakota), Vera Calahan Bushfield (South Dakota), Margaret Chase Smith (Maine), Eva Kelley Bowring (Nebraska), Hazel Hempel Abel (Nebraska), Nancy Kassembaum (Kansas), Paula Hawkins (Florida), Sheila Frahm (Kansas),

Female Republicans currently in the House:
Mary Bono (California), Marilyn Musgrave (Colorado), Ginny Brown-Waite (Florida), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Florida), Judy Biggert (Illinois), Candice Miller (Michigan), Michele Bachmann (Minnesota), Jo Ann Emerson (Missouri), Heather Wilson (New Mexico), Virginia Foxx (North Carolina), Sue Wilkins Myrick (North Carolina), Jean Schmidt (Ohio), Deborah Pryce (Ohio), Mary Fallin (Oklahoma), Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee), Kay Granger (Texas), Jo Ann Davis (Virginia), Thelma Drake (Virginia), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Washington), Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Barbara Cubin (Wyoming)

Female Republicans formerly in the House:
No time to look this one up, sorry. I'm sure there were quite a few.

NOTE: One African-American senator and several African-American congressmen are listed as having served during the Reconstruction Era. I'm leaving them off the list, as that party was a far cry from the modern Republican party.

African-American Republicans currently in the Senate:
None

African-American Republicans formerly in the Senate:
Edward W. Brooke (Massachusetts)

African-American Republicans currently in the House:
None

African-American Republicans formerly in the House:
Oscar DePriest (Illinois), Gary Franks (Connecticut), J. C. Watts, Jr. (Oklahoma), Melvin H. Evans (Virgin Islands)

So, yeah, there have been a few, definitely - obviously, they're doing a lot better with women than with African-Americans. They have fewer than the Democrats on both counts, but certainly both parties have a ways to go.

2007-02-01 14:41:14 · answer #1 · answered by sophicmuse 6 · 3 0

I propose that the top shrink for contributions be carried out away with, and that the utmost payouts in retirement nonetheless proceed to be as they are, adjusted for inflation. Social protection isn't a "supply away" application yet one that all of us make a contribution to love a discounts plan, and could be shielded from different makes use of via the government. Do you compromise or disagree and why? while you're so apprehensive approximately it then why do no longer you; first placed it decrease back into the indoors maximum sector and make to have been no can take out funds from it for his or her own activity, 2nd pay decrease back each penny you have borrowed from the two Social protection and Medicare, 0.33 take the unlawful immigrants off of it and people who come over here yet in no way paid a penny to it, and ultimately have it the comparable for each guy or woman; in different words government officers are to take part in it and in the event that they want something greater they do it on their own with out the tax payers investment it?yet, the financial stytem feeding the imbalances had in no way been particularly replaced. They, a team of scholars, stated that each and all and sundry expenses of activity may well be 3% or much less for each guy or woman to develop into prosperous if wanted (that could desire to be real additionally to taces). the final financial concern may well be, they suggested, while there have been no expenses of activity. Why no longer do this answer? the prosperous might nonetheless be prosperous. My question is: while soial protection will become a concern related to federal expenditures, why no longer artwork with a balanced or earnings funds and spend no greater beneficial than is obtainable in, as any relatives has to try for? Why no longer ban all loobying presents as a manner to get rules that serve the country? God bless united statesa..

2016-11-02 02:37:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

JC Watts (R)Representative from Oklahoma

former Representative

2007-02-01 14:43:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Socialism or Capitalism, that is the question.

2007-02-01 14:49:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

Not many I am sure. Why? Should it matter? It is a surprise?

2007-02-01 14:44:50 · answer #5 · answered by Beachman 5 · 0 3

once

2007-02-01 14:44:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers