Conservative women say no to all GOP prez suitors

by Fran Eaton

Conservative Republican women leaders from around the nation declared over the weekend that they are not happy with any of the current "Tier 1" Republican presidential candidates, and vowed to stop progress of the likes of John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. 

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly (pictured right), who hosted the weekend Eagle Forum state presidents' pow-wow in St. Louis, said that conservatives need to engage now to eliminate leading unacceptable candidates to clear the field for true conservatives to emerge in the next couple of months.

Citing her concern about "early money,"  Schlafly said an "invisible primary" is already in progress.  "Whoever reaches the $100 million mark first will be declared the GOP primary winner way before we get to Minneapolis next August," she said.   

She urged conservatives to push back against those GOP candidates weak on social issues, because "only a Reagan-like candidate strong on social issues will win in 2008." 

Schlafly's son Andrew of New Jersey, agreed. 

"The nation is divided evenly, and the voting bloc of social conservatives will be the defining difference in defeating a Democrat in 2008.  We must have a social conservative as the GOP nominee," he said.

Meeting attendees included an RNC officer, RNC convention delegates, state GOP party leaders, UN conference observers as well as longtime influentials from California to Alabama, Texas, Missouri, Ohio, New Jersey, D.C., Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Iowa, Oklahoma, Washington state as well as Tennessee, Kentucky and Illinois.

The list of the conservative women's complaints about GOP front runner John McCain included his McCain/Feingold campaign finance law, his support of embryo experimentation, his being one of the 14 who blocked conservative judges from confirmation, among other egregious conservative snubs.

A top Arizona GOP officeholder told fellow female conservatives "John McCain is a loser" in his home state.  Over this weekend, she said, a scheme to take over the Arizona state party with a McCain puppet fell flat as independent conservative leader Randy Pullen gained re-election by a mere six votes.  "He can't win in his own Republican state!" she said.

From Arkansas, a former elected official reported that Gov. Mike Huckabee is a "pro-life, pro-gun liberal" and that he'd rather raise taxes than decrease spending.  "He's just like a Baptist preacher," the Eagle Forum national board member said,  "If they need money, they just pass the hat."  Huckabee was formerly a Southern Baptist youth pastor in Arkansas.

MA Gov. Mitt Romney was deemed by the group as "a phony," and "not to be trusted" on social issues.  Rudy Guiliani's pro-abortion and pro-gay views and his personal indiscretions took him out of consideration.  Newt Gingrich's personal life was also a problem for the state leaders.

Those Tier 2 candidates such as Cong. Duncan Hunter and Senator Sam Brownback were lauded for their pro-life stands, but Brownback's weak position on immigration caused them hesitation.

"We're very concerned about what the GOP will do in 2008.  We would like to see conservatives clear the slate early on and see someone emerge we can all support," Schlafly said. 

That hope is yet down the road.  He (or she) simply isn't on the radar yet.

****************

Illinois Review is conducting a poll, asking who you think should be the GOP presidential candidate for 2008.  Vote now.  Let us know what you think.

Comments

[NW burbs]

Go ahead and get a "social conservative" nominated on the GOP ticket. I have a hunch the country has had enough of that malarkey and would rather have a choice between two mainstream candidates.

[Fran]

"Malarkey" -- ie protecting the unborn, preserving traditional marriages, limiting government, stemming the tide of outrageous government spending, stopping universal health care . . . ?

[Mark Rhoads]

In 1980 a candidate for GOP national convention delegate from Du Page County was asked by a reporter who she favored for the nomination. She replied:

"Gen. Douglas MacArthur, despite his present condition."

The comment drew notice because Mac Arthur's condition at that time was in the grave since he had died 16 years earlier in 1964.

[bob schmidt]

re: "Whoever reaches the $100 million mark first will be declared the GOP primary winner"

Is that the John Conally history lesson?

It is interesting that they can't find anything in Newt's positions or public actions to criticize. So they go ad homimen against his personal life.

They can't find anything wrong with Brownback on pro-family issues. So they attack him for not alligning himself with the population control rhetoric that is driving the anti-immigrant movement.

One wonders if this group wants a winner. Or if they just want to whine.

[Truthful James]

Fran -- Leave a choice for None of the Above.

This is insanity. It is close to February 2007, for God's sake. The cauci and the primary don't happen until early 2008.

Today, we pick a winner from the AFC or the NFC for the 2008 Super Bowl. Is that not ridiculous?

The only thing more ridiculous is to have each of the horses raise $250,000 in ready money each day to the convention, and have the national Committees raise a ton of money each to throw into negative advertising.

The people can not afford candidates who need that amount of moola. Candidates are bought and paid for.

And then we have the other offices where campaigns must be funded as well. Positions, positions, positions, and not a word about what tehy mean, how they arrived, how they fill the empty vessels that are running.

Everybody. Go home. See you next year. No campaigning, until a month before a primary or caucus. Primary season lasts sixty days until the Convention. From convention to election is 45 days -- all that catterwauling as already created the candidate's image in the voter's mind.

Now you know why turnouts in the General Election are low. Not only does the candidate merge with the wallpaer, the voter need a nap as well.

[ScottBludorn]

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is a recent entry wothy of a look.

[Fran]

I gotta tell ya, Bob, that's an insulting and condescending comment about some of the most influential women in the GOP ranks.

A sexist comment such as "whining" is one the GOP might regret.

It's smart to express concern sooner than later. Sooner, their opinions could help select a candidate that can get the voters out to the ballot box. Later, all the "whiners" lose interest, are disgusted and leave the ballgame to those who could be winning had they played it right early on.

I'm a little disturbed with his "who cares what they think" attitude among Republicans for social conservatives, conservative women and the grassroots.

I can guarantee someone will care when we lose the chance to stop Hillary.

[Fran]

Problem is, Truthful . . . Illinois may have a primary in February 2008. . . we have to think like that. The race can be determined by what happens in February 2008.

[NW burbs]

Yes Fran, malarkey. Given what "conservatives" did to advance the causes you list in the many years they had power it does indeed appear to be malarkey.

And, America showed us last fall they have had enough of wasting time on matters of little or no importance.

I like Mark's tongue-in-cheek reply. "Reagan" is just as reasonable an answer (as Ms. Schlafly unwittingly alludes).

...And in subsequent posts, Fran, you give "Hillary" much too much credit.

[Fran]

I'm curious, NW.
What will the Dems advance with a Democratic majority in both houses and a Democrat in the White House?

You don't think it will be Hillary?

[PhilCollins]

I hope those women consider John Cox. He says that he's very conservative, and he has volunteers in 33 states. Please read his site, www.cox2008.com.

I don't know whether I'll support John. If Tommy Thompson runs, I'll probably help him.

[NW burbs]

Fran,

I don't know yet what they will advance should the Democrats end up with majorities in Congress plus the White House (as Republicans have had for the majority of the past many years).

My hope is they wouldn't squander it as the Republicans did.

And I don't know that the nominee on the Dem side will be Sen. Clinton. None of us know who the Dem nominee will be, nor the Repub nominee for that matter. There's an old saw about not counting chickens before they hatch.

[Fran]

Well, NW. . . I would say that much of the Contract for America was accomplished. That's a part of the vision we had when the GOP took the helm.

But then, alas, something happened on 9/11/2001 that changed the course of our nation. Something your beloved Bill Clinton ignored while chasing Monica around the office. . .

And because he blew off the war on terrorism and ignored the declaration of jihad on America, a GOP majority opportunity to advance freedom and economic prosperity and work on other domestic issues had to be put on hold as this issue dominated the last six years of American legislation.

The war on terrorism is real. It won't go away.

The Democrats will learn it sooner or later. Then we'll see how they fare in charge.

[TheReallyRightGuy]

This whole discussion is crazy. Its 22 months until the presidential election. The situation and candidate positions could vastly change in tne meantime.

Many countries hold national elections on 30 days notice. We are the laughing stock of the world.

[Truthful James]

TRRG --

My sediments exactly.

Fran -- Illinois will not decide the Democrat nominee, That is a huge pile of horsefeathers meant to promote Barack Obama. With the Illinois River still frozen over, there will be no way to tell who walks on on water.

[NW burbs]

"Much" of the Contract was indeed voted into practice.

And it was all soon renegged by a Republican party more bent on controlling power than keeping its promises.

You can't name a single portion of Newt's Contract that the GOP didn't eventually break or outright repeal.

And thanks for playing the fictional history game, but your rewrite of the history books is wrong.

Bill Clinton wasn't in office on 9/11/2001 -- it was your beloved George W. Bush who ignored the warnings about al Qaida and instead was trying to find dirt under Saddam Hussein's fingernails.

And, for the record, Bill Clinton did attack al Qaida directly with missile strikes. The GOP whined and moaned 6 ways to Sunday about it. Clinton never did have bin Laden in his sites though -- the majority Republican Congress wouldn't let him commit the forces. Instead, it was your beloved George W. Bush who had NATO forces that could've taken bin Laden out. For whatever reason, Bush said no. (Maybe it was because those NATO forces were French commandos. Can't have the French kill bin Laden, now can we?)

Do you really believe the lies you regurgitate Fran, or is it just for show?

[Truthful James]

Missile strikes? Lobbing a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan? Destroyin a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum? Give me a break.

Clinto did have bin laden in the sights of a special forces group, but he had his family with him and Sandy berger -- the common thief, got the word from Bill not to let them kill.

Clinton's attitude was 'let george do it."

[NW burbs]

James, aka Pete, falsely wrote: "Clinto[n] (sic) did have bin laden (sic) in the sights of a special forces group, but he had his family with him and Sandy berger -- the common thief, got the word from Bill not to let them kill."

Please cite the date and any (any) records you may have which detail when, where and how Clinton had special forces within sight of bin Laden but had Sandy Berger tell them no.

Really, James. Provide any record (military, presidential, congressional, collegiate journal...) which indicates what you just wrote.

If you can (and I'll open this up to anybody on this board since I know I'm so loved here) ...If you can, I'll stop posting on IR for two months. Heck, make it 6 months.

Here's a little secret.

You can't find any such record because that event is fiction -- never happened.

Sure, that scene was in that ABC made-for-TV movie that was funded and produced by conservatives. As you know, most of what happens on TV is *fake*.

But in reality, your lies about Clinton having bin Laden "in his sights" never happened.

Again, nice try at re-writing history -- but your version is a lie. You're welcome to believe in lies, but that just puts you in league with 4-year-olds that believe in Santa Claus and 40-year-olds who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

[tfb]

A few comments:

Brownback does not have a weak position on immigration he has a very strong position, he is positively and strongly for higher immigration levels, chain migration, amnesty, social services for immigrants, their children and illegal aliens while opposed to worker verification.

And funny, I never thougth of Schlafly as a "conservative woman" I just thought of her as a "conservative". It seems the party gets into trouble when it tries to indentify voting blocks and cater to them rather than develop a holisitc message of conservatism.

So I am so sure, identifying Schlafly as a "woman" is helpful. I respected her before anyone told me their was a womb attached. Just thought...

regards,

tfb

[tfb]

So no Tancredo, Cond Rice, Ron Pual or no "none of the above" in the poll.

Intersting. Duncan Hunter is a good choice btw.

tfb

[Williamsville-Sherman Bullets]

Conservatives should stop giving money to the Republican Senate Committee and the RNC until they shape up.

Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter are the conservatives that deserve our support in the primary.

[SAA]

John Cox is the one. Pro-life without exception, pro-business, anti-illegal immigration, for making government smaller (cutting Edu. and Commerce Depts, for starters) for junking the IRS and going with the FairTax, opposing experimentation on human embryos, and opposing gay marriage AND so-called 'civil unions'.

He's building a strong volunteer network across the nation, and deserves thoughtful consideration.

Unlike the 'frontrunners,' Cox actually has a bold, conservative agenda for America. It's time for a president like him, who has the business knowledge and common sense to do the job, not just pander to the Washington elites.

[Jerry]

Gotta side with the ladies on this one: I don't see a conservative that I like. Newt, but he would seem to be unelectable.

Brownback's position on illegal immigration is indistinguishable from Ted Kennedy's. He's fired. Mitt needs to decide what he believes before he tries to convince anyone else of it.

Yes, it's early, but not too early to evaluate the positions of candidates. Happily, the GOP is running against Democrats again, and none of them have articulated a single position on anything, other than that they hate Bush.

This gives them something in common with conservatives, but I won't be looking for their votes in '08!

[Hascat]

Just chiming in to say that Ron Paul is easily the best choice the GOP could make if they want a real conservative.

Also, somebody should inform these women that a social conservative has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected in 2008.

[NW burbs]

Still waiting for your proof that your lies are 'true' James (aka Pete).