When the Republican presidential candidates were asked in Wednesday’s CNN debate which woman they would choose to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, I was disappointed with their answers. Ben Carson said his mother, Mike Huckabee said his wife and Jeb Bush named Margaret Thatcher, while Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump seemed to agree on Rosa Parks.
Gentlemen, you are Republicans and you were debating at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Didn’t the name of the most important Republican woman of the 20th century cross your mind?
Yes — Phyllis Schlafly, whose 1964 book A Choice Not an Echo became a bestseller and was widely credited with rallying conservatives behind Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign.
Yes — Phyllis Schlafly, who brilliantly organized conservative women in the 1970s and ’80s to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment.
Yes — Phyllis Schlafly, whose Eagle Forum is to this day one of the most effective grassroots conservative organizations in America. Didn’t it occur to any of these Republican candidates that, if they had named Phyllis Schlafly to be on the $10 bill, they might have instantly won for themselves the loyalty of many thousands of conservative women across the country? Especially among social conservative voters in Iowa, and among voters old enough to remember the Goldwater and Reagan campaigns, the name Phyllis Schlafly still possesses a special magic.
That was a missed opportunity.
I don’t think we should change the $10 (nor, as some have suggested, the $20), but when Republicans miss a chance to praise Phyllis Schlafly, it bespeaks an ignorance of their own party’s history — or perhaps an unfortunate ingratitude for Mrs. Schlafly’s accomplishments.
And this was after they allied themselves with him in war. Seems it was more dangerous to be Jackson’s friend than his enemy.
Or at least a decent hairpiece. But that industrial-strength combover just looks awful.
What you meant to say was, “She doesn’t represent the views of feminist ideologues.”. Fixed it for you.
Which seems to be a tradition with the Dems.
One of her sons has the misfortune to be afflicted with same-sex attraction, if that makes your small leftist heart feel any better.
Wouldn’t waste my time watching this “debate.”
Seriously, that was a question???
CNN had how many months to prep and that’s what they come up with?
Seemed mostly blasphemous that CNN was hosting at The Reagan.
[…] The $10 Answer: Phyllis Schlafly […]
The libertarian part of me is all for individualism, and being who you want to be, and in no way endorse discrimination against the gay community, but yeah, I agree, it’s an affliction. From a scientific standpoint what can be more maladaptive than homosexuality as an orientation? What would be the point of it? I understand that homosexual pairings can be situational, like in prison, or for some men living in the modern world and suffering through a plague of man hating, castrating feminists and find relationships and marriage a losing, and dangerous proposition, but as a strict orientation, and supposedly hard wired it seems counter intuitive, and a misstep.
An interesting suggestion from Dean Clancy, via Insty:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/214666/
I was kidding about you being related to Elizabeth Warren, not possible (at least from your Cherokee side…)
Alas, no. I’ll try to find it and post it.
So it was a Democrat idea…
I don’t have a problem with that. Winners and losers all throughout history. I’m sure the various peoples that got displaced by the Goths, visigoths, and Huns had similar tales of woe.
I knew … but it seemed to give me a good excuse to link to the page on Nancy Ward.
How can RSM complain about feminism’s double standards and then celebrate a woman responsible for shooting down the ERA?
I think this is it.
See, also this.
I note, I was incorrect. Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, not a dissent.
True. True. And you have to wonder why a guy would want to be oppressed by Teh Patriarchy instead doing the oppressing.
I still think Yogi is smarter than the average bear and you have offered no countervailing proof.
Because our double standards are cheeky and fun
Their double standards are cruel and tragic, which makes them really not double standards at all
Evil double standards
I’m satisfied that it is a lot of both… and in ¿jeb?’s case, massive ignorance of US history.
Yes! yes, it is only speculation on my part– I don’t know that he’s ignorant of US history, (I’m not bearing false witness, after all…), …but his body language, political positions not necessary to the “American Continental Prosperity Sphere”, the (lack of) light in his eyes when he speaks of anything other than Mexico… all leave one w/the strong impression of a guy who would lose a battle of wits with a gerbil.
Even after the gerbil had a week of sleepless nights.
Sorry. It’s just the impression he makes on me.
Not that intelligence is the most important attribute one can possess— but he already fails at honesty and patriotism.
Put Bettie Page on a tenner.
Only put him on counterfeit bills.
[…] The $10 Answer: Phyllis Schlafly Regular Right Guy Batshit Crazy News […]
You go right ahead and be a loser; I refuse.