“I’m sure I’m not the only one accepting consequences for calling out both sides of the aisle for spending too much money, putting us on the road to bankruptcy, and engaging in crony capitalism.” … “In accepting those consequences,” [Sarah Palin] added, “one must remember this isn’t Sadie Hawkins and you don’t invite yourself and a date to the Big Dance.” – Newsweek

IT’S MITT’S VERSION of the “pumas,” though they’re not nearly as formidable as the Tea Party could be if Palin, as well as Ron Paul, are left out of the convention in Tampa.

Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but she was the first woman in Republican Party history to be on the national ticket. That it came decades after Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro is part of the historical problem with Republicans and women, which is also seen in their refusal to support the Ledbetter Act, as well as Paycheck Fairness, not to mention women’s full equality.

Rep. Michele Bachmann also made history in her run for the presidency in 2012, being the first Republican female ever to win a straw poll (she won in Iowa), caucus or primary. But I don’t expect this to be honored either, because I was one of the only people to even make note of it, which I also did in my book.

It doesn’t matter if you approve of Palin or Bachmann, but they are conservative women who finally made it into the misogynistic man cave of the Republican Party. Conservatives seem to be validating the patriarchal mentality that since one female imploded, no woman should be given an opportunity to step out again. Patrick J. Buchanan represents the GOP state of mind:

Host John McLaughlin asked his show panelists, including Buchanan, Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift, the Chicago Tribune’s Clarence Page and National Review editor Rich Lowry when a woman would be elected.

Transcript as follows:

MCLAUGHLIN: When will the United States elect a female president?”
BUCHANAN: 2040 or 2050.
MCLAUGHLIN: That late?
BUCHANAN: Let’s hope so.

Clift and Page disagreed with Buchanan’s assessment, suggesting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be the one to get the nod in 2016. But Buchanan said there’s no reason to think it can happen that soon based on how the veepstakes are shaking out on the Republican side.

“But there’s no Republican vice president even now,” Buchanan said. “They’re not even considering any woman for vice president on the Republican ticket.”

Because of this well known state of mind, it really doesn’t matter what Mitt Romney does now, because the Palin snub has already hit the press. So any decision made now will be seen as a reaction to the Tea Party queen not getting an invite in the first place.

From Newsweek, who broke the story after receiving an email confirmation from Mrs. Palin: Romney’s Palin Problem: Where’s Her Convention Invite?

The Romney camp will not comment on Palin, or on plans for the convention, but one adviser associated with the campaign suggested that Palin would be prohibited from speaking at the Republican convention by her contract with Fox News. “It’s true I’m prohibited from doing some things,” Palin says, “but this is the first I’ve heard anyone suggest that as an excuse, er, reason to stay away from engaging in the presidential race. I’m quite confident Fox’s top brass would never strip anyone of their First Amendment rights in this regard.” (Fox says her contract would not prohibit speaking at the convention if she sought permission.)

Palin is keeping the dates open in late August, just in case.

Politico dances around the pointed question, because they evidently don’t check the news: Can GOP manage the mic in Tampa?

The New York Daily News: Sarah Palin still waiting for her Republican National Convention invite.

A weird blog at Washington Post offers this: Do you really want Palin, Paul and Trump at the GOP convention?…

Sarah Palin made some news recently when the Romney campaign tried to float Condoleezza Rice as a potential vice presidential pick. The anti women’s freedom queen told Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Sustren Dr. Rice “would be a wonderful vice president.” Regarding her abortion rights stance, Palin said, “We need to remember, though, that it’s not the vice president that would legislate abortion and that would be Congress’s role, and we’ll keep that in mind.”

Whether it’s Palin being snubbed by the Romney campaign so far, or the fact that there’s no real believable buzz about a potential female running mate, Mitt Romney and the Republicans are revealing why the war on women is being left at their doorstep. Women are glaringly off the radar for the Romney team, with the importance of considering females in top leadership positions not taken seriously or we’d hear a lot more buzz about more than Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

I still don’t understand why conservative females aren’t talking about this. If it’s that they don’t think it matters that reveals yet another incomprehensible gender issue on which Republicans are blind.

The patriarchal persona of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party is not going to be helped with another man on the ticket. Women of neither big two party should take this issue lightly. In fact, we should demand consideration of a female in every presidential election season from now on.

Jill Stein, Green Party, is the only female running for president in 2012.

If Condoleezza Rice was actually a real possibility for Romnny she would represent a real game-changer for Republicans. It would put some skin on their “big tent” baloney. But who believes she is? That’s why Liz Cheney would have been a smart female to vet and seriously consider, though there is absolutely no evidence she is. Cheney doesn’t have Rice’s Bush baggage, with her neoconservative credentials coming from the one and only Dick Cheney. Since Romney’s absorbed the neoconservative line, for the same reason George W. Bush did, because anyone not knowing squat about national security seems to think going to the extremes makes them “strong” on national security, Liz is a natural. She’s also a rabid conservative on the anti women’s freedom platform.

But so far Mitt Romney is only giving lip service to being an advocate for women, making the case on economics, but he won’t even say if he’d have signed the Ledbetter Act or if he’d have supported the Paycheck Fairness Act. He’s so far off the charts on every other women’s issue there’s no reason to believe on economics either.

image via Shutterstock