“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
Yes, the nomination of a woman to the Republican Ticket came decades after the first nomination to the top ticket by Democrats. But, there hasn’t been a woman nominated since, grapple with that.
I understand that Mr. Gore is very effeminate, but it still doesn’t count.
I understand that Mr. Gore is very effeminate, but it still doesn’t count.
Was that supposed to be funny? It wasn’t.
Was it supposed to be clever. It was more funny than clever. And it wasn’t funny.
heh-heh… Good one, jjamele.
I don’t think it necessary to go all the way back to Gore……just take a gander at the jeans Obama wears to the next baseball game.
As to the gist of the OP, once again we have a liberal solution in search of a problem.
If “conservative” women have an issue with political access, they would know they either have to work to solve it or know they are accepting of the status quo. It is patently “liberal” to utilize whining as the preferred method of dealing with things.
The only conservative woman that I know that was interested in the job was Michelle Bachman. She gave it her best shot, bless her heart.
On the democrat side, is there any woman at all interested in the office? Mrs. Clinton keeps saying she isn’t. So not quite sure what the point is here.
We disagree on a lot of things, cjoblak, but I thought we were beyond the point where you used Hannity-isms like “democrat.” And this is coming from a liberal who has no love for the Democratic Party. But I’d like to at least have the conservative women who choose to post here up to the basic intro level of mature political conversation.
Oh come now.
Condoleeza Rice has already been promoted for overseeing the most spectacular failure in National Security since Pearl Harbor.
Liz Cheney is Not Qualified, period. I mean, I am more qualified than Liz Cheney. And I am NOT qualified.
It’s not a step forward to promote women to office for which they are not qualified or have shown criminal incompetence in other jobs.
You’re forgetting Republicans are the party who thought Sarah Palin was qualified, with Liz Cheney at least having her neocon talking points down. As for Rice, I’ve written many columns on her incompetence, but she won’t be heading the ticket and again, see Palin.
The Romney team better watch, I understand if they don’t want Sarah Palin to give a speech at the convention, but she was the first Republican woman in history to be on a national ticket, that should give her a invite to at least be there.
Remember, though, the Mitt is the guy who fired his only effective debate coach, merely because he garnered praise for the job he did. If Mitt can’t stand anyone getting more attention than he does, Palin is definitely a NO.