Peter Wehner Attacks Phyllis Schlafly

Boy, the list of female conservatives being attacked by Pete Wehner is growing longer.

Wehner, a man who said that 1.7% champion Karl Rove is, ” brilliant, he’s a genius, and he’s a deeply wonderful human being,” has different whose little finger has more depth of character the both the Bushies combined.

Wehner refutes Schlafly’s assertion that the Hispanic vote is not something the GOP should be concentrating on by saying,

The notion that there’s “not the slightest bit of evidence” that Hispanics are going to vote Republican is quite wrong. George W. Bush won roughly 40 percent of the  in 2004.

But Wehner is either purposefully ignoring her point, or he’s vacant.

Schlafly said, “The Hispanics who come in like this are going to vote Democrat. And there is not the slightest bit of evidence that they are going to vote Republican.”  Meaning, those who are being talked about as able to “come out of the shadows” because of another attempt by Congress to fix a broken system, are not likely to vote Republican.  Why?  Wehner knows why, just as , ” It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation.”

But then, Wehner is a proponent of big government, as in his generous tribute to Peter Berkowitz, who wants libertarians and conservatives alike to accept that big government is here to stay, so get over it already.

Schlafly is unwavering in her fight for limited government and the civil society.  She is viewed  by most who know little of her, as a social conservative, something the Bushies, including Jebby and Rove and Wehner want nixed from the Republican party.  So, it is easy to see why he attacks her today.

He has attacked Sarah Palin, just as he attacks Schlafly, but with the years of experience, wisdom and intelligence that both of these women exude, I can imagine it must somehow threaten his thought process enough to attack them.  But it is his thought process that is deeply flawed and blind to reason.

When a person like Wehner, who sees nothing wrong with big government, tries to push his view, he comes upon a troublesome hurdle, namely, that since the demographics of the last election show a nation who wants big government, well by golly, Republicans can offer it.  The problem with that, is that the nation can no longer remain what it was meant to be.  And that helps one understand just how much Wehner holds America in regard.  For if you cannot appeal to all people with the intent of the founding, the goodness of the individual, the preciousness of family, and the good Lord above, the country is completely lost.  But hey, Pete’ll take it.

All we gotta do is ignore what is good right and true, and give the Hispanics what they want, the African-Americans what they want, the left-handed Albanians whatever they want, because pandering obviously works when a Bush does it.  Right Pete?

What Schlafly pointed out was true.  11 million people who are not clamoring to become citizens now under a broken system, are not more interested in voting for a Republican just because they voted for legislation.  They are not steeped in Americanism, and neither apparently, is Wehner.

Can they be?  Yes, but as MacDonald pointed out, ignoring the rule of law is not how to do it, and it does not make this country stronger.

The other main point that Schafly made was that the moderate wing of the Republican party continues to lose in huge contests because they are not getting enough of the white vote, the blue collar people, the Reagan Democrats too.  I can speak directly to that.

The Bushies like Wehner and Rove are pushing the party in a direction the grassroots does not want it pushed.  Mostly because we grassroots warriors are the closest to our constituencies.  We cannot go out, because of this push for amnesty and Toomey’s backing of gun legislation and so on, and ask for their votes when they are ticked off that these Republicans are throwing away our core principles.  To ignore what your own people, who have voted for you in the past, know about their party is disastrous.

I can attest that the grassroots are on fire over this massaging of the party, and many are refusing to vote already.  It may be my job to reach them, but I can’t argue with logic, deeply held beliefs and America’s founding,  leave that to the Bushies.

It does no good to continue to push for moderation, give a principle there, screw the idea of limited government and so on, and figure by brute force, your bastardized view of the people of this fine country will resonate.  It does not, and Peter Wehner has not the intelligence to realize that the American people are smarter than he is.

This nation is patriotic, even if Wehner is not, and Phyllis Schlafly is right on the money.

People like Wehner reject Reagan.  They say things like, the nation is past Reagan, we can’t go back, it’s over.  But what they do not realize is that Reagan was a man who talked about principle when the Republican party was failing even worse than it is now.  Wehner’s counterparts of the era said the same things he says now.  That the nation is different, that Reagan was trying to go back to Coolidge-era economics, that he was simple, that he couldn’t appeal to the nation.  But he won in two landslides while George H.W. Bush was vying mostly to become a veep.

Reagan led, and when Phyllis Schlafly was younger, she was right there with him.  Wehner not only attacks her ideology, but her age, but what can you expect from a guy who really sees little goodness anywhere?

I’m sure Pete will write again about his grand vision of a losing Republican party.  Data-driven BS will only tick off your base more, keep it up.


Please follow and like:
  • Pingback: ()

  • Pingback: ()

  • freesmith


    Wehner's argument is pure “Debate Club,” the response of a speech writer, not a conservative tactician. He wants his words to be king. He ignores 90% of blacks voting for Democrats and 70% of Jews and 70% of non-white immigrant groups voting that way too.

    He ignores them because even he couldn’t convince anyone that those groups had been won to the Democrat Party and liberalism by better arguments and superior results. Those groups’ allegiance had been won by appealing to their narrow self-interests and to their animosities – what they want and whom they dislike.

    Why not do the same with white voters? Simple: because Wehner finds that distasteful – not ineffective, distasteful. He would actually rather lose with his dignity intact.

    Schlafly killed the Equal Rights Amendment. I guarantee you Wehner would have supported passing the ERA, just like he’d rather reform Obamacare and wants to pass “comprehensive immigration reform.”

  • task

    Wehner must believe that people who read his column are either idiots or else we have to assume that he, himself, is one.

    I have been struggling, since the Bush Administration, to discover some significant concrete indication that suggests that Hispanics will vote republican. There is absolutely none. Yes, many will and the majority of Cubans will because they have been chastened by communism but the very admission that 40 percent have voted for Bush is conclusive by itself; that means 60 percent did not. Actually the percentage was lower but was still a long way from a majority and since Ronald Reagan’s amnesty, Hispanics, by large margins, voted for democrats. And they do so for good reasons, at least for themselves, but not for America and for the Constitution upon which she was founded. Heather McDonald is correct regarding the affiliation between Hispanics and core democratic principles. But those core principles of a generous safety net and strong government intervention in the economy are not constitutionally derived; they should be alien concepts for immigrants whose main interest in America should be liberty, equality and self-reliant opportunity; wealth transfer for some at the expense of others is not equal liberty for all.

    Why should republicans become like democrats and become more inclusive based on nationality or race? That flies in the face of our origins, our constitution, the 14th Amendment and anti-discriminatory policies. Equality is not based upon nationality or gender. Even the concept of a safety net is discriminatory unless people pay back as they do with college loans or, except in very special cases, every American could be awarded the same survival allotment, whether needed or not, which is supported by a flat or fair tax. Of course this nation is currently so broke by practicing inequality for so long that we are fiscally unable to do this despite Bernanke spending 85 billion each month to support banks holding overvalued RE equity.

    Latinos and their leadership, such as La Razza, want inequality. They want inequality of affirmative action, of food stamps, of housing, of medical care, of childcare, of welfare and of generous other entitlements; and they want it abundantly so. This is not what republicans, at least conservative ones, stand for. Benjamin Franklin stated that people should feel uncomfortable in their poverty. Today they are made to feel positive about themselves because life has purportedly made them victims and they are told that republicans are contributing to that depravity; the minute they arrive over that border the system is designed to capture the vote of the immigrant by baiting them through dependency and then glorifying it. As added proof just ask why any real sense of concern for the taxpayer, and not a sense of entitlement, would, unashamedly, encourage Hispanics to have more children that requires additional entitlements? And I must add that both Hispanics and Black Americans support traditional marriage yet they both have a very high illegitimacy rate that is not consistent with the family values concept that is supposed to be one of the major reasons why, at least for Hispanics, they would vote for republicans.

    Republicans should understand, and if they don’t they are at least as dumb as Wehner, if not more so, that any immigration plan, border security tantamount or not, is political suicide for the party and anathema for American values and that means for America itself. Once upon a time, when people came to America for liberty and opportunity they were fast-tracked into traditional American culture because their political beliefs coexisted with their productive, self-reliant experiences and that remained consistent with why they sought to immigrate and become citizens in the first place. Democrats may have attempted to secure the vote of Irish and Italian immigrants via unions and entitlements but the availability of entitlement programs were nowhere near as institutionalized and abundant as they have now become as part of government bureaucracies established and run primarily by liberals. Today, because of government, it requires generations before Hispanics, via economic success, competing in a free market, will understand why conservatism is on their side. Democrats are racists that need to be properly characterized by republicans for who they really are and for what they are doing and already have done.

    As far as sound border security goes, if Hispanics truly were a real and believable potential source of republic voters, an impenetrable wall would be built within six months via a democrat sponsored bill even if the money had to be printed by the Bernanke currency machine.