The 45 Most Admired Republican Women Under 45

We asked members of the Republican Security Council to nominate women they admire, and to tell us why. We were thrilled by the strong reader’s response which included over 250,000 page hits. We said the nominees should be intelligent and successful women who are role models for the next generation.
RSC members were asked to nominate women who are positive examples and have a strong commitment to the principles and goals of the Republican Party. An ideal candidate would have an impressive education, a promising career, a purpose in life, and goals they want to achieve. Many past nominees were active volunteers in political and nonprofit organizations. The nominees should be women who have a dream and the drive to achieve it. They should be women who best represent the GOP’s future.
Some choices were surprising and a few recommendations suggested by our administrators did not receive the necessary 100 votes to qualify.
Every year there are many votes for celebrities who are registered Republicans but not active in the GOP (i.e. Sarah Michele Gellar, Jessica Simpson, Hilary Duff, Shannon Doherty, etc.). Celebrities who received more that 100 nominations included singer Martina McBride and model Cindy Crawford. They were added to the Honorable Mention category.
WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?
The GOP gender gap is especially significant among young women, and we want to highlight people who are not established GOP leaders. Young Republican women are rarely noticed. Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Ann Coulter already have close to 100% name identification, and they do not need our help.
The women on this page are rising stars, and the next generation of GOP leaders. We hope more women will be in senior GOP leadership positions, but that is not true today in the House or Senate. In politics you often learn more by losing then winning. GOP consultant Noelle Nikpour worked for losing candidates Asa Hutchinson (AR), Dick De Vos (MI) and Rudy Giuliani (NY). She believes “The GOP needs a new image especially with young women and college students. The Democrats have done a great job in capturing these important groups. We need more young Republican role models.”
ACCOMPLISHMENT NOT APPEARANCE
The group is limited to 45 nominees which means many outstanding women were not selected, and they will be considered next year. We asked our members to select the most admired women, and we told them this is not a beauty contest.
A dozen people nominated freshman State Representative Julia Hurley (R-TN), but she was not selected. We admire her for defeating a liberal incumbent and we know she is intelligent and hardworking. However, all the comments we received were about her modeling portfolio and previous work as a Hooters waitress.
Rep. Hurley, 30, is attractive, but our contest is about accomplishment and fostering GOP goals, not physical appearance. Hurley is a young woman with a bright future and we are sure she will be nominated in the future when the focus will be on her legislative accomplishments.
We assume it was part of an organized effort, but our guess is that we received 1,000 messages promoting radio host Laura Ingraham. Ingraham meets all of our criteria except one, she is over 45. If this group was not limited by age, the top 45 Most Admired Republican Women would probably include the women listed below.

First Ladies: Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush.
Governors: Jan Brewer, Susana Martinez, Sarah Palin, Linda Lingle and Jodi Rell.
Senators: Kay Bailey Hutchison and Elizabeth Dole.
Representatives: Michele Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mary Bono, Sue Myrick, Barbara Cubin, Lynn Jenkins, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Shelley Moore Capito, Kay Granger, Jo Ann Emerson, Jean Schmidt, Virginia Foxx, Judy Biggert, Ginny Brown-Waite, Candice Miller, Marilyn Musgrave, Thelma Drake, Heather Wilson, Deborah Pryce and Katherine Harris.
Former Cabinet members: Condoleezza Rice, Margaret Spellings, Susan Schwab, Elaine Chao, Mary Peters and Carla Hills.
Commentators: Peggy Noonan, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Linda Chavez.
WHY IS THIS GROUP NECESSARY?
When President George W. Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on November 5, 2003, he was surrounded on the White House stage by a large group of lawmakers and party luminaries. What was missing? Not one woman was present. We have to change that picture. Few women continue to be present at many Republican leadership gatherings.
IS THIS IMPORTANT?
If the gender gap was eliminated, the GOP would definitely be the majority party. While a majority of men tend to vote Republican, women usually lean Democratic and with bigger numbers. They went for Obama by a huge margin in 2008. Over 70 million women voted, against 60.7 million men, and women gave 56 percent of their votes to Obama and just 43 percent to John McCain.
Men split almost evenly. Women are 51 percent of the population and 54 percent of voters. The gender gap between Republicans and Democrats, in presidential elections, has historically ranged from 4 to 11 percent; in Pennsylvania, a key swing state, it was 8 percent in 2008.
In June of 2012, the gender gap was 32% in New Hampshire where women supported Obama by a 24% margin, while men preferred Romney by 8%. In 2004, George W. Bush lost single women by 29%, but ended up winning married women by 15%.

Advertisements

Flip-Flop: Do Not Believe Ron Paul’s Right to Life Rhetoric

 

Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Ron Paul (R-TX) are both competing for the support of anti-abortion conservatives and evangelicals in the Iowa presidential precinct caucuses.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has always claimed to be a right to life advocate, and this will be a major theme in his 2012 presidential campaign. He is already portraying himself as an anti-abortion champion in Iowa and South Carolina. The Texan says “I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection,” and he is now repeating that message in front of many anti-abortion organizations.

Abortion and the 2012 Campaign

The Congressman has gained considerable support since his 2008 campaign, and this is especially true among young people. Many of the Congressman’s views are controversial, but Republicans who dismiss him are making a mistake. The unofficial 2012 Ron Paul campaign has the enthusiasm, dedication and money to attract 20% of the vote in the first five GOP primaries leading into the 14 state Super Tuesday.

The lawmaker will be 77 next year and will not be nominated, but he clearly has the potential to be a kingmaker. The libertarians could well determine the GOP nominee, platform and future direction of the party.

The Paul strategy is to move beyond his libertarian base and to gather support from the Tea Party and religious right. Evangelicals have long dominated Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential precinct caucuses, and social issues will continue to be their dominant concern.

The religious right is also strong in South Carolina, 28 New Hampshire state legislators belong to Paul’s Republican Liberty Caucus, and the Congressman’s best state in 2008 was Nevada where he came in second.

To achieve his goals Paul has been emphasizing his record as a social conservative. He has made many impressive statements in support of the pro-life movement, but his base of support is the Libertarian Party which has always been pro-abortion.

Paul is able to straddle both groups with his “Sanctity of Life Act”. The Congressman can tell right-to-lifers he has the best legislation to achieve their goal, and at the same time he can assure his libertarian base that they have nothing to worry about, and abortion will continue to be legal. Rep. Paul says:

I’m surprised I don’t have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts and allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president’s signature. It’s a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws.

What the Congressman is not mentioning is that the Sanctity of Life Act is a federal law which would give states the authority to allow abortions. The Congressman is essentially saying he wants it to be legal to kill a child if a state agrees.

He is saying the federal government has no right to tell states what they can do regarding abortion, and this would return the nation to the situation which existed prior to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. On the one hand the Congressman says the purpose of government is to protect life, and on the other he is saying this should no longer be a federal responsibility. He believes abortion is an act of violence so it should be a state rather than a federal responsibility.

After 38 years of judicial involvement there will have to be a federal solution, so many believe Rep. Paul’s solution is impractical. By returning this issue to the states discriminatory practices would obviously be established. Anti-abortion advocates believe all unborn children deserve a right to life from the moment they are “created”. In other words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Paul: The Federal Government Should Have Nothing To Say About Abortion

Abortion is the first issue discussed in Paul’s new book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. Libertarian leader Lew Rockwell, who previously served as the Congressman’s Chief of Staff, discussed Paul’s abortion position in his recent book review: “If a community wants to permit the practice, Dr. Paul’s view is that the federal government should have nothing to say about it either way.” Ron Paul had the same position on slavery and civil rights. He is the only Member of Congress who is opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He believes if a state supported slavery or segregation it should be of no concern to the federal government. He wants the federal government to regulate very few things.

Paul will not acknowledge that human rights trump states’ rights. States’ rights is an important element of the Paul campaign, but states really have powers, not rights. It is the people who have rights.

Paul Opposes Federal Law To Ban Abortion

Similar to many liberal Democrats, the Congressman says he is personally opposed to abortion. They all say we should educate people rather than having restrictive laws. He compares abortion to prohibition, and says laws to restrict alcohol were not effective because you can not force people. In this video he says abortion laws will not work, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ctsja3awrD4#at=144

The Texan has repeatedly said abortion should be illegal, but does not want to do anything about it. He does not believe there should be any liability for seeking an abortion, and does not support a federal right to life constitutional amendment. He has repeatedly stated that a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be invalid. Despite his pro-life rhetoric, Ron Paul says nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to ban abortion, and he opposes such a federal law:http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance194.html

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

Ron Paul And The 14th Amendment

The pro-life movement wants to end legal abortion, reverse the Roe v. Wade decision, and restore legal protection for unborn children. Some advocate a human life amendment, while others believe the Constitution under the 5th and 14th amendments already provides for legal protection for all human beings. The pro-life movement has long argued that Roe v. Wade could be overturned if the Supreme Court said an unborn child was a “person,” which would then give it protection under the 14th Amendment of 1868 which says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is also unacceptable to Congressman Paul who claims the 14th amendment is part of “the imaginary Constitution.” The 14th amendment was enacted three years after the Civil War and its major motivation was to stop southern states from discriminating against blacks. The equal protection clause meant there could not be one set of rules for whites and another set for blacks. This was used to strike down the separate but equal doctrine advocated by segregationists.

The Libertarian Party Has Always Supported Abortion

Ron Paul was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for President. Their official position is “Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion.” Once again, Congressman Paul is “pro-choice for states” on abortion. He believes individual states should be able to legalize abortion if they so choose. The Congressman does not believe pre-born babies have a God given right to their own lives which no individual state may ever violate.

Ron Paul, Abortion and Morality

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and his libertarian supporters dominated the recent CPAC conference where he won the presidential straw poll for the second straight year in a row. Many of his backers claim to be conservative and right to life advocates. The Congressman makes the same claim, and has introduced his own “Sanctity of Life” bill, which is always mentioned when he is questioned about abortion.

Similar to many prominent liberals, the Congressman says he is personally opposed to abortion. They all say we should educate people rather than having restrictive laws. He compares abortion to alcohol, and says laws to restrict it were not effective.

In his recent video he says abortion laws will not work, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ctsja3awrD4#at=144

Ron Paul does say abortion should be illegal, but he does not want to do anything about it. He does not believe there should be any liability for seeking an abortion. Paul has never supported a federal right to life or basic human rights.

He always looks the other way when confronted with immorality. The Congressman says he is against abortion but has repeatedly stated that a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be invalid.

The Libertarian Party has always supported abortion. Their official position is “Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion.”

Congressman Paul is “pro-choice for states” on abortion. He believes individual states should be able to legalize abortion if they so choose. The Congressman does not believe pre-born babies have a God given right to their own lives which no individual state may ever violate.

He wants it to be legal to kill a child if the state agrees.  He will not acknowledge that human rights trump state’s rights. He is against any federal law protecting a right a life, and says it is not mentioned in the Constitution. In the same manner the Congressman is against the UN Human Rights Declaration. If there is genocide or ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia he believes it is none of our business.

If Nazi Germany has a holocaust of its own Jews, he believes it is no concern of ours. When Kuwait was wiped off the map by Saddam Hussein in 1990, he wanted no response. UN troops were present in Rwanda in 1994, but he did not want them to disarm the Hutus. They killed over 800,000 people in 100 days. Ron Paul always wants to do nothing when confronted by evil.

The Congressman always denounces Abraham Lincoln because of states rights. In 1860 the southern states said slavery was legal, and Ron Paul believes it was wrong to interfere with them. He believes the North should have left the South alone, and there should have been no Civil War. If slavery still existed in the South, he believes it would be a states rights issue, and the federal government should not act.

In 1960 these same states would not allow black children to go school with whites. Blacks could not eat in public restaurants and they were denied the right to vote. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was necessary but Ron Paul is the only Member of Congress who opposes it to this day.

Religious Intolerance on the Right


This is Jimmy Hall of Douglasville, Georgia who today said I am going to hell. Jimmy believes “The Tea Party needs to ‘weed out’ non-Christians, pro-choicers and gays. Otherwise, you are just as bad as Democrats. If someone IS NOT Christian, they are NOT very Conservative. The whole point of being Conservative is to support Biblical Principles. . . YOU are NOT a Christian, Greg, You are 100% wrong, Biblically. Obviously, God and the Bible mean nothing to you. You deserve eternal damnation. Read the Bible, if you can even read.” Continue reading

The 2012 Presidential Campaign: Iowa Will Be Center Stage For The Next Year

January 3, 2008. Mitt Romney concedes defeat to Mike Huckabee in the Iowa Republican presidential precinct caucuses. Now the 2012 campaign is about to begin.


As soon as the polls close this year, the 2012 presidential campaign will begin in earnest. There has been remarkable GOP unity since Barack Obama’s election, but this will be difficult to maintain next year as Republicans join competing bandwagons of the presidential contenders. Similar to 2000 and 2008, Republicans are expected to divide themselves into economic, social and national security camps, with significant overlap in each category. Continue reading

The Social Conservatives vs. the Regular Republicans: The Battle for Iowa Has National Implications

Because of its first in the nation presidential precinct caucuses, Iowa is often at the center stage of American politics. Statewide candidates are frequently linked to presidential contenders, and this year will be no different. A crucial battle is now being waged between social conservatives and regular Republicans, and it will culminate in the June 8th gubernatorial primary. Continue reading