Skip to main content
The Latest /
Immigrants’ Rights

Schlafly: Still Candidate Shopping, but a Tough Customer

Phyllis Schlafly, who has been fighting feminism and liberalism for decades, still appears on 460 radio stations daily. She said she is “still shopping” for a candidate and she made it clear it wouldn’t be easy to win her vote. She had a very long list of demands for any presidential candidate – not only prolife but willing to make a series of pledges (veto Freedom of choice act, veto stem cell research, ban cloning, keep GOP anti-choid plank); not just pro-traditional marriage, but promising to sign legislation banning judges from finding the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Among the many other topics to which she would demand purity from candidates: The rights of parents in public school to keep their kids from learning about homosexuality or Islam. Judges who will stand up against the organized campaign to banish God, the Ten Commandments, and the Pledge of Allegiance from public schools. Reject the kind of comprehensive immigration reform George W. Bush advocated – what she called the Bush-Kennedy amnesty. Back English as our official language.

Schlafly’s long populist-sounding condemnation of the “top tier candidates” on trade and the economy made it sound like she’s headed into Mike Huckabee’s corner. She slammed candidates who took part in a recent GOP debate in Michigan for mouthing “tired old platitudes” about education, competitiveness, or how technology will save us. She said the top tier Republicans show little compassion for people who have lost their jobs to globalism.

That was a segue into national sovereignty. Schlafly is still smarting over President Bush’s dismissal of the right-wing fear that he is secretly plotting to create a North American union that would essentially merge Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. And her candidate must oppose any and all U.N. treaties.

And, bringing puzzled looks to many in the audience, she insisted that her candidate would need to pledge to veto any bill that would harm the right of inventors to own their inventions. (Where did that come from?)