VIDEO: Phyllis Schlafly On the GOP Establishment, Karl Rove, Mitt Romney and Other ‘Losers’

This year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), I was fortunate enough to get some time to interview one of the most redoubtable conservative activists in the nation, Phyllis Schlafly. In this eighteen minute video you will encounter a woman that is extremely vital and at 89-years-of-age still sharp as a tack.

As is her wont, Schlafly eschewed kid gloves with her frank discussion of the GOP establishment and how those effete, east coast, country clubbers are at war with the conservative, Midwestern grassroots.

Take Schlafly’s description of “the establishment,” for instance:

Now we have the same battle again. It’s the establishment against the grassrooters. …The establishment likes a certain type of person who calls himself a moderate, will do what he’s told, vote the way he’s told, and not talk about certain issues. They don’t want him to talk about the social or the moral issues they don’t even want him to talk about the national defense issues. Which is all a terrible mistake because that’s where all the money is. In fact, it’s the breakdown of marriage that’s costing us nearly a trillion dollars a year.

On that subject, Schlafly had little good to say about Karl Rove. She feels that Rove represents the establishment and that he and they do little else but give us a stream of “constant losers.” Perhaps even on purpose.

Schlafly notes that Rove only won 9 out of 31 races his group, American Crossroads, spent their millions to get elected in 2012. “A dismal result,” Schlafly pointed out.

She faulted Rove for wasting all his millions on TV ads while Obama spent his on a “very efficiently sophisticated ground campaign.” She also said that she thinks Obama’s most successful effort was to leverage early voting to his favor.

Schlafly then decried the wide-spread voter fraud that Obama and his crew perpetrated in 2012 and continue to perpetrate in every election.

As to Mitt Romney, Schlafly proclaimed his campaign so badly run that “he couldn’t even run his own staff.” This made her ask, “so, how is he going to run the country?”

Schlafly’s latest book is No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom, a book that chronicles Obama’s overreaching and pervasive secularist policies that represents the greatest government-directed threat on America’s religious freedoms.

By the way, if you don’t recognize my voice, you can see my fedora on the dresser right behind the grand lady.

Man Sells Autographed Jim Carrey Photo to Buy a Gun
Florida’s Thug Police Chief Eric Liff is Wrong About Everything
  • Par4Course

    While Phyllis Schlafley has been a gallant warrior since she backed Barry Goldwater with A Choice Not An Echo, I humbly suggest her views are not a sound guide for the future of either conservatism or the Republican Party. Ms. Schlafley and her ilk who objected to Mitt stayed home last November to give us the Obama encore. Reagan had it right when he said “The perfect is the enemy of the good” and “The 11th Commandment is: Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republicans.” Attacking Rove and Romney will not win any elections. How many Rebublicans that Ms. Schlafley financially supported won election in 2012? Does she have a better 2012 winning percentage than Crossroads?

    • superdestroyer

      If Rove does not want people saying bad things about him, then Rove has to stop being so stupid.
      One of the causes of failure of the Bush II Administration was Rove’s insistence that each policy be disconnect from all other policies. Rove believed he could niche market on each issue separately and ended up advising an Administraiton that has a muddle, confused policy mix with no thought to the long term consequences of those policies.

      Rove is too stupid to understand that you cannot support the cheap labor, open border Republicans and hold on to the votes fo the white middle class.

      • And then you’ve got Obama – who just doesn’t give a damn what his policies produce.

        • jim_m

          Sure he does. But then his policies are not for the benefit of the public but for the benefit of the government,

  • Wild_Willie

    She is a class act and she should be listened to. With a big majority of the country center right, why does the GOP keep picking Center left? We haven’t had a true conservative since Reagan. ww

    • Par4Course

      So is your theory that, although conservative Republicans haven’t been able to win their party’s nomination, they could have won the general election? The Democrats out campaigned Republicans in 2006, 2008 and 2012. These losses were not because GOP candidates were all “Center left.” The Democrats were able to sell and re-sell the most liberal US Senator because BHO was able to get his message across, while his Republican opponents lacked the ability to spell out a clear, consistent vision to the American people.

      • Hank_M

        2006 was a direct result of Bush fatigue. After 6 straight years of nonstop BDS, the country was finally convinced that the repubs had to go.

        2008. McCain was a lousy candidate and BHO was given a free pass on everything. His lack of qualifications, his background, “locked” records, everything. If the media had spent 1/10th the resources on Obama that they used destroying the Repub VP candidate I doubt Obama would have been elected.

        2012. The only message the dems, media and Obama sold was that the extremely decent and financially successful Romney was a cold hearted woman hating, business destroying inarticulate selfish bastard.

        Romney’s mistake was letting them get away with it.

        So yes, I think ww is right.

      • Wild_Willie

        Yes, that is exactly what I think. This country’s candidates seem to try and please the NYC and California crowd first. Romney was very far from conservative yet the MSM and Obama presented him as if he was a far right zealot. That is why a few million conservatives stayed home. Conservatives and conservative first and GOP second. This country needs a strong conservative candidate. ww

        • Par4Course

          If McCain and Romney were such terrible, incompetent candidates, how did they win so many primaries and their party’s presidential nomination? Based on your thinking, there is no hope for ever overcoming Obama-ism (Obam-unism?). According to what you’re saying, the only candidates strong enough to win a general election are too weak to win the Republican nomination. That makes zero sense.

          • jim_m

            Most states do not hold closed primaries where only registered party members can vote in that party’s primary. Also the media, which is decidedly far left, skews reporting to favor candidates that are left of center. Given that only left wing candidates will get any good press the system favors nomination of a candidate that is to the left of center and not appealing to the base so the GOP has difficulty getting the base to turn out.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    And who was Phyllis Schlafly’s favorite senatorial candiate, in the 2012 election, whom she gushes over, in the interview with Huckabee? “Every once and while there comes along a candidate who is the kind of candidate we would like to have for public office ..I am just 1000 percent behind …(wait for it).. Todd Akin”. Both she and Akin appropriately, are complete intellectual morons, and this represents the future ‘legitimacy’ of the GOP? Great!

    • LiberalNightmare

      Speaking of intellectual morons, hows Biden these days?

    • jim_m

      and this represents the future ‘legitimacy’ of the GOP?

      Yes, and we know that you really understand the idea of legitimacy, that’s why you believe fully in warmism despite the fact that warmist models declare that actual warming is now nearly beyond the 95% confidence limits. In other words, by their own calculations they are full of crap as their models declare that they are confident that the current reality could not ever occur.

      Yet Steve carries on like a true religious zealot refusing to acknowledge the science that demonstrates the falsity of his beliefs. Even when that science comes from his co-religionists.

      Sorry there Steve, but you wouldn’t understand the concept of legitimacy if it slapped you in the face.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        From the original Economist article which was the main referenced site in the Weekly Standard post.”The climate may be heating up less in response to greenhouse-gas emissions than was once thought. But that does not mean the problem is going away.”….

        So what does all this amount to? The scientists are cautious about interpreting their findings. As Dr Knutti puts it, “the bottom line is that there are several lines of evidence, where the observed trends are pushing down, whereas the models are pushing up, so my personal view is that the overall assessment hasn’t changed much.”

        But given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified: a downwards nudge on various best estimates from 3°C to 2.5°C, perhaps; a lower ceiling (around 4.5°C), certainly. If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, climate sensitivity would be on negative watch. But it would not yet be downgraded.

        Incidentally jim you said you could not be a moral person if you not believe in God, but then I am accused of being a religious zealot., and you base all morality on something that there is no proof exists ,or will ever be proof- Have you ever thought why?.. maybe just maybe because he doesn’t exist in the first place.

        • jim_m

          Actually, the quote you make is not from the site that I link but from the Economist article they are dissecting. I think that their comment is rather to the point

          So The Economist story, though hedged with every reservation to Keep Hope Alive, is nonetheless a clear sign that it’s about over for the climate campaign.

          It isn’t that you need to reduce your estimates, you need to throw out the models that made such asinine predictions. What is telling is that you are completely unwilling to admit that the hysterical warnings you and your co-religionists have been making have been completely fraudulent and that there is nothing behind them but ignorance and hysteria.

          That is why you know nothing about legitimacy. You cannot even admit that your whole premise for more than the last decade has been false.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            it is anything but a clear sign..the alarming rate has been nudged downwards..that is all

          • jim_m

            Here is a list of your failed enviro fear mongering

            1. Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

            When it didn’t get cold the CRU changed their minds. Now they are saying that the horribly cold/snowy winters are caused by Global Warming

            2. “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the
            heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

            Actually if there are crop failures it is because of the cold and bad weather. And as far as the drought NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation — rain and snow — has increased slightly over the century.

            3. “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972. In 2008 Dr. David Barber of Manitoba University said “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time,” (ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free).

            Actually Arctic Ice, is thicker and temperatures are not rising.

            4. “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

            Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period. And that’s the NASA numbers which have been known to have a problem accuracy, because instead of collecting data from temperature stations, NASA makes assumptions regarding what the temperatures should be.

            5. “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life magazine, January 1970.

            Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, “but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the following predictions.” With the possible exception of the atmosphere directly over congress, air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

            6. “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in “Earth Day,” 1970. Remember before we were warned about global warming, we were told that the Earth was facing an Ice age.

            7. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

            8. “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be
            extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

            9. Al Gore sold his scary global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, shown in almost every school in the country, with a poster of a terrible hurricane. Former US president Bill Clinton later gloated: “It is now generally recognized that while Al Gore and I were ridiculed, we were right about global warming. . . It’s going to lead to more hurricanes.”

            Contrary to the hysterical nonsense being spewed by global warming experts, the past 50 years has been about the quietest on record for US hurricanes. The 1940s was the worst. Researchers at Florida State University concluded that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years. This year there were plenty of hurricanes in the Atlantic, but they were generally weak and did not hit land. Pacific hurricanes were at a record low in 2010.

            Go to my link for additional fun and links to warmist hysteria that has been proven false.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Conservatives are brainless frogs on climate change

            In any case, focusing on the fast-feedback sensitivity perhaps made sense in the distant past when there was some reasonable chance of stabilizing at 560 parts per million atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (double the preindustrial level) and some hope the slow feedbacks might not matter.

            Indeed, the scientific community focused on a doubling I think in part because they didn’t believe humanity would be as self-destructive as brainless frogs and ignore the increasingly dire warnings for over two decades now.

            As I explained in Nature online back in 2008 (here), once you factor in carbon-cycle feedbacks, even the uber-cautious Fourth Assessment report (AR4) of the IPCC makes clear we are headed toward 1000 ppm (the A1FI scenario).

          • jim_m

            I’m not even going to bother with your religious/ideological link to thinkprogress. That alone demonstrates that you aren’t interested in science but in your religious faith.

            Sorry, if I think that your apocalyptic neo-malthusian faith is a bunch of crap and has had more failed prophecies than a third rate cult. You won’t even address those failures because doing so would first force you to acknowledge error in your infallible warmist religion.

          • Just the latest example of the Progtards trying to shift the goalposts after their predictions are contradicted by subsequent events.

            That didn’t work, let’s try it some more!

          • fustian24

            Firstly, there is no issue with the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Simple matter of physics that.


            There’s a real question about whether levels of CO2 in the atmosphere drive climate or if they just modulate it some.

            So, “climate scientists” have constructed elaborate models to predict the effect of CO2 levels on global temperature. But how do you verify such models?

            You compare your predictions with actual temperatures. And for a while, they could claim some fit. Many of us questioned the huge fudging and data manipulation, but AGW proponents could claim with a straight face that the “science” was working.


            So what?

            This all assumes that temperatures are supposed to be the same forever and the only thing varying is CO2.

            Prove it.

            Temperatures vary all on their own and have been since long before humans walked this earth. Just take a look at some geology to be astounded at the scale of natural climate change.

            The fact that for a short time AGW proponents had a concurrence between fudged temperatures and their fudged predictions never proved anything. It’s always been a scam.

            And now, they can’t even do that.

            We have a name for models that don’t predict the data: wrong.

            One of the things that most people fail to understand is that a climatologist is an earth scientist that decided to take the global warming money. They come from the disciplines of meteorology, paleontology, geology, sedimentology, geophysics, and even statistics, and physics, but what they have in common is they decided to take the global warming money.

            Finding a climate “scientist” that believes in global warming should be as surprising as realizing the new Pope is Catholic. Once you understand that, it makes the “science is settled” canard ridiculous to any thinking person.

      • The alter’s empty and the sacrifice is gone…

  • azwi

    I said many time before and I’ll say it again. John McCain and Mitt Romney were the two worst, unqualified, out of touch candidate that the GOP ever had. Excluding George W. Bush.

    • Hank_M

      I’d have to disagree about Romney, and no, he was never my choice.

      Romney was qualified.

      As to being out of touch, did you know that he tried different blue collar jobs when campaigning for Gov of Mass? From his book….

      “During my campaign for governor, I decided to spend a day every few weeks
      doing the jobs of other people in Massachusetts. Among other jobs, I cooked
      sausages at Fenway Park, worked on an asphalt paving crew, stacked bales of hay on a farm, volunteered in an emergency room, served food at a nursing home, and worked as a child-care assistant. I’m often asked which was the hardest job – it’s child care, by a mile.
      One day I gathered trash as a garbage collector….”

      Truth is he is a far better person than he ever got credit for.

      • But such stories didn’t fit the narrative. So they never happened.
        Instead, we’ve got King Obama – who never actually accomplished anything but being an electable figurehead. Who had no idea how to govern, compromise, or even make an appearance of an attempt to stick to a budget. Who’s idea of negotiating with the other side was “Suck it up, losers – I WON! Who’s the President? ME! Who gets to say what goes on? ME! You losers don’t have ANYTHING that I want to hear! So – screw all this work shit, I’m going on vacation!”
        Man, didn’t we dodge a damn bullet by having HIM elected as President? /sarc

  • I stopped paying attention to Phyllis Schlafly when she started claiming that President George W. Bush was plotting with the President of Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada to form a North American version of the European Union. The claim was false.

  • alohasteve

    President Obama Booed at Washington D.C.s Verizon Center: