"I believe that Phyllis Schlafly is the most consequential female woman in public policy in the last fifty years of the 20th Century," Bachmann declared. "Had there not been a Phyllis Schlafly, I believe that we wouldn't have seen a rise of the pro-family movement. Had there not been a rise of the pro-family movement, I don't believe that there would have been a Ronald Reagan. Without a President Ronald Reagan, I don't think we would have seen the ability to defeat the evil, and yes that's what it was, Soviet empire and to bring a conclusion to the Cold War. Just as Ronald Reagan was consequential, Phyllis Schlafly was extremely consequential because she was a tee to tee up this president that we had."
Of course that's not to say that as a female woman Schlafly was necessarily as consequential as some of the male women.
I wonder how often this story gets written? I don't think I've seen it with this much front-page splash:
Jonathan Gabhart, a 21-year-old college student from Spencer, Iowa, is leaning toward voting for Ron Paul
because of the Texas lawmaker’s unpolished speaking style — a
“high-pitched, squirrelly voice,” as he put it. “He seems like a real
person because of his eccentricities.”
Nancy Weaver, a 60-year-old retiree in Grinnell, Iowa, favors Representative Michele Bachmann because the congresswoman raised 23 foster children. “That’s a huge endeavor for any man or woman,” she said.
Iowa and New Hampshire Republican voters interviewed by Michael Barbaro and Ashley Barker at the Times knew nothing or next to about candidates' policy positions and programs but lots about their families and personal quirks, and were making their decisions on that basis. But isn't this actually pervasive, among Republicans and Democrats and those crusty old independents alike?
