Steele: GOP Welcomes Pro-Choice Moderates

http://www.newsmax.com ^ | Sunday, May 17, 2009 | http://www.newsmax.com

[dalereed]

Steele speaks for himself and no one else!

He should go join Spector and take the rest of the socialists with him!

[Caipirabob]

Steele: GOP Welcomes Pro-Choice Moderates

Steele just uttered the RINO equivalent of "Hey y'all - watch this!"

[Joe Boucher]

Throw this RINO p.o.s. out NOW.
That’s it, I’m not f-ing around any more with this RINO pubbie party.
I’m going to re-register as a conservative and to hell with the RINO dem lite crap.

[DGHoodini]

Republicans re disgusted with Steele.

I can’t believe I wanted to see this weasel made chairman. (Sheesh!)

[Above My Pay Grade]

I get it. Let’s be pro-life and pro-abortion, pro-gun and anti-gun, pro-small government and low taxes and pro-big government and huge taxes, pro-military and anti-military, pro-same sex marriage and anti-same sex marriage, pro-bailouts and anti-bailouts, pro-captialism and pro-socialism, pro-freedom and anti-freedom, pro-American and anti-American.

We’ll be the party that agrees with both sides on every issue
, “The Party About Nothing”.

That will win over the voters.

[Above My Pay Grade]

“Keep the platform and don’t shut out people who may be anti tax just because they support abortion rights.”

Yeah, so what if they are pro-baby killing, as long as they agree with us on taxes. /sarc

Putting aside principles and integrity for a moment, the GOP caving on abortion and homosexualism is bad politics.

How many strong, economic conservatives vote Democrat because of abortion, twelve?

How many economic moderates and liberals vote Republican because of abortion and homosexualism? Tens of millions.

We should absolutely NOT cave on either social or economic issues, but if we wanted to make a cynical attempt to win at all costs, caving on economics issues, not social issues, would be the way to go.

[Moseley]

I want to WIN the next election and support Steele.Big Tent is what’s needed.

The problem is that this DOES NOT win elections. If your fundamental assumption is that standing for nothing will inspire voters, shouldn't you TEST your core assumption? You will NOT win elections. Liberal Republicans cannot win elections. They cannot inspire the conservative base, who are the ones who do all the work of elections. Liberal Republicans don't do the work of elections, they don't get their hands dirty. And the voters won't vote for a pale imitation of a Democrat. They will vote for the Democrat. People are looking for leadership, honesty, and competence. They will vote for an honest liberal before a dishonest Republican trying to appease liberals.

[Tribune7]

So far Bob Casey has been voting with the liberals since being elected to the Senate

Exactly! And he's not going to change.

And remember this is about protecting innocent lives, which in the least means changing us from being a pro-abortion nation (i.e. declaring abortion to be a right, giving abortionists tax money etc.).

It is not about feeling good.

A Republican senator who calls himself pro-choice and goes along with a pro-life agenda (which includes voting for pro-lifers to run committees) is infinitely better than a Democratic senator who calls himself "pro life" and goes along with a pro-abortion agenda.

If you want an another example, Harry Reid calls himself "pro-life".

[Retired COB]

I'd rather get back in power and be in a position to effect our positions than to be an out of power ideologue.

That's what happened with Bush. We won, but our message was so diluted that the general public can't tell the difference between us and the Dems.

I don't want to win if I've got to get neutered to make it happen.

[Retired COB]

You don’t win hearts and mind by acting morally superior and that anyone who is prochoice is evil/garbage/dirt bags that you don’t want to associate with.

I am morally superior to anyone who willfully murders the most innocent among us!

PS: You are correct, I do not want to associate with dirtbags like that.

[Moseley]

Org.whodat answered: Didn’t this idiot read about the latest Gallup poll Do you think we need to run the country by poll??? In short the majority in the poll is correct??? Better think long and hard before you buy into that one.

ORG.WHODAT, you don't understand. The poll shows that 51% of the country is pro-life. And experience has shown that Pro-Life Republican candidates are more likely to win than pro-abortion candidates. So why would we adopt a losing strategy? Pro-Life is the winning strategy.

[org.whodat]

From the same poll:Fifty-three percent say abortions should remain legal under certain circumstances, and nearly equal numbers take hard-line views — 23 percent say it should be illegal in all circumstances, and 22 percent say it should be legal no matter what. Never run you position without knowing all the facts.

[org.whodat]

The post was because I read the whole poll the poster didn’t!!

[ak267]

Where else are the pro-lifers gonna go? Well Mr. Steele, they can stay home like they did in 2008.

[Altura Ct.]

The GOP is a joke.

The party of everything and nothing. No values, no principles except to be the “big tent” and no backbone.

The US is self destructing and the GOP wants to make sure it helps...

[Moseley]

After what I saw today at Notre Dame Catholics have completely abandoned the pro life stance and support Obama en masse.

Even if that were true, what makes you think that those people would ever vote for a Republican? This is a serious brain failure. If you want people to vote for a Republican instead of for the Democrat, you have to offer them an alternative. If someone wants to vote for Obama, being a pale echo of Obama will NOT get anyone to vote for you. The more everyone (you think) wants to vote for Obama, the more you have to offer a DIFFERENCE if you hope to get them to vote for you instead. You can't get people who support Obama to vote for you instead simply by being a worse, bad copy of Obama. The only way is to provide a clear alternative.

[Moseley]

He's saying the right thing. The Dems support "pro life" candidates like Bob Casey.

But Dems DO NOT support pro life candidates like Casey. Casey (the father) was BANNED from speaking at the Democrat National Convention.

[Moseley]

And yet pro-life candidates out-perform Vichy Republicans consistenatly and overwhelmingly. WHY would we follow a proven strategy of failure and ignore a proven stategy of success (pro-Life)? We certainly would have no reason to make a change based on a lack of any reason to change.

[Maelstorm]

Good examples.

[Moseley]

Our beloved Constitution, besides having some obvious bugs worked out such as black chattel slavery,

Our Constitution set up the best government in the world, but still has lots of defects, flaws and cracks. It beats whatever is 2nd by a country mile, but it still has lots of weak points in it (mostly where it is VAGUE and has allowed bad people to twist its meaning).

However, the Constitution did not establish, condone, or support slavery. The famous, but misunderstood, language about 3/5ths of a person actually guaranteed the eventual abolition of slavery. When assigning how many votes a State gets in Congress, slave-holding states got FEWER seats in Congress on account of the formula for counting the population of the State. Thus, the Constitution guaranteed that power would grow more in the free states than in the slave states. The balance of power tilted towards the free states. Seeing this happening, that is why the slave states seceded. They could see they were going to lose in the Congress. The balance of power was tilting away from the slave states and strongly in favor of the free states. That was "baked in" to our Constitution from day one. So the Constitution was rigged to destroy slavery (though no one had the power to do it all at once).