Posted on 09/18/2009 7:26:33 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
What's next, is Steele going to welcome gun control candidates into the party? Candidates advocating for higher taxes and spending?
In a September 3rd interview, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told a surprised Columbus Dispatch reporter that he would lead the charge of pro-abortion GOP candidates if abortion is a value in their community. Columbus Dispatch Senior Editor Joe Hallett asked Steele "if there is room in the party for a pro-abortion rights candidate…"
Hallett quoted Steele's reply:
"There absolutely is, there absolutely is… The key thing right now-and I think this is true for Republicans across the country-is to have leadership that reflects the communities I live in, where we're from. As we get ready for the battles that lie ahead from this district to all the districts surrounding the state, that you're going to find those candidates emerge and rise up who reflect those values in those communities, and that's a very important step for the party to take, I think, and I'm looking forward to help lead that charge in the future."
There are two glaring problems with his statement. First, the official Republican Party Platform states: "We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it." Steele has thus flagrantly violated his own Party Platform by agreeing to fund the campaigns of GOP candidates who advocate abortion.
Second, the Platform touts itself as "The party of ideas, rather than a mere coalition of interests." But Steele's comments encourage candidates to be influenced by special interests in their communities rather than Republican principles of life, lower taxes, and smaller government.
It appears that Steele has forgotten that America elects representatives, not merely agents of puppeteer constituents. The words of the father of conservatism Edmund Burke in his 1774 speech at Bristol are more important now than ever: "Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
This time, Steele is "lead[ing] that charge" of GOP candidates who refuse to protect preborn babies. What kind of pastel-colored GOP candidate will he welcome next? What if a candidate's community wants to give citizenship to illegal aliens , higher taxes, universal healthcare, and more government programs?
During the Jan. 4, 2009 RNC debate for the Chairmanship sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform, Steele revealed that he did not own a single firearm. Could this mean Chairman Steele will use RNC donations to welcome advocates of gun control next?
True, but there are as many factions of conservatives as there is ice cream.
How do you bring them all together? We need numbers.
That is true. The time certainly seems right, what with all the tea party movement in high gear.
[[[How do you bring them all together?]]]
The great Ronald Reagan sure did. And quite a few dems to boot.
2012 will be an even a bigger win than 1980 over Carter if another Reagan type runs on the GOP ticket.
I gave up on Steele the day he attacked Rush Limbaugh. He proved he is a dyed-in-the-wool, get-along, go-along country club Republican with no balls.
If the GOP doesn’t straighten up and embrace conservatives, they will find themselves without a base and permanently out of power. The GOP is committing suicide. Idiots they are.
The bulk of Americans do not give a damn about abortion or guns or religion or school prayer or the environment or state's rights.
Steele, hammer relentlessly on the economy, you stupids#!t! Every other topic is a loser you idiotic dumbass.
Hey Steele, It's the economy, DUMBASS!
Steele, who is doing everything he can to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory. Obama is self-destructing and, as usual, the GOP leadership is completely out to lunch. They deserve to be powerless but I don't deserve to go down with their ship. Idiot, imbecile, moronic, stupid dumbass!
Anyone who thinks anything different is delusional.
And anyone who whines and bullies other conservatives, saying that compromising principles is the way to go, and that this (or the next or any) election is make-or-break critical; and that "we'll work on hammering out our differences with the liberals in the party" later, is beyond delusional and well and truly into stupid territory.
The RNC called me just the other day. The lady started by trying to tell me about how bad the Obamascare bill is, and couldn't I just pledge $100 per month to help their grassroots effort to oppose Obama?
Grassroots? The RNC?
No ma'am, I'm not giving the RNC a dime. If I have $100 to spare for politics, it is going to SarahPAC or individual conservative candidates.
Well, the lady continues, could you spare just $85 for the cause?
No ma'am, not a dime. You people at the RNC are the problem, not the solution. We're taking back our party. Then we're taking back our country.
She didn't give up so easily. Like any good phone hooker, she kept lowering the price, all the way down to $25, then $10, then $5. By this time her breathing was heavy, and I could just imagine that she was down to her last layer of clothing.
Still, not a dime for the RNC. Commie bastages.
Well, there’s two ways to look at this.
We can be the Party of Principle and let the Democrats continue to have majorities in both houses of Congress or we can accept a few imperfect senators and congressmen so, at least, we have better control of what is happening in Washington.
I agree, that you can compromise too far and become “Democrat Lite” but you can also be too rigid and doom yourself to irrelevancy which is the position we are in now.
A mere five years ago, we had both houses and the White House. That was the time to be the Party of Principle and demonstrate that Republicans could be fiscally conservative and morally strong. Instead, we blew it because we spent like Democrats and didn’t answer the non-stop barrage of attacks against us by the media and the Left.
So, now we’re the party on the outs and, if we want to not be on the outs, we have to allow for some (not all) people who are not ideologically pure in order to win some areas that lean liberal.
That’s the hand we’re dealt. If you want to be ideologically pure and politically powerless, you can turn us into the Libertarian or Constitution parties. Or you can build the sort of majorities that can prevent an Obama-style lurch to socialism. It’s your call.
Well said Orange.....
This is Reagan's platform from 1980. It leaves no question as to what the Party's position is but it recognizes that it is not a universal view, in or outside of the Party.
Didn’t Blackwell end up endorsing Steele?
Then conservatives have lost the country.
They can't keep pro-life candidates from running, but they stick them with lousy consultants and campaign chiefs. They prefer to run pro-abort Republicans in Republican-majority districts that are also pro-life-majority districts and simply let the pro-life Democrat win in order to purge the party of these pro-lifers.
They care more about purging the party than winning the election. They have done this again and again.
Can you give any specific examples?
Typical of Washington folks who come here to tell us what's what, he doesn't have a clue. It's the pro-aborts in the party who have gained the power and are trying to make everyone wear the baseball cap their way.
Conservatives won’t win unless it is through the Republican party.
Rush is right as usual
some here swooned over Steele’s dark pick...so stupid, so predictable
if one must go black, Steele is no Sowell
course Thomas is no politician
They are making the same mistake in the 23rd, where McHugh was tapped to be Army Secretary: running a RINO when a pefectly good conservative wanted the line.
With Tedisco, in the 20th, who is pro-life, someone managed to find the absolute worst advertising "experts" on the face of the planet--completely blew it. With every ad, his poll numbers went down.
They let pro-life Faso and pro-life Spencer run only because their hand was forced by the Conservative Party and in a year when they couldn't win against two strong Democrats, thus laying claim to the fact that they certainly DO allow pro-lifers to run.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.