Posted on 02/02/2009 9:17:17 AM PST by UCFRoadWarrior
Michael Steele, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee wants the GOP to reach out to candidates who support gay marriage and are pro-choice. Steele told Fox's Chris Wallace that it was "important" to reach out to those voters.
WALLACE: You are one of the co-founders of something called the Republican Leadership Council which supports candidates who favor abortion and gay rights.
STEELE: Yes.
(watch video)
WALLACE: Does the GOP needs to do a better job of reaching out to people who hold those views?
STEELE: I think -- I think that's an important opportunity for us, absolutely. Within our party we do have those who have that view as well as outside and my partnership with Christy Todd Whittman was an effort to build a bridge between moderates and conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at videocafe.crooksandliars.com ...
That'll leave us with one more than yourself.
Exactly. The noisy crowd who would eagerly toss economic and personal freedom out the window, in order to make abortion and gay marriage illegal, are dangerous.
Thank you
That is the exact point. We don’t need litmus tests on social issues to push forward the conservative agenda
Small government. Lower taxes. Strong national defense
Why can’t a gay person who supports that be reached out to?
The problem with some of these "reaching out" Republicans is that they seem to feel perfectly free to insult those who disagree with them, you know, those people who actually voted Republican in 2006 and 2008, and before.
Yeah, that's just what Steele needs to do. Insult those people, like W and Rove did throughout the second term. Didn't they have great success with it?
Think conservative not Republican or you will be disappointed by the party.
Well Mr. Mike... go help the gays repeal the voters in California... maybe you all can start your own gay wedding chapels.
Now who’s a liar?
What you are conveniently ignoring is that this veto was not aimed at supporting same sex partners. But rather she was vetoing excess porkage in the state budget in order to bring Alaska into having a balanced budget.
Take your pro-gay crap elsewhare.
If you want to espouse political positions and associate those positions with Michael Steele, fine. Just don't attempt to align those values and beliefs with those of Reagan. Not for a moment.
Reagan believed that if people wanted to join the GOP and/or help advance the conservative agenda, that was fine with him. That is not what Steele is talking about.
Steele is talking about expanding the GOP base by accepting the liberal Democrat position on gay rights and abortion rights.
Reagan opposed minority special rights and was adamantly opposed to Roe v Wade and abortion on demand as the policy of the US government.
you are going to see the Republican party slide down the slippery slope by courting gay/pro-choiccers as once they jump board you bet your bottom dollars they will want to be represented 100% even though they would account for .01% of the total vote. The writing is on the wall, we have become the party of come one come all we want your vote above all else and our parties principals are secondary to winnin elections...
Welcome to the new and improved Republican party 2.0 complete with Myspace, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the next trendy idea that comes along. Don’t worry that the same RINO message is the same, this time for 2010 and 2012, it is a can’t lose, we have the INTERNETS!!!
Abortion stances don’t win elections. This concentration on abortion as the focal point of a platform doesn’t resonate with voters. Nothing wrong with keeping a pro-life party stance on abortion but moving it to the back burner. Its just not the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVER OUT THERE, OMG!!!! to the average American voter who is more concerned with paying his rent and feeding his family.
I would have preferred a clear message of embracing the core values, rather then more of this failed reaching out to groups that hold the republican party in contempt.
Stand for something. This touchy feely reaching out crap never works out for us. Make NEW conservatives, don’t attempt conversion of those long lost.
Remember people are still hurting from McCain and want nothing to do with that failed philosphy anymore.
I am just saying Steele is off to a bad start.
It is not what people want to hear right now.
Do you honestly believe that baby killers ever think a good thought about anyone?
It is such a horrible act that they hate anyone who does not kill babies.
It’s a cancer on their souls.
They would rather destroy America than admit their sin.
No, they're not. Look at what he said above--there is nothing different there from things Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan have said.
Palin on support from women's groups:
"I would love to have their support, but I’m not going to change my positions in order to try to woo them over. Don’t have time to do that."
That is my position. What is wrong with that?
Which closet were you in?
What can the royal 'we' offer to the gays and prochoicers that they cannot get from Bama liberals?
Same question to you?
This Forum will not stand up under the Log Cabin, anti 2nd amendment, pro abortion onslaught.
“The state should not approve homosexuality, said Reagan
Society has always regarded marital love as a sacred expression of the bond between a man and a woman. It is the means by which families are created and society itself is extended into the future. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the means by which husband and wife participate with God in the creation of a new human life. It is for these reasons, among others, that our society has always sought to protect this unique relationship. In part the erosion of these values has given way to a celebration of forms of expression most reject. We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.—Ronald Reagan, July 12, 1984.”
And on abortion he said:
” Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation by Ronald Reagan
In 1983, President Reagan wrote an essay for the ?Human Life Review? entitled, ?Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.? This brief writing of his pro-life philosophy was published in book form a year later. It was expanded to approximately to 95 pages with lengthy afterwords by Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and British essayist Malcolm Muggeridge. Reagan?s brief composition is probably one of the better well-argued pro-life essays ever written. It is also significant as it was the first ever by a sitting President. It was President Reagan?s attempt to awaken a nation to the implications of abortion. In this short book, President Reagan gives an account on how important the issue of abortion is to the ?conscience of a nation.?
President Reagan's essay is only 26 pages of the book, but it is well structured. He believed that diminishing the life of the unborn diminishes the value of all human life. He tackled the pro-abortion “quality of life” argument and compared it to the Dred Scott slavery issue. Reagan likened the pro-abortion argument to slavery and drew parallels between the Roe vs. Wade decision and the Dred Scot decision that divided America over a century earlier. According to Reagan, the quality of life argument is an argument for quality control of the population.
Reagan surmises that legalized abortion is a very slippery slope. He says that unborn babies are being killed because they are simply not wanted or come at an inconvenient time. He also states that many are killed because they will be unable to lead a ?normal? life as the result of birth defects. Such babies are considered to be of less value and thus denied human rights. He claims this denial of human rights is accomplished by activist judges who frame the interpretation of the US Constitution through the lens of their own pro-abortion beliefs.
Reagan believes that the arbitrary evaluation of unborn lives must stop. He states that this philosophy will lead to further the crimes of infanticide and illustrates this by citing the Indiana case of “Baby Doe.” Baby Doe was allowed to starve to death because the child had Down’s syndrome. The essence of Reagan?s argument is that no nation can survive and prosper when a group of individuals look at a child and declare whether that child has value as a human being. Reagan goes on to say,
“Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.”
The pro-life movement will not be disappointed with Reagan's essay, and will conclude that it contains very powerful and logical anti-abortion arguments.
Article Source: http://www.christiannotepad.com
LLS
By the way, if Republicans wanted to pander effectively, they would have chosen an Hispanic.
McMcain can educate him about reach-arounds. He is one of the proudest RINOs to use that “skill”.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I'd think the latter scenario would be the more efficacious one.
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.