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 ...
I'm not really debating his ideology. I'm debating what his tactics to attract new voters should or shouldn't be. It should be the same basic conservative message for all, and maybe some extra effort to show how it would benefit those who do not yet subscribe. It should not include special appeals and special promises for specific groups, as we'll never win that pandering contest with the Dems.
All twitterpated RINO talk.
Why don’t you spend your efforts trying to convince liberals to be conservative instead of doing the reverse here?
“Nothing wrong with reaching out and trying to find common ground on other issues.”
Not on this website. No deviations, ever, whatsoever.
“But, oh, no .. we can’t have any centrists who might appeal to pro-choice women, to gays, to those who maybe think an assault rifle isn’t necessary for hunting. We are going to remain ideologically pure and a permanent minority. Yep, way to go.”
Good riddance Rino Big Tent. Crapola is all it is.
Michael Steele, Christie Todd Whitman and what we used to call the Rockefeller Republicans suckered you. They are all liberals and libertines.
If all the Michael Steele supporters were banned from FR, you could get the conservative truth.
“Why don’t you spend your efforts trying to convince liberals to be conservative instead of doing the reverse here?”
EXACTLY!!!
NO CHANCE
I am not going going to stay silent so we let sick perverts or their friends of this get their agenda put into the GOP
fed up of hearing well I know two homo’s and they are nice
yes maybe they are to you but when they are with their own kind they are not the same person.
Even on homo sites it tells homo’s to go and find people in church, make friends with them and get them to like you.
Then tell them that you are a homo and that you just love that person
It’s like the catholics which say they are religious but then stay silent on the homo issue or even agree with it.
can’t have it both ways, same as being a conservative and a republican is not for the perverts agenda
Really, and at my age. Thanks
All silliness aside, I am amazed at the apparent level of disassociation from reality that seems to be occurring in this country. Did they start putting something in the water?
“Attracting voters to the Republican Party is not, I will repeat that, NOT, the same as appeasing them or adopting their views as official Republican policy.”
BS. Pro-abortion voters won’t vote for an anti-abortion candidate, period. The only way to get the votes of pro-abortion people is TO BECOME PRO-ABORTION. And if the Republican becomes pro-abortion, then many old school conservatives (including me) will not vote for Republicans.
Or do you think pro-abort people will overlook that Republicans are anti-abortion and vote for us because they want smaller government? (yes, I’m pretending for the moment that Repubs are actually in favor of shrinking the government despite no supporting evidence for the last several years)
NO, they want abortion all day every day, at any time for any reason, so they will vote Democrat. If the Repub party becomes pro-abort, then we simply have two Democrat parties and we’re back to “not a dime’s worth of difference.”
Can anyone tell me when all this “reach across the aisle” crap started? I just can’t seem to put my finger on a specific time. Or did it happen gradually? Really makes me mad that the PC police seem to be on every corner.
Think you may have hit the nail there.
Let’s wait to see what the strategy is going to be.
If by reaching out to abortionists and gays, he means changing out conservative policies...then Houston, we have a problem.
If he means taking our core beliefs of lower taxes and smaller government to gays and abortionists, I have no problem.
Before we get all in a rage, let’s see what the intent of the strategy is.
Conservatives turned "front-runner" Rudy Giuliani into a candidate that didn't win a single state or delegate. Let's send a message to the Republican party that Steele's strategy of selling out the core beliefs of the GOP isn't going to be tolerated. No donations unless Steele resigns or, at the very least renounces these comments.
why does steele ASSUME they will not change their pro-homosexual, pro-abortion view to the Republican position?
Why is steel surrendering before the battle?
Man of Steele or man of jello?
LLS
there is no common ground with homosexuals.
you are either for the sick perverted agenda or you are against it.
Me I ma against it because it is wrong naturally and if you are religious then religiously.
It is nothing to do with knowing a couple of them and they are nice.
Go to their websites and you can read where they state make friends with normal /straights .
Got o their sick parades and see what they get up to and don’t buy the well they are nice and just want to be left alone, they just love each other
You have come to the exact heart of the problem.
LLS
Nice try. I know what you're trying to do, Donna. It's Pathetic.
Oh, stop, it's too embarassing.
I hope by now you realize that you’ve proved my point.
You mean that you're ignorant of her record?
I’ve led you to think I was unaware of Palin’s veto of same sex benefits, but
LOL!
You're hilarious! - more than that - I wanted to see if you would or could acknowledge that she was constrained by the Alaska Constitution. But you did not.
My post #252: "The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation." "
Next.
Why would you attack Sarah Palin in that fashion?
It's so sad to see you spend all this time coming up with this lame, lame "Ah ha, you fell into my trap!" lie, and in order to try to turn it around, you lie some more.
I still maintain you are pro-gay/
So I'm "bashing" Palin when I point out she vetoed an attempt to stop same-sex benefits...but that makes ME pro-gay?
HUH?
pro-abortion.
You have nothing to do but smear. My lifetime of being pro-life is more than just talk, like you do. If you were actually pro-life, you wouldn't toss such an ugly label on people just because you lost a debate. Shame on you.
And a Palin basher to boot.
If I'm pro-gay, how could I be a Palin basher when I mentioned her veto?
I've seen some incredibly lame comebacks in my time... LOL!
I didn't "attack" Palin--I pointed out that by YOUR standards she's not a conservative--I think she's great.
There is honor in admitting one is wrong. There is none in lying to cover up your own ignorance.
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.