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 think if you read the Founder of this forums statement of principal, you may have a clue where we stand.
“I lean pro-choice...but it’s not my big issue...does that mean I’m not welcome in the Republican Party?”
Of course you’re welcome in the party, but the party should not promise to subvert its principles to win your vote. It’s up to you to decide if you’re comfortable voting for anti-abortion candidates. So really, you will decide if you’re “welcome” in the party or not.
what we have to reach out to a handful of sick perverts and then ignore a much bigger base.
The GOP stands for traditional marriage, liberals want homo’s and their agenda
I for one stand with the conservative approach of normal traditional marriage not some sick twisted sex agenda
they and their supporters are sick and if there is any folks who say well I know a couple and they are nice, then those folk are being taken for a sucker, go to their parades , sites etc and see what they get up to
I wondered how long that would take...
sw
And THAT’s why the Republican Party will die, and socialism will emerge triumphant.
When you make “conservatism” into a litmus test for religious orthodoxy, then you will drive otherwise good conservatives away.
Think about what you said: “you cannot be a Conservative and embrace abortion or homosexuality...” I guess I’m not a conservative, then. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, that’s between her and God, nothing to do with me or the government. I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, whether they sleep with a man, a woman, or neither. I don’t want the government to mandate anything in relation to abortion, against or in favor. Likewise, I want the government to stay out of people’s bedrooms. I don’t want the government to celebrate or denounce abortion or homosexuality. I don’t want the government to spend money subsidizing abortion, or enforcing a ban thereof.
It appears that you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes “conservatism”. I embrace a conservatism that tolerates all religions, nationalities, ethnicities, and (yes) sexual orientations: all under a limited federal government, bound by the strictures of the Constitution.
More to the point, it’s clear that you hold a very different vision of that “conservative” government would look like, and I doubt that those like you would hesitate to impose your views on all of us at the point of a bayonet. Faced with secular totalitarianism of the Left or a religious totalitarianism from the Right, I will fight against both, for they are both equally abhorrent to the tenets of Liberty. And I submit to you, Sir, that anyone who “embraces” religious totalitarianism is as much an enemy of America and the Constitution as Communism, Socialism, Nazism, and Islamism.
Because it treated both like they are just labels, with no difference at their cores. You could just "decide" to be one or the other when in fact it takes deep, deep disagreements with the other side to be one or the other. And both sides are actually different, with vastly different world-views.
Making a mush of the terms is pointless.
steele is mounting an analogue campaign in the digital era.
Steele just killed his campaign contributions.
Steele is pursuing the Giuliani voters, hollyweird homosexuals, and women who are republicans by marriage.
It’s very clear what I want: Conservatism!!
RINO-talk is in the media 24/7 and now running the Republican Party.
We need conservative talk on FR.
The problem is not so much “reaching out” but that this guy formed his Leadership Council IN ORDER to get the Republican proaborts and pro-gay rights elected.
reach out to a handful of sicko’s but lose the conservative base except for those who are being taken for suckers by the homo’ lies
You would think that the GOP would have learned something since the last two elections., reaching out to a small handful of perverts is not going to make the party stronger but weaker and smaller
Reagan had a brand is was called conservatism, so does Sarah.
they sell their brand and view
we do not go shopping for mentally sick perverts who like to shove their penis up another mans arse
it is not natural and if one is religious then your faith says it is wrong too.
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?
***Maybe I’ve lost some faith in our leaders. They all seem to disappoint me these days.
Man of steel, man of jello or a creampuff. We’ll see.***
Great. Forget him, then. We need to totally deconstruct the GOP and rebuild it from the ground up. Conservatives need to go completely outside and around the “leadership”.
OK, we are about to find out where the real mush lies.
what reach out to some sick perverts and ignore the base
sounds like to me that is not a winner as the last two elections have showed
I agree. Who suggested that?
Then you didn't click the link, I corrected it as soon as I realized what had done. leaving out an H can make a big difference
No. The GOP should reach out to voters who think they have more than enough government in their lives. That probably includes a lot of gay Americans. That probably includes a lot of pro-choice voters. That probably includes a lot of black Americans. The point is to sell our party not as a party of divisiveness and special-interests but as a party of ideas and individuals. Less government means more freedom. Lower taxes mean we spend our own money as we choose and thoughtfully, rather than wastefully to pay off big donors (TARP).
no it’s about traditional marriage and if one wants to accept a disgusting sexual agenda
some might be alright with a man inserting his penis into another mans arse but I am not.
It is not even natural FHS
Think about it , sick
the Dems are the party of perverts and the mentally sexually sick
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.