Does Michael Steele Pass Muster With Conservatives?

Human Events ^ | 2/4/2009 | Martha Zoller

[markomalley]

The mainstream media will never give him a break, but conservatives should probably be comfortable with new RNC Chairman Michael Steele. On CNN, Don Lemon asked the CNN political reporter, “Is the RNC pandering, is Michael Steele legitimate?”

In an appearance on my radio program on Monday, Steele said “the Republican party is called racist when they don’t reach out and pandering when they do.” He went as far as to tell a reporter that asked him if he was legitimate to come back when he had a real question. If only the questions about his credentials were coming from the left. So the question is, will Steele pass muster with conservatives?

Three months ago, I wrote about Steele after we participated in a panel on the 2008 Elections. I believed then he would be the next chairman of the party, and it had nothing to do with race.

It was not an easy path to the chairman’s office for Steele. Groups opposing his involvement with the Republican Leadership Council say he’s too liberal. When Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday tried to box him in on the RLC’s mission to recruit pro-choice and pro-gay rights Republicans, he said he was not going to focus in on two issues and then invoked Ronald Reagan. However, these two issues are at the core of the social conservative agenda.

Michael Steele is a social conservative. He’s encouraged by the success groups in California cobbling together social conservatives, religious Latinos and Blacks on Proposition 8 in November. In 2008, the value of preaching a socially conservative agenda in minority communities increased dramatically. Prop 8 represents the future of the morality movement in America, and Steele sees it as both a winning movement and a way to mend fences with social conservatives who think he’s not one of them.

The new chairman understands the GOP message on immigration, and he knows how to communicate it. It’s not just conservatives that want border security. Steele said on Sunday, “The GOP's position on immigration is very much the position of many, many Hispanics who are in this country.” Steele went on to make the case when he said, “The GOP's position is secure our borders first. Let us know and let us make sure the American people know that we've taken care of the important business of dealing with illegal immigration into this country. You cannot begin to address the concerns of the people who are already here unless and until you have made certain that no more are coming in behind them…. How we messaged that is where we messed up the last time. We were pegged as being insensitive, anti-immigrant, and nothing could be further from the truth, because you talk to those leaders in the Hispanic community, they will tell you the same thing. They understand the importance of making sure the United States' borders are secure.”

That is the grassroots position held by a majority of Americans, not just conservatives.

The elephant in the room for Steele is not whether he’s a conservative -- he is -- but rather will he be conservative enough for the grassroots of the Republican Party. The code language for this is Christian conservatives. CCs are the most hated, loved or feared group of people in the Republican Party, depending on your point of view. The RINOs think these Bible-thumping hayseeds are ruining the party, but Christian conservatives represent the Party’s core values; RINOs don’t. And you can’t win without Christian conservatives. Steele is one of those Christian conservatives and has talked openly about his Roman Catholic faith.

Conservatives are responding positively to Steele but are wary. They’ve heard the talk before. Action is the only thing that will calm their fears and lead to wins for Republicans by getting the grassroots engaged again. Chairman Steele is hitting the ground running with updates to the website and how they will collect and disseminate information. He’s beginning to target upcoming elections in New York, New Jersey and in the off year. He knows he needs some wins under his belt, and when he gets those, conservatives will begin coming back to the fold and be happy about it. This Republican Chairman will have to be about message and a call to action. He’s got one election cycle to prove himself, and I think he’s up to it.

So will Michael Steele pass muster with conservatives -- fiscal conservatives and social conservatives? Yes, he will, and I think the hard-fought battle to become RNC Chair has honed his skills. He’s political, he wants to win and is conservative at his core. If he implements as well as he’s adapted in his campaign to be RNC Chair, then he’ll move conservative values forward through Republican wins.

But one warning from a Christian Conservative who believes he’s conservative enough to move the party forward: Don’t recruit wishy-washy conservatives. A party is only as good as the candidates and the actions they take once elected, and the electorate is impatient. You have a 4-year term, but like President Obama, your midterm exam is in 2010 and will determine what the future holds for you and the Republican Party. But for now, Mike, keep leaning right.

[P-Marlowe]

If you have no clue that the key to this is sending the decision about abortion back to the states, you're just another dilettante who shouts "Pro-Life!" but has never volunteered, never given money, never read the history of the movement in this country.

I think I know a little more about how the law works that you do. Michael Steele has said that he does not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but that he wants the court to follow "stare decisis". For those of you in Rio Linda that means that if any case comes up to the Supreme Court that has the potential of overturning Roe v. Wade, then Michael Steele would rather see the pro-life law declared unconstitutional than to have the court declare that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

The position of Michael Steele is as radically pro-abortion as that of the ACLU. Neither Michael Steele or the ACLU want the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Until Roe v. Wade is overturned (something that Michael Steele opposes) then the pro-life movement is going to go nowhere. We may be able to nibble at the edges, but we will not be able to make abortion a crime until Roe is overturned.

So go ahead and pretend that Michael Steele is a great proponent of the pro-life position. But the fact is that by suggesting that he wants the Supreme Court to follow "stare decisis" he obviously wants to keep the roadblocks up against the pro-life movement and to keep abortion safe and legal.

[MHGinTN]

Roe will stand until a court case ends up stating that the alive unborn are fully human beings and have the same Constitutional rights as you or I. Even that designation will likely be a creeping definition of humanity (kind of like the 'trimester foolery of Roe), if there is such a thing.

Roe was a ghastly disenfranchisement of now close to fifty million human beings, slaughtered mostly for selfish utilitarian purposes.

The division over abortion 'rights' is one of believing the alive unborn are human beings, or in contrast deciding to arbitrarily remove 'humanhood' from them to allow murdering them without it being called murder.

[MHGinTN]

To clarify further: it is now known that a womb-bound infant can learn by the gestational age of 28 weeks, proven using the startle reflex. Surely that little one is by that age a human being! But courts can conveniently ignore such stuff.

[LibLieSlayer]

You are 100% dead on! BTW, I didn't know that anyone associated with the un... other than Bolton when he was there... were NOT communists... muzzies... or both!

LLS

[CowboyJay]

I would not vote for this guy if he were running for office

That's not the question, and the RNC shouldn't be confused with the ACU. The question is whether he represents an incremental step in the right direction from Ken Mehlman or Mel Martinez.

As far as I'm concerned, the answer is yes.

[LibLieSlayer]

It is much simpler than that. The Declaration of Independence states the following at its very beginning:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The very first right mentioned in the rights endowed by our CREATOR is LIFE. Not outside of the womb baby life... not fully functional adult life... but simply LIFE. Since a baby in its Mother's womb is alive, our Declaration of Independence DEMANDS as its first requirement... the sanctity of life. Not only is Roe evil, immoral and corrupt... not only is it in violation of States Rights... it is in direct violation of our Founders intent as transcribed in the very first sentence of the very first official document of our newly born Nation. evil activist justices do not make Roe correct... in either the eyes of GOD or man.

LLS

[SisterK]

Correct me if I am wrong: the UN is a product of the Council on Foreign Relations. So anyone with a CFR membership should have a big red flag by their name. We really need to leave the UN now. Most folks don’t know we have no veto power against UN (invasion). Then there is 1961 Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World (Dept of State Publication 7277)- presents a three stage program for the gradual transfer of US arms to the UN. Public and private. Can you imagine having to register your 9mm with the UN? Ain’t gonna happen.

[jeepers creepers]

“Ann Coulter wasn’t running. “

That’s too bad. She’s my kind of a conservative! : )

[familyop]

"Correct me if I am wrong: the UN is a product of the Council on Foreign Relations. So anyone with a CFR membership should have a big red flag by their name."

We do have such red flags, but most of us ignore them.

Fear the Fred!

Yes...CFR member and Chairman of an anti-defense State Dept. advisory Committee. ...not to mention that since then, we've been presented with inexperienced, retarded, libertine, free traitor puppets with high political correctness potential (more social programs) but no specifics and hardly any records of political votes or other work.

[Darkwolf377]

I think I know a little more about how the law works that you do. Michael Steele has said that he does not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, but that he wants the court to follow "stare decisis". For those of you in Rio Linda that means that if any case comes up to the Supreme Court that has the potential of overturning Roe v. Wade, then Michael Steele would rather see the pro-life law declared unconstitutional than to have the court declare that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

You'd be wrong about that. Like most people who don't know what they're talking about, they SAY they know, and then demonstrate that they don't.

So go ahead and pretend that Michael Steele is a great proponent of the pro-life position.

What is with you people?

Look at my postings on this thread. I am ASKING QUESTIONS about this guy. I have said repeatedly I want to find out the truth; I don't know if he's pro-life or pro-abortion.

What is with some of you people around here who see ASKING QUESTIONS as a bad thing?

You may be satisfied about Steele--good for you, I'm happy for ya.

I have said over and over I am ASKING about him. I don't have an opinion yet.

What is it with so many people around here who find the search for answers a BAD thing?

I say "I want to know the truth" and you somehow interpret that as saying I think Steele is pro-life?

Your entire post is in the trash because of your position that wanting to know answers is a crime.

How do you people get through life if you have zero intellectual curiosity, and react to someone who wants to know the truth with hostility?

For you in particular, sir or madame, you really should learn a little about what you're spouting off about before you claim expertise:

“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,”[/b] [William H. Rehnquist] said in a 1991 opinion that included, in a page and a half of small type, a list of 33 precedents that the court had overturned in the previous 20 years.

In an 8-to-0 decision last term, the court overturned a pair of antitrust precedents from the 1940s that were noticeably at odds with modern antitrust analysis.

Sometimes the court overrules cases without actually saying so. Some argue that this is what happened in April, when a 5-to-4 majority upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act without making much effort to reconcile that ruling with a decision in 2000 that found a nearly identical Nebraska law unconstitutional.

...When the court explicitly overturns precedent, it tends to offer a checklist of justifications: the precedent has eroded over time through disuse or disregard (this was the majority’s stated reason for discarding the “unique circumstances” precedents in last week’s decision, Bowles v. Russell), or it has been a source of confusion in the law, or experience has proven it “unworkable.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21memo.html

But I guess you know more about stare decisis than Rehnquist, Roberts and Alito.

Some of you dilettantes crack me up; it's not that you're just wrong, but you're more interested in posing than in learning FACTS.

I'm more than willing to conclude that Steele is a pro-abort if that, indeed, is what he is; I don't know, and am doing research to find out. But with people like you claiming to be the brain trust, arrogant in your lack of knowledge, no wonder conservatives have been outmaneuvered in DC.

[Darkwolf377]

For Latin lovers, "precedent," or stare decisis, means: To stand by decided cases, to follow precedent. A flexible doctrine of Anglo-American law that when a court expressly decides an issue of law, which is generated by the facts of a unique dispute, that decision shall constitute a precedent which should be followed by that court and by courts inferior to it, when deciding future disputes, [b]except when the precedent's application to a particular problem case is unsuitable to the character or spirit of the people of the state or nation, and their current social, political and economic conditions.[/b]

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9395/CWA/misc/index.htm

[LibLieSlayer]

Too many people joined the CFR long ago so what should happen is that Patriots should resign... the un should be sent to EU and we should remove ourselves from its membership... we should then form a united democratic nations or some such... and only let FREE people into it. We still should not put much faith behind it... America and her might are all that keep the world from eating one another! We need to retake power in 2010 and elect a Conservative like Palin in 2012 and start the process that we talked about here!

LLS

[P-Marlowe]

You need to read your own posts and then read what Michael Steele said.

Michael Steele specifically stated that in regard to Roe v. Wade, rather than overturn Roe v. Wade, he said that Supreme Court should "FOLLOW STARE DECISIS". That means that they should not ignore the doctrine (as is the prerogative of the Supreme Court BTW) but that they should follow it, which means that they should treat it as settled law and not disturb it.

Now read what you posted:

“Stare decisis is not an inexorable command,”[/b] [William H. Rehnquist] said in a 1991 opinion that included, in a page and a half of small type, a list of 33 precedents that the court had overturned in the previous 20 years.

Right.

The Supreme Court can FOLLOW stare decisis (and not disturb settled law) or they can IGNORE stare decisis, and overturn settled law.

Got that?

Read it again.

Ok now do you have the picture?

Now read what Steele said when Russert asked him directly if Roe should be upheld (which means NOT OVERTURNED). Steele said the court should FOLLOW STARE DECISIS".

That means Steele does not believe the courts should overturn Roe v. Wade.

But I guess you know more about stare decisis than Rehnquist, Roberts and Alito.

No. The problem is that YOU don't know anything about it. And if Michael Steele thinks he is pro-life, then he doesn't know anything about it either.

[P-Marlowe]

For Latin lovers, "precedent," or stare decisis, means: To stand by decided cases, to follow precedent.

Indeed.

Now if Michael Steele says the Supreme Court should FOLLOW stare decisis in regard to Roe v. Wade, what would that mean?

Think before you type.

[Darkwolf377]

Now if Michael Steele says the Supreme Court should FOLLOW stare decisis in regard to Roe v. Wade, what would that mean?

You are once again demonstrating your inability to handle this discussion.

I am looking for facts. You are merely spreading emotional responses and trashtalk you can't back up.

Think before you type.

LOL! Take your own advice--for all your previous bluster, strangely muted now, you've been schooled. Now go play, kid. ;)

[P-Marlowe]

I am looking for facts.

You were given the FACTS. You were given the definition of "stare decisis" and the words of Michael Steele.

What more do you want?

LOL! Take your own advice--for all your previous bluster, strangely muted now, you've been schooled.

Indeed I have. That is why I am licensed to practice law.

[Darkwolf377]

Now read what Steele said when Russert asked him directly if Roe should be upheld (which means NOT OVERTURNED). Steele said the court should FOLLOW STARE DECISIS".

And FOLLOWING stare decisis isn't some magical lock that keeps something sealed in place forever, as the definition shows, but places something on hold until such conditions in society and subsequent events make it prudent to revisit it. Odd how you neglected to discuss that point, which makes the layman's understanding moot because it shows that FOLLOWING stare decisis means one revisits such issues when conditions require--such as the states' rights issues which multiple states have pushed.

You seem to want to make stare decisis fit the definition you want it to fit in order to make the point you want to make. This is intellectually dishonest. Who would hire a lawyer who uses a legal definition that fits his prejudices as opposed to the full meaning of that definition?

Like so many who are unwilling to think beyond their own preconceptions, you don't let facts get in the way of a fun little rant. You've taken this excerpt from an interview and allowed the reporter to set the discourse, no matter what that reporter's positions and goals.

Try looking beyond a single MSM Gotcha! interview, which is spread all over the internet without much else supporting this one answer, one time, why don't ya?

Elsewhere on his campaign site, Steele makes the case that he's staunchly antiabortion: He is a strong advocate for the unborn. And has been a leader on the issue ever since his time studying to be an Augustine monk. No one should ever doubt Michael Steele's commitment to life. He has been pro-life his entire adult life. In 2006 he was endorsed for US Senate by National Right to Life and Maryland Right to Life. He ran as a staunchly pro-life candidate in a state that rarely elects pro-life candidates. The Washington Times said, "Mr. Steele is staunchly pro-life (parting with many Republicans who support abortion in cases of rape and incest) and he is a free trader... The Washington Times is pleased to endorse Michael Steele for the U.S. Senate." (October 25, 2006). Michael Steele supports preserving the pro-life platform. Michael Steele favors overturning Roe v. Wade and sending the abortion question back to the states where he hopes state legislators will vote to protect life.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/02/02/new-republican-chairman-michael-steele-flaunts-faith-credentials-to-a-wary-base.html

Does this mean he's pro-life? I don't know. Unlike you, I'm not letting Meet the Press decide that for me.

Steele explained his statements on Meet the Press during the CNS interview, where he explained that Roe v. Wade would remain the precedent until another case challenged it.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020212.html

You claim to be a lawyer? The next time I hire one, I'll be sure to ask if he posts as P-Marlowe on FR. If he says yes, I'll bolt.

[Darkwolf377]

Steele explained his statements on Meet the Press during the CNS interview, where he explained that Roe v. Wade would remain the precedent until another case challenged it.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020212.html

Just for emphasis.

[xzins]

Steele is another in a long line of actions that boil down to the republican party having a program of deceiving conservatives. Steele wants to normalize abortion and homosexuality in the republican party, and that means I’m not a part of that group.

I have left the republican party, and I’m now independent until I find a true, Godly, conservative party.

[xzins]

Let’s say that I declare that I am going to meet you in St Louis and FOLLOW you to Indianapolis.

Does that mean:

A. That I will FOLLOW YOU.

B. That I will NOT follow you.