American Family Association Wants Michael Steele’s Head

RedState ^ | 03/13/08 | James Richardson

[muawiyah]

GQ purported to quote words which were clearly WAY OUT OF CONTEXT. It's not like we don't have most of a decade's worth of discussion of the abortion issue as presented by Chairman Steele already on hand.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust a GQ reporter regarding anything ~ and certainly not what the RNC Chairman had to say.

[DManA]

You have no reason to believe he was misquoted or taken out of context. No one is claiming that who was there. Not even Steele.

[mbraynard]

The RNC has no voice in determining who is on a ballot. Zero, nadda, zilch.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[mbraynard]

Sorry, but Katon knowingly belonging to a club with a ‘no blacks’ rule on it’s book is a deal breaker. It was really stupid and demonstrates a person who would have a huge burden on his back to start with and also demonstrates a person with POOR JUDGEMENT.

[muawiyah]

Look, if I've followed your political career for years (Steele is nearly a local here) and years and know your positions and some Leftwingtard comes along and says "hey, he recanted, he says thus and so now", I'll already know that's BS ~ so when a puke comes along from GQ with an alleged interview with you, right off the bat I know not to trust GQ, but also to ask you "Hey, baby, did you mean 'that'".

So, someone's already pointed out the problem to Mr. Steele and he has elaborated on his answer and with certainty he is still against abortion.

"Context" in this case includes Mr. Steele's full life's history, not the few moments with a softporn peddler who asked for an interview.

Next time Steele will know to set a higher price and demand an editorial review.,P>Now, about Don Wildman taking pleasure in reading GQ, and all those old broads at CWA wallowing in the filth along with him, I think I've got an idea WHO some of our "not real Conservative Christians" are. They have some serious 'splainin' to do.

[muawiyah]

You can't actually win anything without the so-called "religious right". They are a very large part of the base.

The people who try to win without the support of the "religious right" are called DEMOCRATS.

[DManA]

Next time Steele will know to set a higher price and demand an editorial review.,

This is not an internship. He’s supposed to be a professional politician. Make all the excuses for him you want but the whole sorry episode reveals this guy isn’t ready for a post like this.

[DManA]

In my state, people who go to precinct meetings have no say who ends up on the ballot either.

[muawiyah]

Look, you’re the GQ fan, not me. You and Don Wildman are free to go off in the corner and play with your copies if you wish ~

[DManA]

You are a piece of work.

[ChicagahAl]

"You can't actually win anything without the so-called "religious right". They are a very large part of the base."

Having watched politics for many years, and having watched the so-called "religious right" for the same time; I don't believe that they are part of the "base".

They are a fringe group, that is nowhere near as large as they claim to be, and the only thing they can be counted on is to stay home on election day and scream that "America deserves whatever happens to it", because the rest of the country didn't listen to them.

Most of the "religious right" members aren't really right-wing politically, anyway. They tend to be populists, which is more like liberal-lite. They claim their "conservative" banner because of a few social issues, on which they tend to be, shall we say - extreme. Many of them are not economic conservatives, and now a lot of them have bought into the far-left global warming scam, as well.

The Republican party is going to have to figure out how to win without them. The first step is for Republicans to accept the fact that the "religious right" can't be counted on, and market accordingly.

[muawiyah]

You are describe George W. Bush to a "t", but not the so-called "religious right".

How you could mix up the two can only be explained by your excessive reading of a Leftwingtard MSM newspaper.

Time to give it up ~ the net has everything you need.

[muawiyah]

Time to inform yourself.

[patriot preacher]

Sorry, but Katon knowingly belonging to a club with a ‘no blacks’ rule on it’s book is a deal breaker. It was really stupid and demonstrates a person who would have a huge burden on his back to start with and also demonstrates a person with POOR JUDGEMENT.

_____________

Sorry, but Steele knowingly stating that abortion is merely a matter of “personal choice,” and yet homosexuality is NOT was really stupid and demonstrated a person who NOW HAS a huge burden on his back to start with and also demonstrates a person with POOR JUDGMENT.

[DManA]

I think you’ve gone postal.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

You are FOS. I voted for McLame just to vote against Zero. Forget it next time. keep nominating RINOs. I've voted for my last RINO.

Enjoy your stay in the wilderness. looks like you'll be there for a while.

[muawiyah]

The LAW makes abortion a matter of "personal choice". Eventually the LAW could make hunting down and eliminating abortionists and their enablers a matter of "personal choice".

You'll find that Mr. Steele does not agree with the idea of exercising the "personal choice" option in matters of life and death.

What you need to worry about here is the LAW ~ and how we need to change it so this does not happen.

[muawiyah]

You should be so lucky.

I've got your name on my special list. Dat's cause you dMan who screwed up one too many times.

[mbraynard]

I agree with you.

[mbraynard]

Uh - in every state, anyone can get on the 3allot. And in no state can the RNC keep someone off.

In New York, the county party chairmen get to decide who goes on the 3allot, and it's similar in PA. However, they rarely keep people off and even if they say no, you can collect a few signatures and get on anyway.

The RNC can provide resources to candidates - and that's a3out it. Almost everyone over there left to work on Romney's campaign - it didn't help him at all.