Posted on 03/16/2009 11:29:13 AM PDT by CARepublicans
March 16, 2009
From what I see, the Republican National Committee representatives who picked Michael Steele as their new chairman made a mistake. I think Steele ought to step aside.
It pains me to say it, but it pains me more to watch the opposition party, the Republican Party, spin aimlessly and leaderless, while the Obama administration shreds to pieces, with ruthless focus and discipline, everything this country stands for.
Yes, of course, the defining moment for me is the recent GQ magazine interview in which Steele sounds more like a Democrat than a Republican. Does a woman have a right to choose abortion? "Yeah. Absolutely." Is homosexual behavior something an individual can choose? "It's like saying, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black.'"
Should we amend the Constitution to define marriage? "I don't like mucking around with the Constitution." I guess Mr. Steele does like mucking around with his own party's platform, which supports such an amendment.
Look, over just the last week, Barack Obama sent to Capitol Hill the most irresponsible budget ever proposed by any president -- calling it, as you would only expect from Obama, "A New Era of Responsibility." And he overturned the existing ban on using federal funds to destroy human embryos to do stem cell research -- calling it, as you would only expect from an Obama spokesman, "sound scientific practice ... instead of dogma in developing federal policy." And what am I writing about? Michael Steele.
We now have the most left-wing president in our history using the excuse of a recession and the leverage of his "honeymoon," together with decisive Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress, to turn our country into the Soviet States of America. And instead of there being a clear and articulate message from the opposition, the press is writing about Steele and Rush Limbaugh.
Not only does the RNC chairman not seem to share the values of his party, or to even agree with his party's platform, but he is a public-relations disaster. The diversionary noise he has created has not only hurt Republicans, but it has helped the president move his ambitious agenda without being seriously publicly challenged.
The GQ interview is a defining moment, but it is also the tip of an iceberg that goes deep.
All conservatives have had doubts about Steele, for good reasons. We all recall his interview with Tim Russert during his 1996 Senate campaign when, after being pushed by Russert, he said he accepted Roe v Wade as "stare decisis" -- accepted legal precedent.
And, of course, there was his involvement with the Republican Leadership Council which pushed support for pro-abortion and "gay rights" candidates.
Quite honestly, I reserved judgment about Steele's selection as RNC chairman, mustering up wishful thinking that he would get up to the challenge, that he would see the deep and sharp divisions in the country and understand that things are different now -- today we are not talking about haggling over public policy with people with whom we share basic values. Today we are fighting for the very principles that will define the future of this country.
This is not a time when we can muddle through with a leader who is not sure who he is, who is not clear about the principles of his party, and who is not consumed with the importance of the cultural war that we now confront. Mr. Obama for sure knows his own values with clarity and knows exactly what his objectives are.
The basic principles and values that enable freedom and that made America great -- family, sanctity of life and sanctity of property, have been under siege now for many years. But today we have a president who wants to make a clean and final break from all these things. This is what is at stake.
The Republican Party needs a chairman who wants to fight this fight. It seems pretty clear that Michael Steele is not that man.
---
Star Parker is is an author and president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education. Her books include "White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay."
--------------------
Ouch
What else has the RNC stood for in the last 2 decades?
He really should hit the road. If we need a black (or whatever they are called today) leader, I recommend Star Parker. If we only need a qualified, intelligent conservative, I recommend Star Parker.
Get rid of Steele NOW. Time is a wastin’.
I agree with this.
But in order for a move to oust Steele to matter, calls for resignation have to come from someone who supported him going in, or an RNC member who supported him (especially a member other than those who supported him in the final rounds after Blackwell came on board).
I LOVE STAR!
I love Star, she is a fantastic person.
Oh stop already.
So today we see an article in Newmax:
‘Steele Still Popular With State GOP Leaders’. If so, why does anyone stay with this RINO party?
GOP leadership knew what they were getting with Steele. The GOP is on the exit lane on pro-life. Take a look at the Governors plus RINOs also Guiliani had a lot of support. They are desperate to break out of the Bible belt and corn belt and pro-life is ripe to be thrown under the campaign bus. On abortion, Pro-life will have to depend of the clergy convincing women rather than convincing politicians.
That interview was a total killer for me. He has got to go. Even if he learns to shut up and pretend, he will constantly be making decisions to use his influence to help the RINO faction of the party.
We needed someone who would clean that mess out. Instead, we got someone who is clearly inclined to keep it going with business as usual.
And if Steele has to go, much better to do it now and get it over with. Let the media scream about racism, and maybe point out that the had little good to say about Steele when he got the job. Get it done, and start cleaning out the stables. It’s none too soon.
If they take that route, the GOP will become extinct. They will lose the social conservative vote, and they will not gain anything in the liberal states, where the Democrats will continue to outbid them.
Being the “me too” party is a losing strategy. Just ask the Conservative Party in the UK. Labour has gotten more and more tired and disliked, the the Conservatives just don’t represent a real alternative, and never will as long as they say, “Choose us, we’re Labour Lite.”
They have taken that route in the big Eastern states and California. I think a better future in those areas would to reach out to Reagan Democrats but since they contain a lot of union members, the GOP would rather reach out to the 'choicers'.
GQ is the metrosexual megaphone ~ they run softporn stuff too ~ and I am forced to envision the guys who use it as a source as trying to lick the bikinis (if worn) off the teenyboppers (or TB lookalikes) who are so carefully displayed on the covers and inside pages.
Not that I am horrified by their behavior ~ it's at least somewhat heterosexual (one would hope, or is that the guy wearing those tight cut jeans who's getting the tongue treatment?)~ but I am aghast they would take such a culturally Leftwingtard document as the SOURCE of their thoughts.
Certainly they can do better than that ~ like maybe ask Mr. Steele for copies of all his major speeches for the last 20 years of his political life.
I guess I haven't been following this close enough.
I had no idea he said that.
Buying into that homosexual deviant propaganda is absolutely ignorant.
Yes, of course, the defining moment for me is the recent GQ magazine interview in which Steele sounds more like a Democrat than a Republican. Does a woman have a right to choose abortion? “Yeah. Absolutely.” Is homosexual behavior something an individual can choose? “It’s like saying, ‘Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.’”
Steele sounds like a social liberal. Not that I believe that for most people homosexuality is a “choice” but he is dead wrong on the abortion issue.
No doubt Steele learned to counsel his language at the Catholic seminary he attended, and his old instincts simply came back to him when he was interviewed by the metrosexual GQ reporter.
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that virtually none of the big mouths on this issue would go berserk in the presence of a homosexual reporter conducting an interview, although they should, and you know who you are.
Re-read whatever he said about abortion in light of what he’s said since, and before. He didn’t say he supported abortion.
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.