BREAKING! Pro-life, devout Catholic named new RNC chair!

American Papist ^ | January 30, 2009 | Thomas Peters

[NYer]

I'm hearing that it happened just minutes ago: Former Maryland Lt. Gov. (and former state party chairman) Michael Steele has been elected as the new chair of the Republican National Committee.

So who is he?!

CollegeNews tells us:

"Steele is a staunch social conservative: devoutly Catholic, pro-life, anti-embryonic stem cell research, etc."

Sounds like my kind of guy!

And no Kmiec-style justifications needed to support him.

update: WaPo blog:

The Republican National Committee elected Michael Steele as its first African American chairman today in Washington, a decision that came after an excruciating series of ballots that displayed a level of drama rarely seen in national politics.

On the sixth and final ballot Steele bested South Carolina Republican party Chairman Katon Dawson 91 to 77.

"It's time for something completely different and we are going to bring it to them," Steele said after his victory. "This is our opportunity. I cannot do this by myself."

[Petronski]

HUH??? More than half of them voted for Obama...

Are you regurgitating that unsubstantiated wishful thinking again?

[GonzoII]

Related:

Q&A with Michael Steele, Candidate for RNC Chairman

[gtsamson]

Great news!!!
Steele will steer the GOP back in the right direction.

[SuziQ]

Actually, the fact that he's a devout Catholic is a very strong recommendation, in my book.

My brother in law is a priest, and called me this evening when he heard the news, and wondered why the media called Michael Steele a moderate. I said it was probably because he made some critical comments about the Iraq War back in 2005 or so, and the media loved that, of course, because they assumed he was anti-Bush, which he wasn't. My b-i-l said that it was probably his religious thinking that led to that concern, and he reminded me that both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI had expressed concerns about the war in Iraq, specifically regarding the rights of Catholics.

B-i-l said that as a young man, Steele had considered joining the religious life, and went to a Seminary run by the Order of Augustine, but decided he didn't have a vocation, so left it. Sounds like the priests educated him well, as he uses REASON to good effect.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Thank you, Victoria, for doing do diligence and intelligently diseminating here. We desperately need for FR to be a voice of Conservative reason on the net, not something that people can point to and say: see Conservatives are all far right kooks. Michael Steele has a hard job in front of him to rebuild the GOP, we have a hard job in front of us to help him in doing that heavy lifting.

[Victoria Delsoul]

You're welcome, Carolyn.

Yes, we have a big job ahead of us, starting with uniting and strengthening our base. We need to win seats in the House and the Senate in 2010.

I can't stand Obama, his administration, the rest of the Democrats, and their polices.

It's going to be a very long 4 years.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Too long a four years, I just Pray we can gain the house back in 2010. I sincerely hope we get back to FR being a site of intelligent discussion, I fear so many trolls have invaded and delight in stirring the pot. I hate it when threads start to look more like KOS or DU, because it reflects on all of us. We need to return to activism.

I remember a time when there was a cause here someone would post a list of not only the networds and their phone numbers but advertisers and their contact information and people would go to town letting them know we are out here and speaking out. We have got to stop being a one-issue party and look at candidates on a whole, choosing the strongest to support... sadly I don't even know if we are capable of that now.

[Victoria Delsoul]

You are right, and I agree with you completely.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Gotta go now, nighty night.

[annalex]

Thank you. I was strictly commenting on what was posted.

He never used “I mean” or “whatever,”

Are you sure the comment was not sanitized before it was quoted? "I mean" he did use according to your quote as well.

Annalex did so here, because her comments

I am Alex, Ann is my wife.

[murron]

He seems to be wishy-washy on Roe v Wade.

[Iscool]

~~~Are you regurgitating that unsubstantiated wishful thinking again?~~~

Do you ever post anything of substance??? Or with any truth attached to it???

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=9996

It’s amazing how many times you are proven wrong by so many posters yet you still let the spittle run...

[Petronski]

Exit polls are not scientific. The story is meaningless. It is amazing how many times you claim proof when you have none.

[milford421]

Hopefully you’ve been pinged to 120 and his position has been cleared up for you.

Again, I don’t find Steele a RINO at all on the 2nd amendment especially after reading his accurate quoted statement.

[Iscool]

We have got to stop being a one-issue party and look at candidates on a whole, choosing the strongest to support... sadly I don't even know if we are capable of that now.

So you don't care what wins as long as it wins and calls itself a Republican??? Why pick the strongest to win if he's still going to be the loser???

You go for it...I'll stick with one issue; the Constitution...

[milford421]

Thanks for the ping to this.

[Puddleglum]

that Roe v Wade interview is not stellar - it is hem and haw and try not to say what you believe for fear of losing one vote someplace.

[Iscool]

Exit polls are not scientific. The story is meaningless. It is amazing how many times you claim proof when you have none.

The numbers are all over the internet...So you're too late...You already 'stepped in it'...

[verga]

I like Mike. He’ll do a great job....

I have heard him substituting for Bill Bennett on his moring radio show, he is great. Intelligent articulate and solid conservative values.

[sitetest]

Dear rbmillerjr,

As I've said repeatedly elsewhere, I'm much more than happy to call his previous blundering idiotic statement as a mulligan. IF he makes clear that Roe must go.

And then I will happily support him.

Otherwise, no.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Puddleglum,

“that Roe v Wade interview is not stellar - it is hem and haw and try not to say what you believe for fear of losing one vote someplace.”

That's a pretty good theory of what happened there.

That doesn't encourage me - that suggests that this is a guy who is willing to fudge supposedly deeply-held principles for the sake of a few extra votes. Not the sort of thing you want in your party leader.

That being said, if he makes clear that Roe must go, I'll support him.

But not otherwise.

sitetest