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 ...
*******************
It's unfortunate, isn't it? Within days of becoming the chairman of the RNC, we find that Steele is not what many of us thought he was. Too bad for us, I guess.
We’re doomed.
Keep in mind few who label themselves "pro-choice" support abortion-on-demand for any reason, at taxpayers' expense. If some non-hardcore "pro-choicers" want to vote R- for reasons other than abortion - if that isn't a big issue for them - let's welcome them on the issues we do agree on! The Dems did this with some pro-lifers and they won.
I doubt Michael Steele would compromise on core principles. He said he would not, in fact, in his Blueprint for Tomorrow; see bottom of page 3 and top of page 4.
Yes — if that’s the way you wish to put it.
It may come as a shock to you, but is none of YOUR business what a woman chooses to do, and neither is it the government’s. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, are you willing to personally, yourself, use force to prevent that abortion? Will you use lethal force to prevent that woman from undergoing an abortion? Will you kill that woman to prevent that abortion from taking place? Or are you simply going to trust to the agents of the State to do the killing for you?
Make no mistake: when you propose government action for or against something, it is the threat or deployment of force that gives that government action its ultimate authority. Lethal force is merely the logical end-point to government power.
That, I think, is what some of you do not understand. Government is a beast that must be constrained, at all times and in all ways. It isn’t a beast that must be given free rein when it suits us, but shackled when it is inconvenient for us. Some of you seem willing, even eager, to grow the State so that it may impose upon all your particular prejudices. Indeed, the Founders would be surprised: at the monumental arrogance of those Americans who have taken upon themselves the mantle of God, deciding who is sinner and who is saint, and effecting punishment thereof. Yes, they would be surprised, at the facility with which even the promise of power can corrupt the self-righteous. The Founders understood that power can tempt even the noblest soul, and none may be more easily tempted than those who claim to be doing “God’s work” or (to use a secular phrasing) those who claim that THEIR dictates are “for your own good”.
He then goes on to cite American Survey polls showing 69% of Americans are conservative on fiscal issues, and 53% on social issues.
I think that you, a pro-choicer, and I, a pro-lifer, would agree that present abortion policy - on-demand, for any reason, on a woman of any age, with no parental consent, and at taxpayers' expense - is far too radical a policy for America. We may even agree that abortion is painful for a woman on many levels, something she does not wish to dwell upon, and that it should never be celebrated in the rather cavalier manner that characterizes much of the hardcore pro-choice Left. And, lastly, we might agree with an ultimate goal of a society in which abortion is no longer perceived as necessary.
What a f%#*&@g moron ........
*****************
Abortion is murder, and should be prosecuted as such.
Then why isn't prostitution a civil right?
ooops...
No one wanted to hear it. Ignorance reins supreme.
I've yet to meet the person who suggests "lethal force to prevent that woman from undergoing an abortion." No laws will prevent some abortions from occurring, just as laws do not prevent crime from occurring. Thus, your argument is of the straw man variety; you are fighting an imaginary foe.
If you study the history of abortion law in the U.S., you'll find that it was ALWAYS the abortionist who faced the brunt of any penalty handed down. The woman was considered, correctly in my view, another victim.
In theory, what you've stated sounds good: "Let her do what she wants with her body." In practice, in addition to ignoring the victim in abortion who loses life, it has created a false panacea which ignores the intangibles such as the mental scarring of the abortion, and the overall desensitization to the sanctity of life - born and unborn - in society at large. As a quick-fix, the "choice" becomes for many women instead a coercion: in theory, it's her choice, but in practice, she is shoved into the decision by friends, family, or worst of all, a complete lack of support from the father. Do we have a warmer and more caring society as a result of readily-available abortion?
...is it really worth it to spend $80 grand on your kid’s secular college education, so he can graduate with a 10% chance at a $32K a year job?
Ha! Good question. Thanks, that was interesting.
To your way of thinking it must be none of the baby’s business either whether it will live or die. And since its none of the government’s business,then why does the government want to force me to fund abortion with my tax dollars? Its involving me in act of murder against my will! “Pro-choice”—ha!”Freedom”—what an obscene travesty on that concept! Playing God with innocent human life is not what I call freedom! Who is imposing morality on whom here?
I confess to thinking he might be up to the task....just give him a month or so.
Now, however, for him to start off with the same old RINO crap tends to make me think a "month" is no longer necessary.
We can reach out to people and not concede our principles at the same time. We need to grow the party, not shrink it.
Reaching out to Log Cabin "Republicans" is not how conservatives will regain the majority or claim victory during the next Presidential election.
We do not need "appeasement politics." We need conservative values and conservative principles espoused and Truth to be told. Doing otherwise will cause only continued degradation of values. Don't take my word for it, just look what happened to McCain's appeasement campaign. It got him nothing and the country got Obama.
While I agree that the GOP cannot simply be the small town Scots-Irish Protestant party, nor should we aggressively court a group that is but 3% of the population, nor do we have to bend over backwards to please the pro-aborts. I don’t think that we should be HOSTILE to said groups, but that isn’t the same as aggressively courting them.
I agree.
Suburban New Jersey and Pennsylvania are filled with Churchgoing Catholic Obama voters (including much of my family).
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.