Posted on 02/04/2009 2:01:43 AM PST by 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.
From Darkwolf377’s last link:
“’Roe versus Wade was wrongly decided,’ said Steele. ‘It should be overturned in my personal view. We [Republicans] value life born and unborn and we will fight for that, and I will fight for that as an individual, and I will fight for that as chairman of the party.’”
This goes a long way toward backtracking and retracting what he said in the Meet the Press segment in 2006.
Which is what I've personally been looking for.
But he softens it considerably with “should be overturned in my personal view.”
Sounds a lot like, “I'm personally opposed to abortion, but...”
I'll have to reflect further on whether this is enough for me to stay in the party and support Mr. Steele.
sitetest
That’s one of the reasons I haven’t made up my mind about him, but I do put some more credence in this statement than the one clip repeated over and over (do a search) from the MTP interview. Those looking to completely reject the man have only this in their arsenal. I’m looking for more before I support or reject him. But his quote is perfectly in keeping with a prolife view.
I noticed that too, sitetest. He's trying to speak out of both sides of his mouth, depending on the audience.
When he is on the national stage and millions of people are watching, he wants people to think he favors the status quo, i.e., stare decisis. When he is interviewed on CNS (with a worldwide readership in the 6 figures) he wants to give the impression that Roe should be overturned. But then he softens that stance with "in my personal view". In other words, "personally I am opposed to abortion, but...." leaving plenty of room for tap dancing for the mainstream media.
The fact of the matter, which some people can't seem to grasp, is that you cannot be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and at the same time in favor of the courts following stare decisis. Steele's position is untenable.
P-marlowe’s quote has Steele more recently saying that stare decisis on Roe v Wade SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.
That to me means: “If a chance to change RvW appears, then we SHOULD FOLLOW stare decisis instead.”
That’s what should be followed means.
One statement to the national media and another to conservatives is a continuation of the policy of deceiving conservatives.
They’ve lost me.
Abortion destroys life.
Homosexuality destroys lives.
That is why both are abominable sins, injuries.
I’ll not support the destruction of lives.
Actually, he apparently made comments not dissimilar to the Meet the Press in a newspaper interview in the spring of 2006, as well. I'm working off memory, but it's been quoted several times in the last few days here at FR.
So, it isn't just the Meet the Press segment.
But without his repudiating it, even indirectly, the Meet the Press comments were enough to move Mr. Steele from the “adamantly pro-life” column to the “not sure whether he's really pro-life after all” column. And the second column is an unacceptable place for the Chairman of the Republican Party.
In my own judgment, the Meet the Press comments made him unacceptable as chairman, provided he didn't retract those remarks.
I'm glad you found the LifeSiteNews piece. But I still find it distressing that he so softens and conditions his statement about Roe with “in my personal view.” Part of my problem with that is that it is so darned close to the formula of “I'm personally opposed, but...”
We all say that Mr. Steele is a bright and articulate chap. But that leads to the conclusion that he's playing games here. We could alternatively think that perhaps he's just fumbling with his words, and that on both occasions, this last one and the Meet the Press segment, that he just didn't do a good job of articulating what he really believes.
But that sorta vitiates a big part of the reason many of us thought he'd otherwise be a good party chairman.
So, we wind up either accepting the theory that he's not too bright or articulate after all, or the theory that he's playing games and trying to straddle the fence (which to me is extremely unacceptable on this issue).
sitetest
How else can one express any of these things except IN YOUR PERSONAL VIEW?
The comparison between the audiences of MTP and CNS is equally deceptive, as those numbers might as well be exactly the same because millions and millions more have read these comments as we are now, after they've been diseminated online.
For some reason some folks have decided they don't like Steele, and their "basis" for this is an interview on MTP where if one is honest one has to admit Russert was pushing and pushing to get Steele to use words and phrases liberals LOVE to get conservatives to say so they can be used in ads and stories to color their positions.
When one does a search for backing for this position, there seems to be ONE source--that single interview.
On the other hand, there are multiple sources supporting Steele's pro-life position.
I've demonstrated with multiple sources the failure of those who are trying to hang the stare decisis quote around his neck as if it means Steele wants RvW to insure abortion remains the law of the land. While I'm glad PM has decided to use italics, he has shown an unwillingness to be honest about the actual meaning of the term.
Those who are attacking Steele have ONE item in their corner--the MTP interview.
As someone who's trying to find the truth about his position, I am finding it easier to determine the dishonesty of those who for some reason don't want this man to lead the party. I'm not sure WHY they don't want Steele in charge, but their use of this issue is dishonest, based as it is on the wording in one interview with a liberal reporter, and not on the man's entire career, his repeatedly stated position, and the support of multiple pro-life sources.
With all due respect, no, that's not what "we" wind up with--I haven't read the quote you're talking about. And two quotes doesn't a record make.
Need I quote Ronald Reagan's support of abortion while he was governor of California?
Of course not. Selective quotation would be dishonest, and wouldn't show the whole story.
“Steele's position is untenable.”
I agree.
But the question is it's untenable. There are three reasonable theories:
- He's cynically trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth in an on-going effort to appear to accept Roe to pro-aborts, and pro-life to pro-lifers;
- He's not as articulate as we all thought he was;
- The statements during 2006 were in the context of his trying to win the Senate seat in Maryland. Perhaps he thought it was necessary to try soften his pro-life position, and he tried to do it in a way that he could still claim to be pro-life, but in a way that would be less offensive to pro-deathers. Obviously, he failed to "thread the needle," and obviously, he shouldn't have even tried. If this is what he was trying to do, it was gutless and cowardly.
But perhaps now he's trying to correct that error. However, his equivocation makes me wary.
I've said repeatedly that I'm willing to give him a mulligan on the 2006 statements. I certainly gave Sen. McCain a similar forbearance for his 1999 remarks about Roe.
But if the 2006 remarks were his first effort to strike the golf ball, I must say that this second effort hardly qualifies as a particularly good shot.
Doubt remains.
sitetest
My concern with Steele is life. He has statements that quibble. Since I don’t trust the party any longer, I don’t trust quibbling statements.
I am certain they did not promote life during the last election. I’m certain they didn’t talk about judges.
They talked about earmarks and Afghanistan and Joe Plumber. And they lost their shirts, and it should have been obvious that they’d lose their shirts. I would say that they’re perfectly comfortable losing, and that Peterson and his banking crisis are also evidence that they were throwing the race. And throwing their friends under the bus.
I’m tired of dealing with deceivers.
“This parsing is a silly attempt...”
I disagree. Most of us have been taken for a ride by one or more RINOs, including some folks who once seemed solid conservatives, but who eventually turned out to have drunk the liberal Kool-Aid. It is completely legitimate to determine whether or not a Republican official is really conservative or not.
“How else can one express any of these things except IN YOUR PERSONAL VIEW?”
Well, those of us who believe in God often have no trouble stating things as objectively true, as absolutes.
I have no difficulty saying, “Roe should be overturned, and that is an absolute, transcendent, objective truth.”
If someone says, “That's just your opinion,” I'll answer, “Whether you wish to acknowledge the objective truth of it or not, it is objectively true.”
“For some reason some folks have decided they don't like Steele, and their 'basis' for this is an interview on MTP where if one is honest one has to admit Russert was pushing and pushing to get Steele to use words...”
Yep. And Mr. Steele did it. And no one put a gun to his head. I'd have had no problem saying, “Sorry, Tim, but Roe must go. Unborn children should be protected in law, it should not be legal to procure the killing of an unborn child for any reason at all throughout all nine months of pregnancy. But that is the law of the land and will be until Roe is overturned, vacated, or vitiated, whether by a new decision of the Court, a constitutional amendment, or federal legislation removing the issue from the courts.”
Instead, Mr. Steele AFFIRMED that the question RIGHTLY belongs to the courts, and that Roe should be retained.
“I've demonstrated with multiple sources the failure of those who are trying to hang the stare decisis quote around his neck as if it means Steele wants RvW to insure abortion remains the law of the land.”
I'm sorry, but I've read your arguments closely, and P-Marlowe’s as well, and to my reading, you fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the language used by everyone involved.
“As someone who's trying to find the truth about his position, I am finding it easier to determine the dishonesty of those who for some reason don't want this man to lead the party.”
I've tried to deal with you with an attitude of respect, but your insult here goes over the line. I'm as interested (perhaps more?) in the truth as you are. But I will not accept as party chairman someone who is telling us to accept Roe and move on.
It is no longer clear that Mr. Steele is truly a pro-lifer, and the objections of those folks making that point are valid.
“..., but their use of this issue is dishonest, based as it is on the wording in one interview with a liberal reporter, and not on the man's entire career,...”
The problem with this insult is that it's based on a false premise. Mr. Steele's “career” comprises principally party-building activities. He's never served in a legislature, never voted on any matter regarding the issue of abortion. As Lt. Governor, he served under a rather extremist PRO-ABORTION governor, and seemed to have very little positive effect on the PRO-ABORTION governor.
Thus, his public pro-life “career” is all words.
And so it follows that when those words are contradicted by other words, we should pay attention.
sitetest
“Need I quote Ronald Reagan's support of abortion while he was governor of California?”
Ah, the ultimate lie of Republican pro-abort apologists.
The legislation that Mr. Reagan signed did, indeed, liberalize abortion law in California:
- Prior to the law, abortions were banned in California;
- The law permitted abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life and severe health of the mother, PROVIDED that the application for abortion was approved by a panel of physicians in the HOSPITAL at which she would have the abortion.
Of course, the panels of doctors became sham rubber stamps for any and all abortions, and the “health” of the mother was also stretched beyond recognition. But that was not what was intended by the legislation.
In fact, Mr. Reagan's “pro-abortion” legislation looks an awful like what most PRO-LIFERS today would prefer for the basic parameters of abortion law.
Even so, Mr. Reagan regretted the law within a year of signing it, and became quite loud and forceful in his opposition to legal abortion.
With none of this “in my personal view” stuff.
sitetest
He is not running for a religious office.
I know that's hard for some to see as important, but it most certainly is. He is a devout Catholic, which has zero to do with a government position.
Yep. And Mr. Steele did it. And no one put a gun to his head.
And he said nothing that convinces me he is pro-abortion.
I couldn’t agree more with xzins’ sentiment about double-talkers. I am equally sick and tired of pro-life Republicans who can neither articulate nor decisively lead on this issue in anything but cosmetic ways.
I have heard beloved Republican figures talk about abortion, and do next to nothing about it. We all love Reagan, but I’ve never forgotten the symbolism of his not appearing at the Right to Life Marches, but talking long distance, without the added punch of his physical presence—which would be seen on television broadcasts every year.
We don’t need more fire-and-brimstoners who shout to the converted but can’t articulate our positions or effectively convince those who DON’T see the supreme value to the unborn.
We have a choice—do we go with the same-old same-old and talk to ourselves and congratulate each other on how wonderful we are for believing, or do we have people like Steele, who aren’t afraid of believing as they do OR with working with others who don’t see things as we do? Because whether we want to admit it or not, if we are only talking to those who see things as we do, we’re not going to get anywhere.—DW
But Steele ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 and for the Senate in 2006 as a strong pro-lifer who supports overturning in the long term and politically achievable abortion restrictions in the short term while opposing taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research. Steele, a devout Catholic, also opposes capital punishment. The National Right to Life Committee, a Republican National Committee member who has known Steele for twenty years, and David Brody are defending Steele on abortion. Says Brody:
Look, here’s the reality. Steele’s critics have a huge task ahead of them if they’re going to make the case that the guy is not pro-life enough. He’s got the solid track record on the life issue. It’s hard to argue against it.
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/11/19/steele-scrutinized-on-abortion
Some pro-life Republican activists are citing an interview Steele gave to Meet the Press in 2006 where it appears he’s less than supportive of overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that allowed virtually unlimited abortions.
NRLC endorsed Steele for his Senate campaign and sent out mailings across the state for him.
As LifeNews.com previously reported, Darla St. Martin, associate director for NRLC, told LifeNews.com that Steele was 100 percent pro-life…
“As someone who has known Michael for almost 20 years I can tell you these charges are absolutely false,” Terhes says.
“Michael is the only current candidate for RNC chairman who has ever been endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee,” Terhes explained. “Oh, and by the way, it’s not easy running for public office in Maryland as a staunch pro-lifer. But that is exactly what Michael did. He never backed down. Never made excuses.”
Terhes also cites the Washington Times, which endorsed Steele’s Senate campaign in part because of his pro-life views.
“Mr. Steele is staunchly pro-life (parting with many Republicans who support abortion in cases of rape and incest),” the paper said in its October 2006 endorsement.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4586.html
NRLC endorsed Steele for his Senate campaign and sent out mailings across the state for him.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4574.html
For me, Mike Steele is the best of all possible Presidential candidates:
• He’s Pro-Life
For me to support him, that’s a given. I’d never vote for anyone who approved of the murder of unborn babies. Steele opposes abortion on demand, and even the issue of abortion for victims of rape and incest isn’t something he’s comfortable simply glossing over. Some politicians favor abortion in those instances without qualms. From what I’ve read, Steele even sees that issue as complex and difficult. In short, he might even be more pro-life than I am. That’s exactly what I want in a candidate; somebody who’s more likely to err on the side of life.
http://darwen.us/southcon/2005/12/more-on-michael-steele.html
Steele is the beneficiary of one of the human race’s most extraordinary acts of compassion: He’s adopted. He also had a mother who eschewed welfare and toiled away at low-paying jobs to send him to top schools….Steele is pro-life, even to the point of having qualms about rape and incest exceptions (which is the place where all principled pro-lifers find themselves, though most pro-life politicians have cut corners in order to make their commitments more palatable to voters).
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200408311251.asp
FEC disclosures updated today showed that the National Right to Life Committee has spent $72,373 on Steele’s behalf with more money reported every day.
“…Michael Steele opposes abortion, which I’m sure is why the National Right to Life Committee is advertising for his campaign. But I understand why he would want to deflect that question – because over 60% of Marylanders support a woman’s right to full reproductive options, including birth control and abortion.”
http://www.mddems.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/902796
Not related directly to the abortion question, Tomas Sowell makes the case for supporting Steele:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-sowell_05edi.State.Edition1.1b42e7f.html
“He is not running for a religious office.”
What does that have anything to do with anything?
It doesn't preclude him from saying what is objectively true.
It doesn't prevent him from speaking forcefully and forthrightly, rather than relativizing and softening his positions.
“And he said nothing that convinces me he is pro-abortion.”
Different folks come to different conclusions. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to come to the conclusion that you've come to.
But I think it's also eminently reasonable that based on the remarks he made in the 2006 Senatorial campaign, it is appropriate to move him from the column marked, “adamantly pro-life,” to the column marked, “not sure if he's pro-life at all.”
Note - I didn't say, “to the column marked, ‘pro-abortion.’”
But as I've said before, the Chairman of the Republican Party must be clearly and adamantly pro-life.
Or I will no longer be a Republican.
sitetest
Well, you brought it up with your introduction of religious conviction seeing things in black and white terms. Glad to see you agree there's no place for such in the political realm.
Perhaps. But when you put two and two together, you come to the conclusion that on the issue of abortion he is ambivalent.
He says on the one hand that the courts should follow stare decisis on Roe v. Wade and uphold it, but on the other hand it is his personal view that he doesn't want the courts to follow stare decisis.
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. James 1:8.
“Well, you brought it up with your introduction of religious conviction seeing things in black and white terms.”
It is you who made the absurd remark, “How else can one express any of these things except IN YOUR PERSONAL VIEW?”
I was merely pointing out that believers in God can express things as being objectively real.
“Glad to see you agree there's no place for such in the political realm.”
Frankly, we need more folks in the political realm who assert that there is an objective reality, not fewer.
sitetest
Not this one.
Human Events doesn't either any more.
They're Republicans, but not republicans.
Like you, I see right through Steele. In the thread’s article, he talks as though the GOP has a good record on immigration and border security. Bush showed that he wouldn’t tolerate a properly regulated border or properly enforced immigration and labor law. Steele is no different. A vote for either major party is a vote for open borders, across-the-board amnesty and North American Union.
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.