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.
“I couldn’t agree more with xzins’ sentiment about double-talkers....”
Then why accept Mr. Steele's double-talk on the issue?
“...but I’ve never forgotten the symbolism of his not appearing at the Right to Life Marches,...”
Well, I've been to the March for Life 10 out of the last 11 years, including all the years that Michael Steele was Lt. Governor. I don't remember him being there. If he was there, he made no effort to let folks know it.
So, what comprises his vast public pro-life record, other than mellifluous words? Has he run any fundraisers for pregnancy aid centers? Has he protested out in front of any abortion mills? Did he publicly tell his governor that he was wrong to allocate tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for embryonic stem cell research?
If he did any of these things - these actual actions, I, living in Maryland, am entirely unaware of them.
“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.”
Then Mr. Steele is unqualified, in that he can't even communicate his position clearly to those who DO see the supreme value of unborn children.
“But Steele ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 and for the Senate in 2006 as a strong pro-lifer...”
Although he later proved worthless in any efforts to dissuade our extremist pro-death governor, I'll give him 2002.
But it's pretty clear that he tried to blur the lines in 2006. I don't view him at all as a strong pro-life candidate in 2006. I view him as someone who thought he had the pro-life vote in his pocket in 2006, so he said things that softened significantly (or even vitiated) his pro-life stance.
By the way, here is a New York Times article from March 2006 that quotes Mr. Steele in a way that clouds opposition to Roe:
Here's the money paragraph:
Senators cast votes on matters of substance and national import: up or down, yes or no. It is in this area that Steele is less comfortable — and at his most vulnerable as a candidate. It is not always apparent if he can clearly enunciate where he stands — or maybe he just doesn't want to. Even on some of the issues that are closest to his heart, he defaults to soft, imprecise language. Steele says that he is proudly “pro-life” but seemed to equivocate when I asked if he favors greater restrictions on abortion or its outright ban. “The dance we do is, we put too much pressure and weight on one decision,” he said, referring to Roe v. Wade. “We have to re-evaluate that.” He claimed that he was not advocating overturning the decision, only asking if we “have to live with the reality of a decision that was made 33 years ago.”
“...David Brody are defending Steele on abortion...”
Who cares? Look at Mr. Brody's quote:
“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.”
Again, what the heck is his “solid track record on the life issue”? As far as I know, it's words.
And words are readily contradicted by other words.
And in 2006, he definitely muddied the waters on his “record” on life.
As well, I followed the 2006 campaign closely, since I live in Maryland, and was enthusiastic about Mr. Steele's campaign. I was disappointed at the time that there was virtually no mention of his pro-life views in his literature or on his website. He didn't talk about it except in the vaguest terms. He went around proclaiming himself “proudly pro-life,” but without any of the particulars cited by the folks you quote as being in favor of a total ban on abortion.
Again, it looked to me like he was taking the pro-life vote for granted and trying to soften his pro-life position to get votes from pro-deathers.
That's not exactly “staunchly pro-life” or solidly pro-life.
It's trimming. It's straddling. It's compromising.
I'm glad to see Mr. Steele this week move away from his pro-death words of two years ago, but I wish it would have been less hesitant, less relativized. I wish it had been words that evinced stronger, undeniable conviction.
sitetest
Ditto.
Just a matter of time before "conservative" commentary by Gergen and Will start appearing in HE's pages.
What you said.
Why do you folks keep insisting I have accepted anything on Steele when I keep asking questions in an effort to understand his position? Why is asking questions and not just accepting what strangers fed me suspect?
“...but I’ve never forgotten the symbolism of his not appearing at the Right to Life Marches,...” Well, I've been to the March for Life 10 out of the last 11 years, including all the years that Michael Steele was Lt. Governor. I don't remember him being there. If he was there, he made no effort to let folks know it.
To the best of my knowledge Michael Steele wasn't president of the United States. Why is Steele picked out in this way, just because I pointed out an unhappy fact about Reagan?
So, what comprises his vast public pro-life record, other than mellifluous words?
If I were to use your tactic, I could ask the same questions of President Reagan.
Reagan is the great president of my lifetime, and he failed in this way. Why change the subject in this way? It only makes me discount much of what you write because you obviously have an agenda. I just want the whole truth, and am not interested in attempts to muddy the waters.
These are distractions from the truth. I'm not interested in this "Ah HA but he said this one thing here..." either pro- or con. FR seems to be turning into this bizarre place where only those who march in lockstep with accepted wisdom are allowed.
Sorry, I go my own way. I don't follow religious or secular leaders who tell me how to think. I ask questions and look for information. That this is seen as hostile to many here is downright weird.
Thanks for the additional excerpts, I will add them to the material I'm reading. I may very well come down on your side of the divide, but it won't be because of the insinuation that if someone is seeking answers they are somehow suspect, and that a couple of awkward sentences in a "gotcha" interview are the summation of a man's life.
“Why do you folks keep insisting I have accepted anything on Steele when I keep asking questions in an effort to understand his position?”
Well, you give the appearance of defending his double-talk.
If it walks like a duck, etc.
“To the best of my knowledge Michael Steele wasn't president of the United States. Why is Steele picked out in this way, just because I pointed out an unhappy fact about Reagan?”
You knocked President Reagan for not coming to the March in person, I figured what's good for the goose, and all that.
Let's face it, Mr. Steele was quite a hot commodity during his term as Lt. Governor. The trip from his home in Prince George's County to the National Mall for the March for Life is about a half hour. In rush hour. If he was so darned “staunchly pro-life,” I'm sure that the march organizers would have been DELIGHTED to have this prominent local up-and-coming Republican officeholder from a blue state come be an honored guest at the March.
But he didn't.
That's fine. But then show me his “staunchly pro-life record.”
“If I were to use your tactic, I could ask the same questions of President Reagan.”
The difference is that Mr. Reagan never said that we should accept Roe vs. Wade. If he had, I'd have a much different view of his position on abortion. Once he owned up to his own (modest) mistake in the late 1960s, he never wavered from the most adamant opposition to legal abortion.
The subject here happens to be Mr. Steele's wavering in his own opposition to legal abortion. What he said during the 2006 was that we should accept Roe. That's not pro-life.
It vitiates his previous pro-life words.
That's the issue.
sitetest
I agree with you totally: We cannot get out of the UN fast enough. I voted for Sarah Palin and some old guy last time. I will vote for her again...But the old guy has to go.
I did not take Steele out of context. I cited the full quote in our interlocutor's post, and my post is automatically linked to his. There is no question of obfuscation or decontextualization here. Think before you hit "post".
I emphasized the portion of Steele's quote that is in fact a talking point the NRA often brings up when debating the grabbers, to-wit, that the ostensible premise of grabbers' proposed restrictive measures is public safety. But as Steele pointed out and I emphasized by quoting him again, after the other poster had added emphasis to other parts of Steele's quote that did not properly illuminate Steele's position, the real answer to criminality is the enforcement of the hundreds of extant laws that protect the public and sanction crime committed with guns. That was Steele's, and the NRA's, real point -- and a very valid one that can't be emphasized enough in these culture wars.
He is ANTI-GUN and pro-abort, he is for gay marriage.
He is not anti-gun, no way. You completely misread and misinterpreted his statement. That's what I've been telling you.
I don't think he's an abort, either, n/w/s Tim Russert's trying to corner him with a "gotcha" election-killer moment that the 'Ratmedia could then use to beat Steele's candidacy to death (they did anyway, but then they couldn't do that in a state whose citizens are not complete liberal dolts).
Bottom line, I think Michael Steele is pro-life and anti-abortion. He said he didn't advocate overturning Roe vs. Wade at this time (are you going to accuse me of misquoting him again?). He did that to defend against the "gotcha". I wouldn't have done it, but I understand why he did -- it's politely called "campaign rhetoric" when 'Rats do it.
I don't think Steele is anti-marriage, either -- or pro-HRC, pro-GLAAD, pro-gay caucus, or any of that.
You cannot reach out to those groups and stand against them on conservative principles at the same time, that's called being two faced or deceptive if you will.
That's not true at all. You seem to be saying that if I'm not actively attacking them, I'm being a two-faced liar. But Steele reaches out to members of these groups by appealing to their other interests and values that they might share with the GOP platform.
Inviting people on the other side of the divide to cross over and help us out, isn't giving up one's own principles. Asking for practical help from people disposed to disagree with you on other basic issues is not abandonment of principle. Only capitulation to their ideology is abandonment of principle.
[Darkwolf] I wasn't surprised when he revealed he and his wife cried with joy over Obama's inauguration--he's another manchild
I hadn't heard that one, but I'm not surprised. It was bad enough ABC hired an unrecovered Clintonoid to do commentary, but it eventuates now there is an iron quadrangle of constant phone communication -- hundreds of calls a day -- among Stephanopoulos, Paul Begala at CNN, James Carville, and Rahm Emanuel. Someone got phone records and took them public.
This is proof positive that there is no real separation between the 'Ratmedia and the rest of the running 'Rats. Hell, CNN's and ABC's political news is all being run out of the Obama White House now.
Read it and retch:
"Stephanopoulos’ wife Ali Wentworth tells Oprah that she and her husband cried on Inauguration Day…"
“We watched everything and George was still doing all the anchoring for ABC…George called me at home and he went, “Honey?” and I said “I know!” and we both started crying.
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2009/01/22/george-stephanopoulos-cried-on-inauguration-day/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=qIiNSaKAOp3etge74MmgCw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=george+stephanopoulos+wife+cried+Obama+inauguration&spell=1
I never doubted the corrupt evil of the media... including fox.
LLS
Extensive reading of the extant records of the 1858 debates between Sen. Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, who was campaigning for Douglas's seat in the Senate, shows several things about Lincoln's position in the debates:
Lincoln
- Defended the institution of slavery where it existed
- Opposed only its extension to the Territories and to the Free States
- Refused to admit that Negroes were the social, intellectual, and political equals of European-Americans
- Referred several times to Negroes as "niggers" in a patronizing way (howbeit this was a figure of rhetoric -- a tactic)
- Stated several times that he would not want to marry a Negro woman or see intermarriage and miscegenation between the two (inferentially distinct) societies.
Compare that compendium of debating points with what Lincoln did later. Do they outline his vision? Do they fairly forecast what his political program would look like if/when he were elected either Senator or President?
Now apply that logic to Steele's campaign rhetoric uttered in the middle of a hot round of "MSM Gotcha!" with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, with a U.S. Senate seat up for grabs in a Democrat year.
Since I was pinged, I can only assume my two cents worth is being solicited.
Mr. Steele is no longer a legislator. He has a real job now. Raising funds and winning elections is his job, not writing legislature.
The RNC is NOT the ACU. They are not a policy institute. Their only job is to win elections.
A large portion of the donations that the RNC receives come from NGO’s such as the CoC, corporations, among others that have little or no ideological interest in either fiscal or social conservatism. They’re just in it to line their own pockets. The pubbies need this money to counter all the funds that the left gets from their big spenders. In reality, it is the high rollers who get to choose the RNC leadership. He’s their pick. It may not be right or fair, but thus it is, and thus has it always been.
The money is only half of the equation, though. They need votes. That’s where we come in. It’s our job to convince him that Republican candidates will have to adopt and adhere to certain platform planks if they want us to show up at the polls.
Apparently we’re doing a pretty good job of that right now, as Mr. Steele is an incremental move to the right from recent RNC chairs and they fired a bunch of staff after the McCain fiasco. So long as he’s content to stick to his job of making phone calls and reading demographic charts, and refrain from using his position to stump for liberal legislature, he’s good enough for me. If he’s smart enough to realize that the best way to win elections is for Republican party to raise the flag of Reagan conservatism, that’s even better.
On top of that, I like his style. Telling that reporter to ‘come back when you have a real question’ is exactly what the Gipper would have done in his shoes.
I’ll give him time, and judge him by his actions.
I guess I don’t share the belief that Michael Steele is the second coming of Abraham Lincoln.
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.