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.
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.