Posted on 05/17/2009 8:20:57 PM PDT by Maelstorm
The chairman of the Republican Party says the GOP is open to supporting pro-abortion rights candidates.
Appearing Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," the head of the Republican National Committee responded to a question from moderator David Gregeory about the viability of a GOP politician who isn't strictly anti-abortion.
"We've had wonderful pro, pro-choice candidates," Steele said. "[Former] Governor Christie Todd Whitman [of New Jersey], for example, was a very successful Republican governor. ...
"I look forward to working to build a strong pro-life coalition within the Democratic Party since that's -- this is the direction the president wants to go."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
He subs on Bill Bennett's morning radio show.
Prior to his election he sounded MUCH more conservative.
He should join It’s My Party Too! , Whitman’s party.. or maybe he already was onboard.
Just more evidence that the GOP is no place for conservatives. We’re an impotent minority in that failed party.
“He subs on Bill Bennett’s morning radio show.”
Yeah, pretty often. And like Bennett, Steele has taken potshots at Rush. I don’t dislike either of them. I just don’t trust them.
Just the opposite. Bush was pro life but not a fiscal conservative on spending.
It's more like "pro life" candidates. But they will if they think by doing so they can torpedo a conservative and advance atheism and socialism.
No. We are not the minority that is the problem. They do not represent the party anymore. We need to start showing up at the state conventions and putting an end to this. We need to take control of the national party.
I only wrote the first sentence, the second sentence was included in the post I was responding to.
It isn't that far down the list for a lot of the Republican base. And when you find this pro-choice, freedom loving social-liberal/fiscal-conservative, you usually find somebody like Christie Whitman who wasn't fiscally conservative and wasn't freedom loving.
You can't love freedom, and then trash the rule of law. She put in very liberal folks on our Supreme Court, who've decided that a constitutional requirement for educating kids from 5 to 18, really included preschoolers. They also misquouted the 'thorough and efficient system' clause into 'thorough and efficient education', turning a clause that suggests limits on education funding into one that supports unlimited funding.
The only reason to bring up abortion here is to tarnish the pro-lifers, and get them to shut up. If you are a pro-lifer, the Whitman Republicans don't want to hear from you on any issue.
Either way, good stuff!!!
Well if America didn’t know the difference between Bush and Obama then, it does now.
'10, meet '06 & '08...
Some folks never learn anything. This statement is why I am no longer a Republican.
Power without principle is tyranny. You advocate the very thing Conservatives, and America, are avowed to defeat.
Sheesh! Yer sounding like you've been listening to Romney....
I represent the Constitution. I invite you to join me.
Sorry. Anyone who would yield on abortion does not support the Constitution in any way other than lip service.
really. Where do you see that in the Constitution? Is it right next to where the gov’t takes over auto companies?
Show me any state in this union where your life may be taken without just cause or due process, and I will cede the point.
That makes absolutely no sense. My point has been that we should not kick people out of the party for being Pro choice. You think we should. In most cases those people support regulations and processes.
It makes absolute sense. Life is already protected by the US Constitution. It is the very first of the enumerated inalienable rights (DoI), and the Constitution limits everyone from taking life without due process of law. Neither the federal government, nor the states, have the jurisdiction to sanction abortion on that basis.
To say you "represent the Constitution" while defending abortion, or those who would support it at any level is what makes no sense.
My point has been that we should not kick people out of the party for being Pro choice. You think we should. In most cases those people support regulations and processes.
There are more regulations and processes in place by federal edict to demand the right of a woman to kill her child, and in support of the abortion industry (to include curtailment of free speech), than there ever could be in accepting the clear and unwavering terms of the Constitutional right to life.
There is no regulation or process necessary, beyond the natural identification of a "baby" as a baby, and worthy of the protections afforded every American, not to mention the sane protections of historical human justice... Even illegal aliens and the most sadistic criminals have more rights than the most innocent and fragile of us all. It is inhuman and vile. It is beneath contempt.
And what you do with your party is no longer a concern of mine (or of anyone I know). A party which cannot see clearly enough to follow the Constitution on a matter as fundamental as the guarantee of inalienable rights is not a party I care to associate with.
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.