Posted on 09/18/2009 7:26:33 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
What's next, is Steele going to welcome gun control candidates into the party? Candidates advocating for higher taxes and spending?
In a September 3rd interview, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told a surprised Columbus Dispatch reporter that he would lead the charge of pro-abortion GOP candidates if abortion is a value in their community. Columbus Dispatch Senior Editor Joe Hallett asked Steele "if there is room in the party for a pro-abortion rights candidate…"
Hallett quoted Steele's reply:
"There absolutely is, there absolutely is… The key thing right now-and I think this is true for Republicans across the country-is to have leadership that reflects the communities I live in, where we're from. As we get ready for the battles that lie ahead from this district to all the districts surrounding the state, that you're going to find those candidates emerge and rise up who reflect those values in those communities, and that's a very important step for the party to take, I think, and I'm looking forward to help lead that charge in the future."
There are two glaring problems with his statement. First, the official Republican Party Platform states: "We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it." Steele has thus flagrantly violated his own Party Platform by agreeing to fund the campaigns of GOP candidates who advocate abortion.
Second, the Platform touts itself as "The party of ideas, rather than a mere coalition of interests." But Steele's comments encourage candidates to be influenced by special interests in their communities rather than Republican principles of life, lower taxes, and smaller government.
It appears that Steele has forgotten that America elects representatives, not merely agents of puppeteer constituents. The words of the father of conservatism Edmund Burke in his 1774 speech at Bristol are more important now than ever: "Your Representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
This time, Steele is "lead[ing] that charge" of GOP candidates who refuse to protect preborn babies. What kind of pastel-colored GOP candidate will he welcome next? What if a candidate's community wants to give citizenship to illegal aliens , higher taxes, universal healthcare, and more government programs?
During the Jan. 4, 2009 RNC debate for the Chairmanship sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform, Steele revealed that he did not own a single firearm. Could this mean Chairman Steele will use RNC donations to welcome advocates of gun control next?
------------------------------------------------------
3.I’m adamantly anti-abortion, and yet I’d support Rudy Giuliani in a New York minute over Duke Cunningham, who received a 0% rating from NARAL.
Sam Johnson, the Republican congressman I helped elect in Texas (where I live), holds a much stronger view on gun rights than any Republican congressman who could be elected in the Northeast. But if Sam Johnson ran for Congress in Massachusetts, he’d lose.
The party with the majority of Congressmen/Senators elects the speaker of the House and the leader of the Senate, who control which bills are brought to a vote. Insisting that all Republicans hold exclusively conservative positions will only insure that the Democrats retain power.
To those who believe that it’s everything or nothing, and withhold your support for any candidate who isn’t ideologically pure, I have one simple question. How do you like having a veto-proof Democrat Congress and the most Liberal president in history?
We don’t have an ideologically-driven political system like England, which elects “Conservatives” and “Liberals”. We have a party system that elects Republicans or Democrats, and the occasional independent. If we act ideologically in a non-ideological political system, we guarantee our minority status, which means we guarantee that we will have little political power.
Without political power, there is no way to advance our principles legislatively. Advancing 50% of our principles is better than advancing none of them, particularly if those 50% will help lay the foundation for educating the public as to the overall wisdom of conservatism, which will allow for a greater advancement of principles the following election(s).
Politics is about power as well as ideology. If you insist on complete ideological purity, you will insure victory for your opponents. This doesn’t mean abandoning principles for power. Rather, it means that you must operate in the real world, and recognize that some populations are not as ideologically or morally advanced as others.
Running Sam Johnson for Congress in Texas works just fine. Running him for Congress in NY City is a disaster. So, you run Sam Johnson for Congress in Texas, and get someone who is maybe 30% conservative to run for Congress in NYC. You now end up with 2 Republican congressmen (and if the same model is followed in other districts), a Republican majority in the House and Senate. No Nancy Pelosi, no Harry Reid, no ultra-liberal legislation.
Or, you can run Sam Johnson’s twin in NYC, lose, elect a Democrat candidate who is 0% conservative, keep Nancy and Harry in power, and insure a few million more dead babies through federally funded abortions. But, at least you’ll feel good about yourself because you kept people out of the party who weren’t conservative enough for you.
If you want to exercise political power in America, recognize and understand how that power is actually acquired, and what happens to those who lack the power to push those principles.
If you want to remain ideologically pure, forget about ever holding real power, and be content to know you personally oppose killing babies, but weren’t actually prepared to do anything in the real world to actually limit or restrain abortion, because you’d rather be ideologically pure than elected to office.
It makes no sense, in the American system of government, for the perfect to be the enemy of the good. And it makes no sense to pretend that we have an ideologically-driven system of elections and government in this country when we don’t. The ideology of the House and Senate leadership is important, and that’s where our focus should be — helping those elected to office gain leadership positions who hold the strongest conservative values. If it takes a pro-abort Republican candidate in Massachusetts to give us that Republican majority where we can get a strong conservative leader, I’ll gladly support him/her.
In short, I’d rather have 50 more Rudy’s in Congress and, through them, regain control of the House where a Conservative leadership can set the agenda, than run 50 losing candidates, feel good about myself, and let Nancy Pelosi continue to push legislation permitting federal funding of abortion.
This is how politics operates in the real world. Wishing things were different won’t advance your interests one bit.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | September 18, 2009
If Steele said this, he must go. Not another dime from me to the GOP. I will support pro-life candidates directly.
They scream every time you mention 3rd party and then they do sh** like this. The liberals have infested the republican party leadership in a big way. I don’t even think RINO fits any more, republican communist would be more like it.
1)The Conservative stance on Abortion
2)The conservative stance on Gays
3)Conservative opposition to Immigration
Do these RNC types realize that as soon as any of the 3 is abandoned, they will loose 10 to 20% of the CURRENT party?
Not only that but what about the current GOP makes it attractive to homosexuals, illegals, or feminists...that the DNC doesn't have more of? Your RNCers have stupid utilitarian amoral thinking.
When/if the morality of the GOP (or the OP, as someone put it above) sinks so low that it gives in on any of these, I, and millions like me will go 3rd party.
The GOP was founded in the 1850s over 2 moral issue:
1)Opposition to slavery
2)Opposition to Mormon polygamy.
Abandon the moral high ground, and you abandon any solid ground.
I am really disappointed in Michael Steele.
Conservatism always wins. The reason we don't have control of the legislature now is because the of the RINOs being run for office in all of our states and districts.
You also contradict yourself, if we had 50 Rudys in office we wouldn't have a conservative majority, we would have a RINO majority, we had one of those before the 2006 elections and look where it got us. Vote for who you want, I will vote conservative every time and work like he** to get RINOs booted in the primaries.
It would be nice to have the chairman actually follow what is a key plank of the party.
This is not the first time he came off sounding fine w pro-abort candidates.
Same here. I screen my calls and never answer the GOP callers and I throw my letters into the circular file.
Why is anyone surprised? Right up until the moment he decided to run for RNC Chairman he was part of Christie Todd Whitman’s organization whose whole purpose is to elect pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Leftist Republicans.
I did not write post # 41. Please see my into to it. Just want there to be no confusion on that.
The RINO’s just had to have their token black.
All that mattered is the “R” and his skin tone.
Ken Blackwell would have been a much better alternative.
In a way it's good that he is exposing himself like this now, after the tea parties and so many folks waking up. I hope he gets booted soon and a solid Christian Conservative takes the helm.
Question to all: HOW DO WE REPALCE THIS ROTTEN RINO?!
While I (And my aquaintance) agree with you, that is NOT how the Party Elites feel, especially inside the Washington bubble.
What they see is attack, after attack, after attack, based on these issues, and they can’t get a word in to combat it, because the largely pro-Gay Media hates them.
Boehner and Pence release statement, after statement on issue after issue, but none of their talking points can get traction in a media biased against them.
Only the “evil and hated” FOX News will even give them the time of day now.
And remember. They need our support, but what they need TO WIN is the Center.
More elections to lose.
I am so sick with the Party of RINOs, but I see some reason for hope with the conservative tea party movement.
I still think that the most realistic course for conservative victory is taking back the GOP, not trying to create a nationally viable 3rd Party.
Your post is based on the premise that a candidate like Sam Johnson can’t win in NY.
The RNC regularly throws its support behind the candidates it thinks are “winnable.” Someone, like Sam Johnson, would have to buck his own party to even try a run in NY, because the RNC would sabotage him for a RINO. Yet, for all the RNC/RINO talk about selecting moderates who can win in blue states, THEY AREN’T WINNING EITHER!
Who knows, maybe a Sam Johnson could win. Unfortunately, we’ll never know, and the RNC is a big part of why we won’t. Oh, I’m sure they’d laugh and say I’m not being realistic, that they’ve ran the polls and so-and-so doesn’t have a chance. Yeah, and how’s that picking the candidate who can win stuff working out for you, RNC?
I tell you this much, I’m not going to knowingly vote for another RINO—ever. I even held my nose for McCain, but no more (fellow FReeper pleas notwithstanding). If an Obama wins, so be it. Maybe an Obama administration is exactly the sort of wake up call this nation needed!
This is why the Republican Party is no longer a vehicle for conservatives or conservative ideas.
Steele was elected for one reason and we know what it is. He is a squish. We need a real American man to team up with Sarah and save the Repubs from themselves.
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.