After reading through this thread I did a quick search to see if I could get deeper into the premise of the article.
My memory was quickly refreshed as I reread the articles below from just six months ago. It would be good if more can be added.
I believe Steele must go, and quickly. He is very compromised and is a disaster waiting to happen.
Steele is a symptom of the bigger problem: THE GOP is CORRUPT.
The GOP’s corruption is different than the RATs but it is just as crucial that it be removed.
I think these are the main problems that must be addressed ASAP:
1. The national GOP is run by a group of moderate democrats and/or pro-choicers. They are out of touch and seem to care less about what we think or want.
2. The nomination process for POTUS is rigged purposely to give advantage to RINOs.
I think one possibility is a tea party style approach to the problem.
It seems conservatives might have a unique opportunity with the current wave of awakened tea party & town hall movement folks to actually retake the once great GOP.
One thing seems likely if we do not: McRomney or worse for the next GOPotus nomination.
What say you FREEPERS?
(excerpt)
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/03/rnc_chair_micha.html
March 12, 2009
RNC Chair Michael Steele: Abortion is “individual choice”
UPDATE, 3/12, 9:45p: The Steele abortion flap has grown throughout the day.
For conservatives, Steele is becoming the focus of pent up wrath toward Republicans who tell pro-lifers what they want to hear to their face but then melt on the pro-life issue when in a different crowd or when it’s time to vote. Wrote Tony Perkins of FRC in a press release this afternoon:
This only serves to reinforce the belief by many social conservatives that one major party is unfriendly while the other gives only lip service to core moral issues, which is why many have dropped their affiliation with the GOP. If such a visible Republican leader continues in this same vein I am sure the trend will continue. The prospects of more social conservatives leaving may excite the “big tenters,” but that will only last until they find the Big Tent is empty.
Those were words to be taken seriously.
Meanwhile, the opening schism got lots of press....(excerpt)
(excerpt)
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/11/michael-zelig-steele
AmSpecBlog
Michael “Zelig” Steele
By Philip Klein on 3.11.09 @ 10:15PM
In 1983, Woody Allen made the mockumentary film Zelig about a man who longs for approval so badly that he changes to fit the people who are surrounding him. The movie may as well have been written about Michael Steele, who continues to tie himself in knots as part of his effort to reach out to moderates.
Steele already has been ridiculed by all sides of the political spectrum for blasting Rush Limbaugh on CNN only to apologize when he received blowback. But now, via Matt Lewis, I see he told GQ that he believes abortion is an individual choice. Here’s the portion of the interview:
How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
So basically, in an effort to seem more inclusive, Steele tried to appropriate the language of the left by saying life is a choice, but then he allowed himself to be backed into a corner in which he said that women have the right to choose abortion — by definition, a pro-choice postion. Perhaps realizing what he had just said, Steele then tried to add nuance to his point:
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!
So, after getting boxed in, he suddenly shifts from “individual choice” meaning “women have the right to choose an abortion” to it meaning that states have an “individual choice” about whether or not to permit women to exercise choice. Liz Mair, charitably, thinks that Steele was trying to express the pro-choice, anti-Roe, position but that he just was clumsy about it. Even if that were the case, however, it wouldn’t be consistent with other recent statements he made on the subject.
(excerpt)
You will have the moderate problem until you show that a strong prolife stand (i.e., one that excludes or marginalizes pro-aborts) can win a statewide or national election.
The Democrats are generally credited with these tales but I suspect they have some RINO assistance (don't they? you know, right?)
Crap, crap, crap, crap.
This has been totally debunked.