Friday, November 14, 2008
|
|
Man of Steele (or Pocket Full of Kryptonite?)
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
6:19 PM
|
|
I'm conflicted about Michael Steele...
... On the negative side, I recall that Steele recently endorsed liberal Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) over conservative state senator Andy Harris. Gilchrest went on to lose the primary, endorse the Democrat running for his seat, and then to announce he was voting for Barack Obama...
... I am also concerned about Steele's association with Christine Todd Whitman and the Main Streeters (as recently as today, Whitman urged the GOP to abandon social conservatism). Along with Christine Todd Whitman and John Danforth, Steele is a National Co-Chair of the Republican Leadership Council. ... Their website has this to say about their mission: "RLC-PAC's vision is a Republican Party that is unified by the basic tenets of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, but that allows for diverse opinions on social issues by its members..." ... On the positive side, Steele is an exciting and charismatic figure. Having just talked with him on this afternoon's blogger call, as well as having met him on several occasions in the past, I can attest to the fact that he is friendly and very likable.
Additionally, he seems to "get" the internet more than most politicians. And I think everyone agrees he'd be a terrific spokesman for the party, and potentially a decent fundraiser.
So what do you think???
|
|
For me, social issues take a back seat to economic liberty only because my economic liberty puts food in my belly and a roof over my head.
Where does he stand on amnesty?
Or maybe a better question, "If the ACU were to give him a rating, what would it be?" |
|
|
I've been a fan of Steele's since seeing him on FOX. But the quote about being more open about social issues is troubling. I want to come home to the GOP but until this issue of whether it will be a withy washy conservative party like it's been lately or areal conservative party, I cannot. |
|
|
It would be a very good move to have Michael Steele lead the RNC. He is able to articulate conservative sentiments agreeably. He is charismatic. He could lead the charge in keeping the Messiah's minions in check without the "racist" label being attached to every issue. You have to admit, it would be entertaining seeing the liberals trying to twist into pretzels trying anyway!! |
|
Unfortunately, social issues have come to mean abortion on demand and married gays in the cockpit of fighter aircraft.
A great nation is more than passion and preference.
If a leader or spokesperson-leader can marshal arguments and fund raise on the broad range of issues and is true to the philosophy of liberty and strength above all then I don't care if in their own view they are not 100% on hot button topics.
National Defense, Rule of Law, Constitutional Restraint and respect, end of Big Government, you all know the real issues that make you a 'conservative' voter.
If a conservative came to me and said, vote for me, I support the repeal of Roe but am opposed to the high frontier, I'd be hard pressed to view the moral clarity as more important to our country over the need to protect the national security.
God will know his own. We however cannot worship or protect life if we are assailed or destroyed by others.
Government is too involved to disqualify a man that may uniquely positioned at this time because his soul may be tepid on issues of life or personal life choices. We cannot win with splinters.
|
|
NO, no, no to Steele or even Newtie.
As a conservative, I want a leadership that is both "fiscally and socially conservative"!
Absolutely no fuzzy, gray, warm feeling in between BS!
Hasn't McScamnesty taught the "stupid party" anything? |
|
|
Doubts such as these are the reason we wound up with McCain! Mitt, Mormon. Rudy, not a social conservative. Fred, no fire in the belly. Huckabee, some family baggag, evangelical.... Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, true conservatives, couldn`t get the media or funding. Michael Steele could pull it all together. Stop doubting and start believing! |
|
If he's going to be a "soft" conservative, then forget it. McCain is a soft conservative and look where that got us. |
|
|
Face it, Republican Party. You WILL NOT WIN without the support of the social conservatives. Protection of life is not a debatable issue. If you want our support--and you have to have it to win--you will defend the life of the unborn, and you will defend the family. |
|
|
I agree with richard {8:52 post} and kbtexan {9:57 post}. I really like Steele but the party must stand firm on pro-life and pro-family issues. Thank you Matt Lewis for this information. I had no idea. Please stay on top of this for us. I think in the election the campaigh did not come out strong enough on Obama's support of unlimited abortion and his full support of the gay agenda. There was plenty of information in Obama's own words to make his values clear.{Not the values of most Americans} So we have to know where Steele stands. |
|
"a Republican Party that is unified by the basic tenets of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, but that allows for diverse opinions on social issues by its members..."
Agree. Politicians' "fiscal responsibility" leads to lower taxes, more money in our own pockets to enjoy our "personal freedom". If one values one's own "personal freedom", how can one, at the same time, not allow others' "diverse opinions" on social or other issues? Isn't the right to "diverse opinions" the most basic right, one of the most important elements of "personal freedom"?
Democrats would not have won back Congress without pro-life candidates. Republicans will never become a majority party by driving away non-social conservatives. |
|
To me it's very simple to separate Republicans. Just ask them where they stand on the first bailout. Any answer other than "I opposed it and will accept no bailouts of anyone" means that he is a typical wishy washy Republican.
I don't know Steele's position but it's a safe bet that he favored various bailouts. If he didn't he wouldn't be in the running for head of the RNC.
The Republican party is hopeless, they can't change because they don't believe in liberty or free markets. McCain could have won the election by opposing the bailouts but, being the economic ignoramus that he is, he chose defeat rather than stand alone against other Republicans. Maverick? Maverick my derrière, McCain is not even Babbitt.
|
|
Mr. Steele has "it," that is to say, the quality we sometimes describe as "charisma." It is not only his tall and commanding physical presence, but it is even more the way he speaks and thinks.
...Mr. Steele is a strong economic conservative who thinks in big and challenging perspectives.
...He says categorically that the Republican Party lost its way. But what is original about Mr. Steele in the current intraparty discussion is that he neither suggests as solutions that the party abandon its economic conservative principles nor that it embrace an unthinking return to the radical social notions that once isolated the party and made it a perennial minority party.
From both a pragmatic and idealistic view, Mr. Steele is arguing that the "party of Lincoln" must not only re-establish itself as the party of economic prosperity and freedom, but that it Mr. Steele is a strongly pro-life Republican who was popular in pro-choice Maryland. He is not a social liberal, but he does understand that there are issues, which if taken to their extreme, satisfy only their zealots. As someone from an Eastern Seaboard urban state with a complex population, he argues for a Republican Party that can once again flourish in our new electoral culture. |
|
Two issues here, 1) social conservatism, 2) Michael Steele.
1) The proper stance on issues like abortion in the national spotlight is to leave it to the states. Overturn Roe V. Wade, and leave it to legislation, one way or the other. That's how conservatives can present that argument in an appealing light. Anti-judicial activism, and pro-state's rights.
2) Michael Steele is very unimposing from what I've seen, and honestly, like Obama, I just don't know anything about the guy.
I think people are too obsessed with how charismatic these people need to be. They're not really in the spotlight (you do remember that Howard Dean was the DNC chair, right? No? Not surprised). So I think it's most important get someone with stubborn street smarts, and ignore charisma. Personally, I was a fan of Newt. |
|
As I have noted,the AFFIRMATIVE ACTION issue is paramount. It will tell us if STEELE is just OBAMA LITE.
That quota system has to GO !!
He may want to soft pedal on social issues in HOW HE SPEAKS ABOUT THEM but not on how he votes on them !! For ex. he could say how quotas have helped and how they can be PHASED OUT to make room for true CONSERVATISM which is self reliance. This involves speaking against the MICHELL OBAMA White people are perennially racist/Rev.W and Rev.CONE toxic racist tribal "Christianity". If Steele is a Catholic, he cant believe in this b******t. He should bring this to the fore. MANY blacks need to hear a leader who is SICK of the ugly racist BRIDGE TO NOWHERE built by the insulting RAP artists, the Supremacists, etc.
BUt then, he'd have to take on OPRAH. Can you see that happening ? Or would Oprah run for cover (what a delightful image)
He should be PUBLICLY SUPPORTING SARAH PALIN and saying that personally he has issues with Roe and that personally he has issues with gay marriage because he is concerned that the AMERICAN FAMILY is falling apart. He can focus on HOW THAT's bad for children, and be seen as very Family Positive. THis would resonate with a lot of older blacks who haven't embraced the laissez faire who's the father this time attitude of many of the younger folk.
He dosn't have to seem an angry person !! Just POSITIVE on REBUILDING the FAMILY. If you contact him tell him this. I will write him a letter, too.
|
|
We should be fighting for the following:
1.) Ban abortion
2.) Promote covenant marriage
3.) Immigration law enforcement
4.) Repeal affirmative action
5.) Support the death penalty
6.) Support judicial rubrics and stop lenient sentencing from judges
7.) Interpret the law literally
8.) Oust the sexualization of kids from the school system
We've tried it the "moderate" way. It doesn't work. To be fair, nothing may work and there may simply be too many Democrats. But we have to go back to principle and make our arguments on these issues. We lost on economic issues, so why are we trying to change our stances on social policy? That's nuts.
The key to politics is realizing that culture is more important than politics, but politics can be used to change culture. |
|
One of the things that our leadership constantly suffers from is a complete unwillingness to embrace social conservatism. They hide from it, they cover it up, and they look for ways to not talk about it.
When it comes to the Democrats giving handouts such as the remarkably unpopular driver's licenses for illegals idea, they still openly embrace that even though they know it's a loser. They keep harping on it and pushing for it anyway, and gradually they manage to change culture. We should adopt the same tactics but on behalf of socially conservative policy.
People seem to think that an economic philosophy exists apart from a social one. Ridiculous. Economic ideas are ideas about trade and exchange, and those can only be derived once one has ideas about social policy in place. Only once you make explicit whether or not you believe in property rights or that everything is owned by the community can you articulate an economic philosophy. And you can have such ideas only once you have ideas in mind of personal versus social responsibility, and a grounding for natural rights and how one ought to conduct oneself. Only with a social philosophy in mind does an economic philosophy become coherent.
Focus on promoting conservative social policy. Conservative economic policy will follow naturally. |
|
|
Fiscal conservatism and social freedoms are the only viable future the Republican Party. Mainstream America are not evangelical Christians nor are they rabid pro-life enthusiasts either. They are pragmatists who believe that abortion under any circumstance does not= murder, but also generally oppose partial birth abortions. They also do not endorse bans on stem cell research. The party's only hope in the future is to socially become more, dare I say the "L" word, no not liberal, but libertarian. Focus on personal freedom, state's rights, cutting spending, balance the budget,cutting taxes, and don't be ashamed to advocate these issues. I think Michael Steele is moving in the right direction for this party. |
|
|
If that's the sort of agenda you're going to adopt, you can kiss the Republican party goodbye. I, along with the other social conservatives, who do not embrace reckless tax cuts will leave the party in droves. If the party will not oppose abortion, I have no reason to remain a part of it. Instead of losing 52-48, get used to losing 95-5. |
|
Should we become more like Holland or France?
The Stupid Party strikes again!
In 2016 Paul Ryan of Wisconsin will be our Presidential nominee with BobbaJindal as VP. Hopefully, we will still have some faded carbon copies of the Constitution that the RNC/GOP has not used for toilet paper. |
|
|
Michael Steel is a Conservative. He came from a dominated Democrat family and found his way to the Conservative party. His endorsement of a RHINO is not a concern. It is his actions and words that should be most important in judging Steele's capacity to be RNC chairman. |
|
|
And Obama's credentials are? If he were a white guy from Chicago? You know he's just Dan Quayle with a tan. Guilty white liberal syndrome going on there. Blacks did not vote for Steele cause he's a Repub. |
|
95% of eligible black voters vote for Dem/libs every election. Any black person who is conservative in public is called names and has Oreos thrown at them. Gee, I wonder why the GOP is mostly white? btw- I'm not in the Stupid Party anymore.
I see you didn't answer the challenge about Barack Quayle. |
|
|
Matt, once again I can not take this seriously from a comentator that supported Sen. McCain for the GOP nod early on and said He was the only way that the GOP had a chance to win. So, who is president-elect? All Mr. Steele has to do is say that we are a broad coalition but that certain things are not negotiable. Such as the social issues. The fact that Mr. Steele supported a RINO is not a disqualifier since YOU supported one as well. |
|
these TH writers ALL supported McCain while some of them claimed that conservatism was the way to win. Wonder what circumstance will make them say what they need to say next time around?
HH even said everything will be fine. We'll just have Dems in charge for a while.
No biggie, right? |
|
Just a few years ago, it seemed as if Latinos might be opening up to the GOP. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the partisan affiliation gap among Latinos shrank from 33 percentage points in 1999 to 21 percentage points in 2006. Yet in late 2007, Pew reported that the gap had swelled to 34 percentage points.
What happened? Many blame the debate over comprehensive immigration reform, which produced fierce legislative showdowns in 2006 and 2007. "It was the tone of the debate," says Diaz-Balart. "The tone of some Republicans was offensive to the vast majority of Hispanics." He believes this "had a devastating effect" on the party's standing with Latino voters.
"The immigration debate was catastrophically divisive for Republicans," says a GOP Senate staffer (who is Hispanic). He fears that a replay of the 2006 and 2007 immigration spats would "fracture" the GOP and worsen its image among Hispanics.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/0 00/015/828rzcbu.asp?pg=2
Your fears and bigotry will result in conservatives being in the wilderness for a very long time. Good work there.
|
|
|
You'll be happier with people comfortable with breaking the law. |
|
thinks that not pandering to illegal aliens enough, is why repubs lost the Latino vote?
IMO, they can ALL "go to hell",....so by that mentality, that means that Latinos have to be bribed?
Joe does need to change parties, where bribery and extortion is the "norm".
We don't need the amnesty crowd. |
|
|
It is obvious that religion and conservatism is slowly moving out of this country. McCain was hated by republicans until he chose a real right wing VP, then the moderates moved away from him. We need to be centerists or we will continue to lose. Preaching against abortion will only bolster the people who are already voting republicans, we need to get the young vote, that is the way Republicans will get back in the White House. |
|
The republican party didn't win until it reached out to social conservatives.
The situation now is this:
Because of the mis-managenment of the war in Iraq the republican party has lost credibility on national security issues. The successful change in strategy came too late to alter the perception of the public, they are rightly angry because a lot of lives were lost due to the ineptitude of the Bush administration.
We won't beat the dems on economic issues during times of economic crisis - it's too easy for them to promise a check and deliver it tomorrow and "protecting jobs" will always be easier to sell than "job creation" to people whose jobs are in danger.
So why would anyone even be thinking we can win without emphasizing social issues? |
|
Your strategy worked out SOOOO well this time around, didn't it? What you find in the middle of the road is a yellow stripe and roadkill.
The GOP gets right or goes away. |
|
|
Well done on the summation of what went wrong. VaPat is right about the Possum Voters. |
|
Amen bro., "yellow stripe and road kill"!
Priceless. |
|
I agree with other posters - charisma is overrated, especially with conservatives. Conservatives care about conservative ideology in their leaders. Where it lacking, there will be a lack of conservative support. The GOP has to decide who is it trying to keep in the party - there are lots of factions, but numbers and voice are probably the key factors. If social conservatives walk, where will the GOP be?
Personally, I abore the thought of Steele leading the GOP. I advocate my position among my influence group, and if I do say so myself, I have some persuasion. If there are enough of us out there, the GOP is lost without us.
If the GOP disregards social conservatives any longer, there will be an earthquake in GOP land, and I don't think the party will last. Hopefully, their conversion to social conservatism will not be resisted or painful.
For the good of the party, please drop all consideration of Michael Steele. |
|
|
Steele is ideal for the job of RNC chief, as it isn't a job where strident and consistent conservatism is necessary - or maybe even desired. Steele strikes me as a man who will say what he needs to say to whom he needs to say it in order to curry favor. He's a politician. I imagine that so long as something is not well outside of his core values, he'll bite at it if he deems it fruitful. I don't know about the Gilcrest flap, but I imagine he knew the Congressman and it's so much easier to favor someone we know than one we do not. |
|
Lets go back in time to the North and South,
the north the Republican party and the south the Democratic party,
the south believed in Slavery and the north against Slavery,
and back then some countrys in Europe supported the south, to fight the north,
thank God the north won,
or Socialism would already be here,
just like today,
the Democratic party has not changed much other then Slavery,
since the civil war,
they still want big Goverment or more Control of people,
still want to be like Europe,
look at the economy in Europe their economy is worst then ours,
but still the Democrates want to be like Europe,
if we had a Socialistic Goverment we would have rich and poor,
its easy to Control people if they are poor,
I wonder why most Black people are Democrates anyways?
help me understand this please,
sorry if Im not useing the right words. |
|
but over the weekend, I heard he supported the GOP head clown, Huckles. That tells me about his judgement.
Newt over the weekend, was touting none other than Jon Huntsman Jr or Secretary Mike Levatt. Both good, Christian men, if that's your only criteria. they both also have outstanding backgounds in business and in government. |
|
|
He is a historian. We seem to forget the lessons history has taught us. He is an idea and solutions person.After all, he did lead us to the contract for America. |
|
|
|