Fred to challenge Steele for RNC chair?
posted at 1:20 pm on November 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I like it, but Steele embodies “change” a lot more than Fred does and Change is, after all, the order of the day.
“I’m extremely excited that he’s considering it,” said Scooter Clippard, a Middle Tennessee businessman who spearheaded national fundraising for the Thompson and McCain campaigns. “It’s time for a change. Fred Thompson would be the absolute best person to articulate that message for the party.”
Thompson’s appeal, his supporters say, is that he has no future presidential ambitions for himself — only for his party. The former actor is also an able communicator — once famously described as a “southern-fried Reagan” — in a party sorely in need of a new message and a new direction.
“The party’s going to be looking for a messenger. Here’s a guy who’s looking toward the future of the country, not looking to pad his resume,” former Thompson campaign staffer Bob Davis of Nashville said…
Thompson has not said anything about the RNC chairmanship publicly, but the prospect has his supporters intrigued. Even former Republican presidential nominee John McCain is in on the speculation.
Whether he’s really considering this or whether it’s his fans trying to draft him by building buzz — not unlike how he ended up running for president — I leave for you to judge. One’s preference for him, Steele, or Gingrich depends on what one thinks the GOP most desperately needs: A return to traditional conservatism, an expansion of the party’s base, or an infusion of new policy ideas, whether those ideas are especially sound or not. (Notably absent: An emphasis on managerial competence.) That’s not to suggest that any of the three couldn’t pull off more than one of the above, but we’re talking symbolism and priorities here. One possible strike against Fred: The party’s now so identified with the south that RNC members might actually consider it a liability to reinforce that impression with a chairman as overtly southern as Thompson. One possible strike for Fred: Turns out Michael Steele’s in no hurry to overturn Roe v. Wade, per his 2006 appearance on Meet the Press.
Maybe it’s as simple as asking which one you’d most like to see on TV over the next four years. They’ll all be on Hannity’s show regularly no matter what; one will simply have a little more authority than the others. Exit advice to the eventual winner: Try to avoid implicit comparisons between the opposition and South Africa’s apartheid regime.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I really don’t see that as being beneficial to the whole party. We need diversity – all races, creeds, religions – to make this a strong, solid party. Something about your idea makes me think of the Middle Ages…
Karen_VA on November 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM
SaintOlaf on November 12, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Those 79 percent are not all of the same denomination and are not all going to agree on everything, or even necessarily most things.
thecountofincognito on November 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Yes! I hope that he is really thinking about running this time. If so, I can’t wait for the 2012 debates.
SimplyKimberly on November 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Fred would make the next four years bearable. But Steele — and I hate to say this, since it was used as a negative in the quote — does need to pad his resume.
Tanya on November 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM
So if we could attract 80% of the country’s votes every election…you would be opposed to that?
SaintOlaf on November 12, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I hate to say this because I like Steele. Rather than be seen as a “change” agent, he will be seen as a token (and lame) attempt to imitate the One. And they won’t tolerate it. The media, the moderates, and the left will PALIN him into a hopeless and inneffective stereotype.
Fred is still the best and most consistant defender of traditional Conservatism.
Surely there is a role for both men in our Party’s leadership.
edgehead on November 12, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Exvcellent timing, Allah.
Hunt for Red october just started on AMC.
kingsjester on November 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Um… but what if our values conflict with the values of these other people you’d like to bring to the party? Conservatives are conservatives, regardless of your race, creed, or religion. We must attract people with a solid belief structure, not by giving in.
Doppleganker on November 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Create a new party or fundamentally change the tenets of this party.
i.e. Social justice, oppose unjust wars,REAL action taken to end abortion… etc. etc.
Don’t give Christians any excuse to vote democrat and we will win every time.
SaintOlaf on November 12, 2008 at 2:22 PM
No, but the different denominations of Christianity do not agree on certain things. A Catholic has different guidelines than a Southern Baptist. Who is right?
Karen_VA on November 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Did anyone else read the Dean link?
I think I’ve seen examples of egregious insanity from the Daily Kos that are more in touch with reality.
“Truth and Reconciliation”?!
Count to 10 on November 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM
The earlier comment was saying to attract all Christians to the party. It seemed to me that is was a suggestion of having only Christians in the party.
Karen_VA on November 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM
This makes a little more sense (although I do not totally agree). I thought your earlier post was to have only Christians in the party which alarmed me.
Karen_VA on November 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM
You’ve got it backward. The Democrats will get their vote every time unless they are given an explicit reason not to.
Count to 10 on November 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Olaf is a huckabacker. Huck is not the future of the GOP.
William Amos on November 12, 2008 at 2:27 PM
We have also seen him totally off his rocker, though the topic of that thread escapes me at the moment.
Count to 10 on November 12, 2008 at 2:28 PM
HOTAIR…?
Why are you excluding my postings??
Kokonut on November 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Pray tell, why does this matter for the Chairman of the RNC? Did Haley Barbour ever opine on Roe v. Wade? Is it possible that Steele wants to remain a viable candidate for office in Maryland, and suggesting repeal of Roe would be suicide for him?
Jeez. You guys really do want to send this party back to 1964, don’t you?
rockmom on November 12, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Looks like Steele is fine with things like the Assault Weapons Ban and Affirmative Action.
He doesn’t sound all that conservative.
sharrukin on November 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM
If you can’t win on your values maybe you shouldn’t win. I have no respect for someone who would concede a position as important as life to win an election.
Doppleganker on November 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I actually just got through reading an article about Steele vs. Fred on American Spectator.
http://www.spectator.org/blog/2008/11/12/is-steel-a-better-talker-than
Here is a bit from the article.
I like Steele from what I know about him, but I KNOW Fred and what he stands for with a certainty. I say, “Go Fred!!!”
Here is another article on Fred as RNC General Chairman.
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/11/10/fred-for-general-chairman-perh
I just feel that Fred sticks by federalist/conservative principles without waivering. I trust him more than any of the others to stand strong for the ideals in which conservatives believe.
squeek71 on November 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Fred doesn’t do organization well, and the RNC needs to be all about organization.
He’s not the right guy.
beatcanvas on November 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Michael_Steele.htm
Expand minority-owned business opportunities. (May 2006)
Support affirmative action and its improvements. (Oct 2006)
Affirmative action programs still necessary to close divides. (Aug 2006)
We’re still discovering affirmative action in corporations. (Apr 2006)
Led commitment to $70M in grants to minority-owned business. (Apr 2006)
Move struggle to right to own the diner, not just sit in it. (Oct 2005)
Standardized tests keep teachers from educating students. (Aug 2006)
Reinstate college-level grant and loan programs. (Aug 2006) Don’t trap poor kids in failing schools. (Oct 2005) Revitalize the Chesapeake; focus on open space preservation. (May 2006)
William Amos on November 12, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Fred, don’t disappoint me now.
Go FRED!
heroyalwhyness on November 12, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Get real. The GOP has NO future.
It’s dead.
The 2010 census is coming..President hussein is planning on redistricting democratic areas and creating tons of new dem seats.
They will be an unstoppable majority from here on out.
SaintOlaf on November 12, 2008 at 2:35 PM
NOW it all makes sense :)
Karen_VA on November 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM
I would like to see Michael Steele in elective office. I do like his charisma and ability to connect with people. Newt articulates conservatism very well as does Fred! but I think Fred! is very good at working behind the scenes. His ideas toward ‘First Principles’ are a great roadmap for a broad coalition of Conservatives to follow – then we’re not arguing whether Catholics or Baptists are right, but that government needs to stay out of the way of the people and their beliefs.
Steele is a wonderful public figure without much experience.
Newt has tons of experience and is well studied but comes across a little hard core.
Fred! is a warmly charismatic figure, is well studied and has some experience laying forth an agenda and carrying out.
Personally I think we’d be in good stead with any of these fine men but I’d prefer Fred!
JonPrichard on November 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Repubs don’t need somone to speak for the party, they need someone who can ORGANIZE the Party.
Head of the RNC is like being the CEO of a Company… you don’t need to be able to give great speeches, but you sure need to know how to run a business.
I really like Thompson, but he would be horrible at this job.
Romeo13 on November 12, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Teh Fred was my candidate and I still believe he is the best political advocate of Reagan conservatism — especially if he can get rid of that throat-clearing tic. His lovely and talented wife Jeri has a PR background and would be a wonderful helpmate at the RNC.
Unfortunately, Fred told K-Lo on the NRO cruise that he isn’t interested.
I really like Michael Steele, but he is more of a “Bush conservative,” which has not served the party or ideology of Reagan very faithfully. I would like to see him holding elective office in a blue or purple state.
Terrie on November 12, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Fred!
RobertCSampson on November 12, 2008 at 2:41 PM
FRED is the MAN! Enough of this “who will wake up Fred” BS.
He is a policy wonk and understands and espouses Federalism and Conservative principles as well as anyone we have. Maybe he does not talk as fast as some of you would like. He damn sure does not cowtow to libs, and that is what we need.
Some think our electorate overall was dumb to choose obama, and I will submit our Republican electorate was not too bright in snubbing Fred for Huck, Romney and McCamnesty. We got what we deserve and our fate was almost sealed on Jan 22nd when our party inexplicably let McCain win.
If Fred wants to do it, then I am a FredHead yet again.
ReaganConservative3 on November 12, 2008 at 2:41 PM
FRED!
First, I was NEWT!
Then, I was STEELE!!
But, all of that was youthful promiscuity…I’m totally for Fred!
Mommypundit on November 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I’m not ready to toss the senior citizens off the train in the name of change. We can run younger candidates, but we need father figures in this movement. Fred.
jazz_piano on November 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Wasn’t there a study that Fred supporters and Obama supporters had the most sex? The least sex was had by Hillary and Guliani supporters.
Doppleganker on November 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM
According to American Spectator, Fred is interested in being General Chairman, which would be more of an ideas/principles/fundraising position. The Chairman would handle more of the day-to-day operations. It sounds like a perfect fit to me. (I linked to the article in my previous post).
Fred inspires the base, and he is good at online activism. Most of all, he is a hardcore conservative, and he isn’t scared to call out the other side on their crummy ideas. Fred doesn’t cowtow to anyone. He would be a staunch defender of all that is good about our beliefs. I want someone who will fight for us, not apologize for being a conservative or get all wishy-washy on us.
squeek71 on November 12, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I would prefer Fred over Steele. For one thing, he is much more seasoned and vetted than Steele. For another, I suspect Steele has more of a future in elected national office than does Fred. Why waste Steele in a purely partisan role when we should be thinking of ways to give him national stature with independents and moderate Democrats?
I think for a lot of people when they see Fred they get past his accent and think of him in a dark blue suit playing a lawyer on TV or in a uniform playing a naval officer. His years in Hollywood have helped him transcend the image of a Southern Republican.
Y-not on November 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM
A co Chair for the RNC ?
William Amos on November 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM
He’s not.
Go Fred! And if he needs organizational help, make Jeri the co-chair. She seems to be very capable, and could probably handle any job she was given. Plus, the Republicans would then have a woman at the head of the party. That’s “change” the Dims can’t claim.
AZCoyote on November 12, 2008 at 2:52 PM
I’ve been longing for the return of Haley Barbour. We need one tough guy to unscrew this mess.
Done That on November 12, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Per Richard Nixon, Fred Thompson was dumb but friendly. I’d say he’s perfect for the job.
Vernon Hardapple on November 12, 2008 at 2:54 PM
I have a question. I just went to FredPac to see if there was a way to send a message to Fred (to encourage him to pursue this), and I didn’t see anything. Does anyone know of a means of letting Fred know that some of us really want him to strongly consider this?
squeek71 on November 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Fred Thompson can sometimes give a barnburner speech or two, but his own Presidential campaign stumbled badly after working up great expectations–he didn’t really have a coherent message together when he announced his candidacy, and he tends to stutter and speak too slowly in interviews, where Steele would do much better.
Fred Thompson, should he choose to accept it, would be better in a behind-the-scenes role in the RNC, where he could be vetting prospective GOP challengers for House and Senate seats, ensuring that they hold and can clearly articulate the conservative principles of the party.
Steve Z on November 12, 2008 at 2:58 PM
The only Scooter in my high school turned out gay.
espnjunkie on November 12, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I like Mr. Steele in the Leadership of the RNC. I could see Sen. Thompson as a senior (media of communication) to the media in laying smoke upon the bias of the media??? etc.
I have followed Mr. Steele during the campaign and found his fine articulation to the core of conservatism and how to govern ourselves as individuals rather then having government intrude and tell you how to run your lives.
Less Taxes. Less Govt.
call of the Conservatism
hawkman on November 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM
My vote goes for Condoleeza Rice. Leave me alone, I can dream.
latinchic on November 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM
AZCoyote
Michael Steele on Gun Control
Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?
A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you’re going hunting? That’s overkill. But I don’t think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what’s the point of passing gun laws if we’re not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that’s where you need to start. We’ve got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it’s about how we enforce the law.
So he is not in support of a total ban! That doesn’t sound like someone who has a problem with most of the anti-gun legislation being put out.
sharrukin on November 12, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Now there is change I can believe in. A real fiscal, social, and security conservative. Sweet. Back to principles. Fred is one of the few guys I know that can spout first principles from memory because he lives them. Good deal.
roxer on November 12, 2008 at 3:04 PM
What is said is more important than how it’s said. Steel sounds like another compassionate conservative.
FloatingRock on November 12, 2008 at 3:08 PM
COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE?! Get a rope!
Doppleganker on November 12, 2008 at 3:10 PM
BTW – that was a reference to the Pace slogan, not something having to do with nooses. Please forgive me.
Doppleganker on November 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Just my preference of the 3…Fred Thompson. Michael Steele is the known moderate Republican of the three, and Newt’s “new ideas” have generally tended to be more bipartisan and I personally don’t like things the Democrats do…so that leaves me Fred by default. One suggestion…how about asking former GOP’er and 2008 Presidential nominee (for the Constitution Party) Chuck Baldwin to return to the Party and be our Party Chair.
therambler on November 12, 2008 at 3:12 PM
There is a problem on Hotair that if more than one person posts at the same time some of the posts will bnot appear. I have lost 2 posts I did in this thread alone due to that problem.
William Amos on November 12, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Would you support the continuation of the Republican Party in the direction of Bush and McCain? More spending, bigger government, amnesty, etc?
That’s not what I’d like to see, and apparently the voters don’t either, thus the losses in ‘06 and ‘08.
FloatingRock on November 12, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Of course I don’t support that – Bush and McCain aren’t conservatives. I am a conservative first. I was joking but serious as well.
Doppleganker on November 12, 2008 at 3:15 PM
No way!
Michael Steele = RINO
Hey I got an idea..let’s make a RINO black man RNC chair to try to take away liberal minority votes from the party with the black president…
*face palms*
sigh.
SaintOlaf on November 12, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Ah, sorry, I wasn’t sure….
FloatingRock on November 12, 2008 at 3:17 PM
No apology needed. I shouldn’t have made a reference to hanging RINOs. That was tacky.
Doppleganker on November 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Really? What are her domestic policy positions? experience?
Condi lost me when she teared up (with happiness) over O!’s victory.
Y-not on November 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM
excellent… Fred for RNC Chair
and a Palin/Thompson ticket for 2012 and I mean Mrs. Thompson.
Kaptain Amerika on November 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM
quit calling it change damnit…
conservatives don’t change! we reform!
Kaptain Amerika on November 12, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I miss Fred and we would have been better off if we have him as a nominee instead of McCain. I think he will do a good job organizing the RNC.
mariloubaker on November 12, 2008 at 3:21 PM
I agree with this.
Oink on November 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Michael Steele is about to talk about his vision for the future of the RNC on Hannity’s radio show.
Doppleganker on November 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?
A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you’re going hunting? That’s overkill. But I don’t think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what’s the point of passing gun laws if we’re not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that’s where you need to start. We’ve got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it’s about how we enforce the law.”
Let’s be a bit more clear on Michael Steele’s stance on assault weapons, shall we? What does anyone need an assault weapon for? It doesn’t matter what anyone needs or wants an “Assault Weapon” for, the Second amendment and D.C. V Heller assures the right to possess, sell, manufacture and buy so called Assault Weapons.
nelsonknows on November 12, 2008 at 3:24 PM
I need an assault weapon to cuddle with at night.
Doppleganker on November 12, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I like Fred, but I think he’s gotten accustomed to Hollywood work schedules. It didn’t appear he really wanted to work for the job of President. What’s to say that once he gets RNC Chair, he doesn’t decide that he’d rather do a few interviews and radio spots now and then instead of being a tireless “campaigner” for the cause?
Sugar Land on November 12, 2008 at 3:26 PM
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/25/michael-steele-named-gopac-chairman/
January 2007
William Amos on November 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM
You won’t win any elections if you run as a one issue pro-life candidate. In the end you will get stuck with nothing but Obama’s and Pelosi’s meaning The Free Choice act will pass with ease and abortion on demand will be the order of the day; all because certain pro-lifers couldn’t take a measured stand.
I have heard Steele speak, he is a good man and does respect the sanctity of life. He does not use abortion as a wedge issue however, but he still touts life. This is what needs to be done, we need to promote a culture of life in this country, win over converts, explain not just from a moral standpoint how the unborn is seen as an innocent and defenseless life. Federalism must stressed, Roe V Wade overstepped it’s bounds, let the States decide and highlight acceptable restrictions such as the Born alive act, bans on partial birth abortion, support of parentel notification, opposition to tax funded abortions. Obama is against Life on all of these mentioned, Steele favors life on all of them.
In the end what you need is JUDGES. A politician can’t otherwise do jack so don’t cannibalize fellow conservatives when they don’t radicalize that one issue. Life is important, but you gain nothing by not being pragmatic with your policy making.
Daemonocracy on November 12, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Fred Thompson has name recognition. Can’t remember that other guys name, uh, the one that lost the election for us…
I LIKE Michael Steele, though. I just LIKE him. He speaks my language. Conservative.
HornetSting on November 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Per Thomas Jefferson, I need it to protect myself from the government.
Alden Pyle on November 12, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I’d rather it returned to 1864, which was the era of “Free to Labor” and the Radical Republican.
TMK on November 12, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Michael Steele is going to be on Hannity in a few minutes.
HornetSting on November 12, 2008 at 3:56 PM
This is the same person who ran such a lack luster campaign, that he became the butt of jokes. Please.
bloghooligan on November 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM
i love steele. i think hes top notch however i also really
like thompson. i agree that steele will be viewed as the
republicans finding their “token black man” to lead the
party and compete with nobama. steele is nothing close to
a token black man but thats the way it will be viewed. i
would be happy with thompson. hes got bawls.
tamtam20 on November 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
As much as I like Fred Thompson’s conservatism, he just doesn’t act like he’s a fighter. The RNC needs a can-do kind of person and Fred isn’t the one. So far it’s Michael Steele. No one has come forward that seems to want it that badly.
BetseyRoss on November 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Fred is still the best and most consistant defender of traditional Conservatism.
I couldn’t agree more edgehead.
beachgirlusa on November 12, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Michael Steele’s in no hurry to overturn Roe v. Wade
How about we get re-elected again, taking the Presidency and both Houses of Congress before we go around shoving our soiled abortion panties in everyone’s face?
How about that, huh?
pabarge on November 12, 2008 at 4:20 PM
I’m a Fred head.
44Magnum on November 12, 2008 at 4:44 PM
I agree with all those that question whether or not Steele is going to end up being to moderate, and not the steely eyed guy we need with laser beams eyes on Obama and his gang.
Fred is older, as is Newt, but both men do have a way of energizing the youth despite their outer shells of grey hair and wrinkling skin. I know Newt said on Hannity that he would support and be willing to work with whomever is the RNC Chair, and that in my opinion is a good thing.
For some reason I flinch when I hear people discussing older members of our party as if they should be tossed aside as last years Santa Claus goodies left under the Christmas tree. To me, part of the reason we are having these problems is because we have devalued the history, and knowledge that does come from our older leaders. Newt is a historical fountain constantly overflowing, and a much needed force in our party. I think the label of old should actually read RINO or moderates. Those are the reasons for our failures. On top of our not fighting tooth and nail those idiots that took over our party.
The last real Conservative President was Reagan and if he was still around we would certainly be seeking his advice and wisdom. In actuality it is the fault of those like McCain and the Establishment in the party that has stopped the voices of Conservatism from being heard. I do not want age to be a reason we reject someone. Our Founding Fathers were not exactly spring chickens, and God knows they were awesome when it comes to good ideas! I am in my 40’s, and I guess I am a little sensitive to the term “old” and the fact that some in our society seem to devalue our elderly population. My parents and grandparent get smarter by the day! LOL!
Hannity just said he is supporting Steele for the RNC chair. So shall it be said and so shall it be done. Fred will be out.
freeus on November 12, 2008 at 4:45 PM
First of all, there’s no chance of her doing it so this is really a moot point. But sure, she’s tough as nails. That’s the main reason. We need someone with a backbone. That, and I would like to see her as a leading voice in the Republican Party.
I agree with the strong sentiments against Obama’s views. But I completely understand why she, and most African-Americans, would be moved to tears. A lot of African-Americans never truly believed from the bottom of their heart that they would live to see a black man become president. It’s sad they felt that way, but it’s reality.
latinchic on November 12, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Personally, I am against ALL abortions, but Daemonocracy is right about this one. There have been many polls out showing that a small minority want “abortion on demand” (in all stages of pregnancy, for any reason), a somewhat larger minority want to outlaw ALL abortions, regardless of circumstances, but majorities will support banning abortions except in case of rape or incest.
Every time a pro-life politician comes out against ALL abortions, Planned Parenthood and NARAL trot out some teenage rape victim, or a girl raped by her father, to say that she shouldn’t have her life ruined, be prevented from going to college, etc., by the man who abused her. So mushy-middle voters (mostly women) feel sorry for the poor girl, and vote for the Democrats.
The truth is that only a very small fraction of women undergoing abortions are rape and incest victims, but they are used as the excuse for keeping abortion legal.
Another frequently-used tactic is trotting out a single pregnant girl whose boyfriend either ditched her when he found out she was pregnant, or would continue to “love” her if she got an abortion. (Sarah Palin’s daughter and her fiance break the mold here!) The way around this is for Republican candidates to propose Federally-funded foster-care nurseries for babies given up for adoption, and an overhaul of the excessively restrictive regulations on adoption, so that adoptive parents don’t have to pay tens of thousands of dollars to “buy” an adopted child.
If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions and maximize the number of saved babies, we need to (a) advocate banning abortion except in cases of rape and incest; and (b) facilitate care and adoption of unwanted babies to give unmarried pregnant women a REAL “choice”–either care for her baby, or give it to someone who will. With this position, we can WIN elections on this issue, and cut the number of abortions by 90% or more.
Steve Z on November 12, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Fred! Steele didn’t win anything. Go with Fred. A senator who WON and a perfect common sense foil to Obama’s madness.
Mojave Mark on November 12, 2008 at 6:51 PM
I personally would love to see Fred run for POTUS again, he’d be about the same age as Mac was this time, he’s already learned his lesson about the way he campaigned (he said so on F&F months ago), and maybe in a couple of years, people will have had enough of a newbie, immature POTUS and long for an older and wiser one.
But, if Fred is set against running for POTUS (:() then I would LOVE to have him as chair! Go Fred!
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on November 12, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Oh! I just had a dream that Fred! was giving speeches right and left like those days he filled in for Paul Harvey with fresh, ruby red, raw meat flying to and fro.
Oh Wait! It might not be a dream!
GO FRED! GO!!!
Sultry Beauty on November 12, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Newt’s okay, I like Steele, but for this position, Fred! is the right man for the job.
rtsidedragon on November 12, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Jeri Thompson would be the ticket.
New blood with the Fred message.
And we’d get a lot of Fred with that package.
Saltysam on November 12, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Steele has never won anything whereas Fred has. Fred, however, is the most recent loser – but within the party that needs change. Fred came accross as more of a John McCain supporter – and McCain hardly is or should be the face of the party. I believe that both are going to improve the party though. Now, the quest is whether we would have won this election with Fred as opposed to McCain. Perhaps we would have actually inspired someoene.
ApartforHaShem on November 12, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Fred is a natural leader because people trust him implicitly to hold true to conservative ideals. I like Steele, but not only is he not conservative enough for me, I agree with the posters above who said he is still a viable candidate for elected office and that’s what he should pursue fr now. I agree with Newt on many things, but not on everything, and there are still many who have not forgiven him for his behavior. We need someone completely untarnished as well as someone true to the cause.
Connie on November 12, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2