Michael Steele: Newt’s supporting me for RNC chair
posted at 5:15 pm on November 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Newt’s spokesman denies it but it does jibe with reports that Gingrich has dropped out of the running for chairman himself and that he’s leaning towards Steele. Look at it this way: If Steele’s lying, the only one who’ll be humiliated when Newt does endorse is him.
Eleven minutes of audio here, with the Gingrich stuff up front. The most interesting part comes in the middle, when NPR asks about the Log Cabin Republicans. Steele’s cautious with his rhetoric but unmistakably a proponent of the “big tent” approach in what he says about single-issue voters having to accept that the party is “multifaceted and complex.” Exit question: Is his description of himself as a Lincoln Republican invested in individual rights a signal that he’s prepared to back gay marriage?
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:
Oh yay.
Do you really want an answer?
upinak on November 18, 2008 at 5:16 PM
I think Steele would leave that question to the states. I he did come out in favor of gay marriage it will be the shortest stint ever as head of the RNC.
ImRight on November 18, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Exit McCain, enter Steele. Change we can believe in.
lodge on November 18, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Republicans need to emphasize consitutional preservation and liberty as their platform and get out of the bedroom. If the evangelicals don’t like gay marriage or abortions, don’t perform them in your church.
Government shouldn’t legislate religion.
Unfortunately the media and the left have painted the GOP as a theocratic force.
James on November 18, 2008 at 5:21 PM
the Dems won’t even back Gay marriage, of course Steele isn’t. Marriage isn’t a “Right”, no republican/conservative in their right mind would do something that stupid
jp on November 18, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Boot Yosemite Sam, enter a real conservative. F’ change, just get our country back on track.
HornetSting on November 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM
If he is going to back gay marriage, he should say so now and not later. I’m sick of being lied to and misled.
Blake on November 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Job #1: Hunt down and kill (not literally) all the RINOs
Job #2: Seek out new blood (not literally) to fill the slots left over by all the dead RINOs
Job #3: Install anti-RINO wall (not literally) to keep out all future RINOs
If any should slip through said wall, see Job #1
Tony737 on November 18, 2008 at 5:27 PM
It’s a states’ rights thing, man.
malan89 on November 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM
If he does support same-sex marriage, he’ll say it’ll be left to the states.
amerpundit on November 18, 2008 at 5:28 PM
God help us all.
The RNC must like being losers.
We now have one far left and one left center political party
in this country.
Elizabetty on November 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM
Yeah, since February 5, 2008, I didn’t even get a kiss.
At this point, if he is conservative on issues that matter, national security including border security/no amnesty, no global warming mumbojumbo, no reaching out to democrats to get a grab around, small government, lower taxes, pro-life, then I’ll feel like I won the lottery. It’s been a long year.
HornetSting on November 18, 2008 at 5:30 PM
It’s open season, Tony.
HornetSting on November 18, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Why is this gay marriage thing so hard? A simple Republican principle is, but is not communicated very well, “We will defend the liberty of the states and their citizens.”
At the federal level, no state shall be force to accept the gay marriage decision of another state (i.e., the defence of marriage act).
At the state level, no judge shall impose gay marriage decisions on the state. Only the people or their legislatures.
WashJeff on November 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM
I was being sarcastic btw. Steele is a gunbanning David Cameron acolyte. We’ll be the party of carbon taxes and UHC in 2 years.
lodge on November 18, 2008 at 5:31 PM
Ugh. What you suggest would be nothing short of political suicide. Have you seen poll numbers on Abortion and Gay Marriage recently? Even in California they voted against Gay Marriage. Twice.
Abortion especially would be idiotic to suddenly support. People’s opposition to Abortion stems from their belief that it is murder. You cannot seriously ask people to support a candidate who believes murder is a matter of choice. Regardless of how you feel about it personally there are millions of solid GOP voters who would stay home if we fielded a pro-choice candidate.
Kronos on November 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM
You needed only one “not literally”…
right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM
“Gay Marriage” hasn’t a thing to do with Liberty. as far as federalism goes, it doesn’t apply to each and every issue, some are important national issues. The one’s that get down to the character of a Nation, you can make strong cases on issues like this and abortion both ways.
anyway, the DOMA is probably useless. The Gays are setting this up for a State to have it legal, get married there then move back to your state of choice. Then when SCOTUS is of the right make up, Sue your state on grounds that Marriage is a contract and the Constitution says that all contracts originating in One State must be honored in other states, and claim the DOMA is thus “unconstitutional”. It has 5-4 decision wrote all over it.
jp on November 18, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Just saw this the other day at RedState:
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/nov/17/put-me-in-the-no-but-persuadable-camp-on-m/
Doesn’t look very good.
Luthien on November 18, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Well said, James.
By taking a “hands off” approach towards the gay marriage issue, Republicans will accomplish:
1) Adherence to the principle of limited government
2) Can’t be accused of being anti-gay
3) Not letting the Dems take the “high road” on this issue.
Very smart. The more I learn about Michael Steele, the more I like the guy.
UltimateBob on November 18, 2008 at 5:36 PM
I want to see more of Steele talking about how he will articulate conservative principles.
tarpon on November 18, 2008 at 5:38 PM
The Freedom Agenda
Tacitus_SGL on November 18, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I’m just pointing out that personal liberty is a strong platform, but more over it should be about foundational liberties outlined by our founders, and that includes allowing communities to vote on issues like gay marriage and abortion rather than have it rammed down their throats by courts.
Tacitus_SGL on November 18, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Agreed. The best way for conservatives to straddle the whole issue is to stick with federalism and legislative action/ referendums, not judicial fiat. If states like MA and CT want to have gay marriage, then it is their right to pass laws providing for it.
Illinidiva on November 18, 2008 at 5:41 PM
Steele lost me at gun rights. I have them to protect me and mine from all of government, not just one party or the other.
Steele is not the man this time around.
Bishop on November 18, 2008 at 5:45 PM
I believe he would follow the Constitution, but he would probably be open-minded to gay marriage. I personally don’t care if gays can marry or not. I just don’t want the gov’t to force churches to marry gay couples because the Bible says something about gay marriage being wrong, I believe, and it would harm Judeo-Christian/Islamic, etc. own freedom of religion. Other than that, though, I think that gay people have the right to be gay; many gay people are very nice and would never hurt anybody (except the prop 8 protesters, that is).
As far a prop 8 goes: In a democratic society, the votes of the majority matter.
Achilles on November 18, 2008 at 5:52 PM
I see that few people got the Lincoln-Log Cabin-gay joke.
Here in CA, it wasn’t a question of whether Democrats will back it but whether blacks and Hispanic would. The two groups are going only so far with the Democrat agenda and same-sex marriage is usually where the line is drawn.
baldilocks on November 18, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Me too.
baldilocks on November 18, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Chip Saltsman for RNC chair!!
SaintOlaf on November 18, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Your scenario would suck if DOMA was overturned. A good, republican, SCOTUS would uphold the DOMA.
Just in case, if Abortion or Gay Marriage ever came up for a vote in my state of Illinois, I vote against both (pro life and keep marriage the way it always has been); but, I believe if we impose these from the federal level, the liberals\socialist can justify their ideas with the same argument.
Let’s have the conifidence of our beliefs and respect for what the founders wanted (free states secured by a federal government), and fight this battle 50 times.
WashJeff on November 18, 2008 at 6:03 PM
I heard him in an interview during his Senate campaign where he said that gay marriage was a State issue and he did not support gay marriage.
I could have misunderstood his answer in that he could have meant he did not support gay marriage approval at the Federal level.
Helloyawl on November 18, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Gay marriage is a states rights issue. Leave it the local legislation. The Federal government should stay out of it, as it only stirs up trouble. It is the third rail of the Presidential electorate right now. Candidates can have a personal preference to how they feel on it, but should not be legislating from the podium.
portlandon on November 18, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Careful lets not eat our own again.
KBird on November 18, 2008 at 6:40 PM
If only it were that easy. I’d support a state’s right to allow gay marriage, but the gay lobby’s support of gay marriage isn’t a federalist thing. It’s all about the Full Faith and Credit clause. Two homosexuals marry in Massachusetts, then move to Tennessee, and expect their marriage to be allowed there too. They’ll argue Full Faith and Credit all day long, and one sympathetic judge could overturn a state’s ban on gay marriage.
Pope Linus on November 18, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I’m in the no Steel column.
He’s a gun grabber, supports affirmative action programs and Roe/Wade, supported campaign finance reform, and I suspect, based on the rest of it, that he’s in the open-borders category.
Conservative? I don’t think so.
FloatingRock on November 18, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Though not the first and second amendments to the constitution, apparently.
FloatingRock on November 18, 2008 at 7:09 PM
If gay marriage is such a draw, why did it get voted down in CA? Get a clue, crew.
Didn’t Lincoln live in a log cabin? Bet he wouldn’t be a “Log Cabin” Repub. Probably wouldn’t even be a Repub today.
davidk on November 18, 2008 at 7:31 PM
The Republican’s biggest problem is the “social conservatives” that somehow have the idea that they’re going to enforce God’s law with man’s legislation.
Abortion, prostitution, and Billy banging Bobby may very well be sins, but making them the foundation of your political ideology only shows that your real commitment isn’t to freedom but to forcing your religion on others. That’s the message people get whether it’s the one you wanted to send or not.
If you really want to regain control of Washington from the socialists then you’ll let God enforce his laws and get back to cutting taxes and spending.
But don’t listen to me, BECAUSE GAY MARRIAGE IS THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!
Browncoatone on November 18, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Will Steele get on TV and fight for conservative principles?
Because at this point that is all that matters
jjshaka on November 18, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Question: Does M. Steele buy the revisionist line that Lincoln was sleeping with his secretary (ie Lincoln was gay)? That would explain whether he Steele likes Log Cabins.
PS: I wasn’t aware that Republicans were eligible for membership at the fudge-packers union.
anti-boomer on November 18, 2008 at 8:17 PM
I sadly don’t have the balls to say what you just said. Thank you, sir/ma’am.
More freedom, not less – that is the challenge. Even if its for people I personally find repugnant.
What happened to “GIVE ME LIBERTY… OR GIVE ME DEATH?”
HotAirJosef on November 18, 2008 at 8:18 PM
For all the gun owners here on HotAir, Michael apparently supports the asinine “Assault Weapons Ban.” The next thing you know he’ll turn out to be a supporter of the “Cap and Trade” Gorebal Warning scam.
Aren’t there any actual intelligent conservatives left?
johnsteele on November 18, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Good luck, he apparently can’t do that because he doesn’t believe in them.
johnsteele on November 18, 2008 at 9:15 PM
“Michael Steele: Newt’s supporting me for RNC chair”
How annoying! I’m supporting him too. Where’s MY shoutout? B*st*ge.
Just kidding. Steele for anything he runs for! Steele, Jindal, Pence, and Palin are our future, I hope.
Kevin M on November 19, 2008 at 12:22 AM
The “high road”. Strange choice of words.
Johan Klaus on November 19, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Why does Michael Steele remind me of the rapper Humpty?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9_w6ZhvRJ8
Michael Steele is a RINO, ’nuff said.
nelsonknows on November 19, 2008 at 6:18 AM
Steele isn’t a “RINO” but maybe the people who think there’s a limtus test beside believing in personal liberty, small government and strong national defense are. By most of these whiners standards Lincoln and Reagan would be Rinos because of all the money they spent on fighting wars, Reagan’s signing of Martin Luther King day into law etc.
You’re Rino platform would exclude a man who was endorsed by the NRA the same year he said that there should be “a line” as to what weapons are considered civilian. That doesn’t seem like an endorsement of the AWB, but the opinion of a person who grew up with the strictest gun laws in the country and maybe doesn’t know the difference between a civilian M-16 and a full auto weapon.
But even if he did so what? As long as he supports the 2nd Amendment and will fight for the Republicans what is the point. This would be an issue if he was running for Senate but as chair of the RNC? Come on.
Steele is the only leader we have with a positive vision that doesn’t include blaming everyone else, crying and turning the GOP into a party of 1% of the country.
Rob Taylor on November 19, 2008 at 9:49 AM
“Steele isn’t a “RINO” This would be an issue if he was running for Senate but as chair of the RNC? Come on.”
This kind of thinking is exactly what got the GOP/RNC RINOs like McCain.
Steele supported a gun ban, you either support the 2nd Amendment as a WHOLE or you DON’T.
Steele supports Affirmative Action.
Steele supports Roe V Wade.
Steele supports gay marriage
Elect another RINO to run the RNC and see how far it gets you.
Conservatives are sick of compromising with frauds who claim to be conservative and fail miserably.
If you think that having a RINO as the voice of the entire party isn’t a HUGE mistake and a slap in the face to conservatives, go ahead and elect Michael Steele and watch the GOP/RNC continue to lose election after election.
nelsonknows on November 19, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Comment pages: