Steele reverses himself on choice

posted at 9:37 am on March 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

For the third time in his short tenure as RNC chair, Steele has fumbled a media appearance, this time on abortion, and had to reverse himself afterwards.   Steele told an interviewer that he thought abortion was a matter of personal choice and that it should be regulated by the states.  Now, as Ben Smith reports at Politico, Steele explains that what he really meant was that abortion should be banned by a Constitutional amendment:

I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.

I tried to present why I am pro life while recognizing that my mother had a “choice” before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue.

But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law.

Try squaring that with this:

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.

You can’t.  The two statements cannot be reconciled with each other.  They are mutually exclusive.  And Steele has offered both as his views in two successive days.

I’m pro-life, as anyone who has read this blog knows.  I don’t think that’s a litmus test for Republicans, although some may differ on that point.  Pro-choice Republicans exist in significant numbers, and will grow as Obama’s Deadbeatonomics fails and drives people out of the arms of the statists in the Democratic Party.  We will want to partner with people to build a coalition that can win national elections, and economic freedom will probably have to form the basis of that coalition.

However, the problem with Steele isn’t the GQ interview.  It’s the fact that he can’t seem to make up his mind and stick with it.  Steele seems to have environmentally-dependent political views.  When he’s talking with DL Hughley, the Republican Convention looks like a Nazi rally.  When he’s talking on TV, Rush Limbaugh is ugly and incendiary.  When Steele talks with GQ, he’s pro-choice.  And Steele reverses himself with amazing alacrity when speaking in entirely different environments.  He appears to have no convictions and no principles when he makes these gyrations on the national stage, as though he stands for nothing but Michael Steele and access to the media spotlight.

I have seen the man speak with conviction and passion at conservative events and leave everyone mightily impressed, but now we have to wonder whether Steele just tailored the message for the audience, as he appears to have done with Hughley and GQ.  I don’t necessarily buy that, as he has easier ways to get media air time than being in the Republican Party, but it’s hard not to ask the question these days.

One thing is certain: he’s a lot less media savvy than most of us thought.  And since he doesn’t seem to have much skill in organization, we have to ask ourselves why we should support his continued tenure as RNC chair.

Update: Philip Klein sums it up in one word: Zelig.

Update II: My friend John McCormack defends Steele on this point:

Ed Morrissey writes: “The two statements cannot be reconciled with each other. They are mutually exclusive. And Steele has offered both as his views in two successive days.”

I disagree. Steele was asked whether there is a right to abortion–not whether there ought to be a right to abortion. Under the current legal regime dictated by the Supreme Court, abortion is an “individual choice” throughout all nine months of pregnancy for effectively any reason.

Well, I certainly hope that’s what Steele meant, but calling abortion a “right” and an “individual choice” sounds quite a bit like he’s surrendering substantial ground.  People think of “rights” as something government can’t eliminate.  “Absolutely” sounds like an endorsement of that position.  If that’s not what he meant to convey, then I think Steele needs to work on his delivery, and again that goes to whether we got the media-savvy spokesman we expected when we cheered his victory.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

Do you want Jindal or Sanford to quit their jobs to become RNC Chairman?

Y-not

I don’t think we need to change our chairman now. I am just tired of hearing the same old names over and over and over. Romney shot himself in the foot by flipping on so many issues. He would be worse than Steele having to explain his “changes” of heart.

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Who is telling you not the be passionate? Just don’t be sanctimonious about it.

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 1:09 PM

I think accusing me of using a diversionary tactic by using correct scientific terms is sanctimonious.

Y-not on March 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM

With Michael Steele, every day is Christmas for the Democrats (and most of them don’t even believe in God).

bw222 on March 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Politics: “The Profession Of Change” (Forming “Convictions” On The Latest Poll). To A Righteous Man, Truth Is Considered Wisdom, He Discerns Light From Darkness. He Rebukes The Deceiver And He Finds Life. “As Far As The East Is From The west, So Is Wisdom From A Fool”

GD on March 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM

I just don’t get the connection between Steele and the SarahPAC. You don’t even know what the woman will do with the money. What if she gives to Specter or Snowe or Collins? This is just silly. At least you know what the RNC will do with the money. But SarahPac? You are just as bad as the Obamadrones. Sarah is a cult of personality just like our current POTUS.

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM

I think accusing me of using a diversionary tactic by using correct scientific terms is sanctimonious.

What are you talking about?

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 1:17 PM

but why not Mitt? Executive knowhow is his forte, he’s pretty good on his feet, and its not like he has a more important job to do right now.

james23 on March 12, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Exactly my point. I’m not a Mitt-head, although I did vote for him in the primaries (Fred and Romney had already dropped out). It seems to me that I hear his name bandied about a lot, particularly in light of the current economic crisis, but he is usually criticized as not being a “true” conservative. Running the RNC for a year or two would give his detractors a chance to evaluate him in action and, presumably, put the RNC in much stronger shape for the mid-terms. Mitt could then step down, handing the reigns off to a strong lieutenant he had mentored on the job, and prepare for 2012.

Y-not on March 12, 2009 at 1:17 PM

For what it’s worth, I understood Steele’s original position. I read it as Pro-Life with a realistic understanding of today’s world.

His position is similar to mine. I want an end to all abortion. I am unsure how to reach that–so far.

This is not unlike Lincolns position on slavery. He was anti-slavery. No doubt about it. It appalled him. It was against his religious and moral beliefs. But he worked within the confines of the current law, and the current social/political circumstances.

So he proceeded to combat slavery with less zeal than a John Brown. In the end, he won and slavery was abolished.

Montana on March 12, 2009 at 1:19 PM

This:

“What people who are “pro-choice” need to try to appreciate is that for pro-life people, abortion is about killing an innocent person”

Everybody knows that. Nothing earthshaking in your statement.

are secondary to the embryo’s or fetus’ right to life.

The pro-life movement is about fertilized eggs. Let’s stop the diversionary tactics of fetuses. If this were about late term abortion only, the issue would have been settled a long time ago.

I don’t think you are able to argue dispassionately about this topic.

Y-not on March 12, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Norwegian on March 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM

Ooomph! Thwap! Bang! Zsmack!

The Race Card on March 12, 2009 at 1:25 PM

He might be a choice. Is he a talented executive? I only know him from occasionally seeing him on tv as a host.
Y-not on March 12, 2009 at 1:04 PM

John Kasich has been around a long time. From his website……..

As a former 9-term Congressman, Chairman of the House Budget Committee and negotiator of an agreement between Congress and the Clinton White House for the 1st balanced Budget in 30 years, John knows a little something about the workings of our government. And he has strong beliefs about how the government helps and when it hurts.

I’ve heard him speak twice, and I’m impressed. But then again what I do know? I’m still waiting for Steve Forbes or Jack Kemp to resurface. (yeah I know Kemp is battling cancer).

Knucklehead on March 12, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM

I have read some ridiculous comments on HA threads, but your is definitely in the top3 all time.

Sarah Palin is the antithesis of the 3 RINO’s. Even her worse critics in the MSM would not put her in the same room as them.

Yea, we know what the RNC may do with the money given them: continue to support moderates and RINO’s

And lastly to the credibility and honesty of Sarah Palin-she cuurently has 516,000 members on her Facebook, 70000 members of Team Sarah who totally support her and hundreds of thousands who would be willing to take a bullet for her or walk over broken glass for her. And we would do that because we know what she will do with the massive amounts of money she is raising now and will raise in the future: it is in the mission statement of SarahPAC: to support like-minded conservative candidates in elections.

You may think that we that support Sarah passionately are cultists but there is one main difference betweeen the followers of Obama and followers of Sarah:

With Obama they support him because of feelings, resentment, anger, or pent-up grievances; with the supporters of Sarah we support Sarah with our rational mind and what we have seen with our own eyes (without the filter of the MSM)and what we have concluded is that Sarah Palin gives the GOP the best chance to take Obama down in 2012 and save America from the socialist, anti-capitalist, totalitarian regime that the Messiah wants to impose on America.

We love Sarah because we know Sarah will do everything within her power by speaking to Reagan conservatism to see that the Messiah does not get his way.

technopeasant on March 12, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Y-not

The pro-life movement is not about banning abortions from the fetal stage, i.e. 8 weeks after fertilization. The pro-life movement is about the belief that a person entitled to all the legal rights as any other person is created at the moment of conception. Bringing up late term abortion and fetuses over and over is diversionary since it does not truly reflect the goals of the pro-life movement.

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 1:35 PM

We love Sarah because we know Sarah will do everything within her power by speaking to Reagan conservatism to see that the Messiah does not get his way.

Really? I see Sanford and Jindal taking on Obama. Where is Sarah? If she is such a leader, why is she still hiding from the Sunday talk shows? Could it be because she can’t make it through unscathed or maybe she agrees with Obama. Who knows? In any case, the time to stop socialism is now and Sarah is MIA.

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 1:40 PM

I’m done with this idiot. Get him out of here.

YoungAmerican on March 12, 2009 at 1:48 PM

hey Ed,
what do the London rags think of Steele? Why not print a couple “an unnamed source inside the RNC”, or “A person close to, or perhaps, in the party said…”, that seems to be your m.o. as of late.
Steele is an embarrassment….just let Rush have the job…

greataunty on March 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 1:40 PM

You are falling into the MSN template that if somehow if someone did not go to the right schools, frequent the right cocktail parties in Washington or NYC or not appear on Sunday talk shows it somehow diminishes his/her capability to be POTUS. Frankly Sarah Palin does not need more media exposure. Like Tiger and Elvis, she goes by Sarah and the political world all knows who we are talking about.

Sarah will be making appearances in the Lower 48 in short order (announced yesterday) but let me ask you if as you say that Sarah is MIA how did she finish first in every poll conducted since the November 2008 vote among the GOP members, except for the CPAC straw poll, who they favor for the 2012 POTUS nominee.

Regarding the recent Hot Air poll- close to 9700 voters responded-38% of them consider Sarah Palin now the leader of the party (numero uno) and 28% consider Rush Limbaugh the leader of the GOP at this time (2nd place).

Sarah Palin is a major player. Will she become the GOP nominee in 2012? I don’t know, but I do know Sarah is definitely in the hunt, and that’s good enough for me right now.

technopeasant on March 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Smeele has established a pattern when considering all the shit he has been pitching…

F.L.U.S.H. N.O.W. !.!.

Captain America on March 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Just don’t be sanctimonious about it.

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Said with a straight face, presumably.

Kent18 on March 12, 2009 at 1:59 PM

We need to decide if we are interested in winning or being right.

Winning by being wrong=loosing.
 
The quick bandaid fix is to open up the tent to a broader and broader audience until there is virtually no meaning under the tent at all.
 
The better IMHO approach is to continue purging the party which will whittle it down to the bone of true believers and possibly lead to short term losses. Let the libs own the clusterf*ck they are about to create, once we have a strong unadulterated conservative party base *then* start growing evangelists to trumpet what will at that point be a clear, strong and resounding msg rather than the namby pamby double speak repubs have been talking for a couple of decades.

GregoryNeilSmith on March 12, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Good bye already.

roux on March 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM

I just wish someone wouldn’t feel the need to clarify when they say they are pro-life, it means that they are against killing babies.

If you think it is murder, then there is no ‘well it’s a woman’s right to choose. . .blah blah blah’. It’s really cut and dried. It’s always been pretty cut and dried to the Protestant Christians living around me (black and white). The only one’s who seem to squishify the concepts are the Catholics and atheists. I’m not bashing Catholics, but I can sure name the prominent pro-choice ones that are keeping abortion from being treated as murder.

Without going to the D party, off the top of my head we’re looking at Giuliani and Steele. And Mitt is all over the youtube video declaring a woman’s right to murder so that he could win the Governor’s spot.

ThackerAgency on March 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM

bottom line though is that if you want a contrast from the D party, you need a party that is officially through and through pro-life. If I want big government pro choice, I’ll vote Democrat.

ThackerAgency on March 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Steele is doing a great job.

He should give himself a raise.

getalife on March 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Oh.my.god… and to think I supported this guy.
He’s gotta go.

joe_doufu on March 12, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Smeele will get a MSNBC talk show sandwiched between Chris Matthews, Oby, and Maddow.

They will love him. Kicked out by the “evil” neocons.

Captain America on March 12, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Steele now has two strikes with me – first letting Hughley call Republicans ‘Nazis’ – and now on his indecision on choice. What’s next – I’m afraid to ask.

Flag Gazer on March 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM

“Really? I see Sanford and Jindal taking on Obama. Where is Sarah? If she is such a leader, why is she still hiding from the Sunday talk shows? Could it be because she can’t make it through unscathed or maybe she agrees with Obama. Who knows? In any case, the time to stop socialism is now and Sarah is MIA.”

Chekote

Sarah is up in Alaska doing what she was elected to do, efficiently governing her state until the time is right. SarahPAC wasn’t created for nothing. There’s as much chance of Sarah giving to Specter, Snowe or Collins as you winning Mega-Millions.

It’s a lot easier to travel from South Carolina or Louisiana to NYC or DC than from Alaska. When Palin attended the Alfalfa dinner, she took a flight that left at 2 AM so she wouldn’t miss a day of work. Remember, she sold the governor’s jet?

I guess you missed it on Greta when she advised Obama to veto the stimulus.

Don’t get too excited about Sanford. When you get “b!tch slapped” by Jennifer Granholm (as Sanford did recently), it’s not a good thing.

Sanford and Jindal need to create awareness; everyone knows who Sarah is. That’s why you didn’t refer to them as Bobby or whatever Szanford’s first name is. I’m sure he has one, but he hasn’t excited me enough to remember it.

It’s interesting how you’ve tried to turn a thread about Michael Steele into non-stop Sarah bashing. But then, Sarah Palin is pro-life and you are pro-abortion.

bw222 on March 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM

technopeasant

All your polls and Facebook stats point to Sarah’s popularity. She is popular but is she a leader? Not so far. Going on Greta is not good enough. She needs to go on the Sunday talk shows.

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 2:31 PM

bw222

This little routine that unless someone fawns over Sarah then they must be bashing her routine has go to go. You are just like the Obamadrones.

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Funny, how people defend Obama by saying it has only been a couple months, but they are ready to throw Steele to the wolves.

I do think Steele needs to choose his words a little better, but I can see how he may have just misspoke in this article. I’m not saying that he is backtracking or not, just that I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

jeffn21 on March 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Chekote -

How many negative posts have you had on this thread about Palin?

The thread is about Michael Steele and how he is embarassing himself and the Republican Party by trying to be a celebrity rather than working to rebuild a party that desperately needs rebuilding. I never thought I would be saying this, but we were better off with Mike Duncan who was quietly incompetent (unlike Mr. Steele who appears intent on proudly proclaiming his incompetence to the world).

bw222 on March 12, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Funny, how people defend Obama by saying it has only been a couple months, but they are ready to throw Steele to the wolves.

jeffn21 on March 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Steele needs to go low key or at least limit his appearances to friendly talk shows. When you play with MSM you are playing against the enemy and he obviously hasn’t been prepared. It’s a lot different than going on “Hannity’s America.”

bw222 on March 12, 2009 at 2:55 PM

bw222 on March 12, 2009 at 2:50 PM

I wouldn’t be posting her right now but Allahpundit and Ed have surprisingly refrained from posting any ‘Palin’ threads since the Hot Air poll.

Do you think it might have anything to do that 38% of the 9700 respondents now consider Sarah Palin the leader of the Republican Party (numero uno) and 28% consider Rush Limbaugh the leader (2nd place)?

technopeasant on March 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Steele now has two strikes with me – first letting Hughley call Republicans ‘Nazis’ – and now on his indecision on choice. What’s next – I’m afraid to ask.

Flag Gazer on March 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM

No, he’s already had three in my mind, the first was calling Rush just an entertainer and his show ugly.
He’s done if he can’t stand up to liberal media while holding on to his beliefs. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth depending on who’s asking the question. Typical politician!

Christian Conservative on March 12, 2009 at 2:57 PM

If you are a Sarah Palin supporter you should in a perverse way be thanking Steele for his recent comments. Now SarahPAC has become exclusively the bank and clearinghouse of choice among thousands of disgruntled conservatives and Republicans.

Thank you, Mr. Steele

NB: I hope you keep your job, but please keep a lower profile. You could learn from the Governor of Alaska.

technopeasant on March 12, 2009 at 3:01 PM

How many negative posts have you had on this thread about Palin?

None. I just stated facts. She has not been a leader in opposing Obama. As far as turning this thread from Steele to Sarah, I was not the one who said I was going money to the SarahPac because Steele is doing badly. The Sarah – Steele connection was not made by me. I simply stated that people are giving money to the SarahPAC without knowing what she would do with the money.

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Chekote on March 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM

We know she will eventually use the money, on behalf of millions of Americans, to save America from the Marxist despot now in the White House.

technopeasant on March 12, 2009 at 3:20 PM

I should have known. I just remembered that I heard Steele when he was sitting in for Hugh Hewitt. And I noticed something back then. No matter who called and what they said he always first agreed with them – or made agreeing sounds – before he made perhaps one or two points of his own. But basically he tried to agree with everyone, to tell people what they wanted to hear. It´s just his style to be non-confrontational, but he takes it too far.

el gordo on March 12, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Certainly, legally women presently have the right to choose an abortion. There are a few circumstances where a woman should choose an abortion. I’m not sure how you could legally remove the right and still allow ‘some’ abortions. Maybe the ‘set of conditions’ could be built into any new laws.

Redteam on March 12, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Every freaking day is like Christmas Day with you people!

benny shakar on March 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Every freaking day is like Christmas Day with you people!

benny shakar on March 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Haven’t you died in a car fire yet?

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Haven’t you died in a car fire yet?

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM

He’s undead.

TheUnrepentantGeek on March 12, 2009 at 4:07 PM

Haven’t you died in a car fire yet?

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Has Laura Bush been driving again???

capitulus on March 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Has Laura Bush been driving again???

capitulus on March 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM

No, Ted Kennedy.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM

No, Ted Kennedy.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Ted’s more drive-off-the-bridge. Laura’s the real highway-carnage-maker.

capitulus on March 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Ted’s more drive-off-the-bridge. Laura’s the real highway-carnage-maker.

capitulus on March 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Yeah, missing a stop sign and accidentally hitting another car really compares to drunkenly driving into a lake, leaving your passenger to drown, and not reporting it for several hours.

I think you and benny should take a Pinto out for a drive.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Every freaking day is like Christmas Day with you people!

benny shakar on March 12, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Benny -

Why don’t you take a ride with Ted “the Swimmer” Kennedy while he’s still around? See if you can find a vintage (circa. 1969) Oldsmobile. He knows what to do.

bw222 on March 12, 2009 at 4:33 PM

He appears to have no convictions and no principles when he makes these gyrations on the national stage, as though he stands for nothing but Michael Steele and access to the media spotlight. – Ed Morrissey

Unfortunately, I can’t recall one politician who would take a different tact. When the MSM asks them a question they cower like wounded dogs. You can see it in their faces, “how will this play on TV?” “Will this effect my poll numbers?”

I think Steele should resign, NOW! However, who do we have that can replace him? No one I know of. So, we are probably stuck with him as we were with McCain.

Wow! And this party hopes to pick up seats in 2010? Good luck with that.

Joe Pyne on March 12, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Mr. Steele has clearly demonstrated that the Job is bigger than he is. I view him as a probationary employee that can’t cut the mustard. The Republican choices are to allow him to continue to torpedo the party, or, replace him ASAP!

The longer we wait to take the action that is required, the longer we are perceived as the party of incompetence. With Obama’s socialist agenda being cemented into the fabric of our lives on a daily basis, we don’t have time to procrastinate — 2010 is right around the corner. Remember Steele cleared fired all all other Committee employees, one more termination, would simply clear the decks for the next chair.

Now who can we all agree on? I say, if we can’t enlist Rush for a short term 2 year contract — we should draft a tough good lookin candidate like Michelle Malkin, make her an offer she can’t refuse!

Btw, Has anyone reconciled the Republican “War Chest” lately, I suspect its pretty hollow after the disbursements to the New York congressional effort…Time is now…
.
“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on March 12, 2009 at 5:21 PM

I’m listening to Michael Steele on Lars Larson’s program. He sounds more coherent there than in print or TV.

Let me put it this way: While Steele is not ideal, Kadon Dawson is much worse and would kill the party permanently.

Sakaki on March 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Shut your mouth Steele and just leave already. The man is really annoying. He’s another one who will say anything to get along and get what he wants. When he gets the “power” he’ll flip on us and we’ll be stuck with another surprise package…boobie prizes.

UnEasyRider on March 12, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Mr. Steele has been very disappointing.

I don’t know if they have or not, but the Republican Party leadership needs to sit down and clearly state the planks of their platform, goals and vision.

‘Cause, I simply can’t make heads or tails out of it right now.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 12, 2009 at 6:20 PM

I wish Newt would have entered the RNC chair race. Steele’s act is wearing thin when we need a strong conservative leader with strong convictions as the RNC chair.

adams6kids on March 12, 2009 at 7:25 PM

“Michael Steele on Lars Larson’s program. He sounds more coherent there than in print or TV.”

Alas, the inescapable, all seing eye of TV, is the medium where Mr Steele inflicts the most damage to us — his gaffs to the heart of the party are also always available for comedic instant replay.

Not sure if SC country club Katon Dawson would be the best improvement to the RNC, but I don’t beleve he would be any worse. It’s high time we diassauge ourselves of the notion that the party can recruit Obama blacks, the lefty media, and useful idiots to the party. Just maybe, unapologetically butting heads with all three legs of the socialist stool, although stinky work, might be a formula for success!

The Democrat party are playing hardball politics 24/7 we need to start getting in some licks, OUTLAWs. So that the electorate knows that when they need a Party to defend America, the Republicans still have the chops to get it done!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on March 12, 2009 at 7:29 PM

I don’t get the big deal. He acknowledged that women today have a choice, said he hoped they would choose life.

What’s wrong with this?

This issue pushes people out of the Republican party in droves.

AnninCA on March 12, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Well I always thought people are born gay. And this recent study is more proof.

ingnesis on March 12, 2009 at 7:36 PM

I think you and benny should take a Pinto out for a drive.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Benny is too young to know what a Pinto is!

Knucklehead on March 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM

If I had a time machine I’d go back and make sure we elect Blackwell instead. But since I don’t have a time machine I guess I’ll just have to wait it out.

OneGyT on March 12, 2009 at 8:18 PM

This is exactly why Republicans are never going to make it unless they can get their focus back on government issues and get off the moral agenda issues. The interview should have gone like this to begin with:

Q: Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
A: That’s none of your damned business and has nothing to do with governing a country. Next question, please.

Q: Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
A: That’s none of your damned business and has nothing to do with governing a country.

Q: Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
A: Only the supreme court can overturn Roe V. Wade, not a political party. I am chairman of the republican Party. Hey, lets talk economic and trade policy!

crosspatch on March 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM

Has Laura Bush been driving again???

capitulus on March 12, 2009 at 4:16 PM

No, Ted Kennedy.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM

No, Ted Kennedy.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Ted’s more drive-off-the-bridge. Laura’s the real highway-carnage-maker.

capitulus on March 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Capitulus..how old was Laura B at the time? you dickwad she was a minor. so fuc+ yourself. How old was your boy Kennedy…you truly are an as+hole.

Jamson64 on March 12, 2009 at 10:22 PM

Benny is too young to know what a Pinto is!

Knucklehead on March 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM

So am I. Maybe I read too much.

MadisonConservative on March 12, 2009 at 10:26 PM

This is what happens every time. Understand that a good portion of the population of the US (and practically everyone under 30) views Republicans as some group of social tyrants who are going to go around stamping scarlet letters on people’s heads and legislating morality.

And Republicans allow news media to draw them into those discussions. The first thing out of a reporter’s mouth when interviewing a Republican are going to be the standard issues .. homosexuality, abortion, etc. The focus needs to be directed back to things like fiscal responsibility, taxes, trade issues, defense issues. The media needs to simply be told “none of your damn business, that has nothing to do with running a government”.

crosspatch on March 12, 2009 at 10:48 PM

I have just noticed this. This is indeed pretty bad. I’m pro-choice and anti-religion. But the realm of acceptable positions on this issue is really not singular. You gotta pick one and stick with it.

The media needs to simply be told “none of your damn business, that has nothing to do with running a government”.

When the Republican Party starts saying that, it’ll be the dan of the new era. The problem is this is all they are running on.

radiofreevillage on March 13, 2009 at 12:15 AM

I don’t know it this has been mentioned above. Apparently, Steele has two diametrically opposed positions on gay marriage/civil unions, too.

Was he on drugs that day?

radiofreevillage on March 13, 2009 at 1:37 AM

Let Steele answer an easy question for a change:

Should a lesbian woman, impregnated by a gay man’s donated sperm, be allowed to have an abortion ~without the gay man’s permission~ if he attends a Christian seminar on renouncing homosexuality and goes straight?

profitsbeard on March 13, 2009 at 2:26 AM

I hate to say it, I really tend to dislike all the Republican infighting. But after carefully watching Steele for the past month or two, I think it is time for him to go. He has completely lost my confidence. And it’s not one specific case. It is almost every time I see him on television. He rarely makes a good strong conservative argument, and frequently says thing that make me go, “Huh?!”

For instance, in that GQ article, he acts like he is speaking positively oof Rush Limbaugh by saying, “Rush is a friend. I like Rush. Rush is a bomb-thrower extraordinaire. And we need him. We need him because what he does is, he stimulates debate.”

Or how about, “And because you have a black man as president doesn’t mean that tomorrow morning a black business is not gonna get redlined or a black family’s gonna be able to get their house.”

Or this one: “uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.” ”

I could point to about 15 things in that one article that I strongly disagree with him on, where his answers implicitly agree with liberal positions. He’s trying to sound like them to win them over, but all he’s doing is making it seem like he agrees with them. How does that win them over in any way?! He never makes the case! He just says he’s going to change things to make minorities see that he cares about them like the mean Republican party never has. He goes out of his way to point out that there were only a handful of black faces at the Republican National Convention. Never mind that the RNC has wide open arms tto minorities, but the main deterrent to blacks showing up is that they get ostracized within the black community.

Instead of chastising the Republicans because there are not enough blacks there, why not speak directly to all blacks watching and say, “Wade on in. The water’s warm. I can vouch that the Republican party cares about blacks and has their arms wide open for all who care about strong families, opportunities to succeed, a choice on where to send your kids to school, etc.” Why not promote the party within the black community instead of constantly apologizing for it?

willamettevalley on March 13, 2009 at 3:04 AM

Oh come on people, you are nitpicking. I happen to agree with Steele. I think abortion should be decided by the states, just like a lot of other issues. I also think that while I myself do not support an abortion, it is obviously a choice women have.

This is getting ridiculous. We have a demagogue running the country and all conservatives can think to do is take endless pot shots at the RNC chairmen. No doubt they will run him off and start working on the next one.

Terrye on March 13, 2009 at 7:16 AM

The problem with Steele is that he constantly reverses himself. I am losing confidence in him too. I supported him because of his media savyness, communication skills. He clearly wants to move the party in a more moderate direction when it comes to social issues. I agree with that. But he has to stick to his positions. These 180s are really hurting him.

Chekote on March 13, 2009 at 9:50 AM

If “what is” vs. “what ought to be” was the distinction he was trying to make then he should have, and would have, made it.

Get him out. I nominate Mary Katherine Ham to replace him.

Gaunilon on March 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM

I’m a pro-choice conservative, and I don’t think I’m the only one. If for the only reason that you can make all abortions illegal and they will still happen. Look how well the Drug War is going for an example. We have enough government in our lives. On the other hand, I don’t think the government should be paying for them either…….

adamsmith on March 13, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I’m a pro-choice conservative, and I don’t think I’m the only one. If for the only reason that you can make all abortions illegal and they will still happen. Look how well the Drug War is going for an example. We have enough government in our lives. On the other hand, I don’t think the government should be paying for them either…….

adamsmith on March 13, 2009 at 10:29 AM

I agree with all of this, but Steele looks like an idiot trying to play both sides of this fence. He needs to go, IMO, not because he voiced a pro-choice opinion, but that he didn’t stand by it. I understand that most conservatives disagree with me about abortion — although I agree with Steele’s comment about Roe — but for Christ’s sake, take a position and stand by it.

holygoat on March 13, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4