I have read this interview three times, and it took all three times for me to finally think that, maybe, I have a understanding of his position. He talks about being pro-life, about his birth mother deciding to have him, that Roe was wrongly decided, that “the individual choice rests in the states,” and that “the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.” Based on all of this crap, I THINK he is trying to say that life needs to be protected, but that (in the words of an old saying) you have to change the hearts of the American people before you can change the laws of America, and that battle will have to be fought at the state level. All good points, but the man cannot make a coherent argument to save his life. The RNC knew it was not getting the best administrator, but was willing to go with him because the thought he would be a great communicator. Well, they’ve gotten a poor administrator and an absolutely LOUSY communicator. He will be spending all the rest of this week trying to extract his OTHER foor from his mouth. I didn’t support him for RNC Chair because I thought he did a lousy job running GOPAC and administration is as important as communication. But, I was willing to give him a chance. I am regreting that. He has purged the RNC, has not structure in place, and is making a fool out of himself and the party.

I had already decided that I would contribute to candidates and conservative PACs, but not the RNC. This seals that deal.

Unless he comes out as 100% committed to life, he’s through.

How can the RNC chair not be committed to the party platform?

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson

Join the RedState Strike Force

..

His record was clear. It just makes no sense!

Michael Steele is rapidly becoming the Joe Biden of the Republican Party.

Leon’s suggestion – that Steele was making a statement of fact, about how things current are – is cast in doubt by Steele’s own words.

‘I think that’s an individual choice’.

That’s Steele giving his opinion – and his tacit support – to the pro-choice side.

n/t

Join the RedState Strike Force

Michael Steele cannot be expected to clearly define conservative principles because he is not a true conservative.
It’s like playing the piano. You play it because you can play it.
It is something that comes reasonably easy because you know what you are doing. Steele thinks like a moderate and tries to act like a conservative.
He was a bad choice made by a bunch of bad choosers.

let’s call a time out and give the guy some air. We need to be holding our elected leaders accountable, Steele did not just support earmarks as other Republicans did in the Senate. I realize Steele has got off to a bad start, but he is not our major problem. We need to focus more on fighting our political foes, not attacking each other with witch hunts. Again, Steele may have to be replaced, but I think we need to save some powder for our enemies.

I deleted the entire line, it is probably not needed in 3.0, we shall see right….now!

I took the time to read the entire GQ interview, which was quite lengthy, and touched on a myriad of topics. In his defense, he did mention up-interview the concept of states rights when discussing gay marriage. So, it is not inconceivable that he is merely stating that the choice issue, being an individual choice, is a states rights issue. This, BTW, from a strictly constitutional POV is a position that I ascribe to. That being said, I do not, in any way, shape or form, want someone who is pro-choice being the head of the party. I am a conservative first, and an “R” second. I choose the GOP vehicle because, given the nature of politics in this country, I believe that the GOP is the best vehicle by which to promote conservative ideals and values. Mr. Steele, if you are NOT a social conservative, please, move along.

I do think he’s pro-life, but that was beyond terrible. Competent communication is the most important quality our conservative representatives need right now. Steele needs to get his feet out of his mouth in front of the media.

he is getting publicity. That counts for something, right?

Who was the last RNC Chair and how often was he in the news?

I disagree with those that are ready to throw Steele overboard because of the players involved in the alleged attempt to do so at this point but since we’ve put the baby in the bathwater by making Steele our Chairman, it’d be stupid to through the baby out with the bathwater before he’s had a chance to do the work he has promised…That said…it would be nice if he would look in the mirror, take a look back at the last month or so and STFU!

Is Steele Pro Life…I would say he never has been….my only poiont in posting this is to get people to stop leaping before they look…This was out there before Steele was elected Chairman for anyone to see…I raised this as an issue and posted this transcript then while pointing to his ties to Whitman…His comments this week just reinforce what I was saying months ago… it’s a little late now to whine about it

I hate to say I told you so…but here it is!!!

From the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: Another issue that has emerged in the campaign. Here’s the latest headline. “Religious leaders and abortion foes are pumping more than $140,000 into the final weeks of the Maryland U.S. Senate contest to motivate ‘values voters’ by elevating such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage. … National Right to Life’s political action committee plans to run radio commercials on Steele’s behalf … and has spent more than $72,000 supporting [his] candidacy with ads and mail.” The National Abortion Rights Action League supporting your campaign, Mr. Cardin. The issue is being engaged. And let me ask each of you. Mr. Steele, if you’re United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t — vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we’d have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t we? I haven’t seen that bill proposed. I don’t think…

MR. RUSSERT: That’s been introduced in the Senate.

LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t think anyone’s going to propose that this day.

MR. RUSSERT: So you wouldn’t do that?

LT. GOV. STEELE: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.

MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15473528/page/13/

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&vid=ff585f22-bdfd-4ace-83b1-98ed9de39cac

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

further down in the article he gets into race….I am not impressed so far. I hope he gets his head on right because this ain’t looking good.

….would be devestating to the party.
First of all, all of the NAACP types would get further ammo for him getting tossed because they would make it a racial issue. Even though they’ve said and done nasty things to him, they would still try to play the “racist Republican” card, and it would work.
Someone else has already said this, but didn’t we all know Steele was a little iffy on abortion in the first place? This really shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone. I would hope to have some clarification, but I can’t say I’m surprised to read this.

Therefore, because of the tens of millions just like me, I suggest Steele take another position and let someone with actual steel take the helm of our party. We are well positioned and need someone who can both stay on message and rip apart our enemies. I chose the last word deliberately.

I think you are correct…. It’s gonna be a looonng week.

That’s what this is really about. All it takes is about a minute and a half of Steele talking and you figure out he tries to put big words in small places a lot. The guy ain’t exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, but we decided to be cool like the Democrats. Sometimes, we go way past the stupid party and well into the idiot party.

No explanation whatsoever.

ABORTION = MURDER OF THE MOST INNOCENT.

The man likes to talk, is that a crime? So every little thing he says might not always sound perfectly supportive of “true conservative principles” whatever those are. So what. He’s got the basic program down pat and that’s good enough. His big tent philosophy makes sense. You can purge all you want, you’re just shooting yourselves in the foot.

Instead of criticizing Steele, why don’t you actually listen to his criticisms of the party? I think they are valid and should be taken seriously. JC Watts is another excellent example of someone who has pointed out the party’s failure to reach out to a more diverse constituency. These guys aren’t lying, it’s a real problem. Listen to the message instead of attacking the messenger!

He is providing an excellent opportunity for more friendly fire inside the party, which may lead to a party split between the right wing republicans and the moderates. And the net result will be election wins for the Democratic Party.

So go for it RedStaters! Rip him apart! You want a party with only the true believers and litmus tests? And you want to lose lots of elections? You’re pushing in the right direction then. I guess a couple more cycles in the minority might wake you up, but if the message hasn’t gotten through from ’06 and ’08 yet… well maybe you’re just not listening.