The two reasons I’m not crazy about Steele:
1. Newt appeared to be in the race. Steele got in and Newt immediately endorsed him. I don’t want ANY GOP chairman to be that close to a potential POTUS candidate. Not good for the party. Not good for voters.

2. Steele has surrounded himself with moderates/liberal Republicans over the years. See Christine Todd Whitman. The GOP can no longer allow a large percentage of the base to sit in out like election data shows they did in 2008. No more liberal Republicans. We’ve got McCain, Snowe, Graham, and Voinovich and that is four too many. I appreciate the “big tent” philosophy, but think the big tent should be the Reagan big tent, where moderates get a seat, but conservatives get the voice. Not the other way around.

In the end, if Steele gets in, I won’t be devastated. However, I will be very skeptical of potential success. That’s why I prefer Blackwell. He’s strongly conservative, has the support of many of the conservative movement’s finest thinkers and doers, and has a very compelling organizational plan to right this ship.

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

Sounds like he believes the Constitution is a ‘living document’. That’s a non-starter. SCOTUS is to evaluate the law against the Constitution as written - period.

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?
Story continues below ?advertisement | your ad here

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.

What I see here is someone who is trying to have it both ways…on the one hand he says he believes in stare decisis which basically says Roe V Wade has been decided and precedent must be honored…but on the other hand the activist courts should overturn the precedent…either way…he’s hardly communicating a solidly pro life positions…

The rest of his replies and waffles in the debate are very telling as well.

and that’s before he cawled in bed with Danforth and Whitman and the RLC…and the organizations the RLC supports such as the RMSP, Log Cabin Republicans, Republicans for Coice, and Pro Choice Republicans along with Whitman’s “It’s My Party Too”

Nuff Said

He is solidly pro-life for those who see that as a litmus test. He said it today in a debate

His performance on Meet the Press when he was running for the Senate says otherwise…I like Steele…but what I see in him is what I see in Romney…someone who is willing to say anything and be anything they think they need to be to win election to the office they are seeking…and will do anything and say anything to hold onto the office once they’ve attained it.

Everything he’s said or done up till the last year or so tells me he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

As for his association with the RLC…I was one of the first people here…if not THE first that blow the whistle on his involvement with the RLC here at Red State. I ran accross the RLC while researching the RMSC and knew of his association with them from that research. As I say in my post to this thread…By associating with Whitman and Danforth at the RLC…he was either naive or woefully ignorant about them and their history, (which anyone whose paid any attention to politics in the last ten to twenty years can tell you what they are about)…or he agrees completely with them and is now trying to hide his true identity…neither of which speaks well of how he’d do as RNC chair…

The other thing to me is this… What’s he done at GOPAC? I mean…sure he’s raised lots of money…so has Duncan…but what was done with it? What did GOPAC do with all that money? How did the candidates that GOPAC contributed to fare?

I remember GOPAC being at the forefront of the Gingrich Revolution in the 90s…They were one of the leading organizations leading the pack in the GOP idea machine….where are they now? what are their policies…goals….accomplishments?

If there are any…it seams to me that Steele has the same problem Duncan and the rest of the inept Republican message machine has…because he certainly hasn’t made sure we know what he or GOPAC has accomplished….putting all the RLC stuff and everything else aside…I don’t think I need to know any more than what I just said about his inability to communicate what GOPAC is about and what he’s done as it’s chairman to know he’s a bad choice for this position!

If you’re going to make a claim like that, you need some factual support, Ace.

With Senator John Danforth and Governor Christine Todd Whitman, Steele, who won the endorsement of the National Right to Life organization in his bid for US Senate, worked to establish the RLC, a moderate group whose stated purpose is to advocate for “fiscally conservative, socially inclusive” policies and Republican candidates nationwide. However, when the rubber met the road, the RLC proved more successful at marginalizing social conservatives than in offering an “inclusive” agenda for Republicans. After resigning from the RLC’s executive board in July, Steele told the Washington Times that, despite working to make a more inclusive, productive, and vibrant Republican Party, he could not, in good conscious, further “alienate people” from the movement.

..You play a nice game naming Danforth and Whitman as “Moderate Republicans” and you stretch it even further when you discuss their supposed fiscal conservatism….how about some truth in advertising…They’re anything but. On both counts! I would call them radically liberal in social issues and moderate to left on fiscal issues.

Let’s say I accept your premise that Steele resigned from the RLC because he became uncomfortable with the fact that the RLC became more adept at alienating social conservatives than building coalitions…that’s all well and good…but what does that say about Steele’s political abilities and his failure to see flame about to burn the end of his nose?

Danforth and Whitman and the rest of the folks at the RLC have a record as do the groups they partner with, You all know where I am with the RMSP, then there is Pro Choice Republicans, and Republicans for Choice, the Log Cabin Republicans and the rest. What about Whitman’s “It’s My Party Too! which was formed specifically to stick a thumb in the eyes of social conservatives.To my mind…I don’t know which is worse…but one or the other are true….his willingness to jump in with both feet into the water prepared for him by Whitman and Danforth speaks either to a naivete’ of epic proportions and a tone deafness bigger than what you accuse us with…or it says he agrees with them whole heartedly and he’s trying to play the politician and duck his true views where the RLC is concerned till he’s won the Chairmanship!

If he doesn’t have the brains or the ability to know who he’s climbing in bed with…why would we want him as the RNC chair?!!

Then there is his comment quoted by you and which I’ve read elsewhere:

“I have a fundamental issue with organizations getting involved in primaries,” he said in a recent interview. Adding, “the organization was endorsing candidates in primaries,” something he saw as dangerous and unhealthy for any Republican organization.

I am a bit concerned with his execution and organization but have the faith that he will surround himself with folks who will implement the theory and make it reality. I have spoken with some of his inner circle about his desire to ensure that the NRCC and NRSC are effective. He talked about his desire to get away from the losing strategies of the last two cycles and he has an understanding that tech issues need to be addressed even if he is not the king of tech.

If folks are going to attack Steele, lets bring some transparency to the debate. If its about life issues - lets say that.

The issue is getting the base back BUT the issue is also refining the MESSAGE to bring those “moderates and the middle” back BECAUSE those would be the wimpy 5-8 percent who decide every election. We have been losing because we have not walked the talk of the conservative message and Steele by the way does WALK HIS TALK!

Ken Blackwell is another fine conservative who has great money raising ability and who WALKS HIS TALK!

Katon Dawson is again another fine man BUT to STAY in a whites only club while trying to effect change again makes him not politically SMART and again like the President says WE need to be RIGHT 100 percent of the time.

Saul Anuzis is a guy who GETS the NEW MEDIA which is a necessity for anyone who wants to play in the new world of politics and he may be a great fundraiser BUT what has he done in MI for Republicans? that state is so blue its almost black and I will give him that its a total union state BUT surely there should be more Republicans in that state than elections would indicate.

The bottom line is this….conservatism wins when its packaged correctly and is done by politically smart people who can do it in 30 second sound bites and they must WALK THEIR TALK…..WE cannot have a “moderate” nor a “squish” running this party PERIOD and one more for the road WE must be RIGHT 100 percent of the time. One last item the RNC nor any of the other lettered national organizations should get involved in primaries EVER and NO MONEY should come from the RNC to those organizations to get in the primaries while acting as if their hands are clean WE KNOW BETTER!

I personally like Steele, Anuzis, Blackwell, Dawson, Saltsman in that order and yes Duncan is not included because he SUCKS!

The issue isn’t moving to the middle to gain more support from Independents and “conservative” Democrats, it’s building the ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK of the GOP to provide for the needs of REPUBLICANS.

Let the candidates worry about getting support of Indies and Rats, the next GOP Chairman needs to concentrate on organization, rules, infrastructure that leads to candidates, fundraising, and voters.