Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Steele Steps In It (Again)

Less than 24 hours after beating back rumors of a no-confidence vote in his leadership, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is on defense again over an interview he gave with GQ's Lisa DePaulo.

The piece, which hit last night, features Steele giving something less than an unequivocal endorsement of the pro-life stance that is at the center of what it means to be a Republican for many of the people who elected the former Maryland lieutenant governor as chairman in January.

Here's the exchange:

Steele: "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."

DePaulo: "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?"

Steele: "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice."

DePaulo: "You do?"

Steele: "Yeah. Absolutely."

DePaulo: "Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

Steele: "I think Roe v. Wade--as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter."

DePaulo: "Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?"

Steele: "The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide."

By this morning, the RNC was emailing around a statement aimed at clarifying Steele's comments to DePaulo on the abortion issue.

"I am pro-life, always have been, always will be," said Steele. "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 statement is clearly aimed at trying to clean up the mess Steele created for himself but, given his history on the issue, he may struggle to put this misstatement behind him. Steele was the subject of a whisper campaign during his bid for the RNC chairmanship that cast him as a closet moderate on a host of issues -- most notably abortion. The Steele forces insisted he was and always had been pro-life, noting that he was attacked for being too conservative during his race for an open Maryland Senate seat in 2006.

Given that context, Steele's comments to DePaulo are sure to be greeted with chagrin among some conservative elements of the party who are already skeptical of Steele's bona fides on life issues. And, the fact that he made the controversial remarks to Gentleman's Quarterly -- not exactly a favorite publication of the conservative set -- won't help matters any. (A sidenote: Why is Steele giving interviews to GQ? Is there anything to be gained by doing an extended q and a with a glossy, smart-set magazine like GQ?)

Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, sounded off on the Steele controversy in a statement released moments ago.

"I expressed my concerns to the chairman earlier this week about previous statements that were very similar in nature," said Perkins. "He assured me as chairman his views did
not matter and that he would be upholding and promoting the Party platform, which is very clear on these issues. It is very difficult to reconcile the GQ interview with the
chairman's pledge."

As we have noted before, the idea that Steele will be ousted from his post any time soon is far-fetched. The Republican Party -- already struggling amid leadership changes -- wants to avoid the appearance of further chaos at all costs. And, despite Steele's serious of verbal missteps, there remains a willingness to let him prove himself as a fundraiser and tactician in the coming months.

If Steele falls short in either respect, the long knives will come out.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 12, 2009; 9:49 AM ET
Categories:  Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: White House Cheat Sheet: Michelle Obama Steps Out
Next: LA-Sen: Vitter's Meltdown

Comments

For the love of God, will a REAL CONSERVATIVE please stand up?

The Republican Platform states that Republicans are pro-life. That's what we all voted on.

What is the matter with this nincompoop?

Posted by: smartlouella | March 13, 2009 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Winners
BHO (for elevating science over idiocy re stem cell policy)
Mrs. BHO
Meghan McCain (for calling out Coulter)
Fake retired agent Aaron on "24" (totally out of control effort)
NYT's Bob Herbert (for a great summary of how today's robber barons have gamed, and ruined, the system)
Madoff's unindicted accomplices
Lou Gossett in Iron Eagle I
Mike Steele (for surviving)

Losers
Vitter
John Edwards and Lisa Gluck
Limbaugh
Hate radio talker Ingraham (for her personal attack on Meghan)
David Brooks (for an idiotic piece about Mrs. BHO's sleeveless dresses (the same ones Jackie O wore); man card revoked effective immediately--don't do it again)
Juan Williams (kinda automatic, isn't it?--in the words of Terence Howard, every week you embarrass us, you embarrass yourself)
Lou Dobbs (sin verguenza)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 13, 2009 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Mike's ex brother in law is Mike Tyson so be careful...

I just don't think Mike ever thought through what being RNC chair would be. But he should have had a clue when the other candidates for his job included an alleged segregationist and a guy who solicted votes by sending out "Magic N---o" and anti-Latino CDs.

To paraphrase Fredo: Mike, you don't talk to a man like Rush Limbaugh like that!

The GOP seems determined to focus only on their "base," the media's term for the Phalinite Yahoos conned every election to vote against their economic interests by appeals to race, religion, and idiocies like flagpins, sleeveless dresses, Michelle's 30-year-old term papers, and BHOs middle name. Colin Luther Powell needs to step up and step in to save the GOP. Duty calls.
_________

"Poor Michael Steel, you though you were going to be the cool black guy that all the good Rednecks in the Regressive pary wanted to kick it with. Well dude, I really do not believe that anyone in your family much less anyone you know vote for John McCain. If you can't get your family to vote for the Regressive party, why should we?

Posted by: navydvldoc | March 12, 2009 5:29 PM"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | March 13, 2009 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Okay, let's just make this easy. Limbaugh has some obvious personality attraction. Ron Paul has the intellectual acumen. Instead of having all the hacks try to sound like Paul, and reiterate everything he's said over the past two years, let's just put Paul in the RNC chair. Limbaugh can be the vocal advocate, or the RNC spokesman. Fine. Paul's brains, Limbaugh's voice. I can live with it. And get rid of that dust-collector Palin. Time for some change.

Posted by: smharmon1 | March 13, 2009 1:32 AM | Report abuse

"I think Steele was onto something, traditional Republican ideals- let the states decide for themselves."

Ironic, considering the original Republican ideal was anti-states rights.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 13, 2009 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: brainfart007

Ya know, it's sad that Republicans are no longer allowed to have opinions on their own apart from the conservative Christian coalition. I guess that's why they're no longer in power.
===================
It would be even better if the Congressional Democrats were competent. Not that the Republicans are competent. For the time being Michael Steele is one of the best things for the Dems. Steele may so completely alienate the religious right that they'll leave the GOP in droves.

Posted by: James10 | March 12, 2009 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: steve95
I'll say it again Ron Paul for RNC chairman-knowledgeable, principled, and a down right good guy.
=============
You're surely not talking about the Ron Paul they wouldn't even let in the Republican debate on Fox.

Posted by: James10 | March 12, 2009 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Michael Steel will soon learn that he is a member of the wrong party; especially, as the head of that party.

Duh!

Posted by: lcarter0311 | March 12, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

steve95 wrote:

"I think Steele was onto something, traditional Republican ideals- let the states decide for themselves."

No! No government should get involved in what is a personal medical decision between a woman and her physician. "Let the states decide" is the old Republican ploy to move the 'abortion issue' to a level where it is easier to control by graft, threats, and intimidation.

It should never have been necessary to enact Roe vs Wade, but if we need to assure a woman's right to control of her own body then let it be at the federal level so rabid right-to-lifers cannot attempt to manipulate at a local level.

Posted by: TightWhiteRight | March 12, 2009 7:03 PM | Report abuse

OMG! Thank you RNC for elevating fool-in-waiting Michael Steele to the elevated post of head fool! Even though his selection was as transparent to head this third-rate party as Sarah ("Russia from my front yard") Palin's addition was to the '08 Republican Presidential ticket, you have to feel somewhat for this guy because he simply just doesn't get it...but oh how delicious to watch the end of days

P.S. - runner-up for fool-in-chief goes to Govs. Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Rick Perry of Texas, both who's damn the torpedoes, our ideology means everything, let 'em eat cake attitudes will ensure additional welfare and other transfer payment dollars from the Fed when unemployment benefits run out in their respective states. Nice shell game, idiots!

Posted by: bigdp07 | March 12, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Ya know, it's sad that Republicans are no longer allowed to have opinions on their own apart from the conservative Christian coalition. I guess that's why they're no longer in power.

Posted by: brainfart007 | March 12, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

What is Steele?

Oreo, hankerchief-head, or just an ordinary idiot like Piyush Jindal or Sarah Palin?

You decide.

Posted by: Heerman532 | March 12, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary08--
RIGHT ON!!

remember the Inquisition..
300 years of slaughtering (by heinous means) independent, free thinking women.

By the mere fact that they existed.

What has changed? Oh wait, they don't kill us any longer.....
yeah, right.....

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | March 12, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

I feel sorry for Steele. The guy wants to stay loyal to the GOP which is finding itself increasingly hijacked by nut-jobs like Coulter, Hannity & Limbaugh.

Time for the GOP to forge a new majority based on:
- Pro-Choice
- Pro Gay Marriage
- Fiscal Conservatism
- Foreign Policy based on non-interference
- Separation of Church & State
- Lower Taxes->Smaller Govt.

Call me Utopian but I'll sign up in a heartbeat for any candidate/party that espouses the above set of values.

Posted by: cpatwork | March 12, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I agree with an earlier post by
plathman | March 12, 2009 10:51 AM |

The republican party is incapable of change. As long as the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Tony Perkins are in control, the party will never -- never -- regain the independent voters needed to win elections.

Moderate republicans don't have the guts to tell Limbaugh to shut up nor to wrestle the party from Kooky Konservative Kristians.

The only way republicans will regain power is to dump the extreme right wingnuts and form their own party of moderates.

DAStubbs,
Minneapolis

Posted by: dastubbs | March 12, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

No, we need to be funding abortion clinics better so they can have state of the art care for women who need it. When a woman is in such an unfortunate situation she should have the best care, not the worst. It is time to turn away from, evolve away from the anti female stance these ignorant republicans take time and again. It is time we say no to appeasing these republicans who have carelessly taken our country to it's knees and ruined so many peoples' lives. It is time to say no to the republicans, neo cons, christian conservative right and support sane intelligent progress, modern medicine, science and financial prosperity for the health, safety and welfare of all.

Posted by: Hillary08 | March 12, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Once again proving the GOP does not tolerate a difference of opinion -- or difference, period.

Wonder why the party is so homogeneous? This is why.

Posted by: brickerd | March 12, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo writes
"I would have LOVED to have been a VET IN WW2. I, and all the kids I have, would be living off the government for the rest of their lives."

The kids of the WWII vets would be the boomers. How can you say in one breath that the boomers are not to blame, but in the next claim that the children of WWII vets, who are by definition baby boomers, are not contributing to the problem?

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Poor Michael Steel, you though you were going to be the cool black guy that all the good Rednecks in the Regressive pary wanted to kick it with. Well dude, I really do not believe that anyone in your family much less anyone you know vote for John McCain. If you can't get your family to vote for the Regressive party, why should we?

Posted by: navydvldoc | March 12, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

If abortion had been legal in 1950, there might be no Rush Limbaugh today.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot

COMMON SAS!

Don't tease us like that!!!!

Posted by: trenda | March 12, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Fluxgirl, your comments are spoken like a true dyed in the wool liberal Democrat. You liberals are the ones with absolutely no tolerance for the opposing viewpoints, but you love to try and label the republicans that way. Well, Mr. Steels proves you wrong. The republican tent is big enough to handle opposing viewpoints, is the Democratic liberal tent able to do the same?

Posted by: JayBird4 | March 12, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

------------------------------------------


Hhhmmmm JayBird4, here in "liberal tent" democrat land we're comfortable referring to our leader as Barack. Meanwhile in "big tent" rebuplican land, Piyush Jindal has to conform to "Bobby" in order to fit in. Need I say more?

Posted by: htruman | March 12, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, Steele cannot keep the RNC Chairmanship.

He has far too much class and integrity to be a Republican.

Posted by: trenda | March 12, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse


bsimon---nope, can't blame the baby boomers, by the mere fact, that everyone is trying to.
and the very greatest generationERS have sat here and RE-defined what years of birth are baby boomers...so they CAN blame them. They keep changing those dates of baby boomers "generation" to align with the issue of the day...so they can blame them for the issue going out of control.

Baby boomers haven't tapped into anything yet, but will. However, the greatest generation has ALREADY BROKEN US.

nah, the greatest generations would LOVE to blame the baby boomers.
Specially that widow of a ww2 veteran that had her house paid for, got money from a dead husband's veterans' fund for her life and the life of her kids, never had to work because of the money Veterans Affairs has given out to the survivors of the greatest generation.
I would have LOVED to have been a VET IN WW2. I, and all the kids I have, would be living off the government for the rest of their lives.

One example, the VA housing loan program.
The kid that isn't EVEN born yet to a VET is going to get a house.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | March 12, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

There's room for Steele in the Democratic party. I say, come join us, Mr. Steele, you might feel more comfortable in our tent.

Posted by: wulkan | March 12, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

My daddy use to say there would be a lot fewer pregnancies if men had to go through childbirth!

Seriously, folks....

Steele doesn't just step in it (again); he's full of it.

He's so typical of Republican men (and women) who think that they have the right to tell women what they can do with their own bodies.

A woman should be allowed to determine her own destiny.

The Republicans gripe about BIG government, but then want the government to decide what women can and cannot do with their own bodies, their lives....

Get over yourselves, GOP! This is why the GOP is so irrelevant....

Posted by: abby0802 | March 12, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"What makes that generation so great I wonder? The fact that they procreated like it was going out of style, and burdened all generations after to pay their bills for them."

They're generally called 'the greatest generation' because they pulled together as a team. You might be surprised to learn that while millions of young men were fighting for their country overseas - in Europe, Africa, Asia & the pacific islands, their wives, sisters, girlfriends & daughters were at home, working in factories building the airplanes, ships, tanks and bombs that were used against the enemy. At home, people recycled materials that could be reused to fight the war - metal & rubber, for instance. Things like gasoline were rationed. To fight the war we saw not only military sacrifice, but civilian sacrifice people bought war bonds to help fund the fight. Then they paid down the massive debt accrued during the war years.

It wasn't until 1980 that the debt began ballooning again. If you want to blame a generation, blame the boomers, who admire & reward greed and consumption. Who value today's stock price over long-term strategy and growth.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Good job Michael Steele! You have demonstrated that you are as superficial in your thinking as the other anti-women members of your pitiful party.

You know, if you would convert to Islam you could make women obey all men's rules and beat them whenever you cho---oops, you're Republicans and you do that now.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | March 12, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I'll say it again Ron Paul for RNC chairman-knowledgeable, principled, and a down right good guy

Posted by: steve95 | March 12, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Cut Steele a break: He's not flip flopping, he's just dumb. He tripped over his own logic, but he's not changing his position.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Posted by: hoos3014 | March 12, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

ANYONE HERE WHO HAS EVER WONDERED ABOUT THE REPORTING OF 'SCRIVENER50' MUST LOG ON TO MINN.POST.COM TO SEE WHAT SY HERSH HAS TO SAY

http://minnpost.com

(Then read the comments section of said article.)

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 12, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Cryos writes
"The congressional majority should not be choosing the winner and that goes for if they are democrat or republican."

My copy of the Constitution says exactly that. To quote (Article 1, Section 5):

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members"

Of course, Section 4 says:
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"

Which means, the way I read it, that MN Law dictates the process of selecting the next MN Senator. If the loser, whether Coleman or Franken, doesn't like the outcome, the remedy is not to ask for a do over, nor to plead their case to a federal court, or the Supreme court. Once procedure outlined by MN law is complete, the final arbiter is the US Senate.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I have said this before and I will say it again. Michael Steele doesn't have the sense God gave a baboon.
This man seriously needs to take a class in politcal correctiveness. He doesn't have a clue.
This is what you get GOP for having a face man out there representing you supposedly.

Oh I forgot that is Rush isn't it?
Let see what he has to say on the matter.
Please!
Michael Steele needs to go somewhere and sit down and shut up. Every time he opens his mouth his credibility keeps going in the negative direction.

Posted by: bjlopez1130 | March 12, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

What makes that generation so great I wonder? The fact that they procreated like it was going out of style, and burdened all generations after to pay their bills for them. The only thing "the greatest generation" does now-a-days is judge you and vote, wishing they were young again, and it was 1956. Well its not, and they need to realize it, times have changed and because you don't understand the times we're living in does not give you a pass to be ignorant. I firmly believe that along with driver's licenses, people over the age of 75 shouldn't be allowed to vote. Your views are based on a time when all men were not created equal, when hanging out at the milkshake counter on a Friday night was the best thing you could do. An overwhelming majority of these people can't operate technology, for that matter they don't even want to acknowledge the fact that it is here to stay. Sorry it's not 1956.

Posted by: steve95 | March 12, 2009 4:52 PM | Report abuse

ddawd wrote
"Well, Guiliani could hardly be considered a front-runner."

If you go back the coverage on this website, Giuliani & Clinton led the pack for quite some time. McCain, you might recall, was written off early (something about spending all his money & having trouble with the base). Romney was having trouble enthusing the base (something about wishy-washy positions on social issues). Huckabee came out of nowhere - he wasn't a frontrunner until after the IA caucuses. Fred Thomson was getting traction until he actually entered the race.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

If abortion had been legal in 1950, there might be no Rush Limbaugh today.

Posted by: sasquatchbigfoot | March 12, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Look at the past RNC and DNC guys...they didn't exactly move up the ladder in D.C. .. poor Howard Dean..he got stepped on and that Terry guy..he's a dorf..where's the reward?

Posted by: newbeeboy | March 12, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse

"but it was not "of religion". More like societal norms. But I get where you are comin' from."

It wasn't then, but it is now. That's why the criticism of Roe today is generally off base, the nature of the argument over abortion has changed. Roe was addressing a mostly secular societal norms issue, rather than a deeper philosophical/religious issue (although both were addressed then and now, the balance of the argument I would say has shifted). That's why Roe focuses on legal history, medical practices, etc., and largely dodges the religion question. It wasn't really until after the failure of the ERA in the late 1970's and the rise of the Religious Right (whcih came after the ERA, not after Roe) that abortion became a central culture wars issue, and that means reframing the debate with it.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse


steele should stay in the spotlight...
so we don't have to listen to that
(((everybody say it with me now)))

THE PERCOCETTE ADDICTED FAT FREAK !!

and i am using the word freak because this is public viewing.
(((muuuuhhhhaaaahhhhaaaaa)

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | March 12, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul for RNC chairman!

Posted by: steve95 | March 12, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

kreuz--
interesting...
i come from the time in high school that you did not show up in the halls pregnant, and if you did---you were shunned (71-72-73). abortion was not legal.

lives were changed by these tabus, even suicide prevailed.
not to mention all the stories of the "rusty coat hangers" and the "crooked dr. performing botched abortions in the seedy hotel rooms"....

but it was not "of religion".
More like societal norms. But I get where you are comin' from.

However, this is another reason why ---lately---I am literally gagging on the tabus and judgements of the greatest generationERS.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | March 12, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Steele is so over. Too bad, he was pretty entertaining.

Posted by: drindl | March 12, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"Not even for health? (the life of the mother)"

To clarify, I am pro-coice myself, just stating what defines the terms from my perspective.

There is a difference between life and health. The pro-life position makes an exception for abortion when it's a life v. life perspective, but not one that would result in, say, paralysis, sterilization, diminished capacity, etc.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I'd give Steele credit for being gutsy and going his own way, except that neither is true. He immediately backpedalled, he was 'misquoted', and so on. He seems to entirely lack any political spine... even if his newly espoused and promptly recanted views show that he *does* have a brain.

Posted by: HarrisTheYounger | March 12, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

As George Carlin famously said " Pro-Life just means Anti-Woman ". These religious fundamentalists want to control every aspect of human interaction, and will stop at nothing to get it. You know who has never had an abortion- a gay couple. You'd think that these two factions would be natural allies, but to no avail. My personal belief is against abortion, but I will say this; if my wife would ever be at risk for her life going through pregnancy, I would immediately change my opinion. If any members of the clergy would actually know what it was like to have and raise children, on a minimum wage salary, with no benefits or overtime, then I will be more than glad to hear their opinions on abortion. I think Steele was onto something, traditional Republican ideals- let the states decide for themselves. I applaud his remarks and hope that other people will grow up and stop taking advise from those who have no experience in these matters

Posted by: steve95 | March 12, 2009 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh type "thinking," or whatever passes for thinking in that frightened, loonyto0n head is/has been the death of the Republican party. The place needs oxygen, and badly.

With this, his second comment, I'm womdering if Steele isn't perhaps trying to bring some intellectualism back to the Republicans, understanding change is needed to survive.

And I wish him the best, America only benefits from healthy, rational divergent points of view based on enlightened logic rather than the fear-filled defensiveness Limbaugh projects.


Maybe BOTH parties want the Limbaugh loonY gone...

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | March 12, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

I find it refreshing to have an RNC Chairman who isn't bowing and kissing the far right wing butts. Keep up the good work Mr Steele!

Posted by: GordonShumway | March 12, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"I'd also add, if you're for exceptions for rape, incest, or health, I'd also argue you still cannot be classified as "pro-life." This position is taken for political expediency and is based on notions of sexual morality, not the life of the fetus (is a child born as a result of rape really less of a human being?)."

Not even for health? (the life of the mother)

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Mike Steele is the Johnny Bravo of the GOP, he looks great in his suit and gives a great speech. Too bad he has proven to be either a quitter or a failure at everything he has tried.

One exception: Being lieutenant governor of Maryland. Of course, that job has no official duties. None.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 12, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

I'd also add, if you're for exceptions for rape, incest, or health, I'd also argue you still cannot be classified as "pro-life." This position is taken for political expediency and is based on notions of sexual morality, not the life of the fetus (is a child born as a result of rape really less of a human being?).

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

There is a big difference between people who are pro-life and people who are anti-abortion. Often, it comes down to if you're a Catholic or Protestant (but not always). Conservative Catholics are generally pretty consistent. Anti-abortion, strict adherence to just war criteria, anti-death penalty, etc. That is a pro-life position. Others, like most conservative Protestants, ally withthem on the single issue of abortion. They are not pro-life, they are simply anti-abortion as their agenda revolves around overturning Roe and outlawing abortion, not the broader life agenda.

On the other side, 99% I woudl classify as pro-choice. To be more specific, you might say pro-choice on abortion or pro-abortion rights or pro-privacy, but it's easier to just go with pro-choice. Again, the central issue in most cases that they fight on is abortion, and it is not about trying to increase the number of abortions (as many also favor contraception, education, etc.), just about keeping the government out of the decision-making process. It is certainly not pro-death or pro-abortion.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

hey, you know....i read this somewhere.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | March 12, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are about one thing and only one thing: KONTROL.

Because they believe they speak for God, they define a woman's right to choose as something a political party should Kontrol.
They KNOW better than anyone else. They suspend civil rights when they wish and seek to run every one's life. The leaked memos from the Bush administration should show everyone how close these arrogant jerks came to taking your civil rights and your privacy away.
Republicans are non-starters now and we should never accept a party's political philosophy that requires everyone to be the same or go to jail in the interests of national security. It worked for Hitler and almost did for ChenBush.


Bye-bye GOOP.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | March 12, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

--"The opposite of pro-life is pro-death. Why dont people use that term?

Posted by: xira | March 12, 2009 1:36 PM"--
=======================================

Because it runs afoul of people that support the death penalty. People don't like to link the two together.

Posted by: DonJasper | March 12, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

blpeyton:
i agree.
the "pristine ideology" translated into
"you MUST live your life AS WE SAY"

However, they are stuck in the 40s with the tabus, beliefs, judgements, assumptions, and logic.

Republicans always spout about "the American dream" and how in the USA, you can achieve it, etc. etc.
However, the rub is this...
"you can have the republican american dream and that's all". And we will write law and code to make sure that only a few get the american dream.

So we have this:
Republicans claim that the American Dream is owning a house, correct?
Never, and I am past 45 years of age pilgrims.......have I considered the American Dream owning a house.
I own one folks and i am NOT living the American Dream.

So I ask you all...what is the American Dream. And what will happen if we RE-DEFINE IT?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | March 12, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I guess the real question is "Aren't all people pro-life?" I mean the terms pro-life and pro-choice make about as much sense as conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats...Republicans don't really care about conservation or the environment and isn't being a liberal thinker thinking out-of-the-box like an inventor, like Benjamin Franklin?

The terms should be pro-choice or pro-government choice (like communism). Steele is in the middle of a hypocritical party who always steps in their own dung pile and is just as confused by the terms as the rest of us.

Posted by: ksmoneal | March 12, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

“Being ‘against’ Obama — given the track record of eight years of a Republican presidency that drove our economy into the sewer — is a pretty tough sell.”

Roger Stone Republican commentator

You could always resort to groveling to Limbaugh. That'll divert attention from your bankruptcy of ideas.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | March 12, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Cryos, every post you make here is full of one logical fallacy after another and blatant misrepresentations of the actual facts on the ground.

"Democrats sued for 20 years to get loan standards lowered and Fannie/Freddie made it profitable so banks applied the same CRA standards up the line."

The loans for lower income mortgages were not the problem, they were not the people who defaulted in large numbers. The real problem came with the overturning of Glass Seagall, which made banks chase a profit motive through the sale of stocks, which made them take risks by exploting their ability to give subprime mortgages to people who didn't qualify for them- well beyond the intent of CRA. This was based on their false assumption that home values would continue to rise, thus if some began to default, the banks would simply reseize the assets and reselly them, thus they thoguht they had nothing to lose with risky loans. Nobody made them make those loans, they chose to do so to chase greater profits under a system of decreased regulation which was there to safeguard the market.

"Of "the last 8 years" the first 7 the economy was good. Which party in charge of the economy during the last 2 years?"

See Dr. Krugman, 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html

"But although the housing boom has lasted longer than anyone could have imagined, the economy would still be in big trouble if it came to an end. That is, if the hectic pace of home construction were to cool, and consumers were to stop borrowing against their houses, the economy would slow down sharply. If housing prices actually started falling, we'd be looking at a very nasty scene, in which both construction and consumer spending would plunge, pushing the economy right back into recession.

That's why it's so ominous to see signs that America's housing market, like the stock market at the end of the last decade, is approaching the final, feverish stages of a speculative bubble."

The entire decade was an illusion of prosperity based on a speculative housing bubble, which is why GDP rose but wages remained stagnant throughout the period. We're now paying the cost for that borrowed prosperity.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

The people AND the courts have spoken on this issue..a woman has a right to choose....period.

As far as the RNC's survival chances, I am reminded of what Lyndon Johnson said when he signed the civil rights act in the 60's: that as a result of that legislation, the Democrats would lose credible power for the next forty years.

I believe the act that sealed the RNC's fate was the illegal election of a MORON to the presidenscy eight years ago...as a result they will be powerless for a long long time.

It is fun to watch them wriggle tho....

Posted by: LeftCenterField | March 12, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

One of the reasons the Republican Party is in trouble is their insistence on ideological purity across all issues. The ideologically pure may excite the Republican base but they are a bit scary to moderates.

Posted by: blpeyton | March 12, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

okay......i'm back
Steele sais:
"The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide."

gotta tell ya. i'm gettin' a bit sick of the argument "leave it to the states".
We are the United States of America and we are letting too many issues "go back to the states for them to decide". We have 51 states (DC included)--not 51 SOVEREIGN NATIONS-(unlike our tribes).

Federal law is solid when passed. States usually take federal law and try to circumvent it with their own legislation or administrative code. (to find loopholes, etc...or for more money).
We need federal law in many many of the issues that are now "going to the states".
It is a cop out and Steele is a cop out.
Whenever you hear "let the states decide", somebody hasn't done their homework, doesn't want to take responsibility for the issue (or the damage), or is trying to be crooked.
This is a solid fact in government.
When in doubt, let the states decide.

We will be a land where 51 pieces of land and their legislation will rule ONLY the people within said piece of land.
Boy oh boy, won't that be FUN!!!

Our founding fathers will be turning MORE in their graves than they are now.

One example: The Employee Free Choice Act. Pass it federally, and this bum frick egypt right to work state of arizona will pass STATE LEGISLATION to circumvent it.


Posted by: TheBabeNemo | March 12, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans don't care about Roe v Wade; they'll never make it go away -- what would they do without a wedge issue?

Posted by: SarahBB | March 12, 2009 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Whoever said Republicans were dull!

Posted by: bginNC | March 12, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Guess the RNC should invest in a teleprompter. It's working so well for Pres. Obama.

Posted by: srpinpgh | March 12, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Steele is such a hapless buffoon. Just The kind of guy the RNC deserves. LOL. I can't control my glee at this latest development.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | March 12, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"Of "the last 8 years" the first 7 the economy was good."

The thing is that it really wasn't that good and depending on the metrics, it was pretty awful. (take a look at income growth and compare it to Reagan, Bush, and Clinton)

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Sounds to me like Steele was inarticulately trying to distinguish between choice and Roe v. Wade.

If so, I agree Roe v. Wade was a bad decision based on Justice ?'s reasoning, which was a good deal medical in focus. The decision should have been written by Justice Douglas who would have framed the decision on Privacy Rights, where it belongs!

Posted by: Spectator | March 12, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
12 March 2009

RNC chairman Michael Steele does seem ambivalent about whether or not he is truly pro-life, going by that interview he gave to GQ.

All the more reason for the GOP to leave it to Rush Limbaugh exclusively to make any and all statements regarding any of the provisions of the Republican party platform.

Rush can be trusted to be categorical, crystal-clear, unequivocal--and, usually, to be even venomous.

When he says he wants Barack Obama to fail, he did not engage in fuzzy rhetoric: he said simply that (as a conservative Republican) he wants Barack Obama to FAIL. Period.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: MPatalinjug | March 12, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Have a good one all. Gotta go for awhile might see this thread later.

Posting one more time to get some economic relevant questions back to the forefront. Critical thinking on all sides is needed to get the economy out of the slump.

We have to keep in mind it is socially engineered capitalism, not free market capitalism, that caused the economic issues.

The US is not meant to be like Europe the constitution is meant to protect us from exactly that. The US and capitalism have improved standard of living around the world far more than other government systems. Look at the killings, control and loss of freedoms that happen in every socialist and communist state throughout history.

You just say because republicans were in the majority lets not turn over any rocks. I disagree. Maybe you don't do any problem solving in your life but if you don't figure out the ROOT or SOURCE of a problem and use some of what was the problem as the "solution" you are doomed to make things worse.

By the way the majority of the defaulting loans were made 2006 and on. Default loans for CRA have been an issue for longer but were absorbed by the market from previous higher standards on managing higher income mortgages.

Democrats sued for 20 years to get loan standards lowered and Fannie/Freddie made it profitable so banks applied the same CRA standards up the line.

Of "the last 8 years" the first 7 the economy was good.

Which party in charge of the economy during the last 2 years?

Which party in charge 2007 on did not attempt to submit regulatory or other bills during that time?

Which party is on record up to 2008 stating "risky loans are worth it to get low income people homes" and that Fannie/Freddie was not in trouble and needed further deregulation?

2008 deficit cost of all private companies combined: $180 billion

2008 deficit cost of Fannie/Freddie: $240 billion

Many share in the blame for the situation including both political parties and the public. Democrats have a huge role in it though and trying to make it one sided and blame capitalism is a blinder to prevent us from seeing the hijacking of future capital to transform the US into western european socialism.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"Joe the Plumber, pregnant unwed teen V.P. candidate's daughter, $150K worth of clothing, 3000 people rallies compared to 100,000 people rallies, quitting the campaign to "solve" the economic crisis, almost everything Sarah Palin said.

The media reports things that are "news" (i.e. interesting stories). The fact that the Republicans made news with things like those sited above and many others is not the fault of the media.

If the media were so biased, why did they report incessantly on the "terrorism" and "socialism" slanders about Obama? Because it was interesting. "

Yeah, the press can be pretty moronic, but in general, it is not biased. The press is biased against Republicans the same way that health journals are biased against smoking.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

It says the Senate, not the federal courts, shall have the power to judge elections of its members.

Posted by: kreuz_missile
============================
I didn't mean the federal courts should decide I meant they can hear cases to determine if a state action is constitutional.

The congressional majority should not be choosing the winner and that goes for if they are democrat or republican.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Try making news with ideas and actions that don't look so absurd and out of touch (let's freeze government spending on the brink of a depression, we know how well that worked for Herbert Hoover)

Posted by: endependence
======================
To answer the part of your post not as imflammatory if you look at US history and world history (Japan for example) government spending has resulted in stagnation or in lengthening depression.

Although we couldn't afford tax cuts at this point they are a good historical way to ease recessions however they can only be temporary in my opinion.

Tax hikes and the next economic bubble, carbon credits, like planned soon will make things worse but tighten government's power and control.

Thanks to others posting good debate. There are a lot of good debateable items with close interpretations (checks and balances) so getting good responses is refreshnig.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

It says the Senate, not the federal courts, shall have the power to judge elections of its members.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Republicans can't win if they are tied to the far-right. McCain did as well as he did because his bipartisanship signaled moderation. The GOP needs candidates like Tom Davis and Ehrlich and Steele. But moderates do poorly in GOP primaries and these days, in much of the country, the GOP tag is _death_ -- without the "send Bush a lesson"/Repubs are all the same line, Ehrlich and Steele both win in 2006.

Committed Dems won't support ANY Repub no matter how moderate. GOP needs to put up candidates that will appeal to moderate Dems and indies, and will get the support of rank-and-file Repubs holding their nose as the least of two evils. That's the only way they'll win. But they're too concerned with ideological purity to go that way, which is why they're fated to get trounced again and again.

Posted by: gbooksdc | March 12, 2009 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Cryos writes
"This at a federal issue should strictly be a courts issue."


The Constitution says otherwise.

Posted by: bsimon1
===========================
The constitution does not say otherwise although is borderline. The US senate should not pick and choose. It ensures that states follow federal standards.

By that mentality you are saying in any close election the majority party has the right to choose the winner.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, 2008 election media bias. Where was the news?

Joe the Plumber, pregnant unwed teen V.P. candidate's daughter, $150K worth of clothing, 3000 people rallies compared to 100,000 people rallies, quitting the campaign to "solve" the economic crisis, almost everything Sarah Palin said.

The media reports things that are "news" (i.e. interesting stories). The fact that the Republicans made news with things like those sited above and many others is not the fault of the media.

If the media were so biased, why did they report incessantly on the "terrorism" and "socialism" slanders about Obama? Because it was interesting.

FOX News and the Murdoch empire and talk radio certainly balance out any systemic bias.

As other posters have pointed out, the conservative railing against the media has not helped your agenda. From Spiro Agnew to George Bush the Elder, to Cryos, all your protestations are for naught.

Try making news with ideas and actions that don't look so absurd and out of touch (let's freeze government spending on the brink of a depression, we know how well that worked for Herbert Hoover)

Posted by: endependence | March 12, 2009 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Cryos, I have posted debate topics of my own:

1. There is no room for disagreement in the Republican party.

2. The libertarian and fundie factions have irreconcilable differences.

Moreover, my topics actually relate to this story. If you have something to say about them say it (or don't). It's a free country.

Posted by: War4Sale | March 12, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"It would be a sad day if the US senate got involved (like democrats have in the past) since states are having their rights taken away; some as conditions and provisions of their economic stimulus dollars by the way if you didn't know.

This at a federal issue should strictly be a courts issue."

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 5.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 2:12 PM
===================
That does not say the US senate should decide state elections. It says that they have power over their own lawmakers to adhere to the federal standards.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

The big years seem to be the 107th COngress (2000-2002), and the 110th Congress to today.

Posted by: kreuz_missile
============================
I had thought those numbers were higher during 2003-2006 although there are every bit as high as other years other than the last.

There is no doubt the last congress fillibustered more than ever. Look at a lot of the things they fillibustered; political attacks against Bush and other ridiculous measures.

"We're going to vote for the money for Iraq but with a formal protest that blah blah blah" and all sorts of ridiculous legislation. In addition to many borderline socialist proposals.

On the flip side some of the democratic fillibusters are perfectly legitimate and I'm glad for them on items also. Checks and balances. When the media helps convince people extremism is moderate we have a problem.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

"You forgot Giuliani, who was pro-choice. I think the pro-choice to pro-life conversion for Romney happened between winning election as MA Gov & entering the race for President. Kindof reminds me of Coleman, come to think of it."

Well, Guiliani could hardly be considered a front-runner. Perhaps before the primaries when he had name recognition, but he got hammered in the actual voting. Perhaps you can blame that on his inane strategy of ignoring the pre-Super Tuesday states, but if Giuliani is the best evidence of the diversity of the Republican party on the abortion issue, that's a really weak argument.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"It would be a sad day if the US senate got involved (like democrats have in the past) since states are having their rights taken away; some as conditions and provisions of their economic stimulus dollars by the way if you didn't know.

This at a federal issue should strictly be a courts issue."

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 5.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

First he had to apologize to the wingnuts this morning.

To add insult to injury, Steele will have to apologize to Rush, head of the GOP, AGAIN for saying something wrong.

Steele equals GOP whipping boy.

They thought they were getting an Oreo, but they really got an ordinary moron. And a moderate moron at that.

Can you say 'circular firing squad'? sure, I knew you could.

Bring on Piyush and Palin in 2012!

Posted by: Heerman532 | March 12, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The Republican party should just appoint Rush their Pope and allow him to excommunicate the heretics and be done with it. That's really all this boils down to. Either you parrot GOP dogma 100% of the time (with them) or you don't (against them.)

Posted by: War4Sale
============================
I have several legitimate debatable topics. Please feel free to counter them on their merit.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"I read online news from a TON of sources including sources like the Huffington post. Your post is very selective information. By the way don't forget the HUGE number of fillibusters by democrats from 2003-2006."

Cloture votes in the US Senate (controlling party in parentheses):

99th (R) 23
100th (D) 43
101st (D) 24
102nd (D) 47
103rd (D) 46
104th (R) 50
105th (R) 53
106th (R) 58
107th (D) 61
108th (R) 49
109th (R) 54
110th (D) 104
111th (D) ten by my count in the first two months..

The big years seem to be the 107th COngress (2000-2002), and the 110th Congress to today.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Cryos writes
"This at a federal issue should strictly be a courts issue."


The Constitution says otherwise.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"some as conditions and provisions of their economic stimulus dollars by the way if you didn't know. "

Basically we're paying special interests and saving political capital by putting state charges on the federal credit card.

It allows state legislatures and governors not to make hard decisions and upset their constituents in return for some of the sovereignty of your state. Oh and of course they're not worried about making sure that it is americans jobs being saved by verifying citizenship. Trading freedom for entitlements.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

The Republican party should just appoint Rush their Pope and allow him to excommunicate the heretics and be done with it. That's really all this boils down to. Either you parrot GOP dogma 100% of the time (with them) or you don't (against them.)

Posted by: War4Sale | March 12, 2009 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Of course the mainstream media is "against" conservatives. Just like they are "against" slow news days. How can they avoid focusing on the circular firing squad and cannibalism rampant in the GOP?

Posted by: endependence | March 12, 2009 1:54 PM

========================
Proving general media bias is harder but there is side evidence like even in the 1990s there were a 13 to 1 ratio in editor and reporters voting for democrats versus republicans.

However the 2008 election was shamefully bias there is no doubt. Many media outlets have basically admitted it and all but the most partisan think tanks have concluded it. Sad year for media integrity.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

How did the question of legality for terminating pregnancies get tied to economic modeling, which is what truely differentiates Republicans and Democrats (if there really is any difference).

Posted by: xira | March 12, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Cyros...Let's cut through the fog of bloviation. In a nutshell my friend, you are FOS.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | March 12, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Cryos writes
"A special election isn't in bounds of Minnesota law but could be done without breaking the laws if agreed to by both candidates."

I doubt this is true. Election law is not the province of political parties or the candidates. Precisely because MN law does not call for a 'do over', I don't see how the candidates could 'agree' to a do over to determine the outcome. The law defines the process: vote, count, legally review (contest), appeal, state outcome. After MN determines the outcome, the US Senate could choose to invalidate the election, as they are the final arbiter in the elections of their members. If a 'do over' election is to be held, it would have to be the US Senate that calls for it. That would surely result in legal challenges as well, if nothing else from 3rd party candidates like Dean Barkley.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 1:45 PM
====================================

My understanding is this could be done but I could be wrong. Regardless in the future a special election should be held.

It would be a sad day if the US senate got involved (like democrats have in the past) since states are having their rights taken away; some as conditions and provisions of their economic stimulus dollars by the way if you didn't know.

This at a federal issue should strictly be a courts issue.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I think we should all rejoice that Cryos is around to make such brilliant arguments on behalf of his morally, ethically, financially and intellectually bankrupt party.

Of course the mainstream media is "against" conservatives. Just like they are "against" slow news days. How can they avoid focusing on the circular firing squad and cannibalism rampant in the GOP?

BTW, is FOX NEWS part of the media, or a propaganda outlet? Did you ever notice how almost every "guest" on FOX comes from another Murdoch owned outlet (Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Weekly Standard, etc., etc., etc.)

Posted by: endependence | March 12, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

=====================
The other posts get ignored. I have several level posts in here and there is not ONE reply to them on that level.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:46 PM |
============
This is an incorrect statement there have been some replies a couple good actually. Just most people ignore them.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Right, numbnutz, it was the media who came up with the term RINOs.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 12, 2009 1:46 PM
======================
RINO is not meant to define moderate republicans in general but specifically fiscally irresponsible while socially or other conservative republicans. That's my understanding and my use of it.

Bush was fiscally irresponsible which went against some of his other initiatives. That's what I disliked most about him and what made him make bad decisions.

It is typical throughout history yet disingenuous to try to make the president a single fall person for bad legislature.

There is no doubt the 2008 elections were nowhere near fair in media coverage to all but the most partisan. Even Hillary Clinton felt she got the most fair coverage from Fox.

I would say its pretty solid although not easily provable that media has a significant effect on votes. Thus when the American media loses all credibility it is a huge loss for all Americans.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

ddawd writes
"By frontrunners, I guess you mean McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. Who among them was politically pro-choice? I know McCain and Huckabee weren't. I'm pretty sure Romney wasn't, but I could be wrong."

You forgot Giuliani, who was pro-choice. I think the pro-choice to pro-life conversion for Romney happened between winning election as MA Gov & entering the race for President. Kindof reminds me of Coleman, come to think of it.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"The best thing Minnesota can do in the future is to change the law to a special election if the results are too close to decide."

That is one viable alternative. I'd prefer instant run off voting, but would accept a special election like GA held last year for a run-off as a second choice.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

-You have brought up numerous points that would be excellent discussion material, but if you keep yapping about how everyone else posts according to ideology and is unworthy of your reply and calling others the "dirty" word of liberal you are doing nothing more than invalidating yourself.

Just figured I'd point it out to you......

Posted by: theobserver4
=====================
The other posts get ignored. I have several level posts in here and there is not ONE reply to them on that level.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"Yes there are a lot of people like that. Many frontrunners in the 2008 elections were like that."

By frontrunners, I guess you mean McCain, Romney, and Huckabee. Who among them was politically pro-choice? I know McCain and Huckabee weren't. I'm pretty sure Romney wasn't, but I could be wrong.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

"The libertarian stripe and moderates need to start a 3rd party.

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 12, 2009 1:08 PM
========================
This is the impression trying to be given by the media to split republicans. Nice try to further the notion.

This tactic was used in Minnesota to split the vote to Barkley to get Franken the win."

Right, numbnutz, it was the media who came up with the term RINOs.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 12, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

The argument is not over "life," it's over what stage of human development can be reasonably said to constitute a person. There are many perspectives to this argument, and none of them can be "proven."
"Culture Wars -- an unrealistic 'solution;" -- ztalkline.blogspot.com/

Posted by: ACounterPoint | March 12, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Cryos writes
"A special election isn't in bounds of Minnesota law but could be done without breaking the laws if agreed to by both candidates."

I doubt this is true. Election law is not the province of political parties or the candidates. Precisely because MN law does not call for a 'do over', I don't see how the candidates could 'agree' to a do over to determine the outcome. The law defines the process: vote, count, legally review (contest), appeal, state outcome. After MN determines the outcome, the US Senate could choose to invalidate the election, as they are the final arbiter in the elections of their members. If a 'do over' election is to be held, it would have to be the US Senate that calls for it. That would surely result in legal challenges as well, if nothing else from 3rd party candidates like Dean Barkley.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

So, the period between 1955 and 1995 were the dark ages of American history?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 1:40 PM
====================
To join the sarcastic debate is seems that democrats with their posturing of FDR, unions, etc seem to want to live in the early 50s so I guess they don't like the world they've created? ;)

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

The best thing Minnesota can do in the future is to change the law to a special election if the results are too close to decide.

There are a lot of fishy circumstances with the Minnesota ballot tallies, renumbering, lost and found votes, etc that make a couple hundred votes a fishy win by either side. If Coleman or Franken win I can't be confident who actually won and who was able to manipulate election law to exclude valid votes or include valid votes.

Special elections are a clean dividing line to try to avoid that ambiguity and legal manipulation.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

It's just precious to see the Republic Party forming a circular firing squad. If only they had imploded nine years ago, before they gave us the Worst. President. Ever.

Posted by: SilverSpring8 | March 12, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"OK, a dose of reality. People want to talk about the last 8 years and how the country was ruined. Let's go back to 1955 when the Democrats took control of Congress for 40 years. Until Republicans gained control of Congress in 1995, we had endured 40 years of Liberal policies and thousands of appointments of activist federal judges. By then the "Nanny" state had been firmly entrenched and our fate sealed."

So, the period between 1955 and 1995 were the dark ages of American history?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

"I wish he could have been in some of the debates."

Yes exactly.

There has to be a debate within the party about what its new (social conservative value requirements not necessary) base is going to be.

Could Mr. Steele start such a debate?
Is that actually what he is trying to do?
I know he is smarter than he seems.
That would be interesting.

Well, I am headed up to Mount Hood for Spring skiing with the kids! Have a good day everybody.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 12, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't surprise me that Cillizza would be all over this drubbing of Steele, not because he's a 'liberal' like a few posts have accused him of, but let's remember that Chris is a longtime friend of Chip Saltzman, of "Barack the Magic Negro" CD fame. According to Chris(The Fix-Jan.07/09)Chip is the furthest thing from a racist. No Chris, the Dalai Lama is the furthest thing from a racist. And you never acknowledged that the stunt Chip pulled was ignorant, offensive and bigoted to about 80% of the country. This is no liberal media type that is spewing this about Steele, this is a friend of Chip Saltzman, former candidate for the position Steele got. Talk about unbalanced reporting.

Posted by: katem1 | March 12, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Franken and his campaign have been very straightforward that it is NOT an option at every turn. I think this shows pretty good proof where Franken thinks he stands given another election."

Why give your opponent a do-over when you won the first time?

Coleman needs to follow his own advice: step aside for the good of Minnesota.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 12, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"Franken and his campaign have been very straightforward that it is NOT an option at every turn. I think this shows pretty good proof where Franken thinks he stands given another election."

I Franken is on pretty solid ground in pushing for the existing election's results to be used to determine MN's junior senator. If their positions were reversed, Coleman would surely be making the same argument. Recall that on election night, he argued that Franken should concede based solely on the provisional count, which later proved to be flawed. Like most of the positions he's taken over the years, Coleman's changed.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Just call the GOP the pretzel party. The ideological wing has parameters in plsce that force individuals to tie themselves in knots to touch all the bases.

Mr. Steele shouldn't have any trouble groveling to the Talibangelists. He's had plenty of practice with El Rushbo.

Pucker up Michael...Oh, and pack your bags.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | March 12, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Yes there are a lot of people like that. Many frontrunners in the 2008 elections were like that.

I know from previous threads you stick to ideology and will not answer logical debate so this will be my only response to your ideological and baiting posts.

Posted by: Cryos

-You have brought up numerous points that would be excellent discussion material, but if you keep yapping about how everyone else posts according to ideology and is unworthy of your reply and calling others the "dirty" word of liberal you are doing nothing more than invalidating yourself.

Just figured I'd point it out to you......

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 12, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Posting one more time to get some economic relevant questions back to the forefront. Critical thinking on all sides is needed to get the economy out of the slump.

We have to keep in mind it is socially engineered capitalism, not free market capitalism, that caused the economic issues.

The US is not meant to be like Europe the constitution is meant to protect us from exactly that. The US and capitalism have improved standard of living around the world far more than other government systems. Look at the killings, control and loss of freedoms that happen in every socialist and communist state throughout history.

You just say because republicans were in the majority lets not turn over any rocks. I disagree. Maybe you don't do any problem solving in your life but if you don't figure out the ROOT or SOURCE of a problem and use some of what was the problem as the "solution" you are doomed to make things worse.

By the way the majority of the defaulting loans were made 2006 and on. Default loans for CRA have been an issue for longer but were absorbed by the market from previous higher standards on managing higher income mortgages.

Democrats sued for 20 years to get loan standards lowered and Fannie/Freddie made it profitable so banks applied the same CRA standards up the line.

Of "the last 8 years" the first 7 the economy was good.

Which party in charge of the economy during the last 2 years?

Which party in charge 2007 on did not attempt to submit regulatory or other bills during that time?

Which party is on record up to 2008 stating "risky loans are worth it to get low income people homes" and that Fannie/Freddie was not in trouble and needed further deregulation?

2008 deficit cost of all private companies combined: $180 billion

2008 deficit cost of Fannie/Freddie: $240 billion

Many share in the blame for the situation including both political parties and the public. Democrats have a huge role in it though and trying to make it one sided and blame capitalism is a blinder to prevent us from seeing the hijacking of future capital to transform the US into western european socialism.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The opposite of pro-life is pro-death. Why dont people use that term?

Posted by: xira | March 12, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Cryos writes
"This tactic was used in Minnesota to split the vote to Barkley to get Franken the win."

You clearly know little about Barkley's candidacy, the Independence Party, or MN politics. At best it is unclear which candidate 'lost' more votes to Barkley. If we use Sen Klobuchar's victory in 2006 as a guide, Barkley probably drew more voters away from Franken, not Coleman.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 1:28 PM
===========================
A special election isn't in bounds of Minnesota law but could be done without breaking the laws if agreed to by both candidates.

Franken and his campaign have been very straightforward that it is NOT an option at every turn. I think this shows pretty good proof where Franken thinks he stands given another election.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul is probably too old to run again, but if someone like him were to take hold of the Republicans and create a new center of effort, that would be their best chance for being "present and accounted for" anytime soon. I prefer his position on many, many things over Obama's and I am way left of center on most political issues.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 12, 2009 1:25 PM
=================
Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas I like him. I think some of his ideas are not realistic given human nature even though I agree with him in concept. I wish he could have been in some of the debates.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Cryos writes
"This tactic was used in Minnesota to split the vote to Barkley to get Franken the win."

You clearly know little about Barkley's candidacy, the Independence Party, or MN politics. At best it is unclear which candidate 'lost' more votes to Barkley. If we use Sen Klobuchar's victory in 2006 as a guide, Barkley probably drew more voters away from Franken, not Coleman.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

""The thought of moderate Repubicans sends chills down the Democrat spinal column.""

I guess that's why the head of the DNC is proposing cutting off funds to moderate Republicans.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 1:22 PM
------------------------
Lol I posted my last response and it refreshes and I see this. My point is proven.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"You do not have to be socially conservative to be a republican," said Cryos.

Well actually, that is what this is all about isn't it.

If it is true that Republicans can learn, they will have to learn really fast for Mr. Steele to survive.

Ron Paul is probably too old to run again, but if someone like him were to take hold of the Republicans and create a new center of effort, that would be their best chance for being "present and accounted for" anytime soon. I prefer his position on many, many things over Obama's and I am way left of center on most political issues.

As for $$ going to the RNC, it will be interesting to see. Probably it all depends on the economy anyway and not on who is making the fewest gaffes.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 12, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"I am a pro-choice republican fiscal conservative. You do not have to be pro-life to be a republican. PERSONALLY I'm pro-life but I believe its a personal choice so POLITICALLY I"m pro-choice."

Do you think this is typical for the members of your party?

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 1:18 PM
===============================


"I am a pro-choice republican fiscal conservative. You do not have to be pro-life to be a republican. PERSONALLY I'm pro-life but I believe its a personal choice so POLITICALLY I"m pro-choice."

Do you think this is typical for the members of your party?

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 1:18 PM
=====================
Yes there are a lot of people like that. Many frontrunners in the 2008 elections were like that.

I know from previous threads you stick to ideology and will not answer logical debate so this will be my only response to your ideological and baiting posts.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

""The thought of moderate Repubicans sends chills down the Democrat spinal column.""

I guess that's why the head of the DNC is proposing cutting off funds to moderate Republicans.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

-Absolute nonsense. The market has been having major declines because they can't trust their peers. After spending 20 years pushing and whining that they'd make everyone in America rich if only they didn't have regulations holding them back they finally got what they wanted. They then promptly imploded the market in a short 8 years.

Now they're begging for transparency and rules so they know where to put money. When word of new rules are leaked by the news it sends stocks up in general. If it didn't wipe out $30 trillion in wealth it'd be hilariously ironic.

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 12, 2009 1:17 PM
===============================
Perfect utopian liberal analysis irrelevant

Once again try to actually post intelligent specifics or answer ANY of the many economic/housing questions I asked if you want to actually nail down accountability and have credibility.

Anyone including me could sit there and spout ideology and call it fact but I try to nail down specific facts and numbers to show relevance and spark REAL debate not just excerpts equivalent to ideological editorial sections.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

The libertarian stripe and moderates need to start a 3rd party.

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 12, 2009 1:08 PM
========================
This is the impression trying to be given by the media to split republicans. Nice try to further the notion.

This tactic was used in Minnesota to split the vote to Barkley to get Franken the win.

Posted by: Cryos

-I'm not attached to the Republican name. I don't care if the rational group walks from the party and ends up with a new name or if they kick the radical wing out of the party and keep the name. The point is the far right needs to be marginalized like the kooks they are.

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 12, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"I am a pro-choice republican fiscal conservative. You do not have to be pro-life to be a republican. PERSONALLY I'm pro-life but I believe its a personal choice so POLITICALLY I"m pro-choice."

Do you think this is typical for the members of your party?

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

But the abortion thing seems to be pretty nuclear with Republicans. (I guess its nucular with this particular party) Remember McCain's VP search. Seems like quite a few people got shot down because of their pro-choice stance. For some reason, that particular issue seems to be uncompromisable.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 1:11 PM
==============================
Democrats did this after the 2000 election but try to hide their special interests with making them sound PC such as extremist environmentalism. The vote to Nader and the democrats backlash against the green party turned to integration if its environmentalist aspects to capture votes. Democrats have ramped up disgusting racial relations exploitation to try to consolidate their hold the last few years.

Are you trying to say PETA, Greenpeace and others who vote party line democrat are simply doing so because there aren't other parties more along their ideals?

McCain is a moderate who made a lot of bipartisan compromises. He has many significant bills co-sponsored with democrats. Since McCain is a moderate it made sense to get a conservative to balance it.

The social wing is a significant wing of the republican party but is far from the only one. Democrats simply have made their leadership far to the left for american politics to make the far left seem "normal" for the democratic party.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Hard to tell if you're being sarcastic. "Hope" is the only thing keeping Obama's poll numbers up. The people that are informed have seen the market dislikes his ideas and that he is operating far to the left of what his campaign promised.

Posted by: Cryos

-Absolute nonsense. The market has been having major declines because they can't trust their peers. After spending 20 years pushing and whining that they'd make everyone in America rich if only they didn't have regulations holding them back they finally got what they wanted. They then promptly imploded the market in a short 8 years.

Now they're begging for transparency and rules so they know where to put money. When word of new rules are leaked by the news it sends stocks up in general. If it didn't wipe out $30 trillion in wealth it'd be hilariously ironic.

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 12, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

The abortion issue is not a simple 'privacy' issue, and one who does not condone simple abortion on demand is not necessarily advocating a religious position.

A better question is, when does life begin, and when do individual rights begin? If a woman is 8 months pregnant, and her fetus can easily survive outside the womb, is the child alive? Does the fetus have rights?

If I push a pregnant woman, and she falls down and has a miscarriage, can I be charged with murder, or have I just violated her 'privacy'? What if she's only 1 month pregnant? Is that 1 month fetus alive, or not?

Posted by: jhimmi | March 12, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"To have to "whisper around" that he is a "CLOSET moderate" is simply stunning in its idiocy, as if "moderate" is such a terrible word. It just goes to prove that an extreme element of the GOP has hijacked the party and is forcing its more sensible members to comply with its agenda."

Haha, yeah, I laughed at that too.

But the abortion thing seems to be pretty nuclear with Republicans. (I guess its nucular with this particular party) Remember McCain's VP search. Seems like quite a few people got shot down because of their pro-choice stance. For some reason, that particular issue seems to be uncompromisable.

Posted by: DDAWD | March 12, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

The libertarian stripe and moderates need to start a 3rd party.

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 12, 2009 1:08 PM
========================
This is the impression trying to be given by the media to split republicans. Nice try to further the notion.

This tactic was used in Minnesota to split the vote to Barkley to get Franken the win.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Fluxgirl, your comments are spoken like a true dyed in the wool liberal Democrat. You liberals are the ones with absolutely no tolerance for the opposing viewpoints, but you love to try and label the republicans that way. Well, Mr. Steels proves you wrong. The republican tent is big enough to handle opposing viewpoints, is the Democratic liberal tent able to do the same?

Posted by: JayBird4

-Give it a month or so and Steele will be gone. As far as the right wing is concerned there is no room for supporters of baby murdering.

The libertarian stripe and moderates need to start a 3rd party.

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 12, 2009 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Once again we are learning that no one party is able to run all 3 branches of government. Time to take off the rose colored idiological glasses and wake up.

Posted by: dhbrown52 | March 12, 2009 1:04 PM
==========================
Best statement on this thread. I wouldn't want the republicans in the position democrats are able to bypass fillibusters by making deals with 1-2 people. You do not want either party to have a supermajority they do the same thing power consolidation and special interest coddling. Democrats are capitalizing their media clout to try to put a death grip on the government. Pick up a history book.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

A San Francisco police union has accused former domestic terrorist William Ayers, co-founder of the Weather Underground, and his wife in a 1970 bombing that killed one sergeant, the San Francisco Chronicle reports....
...................Wow ! This is news ...........So I wonder why the rest of America's flaming liberal NAZI-like press has CENSORED IT??????????????

Just one more example of the liberal fascists that control the bulk of America's "Mass left-wing Media"

And NO ONE can dispute it................................Crimminals

Posted by: allenridge | March 12, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse
*******************

Sure, I'll dispute everything you're blathering here. The mainstream media is censoring a story you quote from the SF Chronicle? You don't bother to mention the nature of the charges (solicited by and provided to a right wing, anti-Obama organization called "America's Survival, Inc."? The facts on their face reveal you to be an idiotic shill.

What's interesting here is what will happen to these police union officials. The circumstances of them acceding to a request from "America's Survival" on official union letterhead, but far outside the normal chain of investigative command are highly questionable. Expect them to be reprimanded or fired: this is completely unprofessional and looks libelous, which jeopardizes the reputation of the entire SFPD. What were they thinking: they're toast.

Posted by: abqcleve | March 12, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Again, any Republican who says s/he will donate money to the RNC while Michael Steele is "in charge" is lying.
Posted by: shrink2 | March 12, 2009 1:01 PM

You are seriously mistaken. Steele has made some gaffes but I agree with some of his stance on issues and it would have absolutely no bearing on my contributions. You do not have to be socially conservative to be a republican; that is a slant thrown to try to edge votes to democrats. Republicans are learning and will learn that lesson.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

OK, a dose of reality. People want to talk about the last 8 years and how the country was ruined. Let's go back to 1955 when the Democrats took control of Congress for 40 years. Until Republicans gained control of Congress in 1995, we had endured 40 years of Liberal policies and thousands of appointments of activist federal judges. By then the "Nanny" state had been firmly entrenched and our fate sealed.

Of course, in my opinion, the majority of our politicians are crooks no matter what their affiliation. Lieing and ignoring the great "unwashed" masses have become ingrained in the Washington culture. Unfortunately, President Obama is showing that he is just another in a long line of typical politicians - can't believe a thing they say (they talk a good game but ultimately don't do what they preach).

Campaigning and governing are totally separate things that don't mess with each other. If you tell the truth in campaigning you would never get to govern.

Once again we are learning that no one party is able to run all 3 branches of government. Time to take off the rose colored idiological glasses and wake up.

Posted by: dhbrown52 | March 12, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Nevadaandy | March 12, 2009 12:52 P
======================
Hard to tell if you're being sarcastic. "Hope" is the only thing keeping Obama's poll numbers up. The people that are informed have seen the market dislikes his ideas and that he is operating far to the left of what his campaign promised.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Again, any Republican who says s/he will donate money to the RNC while Michael Steele is "in charge" is lying.

Since Rove is right when he says Steele will need to raise $400 million before the next election cycle for Republicans to be viable on the national scene (Rove outta know)...Steele is already gone. Only Steele does not know that. That is what is sad in a funny kind of way.

Posted by: shrink2 | March 12, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

I prefer to get my information from multiple sources and avoid ones that are specifically designed to fuel any inner anger that I may have.

Posted by: JRM2 | March 12, 2009 12:53 PM
======================
I read online news from a TON of sources including sources like the Huffington post. Your post is very selective information. By the way don't forget the HUGE number of fillibusters by democrats from 2003-2006.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Cyros,

You asked:

Would you say democrats refusing to regulate Fannie/Freddie 20+ times between 2003-2006 was a good idea?

Between 2003-2006 the Republicans were in control of Congress. Democrats were the minority party.

Posted by: Nevadaandy
=============================
Democrats easily had fillibuster numbers. Democrats always promised a fillibuster it is on congressional and other record. S190 only went to a committee vote where it went party line democrats voting against it.

In the years following the committee vote Fannie/Freddie spent $200 million in lobbying to lobby key republicans to keep the bill from having a chance on passing. They also gave money to democrats. Key democrats such as Obama, Dodd and Kerry are the biggest recipients of campaign dollars from them.

Fannie/Freddie was the top 20 of all lobbyists; funny how since the election talk on Fannie/Freddie is silent except for the passing mention $200 billion more with the housing bill to prop them up.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, meant to say millions would be left without hope.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | March 12, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

2000-2006 Bush takes office with a record surplus, Repubs in charge of all executive branches of Government.

2006-2008 Dems take congress, Repubs use filibuster more than any minority party in our nation's history while labeling the Dems as "The do nothing congress".

2008 A select few Repubs try to blame the financial crisis on the Dems (you know, the "do nothing congress")

Cyros, if you watch Hannity, O'Reilly and listen to Limbaugh, of course you are going to think the country has been invaded by communists.

I prefer to get my information from multiple sources and avoid ones that are specifically designed to fuel any inner anger that I may have.

Posted by: JRM2 | March 12, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Just imagine where we would be now if McCain had been elected President? Our economy would be aimlessly adrift, federal agencies would be operating under a Continuing Resolution, and millions of Americans would be left with hope.

At least we have a vigorous, open minded, and intelligent President who is addressing all our pressing needs and not taking a one problem at a time approach because many of the problems are interrelated. This is exactly the kind of change we need.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | March 12, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"The individual choice rests with the states"??? Oh dear. I don't like what the thugs are doing to Mr. Steele, but he's toast with absurd statements like that.

Posted by: abqcleve | March 12, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I was off in some responses but hopefully people whose minds are open will absorb some facts and good questions from my last and other posts. Hopefully things turn out well and america stays america and we don't trade in our freedom for entitlements. Time will tell.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Cryos, let's face it. The Republicans controlled the Executive branch for 8 years and the Legislative and Judicial branches for 6+ and they screwed up big time.

The Bush administration could have done things they didn't do and did things they shouldn't have. The Republican party paid dearly for those mistakes in the 2008 elections.

Trying to rationalize why this mess is the fault of the liberals and democrats is a pointless waste of time. And economists haven't been right about much of anything for the last 20 years.

Posted by: oldster | March 12, 2009 12:34 PM
========================
This sounds to me like you cannot refute democrats have a HUGE role in the economic disaster and are even admitting it.

You just say because republicans were in the majority lets not turn over any rocks. I disagree. Maybe you don't do any problem solving in your life but if you don't figure out the ROOT or SOURCE of a problem and use some of what was the problem as the "solution" you are doomed to make things worse.

By the way the majority of the defaulting loans were made 2006 and on. Default loans for CRA have been an issue for longer but were absorbed by the market from previous higher standards on managing higher income mortgages.

Democrats sued for 20 years to get loan standards lowered and Fannie/Freddie made it profitable so banks applied the same CRA standards up the line.

Of "the last 8 years" the first 7 the economy was good.

Which party in charge of the economy during the last 2 years?

Which party in charge 2007 on did not attempt to submit regulatory or other bills during that time?

Which party is on record up to 2008 stating "risky loans are worth it to get low income people homes" and that Fannie/Freddie was not in trouble and needed further deregulation?

2008 deficit cost of all private companies combined: $180 billion

2008 deficit cost of Fannie/Freddie: $240 billion

Many share in the blame for the situation including both political parties and the public. Democrats have a huge role in it though and trying to make it one sided and blame capitalism is a blinder to prevent us from seeing the hijacking of future capital to transform the US into western european socialism.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Cryos,

You are an idiot, stop posting! After 8 years of Bush wrecking this country you won't even give Obama a chance to fix it. You are the one who is blind and deluded..and a slave to the GOP. Come back in 2 years and let's see what the deal is then, but for now please go stick your head in the sand as the people have spoken and your side has lost.

Enough with you already!

AR

Posted by: aragu98
======================
Wow thanks for the well articulated post that tore apart my economic statement based on congressional statements and CBO numbers. You are right thank you for the detailed and most informative counter argument. I just need to blind myself to government process and action the last couple years and just pray for Obama "to fix what the republicans screwed up."

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Cryos, let's face it. The Republicans controlled the Executive branch for 8 years and the Legislative and Judicial branches for 6+ and they screwed up big time.

The Bush administration could have done things they didn't do and did things they shouldn't have. The Republican party paid dearly for those mistakes in the 2008 elections.

Trying to rationalize why this mess is the fault of the liberals and democrats is a pointless waste of time. And economists haven't been right about much of anything for the last 20 years.

If you can't offer constructive commentary you become part of the problem instead of becoming part of the solution.

Posted by: oldster | March 12, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Cyros,

You asked:

Would you say democrats refusing to regulate Fannie/Freddie 20+ times between 2003-2006 was a good idea?

Between 2003-2006 the Republicans were in control of Congress. Democrats were the minority party.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | March 12, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I am sometimes more fair and less abrasive in the posts that I post but then many times they are just ignored like the ones I complain about in my last post :P

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Well, GOP figures if a "schwartze" works for the Dems why not put a "schwartze" of their own out there. Or even two. Moreover, they decided to do one up on the Dems and produce a female for VP.
As it turns out, all of their token personages turned out to be complete or nearly complete schmucks: Steele, Jindal, and esp. Palin.

This is a lesson to both right and left-wingers who go more for ideological symbolism rather than substance. To paraphrase Vladimir Lenin liberally, if you're a "minority", are you really better off in practical terms being represented (or oppressed) by a stupid/corrupt/incompetent member of your own group rather than a "majority" member similarly unqualified?

Posted by: VMR1 | March 12, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Cryos brings up a good point about what a racist, wretched excuse for a human being Mr. "Great Society" LBJ was... Hand-outs keep people down rather than helping them to rise up and better themselves. And "entitlement" is, by design, a means of artful oppression. It says to the recipient "Look at what I'm giving you!" when it should say "Why should you strive and work to your full potential? You should 'stay in your place' rather than aspire to greater goals! I'll give you this mere pittance to prevent you from pursuing your potential."

Thank goodness Mr. Steele didn't succumb to the TRAP that keeps so many of our country's minorities down! I'm proud to see someone with a reasonable PERSONAL view of the right to choose can attain a leadership position in the GOP. Perhaps eventually the rational, more fiscally responsible and libertarian element of the GOP can wrest control away from the more "Taliban-like" theocratic element and revive the GOP. I am doubtful, though. If it doesn't happen I think the GOP is doomed within a generation.

Posted by: AuH2O_fan | March 12, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Cryos,

You are an idiot, stop posting! After 8 years of Bush wrecking this country you won't even give Obama a chance to fix it. You are the one who is blind and deluded..and a slave to the GOP. Come back in 2 years and let's see what the deal is then, but for now please go stick your head in the sand as the people have spoken and your side has lost.

Enough with you already!

AR

Posted by: aragu98 | March 12, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Abortion should be like marijuana use - legal, highly regulated, discouraged.

Posted by: jhimmi | March 12, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Sigh of course no one can refute my economic post or post on how liberal politicians really are on race but they can keep going on with generalized talking points.

Oh well most threads are mostly young, naive people so I usually expect it. Good luck to the sane people on here; have a good one everyone.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Ordinarily, I'd recommend that the two wings of the GOP find a way to compromise. However, the hard truth is that it's just not possible to compromise with people who believe that fossils were actually placed in the ground by Satan to deceive mankind. Likewise, it's not possible to compromise with those who feel it's perfectly acceptable to spend TRILLIONS of dollars helping the Iraqis, but somehow socialism! to spend tax dollars helping Americans. Sadly, the Republican party has become a cult and cult members cannot be reasoned with.

Posted by: War4Sale | March 12, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

The very fact that Republicans chose a one-term state Lt. Gov. tainted by crooked electioneering during his Senate run shows how thin the GOP bench is. And I voted for him twice!

Since he's certainly not going to attract many blacks to vote for the Republicans, what good is he?

Posted by: GWGOLDB | March 12, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Lol my last post was an example of how easy it is to be an irrational liberal. Look how easy it was to take his statement and twist it around putting him on the defensive. However being loyal liberals I'm sure you'll interpret the other half of your double standards and defend him because he was praising Obama.

I've got some free time this morning among other things so I'm having fun watching people unable to reply coherently be reduced to "don't you have class or a job."

Actually yes I do, I'm a republican therefore I do work. However I'm off today.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Steele has a problem many people do, not just Republicans, and not just politicians. He doesn't want to offend anyone when he states his beliefs.

Unfortunately, this is not possible.

I believe as Mr. Steele does, but I try to be honest and straightforward. And if I have a reason, or foundation, for my belief, I'm prepared to state it.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Steele has to prevaricate so in the interview. Come now, sir, you are not going to convince anyone to join your cause when you cannot even state your case.

We Republicans need to grow backbones, and even tell our elected members to be the Republicans we intend to be. Sheesh. It's interviews like this one that make me cringe.

Posted by: rickb928 | March 12, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Steele is not the man to lead the lost Republicans out of the wilderness. He has neither the experience, persuasive ability, or deeply held principles that a successful and effective leader must have to resurrect the dead Republicans.

That said, it is not at all clear that there is anyone to lead the Republicans successfully. While Democrats and liberals might be rejoicing at the chaos and lack of coherence among Republicans, the fact is that our nation is built on, and indeed depends on, differentiated political parties. Absent effective opposition and alternatives, the results are predictable and dangerous--regardless of who is at the helm of the unitary party in power.

Everyone who loves the nation should wish the Republicans well as we need healthy debate that is principled to drive the best solution finding for the people of America.

Besides, without luck, Republicans are dead and gone. Think of it as a "random act of kindness," without which we will all be lessened.

Posted by: jshaver001 | March 12, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Yes.. individual choices.. decided by the masses. But, in each state, which makes it... an individual decision?? wtf?
Not even neighbors should be allowed to decide on anything involving your own body - only your external actions involving others are any of your neighbors' business. Forget a nation of whiners, we've long been a nation of children and nannies - taking away all dodgeballs because a few can't control themselves.

Posted by: Crucialitis | March 12, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The Fix is calling this one two conservatively.

Steele will be gone shortly after March 31, if the Democratic candidate fills Gillibrand's New York House seat.

It won't be through a vote of no-confidence.

Steele will explain that after a long and careful consideration, the needs of his family and his personal business outweigh any other consideration right now. He will say that he will remain a Republican, and that no one will work harder to see Republican candidates elected and re-elected in 2010, but, unfortunately, he will say that he cannot do it as chairman of the Republican National Committee. He will thank every Republican for the opportunity, wish his successor well and ask God to bless the United States of America. Good night.

Posted by: 1EgoNemo | March 12, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

it's as if he's trying to temper, albeit clumsily, a hardline republican position. that would be good thing. applying reason and moderation are good things, but they have nothing to do with how republicans formulate policy. steele is learning this the hard way.

Posted by: nfbindc | March 12, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I think Steele said it pretty well about the Roe v Wade ruling. I have always felt that state rights should have trumped government intervention. Let the people of the states decide the abortion problem, not the government.

Posted by: playfair109 | March 12, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Well, it will not work because poor Michael, does not hold a shine next to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama is light years ahead of Michael Steele.
Posted by: dkune1946 | March 12, 2009 12:17 PM
=============================
You don't need to include code words for racist attacks against Steele like "hold a shine." Putting underhanded references to shining shoes is unwarranted.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Cyros, are you still chirping? Don't you have class or a job or homework to do or something? Get a life.

Posted by: ct44 | March 12, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Don't be fooled... Don't fall into the trap.

This is liberal media trying to twist words and create a divisive atmosphere within the Republican Party... something the Wash Post has become so good at doing.

Much like we should have done with our President - look at a man's record and actions before you believe his words.

Posted by: rjgrp1 | March 12, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I think Cryos needs to get a paying job.

Posted by: teej55 | March 12, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

The question I have to ask is: why do people wish to affiliate themselves with ANY poltical party??

It is becoming more apparent that party affiliation is stunting to critical thinking, because they determine what the policy will be on issues. There is not a single party out there that speaks for me 100% on each issue, so I am not affiliated with any of them.

This latest gaffe by Steele shows that the Republicans do not want him opining on abortion as an presumably intelligent, thinking individual. They want only for him to regurgitate their stance, whether or not he fully supports it.

Party affiliation is like a death knell to intelligent discourse. Some of the issues we face as a country are far too complex to be stamped with an A or B.

Posted by: obx2004 | March 12, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Steele is absolutely right, on every count. What's the controversy?

Personally, I detest abortion, and I think Roe was a legal travesty that should be overturned, but I don't think abortion should be banned, nor do I think it would be if the issue was left to the states.

The only point I would not compromise on is aborting late term fetuses. If a fetus has matured to the point of having any chance of surviving outside the womb, aborting it is murder.

I can't speak for all conservatives, but instead of an outright ban, I would prefer to keep it legal while aiming for zero abortions. Why can't we combine better sex education with better access to birth control, while also discouraging abortion via education, counseling, and promoting adoption?

Too many abortion rights advocates are so focused on 'choice' issue, they seem to ignore the harmful effects of abortion, especially psychological. No one should be encouraged to have an abortion. Our often sees giving a child up for adoption more 'wrong' than aborting it.

Posted by: jhimmi | March 12, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Let's be frank about this whole Michael Steele deal. The RNC just wanted to show America that they had a black man to challenge the President. Well, it will not work because poor Michael, does not hold a shine next to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama is light years ahead of Michael Steele.
The RNC should re-submit their true leader, their "flapper-mouth" idiot, who uses his radio talk show to speak to his radical hooded throngs.

Posted by: dkune1946 | March 12, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Blah blah blah. I went and read an article on the Huffington Post and now I'm repeating it to try to sound smart blah blah blah.

I love the liberal view on race. If you're black or hispanic you have to think a certain way, act a certain way and vote a certain way or you're a sellout.

Wow you can see what liberals REALLY think of black and hispanic people. Just throw in some anti-white comments to make them think you're on their side.

Oh by the way here is an inconvenient fact. The worst areas for blacks and hispanics have been completely dominated by liberals for 15-20 years. I guess after democrats voted against civil rights they changed tactics. They decided to give the appearance they want to help minorities but offer crippling assistance such as handouts instead of long term help such as encouraging higher education and self reliance.

LBJ puts the liberal democrat position best

"These N*****, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

What else can you expect. The GOP is now nothing but the party of the American Taliban. And Rush is their prophet.

Posted by: bigbrother1 | March 12, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

All the liberals will ignore the in your face liberal failures like I put in the below post.

Just let these facts scroll off the page until you can act like you don't see them anymore. I wouldn't want you to question your simple minded, utopian idealism. I mean facts and logic have nothing over idealism right?

========================

Look at the stimulus bill. It looks like nearly ALL ECONOMISTS were right and the stimulus is a massive failure. Democrats already are talking about passing a 2nd one. I guess it takes $300K+ to save each construction job? No wonder people say government is incompetent. Maybe if Reid/Pelosi/Dodd/Frank were watching the economy instead of saying risky loans are worth the risk and interviewing Roger Clemens we would be ok.

2008 deficit cost of all private companies combined: $180 billion

2008 deficit cost of Fannie/Freddie: $240 billion

So how worth it are the risky loans now? Would you say democrats refusing to regulate Fannie/Freddie 20+ times between 2003-2006 was a good idea?

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Wow, a high-ranking Republican who said "choice" in less than a dismissive, disgusted tone. There may still be hope for the GOP after all. But let's be honest, Steele is about tokenism. It's the GOP's way of saying "there is a place for a right-minded black person in the GOP." Most of today's GOPers, however, will find Steele's honest GQ response anything but right minded. And, that's too bad. The edge of the GOP's extreme right now owns the Party. Imagine a Democratic party run by the Dennis Kucinich wing, and you've got it.

Posted by: rob15 | March 12, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

The GOP cannot continue as a viable party for much longer. Clearly, the time has come when it is no longer possible to reconcile the views of the libertarian small gub'mint fiscal conservatives with those of the fundamentalists who want to outlaw abortion, force prayer in school and remove evolution from science curriculums. The core beliefs of each wing, one dedicated to personal freedom and the other to religious authoritarianism, are in direct contradiction of each other. The only way to truly resolve this is for the libertarians to leave the GOP and join the Libertarian party and for the evangelicals to re-make the Republican party in their own image by openly calling for a theocratic dictatorship lead by Pat Robertson or Benny Hinn. It's the only practical solution to the party's split personality which is now bordering on the psychotic.

Posted by: War4Sale | March 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I think the Republicans are being irrational in their dealing with Steele on this point.

Tony Perkins, for example, makes the absurd claim that "It is very difficult to reconcile the GQ interview with the chairman's pledge." On what grounds? A soldier can disagree with the premise of a war and still do his duty when in uniform. There is no inconsistency in that. Steele seems to say that he believes that a woman has a choice (it's perhaps less clear that he thinks she should have a right to choose) but that as RNC chairman he is committed to the party's agenda. So he keeps his pledge. No reconciliation necessary.

Posted by: ct44 | March 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"The republican tent is big enough to handle opposing viewpoints."

Really? When did this happen? I did a news search but couldn't find anything. Got a URL link to the PR release?

Get real. The problem is it doesn't accept opposing viewpoints within the tent. You can't be a moderate Republican. If you're not 100% aligned with the right on all issues you aren't a "real" Republican.

The Republican party has no voice and no leadership. Pundits claiming to be the voice of "real conservatives" speak for a minorty but seem to be the only voice being heard.

Either the RNC has to distance itself from this element or there isn't going to be a Republican party. The way things are going now, anyone presenting themself as a conservative Democrat is going to appeal to a broader constituency than a "real Republican". The longer the pundits have the spotlight more irrelevant the term "Republican" becomes as an indicator of political philosophy to an increasingly larger share of voters.

It's beginning to look like the Republican party has been kidnapped by the John Birch Society.

Posted by: oldster | March 12, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | March 12, 2009 11:51 AM
================
My vocabulary is small? Maybe you need to take english 101 and learn what run on sentences are like your first sentence. At this point debating with most liberals is like talking to chimps so there is no point being civil and patient about it.

An "independent" what a flipping joke. Look how you made a blanket statement blaming republicans and you don't even have the brainpower to argue the deficit or Fannie/Freddie points.

Actually you're probably like the other Obama voters who didn't know that democrats were in charge of congress in 2007-2008 when the economy crashed. I guess interviewing Roger Clemens while the economy got worse was more important?

When you can actually articulate and refute individual points instead of making a generalized statement expect some more detailed responses. Until then good luck.

squawk squawk squawk

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"If Steele falls short in either respect, the long knives will come out."

Steele will fall short. He's a pretty face but not very bright, something that Marylanders have known for years.

Also, given the sometimes chaotic nature of his personal finances, it's difficult to understand why the Republicans wanted him for their party chair, with oversight responsibility for fundraising.

Well, that's not actually true. It's clear why they wanted him -- they think they need a black man in a leadership position to counter Barack Obama. What's unclear is why they think he'd be any kind of competition for the minority vote.

He's a remarkably thin intellect, but the Republican party doesn't have many -- any? -- blacks to choose from.

Posted by: kjohnson3 | March 12, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Remember "Mr. Conservative," Barry Goldwater? He said abortion wasn't even a conservative issue! Of course he was from an era before "conservatism" was hijacked by the religious zealots in the late 80's. Social conservatism (a.k.a. theocracy disguised as conservatism)has nothing to with REAL, old-fashioned conservatism. The current brand of conservatism would disgust the Eisenhower/Taft/Goldwater era conservatives. The GOP "base" has become America's Taliban and they don't DESERVE to call themselves "conservative." They've stained that word with their self-righteous stench and corrupted its meaning beyond recognition.

Posted by: AuH2O_fan | March 12, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

--"Yes. The GOP needs to expand its base and that requires going to venues that it normally avoids. ...... Mainly, that he appears to be tone-deaf toward his own rank-and-file Republicans."--

Yea, because GQ readers might not be familiar with the same old Republican schpeel.

McCain tested the waters floating the idea of Lieberman as VP - and the waters rose up and demanded Sarah Palin (or one like her). Result: Wilderness

So now Steele is testing the waters again. I don't think the 'base' is ready to give up it's princples and come in from the wilderness yet.

Principled leadership means that your state turns down 700 million stimulus money despite having the second highest unemployment in the nation. I'm sure that's a comfort to people looking for work.

Speaking only for myself, I want my politicians to be a slimy, lazy, wastrel - but put his people above any self-oriented principle s/he might have. I'm happy that South Carolinian’s feel different - even though I doubt my state will see any increase. Michigan said long ago that it'll find enough busy-work for whatever stimulus money they can get.

Posted by: DonJasper | March 12, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

My wife is pregnant with twins, one of which has a serious heart ailment that will require multiple open heart surgeries starting within one week of his birth.

We were given a couple of options to end his life, but we have decided to fight for his life instead though life will be difficult for all concerned, and very expensive.

STILL, I am glad we had the choice.

Pro-choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion.


Posted by: JRM2 | March 12, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Steele would do wisely to start circulating his resume; he will "resign" by year's end.

Posted by: meldupree | March 12, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: mypitts2 | March 12, 2009 11:55 AM
===============
My fault. I'll use smaller words and keep my concepts simple like Obama's speeches. I wouldn't want to confuse you by making you think. I forgot most liberals have 0 lateral skills I have to stay on one subject. Liberals can't tie together more than 1 subject at a time. KISS = way to get liberal votes.

Now come on you need to repeat some talking points to make your masters happy. Be a good little slave.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Michael Steele is a human gaffe machine.

And doesn't he look like Chuck E. Cheese?

Posted by: bs2004 | March 12, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Cyros,

Eagles are birds of prey and we have seen what Republican eagles have done to our economy. They allowed Exon, bankers, and people like Madoff to prey on unsuspecting Americans

Eagles were once an endangered species. Republican eagles are fast becoming an endagered species.

There are more parrots in this world than eagles and parrots come in many beautiful colors reflecting the diversity of our nation.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | March 12, 2009 11:52 AM
======================
Lol I was waiting for an answer like this. I'm glad you're so ready and willing to be a beautiful slave. Congratulations.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Cryos: You make my point for me with your mindless jabbering. That attitude is why Republicans are getting their butts kicked and have a 26 percent rating (lowest ever). Not the media.

If you're so big on responsibility, take responsibility for THAT.

Posted by: mypitts2 | March 12, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

As nutty as the Democrats can be, I don't see the hardcore lefties running the show, and a majority of Americans seemed to believe the truth that Obama is moderate despite the far right's accusations that he's a socialist (hey, far right, everything looks extreme when you yourself are an extremist!)
============================
If you honestly think Obama is moderate I feel sorry for you. It would be really easy to con you out of anything.

Obama's SPEECHES are moderate but his actions are far from it. I feel sorry for people really that blind I guess I should just be glad I've been blessed with intelligence and an ability to see past a well given speech.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"Wednesday, March 11, 2009


A San Francisco police union has accused former domestic terrorist William Ayers, co-founder of the Weather Underground, and his wife in a 1970 bombing that killed one sergeant, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The union, in a letter to a conservative organization lobbying for arrests in the case, accused Ayers and wife Bernardine Dohrn of bombing a city police station.

On Feb. 16, 1970, a bomb placed on a window ledge of Park Station killed Sgt. Brian McDonnell and injured eight other officers, the Chronicle reported." - FOX News

...................Wow ! This is news ...........So I wonder why the rest of America's flaming liberal NAZI-like press has CENSORED IT??????????????

Just one more example of the liberal fascists that control the bulk of America's "Mass left-wing Media"

And NO ONE can dispute it................................Crimminals

Posted by: allenridge | March 12, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Easily the most incompetent political party around.

Posted by: hiberniantears | March 12, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Cyros,

Eagles are birds of prey and we have seen what Republican eagles have done to our economy. They allowed Exon, bankers, and people like Madoff to prey on unsuspecting Americans

Eagles were once an endangered species. Republican eagles are fast becoming an endagered species.

There are more parrots in this world than eagles and parrots come in many beautiful colors reflecting the diversity of our nation.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | March 12, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"The thought of moderate Repubicans sends chills down the Democrat spinal column."

You must be kidding, numbnutz. Moderate Repubs help Dems get bills enacted. It's conservative Repubs who hate moderate Repubs.

If conservative Repubs get there way there will not a be a single moderate Repub left standing. FACT!

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 12, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Cryos:You are a typical republican your vocabulary is so small you can't write a comment without calling people names who don't agree with you and no I'm not a democrat I'm a registered Independent.You are wrong Democrat's didn't get us in this terrible mess Bush,Cheney,Mitch McConnell and John Boehner were in power when this country and the world went down the drain.I'm suprized you didn't try and blame president Clinton for this mess as I've heard other rightwinger's try to do.

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | March 12, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: mypitts2 | March 12, 2009 11:38 AM
By the way all the little partisans like you will be disappointed in 2010 when democrats are thrown out the door for their incompetence.

Look at the stimulus bill. It looks like nearly ALL ECONOMISTS were right and the stimulus is a massive failure. Democrats already are talking about passing a 2nd one. I guess it takes $300K+ to save each construction job? No wonder people say government is incompetent. Maybe if Reid/Pelosi/Dodd/Frank were watching the economy instead of saying risky loans are worth the risk and interviewing Roger Clemens we would be ok.

2008 deficit cost of all private companies combined: $180 billion

2008 deficit cost of Fannie/Freddie: $240 billion

So how worth it are the risky loans now? Would you say democrats refusing to regulate Fannie/Freddie 20+ times between 2003-2006 was a good idea?

Face it you have been scammed to believe it is all Bush when the biggest part of the deficit is democrat backed Fannie/Freddie. Oh well the average liberal depends on the current weeks talking points and has the lateral thinking of a chimp so I expect I'll receive the same amount of intelligent arguments to this point as usual; 0.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I'm sort of at a loss about why what Chairman Steele said should be upsetting to rank and file, pro life Republicans.

Does a mother currently have a choice in whether or not to have an abortion? Yes.

Does he want Roe v. Wade overturned? Yes.

What would happen then? States would enact legislation either protecting a mother's right to have an abortion or outlawing abortions.

Everything he said is absolutely in keeping with his personal pro-life views.

Posted by: billyc123 | March 12, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

The thought of moderate Repubicans sends chills down the Democrat spinal column.

Posted by: jabailo | March 12, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Cryos: Whining and moaning about the media does not win Republicans elections. I thought we learned that in November?
Posted by: mypitts2 | March 12, 2009 11:38 AM
=============================
It's the truth numbnuts. A LOT more people are aware now than they were in November. Just because uneducated gas station workers like yourself have low self esteem and no you'll never make it in life doesn't mean that everything should suffer to support your pathetic existance.

Grow up, take some responsibility and grow a pair of balls.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Open mouth, insert foot or in Steele's case: open mouth, insert foot, repeat steps 1 & 2.

Thanks GOP!

Posted by: omidfa | March 12, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

being republican/conservative shouldnt mean that you're a bible-bashing idiot who can't tell the difference between good policy and red tape...i think the republicans need to rethink their priorities
Posted by: montysoprano
======================
Although some criticism is from republicans most likely the majority is from the media trying to pigeonhole republicans.

Media relies on wedge issues to divide the meatheads who can't see the big picture and vote on one issue.

To me conservative versus liberal equals what "guarantees" you want to trade for your freedoms.

I prefer to be an eagle (conservative) you are free to make most of your own choices but you are also free to live with the consequences. You have the freedom to succeed or fail and your life is not "safe" or "guaranteed." You need to work for your own living but also reap the rewards.

Liberals prefer to be a caged parrot. You are guaranteed somewhere to live, food to eat, someone to clean up your messes, and "safety." In return you have to be at the beck and call of your master, you better not bite the hand that feeds you, and you just have to repeat buzz phrases to keep your master happy.

Make your own choice but to me the guaranteed liberal life of a caged parrot sounds like slavery to me.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Cryos: Whining and moaning about the media does not win Republicans elections. I thought we learned that in November?

Most of the criticism of Steele is coming from Republicans themselves, not journalists. A pro-choice position for a Republican leader is not acceptable to most of the rank-and-file.

It would be like putting Joe Lieberman over the Democratic party.

And who cares what Carville said? Unlike Rush, he is not the leader of his party.

Posted by: mypitts2 | March 12, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Steele's problem is the same problem that many Republican politicians have right now. He's too conservative for the voters, but too moderate for the extremists that make up the base of the party. To survive in the GOP in the 21st century, one must express blind lockstep support for party dogma or one gets tagged as a RINO. Thanks, Rush!

Posted by: War4Sale | March 12, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Oh and as for your final line. I am not part of any party but a part of this country and this planet.

Posted by: alex35332 | March 12, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

The media is pathetic. If anyone had doubts the media is biased and democrats are a bunch of petty thugs who have absolutely no intentions of being "bipartisan" you know now.

I am a pro-choice republican fiscal conservative. You do not have to be pro-life to be a republican. PERSONALLY I'm pro-life but I believe its a personal choice so POLITICALLY I"m pro-choice.

The media fanning the flames and trying to pigeonhole republicans is sad. They're so bought and sold on the empty suit marxist they're reduced to hearsay and slandering political opposition.

Carville just before 9/11 said he wanted Bush to fail and 51% of democrats in 2006 said they wanted Bush to fail. So to those 51% being hypocrites go knit a sweater or whatever you wishy washy, idealist, clueless bottom feeders do and stop being a hypocrite. You're just too stupid to recognize democrats are enslaving you and your family for generations.

Posted by: Cryos | March 12, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

In answer to your question: "Is there anything to be gained by doing an extended q and a with a glossy, smart-set magazine like GQ?)"

Yes. The GOP needs to expand its base and that requires going to venues that it normally avoids.

That said, Steele has other problems that he may not be able to overcome. Mainly, that he appears to be tone-deaf toward his own rank-and-file Republicans.

Posted by: mypitts2 | March 12, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

alex35332 Just how does conservatism have a negative effect on the economy?

By restricting technology because of ideology and restrictions of funding to educational funding, being ant-universal healthcare making us unable to go toe-toe with the lower costs of industries in places like Canada and Japan. Be being anti-universal higher education

It appears you don't want any restrictions on economic activity. Well, drug use is very high and very profitable, so I guess you liberals should have a platform legalizing all drug use. Prostitution is also very profitable, why don't you legalize that also?

I am all for legalizing both, as the state of Nevada has shown when you make prostitution legal and regulated it reduces violence and the spread of STD's. And nations that take a health based approach to drug problems have less use and less crime related to use.

Posted by: alex35332 | March 12, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Rush must be relieved. Apparently pregnant, the radio-shlock jock now has his party Chairman's permission to choose.

Why should Republicans be led by those who can think AND talk, when it's just talk, talk, talk anyway?

Goodbye GOOP.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | March 12, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

GOP - now is the Jesus Likes US BETTER Party.

Posted by: DingDong69 | March 12, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

alex35332 Just how does conservatism have a negative effect on the economy? It appears you don't want any restrictions on economic activity. Well, drug use is very high and very profitable, so I guess you liberals should have a platform legalizing all drug use. Prostitution is also very profitable, why don't you legalize that also? Not everything that is profitable is good for the country. Even if some conservative values do cause a slow down in the economy, that doesn't mean they are bad. Drugs, violence, prostitution, and crime, all generate a lot of jobs. Look how many prisons are built, policemen hired, lawyers activated, judges seated, all to combat this one area of our society? So because it generates a lot of money for the economy, does that make it the best thing for the country? Maybe you should stop and think, before making stupid blanket assertions about a party you have no part in.

Posted by: JayBird4 | March 12, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

people should leave michael steele alone on this one...if the republicans ever want to get into the white house again, they need to have an unwavering position on what it means to be conservative...what that means is smaller government and LESS intrusion into the lives of american citizens...MORE power to the states...let the states decide abortion issues...let the states decide substance decriminalization (e.g. legalizing marijuana)...maybe even get rid of the IRS & let states decide taxation...all federal tax goes to is fighting wars, and that's one more thing we can spend less money on...being republican/conservative shouldnt mean that you're a bible-bashing idiot who can't tell the difference between good policy and red tape...i think the republicans need to rethink their priorities...let michael steele grow and speak from his own voice...he might actually be on to something...

Posted by: montysoprano | March 12, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

It is more than obvious that Mr. Steele was drawing a distinction between belief (pro-life) and the "fact of life" that women have a legal "right to choose" regardless of what their belief is. That is, a woman has the "right to choose" to follow her pro-life or pro-abortion beliefs.
This feeding frenzy over words and semantics is broaching theatre of the absurd. I realize that the media has a vested interest in fomenting controversy, especially among Republicans, but the issue is a tempest in a teapot. Mr. Steele will not make or abolish abortion policy. Personally, if I was Limbaugh or some other commentator I would let the issue die on the vine. However, those guys have air time to fill every day, and a slow news day will drive them to fluff up the issue.
Personally, although I am a conservative who usually votes Republican I do not consider abortion that big of a deal. I am more concerned with real issues like the economy and national defense.
To me, a victim of rape or incest should not have to endure pregnancy, childbirth or the medical conditions that follow . On the other hand, as a former prosecutor, I find it interesting that the murder of a pregnant woman can be charged as two homicides, yet the abortion of that same baby is not a crime.
This is a very serious issue that deserves much better discussion than the political coverage seen here.

Posted by: MARKM2 | March 12, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

WOW...What happen to FREEDOM? Now Steele wants the STATES to tell woman if they should or shouldn't have abortion(s). I am all for Abortion if a woman feels she can't take care of a life why bring into the world in the first place. accidents do happen sometimes it could be medical, rape or simply an accident regardless of her decision/situation a woman should be able to decide what she wants to do with her self. This country is over populated with children is foster Care facilities or new borns being dumpt in trash cans and children being abuse because men and woman can't take the responsibility. The States already make it hard for American families to adopt children thats why the mayority of Americans go over seas to adopt children because they can't get them thru here. Look at Pailan's Daughter now she is a 18 year old single mom with no future what is that child going to provide the child she has now? I don't see the Gov. steping up and helping her? So next time steele you open your mouth look at the pro's and con's of actually having a child. Not all children are lucky into being adopted. I am sure if you mother would had a choice you wouldn't be here.

Posted by: lizjohnson1231 | March 12, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

JayBird4,

There are intolerant people on all sides, ones propensity for fascist thinking has nothing to do with where they are in the political spectrum of social or economic issues.

Posted by: alex35332 | March 12, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Even though the RNC is in awful shape, and would much rather avoid the public spectacle of an inter-party fight, Michael Steele will not survive the year as RNC Chairman.

He simply lacks the management skills and political prowess to bring the party back to national viability. He'll be gone before Christmas.

Posted by: Irish_Bruin | March 12, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The fun part is going to be the Steele RNC fund raising effort.

No one, I tell you nobody is going to donate what is left of their money to this man's organization.

Stick a fork in Michael Steele, he is done.

Republican plutocrats are leaving him there for one reason: no alternative.

Besides, the Palin family disgrace can't have center stage.


Posted by: shrink2 | March 12, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Fluxgirl, your comments are spoken like a true dyed in the wool liberal Democrat. You liberals are the ones with absolutely no tolerance for the opposing viewpoints, but you love to try and label the republicans that way. Well, Mr. Steels proves you wrong. The republican tent is big enough to handle opposing viewpoints, is the Democratic liberal tent able to do the same?

Posted by: JayBird4 | March 12, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

What is ironic, is that this is probably would be a smart issue for the Republicans to change on if they want to become competitive against the Dems again.

For starters its never been an actual issue just a easy indoctrination issue for political pro's to use to recruit young people. plathman is right, our society has always moved slowly towards a more and more liberal one on social issues and we are getting to the next step, where we can no longer let social conservitivism prohibit the progress of technology and society, which is chiefly responsible for the failing economy.

Posted by: alex35332 | March 12, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Obviously Mr. Steels is not a dyed in the wool conservative. His views are very much liberal on this issue. However, that being said, and I, being strongly pro-life, believe the Republican Party is big enough to allow dissenting individuals under the Republican tent. Ideally, we elect pro-life people into office, but we should be willing to listen to opposing points of view on all issues. Perhaps maybe by listening and being able to speak about abortion we may swing some to the pro-life viewpoint. If not, that should not disqualify them as a Republican. But, I bet you will not see the liberals ever embrace a pro-life candidate. This is a polarizing issue, and the politicians knew it when they made the "Choice" to put this in their political platforms. They wanted to solidfy their base voters. Now, they can't decide how to win back those they have alienated. We do not have to approve of every issue a politician has in order to welcome them into our party. Remember, only Jesus was perfect, and they crucified Him.

Posted by: JayBird4 | March 12, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Republicans are a great illustration of the "hive mentality". They're like the Borg on Star Trek, trying to think the same thoughts, brooking no independent thought whatsoever. Any deviation from that results in chaos.

And that will continue to destroy them. They better obey the all-knowing, all-seeing Rush.

Posted by: fluxgirl | March 12, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

It looks like Steele likes being in the limelight, irrespective of what others think of his utterances. He might even enjoy an old-fashioned public flogging for getting the limelight. Rush Limbaugh may be able to arrange that.

Posted by: samelson1 | March 12, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

NEWS FLASH - Cillizza steps in it too.
Geez Chris, what's this garbage here that you presented us with -
"And, despite Steele's serious of verbal missteps, there remains a willingness to let him prove himself as a fundraiser and tactician in the coming months." ??

I thought you were a serious journalist. Lay off the drugs and get a proof reader, Chris. You scare us when you write articles that even I could write better. Sheesh!

Posted by: mediabeing | March 12, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Steele sounds like a thoughtful politician. He obviously has no future in the leadership of the GOP.

Posted by: cturner3rd | March 12, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Good! Maybe this is yet another nail in the coffin of the ridiculous assertion that the only good Republican is a far-right conservative Republican.

To have to "whisper around" that he is a "CLOSET moderate" is simply stunning in its idiocy, as if "moderate" is such a terrible word. It just goes to prove that an extreme element of the GOP has hijacked the party and is forcing its more sensible members to comply with its agenda.

As nutty as the Democrats can be, I don't see the hardcore lefties running the show, and a majority of Americans seemed to believe the truth that Obama is moderate despite the far right's accusations that he's a socialist (hey, far right, everything looks extreme when you yourself are an extremist!)

Maybe this country is starting to use common sense again realize that "far" anything is bad for America, far right or far left. To be an extremist means alienating a very large group of Americans, and that's simply undemocratic. We need centrist policies that incorporate the best of both the right and left.

So - yap away, Steele. You're just helping pull the curtain back on the so-called Wizard that the GOP pretends to be.

Posted by: JMGinPDX | March 12, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Since the conservative position is smaller government, why is the state government small enough? Wouldn't the individual be better represented on an even smaller level -- say the county or municipal level? And since we're going that far... if the idea is to stop being interfered with by others (the government), how about going all the way and give the choice to the individual? I guess the conservative position is that they can tolerate government of "just right" size.

Posted by: dc3015 | March 12, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

what choice did his mom have? have the baby and give him up for adoption or an illegal back alley abortion that could have killed them both?

Posted by: madest | March 12, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Seems someone didn't explain the rules of the road to Steele. Perhaps a consult with Limbaugh is in order.

Posted by: newporter

LMFAO! What was this guy thinking when he decided to talk before consulting with "Boss Limbaugh"?

Posted by: TheDiplomat | March 12, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Just another 30 watt bulb lighting up the political scene.

Posted by: whocares666 | March 12, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

Wow, what a contortionist -- first he says a woman should have the choice, but then he says the state should have the choice. And now the RNC wants it known that he doesn't believe in choice at all!

Geez, Michael. You're the head of the RNC! The least you can do is get a basic grasp of a basic plank in the GOP platform and articulate it in a basic way. It's not amateur night at the Improv!

This incident reminds me of the wacky Alabama license plates that say "Choose Life!" -- the idiots who get them think they are promoting a "pro-life" view, when in fact they clearly promote a "pro-choice" view.

Posted by: ebrobston | March 12, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

again, the republicans can take their seat next to whigs.

christie todd whitman, michael bloomberg, david "moderate manifesto" brooks, meghan mccain (!) and others will be pushing to cut off the evangelical plank of the platform and will make a push for a new coalition of the upwardly mobile suburban and soon-to-be-suburban (as they marry, have families and want to buy property) young professionals who voted for obama this time around.

just as the division over slavery in the whig party destroyed it, so too will the division over social issues like abortion and gay marriage destroy the GOP.

Posted by: plathman | March 12, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

When The Fix has two posts within a day (this one and http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/03/steeles_rocky_road.html ) on Steele's missteps on the rocky (and perhaps slippery) road, it seems inconsistent to conclude that "the idea that Steele will be ousted from his post any time soon is far-fetched."

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 12, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Seems someone didn't explain the rules of the road to Steele. Perhaps a consult with Limbaugh is in order.

Posted by: newporter | March 12, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Sounds like Steele is having trouble articulating his position on the issue as it relates to what his party wants him to say. It is up to the states to decide if a woman has an individual right to choose? Really? What if, like China, his state imposed the wrong choice on his mother? He would not be here today.

Posted by: newporter | March 12, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Somebody throw some popcorn in the microwave because this is getting good. And make sure the sock in Biden's mouth doesn't come out.

Posted by: BigTunaTim | March 12, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company