Ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem. After describing new RNC Chair Michael Steele as “a conservative” in previous articles, FOX News now says
he was “the most moderate” candidate running for the post!
From Fox:
“Steele was elected…Friday, defeating the incumbent…and three other challengers over six rounds of voting…”This is awesome,” said Steele, the most moderate candidate in the field. Steele, who had been considered an outsider by some because he was not a committee member, struck a tone of inclusiveness in his brief acceptance speech Friday. “We’re going to say to friend and foe alike: We want you to be a part of us, we want you to with be with us, and for those who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over.”
Why on earth would 168 leading republicans in the RNC pick “the most moderate candidate” after such a huge defeat of the centrist, moderate McCainiac’s Disease in 2008?
What exactly does a “tone of inclusiveness” mean?
It sounds like ignoring conservatives and
expanding the party by moving to the left. We’re all for including people and growing this party based on strong traditional conservative American principles. That’s the way to grow. You stand firm in your beliefs, show true conservative leadership. According to the Wall Street Journal, it doesn’t sound like that’s the direction the republicans have taken with this move. Steele says he is a conservative (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lV1R1qG9BI). Steele says he’s going to say to both friend
and foe that the republican party wants you “to be part of us.” Huh?
Why in the holy freaking crap would you want your FOE to be PART OF YOU? This sounds like nonsense.
So what does Steele’s
stern warning; “
for those who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over” mean? Is he suggesting that “inclusiveness” doesn’t include you and I? Just because Steele is Sean Hannity’s pal doesn’t mean he’s a conservative.
The failing party of 2008,
which failed because it abandoned conservatives, may plan to guide the ship further left…even though it is taking on water. There is a very good reason this site is not called “RepublicanAmerican.org.” The party must show, with actions, that it wants to move back to the right. To the contrary, some republican “leaders” think the clear message to them was to move to the political center. Conservatives
Saul Anuzis and
Ken Blackwell were not able to gain any steam during the six ballots it took to find a winner. No wonder
Rush Limbaugh says he’s no longer a republican.
The
Wall Street Journal also says the
Steele pick may be a hard move to the left, writing:
“GOP leaders sought to broaden the battered party’s ideological and regional appeal beyond its conservative, Southern base…His moderate views and charisma could help the party combat the impression that it is insensitive to minorities, working people and those with divergent views on social and economic issues. He’s also likely to bring more openness and diversity to the RNC.”
If he’s so conservative, why does everyone describe him as a moderate? What about his membership in the moderate “Republican Leadership Council?” As conservative Americans, the republican party hasn’t been our home for years.
What do you think? Do you think that will change with Steele?
This entry was posted
on Sunday, February 1st, 2009 at 1:35 pm and is filed under Conservatives, Michael Steele, Republicans.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
View Comments & Add Yours, or trackback from your own site.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem. After describing new RNC Chair Michael Steele as “a conservative” in previous articles, FOX News now says he was “the most moderate” candidate running for the post!
From Fox: “Steele was elected…Friday, defeating the incumbent…and three other challengers over six rounds of voting…”This is awesome,” said Steele, the most moderate candidate in the field. Steele, who had been considered an outsider by some because he was not a committee member, struck a tone of inclusiveness in his brief acceptance speech Friday. “We’re going to say to friend and foe alike: We want you to be a part of us, we want you to with be with us, and for those who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over.”
Why on earth would 168 leading republicans in the RNC pick “the most moderate candidate” after such a huge defeat of the centrist, moderate McCainiac’s Disease in 2008?
What exactly does a “tone of inclusiveness” mean? It sounds like ignoring conservatives and expanding the party by moving to the left. We’re all for including people and growing this party based on strong traditional conservative American principles. That’s the way to grow. You stand firm in your beliefs, show true conservative leadership. According to the Wall Street Journal, it doesn’t sound like that’s the direction the republicans have taken with this move. Steele says he is a conservative (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lV1R1qG9BI). Steele says he’s going to say to both friend and foe that the republican party wants you “to be part of us.” Huh? Why in the holy freaking crap would you want your FOE to be PART OF YOU? This sounds like nonsense.
So what does Steele’s stern warning; “for those who wish to obstruct, get ready to get knocked over” mean? Is he suggesting that “inclusiveness” doesn’t include you and I? Just because Steele is Sean Hannity’s pal doesn’t mean he’s a conservative.
The failing party of 2008, which failed because it abandoned conservatives, may plan to guide the ship further left…even though it is taking on water. There is a very good reason this site is not called “RepublicanAmerican.org.” The party must show, with actions, that it wants to move back to the right. To the contrary, some republican “leaders” think the clear message to them was to move to the political center. Conservatives Saul Anuzis and Ken Blackwell were not able to gain any steam during the six ballots it took to find a winner. No wonder Rush Limbaugh says he’s no longer a republican.
The Wall Street Journal also says the Steele pick may be a hard move to the left, writing: “GOP leaders sought to broaden the battered party’s ideological and regional appeal beyond its conservative, Southern base…His moderate views and charisma could help the party combat the impression that it is insensitive to minorities, working people and those with divergent views on social and economic issues. He’s also likely to bring more openness and diversity to the RNC.”
If he’s so conservative, why does everyone describe him as a moderate? What about his membership in the moderate “Republican Leadership Council?” As conservative Americans, the republican party hasn’t been our home for years. What do you think? Do you think that will change with Steele?
February 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
You’re dead wrong. Watch his interview on Hannity. He’s conservative. He will court the conservative base. Nonetheless, he recognizes the RNC needs independents, African Americans, etc., but, unlike McCain, he doesn’t believe the RNC needs to abondon conservatism to appeal to them. You jumped the gun on this.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I left the Republican Party (or it left me) around 2004. That’s when I pulled the Bush/Cheney sticker off my SUV. I have only identified myself as a conservative when asked for political affiliation and have refused to attend any GOP fundraisers. The two RINO’s from TN, Alexander and Corker are exactly the type of Republicans which made me into one of the “unaffiliated” voters that feel disenfranchised by the GOP. I’m a conservative and I have nowhere to go. How many elections do they have to lose before they realize they need their conservative base?
February 1st, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Jason,
Thanks for the comment and for visiting. Steele calls himself a conservative. Actions speak louder than words and his membership in the centrist “Republican Leadership Council,” also calls into question just how conservative he is. Time will tell. Again, thanks. You’re always welcome here.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Let’s hope Jason is right. Here is the vid he was probably talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lV1R1qG9BI
February 1st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
I watched a different video, where he contradicted what he said on Hannity. When he tries to make the good guys out to be the bad guys, well, something is wrong with this picture. I just don’t feel included in his strive for inclusiveness. Listen for yourself:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&media-id=3301&video-id=1022&video-title=Conservatism_20_-_Dec_17th_-_Michael_Steele&series-name=PJTV_Daily