Friday, September 25, 2009

An Absolute Disaster
GOP Chairman Michael Steele

I had such high hopes for former Lt. Governor Steele. Turns out he's just another RepubliCrat. And how sad he places political expediency above core values, both religious and secular (don't forget, Steele claims to be Catholic.)

If the likes of Michael Steele are at the forefront of the next Reagan Revolution, we in the Conservative Movement can count on getting our ass handed to us in the upcoming elections. Here's some of the article from LifeSiteNews.com; (Emphasis and comments mine)

Chairman Steele Says Pro-Abortion Candidates "Absolutely" Welcomed by GOP

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 22, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has again cast doubt on his professed loyalty to the pro-life movement by saying he "absolutely" believes there is room for a pro-abortion candidate in the GOP.
(Shades of McCain.)

Steele told the newspaper that a Republican candidate's view on legal protection for unborn children should reflect the views of their local constituencies. (IE: abortion in conservative areas is bad - abortion in liberal areas is good.) The GOP chair was then asked if there is room in the party for a pro-abortion candidate such as Steve Stivers of Ohio's 15th district, who is favored to win the Republican nomination next year. (There's a phrase for guys like Steve Stivers -- fiscally conservative Democrats. We had our fill of those idiots in 2008. And we see just how great the Republican Party did with those clowns. What's it take for the honchos in the Republican Party to realize that pro-abortion candidates are a recipe for disaster?)

"There absolutely is, there absolutely is," said Steele. ("There absolutely is *a back-stabbing happening*, there absolutely is.)

"The key thing right now - and I think this is true for Republicans across the country - is to have leadership that reflects the communities I live in, where we're from," he continued. "As we get ready for the battles that lie ahead from this district to all the districts surrounding the state, that you're going to find those candidates emerge and rise up who reflect those values in those communities, and that's a very important step for the party to take, I think, and I'm looking forward to help lead that charge in the future." (Kinda hard to change a damn thing if we keep murdering the future electorate.)

15 Comments:

Blogger Al said...

Given this isn't the 1st time he said this, I am not surprized. I gave up on him after the 1st time & the wishy washy way he handled the backlash then.

(sarcasm on) So, does this make me racist, or does that only apply to opposing Obama? (sarcasm off)

7:45 AM  
Blogger Simplex Vir said...

I hate to say that I told you so, but I told you so. None of these ingrates will be bold they fear that they will not be accepted and will lose votes.

You will find that your other favorite Jindal will fall victim to the same thing. When you believe the only answer is being all things to all people you are doomed.

No hope in the Republican Party.

8:06 AM  
Blogger Kathreja said...

Steele went through and fired 90% of the ppl at the RNC.

11:49 AM  
Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

we in the Conservative Movement

I don't think the Republican Party has been conservative since the beginning of George Bush Sr.'s administration. Even under Reagan, except perhaps for Reagan himself, the Republican Party had a strong centrist to moderately just a touch left of center orientation. The Reagan Administration surely spend money as if they were Democrats! (but not as much as "O" has done so far.)

The best one could call the Republican Party is a combination of neo-conservatives (not really conservatives) and moderates (centrist "sort of" to a little left of center).

Remember, Slick Willy was a fiscal conservative, although he had to be due to the House and Senate being under Republican control that itself was not all that conservative but perhaps a bit more neo-conservative than moderate.

The Republicans have yet to bring something concrete to the table to counter "O" and his boys for the upcoming mid-term elections. Even so, I do not see much difference in national policies re: medical care, war, other foreign policies, abortion, euthanasia, the "marriage" issue, etc., if Republicans are reasonably successful in the mid-term elections, or Democrats remain the party in "full control" of the Federal Government's Executive and Legislative branches.

Sorry! Just being my customary pessimist . . . or is it realist? *sick grin*

12:09 PM  
Blogger Athos said...

That is why I posted this.

3:41 PM  
Blogger Confiteor said...

Adeo -

While I share your sentiment, I am sorry I cannot agree. There is absolutely no comparison between the Republican party and the complete and utter lunatics in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency right now. Say what you want about the Republicans by and large being a Liberal party, I would certainly tend to agree with you, but the moderate Liberalism of the Republican party is nothing compared to the militant Marxism of the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Emmanuel, Castro, Chavez, et al. And I include Castro and Chavez because that is akin to who Obama and Pelosi and Reid are.

Please, some perspective is needed. The Republicans are a bunch of RINO's for sure and they by and large are corrupted by Washington politics as well, but they most certainly do not pose the real and present danger to the livelihood, security, and liberty of every American man, woman and child that Obama and the dems do.

We are not dealing with your granddaddy's Democrat party here. We are dealing with true Leninists. True ideologue's. Obama for one reminds me of the character Sasha in Doctor Zhivago. Specifically the Sasha you meet when Yuri meets him face to face on the train. His eyes burn with the fire of hate for all that gets in the way of achieving the communist end. Individuals are nothing but statistics to these people!!


And as for Reagan, it is too simplistic to say that either he was a spender or that Clinton was a fiscal conservative. For one thing, Reagan had a Democrat Congress to contend with. Which I remind you is the body that holds the purse strings. Even with a Democrat Congress Reagan succeeded in decreasing discretionary socialist spending. It was the defense budget that went up and that was all a part of Reagan's lifelong mission which was to defeat the communist threat. Specifically the Soviet threat. And the man succeeded. In this conservatives humble opinion it was money well worth spending.

Clinton's fiscal conservatism was not so much conservatism as it was being bound by a Republican Congress, his ability to slash the defense budget in half due to no more official Cold War, and the unprecedented level of tax revenue coming into the treasury due to the strong '90's economy which was in large part brought about by the Reagan government reforms of the 1980's.

3:42 PM  
Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

While I share your sentiment, I am sorry I cannot agree. There is absolutely no comparison between the Republican party and the complete and utter lunatics in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency right now.

I never said the two parties were equivalent, but that the Republicans do not seem to be bringing something to the table in the forthcoming mid-term elections to fix this mess. Yes, Clinton's "fiscal conservatism" was due to being bound-in by a Republican controlled House & Senate, not due to an ideology he personally held. I thought I said that.

The Reagan Administration's deficit spending was due to the military threat, or as I like to perceive it, to drive the Soviet Union to economic ruin, which it did. I never stated that he basically was like the Democrats. The post-elder Bush administration's turn-around in the economy, for which Clinton took credit that justifiably belonged to Reagan's policies, off-set Republican spending and then some.

I have never voted Democrat and never will. In the past, my vote for the Republicans--not all the time mind you--was more a vote against that wacky party (Democrats) than a vote of confidence in a party (the Republicans) that was not all that conservative in my view. The Republicans surely paid lip service to conservatism, though!

The Republicans may not be the disaster that the Democratic Party is becoming, but the Republicans have a long, long way to go before they will return to the historic principles they embraced pre-Franklin Roosevelt.

It will be interesting to see if the recent nationally prominent Tea Parties lead to something revolutionary in the electoral sense.

4:27 PM  
Blogger Confiteor said...

Adeo -

Thanks for the clarifications. I agree.

10:00 PM  
Blogger Arkanabar T'verrick Ilarsadin said...

Ha! The Republican Party has not been reliably fiscally conservative since Abraham Lincoln. Bear in mind that he was willing to tolerate slavery, but he was not in any way going to let the South evade his outrageous excise taxes, with which he planned to subsidize Big Businesses in the north.

10:35 PM  
Blogger Former Altar Boy said...

Don't confuse conservative with Republican. Most GOP politicians are NOT conservative (esp.with our money!).

11:31 PM  
Blogger Greta said...

Until something changes, pro life catholics have to do everything possible to keep democrats from office for it is not just candidates, but the party platform to kill babies and work to destroy marriage between one man and one woman. It is widely understood that those who did not vote or voted for third party who would normally vote for republicans gave us Obama. That is a fact.


I grow weary of waiting for the perfect party which only has pro life candidates in all positions and unless this happens, gives election to the democrats. The democrats today are to our country what hitler was to the germans complete with their very own holocaust. Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Reid, and others who call themselves catholic and vote against church teaching dominate the landscape. If however, we have a state that will never give us a pro life win, by holding the seat to the republican party, we keep majorities on the committees and we now see how much that means for all legislation. by keeping them under 60, we prevent what they are trying to do now.

Yes it would be wonderful and every effort should be made to get candidates that are truly and solidly pro life and pro marriage as well as fiscally conservative, but we must unite to stop the democrats forever.

11:55 PM  
Blogger Simplex Vir said...

Once more I will say with the following "example".

If I am a zookeeper (republican) and it is my job to keep the tigers (leftist dems) cages because they will destroy the public and I keep leaving the cage unlocked because I want to be friendly to the tiger....Then the zookeeper is the real problem and should be fired.

5:39 AM  
Blogger JLS said...

Wrong, Greta; what gave us Obama was the public who craves to do evil in the sight of the Lord. On political terms, it is always the moderates (republicans) who pave the way for the radicals (commies). Sixteen years of Republican Congress with twelve years Republican President ... all self sacrificing pro-life ... made no change in the abortion rate, brought us closer to the homosexual vision of society, and made conditions ripe for a communist takeover: which is where we're at. The Republicans did not stop the commies, and they will not stop them because they too are run by the commies. If it weren't so, then why did they pull the financial rug out from under Bob Dornan so that the corrupt feminazicommie wretch could take his seat? No, Greta, the GOP is not friendly to the Church, nor to Prolife ... they allow a token number of serious prolifers in Congress and lip service presidents from time to time ... you will not ever see abortion stopped by the Republicans, ever.

11:32 AM  
Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

Sounds like revolution is in order.

8:30 PM  
Blogger Green said...

JLS. I would like to see a solution put forth that has any possibility of success. We have a two party system and that will not change in the next 50 years. It is either the republicans or democrats in power. That is your choice. If you are pro life, you can say that it makes no difference but to that I would say the changes in the few months of Obama put a lie to that as many of the policies of Bush have been changed. With healthcare reform and almost anything else, life issues in the hands of democrats will go toward abortion.

In every other way, the democrats answer to problems is more government even as we all know government does not do a single thing well and certainly not cost effectively. We will soon face high unemployment, high inflation, and begin to approach the days of Jimmy Carter. If you were not around, you have not seen since that time anything like what Carter created.

So as I say, we can moan about the republicans and we can fight to change them, but not voting or throwing a vote toward a candidate or third party with no hope of success only aids in putting the evil democrat party in power.

1:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home