This is getting a little frustrating for us ordinary, run of the mill,
fly over country, conservative type folks. A guy talks the talk, walks
the walk, gets up in the ranks and then takes a powder. Come on - what
ever happened to principled leadership?
I thought the reason for taking on the role of leader was to provide real direction and restate the principles of the party in a way that both encouraged the base, energized those who have to do the heavy lifting and inspire the onlookers so as to attract those who could benefit from the collaboration.
Lets start by being candid and admitting full disclosure. I have known Mike Steele though the years and thought him to be a rising star. In a world that seemed punctuated by blandness, he offered an opportunity for the Republican Party to challenge certain stereotypes and to invite a new generation of Americans to explore the ideas of real independence, respect for the rule of law and most importantly in my book, respect for the sanctity of every human life.
So Michael Steele is elected to run the Republican Party after a very interesting race. My preferred candidate was another friend, Ken Blackwell, but when Steele seemed to have the momentum during the balloting, Blackwell apparently threw his support to Mike.
So Mike has his little exchange with Rush. OK, call it trying to assert his role. Not very bright in my book, but I will give him a pass. After all some of it was the press and some of it was inarticulate comments.
But the interview wit GQ reveals a very different Michael Steele than the one I knew and spoke with on different occasions Indeed if I did not know better, and perhaps this may be the heart of the problem, it would seem that someone took him into the back room and told him to box up all that pro-life rhetoric and respect for marriage lingo. Here is the new script. And being the political person he is....
Is that the case?
I thought the reason for taking on the role of leader was to provide real direction and restate the principles of the party in a way that both encouraged the base, energized those who have to do the heavy lifting and inspire the onlookers so as to attract those who could benefit from the collaboration.
Lets start by being candid and admitting full disclosure. I have known Mike Steele though the years and thought him to be a rising star. In a world that seemed punctuated by blandness, he offered an opportunity for the Republican Party to challenge certain stereotypes and to invite a new generation of Americans to explore the ideas of real independence, respect for the rule of law and most importantly in my book, respect for the sanctity of every human life.
So Michael Steele is elected to run the Republican Party after a very interesting race. My preferred candidate was another friend, Ken Blackwell, but when Steele seemed to have the momentum during the balloting, Blackwell apparently threw his support to Mike.
So Mike has his little exchange with Rush. OK, call it trying to assert his role. Not very bright in my book, but I will give him a pass. After all some of it was the press and some of it was inarticulate comments.
But the interview wit GQ reveals a very different Michael Steele than the one I knew and spoke with on different occasions Indeed if I did not know better, and perhaps this may be the heart of the problem, it would seem that someone took him into the back room and told him to box up all that pro-life rhetoric and respect for marriage lingo. Here is the new script. And being the political person he is....
Is that the case?
His
comments are totally inconsistent what i always understood him to
believe, with the party platform and with 28 years of what the
grassroots have held to be a very important part of the reason for the
modern existence of the party. Now I know that some fiscal
conservatives and some national defense folks do not like to hear this
but the Republican Party would never have been able to win the
presidency over the last 28 years without the right to life. Yet the
right to life has never been given the proper respect within the party
and the media has always despised us for not being good little comrades
and going quietly away after Roe v. Wade was decided. After all old
Walter Cronkite and his cronies were the new philosopher kings, ready
to join the elites in Washington to rule the country. Our duty was to
pay the taxes, watch the junk on TV, buy the consumer goods, and shut
up.
The problem is that we in the pro-life movement are never going away.
The Republican Party did not lose the last election because it mentioned the pro-life issue. It lost because it did not mention the issue enough. It lost because Republicans did not tell the American people how dangerously leftist this president would be. And Republicans failed to address the real underlying problems in American society that parents of every political stripe, race, and economic level are facing - the deterioration of the family, the failure of education, the loss of safety in the neighborhood. Republicans also failed to own up to their own responsibility in the bloated spending in Washington when they were in power. Even now Republicans are abandoning principles to bring home pork when the country is broke.
Economic uncertainty and the law of political averages were against John McCain in 2008. But with everything that the Democrats had going for them, a compliant media, a jittery economy, and a young attractive protagonist with a great organization, McCain was not blown out. Yet the Democrats were able to negate the hot button issues and have everyone believe that the 'hope and change' candidate would turn the country around.
Now we are seeing that his agenda is not about helping the country out of the economic mess created by our selfish narcissistic ways and government regulatory intervention. He intends to destroy what is left. Efforts continue to pit one group of Americans against another despite all the rhetoric about unity.
Against this backdrop the Republicans elect a young fresh face who should be able to articulate compassionately (I know it is a bad word in some circles) the real concerns that the Republican party is suppose to have toward all of the segments of society. However this concern must start with our respect for the dignity of the human person. It starts with respect for the right tot life.
Can you imagine him floating the idea of "choice" for any other evil in our history?
I have compassion for the women facing an unintended pregnancy. I have listened to and counseled countless women who found themselves pregnant and did not want to be.
But there can be no morally correct "choice" to kill another innocent human being.
People in favor of abortion, be they conservative or liberal on the political spectrum, seem to think that a person can make this decision. This mentality is quite similar to the mentality that supported the institution of slavery on this continent for 250 years. This mentality is responsible for the ghetto schools and barrio schools that plague our inner cities. This mentality is what perpetuates the stereotypes and the prejudice among the races and the classes.
No one wants to look at the scientific or medical evidence that screams humanity within the womb. No one wants to look at the unborn child lest they look in the mirror and see their own face. NBC would not put on an innocuous commercial because they know it would affect the public's attitude on the subject.
And now Michale Steele is embracing the word "choice." Was he trying to be cute or profound and say "I am for choice. I want the babies to have a choice." If so he missed an opportunity to explain why we have a platform position that wants to give every child a right to life.
Why is is so difficult for politicians to explain this position?
Are they really not that bright?
If the Republican Party intend to get out of the hole it has found itself, it can only do so in conjunction with the efforts of people who believe in respect for the human person. It is not about money and power. It is about the life principles upon which this country was founded. Unless it believes in the principles of limited government founded upon the integrity of the individual, its all over. The socialists who promised the selfish the world will end the freedom we have known and lay upon our children a burden too scary to describe.
As for Michael Steele, he needs to retract his statements immediately. Perhaps he was taking some bad advice. But this lapse in judgment is not good. He needs to look in the mirror and figure out whether the unborn children are a part of his vision. If not, he may need to step down so that someone who is able explain to the American people what it means to be pro-life can get in there and be the party chairman.
And I have not even touched upon the other hot button issue. But enough for one post.
Cross-posted: Jacubczyk on Life
The problem is that we in the pro-life movement are never going away.
The Republican Party did not lose the last election because it mentioned the pro-life issue. It lost because it did not mention the issue enough. It lost because Republicans did not tell the American people how dangerously leftist this president would be. And Republicans failed to address the real underlying problems in American society that parents of every political stripe, race, and economic level are facing - the deterioration of the family, the failure of education, the loss of safety in the neighborhood. Republicans also failed to own up to their own responsibility in the bloated spending in Washington when they were in power. Even now Republicans are abandoning principles to bring home pork when the country is broke.
Economic uncertainty and the law of political averages were against John McCain in 2008. But with everything that the Democrats had going for them, a compliant media, a jittery economy, and a young attractive protagonist with a great organization, McCain was not blown out. Yet the Democrats were able to negate the hot button issues and have everyone believe that the 'hope and change' candidate would turn the country around.
Now we are seeing that his agenda is not about helping the country out of the economic mess created by our selfish narcissistic ways and government regulatory intervention. He intends to destroy what is left. Efforts continue to pit one group of Americans against another despite all the rhetoric about unity.
Against this backdrop the Republicans elect a young fresh face who should be able to articulate compassionately (I know it is a bad word in some circles) the real concerns that the Republican party is suppose to have toward all of the segments of society. However this concern must start with our respect for the dignity of the human person. It starts with respect for the right tot life.
Can you imagine him floating the idea of "choice" for any other evil in our history?
I have compassion for the women facing an unintended pregnancy. I have listened to and counseled countless women who found themselves pregnant and did not want to be.
But there can be no morally correct "choice" to kill another innocent human being.
People in favor of abortion, be they conservative or liberal on the political spectrum, seem to think that a person can make this decision. This mentality is quite similar to the mentality that supported the institution of slavery on this continent for 250 years. This mentality is responsible for the ghetto schools and barrio schools that plague our inner cities. This mentality is what perpetuates the stereotypes and the prejudice among the races and the classes.
No one wants to look at the scientific or medical evidence that screams humanity within the womb. No one wants to look at the unborn child lest they look in the mirror and see their own face. NBC would not put on an innocuous commercial because they know it would affect the public's attitude on the subject.
And now Michale Steele is embracing the word "choice." Was he trying to be cute or profound and say "I am for choice. I want the babies to have a choice." If so he missed an opportunity to explain why we have a platform position that wants to give every child a right to life.
Why is is so difficult for politicians to explain this position?
Are they really not that bright?
If the Republican Party intend to get out of the hole it has found itself, it can only do so in conjunction with the efforts of people who believe in respect for the human person. It is not about money and power. It is about the life principles upon which this country was founded. Unless it believes in the principles of limited government founded upon the integrity of the individual, its all over. The socialists who promised the selfish the world will end the freedom we have known and lay upon our children a burden too scary to describe.
As for Michael Steele, he needs to retract his statements immediately. Perhaps he was taking some bad advice. But this lapse in judgment is not good. He needs to look in the mirror and figure out whether the unborn children are a part of his vision. If not, he may need to step down so that someone who is able explain to the American people what it means to be pro-life can get in there and be the party chairman.
And I have not even touched upon the other hot button issue. But enough for one post.
Cross-posted: Jacubczyk on Life
Talk Back - leave a comment