Steele Back in Hot Water

"He does now he's the head of the RNC, right?"
.
Now? Know?

He does now he's the head of the RNC, right?
.
Jay Newton-Small:
.
Did he not say these things publicly before he became head of the RNC?
.
Or is this a typo?

The infallible rule of the internet-If you write mocking someone's grammar, syntax or spelling you will make a similar mistake within minutes.

yes, he said them after becoming chairman
.
Thank you for fixing/responding, etc, Jay Newton-Small.
.
I understand that the piece leads with "after he started" at the RNC, I'm talking about before.
.
Has he always been a social centrist (as opposed to a social conservative)? Has he said anything like this before he became chairman, to your knowledge?

While I find his rather public self-destruction fairly humerous, I must say this is very emblematic of the GOP's short-sighted policies and decision-making capabilities. That is, they picked a 'charismatic black guy' to respond to Obama's election as opposed to, say, a 'qualified organization-minded administrator with good PR sense' to rebuild the party.
.
There is a HUGE difference between having raw charisma and knowing how to manage the media.
.
Although there was a theory advanced on one of the pundit shows that may up the GOP's judgement in my eyes (while simultaneously shooting their cynicism quotient through the roof): they advance the 'minority' chairman, set him up to fail, then swoop in with their Standard Old White Guy and throw up their arms saying "we tried!"
At least in that scenario they actually knew what they were getting into; otherwise their selection of Steele has been an utter "what were they thinking" moment.

At least in that scenario they actually knew what they were getting into; otherwise their selection of Steele has been an utter "what were they thinking" moment.
.
Pretty much every moment since at least mid-September has been a "what were they thinking?" moment for the Republicans.

Here's a question for everyone. What does not recognizing the individual right to control your own body have to do with insisting that government spending is evil? How did allowing corporations unfettered freedom get joined atthe hip to denying individuals the same freedom?
.
Why are the platforms of both major US political parties morally incoherent and why are there so few people who seem to notice?
.
Just curious.....

People seem to assume that this interview was a gaffe from Steele, but just maybe he's smart enough to recognize that the GOP has to distance itself from social conservatives if it is going to be able to attract "moderate" voters with its "tax and spend Democrats" argument.
_
Much as the "Democratic" base has nowhere to go despite being appalled with DINO control of the House and Senate, social conservatives aren't going to vote for Democrats anyway... and being from Maryland, Steele knows this from personal experience.

It's hard to imagine Steele lasting as the chair of the RNC. Some of his views on inclusiveness might be a part of the future of the republican party, but it doesn't seem to be a good fit with the party as it is currently configured. Pro choice, tolerance of gays and hip hop? Isn't that three strikes and you're out? I wonder how many southern conservatives think Snoop Dogg is a spyware program developed by Homeland Security.

PD,
-
The platforms are morally incoherent for two main reasons:
1) People are morally incoherent and like having lots of inconsistencies in their beliefs to suit their own biases and prejudgements. (i.e. welfare for middle class homeowners is ok, for poor and unemployed, not so much) Political parties want people to vote for them, so they in turn adopt morally incoherent positions.
-
2) No party intellectual on either side even tries to start from a serious moral and ethical worldview then work outwards to their policies from there. Buckley sort of tried this back in the fifties, with a Burkean perspective, but was defined as much by what he was against as what he was for. Obama strikes me as the type who has seriously and honestly confronted this type of intellectual journey, but it'll be a few years before we know how much, if at all, that personal discovery influences his politics/policies.

Time was, your average Republican would have been down with Sinatra and Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr, but that time is long past.

If, otoh, Steele had misidentified the Oak Ridge Boys, there might have been a problem.

PD, in an abortion, you are deciding what to do with somebody else's body as well as your own.
.
As for Steele, he's already retracted his statement and pronounced support for the Human Life Amendment. He can still save himself. He just needs to THINK A LITTLE. THINK, Steele, THINK. Then go on TV. Great Scott, shouldn't that be obvious these days?

"And I always thought Snoop Dogg was—he just reminded me of the fellas back home."
.
Steele grew up among the Nation of Islam? Who knew? How does that compare with your Vietnam-era radical conspiracy, Mandrake?

pluk: It might be a good indicator, and maybe Steele is smart enough to recognize the need to grow the party via inclusiveness--his less-than-shining attempts at message communication seem to tack along those lines--but when you're constantly forced to retract your own statements not 24 hours later (as he's already done with the abortion thing, and Rush)...well, you wind up with a net negative in terms of ground gained.
.
It's unfortunate, since the GOP does have some good and valid points on governance when they aren't taken to their Nth degree. However, in their current incarnation there is just so much toxic waste being spewn by the party that they are just absolutely tainted. Its an intellectual turnoff, and probably one of the single largest reasons for their repelling younger and nonwhite voters.

I agree with those that think that if the GOP wants to become competitive in purple and blue states then it needs to remove being pro-choice as a third rail issue. I understand if the party as a whole wishes to present that as the "official" stance of the party, but it seems as if the GOP has been losing moderates for a long time now. In the last election the GOP lost its last rep in all of New England, and yet many continue to believe that not being conservative enough was the problem.

I don't actually think that Steele needs to move the Republicans from social conservatism to the social center, because there are distinct regions of this country with huge populations that support social conservatism as a bulwark against the cultural hegemony of the more populous and heterogeneously populated regions.
.
What Steele needs to do is convince people like Jay Newton-Small that he's one of them before he can credibly convince them that a majority of people (with whom they have very, very little experience) nationally, i.e. "The American People" are as socially conservative as the geographic regions the Republicans represent. Elite consensus at the moment is that this is no longer the case, but that can change back again.

Better reporting on Mike Steele can be found here.
.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/12/steele-pro-life/

you are deciding what to do with somebody else's body as well as your own
.
That doesn't begin to explain the gay-bashing, the objection to birth control, the objection to sex-ed and the basic desire to insure that everyone shares their misery. The people who object to abortion the loudest have absolutely zero regard for the fate of the blastocyst and are motivated entirely by the 'ick factor' that comes from imagining other people's sexual activity.
.
The minority of people about whom what I just said is false, don't suffer from the moral inconsistency I'm complaining about. They are rare.

uhasan, I'm one of the ones who thinks that the GOP is losing because we're not sticking to core principles.
.
1) GOP Principle: lower government spending. Right. Yes, it's a time of crisis...but if they had just spent the money more wisely...darn you, Paulson. >_<
.
Then there's the earmarks and the great Republican corruption festival circa 2006. Yup.
.
2) GOP Principle: less government intrusion. While I'm pro-life, there's not many ways you can defend anti-gay marriage.
.
3) GOP principle: strong national defense. As our military is still overstretched, and was on the verge of defeat not too far back thanks to asinine war planning, this is a bit of a kicker. In fact, if the Iraq War had gone smoothly, the current President might have been different.

PD, it's a tangled web and there's a lot of different motivations. And yes, what you said probably applies to the most annoying social cons...the kind that hire gay prostitutes in their spare time, etc.
.
Some problems with sex ed stem from the assumption that abstinence doesn't really have a place in the curriculum, or giving sex ed too early. I consider those are legitimate concerns. The rest of the reasons are usually crap.

Oops. The 'are' is not supposed to be there...

Why is Steele on the hot seat? Did everyone forget when Governor Palin made the same statement in one of her TV interviews? Yet all the Republicans were so giddy about her, they completely missed the statement.

The Republicans have for a long time played fast and loose with the abortion issue. I don't think they were even anti-abortion in their 1976 platform. They like to keep the issue alive, because they can attract the votes of those who would not vote Republican based on any other issue. However, they are happy that Roe v. Wade has not been overturned and abortion made illegal, because women would turn against the Republican party in droves. So they continue to offer lip service to the issue in order to get votes.

Yoshi,
.
Sounds like a description of "Eisenhower Republicans," a phenomenon I'm just barely old enough to remember. They were (are) people with whom one could have a reasonable discussion in the face of ideological differences. The three point you mention above are perfect examples.

"points," plural. Cringe.