I'm certainly not alone in my disappointment of the Republican National Committee and its new Chairman, Michael Steele.* "I think it is very troubling for a public figure, of either party, particularly one who presents himself as pro-life, to describe the abortion issue as being a matter of 'individual choice,'" That is language straight out of Planned Parenthood's messaging playbook," said Charmaine Yoest, the president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action, who said she hadn't heard from the RNC. "There are millions of pro-life Americans, Republican and Democrat, who are looking for leadership on the life issue and they will find Mr. Steele's comments disturbing and demoralizing.
* Ed Morrissey ...However, the problem with Steele isn’t the GQ interview. It’s the fact that he can’t seem to make up his mind and stick with it. Steele seems to have environmentally-dependent political views. When he’s talking with DL Hughley, the Republican Convention looks like a Nazi rally. When he’s talking on TV, Rush Limbaugh is ugly and incendiary. When Steele talks with GQ, he’s pro-choice. And Steele reverses himself with amazing alacrity when speaking in entirely different environments. He appears to have no convictions and no principles when he makes these gyrations on the national stage, as though he stands for nothing but Michael Steele and access to the media spotlight.
I have seen the man speak with conviction and passion at conservative events and leave everyone mightily impressed, but now we have to wonder whether Steele just tailored the message for the audience, as he appears to have done with Hughley and GQ. I don’t necessarily buy that, as he has easier ways to get media air time than being in the Republican Party, but it’s hard not to ask the question these days.
One thing is certain: he’s a lot less media savvy than most of us thought. And since he doesn’t seem to have much skill in organization, we have to ask ourselves why we should support his continued tenure as RNC chair.
* Philip Klein over at American Spectator reminds us of previous Steele bumbling on the matter of abortion (especially a very revealing debate during the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Maryland where Steele "was all over the place on Roe" before finally admitting, "My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.")
Klein then concludes, "The problem with Steele's defenders is that they like the idea of Steele -- i.e., the idea that Steele is going to reach out to moderates. But the reality of Steele is quite different. He is proving himself to be a shape shifter who is trying to please everybody, but in the end delivering a completely muddled message. Ultimately no pro-choice independent or Democrat is going to be more inclined to become a Republican as a result of that GQ interview, because Steele comes off like a bumbling clown who is trying to have it both ways. The mere fact that we have to have a whole debate over what he means demonstrates that he's doing a terrible job at communicating. And lest we forget, communication was supposed to be his strong suit."
Bobby Eberle agrees that Steele's GQ comments on abortion were wacky ("It sounds very much to me like Steele is trying to have it both ways... be a "pro-lifer" but not sound like one. Is it any wonder that some folks out there doubt his conservative credentials?") but he emphasizes quite another fumble Steele made in the interview.
...Even though the abortion comment is the one making news, there was another section of the interview that really grabbed my attention. The comments stemmed from the question, "Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?" Here is Steele's response:
'Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we've created is that we don't give a damn about them or we just outright don't like them. And that's not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we've talked about immigration, the way we've talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that's important to a particular community doesn't engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you've already given off the vibe that you don't care. What I'm trying to do now is to say we do give a damn.'
Ok, I don't even know where to begin. Just look at the first sentence. In order to succeed, is he saying that the Republican Party must be like the Democrats? All the Democrats do is break the country up into interest groups (women, minorities, unions, etc.), tell them they are oppressed, and offer to fix "their" problems. That is NOT the way of the Republican Party. We are the party of opportunity for all because our values apply to all.... Not one group over another group... but all Americans moving forward to the best of their abilities.
And then there is the statement: "I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that's important to a particular community doesn't engender confidence in your leadership by that community." I'm not sure if he's talking about the immigration issue or what, but the "holier-than-thou" comment is offensive to me. Standing up against illegal immigration is the right thing to do. If it offends people, then we need to do a better job of explaining the issue... not changing our beliefs so that we can attract a particular group. Come on! We either stand up for what we believe in, or we might as well join the Democrats.
Republicans win by sticking to their core beliefs. We win when we can articulate those beliefs and show how they benefit the entire country (not one group or another). We win with conservative government and a respect for the hard work put forward by all Americans. It's a simple formula, and we need that message to be delivered by our leader...
* And finally, here's the take on Michael Steele from Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (aka "Joe the Plumber"), “Unfortunately we have a chairman up there who wants to redefine conservatism; he wants to make it hip-hop, put it in a new package and sell it...You can’t sell principles. Either you have them or you don’t.”
