Watch on C-SPAN or c-span.org. Updated as I’m able…
My first thoughts: whoever becomes chairman, can we please have a co-chairwoman who is younger than John McCain?
10:47 – Blackwell is officially nominated by the Oklahoma state party chairman.
10:53 – Steele is officially nominated by a committewoman from Maryland.
10:56 – Duncan is officially nominated by the Iowa state party chairman.
11:01 – Dawson is officially nominated by a committeeman from South Carolina.
11:07 – Anuzis is officially nominated by a committeeman from Michigan.
11:15 – Nominations are closed. Fifteen minutes between ballots.
11:32 – Finally, first ballots are handed out.
11:53 – The ballots are being counted. Watching these proceedings is rather painful.
FIRST BALLOT TOTALS
The rules say nobody is ever obligated to drop or be dropped from the ballot, so technically speaking the vote totals could be the same on future ballots. That will probably not be the case, however. Duncan’s support came in much lower than expected (to audible gasps from the audience, according to NRO), so most of his supporters will probably move to other candidates now.
12:33 – The second round of balloting is being collected.
SECOND BALLOT TOTALS
THIRD BALLOT TOTALS
2:14 – RNC Chairman Mike Duncan officially withdraws his name from contention, ending his bid for re-election.
FOURTH BALLOT TOTALS
3:05 – Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell withdraws, putting his support behind Michael Steele.
FIFTH BALLOT TOTALS
3:30 – Michigan Chairman Saul Anuzis steps aside; does not endorse either of the two finalists.
SIXTH BALLOT TOTALS
Congratulations to Michael Steele!
January 30th, 2009 at 11:01 am
The new Iowa chair in nominating the RE-election as Chair called him
“The Change we Need”
I am glad he is not my state Chair
January 30th, 2009 at 11:02 am
That should say “In nominating Duncan for Re-Election”
January 30th, 2009 at 11:02 am
IS any BODY WATCHING this I CAN”T BELIEVE THIS THEY ARE kissing up to Duncan big time! Dunncan is Change for the RNC?
January 30th, 2009 at 11:05 am
DO WORDS MEAN NOTHING???
January 30th, 2009 at 11:09 am
How is it even possible for “The Change we Need” to come from the incumbent?
January 30th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Duncan is better than Dawson. That’s all I can say.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:16 am
GOPAC is a shadow under Steele of what is what when Newt orgaized it.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Steele > … God, which one is second-worst?
God, I’m almost tempted to say I’d prefer Duncan re-elected than have any of the rest of those half-wits and quarter-wits fronting the RNC.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Steele > Duncan > Blackwell > Anuzis > Dawson
January 30th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Anuzis > Blackwell > Dawson > Steele > Duncan
January 30th, 2009 at 11:22 am
We need to do more than “hold red states”; I want someone who has and will take the battle to blue frontlines.
That is what they did to us this year; no more defense we need to be organizing and going on the turf offensive.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Dawson > Steele > Duncan > Blackwell > Anuzis
January 30th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Anuzis???? Name one thing abour what has has happened to the Republican Party in Michigan under his watch that you would like to see writ large on the National GOP?
So he blogs… Big freeakin’ deal.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:25 am
George, is #10 your order in which they will be eliminated on the ballots? I’d say that’s pretty close.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Steele > Anuzis > Blackwell > Dawson > Duncan
January 30th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Blackwell > Steele > Anuzis & Dawson > Duncan.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I feel bad for Dawson. He would be a good Chairman. But the last thing we need right now is to give Big Media a sword to run us through.
If we elect Dawson, the headlines tomorrow will be “RNC elects racist, Southern, white guy.”
Dawson is not a racist, of course. But that will be the narrative. Electing Dawson would be two steps back for the GOP. Like I said, it’s too bad because it isn’t his fault. History just works that way sometimes.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:29 am
The GOP in MI have been battling the Unions for generations but are actually more organized now then they have ever been.
McCain publicly pulling out took a less than 5% race and made in +15%. You do the math on what happened and who is at fault here.
It is easy to sit in a red corner of the world and decide what the view is.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Nicolas, yep.
It bugs be that people don’t realize the obvious about Dawson. He’s the last guy we need.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:33 am
I have no problem with any of the candidates.
One of these folks will be charge with the overall organization of the grassroots GOP from Hawaii to Maine.
All this talk of “half wits, etc” is ignorant!
We all have some we prefer over another and I would not begrudge anyone from their opinion, but the tone some take is beyond what it should be.
I don’t think Dawson is racist, I don’t think Steele is going to make abortion legal.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:33 am
The question is not if, but on which ballot Chrmn Duncan is eliminated. If he makes it to the final ballot, the other guy’s going to win (it would probably be Lt Gov Steele in that scenario). If he’s ousted on the 3rd ballot, and neither Lt Gov Steele nor Chrmn Dawson is within, say, 10 votes, I think it will be Chrmn Dawson.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:38 am
To me Duncan is a continuance of the Bush administration; which we do not need.
I also was offended at the Palin wardrobe expenditure which was his charge.
Dawson is a good guy and a great State Chair, but he does nto in my opinion know (or need to know) how to win in Blue areas.
Steele and Blackwell have been candidates not organizers. The GOP Chairman needs to be first and foremost an organzier. We need to combat the Obama millions of community organizers, etc..
January 30th, 2009 at 11:38 am
do you all think they are feeling the heat from us voters and are taking this seriously? I truly hope so!.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Steele > Blackwell > Anuzis > Duncan > Dawson but I’m not enthusiastic for any of them.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:45 am
In fairness to Duncan, he did not exactly receive a good set of cards to play with when he arrived.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“do you all think they are feeling the heat from us voters and are taking this seriously? I truly hope so!.”
There probably taking it seriously. I doubt there feeling any heat from voters though. I’m guessing at most 10% of people even know this is happening, and that’s a really generous guess. This is why I say they should go for who’s competent rather than all this worry about image ( looking racist, whatever,) nobody knows who the party chairmen are.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:51 am
In fairness to all; I am not going to leave the party depending on the outcome today.
I have nothing personal against any of the 5; they are all there because they are solid GOP’ers to begin with.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Few people know who the party chairmen are, but if they chose someone the media can claim is an alleged racist, even if untrue, you’d better believe the media will make sure its front page news.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I just don’t think it has the potential to make a long-lasting story. People simply don’t give a hoot about this stuff.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:58 am
It’ll be interesting to see whether the committee members Get It or not, really.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Alex, according to who’s definition? That’s the problem.
John Mark, I think you are exactly right. 90% of America, or more, doesn’t even know who party chairmen are. You need someone who can organize, develop, fundraise, and manage money – that’s what Dawson does and what Steele doesn’t do as well.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
#25 “This is why I say they should go for who’s competent rather than all this worry about image ( looking racist, whatever,) nobody knows who the party chairmen are.”
If your wish is status quo or slightly better, then I’d agree. The GOP needs a massive image overhaul, however, and Chrmn Dawson fits in too well to the stereotype. Electing Lt Gov Steele is a good first step, but thinking that’s the only step needed would be foolish. He will need to be promoted, and become more prominent than a traditional chair. The idea needs to be ingrained in the psyche of minorities that it’s ok to be Republican, that they aren’t hiding the white hoods when the cameras are on. This will necessitate having someone who can demonstrate it’s not true, and it’s a bonus that he’s a pragmatic conservative from a blue area.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Alex, according to who’s definition? That’s the problem.
Well, the fact that anyone at all would vote for Saul Anuzis…
And the fact that Katon Dawson might have a chance here…
January 30th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“The GOP needs a massive image overhaul” I don’t disagree, but you’re not going to be able to have an effective overall on something that only 10% of people are paying attention to – most whom are hardcore party faithful anyway.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
34 – Don’t forget about what affects people that they don’t see.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
BTW I haven’t paid attention to really who these guys are except casually, so I really don’t have much of a favorite. I just think everybody on here is blowing how important this is for image way out of porportion.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
35, Huh?
January 30th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Alex,
I would vote for both Saul and Katon; are you saying you would not support either of them if elected?
January 30th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
37 – Just because people don’t know who the party head is doesn’t mean that the party head doesn’t have influence over the party.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Round one:
52- Mike Duncan
46- Michael Steele
January 30th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Big separation between top 2 and bottom 3. Who does Blackwell send his support to? Who does Anuzis send his to? I think Dawson stays in this thing for the long run.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
38 – I’ll hope that they do their best, but I’ll be disappointed that it was one of them over Steele!
36 – I agree, by the way, that people overblow how much this matters for image. I support Steele because of his outreach efforts, first and foremost. However, the fact that he won’t provoke paper headlines like “GOP ELECTS GUY WHO WAS MEMBER OF ‘WHITES ONLY’ CLUB” is an added bonus.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Sounds to me Duncan really has a competitor breathing down his neck wow this is close!
January 30th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
40 – Wow!!! Awesome!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
39, Agreed, which is why I say they should be focusing on who’s competent and not on making a some sort of symbolic statement with who we elect, since nobody would be listening to the statement.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
The question now becomes will it be Anuzis or Dawson?
Who has better whips. Duncan did not get enough to be inevitable and Steele has peeked. Now it is a Cmte issue and he is an outsider.
5 ballots to straighten it out.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
#34 “I don’t disagree, but you’re not going to be able to have an effective overall on something that only 10% of people are paying attention to – most whom are hardcore party faithful anyway.”
Agreed, which is why I said his election was a first step. You are assuming I mean his role should be a traditional one (where the Chair isn’t a national figure). That would squander most to all of the potential benefit. The next necessary step is making a big deal of it. The benefit will be muted if it’s not basically shouted from the mountain tops. He’ll need to be on tv, talking conservative issues. He will need to recruit more minority candidates. He will need to make minorities feel that they are part of the party (which has been neglected for far too long; the perception, not the reality). Chrmn Dawson’s club might not make the news for long, but it certainly won’t be a move forward.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Time for a protest. If Steele gets to peek, the other candidates should as well.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Change is newsworthy, stasis isn’t. What counts as change depends on perception.
Duncan as RNC Chair isn’t change and isn’t newsworthy.
For the “white-guy” party’s elites to elect a black dude is change even the MSM can believe in. Of course, they’ll claim it’s either a publicity stunt or the first good omens in the Age of Obama. But you take what you can get…
January 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
“I support Steele because of his outreach efforts,” Oh come on be honest. The reason you want to Steele is so that you can read MatthewK write about the end of the Republican Party and thus of civilization as we know it.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I know it’s only round 1 but should duccan be sweating? I get the feel he thought he would have a easy day today . GO STEELE!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Does someone get eliminated before the next ballot? How does that stuff work?
January 30th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Matt C – have you already forgotten how influential the media is in the left’s battle against the GOP? I realize that less than 10% of the GOP electorate, nevermind the general electorate, will even know who wins the RNC chair race today, but don’t that that if Dawson wins the “GOP elects Whites-only Country Club Member as Leader” headlines won’t show up tomorrow and on tonight’s “news” shows.
I think your problem is that you give the electorate too much credit to not just follow blindly behind Matthews, Couric, Lauer, Olberman, et al. We saw, very clearly, how willing the American electorate is to take these buffoons words as gospel truth so don’t think the American electorate won’t believe what they are told to believe about a “Chairman Dawson.”
I agree with you 100% that Dawson has the best ability to lead and fundraise but I don’t think the perception of him is worth the stories that will come out against him.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
#48
Yes.
Duncan peeked.
Steele peeked
Blakcwell did not really get off the ground.
These muti-ballot votes never end up with the top or bottom vote getter first ballot.
I say Steele peeked because he is an outsider with National name appeal; he has picked up all the voters he will. He has also been viewed as the “moderate” right or wrong and now people will start to “shift” idealogically and based on relationships.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
“I support Steele because of his outreach efforts,” Oh come on be honest. The reason you want to Steele is so that you can read MatthewK write about the end of the Republican Party and thus of civilization as we know it.
That’s just a bonus!
January 30th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Ralph, here’s my understanding. The ballots are counted, and if someone has 85 votes, they win. If no one has 85, the low man is booted and they vote again. Repeat until someone gets 85.
Greg, if I were Chrmn Duncan, I’d be extremely worried. I doubt his support gets past 60 from this point. If you were comfortable with the party direction, you’d have already voted for him.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I missed the tally of the votes in a meeting – anyone else catch them, for all five candidates?
January 30th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
NM – got it.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
DUNCAN: 52
STEELE:46
DAWSON:28
ANUZIS:22
BLACKWELL:20
January 30th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
26, 22, 20 for the bottom 3.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Prediction: Lt Gov Steele passes Chrmn Duncan on the 2nd ballot.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
GO Steele!
January 30th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
So Blackwell is done? He isn’t even on the next ballot? Where are his votes going to go to?
January 30th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Steele! Steele! Steele!
January 30th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
steele has not peeked, he has the momentum
January 30th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Duncan as current chair doles out all the “perks” cmte assignments, picks envoys, etc…now that he barely made it past the 25% mark well short of the 85 needed his voters will begin to peel off first.
Steele will probably go over 50 second vote but not 60. It is how far and fast Duncan’s voters leave and to whom?
January 30th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Ok, per Matt C, I was wrong. Nobody’s name will be dropped, they’ll just have another vote. I suppose some of the candidates might realize they aren’t going to win and start endorsing other candidates. I’m tempted to call this for Lt Gov Steele, but Chrmn Dawson might get a lot of Chrmn Duncan’s supporters. It could all come down to supporters of Chrmn Anuzis’ support backing.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
If Steele is going to win, he’s going to have to end up with 70 or more in the second ballot. IF he only needs to peel a few extra votes to get over the top he’ll have momentum. But if he doesn’t get close, it’ll seem like he “peeked.”
January 30th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Prediction; Duncan FALLS below Steele on 2nd ballot.
Steele moves past 50 but barely.
The question is can Dawson or Anuzis consolidate and one of them make the move on 2nd ballot.
If so they will close the gap on Steele.
I will bet Steele will not break 58 on second ballot.
I like Steele BTW; he just got dealt a bad hand on this.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
If steele wins do you think he can bring ideas like improving Latino and African american voters percentages up and youth voters that the DNC KICKED OUR TAILS IN?
January 30th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Thankfully, Steele made such a great showing that he won’t lose a single one of his backers on the second ballot. There’s reason to believe that Dawson will surge on the second ballot and that Duncan could fall as low as third. Blackwell will probably stagnate and should drop out soon. Not sure what to make of Anuzis, quite honestly.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
and improving using the internet more like obama did and the dnc did.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Wait, Greg is the same one who kept asking a bunch of questions about the VP race, isn’t he..?
January 30th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Good bye Mr. Ducan and take your shenanigans with you.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I’m guessing about half of the supporters for the bottom three bolt in this round.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Another prediction out of thin air: Dawson’s support goes to Duncan; everyone else’s to Steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Question do you think since steele has been a political analysts on fox new does the help or hurt him? I keep hearing the democrats say fox news is owned by the RNC ticks me off.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
75 – Don’t be so sure about Dawson.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Here it comes!
January 30th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Duncan – 48
Steele – 48
Dawson – 29
Anuzis – 24
Blackwell – 19
January 30th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
what? barely any movement.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Round 2:
Duncan 48
Steele 48
Dawson 29
Anuzis 24
Blackwell 19
January 30th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
They don’t call me Nostradamus for nuthin’ … or at all.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
MarkG, I think the support goes in the other direction. Chrmn Duncan is going to do nothing but lose ground at this point.
As for #75, I’d say bottom two.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Duncan -4
Steele +2
Dawson +1
Anuzis +2
Blackwell -1
Wow, pretty much the same.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Not much movement.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Not much movement.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Duncan: 48
Steele: 48
Dawson: 29
Anuzis: 24
Blackwell: 19
Duncan and Blackwell both lost votes, so this is most likely now a 3-man race between Steele, Dawson, and Anuzis.
January 30th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
There seems to be about 30-40 minutes between each ballot actually being tabulated.
That’s horrific. Not fast enough to be suspenseful. Slow enough to be at a fist-pounding-on-your-desk-out-of-irritation-for-how-slow-it’s-going pace, though.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
At this rate they’ll have it wrapped up just before the Hawkeye Cawkeye.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
JUST HAD ME THINKING down the steet from this meeting is the DNC OFFICE in DC Who is The Winner that the DNC is most fearful of I wonder ?
January 30th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Wow, a tie for first. Making the assumption that only 5 people changed their vote (which isn’t necessarily true), and if you think the Blackwell voter went to Steele (maybe, maybe not), that means Anuzis is getting more of Duncan’s softer support. Third ballot should start to see more movement, and would probably have Steele as a slight favorite.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
88 – No, it’s probably going to wind down to be between Steele and Dawson.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
steele -great communicator with outreach to minorities
dawson – whites only country clubber who wins in south carolina
which brings change….hmmmmm such a tough one lmao
January 30th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Prediction time:
Who do you think the first to drop will be?
Who do you think they will endorse?
I’ll guess Blackwell, with him endorsing Steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
After 2nd round of voting:
Duncan & Steele tied at 48 votes each
Dawson – 29
Anuzis – 24
Blackwell – 19
15 minute break and they’re back at it.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
my guess the DNC is rooting for dunncan but who is the person the DNC is MOST FEARFUL OF?
January 30th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
2nd round = big game of chicken.
Now it get;s interesting.
I suspect between 6 and 10 peel off Duncan next round; the same for Blackwell…if he stays in. He could “move his votes” and be a game changer.
The question is who picks up the votes from Duncan; Anuzis or Dawson? Insider game between those 3 candidates.
Most of the Blackwell votes will go to Dawson or Steele (long back story why).
Can Anuzis or Dawson make enough of a move on Steele to get the other to back out for 4th vote.
3rd Ballot Prediction
Steele- 53
2nd- 41
3rd- 36
4th – 24
Blackwell- 4
2 Factors
Does Duncan hold second one more round
Whoever makes the big move this round is the next CHair
January 30th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Matt C, are you able to keep up constant coverage? If you don’t think you can, I’ll take over, if you’d like.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I KNOW THE DNC WANTS US TO CHOOSE DUNCAN but I ask who is the DNC and obama more fearful of that might keep them very worried?
January 30th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I think Anuzis will get the majority of Duncan’s votes and Blackwell’s votes will be split between Steele and Anuzis. Since Duncan and Blackwell should both go down more in this next round, I’m assuming all of those three will gain some votes, but I expect Anuzis to gain the largest number of votes and possibly pass Dawson in the 3rd round.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Greg, that all depends on who you support…obviously, since I support Steele, I think the Democrats should fear him the most…if you support Dawson, you’d say him…
January 30th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I’m glad to see Steele doing so well, while I wanted him to stay here and run for office in 2010 in Maryland, I think he’d be a great chairman for the party. I’m really awaiting the third ballot.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
how many more rounds do you think this will take will it go up to 20 rounds?
January 30th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
It will take 3 to 5 more rounds. It is going to get down to Steele vs. (Anuzis or Dawson) on the final ballot.
It is just a matter of how long it takes to peel everyone else out of the race.
I am putting my money on 5 Ballots.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
4th ballot shift should be somewhat dramatic. I suspect 3rd ballot will shift maybe 20 votes, while 4th could move 40-50.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I am hoping and praying Michael Steele wins.
Duncan-blah
Anunziz-I don’t think I even spelled the name right!
3rd Person-Who is it?
Blackwell-I supported Strickland over Blackwell in Ohio’s Governor race, that say’s it all.
I think Steele would be a great leader for the GOP.
GO STEELE GO!
January 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
3RD BALLOT:
STEELE: 51
DUNCAN: 44
DAWSON: 34
MICHAEL STEELE!!!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Steele – 51
Duncan – 44
Dawson – 34
Anuzis – 24
Blackwell – 15
January 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Round 3:
Steele 51
Duncan 44
Dawson 34
Anuzis 24
Blackwell 15
January 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
http://www.freestrongamerica.com/blog/item/2009/01/30/overnoromneysemarktotheouseepublicanonferenceetreat
Off topic but this speech was good and contained some nice details….Deserves a FPP.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
whats the final winner # 85?
January 30th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
THE MAN OF STEELE
time for some peeps to drop out and endorse steele
January 30th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Blackwell’s people are going to go to Dawson. Where do Anuzi’s people go? Probably Steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Good movement for both Steele and Dawson. Blackwell and Duncan appear to be fading. The only question is who does their support go to? I would bet they try to shift to Dawson as a way of stopping Steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Steele +3
Duncan -4
Dawson +5
Anuzis –
Blackwell -4
My prediction:
Duncan’s support dies on the next ballot, splitting between Steele and Dawson.
Ballot five is between Steele and Dawson.
Ballot six determines it.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
The question is where Duncan’s support goes.
Blackwell’s people will probably go to Dawson, mostly. Anuzis’ people will split.
Dawson is very much in this.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
god help us is dawson gets it, might as well just plan on sitting out until 2020
January 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
#116,
I would not count out Anuzis until after this next ballot.
The inside cards were stacked against him in that round. He needed more votes to peel of Duncan than did.
The first defection from Duncan were southern voters first; they went to Dawson.
The first to peel off Blackwell went to Steele because of behind the scenes personalities; and not a racial thing either.
But if you look at my #98 I could not have been too much closer to calling it!
January 30th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Alex:
Don’t you think Anuzis will stay in the race as a compromise if Steele and Dawson deadlock? Politico said Anuzis was building support for being a second or third choice.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Alex, if that’s the split, Dawson wins by a narrow margin. People who would support Duncan at this point are going to go with a more traditional individual, and that isn’t Steele. I think a good chunk of Blackwell’s support goes to Steele, but you’re right that Dawson is going to get a goodly amount of it.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
SATRT PACKING YOUR BAGS DUNCAN AND CLEANING OUT YOUR DESK!!!!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Ugh, who knows.
I hope not. I don’t even want to think about the mindset of some of these committee members. It’s incomprehensible to me in the first place that anyone could be supporting Dawson or Anuzis.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
dawson is no better then saltsman, we will get hit with the same racist headlines tomorrow if these rnc members do the unthinkable and deny michael steele
January 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Alex,
I like you views and thought process in many instances but you sound like a “whinny kid” when you make statements like #123.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
As many others have mentioned here, the chairman rarely gets much publicity. I don’t get Anuzis, but Dawson is because he’s been successful and the charge is, in reality, pretty thin (though the perception is horrendous). It would blow over long before elections happened, but he might have a hard time getting the right candidates.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
dawson cements us as a regional minority party for a generation
January 30th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
How is possible that a party of 50 millions people only 168 get to pick the Chairman of the party?.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Dawson and Steele should make a compromise. Dawson becomes head of the RNC while Steele becomes the public face of the Republican Party. Dawson knows how to organize, Steele knows how to communicate.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Alex, I like you views and thought process in many instances but you sound like a “whinny kid” when you make statements like #123.
A whinny kid, huh? What, like a horse?
Sorry. I cannot for a second comprehend why anyone would support Anuzis. Dawson, I can at least see the logic behind, but Anuzis? C’mon!
January 30th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Dawson and Steele should make a compromise. Dawson becomes head of the RNC while Steele becomes the public face of the Republican Party. Dawson knows how to organize, Steele knows how to communicate.
Steele has been the state chair of the Maryland Republican Party, a former Republican committeeman, the chair of the Prince George’s County Republican Party, and the chair of GOPAC. Steele isn’t exactly inexperienced on the organizational/nuts-and-bolts front.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I suppose then that you cannot for a second comprehend for a second a single Republican activist in Michigan…since they elected him Chairman twice; the second time unanimously.
That is where the “whinny” comes from. I did not want to say imbicilic but use some thought! He is the Chair of a major state party.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
One of the major things the GOP has been unable to do in recent elections is recruiting good candidates. I don’t see Dawson recruiting anyone that can break the mold the GOP has allowed to be set for themselves. I think Steele could.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
#131:
I didn’t say he was inexperienced, but it seems to me that Dawson knows the nuts and bolts better then Steele. The former Maryland Lt. Gov. would be a great face for the party and could challenge the Obama administration on TV better then the other candidates. That should be Steele’s primary role while Dawson builds up the party from the inside.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
A major state party that has an awful track record…
January 30th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Advocate for your man Steele but don’t try to rationalize why in the world anyone would support someone you do not!
Inexperience is what leads people to not understand their opposition.
Actually, unless there is a major break Anuzis is done (still an outside chance) but right now he is actually in the drivers seat.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
#132 “I did not want to say imbicilic but use some thought! He is the Chair of a major state party.”
And what has the Michigan state party accomplished under his guidance?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
#137:
nothing. In 06 Michigan was in a one-state recession and the Dem. Governor was very unpopular and… we still lost and we lost House seats as well.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
SO if Duncan is out does the new chair start right away and Duncan looks for a new job tonight?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
‘A major state party that has an awful track record…’
tougher to win for the gop in maryland or in south carolina? thought so
January 30th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Richard, the charge against Dawson is not thin, but even if it were, it looks terrible, especially if he wins over Steele. And yes, folks it will be used against us whenever possible.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Put together a pretty massive statewide grassroots organization. Gotten completely out of debt; and even gone from renting to owning their own HQ.
Gone head to head with the home base for the Unions in this country; held on to the majority in their state Senate in 2006 against the tsunami, also holding on to their congressional majority in 06 in that storm.
Lost two seats and wen to 8-7 minority in 08 but that has a lot to do with McCain pulling out publicly in this state. He was 5 points down and ended up losing by 15 after pulling out. You cannot lose a top of the ticket by `5 points and hope for good things to happen.
Is it his fault that McCain pulled out of MI while within the MOE?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
#142 is in response to #137.
You folks is deep red states should come try actually fighting in the trenches some time on the front lines.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
#143:
Well yeah, we don’t know anything about fighting hard in Florida. If I remember correctly, there was a certain election 9 years ago in Florida that was kind of important.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
The problem with Dawson is, of course, it just again projects the image of white, southern, male, country club (no blacks allowed) party. Its that (often religious) idelological purity stuuff that will result in the GOP becomming a regional party (but boy will the members love each other!). As in many aspects of politics, business, marketing, etc., if people won’t listen to you based upon perception–it really doesn’t matter what you are saying.
Now, I don’t think the chairman matters that much but Dawson won’t help.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
#141 Martha (who is now back to M), reread what I said. I said the reality of the charge is thin (I can easily believe a guy doesn’t know there’s an all-white policy when he sees blacks in the clubhouse all the time, and it wasn’t until he started running for this post that anyone noticed the policy), but the perception of the charge is horrendous. Were he selected, it wouldn’t hurt the GOP so much as not move it forward. Were they in the shape of ’04, I’d not be as worried. As they aren’t, they need to change their image.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
COME ON c-SPAN GET ROBERT GIBBS OFF TV and get back to this RNC voting!!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
DAWSON BYE BYE
January 30th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Duncan is out! 44 votes up for grabs!
January 30th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Ooh.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I meant DUNCAN!
January 30th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Jonathan,
Didn’t FL go blue this year?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
why is dunncan speaking live PLEASE DON’T TEll me he won I will cry and hit the wall!??
January 30th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
This is a game changer.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The 4th ballot may well end up telling us who wins. If Steele gets into the 70′s, he’ll probably win. If Dawson gets into the 60′s, he’ll probably squeeze in.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
DO YOU PEOPLE REALLY WANT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FORCED TO THE LEFT BY GIVING COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE PARTY TO STEELE????
DO YOU REALLY WANT MORE REPUBLICANS IN THE MOLD OF THE ANTI-LIFE, ANTI-FAMILY, PRO-PORK RUDY GIULIANI??? ‘CAUSE THATS WHO STEELE SUPPORTED LAST YEAR, OVER ADVOCATES FOR LIFE, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, etc…
January 30th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Duncan’s speaking because he dropped out.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
George, the point was that Florida’s also “in the trenches,” so those of us here might understand having to fight for votes as well.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
156, Steele isn’t to the left. He’s VERY pro-life, fiscally conservative, and a bit more moderate on a few specific issues.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Matthew, who do you support?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
SO let me get this correct we can now call duncan former RNC CHAIR?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
HAHAH MatthewK is going nuts… Lt. Governor Steele will be a great leader for our Party…. And watch it, as a full blown conservative I supported RUDY as well because we had a terrible lineup of candidates.
JINDAL 2012.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
uh matthew, i like a republican chair who can go on tavis smiley and outdebate him and still get a standing ovation.
our base is there, we need to go beyond it. people vote for people who look like them. when obama fails to help blacks and hispanics economically, steele will be the messenger to win their votes.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Matthew, do you honestly think that letting Steele be chairman is “GIVING COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE PARTY” to him?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I don’t really have a horse in this race – really, its anyone but Steele. I like Anuzis because he supported Romney – and of course I want Romney to win in 2012. But Blackwell also seems like a Strong Conservative, and, at least not yet, I haven’t heard anything bad about Dawson…
January 30th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
THESE MORONS NEED TO CLAIM THEIR BALLOTS
January 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Indeed, I was speaking to those who think that because the state is Blue the Chairman is unqualified that I tool offense with.
I was not trying to offend anybody in other states.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
#152:
Yes we did. But we went for Bush twice. We are the purplest of purple states on the national level. At the state level we are very red.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I like Anuzis because he supported Romney – and of course I want Romney to win in 2012.
That’s all you need to hear from Matthew, folks.
Whoever will get behind Romney.
Matthew, you have a pathological man-crush on the man.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Blackwell is an idiot. I can’t stand him and he destroyed the once strong OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY. I supported DEMOCRAT Ted Strickland over Blackwell…
And it’s not because of race, because I am supporting Steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
#156 “DO YOU PEOPLE REALLY WANT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FORCED TO THE LEFT BY GIVING COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE PARTY TO STEELE????
DO YOU REALLY WANT MORE REPUBLICANS IN THE MOLD OF THE ANTI-LIFE, ANTI-FAMILY, PRO-PORK RUDY GIULIANI??? ‘CAUSE THATS WHO STEELE SUPPORTED LAST YEAR, OVER ADVOCATES FOR LIFE, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, etc…”
Yes. Well, except for your false claim that Steele will move the party to the left. His actions have shown pragmatism, a realization that you can’t win every battle everywhere, and that you field the people best equipped to win. If Steele is selected, nationally, the GOP will still advocate everything they advocate now, but won’t disqualify someone who strays on one or two issues if the end result would be losing to a Dem who differs on every issue!
January 30th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
#171, Thank you for articulating that better than I could.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
“He’s VERY pro-life”
Bull****. He said Roe should stay in place. At best, he is personally pro-life who has no desire to see pro-life be the law of the land…
====
“Matthew, do you honestly think that letting Steele be chairman is “GIVING COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE PARTY” to him?”
I believe it elevates him to being the most powerful and high-profile Republican in the party for the next three years…
January 30th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
146 Richard, I think it would hurt the party.
(BTW – I didn’t change my name yet on my other PC. I’m still dead right
)
January 30th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
OMG MATTHEW
STEELE HAS NO EFFECT ON ROE V WADE
OKAY?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Martha, how in the world could it hurt the GOP? When you’re drawing single digits in a demographic, you can’t possibly be hurt that much more.
#173 “He said Roe should stay in place. At best, he is personally pro-life who has no desire to see pro-life be the law of the land…”
Or, back in reality, he realizes that overturning Roe isn’t going to happen until the country’s ready, and an all-or-nothing stance such as yours hurts the very cause you advocate!”
January 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Can they count the damn ballots already?!
January 30th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
X Factor: Do these people just wanna get the freakin’ A out of here?
If they’re just sick of casting votes over and over, Steele becomes the favorite.
I’m not kidding.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I’m supporting Romney and Michael Steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I think it’s safe to say MatthewK is a bit of a whacked out flaming Mormon.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
MVRed, I think you misspelled that last word…
January 30th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
MatthewK is Catholic.
I cannot for a second begin to think of where his obsession with Romney stems…IllinoisGuy and Martha are Mormon, but Matthew, a 17-year-old Catholic? It makes no sense.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
181 – Hehehehe.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
speaking of romney does it help him if steele gets this RNC job?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Greg, you ask the oddest questions.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I heard it would help him more if Azunis got the job.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
#184:
I don’t think so. Part of the reason (besides the CD problem) that Saltsman never got any traction was because he was a stalking horse for Huckabee in 2012. I thin the RNC members would not vote for any sort of partisan for one potential candidate or another.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
4TH BALLOT VOTE COUNT
Steele-60
Dawson-62
WOW.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Dawson – 62
Steele – 60
Anuzis – 31
Blackwell – 15
WOAH
January 30th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I am a 19 year old Catholic.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I don’t know why I’m saying ‘Woah’; that was my own prediction.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Dawson lept forward on this ballot. It’s really down to Dawson or Steele at this point. I wonder if Blackwell will drop out or keep being stubborn abd stay in the race…
January 30th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Wow that is depressing. Dawson’s at 62 with Blackwell still at 15? He’s got this thing pretty well in hand, absent a major change in mo’.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
into the wilderness for years and years and years and years
January 30th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Wow, I can’t stand Dawson. What a tragedy. And the Michigan GOP is a diasaster. So, go Steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I’m not surprised Dawson got most of Duncan’s support. The question now becomes whether Steele can get Anuzis to endorse him, and hopefully get most of his support. If he can’t do that, he won’t win.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Blackwell and Anuzis both need to drop out and throw their support behind a candidate. The 5th ballot will decide this thing, I’m pretty sure.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I’ve got to think that Anuzis supporters are going to go for Steele more than Dawson and Blackwell’s probably go more for Dawson.
I think Steele narrowly wins on the 6th ballot.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Don’t think it matters for Romney or the other guys.
Huck obviously wanted his campaign manager–Chip “the Magic Negro” Saltsman and, if I had to guess, Katon “I didn’t know blacks weren’t allowed” Dawson. Must be a bigots club or something.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
My first choice Anuzis is now done.
I hope his support goes to Steele
January 30th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
After 4th round of voting:
Dawson – 62
Steele – 60
Anuzis – 31
Blackwell – 15
Recess until 3:00 PM eastern
January 30th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Blackwell’s support, in my estimation, is more likely to go to Dawson. Blackwell’s support mostly stems from the so-con wing of the party, which is more likely to get behind Dawson.
The big question mark is the Anuzis people: why are they backing him, and who are they more likely to turn to?
January 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
This is so mortifying.
Katon “Whites Only” Dawson, our new chairman?
Who might defeat a black man?
Right after the Democrats just elected the first black president?
Oh, it’s so perfect.
C’mon, Steele…
January 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Recess, huh? Time for the arm twisting and bribery to kick into high gear!
I suspect someone (or two) drop out after the recess (or after the next ballot). As already said, the sixth ballot probably determines it.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
As a social conservative, I support Steele. He’s the only one of the four that would be credible as a national spokesman. Good heavens — Dawson is a complete boob.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
The only reason anyone could possibly be for Anuzis is is you are from a blue state and don’t like the Redstate strategy that the GOP has employed for the last 8 years or if you are big into technology. Either way if you feel that way you go to Steele, not Dawson.
I agree with you about Blackwell.
One thing that makes me feel great is that Redstate basically got crushed. They endorsed Blackwell and he got nowhere.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
We need someone who supports Rebuild the Party. Dawson is not that person.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
IF THIS THING GOES TO DAWSON NO MONEY TO THE RNC FROM ME AND HIS RNC LETTERS IN THE TRASH THIS IS Change and going a fresh way for RNC?????
January 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
My guess is enough anuzis votes go to Steele to make him the next chair–but this will be a razor thin margin of victory.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
a dawson election is the final nail in the gop. might as well let gregg go to commerce because its inevitable the dems get 60 with ‘whites only’ dawson in charge.
welcome to one-party america
January 30th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Geez, republicans never lern anything.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Anyone supporting Anuzis at this point obviously values the input of someone living in a blue state, even if the party isn’t in great shape nationally (I’ve heard the argument concerning local growth). Steele has a shot at them, but he’ll need a strong showing with them at this point.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
If Dawson wins, maybe he could get an exemption for Steele so at least Steele could join the club.
January 30th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
This is a proxy battle.
Dawson represents bunkering down, adhering to principle at all costs, being rock-ribbed hard-right, saying F U to the media.
Steele represents reaching out, embracing pragmatism, supporting independents, becoming media-savvy.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
LOL @ 213
If Dawson wins, then I think we deserve to be in the minority until we finally “get it” and start reforming.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
What in the hell are these people thinking? Are they tone deaf and brain dead? Dawson is the worst possible choice besides Saltsman!
Go Steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Yes. If Dawson wins, we deserve to lose. There needs to be an utter revolt within the party if Dawson gets this.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Dawson = MatthewK
Steele = Alex Knepper
Make your choice.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
It’s too bad Saltsman sent the CD, is a proxy for Huckabee and is from the South because he actually would be the best person for the job if he didn’t have those negatives.
He sounded the best in the debate and being 40 years old himself would be a big plus.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Blackwell’s dropping out.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Bye-bye, Blackwell…
January 30th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Will he endorse?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
STEELE I HOPE!!!!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Hopefully he was just hinting at endorsing someone.
Cspan seems to think it will be Steele since they keep showing him.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I don’t think I’m a republican anymore if Dawson is the future…
January 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
WHO WILL IT BE OMG
January 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Awesome, he is going to put Steele over the top.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
He endorsed Steele!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
“Dawson = MatthewK
Steele = Alex Knepper
Make your choice.”
Now, you losing me, haha. It is only chairmen, after all.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Yes, that does it.
Steele will win it on this ballot.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Not that we stand much of a chance at the black vote but does anyone know if Dawson has a problem with Latinos–or is is just blacks?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
GO STEELE¡
January 30th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Steele!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“Not that we stand much of a chance at the black vote but does anyone know if Dawson has a problem with Latinos–or is is just blacks?”
BINGO. Too bad we did not have an Hispanic running for Chairman.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
231, Not necessarily. 15 puts him at 75 that is if all Blackwell supporters immediately go Steele. We also don’t know if there will be bleeding with Anuzis or Dawson, they could both maintain this next round or Anuzis could endorse Dawson…don’t want to get too confident yet
January 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
dawson has a problem with anyone that isnt WASP.
classy move by blackwell. will anuzis follow suit?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Blackwell withdraws – supports Steele.
5th round of voting ongoing….
January 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I hope the Blackwell endorsement doesn’t backfire…
January 30th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
#231, I doubt it. 6th ballot is the last one. To end it here would take all of Blackwell, plus 1/3 of Anuzis going to Steele. Anuzis likely drops after the 5th, and Steele likely wins on the 6th.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Dawson’s not going to win. STEELE!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
239 – How would it backfire?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Blackwell had 15 votes. That would put Steele at 75. He would need 10 more votes for chairman. Hopefully, Blackwell’s speech can peel some from Dawson and Anuzis.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
So Steele gains 15 votes, that still doesn’t give him enough. I would bet Dawson is twisting the arms of some of the Anuzis supporters. If Dawson can gain votes despite this announcment, then I could see this going on for at least 2 more ballots
January 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Anuzis supporters will see the inevitable and there is no way there is much cross-over between Anuzis supporters and Dawson’s.
Dawson is old school and ultra successful. Anuzis is new and incompetent.
If Steele doesn’t get it on this one he will be only a few votes short.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
235: It would have to be a Hispanic evangelical to ensure we have ideological (and religious)purity.
Thank goodness looks like it will be steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Finally Blackwell did something right!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Blackwell’s endorsement helps Steele with the MatthewK’s of the world (strong socons). As that’s an area he’s been hurting in, it can only help.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Oh, please, Richard M — nothing will talk the MatthewKs out of things.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
If Steele wins, Hucks Army will be in melt down mode for “abusing the (white, southern, evangelical) “base.”
January 30th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Dawson needs most of Blackwell’s support if he’s to win. Based on the endorsement, I suspect he may get half of it, and that likely won’t be enough. Steele likely wins Anuzis’ support 60/40.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I may be 19, but I think the girl to the right of the old lady talking is pretty attractive.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
is anuizs the next one to drop out you think?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Go Steele go!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
If Dawson doesn’t gain any votes on this ballot I could see him throwing his support behind Steele “for the good of the party” and keeping an I.O.U. from the new chairman.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
What would be an interesting show of unity going forward is if every chair, after it became clear who was going to win after the 5th ballot, decided to have a simple voice vote and unanimously selected the winner. Won’t happen, but just saying…
January 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I am a hardcore Socon.
Go Steele! Socons will be behind you.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Steele has no direct impact on Roe – this is correct, but he does have an impact on the GOP, which, in turn, has an impact on the abortion debate in this country.
Our Chairman needs to be a voice for strong conservative principles. With Steele’s positions on abortion, the death penalty, and affirmative action, I do not believe he can be a strong advocate for Reaganist principles that the party needs. How can a supporter of Roe be an advocate for life?
—-
As for Anuzis and Romney – My view is that the GOP will not completely turn around until we have our next Presidential nominee. I support the “top down theory” rather than the “bottom up theory”. So it only makes since that I would support the man who I view as most favorable to my pick for 2012…
Steele endorsed Rudy last time. That makes me very uncomfortable going into the 2012 election season.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
258, A lot of people endorsed Giuliani, it doesn’t make them less conservative. Giuliani is a traditional fiscal conservative and an all around small government kind of guy. If nothing else his stricter view of the Constitution would be MUCH better for this country than Barack Obama.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Ted Olsen endorsed Rudy also.
Are you going to tell me that he is no longer a conservative legal giant?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
You cannot win with MatthewK.
Steele has a position he doesn’t like on the DEATH PENALTY –
I mean –
OF ALL OF THE ISSUES TO NITPICK ABOUT
THE DEATH PENALTY???
Give. Me. A. Freaking. Break.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Here we go!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 79 SIX MORE VOTES TO GO
January 30th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
HAHAHA LOVE THE EYEBROW RAISING BY THE LADY AS SHE SAID “MAKE IT SHORTER”
January 30th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I’m going to tell you that anyone who jumps behind Giuliani is clearly not that dedicated to social conservatism…
====
“If nothing else his stricter view of the Constitution would be MUCH better for this country than Barack Obama.”
I’m not looking for the better of two evils…
January 30th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Dawson and Anuzis gave it a great fight, but this contest is over. Congrats Chairman Steele. Now start winning elections!!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Yes! He’s got it. Anuzis will at least withdraw because he doesn’t want to be embarrassed by having more people bolt.
The only way this becomes interesting is if Anuzis endorses Dawson, and even then I don’t think it would make the difference because too many of Anuzis supporters want change and Dawson represents to old way of doing things.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
MatthewK
i dont think you have to worry too much about 2012 with Steele. the best person will win our nomination, of that I am sure.
if its dawson or steele, Steele is the far better choice. he may not be perfect but he is a far cry better than the alternative.
his upside is strong and he represents an opportunity to counter the msm mantra that we are a southern white evangelical uninclusive party
January 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I’m going to tell you that anyone who jumps behind Giuliani is clearly not that dedicated to social conservatism…
Pat Robertson? Miguel Estrada? Ted Olson?
Oh, God! Anuzis is playing kingmaker!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
This slow-motion confab is what primaries look like in most other Western democracies: Only dues-paying members are eligible, and the party charters mostly restrict the selection of “Chairman” or “General Secretary” to electors who are in the upper echelons of the party.
People don’t appreciate how very unique American democracy is in the world. Or at least until the Obamanid Euro-socialists-in-waiting rejig the country…
January 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I do not like the death penality either, but I do not care what the freaking chairman’s position on the issue is. We need a winner and of the 3 left, Mr. Steele is the best!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
#258 “Steele has no direct impact on Roe – this is correct, but he does have an impact on the GOP, which, in turn, has an impact on the abortion debate in this country.”
Wow, how many times will we need to go over this? The current debate on abortion is frozen. The arguments for life aren’t making any headway. Do you think, just maybe, that it’s time to take a different approach? Stubbornness on the part of people like you have us saying the same things to the undecideds, and hense not convincing them to change. Roe is still in place because of the FAILURE of the pro-life movement to take what they can get now and work for more later! Continuing down the same path you’re on will lead to more, not less, abortions. It will lead to the degradation, not the uplifting, of the sanctity of life. Hasn’t the evidence been clear enough for you on this yet?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
He didn’t endorse!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Anuzis is out. 6th Ballot will decide it!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
So, Alex, is Steele was for Wealth redistribution instead of legal abortion, would YOU be supporting him? No, of course not.
You are more than happy to auction off or simply throw away any wing of the party – except, of course, the one you actually care about.
====
Somebody tell me how a pro-Roe individual can be a voice for life.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Steele’s got this.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Matthew, do you not support legal abortion?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
MK @275
careful on that thought process, cause that is what some people say about Romney as well.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
275, he never said he was for legal abortion – he’s pragmatically pro-life and realizes we can’t just overturn Roe and push for that immediately. We have to start small and work out way to it by changing the culture first. He’s not pro-abortion.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Matthew you are retarded for taking something Steele said a long time ago way out of context. You get so mad at others when they do this to Romney, and rightfully so, but surely even you can see the hypocrisy of doing this now to Steele.
Steele is obviously pro-life. He was even against embryonic stem cell research in his 2006 Senate bid. You don’t take that position in Maryland unless you are really pro-life.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
“So, Alex, is Steele was for Wealth redistribution instead of legal abortion, would YOU be supporting him?”
I cannot speak for Alex, but for me, it would depend on how much wealth he would redistribute.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
MatthewK, Romney is for the assault weapons ban.
How can you possibly support someone who can’t get the full support of the NRA’s members!?!?
How can you expect someone like that to lead conservatives!?!?!?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Matthew, you should talk to Doug about Steele. Doug is as dedicated to the pro-life cause as anyone on this site, including you, and Doug has said repeatedly that he’ll vouch for Steele on this issue. Steele is not pro-choice. Period. He just doesn’t want the culture war that gets you all hot and bothered.
“I’m going to tell you that anyone who jumps behind Giuliani is clearly not that dedicated to social conservatism…”
You really like telling people where their priorities are. I think Pat Robertson might think you’re full of it.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I heard that Steele had endorsed McCain and not Rudy during the election. Which one was it?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
after this break this should be last round correct?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I cannot speak for Alex, but for me, it would depend on how much wealth he would redistribute.
Anyone who supports a progressive income tax supports income redistribution.
I oppose progressive income taxes. But I know that the debate’s over and progressive taxation won. So I don’t bring it up. Ever. Because purist individualist capitalism lost.
You need to learn to be pragmatic, too.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
after this break this should be last round correct of voting?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“Do you think, just maybe, that it’s time to take a different approach? ”
Like what? Like supporting keeping Roe, and letting millions of American children be aborted before they ever get to experience life?
====
The abortion debate is not as frozen as you think it is. We have made significant gains on WHEN you can have an abortion, and we are now only one vote from having the necessary 5 to overturn Roe. Whoever wins in 2012 is likely going to replace Kennedy, which means that there will be a solid majority on one side or the other.
I don’t want a head of the Republican party who, in my opinion, would have no problem going out and endorsing a Pro-choice GOPer in four years…
January 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
This debate is pointless. The RNC chair doesn’t decide what the party’s position on abortion is. The 2008 Delegates to the Convention decide and it is in the party platform. I could care less about Steele or Dawson being pro-life or pro-choice. I just want to start winning elections again.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
“MatthewK, Romney is for the assault weapons ban.
How can you possibly support someone who can’t get the full support of the NRA’s members!?!?”
Exactly. I was raised by someone on the board of the NRA, and let me tell you, any discussion of an assault weapons ban will ENRAGE 2nd Amendment folks in no time. I don’t trust Romney on gun rights, and neither do my NRA friends.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Steele is a perfect example of where the so-con wing should be.
Pro-life, but not, as Win M pointed out, a culture warrior.
Religious, but doesn’t feel the need to label himself a “Christian Leader” or “write God’s law into the Constitution.”
Against gay marriage, but doesn’t feel the need to denigrate gays.
He gets it. He’s pragmatic. You have to be, when you’re not spoiled by living in a deep-red state. Those of you who grew up in a deep-blue state, like me (I am a Marylander who did some volunteer work for Steele for Senate ’06), you learn what pragmatism means. Otherwise, Democrats win. If you’re not pragmatic, you only help the left.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“Anyone who supports a progressive income tax supports income redistribution.” True, I do not support a Progressive income tax, but I am pragmatic enough to know that there is no other way politically yet.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Oh, Matthew, care to address my point on Romney and guns?
If you can’t support Steele because he’s not rigidly pro-life, why do you support Romney, who supports the assault weapons ban?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“The abortion debate is not as frozen as you think it is. We have made significant gains on WHEN you can have an abortion, and we are now only one vote from having the necessary 5 to overturn Roe. Whoever wins in 2012 is likely going to replace Kennedy, which means that there will be a solid majority on one side or the other.
I don’t want a head of the Republican party who, in my opinion, would have no problem going out and endorsing a Pro-choice GOPer in four years…”
If you honestly thought Giuliani would nominate someone to the Supreme Court who would come down in favor of Roe, you’re nuts. Nothing activates the conservative base more than judges. Nothing. There is NO WAY any Republican president would be able to push through a pro-Roe judge. Never ever ever.
SCOTUS is where the abortion battle is won or lost, and no GOP president could get a justice on that court who supported Roe, even if they wanted to.
Period. End of story.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
#292
yes there is. I might suggest the Fair Tax.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
My prediction from earlier:
My prediction:
Duncan’s support dies on the next ballot, splitting between Steele and Dawson.
Ballot five is between Steele and Dawson.
Ballot six determines it.
Also, my year’s-end prediction said Steele would pull this out.
Hot!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“Steele is not pro-choice”
I’ve talked to Doug, and have yet to get an answer on this quote:
“Roe v. Wade should remain in place. (Oct 2006)”
I’ve seen the things about how Steele says that he is pro-life, and that he just doesn’t think it will be easy to overturn Roe…but until I get an answer on that quote (like how we got an answer from Romney on his pro-choice statements), I don’t think I can trust him on the issue.
====
“I oppose progressive income taxes. But I know that the debate’s over and progressive taxation won. So I don’t bring it up. Ever.”
So if a GOP chairman candidate wanted a 50% increase in the income tax for all those making about $75k a year, you would have no problem with him/her becoming head of the party?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
MatthewK, just because Steele wins, do you think that suddenly all the pro-life congressman and senators from the heartland that Knepper so despises will suddenly become pro-life? I think that we are better off with Steele if he can win a few seats in some blues states that we don’t have. The heartland will continue to elect pro-lifers. And the people will elect the party nominee to president, not Steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Matthew, your approach isn’t stopping it now, not by a long shot. The “significant gains” made, what impact have they actually had? Did we have fewer abortions last year than the year before? If not, is the rate of growth of abortions decreasing? At the end of the day, isn’t that the yard stick to measure by?
As for being one vote away, we will forever be “one vote away” if we make it an all-or-nothing.
Besides, not supporting the immediate overturning of Roe is NOT the same as being FOR Roe. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
MatthewK, just because Steele wins, do you think that suddenly all the pro-life congressman and senators from the heartland that Knepper so despises will suddenly become pro-life? I think that we are better off with Steele if he can win a few seats in some blues states that we don’t have. The heartland will continue to elect pro-lifers. And the people will elect the party nominee to president, not Steele.
I do not “despise” pro-life Congressmen. I despise anyone, pro-life or pro-choice, who insists on applying rigid litmus tests.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
291, Isn’t Steele pro-Roe. Pro – Roe ( which means anti – originalist is not an example of what the SoCon branch needs to be. Also while Steele may be great for Maryland we can do much better in ohter places and even nationally.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Win M,
Romney’s position is the same as Bush’s. Are you saying you guys were all up in arms about him as well?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
MATTHEW K
PLEASE
ADDRESS
MY
POINT
ABOUT
ROMNEY
AND
THE
ASSAULT
WEAPONS
BAN.
THANKS.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Win M – You mean like David Keene (NRA VP soon to be pres) who endorsed Romney?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“Pro-life, but not, as Win M pointed out, a culture warrior.”
Yes, yes, a million times yes. Alex distills this distinction perfectly.
I am pro-life but I don’t hate pro-choicers. I don’t think they’re immoral. I don’t think they’re baby-killers. I think we have a fundamental, foundational disagreement about conception and the beginning of human life.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Recess is over.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
It’s time for reform and Steele!
No more corrupt, old school, whites only, political hack GOP!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Win M – You mean like David Keene (NRA VP soon to be pres) who endorsed Romney?
Win M and I both agree! Romney is fine on guns! Cool your jets…haha.
It’s an analogy to combat MatthewK’s stupid point about Steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Matthew,
If Steele were really pro-choice why would he maintain an anti-embryonic stem cell research position when in the Maryland Senate race he was getting crushed for it. If he had been pro-choice there is a very good chance he would have won the election.
Address the fact that he has been willing to lose politically in order to defend life.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
“So if a GOP chairman candidate wanted a 50% increase in the income tax for all those making about $75k a year, you would have no problem with him/her becoming head of the party?”
Steele’s “pro-abortion” position isn’t that extreme. You’re throwing sh*t at a wall and hoping it sticks.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
MK #258:
I’ve always thought you’d make a great Dictator. In the great Roman tradition, of course.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Alex, if you love pragmatism so much, why don’t you like the way Romney ran Massachusetts?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
“If you honestly thought Giuliani would nominate someone to the Supreme Court who would come down in favor of Roe, you’re nuts.”
Go back and look at his statements about how Roe was good law, and about how any strict constructionist could easily keep Roe in place, and tell me if you still think I’m nuts…
===
“Did we have fewer abortions last year than the year before? If not, is the rate of growth of abortions decreasing? At the end of the day, isn’t that the yard stick to measure by?”
It is – which is why getting rid of Roe is so critical.
====
“Besides, not supporting the immediate overturning of Roe is NOT the same as being FOR Roe. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp?”
Because if you oppose Roe, why would you not want it overturned? We aren’t talking about how possible or likely or quickly a person thinks it can be overturned – we are talking about whether they believe it SHOULD be overturned.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
alex
see dskinner at 302.
i guess you are the antithesis of MatthewK’s “troubling love affair with Romney”.
you my friend have a “troubling hate affair with Romney”
i can understand someones liking someone (like MK) , but disdain(like you) is an action driven by a base deficiency in emotional intelligence, frankly with your academic background and prowess I expect to see better.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I cannot explain why MatthewK’s insane litmus tests do not apply to Romney.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
“Win M – You mean like David Keene (NRA VP soon to be pres) who endorsed Romney?”
David Keene has some issues with NRA rank-and-file.
“Win M,
Romney’s position is the same as Bush’s. Are you saying you guys were all up in arms about him as well?”
I’m too young to remember any discussion of the issue during the ’00 primaries. But once he’s the nominee and then the president, he’s certainly preferable to a Democrat, so that kind of squelches uproar over the issue.
NRA members certainly support Bush, but I don’t think we’ve ever sensed he really was that interested in gun rights. Hell, Bill Richardson was much more outspoken in favor of gun rights than Bush.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Alex, if you love pragmatism so much, why don’t you like the way Romney ran Massachusetts?
That’s not why I dislike Romney.
I dislike him because he’s an opportunistic phony.
I may have supported him, quite honestly, if he’d run as he governed in Massachusetts.
However, he saw a niche to fill, and thought he couldn’t beat McCain and Rudy. Too bad.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Anuzis drops out. 6th round of voting ongoing.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
“If Steele were really pro-choice why would he maintain an anti-embryonic stem cell research position?”
If Steele were really pro-life why would he maintain a position that says that Roe v. Wade should remain in place, knowing full well that we will make no more major progress on the issue until it is?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
but disdain(like you) is an action driven by a base deficiency in emotional intelligence, frankly with your academic background and prowess I expect to see better.
Ah, so if I dislike your candidate, it must be because I have an emotional deficiency.
Interesting tactic.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
315, I missed most of the arguement, so maybe I’m getting things out of context, but I’ll say this. Abortion is much, much, much bigger issue than the right to have assualt weapons.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
““If you honestly thought Giuliani would nominate someone to the Supreme Court who would come down in favor of Roe, you’re nuts.”
Go back and look at his statements about how Roe was good law, and about how any strict constructionist could easily keep Roe in place, and tell me if you still think I’m nuts…”
Did you completely miss my point about pressure from the base? Even if Giuliani WOULD nominate someone who was pro-Roe (which he wouldn’t, because he’d get crucified), he could NEVER get him through. Remember Harriet Miers? The conservative base has a HUGE amount of influence on the GOP when it comes to judges. I think somehow you know this and you’re just being difficult for the sake of it.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Win M,
Exactly right about Bush’s position. He was endorsed by the NRA and Romney holds the exact same position as he does. Bush just comes from a state and speaks in such a way that he has more credibility on the issue.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
MATTHEWK
ADDRESS
MY POINT
ABOUT ROMNEY
AND HIS OPPOSITION
TO THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
January 30th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
The states are half-way through casting their ballots.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Sorry Alex, I was sloppy with my words. I didn’t meant that you despise pro-life congressman, just that you despise the heartland.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
COME ON! CHAIRMAN STEELE
January 30th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
“I cannot explain why MatthewK’s insane litmus tests do not apply to Romney”
Because an assault weapons ban is not the same as the issue of life, for a few reasons:
1) There is a lot more compromise in a gun law than an abortion law
2) Being against an assault weapons ban is not a fundamental tent pole of the party.
3) As assault weapons ban can be undone with only minimal damage in the meantime. Once an abortion happens, there is no reversing it.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“315, I missed most of the arguement, so maybe I’m getting things out of context, but I’ll say this. Abortion is much, much, much bigger issue than the right to have assualt weapons.”
True, and an assault weapons ban isn’t a make-or-break issue for me. I’m just trying to reinforce the point that Romney is not in perfect lockstep with the conservative plank like Matthew would like to believe.
The problem with an assault weapons ban isn’t that NRA members want to run around with uzis, it’s that the label “assault weapon” is defined EXTREMELY broadly, and an assault weapons ban is a tool liberals would use to ban types of guns that, in reality, aren’t assault weapons. It’s a back-door route to outlawing firearms.
No one I know in the NRA cares about owning a genuine assault weapon.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Hahahaha, oh, so an issue is only fundamental to the party if MatthewK says it is. Haha, that’s rich. The NRA and GOoA would beg to differ; it is in the freakin’ Constitution, after all.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I doubt anybody dies because of an Assaults weapon ban.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Matthew,
Can you actually answer the question. You can’t just always deflect the questions you have no answer to by asking me another question.
Quotes can be taken way out of context. Romney was killed for being against Reagan because of a partial quote. He was asked what he thought about deficits and whether he would continue the Reagan/Bush model of deficit spending.
No answer the question about Steele.
You are being really hypocritical. You hate it when people do to Romney exactly what you are doing to Steele.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Romney was only elected in Massachusetts in the first place because he ran as a pragmatist.
MatthewK would never have the chance to vote for Romney in 2012 if he hadn’t run as I suggest in the first place.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
MatthewK once again comes to Race and proves what a ignorant ass he is.
Ken Mehlman was RNC Chair under President Bush. Mehlman is Pro-Choice and Gay. Did Ken Mehlman move the Republican Party to the left on social issues?
Of course not. That is not within the scope of what he does. RNC Chair is an organizer, fundraiser, and a strategist.
MatthewK may actually be intelligent, but he really damages his rep personally by constantly spouting off about things in which he has no clue. Dude needs to maybe, I don’t know, go to college or something and built a foundation base of knowledge on politics.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
#319 “If Steele were really pro-life why would he maintain a position that says that Roe v. Wade should remain in place, knowing full well that we will make no more major progress on the issue until it is?”
Cart before the horse. You can’t get the change politically until you move public support towards your position. Your current actions aren’t moving it there. Ergo, your blind adherence to “Roe must go!” is HURTING, not helping, your position. Trying to force the public in a direction they aren’t willing to go yet is how you lose ground you shouldn’t be losing! Revamp the message, and in 10-20 years, we well may get Roe overturned!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
“I dislike him because he’s an opportunistic phony.”
Is that because you don’t trust him, or because you disagree with him? If you don’t trust him, consider that he would HAVE to govern as a pro-lifer whether he believed in it or not (I think he does) if he wanted to have any chance at success.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
ak
i couldnt care less if you like Romney. Palin, Huck, Sanford, Jindal or not.
What i point out is that you consistently belabor MKs love for Romney, and I will readily admit it can be excessive at times, but you fail to realize that you are two peas from the same pod.
I just get a laugh at pot calling kettle black.
that said keep up the critical analysis as anyone who cannot intelligently and competently answer criticism of their candidate does said candidate no value and has no real core as far as I am concerned.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
They have to vote on a co- chair also?
January 30th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
C’mon Guys,
Sounds just like what I would guess were the arguments among the Whigs in 1858, shortly before they disappeared for good.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“You are being really hypocritical. You hate it when people do to Romney exactly what you are doing to Steele.”
Oh, geez, how true is that. Every time someone here uses one of Romney’s quotes against him, all hell breaks loose. Now they’re using similarly outdated and irrelevant quotes from Steele. The hypocrisy of it all…
January 30th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
What i point out is that you consistently belabor MKs love for Romney, and I will readily admit it can be excessive at times, but you fail to realize that you are two peas from the same pod.
Except that I can name plenty of things that I like about Romney.
He’s very intelligent.
He’s a brilliant and accomplished businessman.
He governed Massachusetts fairly well, although I disagree with some of his decisions, notably his health care plan.
He has a nice family.
He’s well-spoken.
But I don’t trust him to make the big, principled decisions.
He’s in perpetual businessman mode. Trying to sell a product. In politics, that translates to being a phony. He’s in it to build a legacy for himself and nothing more.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
My strong guess is that in the 2012 primary Alex will be supporting Romney. Romney will not get the hardcore evangelical socon support which means that his main opposition will come from that group.
Also Romney will feel less of a need to emphasize his socon warrior credentials – ie no more porn filters on all computers proposals.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Alex, what politic is not an opportunist?….Tell me.
If you believe that a person can not change his/her mind or evolve the way he or she think then you are not more sophisticated than those folks you despise.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
““I dislike him because he’s an opportunistic phony.”
Is that because you don’t trust him, or because you disagree with him? If you don’t trust him, consider that he would HAVE to govern as a pro-lifer whether he believed in it or not (I think he does) if he wanted to have any chance at success.”
DIDN’T I *JUST* MAKE THIS POINT TO YOU ABOUT GIULIANI AND JUDGES??!??! LIKE FIVE MINUTES AGO?!?!
January 30th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“Did Ken Mehlman move the Republican Party to the left on social issues?”
No, he didn’t. I am fully aware of that. But what you ignore is that Mehlman was not the most powerful or high profile Republican during his term. At that point, we a pro-life, pro-family President and a pro-life, pro-family head of the Congress.
The power and influence of a party chairman is significantly reduced when the party is in power.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I have disagreed with Alex K in the past, but I am glad we both see Romney as a phony because he did not run as who he was. As a Socon, I would have actually respected him as the moderate he was instead of Pandering Socon he never was.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
The power and influence of a party chairman is significantly reduced when the party is in power.
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT STEELE IS GOING TO BE THE UNQUESTIONED #1 REPUBLICAN IN THE COUNTRY????
January 30th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
339,
I feel more like the Federalists at the Hartford Convention in 1814.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Alex, what politic is not an opportunist?….Tell me. If you believe that a person can not change his/her mind or evolve the way he or she think then you are not more sophisticated than those folks you despise.
Gosh, how convenient that at 59 years old, right before he was about to run for president in a field that didn’t have a strong pro-lifer, he had a change of heart on the one issue that would make him distinct from the others.
Give. Me. A. Break.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
“Now they’re using similarly outdated and irrelevant quotes from Steele. ”
There is a BIG difference between 14 yr. old quotes that have been answered to by the candidate in a very public manner, and 2.5 year old quotes that have not…
January 30th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Matthew,
I am as big of a Romney guy as anyone out there. I still have my “Romney for America” key-chain and my daughter still uses her “Kids for Mitt” bib.
Learn to look at things from an unbiased perspective. You can support Mitt as much as anyone and still acknowledge his flaws.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
How is it that every discussion always circles back to Romney? Can’t we have well reasoned and civil conversation and FOR ONCE IN OUR FREAKIN LIVES NOT MENTION THE “R” WORD?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
The ‘Other’ One — Because MatthewK brought him up.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Do a search in this thread.
The first mention of Romney came from MatthewK, at #165.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“DIDN’T I *JUST* MAKE THIS POINT TO YOU ABOUT GIULIANI AND JUDGES??!??! LIKE FIVE MINUTES AGO?!?!”
I knew you’d say this…
The difference is in the constituency. If Giuliani is elected as a moderate by moderates, there is actually significant pressure for him to remain moderate. With Romney, as a conservative elected by conservatives, the pressure is for him to remain pro-life and pro-family.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
*#)$*#)$*# YES!!!
YES YES YES YES YES
January 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Steele wins! Will MK now quit the GOP?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Michael Steele Whoo-hoo!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Congratulations Chairman Steele! Yes!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I’m so happy, I could cry! GO STEELE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Congrats!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Let’s get back to celebrating the fact that Steele is going to win in a few minutes and change the public perception of the party to help us re-establish our image of fiscal responsibility and good government.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Steele! Socons and Ficons rejoice!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
“Steele wins! Will MK now quit the GOP?”
No, I, as well as other conservatives, will not just have to work in exile, without the support of the party hierarchy.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Great news for the GOP.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“Great news for the GOP.”
and abortionists.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Hilarious. So MK will be voting straight-ticket Dem, unless Romney is Prez nominee, because the enemy of his enemy is his friend.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Matthew, I sincerely hope you come to learn that selecting Steele as Chair has in no way affected the GOP’s committment on abortion.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“Great news for the GOP.” and abortionists.
YOU ARE SUCH A TROLL
(LISTEN TO STEELE: YOU WANNA OBSTRUCT? GET READY TO GET KNOCKED OVER.)
January 30th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
“Hilarious. So MK will be voting straight-ticket Dem”
Did I say that? No. I said that it will be much harder to advance a conservative agenda – particularly on social issues – with Steele as the most powerful Republican.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Richard, let me ask you a question, what kind of candidate do you believe Steele is likely to support for the GOP nomination in three years?
—-
“YOU ARE SUCH A TROLL”
Why? Because I want a chairman who hasn’t made statements hostile to the pro-life cause? Is that really, in a party that is overwhelmingly pro-life, too much to ask for?
—-
If you ask me Alex, you are more of a troll, because on a Republican site, you advance a pro-abortion, anti-traditional values agenda.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
MK you’re being somewhat irrational. I’m certainly a socon but Steele will not move the party one way or the other. His job is to organize and get R’s in office. If he’s successful i’ll be glad. If not, I’ll be the first to call for his head.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
369 got it right. Get ready to get knocked over.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Alex, you say Romney is in perpetual business mode so you don’t trust him to make the big principled decisions. But doesn’t his
opportunism serve the party and country well? What’s the difference between making his investors happy and making the Republican
base happy? Or the difference between making your company profitable and successful and making the
country profitable and successful? Yes, different decision are involved, but if Romney is an oportunist, then it doesn’t matter
what decisions have to be made. He’ll make the ones that make the country safer, stronger and more effective. Same goes with the
Republican party. He wants to represent the party and will do what it takes to satisfy it’s members. What is so criminal about
that? I say it’s about time someone was willing to represent all 3 leags of the platform, rather than snub the one they don’t like.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Except you are not a Conservative Matthew. You are a Republican.
Conservatives, like myself and most others on this site, will be working hard along with Chairman Steele to further the American Conservative Movement while you sit on your ass and do nothing.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
““Great news for the GOP.”
and abortionists.”
You and JA Pruce live in the same little echo chamber, which I think orbits Pluto.
You’ve got a very frustrating life ahead of you.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Why? Because I want a chairman who hasn’t made statements hostile to the pro-life cause? Is that really, in a party that is overwhelmingly pro-life, too much to ask for?
Oh yeah? Well, I don’t want a presidential nominee to oppose gun rights. So there! Hah!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Steele is so much better than Dawson that it doesn’t matter one bit to me that he might be a teeny tiny bit pragmatic when it comes to his statements on abortion.
Thank Heaven this party doesn’t have to be a southern-all-white-country-club-guy party.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“His job is to organize and get R’s in office”
And what kind of candidate do you think he is going to looking to jump behind in three years? Another Giuliani?
Thats my fear.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Alex, you also claim he’s just trying to build a legacy for himself and nothing else. Well wouldn’t it follow that the only way
Romneyhe could accomplish that is to build a stronger Republican party and stronger nation? Geez, what a terrible price to pay!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Matthew K,
You are plain wrong.
Steele is a devoted devout Catholic who is pro-life in his convictins.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Easy. One he thinks fits most closely to the GOP platform while also having a good chance to win. If the candidate disagrees with one or two issues, but has 10% on the nearest competitor, he’d go with the winner over the ideologically pure (as it’s better to get 95% of what you want than 0%, since you can always come back later to get the other 5%).
January 30th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Alex, you say Romney is in perpetual business mode so you don’t trust him to make the big principled decisions. But doesn’t his
opportunism serve the party and country well? What’s the difference between making his investors happy and making the Republican
base happy? Or the difference between making your company profitable and successful and making the
country profitable and successful? Yes, different decision are involved, but if Romney is an oportunist, then it doesn’t matter
what decisions have to be made. He’ll make the ones that make the country safer, stronger and more effective. Same goes with the
Republican party. He wants to represent the party and will do what it takes to satisfy it’s members. What is so criminal about
that? I say it’s about time someone was willing to represent all 3 leags of the platform, rather than snub the one they don’t like.
I don’t trust him to make unpopular decisions.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
“Except you are not a Conservative Matthew. You are a Republican.
Conservatives, like myself and most other on this site, will be working hard along with Chairman Steele to further the American Conservative Movement.”
Excellent distinction. Conservatism first, Republicanism second.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Looking forward, I think the most important thing for Steele to do is not at the federal level with Congressional races in 2010, but in state house and senate races in 2010.
The redistricting will be huge and will shape the next 10 years of Congressional leadership, not to mention be the starting point for many future leaders.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
And what kind of candidate do you think he is going to looking to jump behind in three years? Another Giuliani? Thats my fear.
You know, the super-so-cons who supported Dawson and Blackwell are on the same plane as me when it comes to Romney.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
YAY!!! GO STEELE!!!!!! WOOHOO!!!! Great day to be a republican and a conservative.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
[...] an excellent recap on how it all shook down I will refer you to this thread at Race 4 [...]
January 30th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Matthew is a Republican more than a conservative only in the sense that:
(1) He pretty much rigidly supports the party platform, and
(2) He is not conservative in his temperament
January 30th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
#371,
Remember the big tent? Let’s keep it that way. Saying “abortionists” is not in any way helpful, useful, intelligent, constructive, etc. R does not equal pro-life of necessity. Alex is fine in this party. He isn’t trying to kick you out. You are also perfectly fine in this party. Just remember that someone can disagree with you and still reside in the same tent.
That said I would never entertain having, participating in, or encouraging anything or anyone with abortions. At the same time though i’m not going to stand across from clinics with signs shouting “abortionists” at people. I would probably feel sad and frown as I drove past though.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“Oh yeah? Well, I don’t want a presidential nominee to oppose gun rights. So there! Hah!”
Now who’s acting like a three year old?
===
An Assault Weapons ban is a minor issue, and one that is only a small part of the broader gun debate. Roe v. Wade is EVERYTHING on the life issue, which is, in itself, a major public policy debate that is a critical part of the Republican platform.
===
“Conservatives, like myself and most other on this site, will be working hard along with Chairman Steele to further the American Conservative Movement.”
No disrespect kavon, but what the hell are you smoking. “I oppose a candidate who breaks with Conservative values on a major issue, and believe that he will make it harder to advance social conservatism, ergo, I am not a Conservative.”
???!!!???
===
“Steele is so much better than Dawson that it doesn’t matter one bit to me that he might be a teeny tiny bit pragmatic when it comes to his statements on abortion.”
Pragmatism is recognizing the reality of a situation. Saying “I don’t think Roe can be overturned within the next six months” is being pragmatic. Saying “We have to change more minds first” is being pragmatic. I would not have had problems with either of those statements. Saying “Roe v. Wade should remain in place” isn’t pragmatism, its an opinion.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
What bothers me about Alex’s opposition to Romney is that he’s thinks Romney is the only opportunist. He’s blown it all way out of proportion.
In reality, Romney is far less opportunistic than most. I believe he has more integrity than most politicians, as well. In the primary he didn’t stoop to personal attacks like everyone else did, but stuck strictly to the candidate’s records. He didn’t go for snarky comments as Huck and to a lesser degree, Fred and Rudy did.
It seems to me that Alex just doesn’t like Romney for some gut reason, and uses the opportunism as cover.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Congrats Chairman Steele. Now knock over those Democrats and help lead our party back to power.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Oh ****, they put a worthless politician in charge so his mug can get more face-time on Meet the Press. There goes the infrastructure.
This is a very bad day. The last thing we needed was a self-serving RNC Chair.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
““Oh yeah? Well, I don’t want a presidential nominee to oppose gun rights. So there! Hah!”
Now who’s acting like a three year old?”
Um, I think he was satirizing YOU.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Matthew, I do’t like that quote either, all I’m saying is that Dawson was intolerable.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
The chairman doesn’t traditionally support a candidate for the Presidential nomination.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Now who’s acting like a three year old?
I was mocking you…
January 30th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Oh ****, they put a worthless politician in charge so his mug can get more face-time on Meet the Press. There goes the infrastructure. This is a very bad day. The last thing we needed was a self-serving RNC Chair.
Dude, he’s a former state party chair and PAC chair.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
What bothers me about Alex’s opposition to Romney is that he’s thinks Romney is the only opportunist. He’s blown it all way out of proportion. In reality, Romney is far less opportunistic than most. I believe he has more integrity than most politicians, as well. In the primary he didn’t stoop to personal attacks like everyone else did, but stuck strictly to the candidate’s records. He didn’t go for snarky comments as Huck and to a lesser degree, Fred and Rudy did. It seems to me that Alex just doesn’t like Romney for some gut reason, and uses the opportunism as cover.
All politicians are somewhat opportunistic.
But there comes a point when it becomes too much for me to bear
And I don’t tolerate lying. Romney’s abortion story is an utter lie.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
DSkinner:
Amen to that. The party’s performance amongst minorities is far weaker than its national alignment with minority voter sentiments. Outreach efforts to younger voters also need greater emphasis.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Matthew, the abortion debate is over more than Roe. Being fixated on it hasn’t helped get it overturned, and it won’t. Too much of the country is either apathetic or pro-Roe. We need to convince people first, make a big push on it later.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Matthew, part of your problem is that you don’t really understand the history of conservatism. The founding of the modern conservative movement is usually dated to Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign, which illustrates perfectly the two historical tenets of conservatism:
1) Small government.
2) A strong, vigorous national defense.
Social conservatism came into the equation only much later. Goldwater himself was pro-choice and was pretty friendly to gay rights.
Social conservatism is a much more significant faction of the Republican party than it is of the conservative movement.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I WOULD LOVE TO BE A FLY ON THE WALL at the DNC right nolw and the white house!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“Steele is a devoted devout Catholic who is pro-life in his convictins.”
THEN ANSWER TO HIS DAMN STATEMENTS!!! SAYING “ROE SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE” IS NOT THE STATEMENT OF A DEVOUT, PRO-LIFE CATHOLIC WHO WANTS TO SEE AN END TO ABORTION.
===
“He isn’t trying to kick you out.”
He attacks, ridicules, and mocks those who believe in the same things I do. He criticizes those who want to advance the same agenda I do, and tries to reduce their influence within the party. He wants to simply pay lip service to the base, take their support for granted, and spend all the party’s time pandering to centrists.
===
“You know, the super-so-cons who supported Dawson and Blackwell are on the same plane as me when it comes to Romney.”
At least Romney, myself, and other Mitt supporters agree with them on the issues. At least we have SOMETHING in common.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
And I don’t tolerate lying. Romney’s abortion story is an utter lie.
Oh i’m sorry. I didn’t realize you were omniscient. Forgive me. Since you know so much tell me what I’m thinking right now. Of course you know but I’ll help out the others in here. It starts with “your full of…”
January 30th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
403 – Not totally fair to the so-cons. Abortion wasn’t a major issue until Roe v. Wade, and gay rights wasn’t one until the 90′s.
However…Goldwater’s own stances are more than enough proof that one can be as we are and fit comfortably within “the movement.”
January 30th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
“Matthew, the abortion debate is over more than Roe. Being fixated on it hasn’t helped get it overturned, and it won’t. Too much of the country is either apathetic or pro-Roe. We need to convince people first, make a big push on it later.”
Exactly. I think that Steele, by being an articulate spokesman eager to reach outside of our tent, will actually do more to advance the pro-life cause than Dawson would.
But that doesn’t matter to Matthew… rhetoric is all that matters.
Here’s a great question for you, Matthew… if you’re so concerned about the number of abortions, why don’t you vote for Democratic presidents? After all, the rate of abortions dropped during Clinton and rose during Bush. I think you’re just more interested in being angry at as many people as possible.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Cursed italics.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Oh i’m sorry. I didn’t realize you were omniscient. Forgive me. Since you know so much tell me what I’m thinking right now. Of course you know but I’ll help out the others in here. It starts with “your full of…”
Sorry, but I know how to put 2 and 2 together.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
“He attacks, ridicules, and mocks those who believe in the same things I do. He criticizes those who want to advance the same agenda I do, and tries to reduce their influence within the party. He wants to simply pay lip service to the base, take their support for granted, and spend all the party’s time pandering to centrists.”
Um, YOU’RE the one calling people abortionists, values-bashers, and anti-family.
And Alex doesn’t attack, ridicule, and mock those who believe in the things you do. He attacks, ridicules, and mocks those who employ the divisive, spiteful, overheated rhetoric that you do and issue ultimatums to GOP candidates.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Wow, this is one of the best things to happen to the GOP in a very long time. Congrats to future chairman Steele!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I’m aware of Steele’s resume Alex. And I’ve seen the blatant self-promotion he used GOPAC to achieve.
I don’t believe for a second that he ran for this job for the good of the party. It just gives him a bigger mailing list to stick his face on with a caption “Help Michael Steele Elect a New Generation of Republicans” and get more time on Hannity.
I’ve no clue why anyone supported this joker.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
“Sorry, but I know how to put 2 and 2 together.”
How DARE you impugn the motives of The One? How dare you subject our holy deity to skepticism?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
“Sorry, but I know how to put 2 and 2 together.”
Congratulations. You have joined a rather large club. That still doesn’t qualify you to determine the hearts of men. You can believe that someone is lying but it only shows your own arrogance to make the statements you do.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
#405 “He attacks, ridicules, and mocks those who believe in the same things I do.”
No, he attacks, ridicules, and mocks those who argue the same way you do. You are demanding all-or-nothing on an issue the public has already decided they’d rather have nothing than all. Your demands are unreasonable, and are destined to hurt the GOP if you don’t convince more people of the rightness of your argument. To do that, you’ll have to make a different pitch, because the one you’re using isn’t convincing anyone.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
“all I’m saying is that Dawson was intolerable.”
I agree – though at least he didn’t publicly split with a major branch of the party. There were how many other candidates? Why did we have to get the ONE whos dedication to social conservatism was in question?
====
“Social conservatism came into the equation only much later. Goldwater himself was pro-choice and was pretty friendly to gay rights.”
Different times. When Goldwater ran, abortion was mostly illegal, and Roe wasn’t even thought of yet. I don’t know if I could have supported BG then, but I KNOW I couldn’t support him now.
Support for the Iraq war is an even more recent addition to the party. Does that make it less of a Conservative issue? Of course not.
===
“The chairman doesn’t traditionally support a candidate for the Presidential nomination.”
Yet I don’t know if that will continue. I think – and perhaps hope – that the leaders of the party and the movement learned their lesson from their failure to support a candidate in 2008. Because the likes of the party chairman, major Conservative leaders (like Rush, Hannity, etc.) didn’t support a particular candidate, we ended up with McCain.
===
“Matthew, the abortion debate is over more than Roe.”
Not much more. Very little more can be done on abortion until Roe is gone, because most of the abortions that happen in this country are explicitly protected by Roe.
===
“Too much of the country is either apathetic or pro-Roe. We need to convince people first, make a big push on it later.”
THIS is pragmatism. I don’t happen to agree with it, but it is pragmatism nonetheless. What Steele said had nothing to do with pragmatism, it was a position statement.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Congratulations. You have joined a rather large club. That still doesn’t qualify you to determine the hearts of men. You can believe that someone is lying but it only shows your own arrogance to make the statements you do.
Sorry, I’ll be sure to take everything he says at face value without examining the broader context from now on. My apologies.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
“And I don’t tolerate lying. Romney’s abortion story is an utter lie.”
Oh and lol. Tell that to Giuliani’s wives.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I agree – though at least he didn’t publicly split with a major branch of the party.
He may have been a member of a Whites Only club, but at least he’s a hardliner on abortion!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Oh and lol. Tell that to Giuliani’s wives.
Are you kidding me? Donna Hanover’s nuts. Listen, Giuliani’s no saint in his personal life, but he is a pragmatic guy who got real results and never felt the need to sell himself out.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
How about instead of fighting over the law, we as all segments of this party and the other party come together to find practical ways to reduce the number of abortions? What problem does everyone have with that?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
#418,
Feel free to resort to meaningless sarcasm instead of considering my valid point.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
“if you’re so concerned about the number of abortions, why don’t you vote for Democratic presidents? After all, the rate of abortions dropped during Clinton and rose during Bush.”
Because the drop was minor, and because the policies of Clinton and other Democrats encourage more abortion by making it more available and by appointing judges who keep it legal.
===
“Exactly. I think that Steele, by being an articulate spokesman eager to reach outside of our tent, will actually do more to advance the pro-life cause than Dawson would.”
Not if he starts pulling in hardline pro-choicers who reduce the influence of the pro-life movement and push more liberal Republicans on social issues. Growing the party does not always advance the cause – it depends on what you are “growing” into.
===
“You are demanding all-or-nothing on an issue”
The only thing I am demanding is a party leadership that is reliably pro-life.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
How about instead of fighting over the law, we as all segments of this party and the other party come together to find practical ways to reduce the number of abortions? What problem does everyone have with that?
Because to the militant pro-lifers, it’s not about reducing the number of abortions — it’s about showing the world their moral purity. There is a small but vocal faction of the party that’s like this.
Giuliani has saved more unborn babies through his policies than Romney ever will.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
#422 Robbie, I think that’s the line everyone should be pushing. After all, who can disagree with it?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Feel free to resort to meaningless sarcasm instead of considering my valid point.
Your point was what? That I shouldn’t doubt what Romney says?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
MatthewK, are you listening?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
421,
The noun I used was plural.
A lie is a lie no matter to whom or in what topic. A man who only tells lies at home is no more worthy of trust than a man who only tells lies in politics.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“How about instead of fighting over the law, we as all segments of this party and the other party come together to find practical ways to reduce the number of abortions? What problem does everyone have with that?”
Because people who use that line are, almost exclusively, those who want to keep abortion legal and who think the solution is to do things like pass out condoms in schools, which, in the end, has many of the same effects as abortion, particularly when you move beyond (as I often do) the moral arguments against abortion.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
#413 “I don’t believe for a second that he ran for this job for the good of the party. It just gives him a bigger mailing list to stick his face on with a caption “Help Michael Steele Elect a New Generation of Republicans” and get more time on Hannity.”
Ironically, if he does just that, it will benefit the GOP tremendously by placing a crack in the racial barrier. Given enough time (say by 2016), it will give the GOP at least 20% of the black vote, with more on its way. The GOP is more in tune with minority issues than the Dems, but because of their neglect on their perception by minorities, they lose them badly.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
MK, the functioning of American political parties and American government eludes you completely. Your pontifications ignore all reality, and your closed-minded approach alienates potential allies.
I hope for your own sake you grow out of it.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“Your point was what? That I shouldn’t doubt what Romney says?”
Well my initial point dealt with the arrogance of your statement. But considering your second question, perhaps I should also encourage you to learn how to read and comprehend.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
C’mon, Richard M, nothin’ better than a rich white guy who was a member of a Whites Only country club to reach out to blacks!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
I am shocked at how the power brokers on both sides of the issue have convinced their flocks to keep them in power so they can fight the good fight on abortion. Meanwhile, the politicians who are helped into office by many of the same forces spend 0% of their time on the abortion issue.
Don’t you think that the things the government actually does 100% of the time merits at least some consideration? Or most of it? Or ALL of it?
The people of the nation will need to be convinced that abortion should be outlawed before it will be outlawed. If that is truly your dream, I’d worry a lot more about grassroots pro-life efforts than holding a political ideology and party hostage to it.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
“Support for the Iraq war is an even more recent addition to the party. Does that make it less of a Conservative issue? Of course not.”
No, you’re conflating Republicanism and conservatism.
Support for the Iraq war is a REPUBLICAN position. There are good arguments to be made that it’s not necessarily a conservative position.
See, you think that a Republican party plank is necessarily a component of conservatism. That’s just not so.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Because people who use that line are, almost exclusively, those who want to keep abortion legal
I see the reality of the situation, and for that reason only I think it’s best to keep abortions legal. In an ideal world, we could prevent them. In an ideal world, kids wouldn’t have sex promiscuously. In an ideal world, people would be more responsible…
pass out condoms in schools, which, in the end, has many of the same effects as abortion
WHAT???
January 30th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
“MK, the functioning of American political parties and American government eludes you completely.”
My view of political parties is that they should advance opposite sides of an agenda so as to give the public options and a complete view of the debate. I believe the government should do what is good for the country, and what makes the country stronger, safer, and more prosperous…
Exactly what part of that is wrong?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Wow… Me, FredsFighter, and Alex Knepper all agree… this is a great day for the GOP!! CHAIRMAN STEELE!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
iam confused is steele going to be the cairman going though the 2012 campaign? I just heard it’s a 2year term
January 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“A lie is a lie no matter to whom or in what topic. A man who only tells lies at home is no more worthy of trust than a man who only tells lies in politics.”
A man who lies at home isn’t worth of trust AT HOME. A man who lies to voters isn’t worthy of voters’ trust. There is ample evidence to prove that people compartmentalize. There are great politicians who have horrible, dishonest personal lives, and vice versa.
Jimmy Carter was maybe the most devout, honest family man we’ve ever had in the White House. He was also an incompetent, fairly dishonest president. Conversely, Eisenhower managed the country superbly and had a mistress.
Politicians’ personal lives have no bearing on their political performance. I do not care how many people Rudy Giuliani bangs or has banged. I care how competent and honest a manager he is.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
i am confused is steele going to be the chairman going though the and during 2012 campaign? I just heard it’s a 2year term
January 30th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“Yet I don’t know if that will continue. I think – and perhaps hope – that the leaders of the party and the movement learned their lesson from their failure to support a candidate in 2008. Because the likes of the party chairman, major Conservative leaders (like Rush, Hannity, etc.) didn’t support a particular candidate, we ended up with McCain.”
Crap crap crap crap crap crap.
Rush and Hannity did their best to make sure it wasn’t McCain. They didn’t explicitly do so, but they wanted Thompson and Romney.
“Not much more. Very little more can be done on abortion until Roe is gone, because most of the abortions that happen in this country are explicitly protected by Roe.”
How about the fight not be about making it illegal, but trying to reduce the number of abortions? You want abortion to stop? Fund more and better adoption centers. Educate people about their options. Allow contraception in schools. Stop teaching abstinence. Teach sex ed. The list goes on and on of ways to try to reduce abortions other than fighting tooth and nail to make it illegal. I hate abortion. I just think this is the best way to stop it.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
MatthewK, sometimes the best way to advance a cause isn’t by forcing it on people. Sometimes an indirect approach has a much higher chance of success.
The people of the nation will need to be convinced that abortion should be outlawed before it will be outlawed
Correct.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
The noun I used was plural. A lie is a lie no matter to whom or in what topic. A man who only tells lies at home is no more worthy of trust than a man who only tells lies in politics.
What lie did Giuliani tell?
And even if I accept your bogus premise, what the hell does this have to do with Romney?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“WHAT???”
Its true. As I said, this applies mostly when you move beyond the moral arguments against abortion, and into the societal arguments. Along with my personal moral and religious bliefs, I oppose abortion because I believe it damages the family and shrinks the future generations of our country who are supposed to pick up the flag and lead the charge to continue keeping America strong and healthy in the coming decades.
Thats the problem with the liberal solution to abortion – to, rather than protmoting families and life, look for other ways to avoid having more kids.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
How about the fight not be about making it illegal, but trying to reduce the number of abortions? You want abortion to stop? Fund more and better adoption centers. Educate people about their options. Allow contraception in schools. Stop teaching abstinence. Teach sex ed. The list goes on and on of ways to try to reduce abortions other than fighting tooth and nail to make it illegal. I hate abortion. I just think this is the best way to stop it.
This is where I focus my efforts. I find it much more fulfulling than fruitless hardlining
January 30th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“like pass out condoms in schools, which, in the end, has many of the same effects as abortion”
Yeah, I’d really like an explanation of that. That’s absurdly nutty and backwards.
You know where I got condoms from when I had sex in high school, Matthew? MY SCHOOL. You know where I would have gotten them if my high school didn’t have them? Nowhere. I wouldn’t have used them. I was a stupid horny 17 year old, just like 95% of 17-year-olds. Teaching them about abstinence only isn’t going to keep them from having sex, BECAUSE THEY’RE ALREADY STUPID AND HORNY!
January 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“i am confused is steele going to be the chairman going though the and during 2012 campaign? I just heard it’s a 2year term”
Its a two year term, but its renewable, and since we seem likely to pick up at least a couple seats in 2010, I think its likely that Steele will remain chair during the primary race.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Why is passing out condoms in schools bad? Nobody’s ever explained this to me.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Man, you’re hopelessly confused. You can’t mix all the issues together like that. The best option for a pregnant 16-year-old isn’t to start a family.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“Thats the problem with the liberal solution to abortion – to, rather than protmoting families and life, look for other ways to avoid having more kids.”
Again with you and this weird fascination with population growth. Our country really isn’t at risk of dying out from underpopulation.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
SOME PEOPLE CANT AFFORD KIDS! Does that mean that they can’t afford sex?
January 30th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
MK,
It isn’t the government’s job to “promote families and life”. If that is what floats your boat, go ahead and promote it. But if I choose to be a bachelor or whatever else, it has nothing to do with the government. Promoting your favorite social norms is a liberal idea, contrary to what you theocrats may have been told.
And on the ridiculous notion that part of your opposition to abortion is that it shrinks future generations of our country, studies have shown that a woman will have the same number of kids in her life regardless of whether or not she has an abortion. An abortion only changes the time in her life that she has the kids.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
“. Teaching them about abstinence only isn’t going to keep them from having sex, BECAUSE THEY’RE ALREADY STUPID AND HORNY!”
There are plenty of normal, straight teenagers who don’t feel the need to sleep with every hot girl they come across. If that is possible, why should we not believe that abstinence works? There was just a study that came out that showed that those who grow up in a pro-abstinence environment are less likely to have sex early.
===
School, even, might be one thing. But the problem with the liberal solution to abortion maintains the same ultimate goal and effects as the procedure itself – fewer families, smaller families, a weaker next generation, etc.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
454-Using GOVERNMENT to promote your favorite social norms is a liberal idea. Even if your preacher tells you that those norms are conservative, forcing norms to people is government intrusion.
January 30th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
FF: Are you not aware that another of MK’s strange views is that America is endangered by a declining birthrate (no, I’m not kidding) and that we must encourage everyone to have as many babies as possible.
I’m not sure if he wants to mandate that every woman must have three children, but I suspect he thinks it would be a good thing.
If we don’t do this, we shall be overwhelmed by the Yellow Peril.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
“Our country really isn’t at risk of dying out from underpopulation.”
Uh, its not at risk of “dying out” as you put it…but it is at risk of having a rapidly shrinking population, and it is deffinately at risk of losing its status as the top economic and military superpower, particularly with the rise of billion-person nations…
===
“Promoting your favorite social norms is a liberal idea, contrary to what you theocrats may have been told.”
Why should the government not promote those things which are good for the country?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“There was just a study that came out that showed that those who grow up in a pro-abstinence environment are less likely to have sex early.”
And less likely to have a comprehensive education on how to not get/get someone pregnant once they go to college.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Des that mean steele will be chairman at the 2012 convention?. I think a good 2012 convention city would be SAN DIEGO!
January 30th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
351 Heck, that’s nothing, I still have to Romney stickers on my rear windshield.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
“A man who lies at home isn’t worth of trust AT HOME. A man who lies to voters isn’t worthy of voters’ trust. There is ample evidence to prove that people compartmentalize. There are great politicians who have horrible, dishonest personal lives, and vice versa.”
I disagree. You are certainly entitled to your opinion though.
——-
“What lie did Giuliani tell?
And even if I accept your bogus premise, what the hell does this have to do with Romney?”
You clearly haven’t been married. There is a little ceremony where people promise things. When you don’t live up to your end its called a lie.
This has zilch do with Romney except for the hilarity of your declaration that you “don’t tolerate lying” when applied to others.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
““. Teaching them about abstinence only isn’t going to keep them from having sex, BECAUSE THEY’RE ALREADY STUPID AND HORNY!”
There are plenty of normal, straight teenagers who don’t feel the need to sleep with every hot girl they come across. If that is possible, why should we not believe that abstinence works? There was just a study that came out that showed that those who grow up in a pro-abstinence environment are less likely to have sex early.”
Matthew, you’re deliberately being difficult. Lots and lots and lots and lots of teenagers have sex. Many don’t, many do. YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO KEEP ALL TEENAGERS FROM HAVING SEX. You can either recognize that reality or not. (I’m sure you prefer not to.) Now, given that reality, you can do two things: A) not provide birth control, ensuring that more teenage girls will become pregnant, which will lead directly to more teenage girls having abortions, or B) provide birth control, teach kids how to use it, and reduce the number of teenage girls getting pregnant and consequently the number of teenage girls getting abortions.
I think the bottom line is you really don’t care about the number of aborted babies. Nothing you advocate suggests that you do. Your views keep abortionists in business at a far greater rate than Alex’s.
A why even mention “straight” in that comment? Of course we’re talking about straight teenagers – it’s an abortion discussion! Or do normal and straight go hand-in-hand for you?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
You clearly haven’t been married. There is a little ceremony where people promise things. When you don’t live up to your end its called a lie.
So anyone who has ever been divorced is a liar, then?
Oh, you Christianists make me want to bang my head into the freaking wall.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“I’m not sure if he wants to mandate that every woman must have three children, but I suspect he thinks it would be a good thing.”
No mandates, but yes, I do believe larger families would be beneficial to our country’s future.
===
Look, if you people disagree with me on this, thats fine – but back up your arguments with some facts, or at least some developed analysis. How is the US (pop. 1 billion)? How about some historical context too? When has a smaller nation been more powerful than another superpower of greater size?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“…it is deffinately at risk of losing its status as the top economic and military superpower, particularly with the rise of billion-person nations…”
Look at China and India! They’re doing so well! We need to be a lot more like them.
China, the fastest growing economy in the country, mandates that families only have one child.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
““A man who lies at home isn’t worth of trust AT HOME. A man who lies to voters isn’t worthy of voters’ trust. There is ample evidence to prove that people compartmentalize. There are great politicians who have horrible, dishonest personal lives, and vice versa.”
I disagree. You are certainly entitled to your opinion though.”
So are you saying we’ve never had a good president that had a seamy personal life? Because that’s just patently not true.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
*in the world, not country…
January 30th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Fantastic election!
But look at the disgusting discussion on here. What was once the party of sound economics now is nothing but consumed with outrages debates on SoCon issues… while the nation is burning, so to speak.
I don’t think Steele will save you from yourselves.
Things where much better when SoCons were SoLibs were divided among the two parties. You could still band together to advance your agenda that way, without turning one party into a ridiculous culture war.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Matthew, is the best option for a woman at any given point in her life between puberty and menopause to be bearing children? You’re bordering on advocating that the proper role of a woman is to sit at home and pop out kids, which is pretty disgusting.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“Using GOVERNMENT to promote your favorite social norms is a liberal idea. Even if your preacher tells you that those norms are conservative, forcing norms to people is government intrusion.”
Unfortunately, that is something that MatthewK doesn’t seem to understand or care very much about. Personally I think abstinence should be taught along with how to use a condom and not get pregnant accidentally. There shouldn’t be an only one or the other approach.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
ugh, my head is spinning again.
===
“I think a good 2012 convention city would be SAN DIEGO!”
Eh…the left coast? Nah. Michigan, Virginia, Missouri, Florida…all good choices.
===
“A why even mention “straight” in that comment? Of course we’re talking about straight teenagers – it’s an abortion discussion! Or do normal and straight go hand-in-hand for you?”
It goes back a few months – some on here (notably Metro, who hasn’t graced us with his presence yet), believe that any teenage guy who hasn’t had sex by his senior year either A) isn’t straight or B) can’t get a girl.
===
Win M. Don’t you also agree that the more you talk about sex as a completely normal and ok thing for unmarried teenagers, and the more you try to make it consequence-free, the more kids might be tempted to engage in it?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Will steele be our chairman at the 2012 convention? Any chance san diego gets picked as convention city?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I’d just like to point out that this conversation we’re having right now is exactly what is keeping the GOP in the electoral wilderness.
It simultaneously…
A) distracts us from the business at hand
B) convinces most Americans that we’re nutty and medieval
Thanks for listening.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
A smaller nation is and has been a superpower over nations of larger size, right now and in recent decades/centuries.
Idiot.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“Why should the government not promote those things which are good for the country?”
MK, as soon as you accept this, you are a liberal in the modern sense. You think that the government’s job is to play chess with the players and try its best for its most preferred outcome. I’m saying that the government or the majority of the population do not get to pick a “right” way and then mandate it. That is liberal philosophy. They truly conservative (before theocrats stole the word conservative) philosophy is that the government’s job is to simply enforce the rules of chess.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“Win M. Don’t you also agree that the more you talk about sex as a completely normal and ok thing for unmarried teenagers, and the more you try to make it consequence-free, the more kids might be tempted to engage in it?”
Of course. But again, you’re living in black-and-white land. You can discuss and distribute birth control while discouraging teenage sexual activity.
The problem with abstinence-only sex ed is that a very significant chunk of teenagers will still have sex, and without condoms, still produce pregnancies and abortion. That’s PROVEN.
ABSTINENCE ONLY = MORE ABORTIONS
January 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
“China, the fastest growing economy in the country, mandates that families only have one child.”
This applies in certain, urban areas of the country, and has more to do with an underdeveloped infrastructure than anything. The US could easily support a much larger population…
====
“Matthew, is the best option for a woman at any given point in her life between puberty and menopause to be bearing children? You’re bordering on advocating that the proper role of a woman is to sit at home and pop out kids, which is pretty disgusting.”
No, but I DO have a problem with what I view as the anti-family, anti-child message that society sends, particularly though the support of policies like abortion…
====
“Unfortunately, that is something that MatthewK doesn’t seem to understand or care very much about. Personally I think abstinence should be taught along with how to use a condom and not get pregnant accidentally. There shouldn’t be an only one or the other approach.”
Look, if you could isolate the kids who were going to have sex, and told them “use a condom” that would be fine, but since you can’t, you have to send the message that pre-marital, consequence-free sex is, at least, somewhat acceptable…
January 30th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“MK, as soon as you accept this, you are a liberal in the modern sense. You think that the government’s job is to play chess with the players and try its best for its most preferred outcome. I’m saying that the government or the majority of the population do not get to pick a “right” way and then mandate it. That is liberal philosophy. They truly conservative (before theocrats stole the word conservative) philosophy is that the government’s job is to simply enforce the rules of chess.”
I tried making that point the other day to Matthew and it didn’t quite take.
The reality is, really, that Matthew is a liberal whose policies will increase rates of abortion.
How’s that for irony?
I want the government out of my ‘bidness. Matthew wants the federal government in the bed next to me, wagging its finger.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“So anyone who has ever been divorced is a liar, then?
Oh, you Christianists make me want to bang my head into the freaking wall.”
We both know you are capable of being intellectually honest. Why don’t you try and demonstrate that quality more often instead of putting up straw men. Divorce is an unfortunate situation that happens too often. Hizzoner could have done that before shacking up with someone else.
How is resorting to calling people “Christianists” any better than MK calling people “abortionists”? As someone said earlier, you both are two peas in a pod.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I think we need to make in-roads in the Northeast again. Maine, New Hampshire, Maryland, and Connecticut aren’t totally out of the question. Not that that’s a winning coalition there, but a strong party in those states puts on a good face for the rest of the country.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
“Look, if you could isolate the kids who were going to have sex, and told them “use a condom” that would be fine, but since you can’t, you have to send the message that pre-marital, consequence-free sex is, at least, somewhat acceptable…”
Your problem, Matthew, is that you simply declare the world to be black-and-white in order to make your arguments work. But because it isn’t, they don’t.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
#472: WTF????
January 30th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
472-Uh, sex is a normal activity for teenagers. Did any of you ever go to college?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
“I think we need to make in-roads in the Northeast again. Maine, New Hampshire, Maryland, and Connecticut aren’t totally out of the question. Not that that’s a winning coalition there, but a strong party in those states puts on a good face for the rest of the country.”
Exactly. Which is why we need to get Matthew to pipe down.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
How is resorting to calling people “Christianists” any better than MK calling people “abortionists”? As someone said earlier, you both are two peas in a pod.
That’s my PERSONAL view.
It has NOTHING to do with how I want the party run. I’M not a PARTY REPRESENTATIVE.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
472 sums up the pro-life hardliners.
You are more concerned with preventing teenagers from having sex (a think that the vast majority of them do regardless of what they tell their church or parents) than you are with preventing abortions. You don’t care about fetuses, you care about regulating sex and treating it as dirty and shameful.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Good sex-ed policy: Encourage kids not to do it, but since they’re horny teenagers and are gonna do it anyway, tell ‘em how to do it safely if they can’t control themselves.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
“A smaller nation is and has been a superpower over nations of larger size, right now and in recent decades/centuries.”
Absent from your statement are examples.
====
“Of course. But again, you’re living in black-and-white land. You can discuss and distribute birth control while discouraging teenage sexual activity.”
I’m not exactly sure how you do this…How do you say “X is wrong, at least for now, but here is how to do X, here is how to avoid any consequences for X, and here is free stuff so you can go and do X”
====
Look, what is so wrong with the government sending the message that “Children are the future of our country, when people have kids, its a good thing. Parenting is rewarding and beneficial to all involved, and helps make the US stronger”
Is that really such an evil liberal message to send?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Britain — Through most of the 19th century (in reference to a great number of countries with larger populations, including most notably Russia)
US — Today (or do you think we are less powerful than China?)
Power is a function of economics and technology more than numbers. A critical mass of numbers is necessary, but beyond that critical mass, greater numbers are pretty much meaningless. Your thinking might have had validity when the most important factor in power projection was the number of soldiers you could put in the field, but Russia proved almost 100 years ago in WWI that huge armies meant little without the infrastructure to transport them and support them. Numbers mean less today (again, beyond the critical mass).
You’re uninformed on just about every topic you speak about, aren’t you?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
IMHO, this whole no-sex-before-marriage thing is pretty stupid. How can you possibly know whether you’re fully compatible with a person unless you have sex with them first? Or are we now going to say that sex doesn’t matter in a relationship?
Matthew, trust me, if you haven’t yet, you’re going to have sex before marriage, and you’re going to use a condom.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
You theocrats in claiming that you are against abortion when you are really just against out-of-marriage sex are no different than the Muslim countries that claim to be “pro-family” when they force women to cover themselves and not let them see a man besides their own husband.
I’m begining to think that this is more about fear of cuckoldry than anything else. That is the only rational explanation for the refusal of sex ed by someone who allegedly is outraged by abortions.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
“472-Uh, sex is a normal activity for teenagers. Did any of you ever go to college?”
Yes, and thank God. Freshman year was, um, REWARDING.
My oversharing actually has a point… I participated in more than my far share of pre-marital sex in high school and college. However, here I am at 26, married to a girl I met in college. Matthew thinks pre-marital sex leads to some sort of anti-family degeneracy. That’s just not the case. The vast majority of people who have pre-marital sex get married and have normal families. Discouraging premarital sex doesn’t necessarily increase the strength of the American family. Teenage girls getting pregnant DOES, because they RARELY marry and father and frequently abort the baby.
Fighting a campaign against premarital sex means fighting against hormones, and that’s a losing battle – trust me. (Me and over 90% of Americans – http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061220/ai_n17079734)
January 30th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
“That’s my PERSONAL view.
It has NOTHING to do with how I want the party run. I’M not a PARTY REPRESENTATIVE.”
Clearly. Neither is MK. Both resort to unintellectual and derogatory labels. Neither label is constructive. I don’t recall attaching similar labels to you. Its called respect. Both words are the invention of little minds.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Absent from your statement are examples.
Uhh…us…for the past century..?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
“472-Uh, sex is a normal activity for teenagers.”
common =/= right.
===
“You don’t care about fetuses, you care about regulating sex and treating it as dirty and shameful.”
Wrong? Ever notice how social conservatives have larger families? Ever look at the policies of the Catholic Church? They oppose premarital sex, but CERTAINLY do not view it as inherently “dirty”.
====
More when I get back.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Clearly. Neither is MK. Both resort to unintellectual and derogatory labels. Neither label is constructive. I don’t recall attaching similar labels to you. Its called respect. Both words are the invention of little minds.
YES HE IS. He says that my types shouldn’t be allowed to have any power in the party. He both disagrees with me AND wants me purged from the Republican ranks.
In contrast, I have no problem with Southern white conservatives. Hell, my 2012 candidate so far is one, for crying out loud!
January 30th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
common =/= right.
Common = Common, and you’d better figure out how to address things that are common.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“Matthew, trust me, if you haven’t yet, you’re going to have sex before marriage, and you’re going to use a condom.”
I actually lived in a house in college with six other guys. Four of them were no-sex-before-marriage guys, and they stuck to it. When their girlfriends were over, they LEFT THE DOORS TO THEIR ROOMS OPEN. It was a whole other world to me.
But, to their credit, they didn’t pass judgment on me (at least out loud) and didn’t care how I conducted myself. Opposite of Christianism.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
This isn’t about MK. Let me rephrase.
“Clearly. MK is not a Party rep either but he does something similar. Both resort to unintellectual and derogatory labels. Neither label is constructive. I don’t recall attaching similar labels to you. Its called respect. Both words are the invention of little minds.”
Does that work better for you?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
“common =/= right.
Common = Common, and you’d better figure out how to address things that are common.”
Clearly, you yell at them not to do it. And when they continue to do it, you yell at them some more.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
496,
Sorry,
I meant you want to treat any out-of-marriage sex as dirty and shameful. Which is ridiculous and wildly out of line with the vast majority of Americans. You know, the people who have been throwing us out of power for the past 3 years?
January 30th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Mcon, no, because I am about party-building and he is about having a secret club.
If you think I can’t hold personal views or be part of a coalition without having any disagreements — even heated ones — with fellow coalition members, then I don’t know what to tell you.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“Mcon, no, because I am about party-building and he is about having a secret club.”
CAN WE HAVE DECODER RINGS? BECAUSE I’LL TOTALLY GET ON BOARD WITH MATTHEW IF WE CAN HAVE DECODER RINGS!
January 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
503,
Another useless straw man. This discussion is about respect. You don’t build parties while calling others “christianists” any more than you would calling people “abortionists.” Why is that something you are struggling with? We clearly don’t agree on a large number of issues and but if our goal is party building, yours(and MK’s) is not a viable method. You don’t convince others to accept and agree with you while speaking of “christianism.”
January 30th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I’M NOT THE ONE WHO IS IN CHARGE OF PARTY-BUILDING.
Am I not allowed to hold my own freaking opinions, separate from party infrastructure? Good God.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Win M. #504,
Coincidentally, they are available from R4’12 for a fee of $29.95 + s/h
January 30th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Let me stick my nose in here:
Alex is not saying the “Christianists” can’t be a part of the party. He’s inviting them in.
Matthew is indeed saying that the “abortionists” can’t be a part of his party.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Right. I am saying that people who disagree — even intensely so — all have a place in this party. It’s all about what we have in common, what we mutually can fight for, what we emphasize where, what we all oppose. The big things that unite us as Republicans are what count.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
“I don’t think Steele will save you from yourselves.”
No Metro only someone of your genious can save us dumb Christian country folk from destroying ourselves.
Sheesh! does Alex ask you to drop by and make him look good.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
506,
You have stated that you “are about party-building” so quit evading. Insulting others with worthless labels has nothing to do with your stated objective. It is no better and no different than calling people “baby-killers” or “abortionists” or fill in the blank for any other group I might disagree with.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
“So anyone who has ever been divorced is a liar, then?
Oh, you Christianists make me want to bang my head into the freaking wall.”
Well technically yes, divorce would make at least one of the partners liars. You promise till death do you part, which turns was false, therefore you’re liar. Come Alex this is about as simple as two+two = 4. This doesn’t mean there bad people, but it does make them liars along with the 90% of the country – which really tells us nothing excpept your ” The one thing I don’t tolerate is lying” is, ironically, a lie.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I think that Obama is probably very worried about The Man of Steele becoming the new leader of the Republican Party. Obama often fairs poorly against African American opponents (witness, Bobby Rush). The era of Steele is likely to mark a direct challenge for Obama’s African American base as Steele has the ability to make the GOP competitive with this demographic. Steele is a great spokesman and has shown incredible abilities and reminds some of Reagan in his prime.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Well, never mind, then. I’ll be sure never to separate my personal opinions on the issues from what I think the party leadership should do ever again.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
“Right. I am saying that people who disagree — even intensely so — all have a place in this party. It’s all about what we have in common, what we mutually can fight for, what we emphasize where, what we all oppose. The big things that unite us as Republicans are what count.”
I agree 100% with that statement and its sentiment. However, no where in there does it say we can’t show respect to those we disagree with.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Well technically yes, divorce would make at least one of the partners liars. You promise till death do you part, which turns was false, therefore you’re liar. Come Alex this is about as simple as two+two = 4. This doesn’t mean there bad people, but it does make them liars along with the 90% of the country – which really tells us nothing excpept your ” The one thing I don’t tolerate is lying” is, ironically, a lie.
A lie is an intentional deception.
Marriages sometimes fall apart due to changing, unexpected circumstances.
You’re playing word games with me, here.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
512, And that all proves that I should proof-read before I post.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
515 – Well…I get a bit fired up sometimes. Nothing personal.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Alex, you are only holding Romney to your standard. Guiliani lied about the public money he funnelled to cart his girlfriend around.
And, you do not know that Romney was lying when he said the converstion with the Harvard guy impacted his position on abortion. Knowing everything I know about Romney, I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
515, And that’s fine. We all do. I’m just trying say that when we resort to that behavior it makes it impossible to persuade others and only makes us look small minded. I tend to think you are rather bright and expect better. That said no worries. I didn’t take it personally. Just remember that I first called out MK for calling people “abortionists”.
January 30th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Wow, you really do not keep up with the news, Martha:
1) The Giuliani story was shown to be a lie
2) The Harvard guy said Romney’s making it up
January 30th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
sry i meant 518 in my 520.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Generally cheating on one’s wife involves intentional deception, and if intentional deception is your definition of lying, than unfortunately I’m not sure there’s really any politicians you can vote for.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Alex, yep, I never read that Guiliani was cleared of that, or that Romney made it up – which is ridiculous on it’s face. Do you have a credible link for either?
January 30th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
“Britain — Through most of the 19th century (in reference to a great number of countries with larger populations, including most notably Russia)”
Even when you include all the British Territories?
====
“YES HE IS. He says that my types shouldn’t be allowed to have any power in the party. He both disagrees with me AND wants me purged from the Republican ranks.”
If “your types” are ones who want to attack social conservatism, then yes, I am. If your type are ones who will push for capitalism and a strong national defense, while allowing Social Conservatives to advance their agenda in the same way, then that is fine. Unfortunately, your recent statements have been a lot closer to that first one. The way I interpret what you’ve said is that you don’t think we need to pay any attention to the base, because we’ve already got them in our pocket…
Everything you say seems to be about reducing the power of social conservatism and the influence of the movement’s leaders.
====
“I actually lived in a house in college with six other guys. Four of them were no-sex-before-marriage guys, and they stuck to it. When their girlfriends were over, they LEFT THE DOORS TO THEIR ROOMS OPEN. It was a whole other world to me.
But, to their credit, they didn’t pass judgment on me (at least out loud)”
Which isn’t much different from what I want. I want the nation to PROMOTE a certain thing. Not force. Not jail those who do things differently, but I want some recognition that there IS a certain way that is better for the country and its citizens than other ways…
====
“Which is ridiculous and wildly out of line with the vast majority of Americans.”
I’m not really so sure it is. You think mothers and fathers want their kids sleeping with everyone who crosses their paths? You think that a nation that is overwhelmingly Catholic or Protestant doesn’t think that there is a better way to do things than pre-marital sex, even if maybe they didn’t quite follow that path?
January 30th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Its rather interesting that Alex has no problem with a person lying/cheating on his family numerous times, but for convenience sake, accuses Romney of lying about a position on an issue. There’s no way he can prove it, but we know for a fact that Rudy was unfaithful to his family.
Rudy is the proven liar here.
BTW – I like Rudy.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Martha – http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/12/20/us/politics/20071221_GIULIANI_GRAPHIC.html
January 30th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Oh yeah, and I was going to say that the rule really only applies to “super powers” – and doesn’t include nations like the pre-1940s United States (militarily isolationist), or the pre-1970s China (economically isolationist).
January 30th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I’m glad Steele won, simply because the party needs to move more to the center and more minorities. Steele has the potential to help win over both groups, although only time will tell.
Steele is very Romney-like in some of his positions, especially abortion. But he’s the best of a flawed field.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
“Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn’t discuss killing or anything related to it,” Melton said in a December statement to The Boston Globe. “I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17023959/
January 30th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Oh yeah, and I was going to say that the rule really only applies to “super powers” – and doesn’t include nations like the pre-1940s United States (militarily isolationist), or the pre-1970s China (economically isolationist).
Have we not been a superpower since the post-war period?
January 30th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
530, It just one person’s word againt another.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“Steele is very Romney-like in some of his positions, especially abortion.”
In the sense that Romney has previously made pro-choice statements, yes. In the sense that Romney is now clearly and publically pro-life and anti-Roe, no.
Look, if Steele can still be an advocate for Conservatism, if he can still support conservative candidates, if he can still go out and support a Conservative for the nomination, then great. But I’m concerned that that won’t be the case, and that a Steele chairmanship means damage to the pro-life movement.
Even you admit that it would move the party to the center…
January 30th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“IMHO, this whole no-sex-before-marriage thing is pretty stupid. How can you possibly know whether you’re fully compatible with a person unless you have sex with them first? Or are we now going to say that sex doesn’t matter in a relationship?”
that is a great comment, as if sex is the only factor for compatability in a relationship. You must have very exciting and fulfilling relationships.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I would like to quote this in fullness to demonstrate the lack of reading comprehension that occurred:
I said: “IMHO, this whole no-sex-before-marriage thing is pretty stupid. How can you possibly know whether you’re fully compatible with a person unless you have sex with them first? Or are we now going to say that sex doesn’t matter in a relationship?”
To which you said: “that is a great comment, as if sex is the only factor for compatability in a relationship. You must have very exciting and fulfilling relationships.”
……..
January 30th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
“Have we not been a superpower since the post-war period?”
We have. China hasn’t. China isn’t even quite at superpower status yet, but they will be soon, and then we’ve got problems…
January 30th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Alex, that statement is pretty revolting to some of us who view the foundation of love as being personalities and morals and values and shared goals and dreams, and sex simply as an expression of that love.
Even if you apply sex as the final test, that statement is akin to saying “Got a great relationship with someone you love? Great – have sex. Good sex? Great – get hitched. Otherwise? Dump ‘em!”
January 30th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
!!!!!!!GO STEELE!!!!!!!!!!!
January 30th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
MatthewK, I differ from Alex in my personal view on premarital sex. However, you’re simply wrong to avoid teaching complete sex ed.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Talk about *Hope*! — The House Republicans unanimously vote against Porkulus, and Michael Steele elected RNC chairman. Good reasons to be encouraged.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Are you saying that 10% of people never lie? I always thought George Washington was unique (or at least nearly so) in that regard.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“you’re simply wrong to avoid teaching complete sex ed.”
You show me a curriculum that would teach kids about sex without causing more to engage in it, and I would be alright with it.
But as a I said above:
[blockquote]“How do you say ‘X is wrong, at least for now, but here is how to do X, here is how to avoid any consequences for X, and here is free stuff so you can go and do X?’”[/blockquote]
January 30th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
So we can only count into the equation countries that meet your definition of superpower. Well, that’s an approach that certainly makes it easier for you to win all arguments you enter.
It’s really a waste of time to engage this guy — he’s lost on his own little planet.
Bye.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Well congrats to Steele. He earned it. Now let’s see what he can do with it.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
“Alex, that statement is pretty revolting to some of us who view the foundation of love as being personalities and morals and values and shared goals and dreams, and sex simply as an expression of that love.”
And some of your statements about homosexuality are pretty revolting to those of us who view homosexuality as an inherent trait and think that everyone should be allowed to have their love and commitment sanctioned by marriage.
Revulsion is all relative.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
541, Well actually I just pulled that number out of thin air.
January 30th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
“IMHO, this whole no-sex-before-marriage thing is pretty stupid. How can you possibly know whether you’re fully compatible with a person unless you have sex with them first? Or are we now going to say that sex doesn’t matter in a relationship?”
An exceptionally immature reason for a relationship. At 36 and very happily married, both my wife and I would rate sex at about the bottom of all considerations that make our marriage great. If something happened to one of us so that sex was no longer possible, it really wouldn’t matter.
Seriously, grow up.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Alex, here’s what Melton said,
“Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn’t discuss killing or anything related to it,” he said in a statement last week. “I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases.”
First thing, he obviously is doing his research for the purpose of curing disease. But, he also thinks it’s just dandy to clone human beings for experiementation and subsequent destruction. How much more unethical does it get!? Romney may have misquoted him, perhaps he did not use the word kill, but I don’t doubt Romney’s account. (What do they do with the embyros after 14 days? Discard them/kill them – same diff.)
Do I believe Romney made up the whole conversation from whole cloth? Absolutely not. From what I read, Romney was concerned that the Harvard Institute could be in legal trouble over the matter, and he called in various experts to meet with him and his staff to to discuss it. Romney was vehemently against the research, and Melton knew it. OF course he’s going to “remember” the events with a different viewpoint.
If this is all the proof you have that Romney is a liar, you’d better go back to the drawing board.
BTW – thanks for the link on Rudy, I didn’t see it at the time.
Romney
January 30th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
“Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn’t discuss killing or anything related to it,” Melton said in a December statement to The Boston Globe. “I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases.”
Unless you have some kind of super powers the rest of us are unaware of, this proves absolutely nothing. To me, it proves, either that this guy’s memory differs from Romney’s, or that he is lieing. But to you, it proves Mitt is lieing, which is asinine, unless like I said, you’re superhuman or something.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
“lieing”
Um, it’s “lying.” I know it’s the internet, but come on…
January 30th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Travis what are you reading?
January 30th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Oops, sorry Win. I do know better, but sometimes our fingers and brains just aren’t in sync. The one that bugs me most is people (many of them on here) put ‘your’ for ‘you’re’ all the time.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Allow me to do a Gamecock here and say that I predicted the result – in order!
More importantly this is a good result for our party.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
The Scandal That Wasn’t
The Buried, Unquotable Exoneration
Martha,
Were you also not aware that Mitt Romney, himself, said at the first debate that “it’s fine for” IVF clinics to destroy unwanted, excess human embryos for stem cell research?
January 30th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
The truth is as far as image goes, these would be the results that the media would talk about…
Duncan: GOP sticks head in the sand, refuses to change
Dawson: GOP chooses racist to fight Obama
Blackwell: GOP catering to social conservatives
Anuzis: Not even worth mentioning, haha
Steele: GOP catching up to Obama/Dems
So the truth is, even though Steele is pretty moderate, he’s also for sure the best PR choice right now. Good for the RNC.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Steele wins equals Charlie Christ being the 2012 nominee.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
http://news.aol.com/article/republican-romney-criticizes-obama-on/323994?cid=12
Romney speaks out against Pres. Obama’s decisions.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
GREAT NEWS…
Now let’s get JINDAL in the White House in 2012.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
“So the truth is, even though Steele is pretty moderate, he’s also for sure the best PR choice right now”
But is he the right POLICY choice?
Its all very nice that we get positive press for a couple weeks, but what of the next two years? How do we keep the party to the right with a moderate as the chairman?
January 30th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
“Oops, sorry Win. I do know better, but sometimes our fingers and brains just aren’t in sync. The one that bugs me most is people (many of them on here) put ‘your’ for ‘you’re’ all the time.”
No problem. I always feel like a douche pointing these things out, but I was an English major, and the tradeoff for having no job prospects is that I get to go around nagging everyone about grammar/spelling/punctuation.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“But is he the right POLICY choice?”
Steele doesn’t affect policy. The chair does PR and implements strategy.
January 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
I find it hard to believe that the most powerful and high profile Republican isn’t going to have some effect on policy. If not how Reps actually vote, the kind of message the GOP sends…
You control the institutions, and eventually you control everything…thats why college students are liberal – academia is liberal. Thats why Evangelical Protestants are Conservative – churches are conservative.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I think it’s more that evangelicals, who are conservative by their general outlook and upbringing, congregate in areas and thus those places tend to be conservative, not the other way around. People generally shape institutions more than institutions shape people – if institutions change, there is probably some change in people’s philosophy/outlook to explain it.
Anyways, check out the CNN headline, which pretty much sums up my feelings right now:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/rnc.chairman/index.html
Not that we have a black chairman, historic mark that it is, but rather the sense that the Republican party is turning itself around and entering a period of renewal. Steele seems very receptive to the feelings of the base in shaping the direction of the party. He’s not going to force them to moderate. What I can’t wait to see him do is to focus base conservative efforts into renewed causes that mean something to America and to Americans. I think Steele really wants to make the party connect, and that’s exactly who we need right now – someone who is going to put their heart and soul into making that connection and isn’t going to exclude anyone. That’s wonderful for the party.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Michael Steele/whoever else you want to be chairman is NOT going to support a candidate for the nomination in four years. It won’t happen.