• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Steele becomes first black RNC chairman

americanwoman said:
Can't anyone just let someone do their job before blasting them? Maybe he did get picked because he was black and maybe he didn't- it's irrelevant. Give the guy a chance, I think it will be good for the Republican party. I think they need something fresh and if this guy can bring it, good for him. Let's see how he does first and then judge him. Bringing up that point, I find it funny how some people are blasting Obama already and then others are complaining he's only been in charge a couple weeks- Steele has just become the chairman- please apply that same thinking to him before you talk stuff. Or just pick and choose your outrage, whatever. :2razz:
Click to expand...

I'm too lazy to go back over the last 15 pages, but I think the question hanging over the thread is why was he picked? Conservatives are at a crossroads right now as far as should we move center or right? The Steele pick tells us where the party thinks it's going.

I do not believe this man was chosen because of the color of his skin. I know many true conservatives who like this man. He also seems to appeal to moderate conservatives (how is that even possible? lol). If he can bridge the gap between the mod cons and the hard core, then in fact, he was a fabulous pick and may be just what we need right now. Like I had said earlier, I'm on the fence with him. I'm more than willing to give him a shot.

*If he wants to reach out to pro-choicers, that's political code for reaching out to younger women IMO. We need more chicks in our party, cause women will be the ones to bring us into the 21st century. JMHO.
 
Ikari said:
Thank goodness Obama knocked down all the racial barriers.
Click to expand...

Yeah !
Right !
A shame, racism is still alive and well ( a oxymoran), and will be around for another century or two.
Mans progress is so painfully slow..
 
StandUpChuck said:
I do not believe this man was chosen because of the color of his skin. I know many true conservatives who like this man.
Click to expand...



I am just laughing my butt off how Democrats were oh so offended when people were saying they were voting for Obama just because he was black and now, not even a month later, they are accusing Republicans of the exact same thing.
 
StandUpChuck said:
I'm too lazy to go back over the last 15 pages, but I think the question hanging over the thread is why was he picked? Conservatives are at a crossroads right now as far as should we move center or right? The Steele pick tells us where the party thinks it's going.

I do not believe this man was chosen because of the color of his skin. I know many true conservatives who like this man. He also seems to appeal to moderate conservatives (how is that even possible? lol). If he can bridge the gap between the mod cons and the hard core, then in fact, he was a fabulous pick and may be just what we need right now. Like I had said earlier, I'm on the fence with him. I'm more than willing to give him a shot.

*If he wants to reach out to pro-choicers, that's political code for reaching out to younger women IMO. We need more chicks in our party, cause women will be the ones to bring us into the 21st century. JMHO.
Click to expand...

I don't know why Republicans would want to move center. We just tried that with a candidate who supported amnesty for illegal immigrants and someone who prides himself on "reaching across the aisle." Before the 2008 election, I don't know how many Democrats I heard say "Oh, I like John McCain. I could vote for him." So he's finally the presidential candidate and for whom did they vote? Obama. Wasn't even a dilemma for them.

I certainly disagree strongly with people on the far left end of the spectrum but at least they're consistent. I think "moderate" is also a code word for "fickle." I think of the people before the election who just couldn't decide between McCain or Obama. They were two pretty different candidates! I don't know how anyone with half a brain couldn't figure out which one to vote for.

I guess that's my long-winded way of saying that you have to stick to your principles. Trying to appeal to self-described "moderates" or "independents" is like chasing your tail, imo. Put the ideas out there and if people think they're good, they'll hopefully vote for politicians who support those ideas.
 
don'ttreadonme said:
I don't know why Republicans would want to move center. We just tried that with a candidate who supported amnesty for illegal immigrants and someone who prides himself on "reaching across the aisle." Before the 2008 election, I don't know how many Democrats I heard say "Oh, I like John McCain. I could vote for him." So he's finally the presidential candidate and for whom did they vote? Obama. Wasn't even a dilemma for them.

I certainly disagree strongly with people on the far left end of the spectrum but at least they're consistent. I think "moderate" is also a code word for "fickle." I think of the people before the election who just couldn't decide between McCain or Obama. They were two pretty different candidates! I don't know how anyone with half a brain couldn't figure out which one to vote for.

I guess that's my long-winded way of saying that you have to stick to your principles. Trying to appeal to self-described "moderates" or "independents" is like chasing your tail, imo. Put the ideas out there and if people think they're good, they'll hopefully vote for politicians who support those ideas.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying DTOM, and I wish the party followed that principle more. However, as an individual, I'm glad to see the reach out to those 2 groups. I think I'm as schizophrenic as our party leaders. :doh
 
StandUpChuck said:
Well, these are my 2 issues where I break with conservatives a bit. I don't see the harm in reaching out to gays. I know a few gays who've always identified themselves as democrat, but they really lean conservative. Steele does not support gay marriage (nor does Obama, but the gay community tends to forget that), but that doesn't mean gays don't have a home with the GOP for the larger issues.

I don't see why the base needs to die on this mountain to be honest. There are much greater issues we need to address. I just cannot see rejecting homosexuality to the extent that your base numbers dwindle, and you're turning away great people who happen to love the same sex.
Click to expand...

There's a large feeling in the gay community that Republicans use gays at scapegoats to turn out votes. They're never going to make headways with that mindset instilled in the population.

As far as pro-choice goes, it's really time we defined where the party stands so that everyone knows. Many are under the impression that republicans just want to take away women's rights to abortion. I think the majority of party leaders don't even want to mess w/R v W. But where we differ from Dems is PBA. If that were defined better, I think we'd see a lot more "leans pro-choice" coming over to our party. Right now we are defined (in part) as anti-gay and anti-choice when that's really not the case.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the majority of Republicans do want to overturn Roe v. Wade. I think it's even made it into the plank quite a few times.
 
LaMidRighter said:
A) he rallies people well, we need an energetic grass roots movement like the last time, for whatever issues those like myself disagree with Steele on, we'll take the reigns on those. B) with more enthusiasm comes more donations, which the Republicans lost with the spineless bunch we had the last couple of years. C) You're bringing up Dean, a psychotic, loudmouth, former governer with multiple failed attempts at higher office as an example of brilliance? Does not compute.
Click to expand...
A and B) I haven't seen much evidence of these, though I'd love to take a look at anything you have.

C) Multiple failed attempts? He ran for president exactly once. And I say he's brilliant because his 50-state strategy paved the way for the substantial gains Democrats made in '06 and '08. If it weren't for Dean in the DNC, I doubt Democrats would have won half the congressional seats they did, and I doubt Obama would have done quite so well in states like NC.

I don't want us to be left at all, if the constitution forbids something we need to tell those suggesting said change to stick it......the problem is the spineless Rebublicans I mentioned earlier that think going to the center wins elections.
Click to expand...

The center does win elections. If the Democrat wins his base and the center, he wins. If the Democrat wins his base and splits the middle, he still wins. Remember, Democrats have a significant advantage in registration nowdays. what was true in the past is not true today.
Click to expand...
 
StandUpChuck said:
I know what you're saying DTOM, and I wish the party followed that principle more. However, as an individual, I'm glad to see the reach out to those 2 groups. I think I'm as schizophrenic as our party leaders. :doh
Click to expand...

And I'm someone who will bolt if they go too "moderate." :lol:
 
StandUpChuck said:
Well, these are my 2 issues where I break with conservatives a bit. I don't see the harm in reaching out to gays. I know a few gays who've always identified themselves as democrat, but they really lean conservative. Steele does not support gay marriage (nor does Obama, but the gay community tends to forget that), but that doesn't mean gays don't have a home with the GOP for the larger issues.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Conservatives don't reach out to gays? I don’t think that just because many defend the idea of marriage being between a man and a woman they are automatically anti-gay.

I don't know very many Conservatives who don’t want Gays to have the rights of partnership and agree that we should have civil unions and leave marriage to the church.

The problem occurs when STATES get into the business of marriage; that is when the chit hits the fan.

Much like the debate on abortion; it wasn't a NATIONAL issue until the activists and a few activist justices divined the Constitutional right that we began to see divisions on this issue.

It was all about State's rights and should have remained in the "State."

I would not say that I am 100% against abortion; I believe there are much better choices than killing the unborn.
 
the makeout hobo said:
A and B) I haven't seen much evidence of these, though I'd love to take a look at anything you have.
Click to expand...
Guess you haven't seen the Republican response to M.S. I have and it has been big, as for point B, it's common sense, no one will support something they have no faith in, look what happened to McCain.

C) Multiple failed attempts? He ran for president exactly once. And I say he's brilliant because his 50-state strategy paved the way for the substantial gains Democrats made in '06 and '08. If it weren't for Dean in the DNC, I doubt Democrats would have won half the congressional seats they did, and I doubt Obama would have done quite so well in states like NC.
Click to expand...
First of all, I am not saying he ran for president on multiple occasions, but higher office, he became chair because it was obvious that he couldn't get elected after '04. Next, you give the man way too much credit for strategy, Bush had low approval ratings, the Republicans went back on the "contract with America", '06 was a backlash to that, '08 was a backlash to McCain, Bush, and the overall new Republican philosophy, Dean really didn't do much more than screach, scream, and foam at the mouth, any idiot could have beaten this batch of worthless Republicans.
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
Well you know why he became RNC Chairman.....riiiiiiiiiiiiight :lol:
Click to expand...
Considering the fact Republicans have a longer history of racial equality than democrats(who were once the party of the KKK),what could you mean by that statement?


As long as he is not a rino, McCain, Romney(republican John Kerry/flip flopper, or another Bush I could care less what color his skin is.
 
Hatuey said:
Well you know why he became RNC Chairman.....riiiiiiiiiiiiight :lol:
Click to expand...
You all must watch South Park, right? Do you know who Token Black is?

token.jpg
 
Truth Detector said:
You mean like the Democrats have?
Click to expand...
You know what the difference is? Democrats ELECT Blacks to serve in Congress, the Senate, The Presidency...and where have Republicans voted Blacks into national offices? How many Black Republicans are there in the Congress? HINT......The answer rhymes with HERO.....

ZERO ELECTED BLACK REPUBLICANS IN AMERICA IN 2009!!!​
 
Truth Detector said:
I would be more interested in your arguments of why Michael is NOT the best person for the job? While you are at it, why not explain why Michael wasn't the best person for the job of Governor of Maryland too? After all, like most of your commentaries, it should be worth a few giggles at the least. :roll:
Click to expand...
:rofl Steele was NEVER Governor of Maryland....he lost that election! :2wave:
 
Family Guy said:
You know what the difference is? Democrats ELECT Blacks to serve in Congress, the Senate, The Presidency...and where have Republicans voted Blacks into national offices? How many Black Republicans are there in the Congress? HINT......The answer rhymes with HERO.....

ZERO ELECTED BLACK REPUBLICANS IN AMERICA IN 2009!!!​
Click to expand...

How many black people ran in republican congressional primaries and ran for office,
 
DarkWizard12 said:
I don't see how allowing gay marriage and abortion has anything to do with big or small government.
Click to expand...

Not so much abortion but gay marriage I view as a big vs small government issue in addition to a church-state separation issue Here is an issue that has no affect on one's personal and/or economic rights on anyone else but the two men or two women invovled but yet its a big deal to some people for whatever reason it may be.


Not only that, last I checked, the vast majority of voters are against gay marriage so...I don't think the GOP want's to piss off 60% of America.
Click to expand...

Granted whether this is true or not do you honestly think that given the choice between a tax and spend Democrat vs a Republican who believes in Fiscal Conservativism but is for gay marriage the people will elect the Democrat?
 
Family Guy said:
You know what the difference is? Democrats ELECT Blacks to serve in Congress, the Senate, The Presidency...and where have Republicans voted Blacks into national offices? How many Black Republicans are there in the Congress? HINT......The answer rhymes with HERO.....

ZERO ELECTED BLACK REPUBLICANS IN AMERICA IN 2009!!!​
Click to expand...





You do know this sort of crap is more racist than whatever you are trying to imply here.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I shall answer this with a question.


Are you suggesting Racism among Republicans as the cause?
Click to expand...

Not as a major factor. While there are racists in the Republican party, I don't think that's a large factor. I mean, JC Watts got elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom