Michael Steele

At this point, nobody really expects much from the RNC, but even by their low standards, this is pretty pathetic:

Republicans are questioning Elena Kagan’s ties to a liberal icon and the nation’s first African American Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall.

In its first memo to reporters since Kagan’s nomination to the high court became public, the Republican National Committee highlighted Kagan’s tribute to Marshall in a 1993 law review article published shortly after his death.

Kagan quoted from a speech Marshall gave in 1987 in which he said the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.” She quoted him as saying the Supreme Court’s mission was to “show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged.”

“Does Kagan Still View Constitution ‘As Originally Drafted And Conceived’ As ‘Defective’?” the RNC asked in its research document. “And Does Kagan Still Believe That The Supreme Court's Primary Mission Is To ‘Show A Special Solicitude For The Despised And Disadvantaged’?”

The point that Marshall was making is, you would think, rather uncontroversial: 

I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today.

You know, the last time I checked, the Constitution had been amended twenty-seven times, under the procedure set out in the Constitution itself, in order to do things like abolish slavery and give women the right to vote.

Does the RNC think the the Constitution, as drafted, was perfect that therefore shouldn't be amended ?

If so, they might want to re-write their party platform:

We favor adoption of the Balanced Budget Amendment to require a balanced federal budget except in time of war.

...

Twenty-six years ago, President Reagan’s Task Force on Victims of Crime, calling the neglect of crime victims a “national disgrace,” proposed a constitutional amendment to secure their formal rights. Today, that disgrace persists in courtrooms across the nation. Innocent victims – battered women, abused children, the loved ones of the murdered – still may not be told when their case is being heard. They can be excluded from the courtroom even when the defendant and his friends may be present. They have no right to a speedy trial, and a judge or parole board has no obligation to consider their personal safety in making release decisions. In short, the innocent have far fewer rights than the accused. We call on Congress to correct this imbalance by sending to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of crime victims.

...

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

...

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.

Yesterday we posted video of James Dobson's remarks at the recent Council For National Policy meeting, so we were aware of the meeting took place, but didn't know where it was held.

W. Gardner Selby of the Austin America-Statesmen reports that it was held in Austin, Texas and that RNC Chairman Michael Steele was in attendance:

Eyewitness nugget: At the Austin event, Chairman Michael Steele of the Republican National Committee took [Phyllis] Schlafly's questions only after calling a time-out to give her a hug. I'll speculate he was trying to soften her up.

Steele told me his general message was to " get ready, stay engaged. There's a lot of work that has to be done."

Apparently, Steele has weathered the storm from earlier this year when various CNP members and allied activists were demanding his resignation.

Far be it from me to try and save the Republicans from the embarrassment that has been Michael Steel's 100 day tenure at the head of the Republican National Committee, but it seems to me that his latest "controversial" statement was in no way controversial at all.

Last week, while guest-hosting Bill Bennett’s radio show, he asserted that he didn't think that any Republican nominee could have won the election against Barack Obama and when a caller said he felt that Mitt Romney could have won, Steele responded by noting that the right-wing base of the party did not support Romney and kept him from getting the nomination:

But remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you’re talking about. So, I mean, I hear what you’re saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn’t, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost.

The Romney camp quickly issued a response saying Steele's assertion was off-base and now Steele is backtracking:

Chairman Steele regrets the way his comments have been interpreted. Chairman Steele believes Mitt Romney is a respected and influential voice in the Republican Party and looks to his leadership and ideas to help move our party and our nation in the right direction.

The thing here is that Steele has nothing to apologize for because everything he said was true:  the GOP's base was, by and large, leery of Romney because of his flip-flopping on choice and economic issues and many were quite openly hostile to this Mormon faith.

Granted, there were a multitude of other factors and dynamics at work at the time as well, but the fact remains that, outside of a handful of endorsements, Romney never managed to establish much support among the party's base for all the reasons Steele cited, as well as several others.

Romney might not like it that Steele pointed out his flip-flops and problems appealing to the base, and some on the Religious Right might not like being reminded of the undercurrent of anti-Mormon hostility that was present during the primary, but the fact of the matter is that Steele's assessment was correct.

Unfortunately for Steele, it seems that he's so conditioned to having to apologize every time he opens his mouth that he's now doing so even on the rare occasions when he's actually correct.

Since setting of a firestorm last week with his heretical comments about homosexuality and reproductive choice, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is trying to withstand the onslaught of criticism by calling off all television appearances and hunkering down to focus on the nuts and bolts of running the RNC (which, among other things, apparently includes redecorating his office to include a Bowflex.).

But that doesn’t mean that outrage has subsided and, if anything, the criticism appears to be mounting.

Concerned Women for America is blasting him for his “woefully misinformed view of the homosexual lifestyle” while the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins says that if Steele and the GOP are trying to create a “big tent” for the party, they are going to find out it’s nothing but a “empty big tent [if they] keep doing what they're doing."

Matt Barber of the Liberty Council has likewise weighed in, complaining that Steele "sounded like he was on the payroll of Planned Parenthood":

I am starting to wonder whether Michael Steele is on the payroll of the RNC or whether he's on the payroll of the [Democratic National Committee], because that sounds like something that Howard Dean or any spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign or the radical homosexual lobby would have said.

While many on the Right have been harshly critical of Steele, few have gone so far as to openly call for his resignation, as Star Parker has done in her latest column:

From what I see, the Republican National Committee representatives who picked Michael Steele as their new chairman made a mistake. I think Steele ought to step aside … This is not a time when we can muddle through with a leader who is not sure who he is, who is not clear about the principles of his party, and who is not consumed with the importance of the cultural war that we now confront. Mr. Obama certainly knows his own values with clarity and knows exactly what his objectives are … The Republican Party needs a chairman who wants to fight this fight. It seems pretty clear that Michael Steele is not that man.

For its part, the American Family Association is conducting a survey of its activists to see if they think that, in light of remarks, Steele should resign as Chairman of the Republican National Committee” and the results are not looking too good for him considering that nearly 95% of the respondents want to see him step down:

Yes, Michael Steele should resign as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.       78,578

No, Michael Steele should not resign as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.   5,011