Michael Steele

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

It is probably safe to assume that Michael Steele's days as Chairman of the Republican National Committee are numbered now that this new interview from GQ is making the rounds in which he says that he believes that gay people can’t choose to be straight, that women have a right to reproductive choice, and that states should make their own decisions regarding these issues:

Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?

Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.

...

Do you think homosexuality is a choice?

Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”

So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.

I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.

...

How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?

Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.

Explain that.

The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?

Yeah. Absolutely.

Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?

The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?

Absolutely!

The interesting thing about this is that his statements are not really all that different from the positions he defended in the interview he gave to CNS News back in December. Though not as open about these things as he was in GQ, it was clear in the CNS interview that Steele did not ascribe to the GOP's hard-line stances on gays and choice but would support them because they were in the Republican Party Platform.  As I wrote at the time in response to Ken Blackwell's explanation of why he backed Steele:

Steele's embrace of these principles is anything but "authentic" - it is entirely opportunistic. Of all the candidates running for RNC Chairman, Steele is the one most likely "abandon the values and priorities" Blackwell cites because, as Steele freely admits, he doesn't actually agree with them.

Steele's views were well-known before his election as Chairman for the RNC, but given all the criticism he's come under recently, it seems quite likely that this latest dust-up will be enough to topple him from the position he's held for less than two months.

In fact, Ben Smith reports that Steele is already backtracking but it looks like it is too little too late as right-wing activists have already begun piling on:

"I think it is very troubling for a public figure, of either party, particularly one who presents himself as pro-life, to describe the abortion issue as being a matter of 'individual choice,'" That is language straight out of Planned Parenthood's messaging playbook," said Charmaine Yoest, the president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action, who said she hadn't heard from the RNC. "There are millions of pro-life Americans, Republican and Democrat, who are looking for leadership on the life issue and they will find Mr. Steele's comments disturbing and demoralizing."

Another anti-abortion activist and sharp critic of President Barack Obama on the subject, Jill Stanek, was even blunter.

"Michael Steele has just unmistakably proclaimed himself to be pro-choice," she said in an email. "You thought he was 'embattled' last week over his Limbaugh comment? Ha. He has now stepped both feet into it."

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins emails, "I expressed my concerns to the chairman earlier this week about previous statements that were very similar in nature. He assured me as chairman his views did not matter and that he would be upholding and promoting the Party platform, which is very clear on these issues. It is very difficult to reconcile the GQ interview with the chairman's pledge."

This is a Richard Cizik territory, and we all know how that turned out.