“Wake up people. I mean what are you going to do? Are you going to kick these folks out of the party? I have watched this party self-disintegrate for the last four or five years. I’ve watched this party isolate itself from itself.”
– Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele losing the RNC’s chairman position

Yeah, I know he’s running for it, but I think he just lost it right there.


Because the GOP doesn’t want to be told that they need to move more to the left. They want to be told that Bush wasn’t a real Republican and that the new chairman will help elect candidates in the mold of Reagan.

Still, I admire the effort…

Steele […] insisted that Republicans have “a unique opportunity to build a relationship or a bridge between the conservatives and the moderates in our party.”

“We have to elect moderates in the party,” he added.

Steele said the GOP has to rebuild relationships with the various party factions in order to regain electoral viability and regain public trust in addressing policy concerns.

“There are a lot of people who would join us and be a party of our efforts who are pro-choice but they love our message on money; they love our value system on family values, broadly speaking, so then how do we cross-appeal,” he said. “How do we make ourselves relevant to the 21st century electorate which is clearly of a different mindset on a host of issues?”

Actually, I’ll have to disagree with Steele about moderates loving Republican’s family value system because I think those voters hold the exact opposite opinion.

Moderates currently see Republicans as the agents on intolerance who want to determine who you sleep with and what form your love can take, and that’s not going to fly any more. And the trend in this country is only toward more acceptance of “non-traditional” relationships, not less.

So until the GOP realizes that, they’ll be stuck in reverse trying to figure out why moderates and independents prefer the Democrats’ message.

  • Moderates currently see Republicans as the agents on intolerance who want to determine who you sleep with and what form your love can take, and that’s not going to fly any more.

    This is apparently true, as there are so many people who believe that having the government including heterosexual coupling as one of the many restrictions on the definition of marriage is somehow equivalent to determining who you love and sleep with. Yes, they are certainly seen that way. It is about perception.

    Nonetheless, my question is, when Barack Obama takes essentially the same position on marriage that George Bush does, i.e. no gay marriage but civil unions instead, why do those same moderates insist Obama and the Democrats are more tolerant on this issue? It is as if they know the Democrats are lying and they are OK with that.

  • Jimmy,

    Well, Bush isn’t for civil unions. I think that’s why you included the word “essentially.” Nice try, but there’s a big difference there.

    And how are the Dems lying again? You confused me there.

    Also, it’s not just civil unions…it’s acceptance of the lifestyle as an acceptable form of love. Republicans aren’t ready to do that yet, and until they are they’ll be seen as out of touch with the values of the next generati9on.

  • J. Harden

    Or at least out of touch with the values of GoogleBoyz, if not the next generation.

    The bigger the lie, the more they will believe it.

  • The bigger the lie, the more they will believe it.

    You mean like the lies being spread through older Republican circles about Obama’s citizenship?

    Seriously J, you need some new game.

  • Well, Bush isn’t for civil unions.

    Yes, he is. Who do you think said this: ““I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.”

    The botched grammar hilighted in bold should give it away.

    And how are the Dems lying again? You confused me there.

    From John Kerry, to John Edwards, Howard Dean and Barack Obama, All of the major Democrat players claim to believe marriage should be defined exclusively as between a man and a woman. Here is Obama saying essentially the same thing as Bush. The only difference (an why I say “essentially”) is that Bush supports defining marriage on a federal level, while Barack Obama supports state constitutions defining marriage.

    I say the Dems are lying, because in the back of their minds they all actually believe that marriage should be defined as any two people (or perhaps, in the future, 5 if Muslims start to get offended, but I digress), but they know they can’t get elected nationally on that platform. Their supporters in the gay community acknowledge this, and that there may be a sort of “stealth” agenda to stack courts with gay-rights activists so as to get these laws passed without referendum or representation. Since, in their minds, it is a step in the right direction, they are willing to tolerate the mendacity of the Democrats.

  • Jimmy,

    Thanks for that info. I genuinely didn’t know that. Kudos to Bush then. And yes, their stances are very close to the same if Bush still holds this same view.

    As far as lying goes, I don’t think we can know what’s in anybody’s heart, so that’s a pointless exercise, is it not? Best to argue the issues on their merits and go from there.

    But do know that the next generation of Dem and Repub politicians will either eventually acquiesce to gay marriage or have the federal government get out of the business of marriage altogether and instead create a civil union structure that serves the same purpose. Then marriage will be strictly a religious ceremony with no legal ties. And I’m completely fine with this second arrangement since I think it falls more in line with the separation of church and state.

  • J. Harden

    Justin – I am honestly at a total loss as to the source of your brazen confidence that the “new generation” will acquiesce to your brave new world and the destruction of marriage as we know it. And I would like to see how the federal government plans on recognizing gay marriages in states that do not recognize gay marriages. How is that going to work exactly Justin?

  • J. Harden,

    The source? Well, have you honestly not been paying attention to historical trends? Numerous opinion polls show that young people’s views on homosexuality and gay marriage are consistently becoming pro instead of against. Also, there’s the entire canon of recorded history where people always demand more rights, not less.

    And, by the way, you can demagogue and talk about the “destruction of marriage” all you want, but the divorce rate among straight marriages is holding pretty steady at 50% right now. So to suggest that gay marriage would somehow make that worse is supported by what? Your opinion. Meanwhile, straight people can get married on a dare. So please, save me the destruction talk.

    As far as the federal government recognizing gay marriages goes, I think this will happen in much the same way that interracial marriage was mandated by the SCOTUS I’m sure you’re familiar with their decision in 1967, right? And at that time I think more than 70% of Americans didn’t approve of interracial marriage. Did public opinion make it okay for states to codify discrimination? Of course not. The same will happen with marriage eventually unless the next generation doesn’t just try to amend their state constitutions to overturn the previously passed amendments that outlawed gay marriage. But a federal mandate would be the easiest by far.

  • TerenceC

    The “next” generation doesn’t think one way or another about straight or gay relationships – they don’t give it a second thought – why should they, it’s no one’s business but for the parties involved. This “next” generation does get pissed off however, with any government official making sex an issue when there are so many other far more important things to be concerned with. Jimmy, Bush never came out in favor of Civil Unions – he came out in favor of not getting in the way of States Rights to determine the issue – he is on record as “personally” wishing for an Amendment to define marriage as a man and a women. So do not attempt to push drivel, mal-speak, and double talk where Bush is concerned. He couldn’t hope to ever speak for a real conservative – he’s a joke. The R party needs to get off the morality train, jettison the emotional electorate, and focus on the secular issues that could get them elected. Religion will never be a front seat driver in American politics again. The “next” generation (regardless of their religious affiliation) has moved on from this DARK period in American politics. For the most part the “next” generation realizes that institutionalized hatred, obfuscation of the facts regarding how our government spends our money, and spinning “shiney objects in front of the people to divert their attention is total BS. From my own observations the “next” generation could actually be the best thing that ever happened to this country.

  • ExiledIndependent

    Man, this blog needs a name change.

  • No, EI, it doesn’t. So called conservatives in this country do need to realize that their whacky far right memes are not in fact the center of American politics.

  • Exiled, what do you mean?

    Donklephant has been and always will be a forum for political debate. Anybody of any political stripe is welcome to add their voice, just so long as they keep their arguments sharp and their language clean.