Mitt Romney for President, MyManMitt.com
About Us
Contact Us
Donate to Mitt Romney Campaign

Mitt Romney on the Issues
Videos Mitt Romney
Help Mitt Romney




Monday, May 11, 2009
posted by Justin Hart | 6:47 PM | permalink
One author thinks it's time for Steele to go. I tend to agree.

"On Friday, Michael Steele guest hosted Bill Bennett's radio show - and he got into a conversation with a caller on the subject of Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy. This caller - "Jay" (not me!) - had suggested that Mitt Romney could have won the general election, but that liberals had co-opted the Republican nomination by backing John McCain.

This is how Michael Steele responded (h/t Think Progress):

Yeah, but let me ask you. Ok, Jay, I'm there with you. 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.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Steele blasts Romney
  • DiggSteele blasts Romney
  • Fark:Steele blasts Romney
  • Furl:Steele blasts Romney
  • Ma.gnolia:Steele blasts Romney
  • Netscape:Steele blasts Romney
  • NewsVine:Steele blasts Romney
  • Reddit:Steele blasts Romney
  • Slashdot:Steele blasts Romney
  • StumbleUpon:Steele blasts Romney
  • TailRank:Steele blasts Romney
  • Technorati:Steele blasts Romney
  • YahooMyWeb:Steele blasts Romney

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


We must not take Michael Steele out of context. That is what killed Mitt Romney. If we want Romney to have a chance in 2012, we have to change the way we debate issues as a party. We can't look at the superficial image of things... we can't turn the word "nuanced" into a bad word, and we must never take people out of context. If we removed Steele for what he said, we would be serving the emotional shouters of the party... we are not the party of emotion... we are not the overly-idealistic, naive, party of people who get riled up by something that someone says out of context. We are the party of ideas. It doesn't matter what it sounds like Steele said, it only matters what he really said.

Jay Cost thinks that it is tie for Michael Steele to go, over what he said about Romney. Jay Cost is wrong.

Michael Steele was saying what a lot of people believe. We need to win the argument, with reason, not by kicking those people out of power that don't understand see things "the true way". We need Michael Steele out there saying what people believe, and having the conversation.

The caller was saying Romney could have won against Obama. Who cares? Maybe Romney would have won, maybe he wouldn't. Who cares? Michael Steele was pointing out that Romney did not win. I think Michael Steele tried brainstorming some of the reasons Romney did not win.

Yes democrats could do what John Stewart does every night, and take something that Steele said out of context. But there are a lot more things that Romney said that they could more easily take out of context.

You could take what Steele said out of context, and say that Mormons do not have the right to be republicans. But that is not what he said. Steele said, "It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism." He never said that he had issues with Mormonism, or that it was right that the base did. He listed it as one of other reasons, and he is right that it was a factor. It doesn't matter if what Steele said "sounds wrong" because he is right. It was a factor.

Steele didn't say it was good that the party reject people like Romney, Reagan, and George HW Bush, who were once pro-choice. If Michael Steele would have been smarter, he could have pointed out that Reagan was once pro-choice. He also could have been more nuanced (a word that Hotair is trying to turn into a bad word... not a good move for the republican party) in his explanation of Mitt Romney's pro-life position. Romney said he was always pro-life, but believed in the rule of law and promised he would not change the law in Massachusetts. When the democrat called him a liar, and said that he was pro-life, would always be pro-life, Romney had to convince them that he would not change the law. He would not make the laws more pro-life, or pro-choice. Romney kept that promise, but people took what he said out of context. It didn't matter than any person with 1/2 a brain knew that Romney was always pro-life, that he just promised not to change the laws, all that mattered was they have videos that could have been taken out of context. Well it is the same with Michael Steele. But we have to reform as a party. We can't keep Steel out of the party leadership because he can be taken out of context, and hope to get Romney into leadership, another person who was totally taken out of context.



Romney’s dad lost his presidency because something that he said was taken out of context. It would be sad of Steele lost his spot, while talking about Romney, because of something Steele said out of context.




Sign up for MyManMitt
Enter your email address:

RSS Feed MyManMitt.com
Mitt Romney Facebook MyManMitt
Mitt Romney YouTube






Copyright 2007 MyManMitt.com