In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, new Republican National Committee chairman Micheal Steele said that it was "important" for the Republican Party to "reach out" and embrace candidates who are pro-abortion and pro-"gay marriage".
(Incidentally, I have my own thoughts about that and I might articulate them someday in the near future, suffice it to say it's a perspective that's neither "conservative" or "liberal"... and a lot of my fellow Christians might find it a bit surprising.)
I think that this elicits a lot of questions. Obviously, how is what Steele suggesting for his own party, any different at all from the Democrat party? Why should anyone who is, say, very much pro-life believe that his or her stance is going to be represented by the Republican Party anymore, if it is willing to compromise itself on this issue? How does this demonstrate that the Republicans are out for anything other than political capital?
And I for one would like to pose a question to certain "conservative Christians" who I know are reading this blog (yeah I'm looking at you Ron Baity, Jeff Baity and the others from Berean Baptist in Winston-Salem): how in the world, in light of this, do you still maintain that you have to owe loyalty to the Republican Party, when it clearly no longer cares at all about you and other "evangelicals" or what values you hold to?
Maybe the United States owes the old Soviet Union an apology. At least communist Russia was honest about being run by a single political party. In America, most rubes are convinced that there are two parties and that somehow, they're "making a difference" by belonging to one or the other.