Who Runs Gov

The Plum LineGreg Sargent's blog

UPDATED: Steele Condemns Maine Decision, Revealing Split With Snowe and Collins

After the RNC said he wouldn’t be issuing a statement on Maine’s decision to legalize gay marriage today, RNC Chairman Michael Steele is in fact condemning the decision, a position that puts him at odds with Maine’s moderate Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of whom said today the decision should be left to the states.

The RNC emails over this statement from Steele:

“Our party platform articulates our opposition to gay marriage and civil unions, positions shared by many Americans. I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman and strongly disagree with Maine’s decision to legalize gay marriage.”

Earlier today, Collins said on MSNBC that the decision is best “decided at the state level.” And Snowe’s office put out a statement citing her support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which leaves it to individual states to “make their own determinations on this very personal issue.”

*******************************************

Looks like RNC chairman Michael Steele, who has previously struck a high profile in blasting gay marriage, is laying low and staying mum on the news today that a new law legalizing gay marriage was signed by the governor of Maine.

RNC spokesperson Doug Mayer confirms to me that Steele won’t be issuing a statement on the Maine law. Steele could eventually speak out if asked in an interview, obviously, but for now it seems he’s remaining mum.

Steele issued a statement loudly condemning an Iowa court’s decision to overturn a ban on gay marriage last month. So why the current silence on the Maine news?

It’s possible that Steele recognizes that condemning today’s decision could put him at odds with moderates in his party, feeding more stories about the rightward drift of the party and about divisions within the GOP. For instance, on MSNBC today, Senator Susan Collins said that the gay marriage question is best “decided at the state level.”

Steele is declining to comment on Collins’ remarks, too, the RNC spokesperson confirms.

At the same time, Steele’s silence is a bit odd. It would have been the perfect opportunity for him to rally his base at a time when he needs their support. And his silence risks irking activists on the right who had previously applauded him for his outspoken opposition to gay marriage.

All of which is to say that today’s news illustrates Steele’s larger problem, which is to figure out how to retain the support of his rightward-drifting base while simultaneously creating room for moderates to stop the party’s shrinkage — a trend which continues to empower that base and making his job of growing the party that much tougher.

The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

Posted by Greg Sargent | 05/06/2009, 03:39 PM EST | Categories: Republican National Committee, Republican Party

18 Responses

  1. sgwhiteinfla | May 6th, 2009 at 03:54 pm

    Greg
    .
    What about the decision by the DC council to recognize same *** marriage? Steele didn’t say anything about gay marriage being recognized in the nation’s capitol?

  2. sgwhiteinfla | May 6th, 2009 at 03:54 pm

    S e x is now a bad word? Sheesh

  3. Greg Sargent | May 6th, 2009 at 04:04 pm

    s e x doesn’t get through? man. lemme take that up with the powers that be.

  4. jzap | May 6th, 2009 at 04:14 pm

    Michael HipHop Steele is currently consumed by other matters.  Namely, the Nat’l GOOPer Committee’s attempt to put him on a short (financial) leash.  Seems like he’s gonna get served on that one.
    .
    Can the ME legislature’s vote be construed as anywhere near bi-partisan?  Here are the roll-call summaries on the issue:
    .
    Maine House
    Yes=89 (D=82 R=7), No=56 (D=11 R=45)
    .
    Maine Senate
    Yes=21 (D=19 R=2), No=13 (D=1 R=12)
    .
    Looks like it would have passed even if all GOOPers who voted yes had instead voted no.
    .

  5. sgwhiteinfla | May 6th, 2009 at 04:28 pm

    jzap
    .
    He already got served. He caved earlier today and allowed the restrictions to be put in place.

  6. Bob | May 6th, 2009 at 04:35 pm

    Why is the Obama admin against Gay marriage?

  7. jzap | May 6th, 2009 at 04:47 pm

    Hiya, SGW.
    .
    Allowed?  I wonder if he really had much choice!

  8. sgwhiteinfla | May 6th, 2009 at 04:57 pm

    jzap
    .
    Evidently from a Moonie Times article he realized that he didn’t have much choice. But I guess in some upcoming meeting he might try to get the restrictions lifted. All I know is that once again Steele comes out looking like a buffoon after he announced last week that he wouldn’t give in to the “power grab”

  9. Bernie Latham | May 6th, 2009 at 05:04 pm

    “how to retain the support of his rightward-drifting base while simultaneously creating room for moderates to stop the party’s shrinkage”
    .
    I think this is a genius-level problem. If I were in Steele’s shoes, I’d have no idea how to effectively bring this about.

  10. Robert | May 6th, 2009 at 05:24 pm

    WHEN IS SOMEONE GOING TO SAY THAT RUSH AND OTHERS HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON,THEY ARE AFRAID OF A BLACK MAN. THE PRES. IS SMARTER THAN ANY GOP OUT THERE. JUST ASK THE VOTERS

  11. sbj | May 6th, 2009 at 05:30 pm

    How to retain the support of the far-right?

    Seems as if Steele could simply adopt an Obama-like position? That is, somehow the Democrats have managed to secure their leftward-drifting base even though Obama opposes Gay Marriage. (Update: Oh wait, Gibbs tells me that Obama is not ‘opposed’ to Gay Marriage, he just ’supports’ civil unions. Riiight.) In other words, couldn’t Steele simply pander to the moderates out there (civil unions okay) while appeasing the far right (opposed to Gay Marriage)? I guess that wouldn’t work, would it? Seems that the far right is unwilling to fall in line like the far left (apparently) is.

    Leaving this up to the states is an untenable solution and y’all know it.

  12. Bernie Latham | May 6th, 2009 at 06:27 pm

    sbj – You do point towards a difficult dilemma for Steele – which segment of his modern party to appease and which to pander to?
    .
    I’m sure you’ve read the portion of the letter Ike wrote to his brother Edgar, but it’s worth looking at again perhaps:
    .
    “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
    .
    What would Ike do in the present climate? After he was booted out of the party, I mean.

  13. Bernie Latham | May 6th, 2009 at 06:31 pm

    Greg’s update tells us, I guess, which portion of the party Steele will pander to AND appease (eggs…single basket…I give him high marks on efficiency here).

  14. Magic Dog | May 6th, 2009 at 09:00 pm

    Come on, Snowe and Collins, switch parties.

  15. Barry da man Obamacan | May 6th, 2009 at 09:01 pm

    GOP = Big Tent

    DNC = Little Tent

  16. Bernie Latham | May 6th, 2009 at 09:36 pm

    Somewhere in or near Lubbock, Texas there is, I suspect, a small and rather unattractive grey factory which extrudes these people.

  17. Robert | May 7th, 2009 at 06:49 am

    The republicans should simply embrace the constitution. “The Pursuit of Happiness” – and say, well, like it or not – that ok’s gay marriage. We are a free country. Actually – the democrats should do the same.

    - also – while we’re at it. Legalize pot – that creates additional revenue streams for the gov’t (tax producers, distributers & end users) – and probably gets rid of 30% of our prison population.

  18. Dan | May 7th, 2009 at 02:15 pm

    How sad that supporting Gay Marriage makes you immediately part of the “Far Left”. This is a Civil Rights issue—the government is practicing contractual discrimination.

    For that matter, how would label somebody who believes there should be no government recognition of marriage, period?

Leave a Reply


Please email us at profiles@whorunsgov.com to bring to our attention any content or conduct that you believe violates our Discussion and Submission Policy.