Posted on 01/30/2009 1:07:19 PM PST by utahson
Kudos to you Michael. Now stand tall and proud. Be strong and push conservative principles. Do not falter and do not shrink from the fight against Obama and the Democrats.
I'm not campaigning against Steele and "um" you should do something about your speech impediment.
You know?
“See - you don’t even know the source material. It was very well from a debate between Ben Cardin (whom I suppose you hold on equal terms with Steele) and Steele hosted on MTP by Russert.”
Oh dear me! How terrible! I read “Meet the Press” and thought it was... “Meet the Press.”
That doesn't at all gainsay anything that I've said. Try again.
“Steele is a pro-lifer.”
I personally don't recognize ANYONE as a pro-lifer who says that Roe should stay. I view folks like that to be frauds. Wafflers. Folks who want it both ways.
“However in a tough Senate campaign in which Steele as a Senator would have no say whatsoever on Roe (read ROE, not pro-life issues because there is much more to life than Roe) you want him to be some kind of rediculous purist to his every detriment.”
Actually, Senators have a lot to do with Roe, albeit indirectly. THEY CONFIRM SUPREME COURT NOMINEES. If Mr. Steele isn't in favor of overturning Roe, then it's fair to doubt that he'd be supportive of nominees to the Court who might be willing to overturn Roe.
But frankly, opposition to Roe is pretty basic to being pro-life. Unborn children will never be protected in law as long as the central holdings of Roe and Doe are not somehow vitiated. And protecting unborn children in law is a central piece of being pro-life.
Thus, it is not “purist” to say that Roe must go. It's sorta fundamental. I don't think I'm the blind one, here.
“However I can promise you Steele would’ve voted to uphold anything life related in law.”
And that would place him among many pro-aborts who are willing to accept some minor restrictions on the regime of abortion on demand. That would place him with the many pro-aborts who voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or the ban on partial birth abortion, or pro-aborts who have voted against federal funding of abortion, or pro-aborts who have voted for parental notification, waiting periods, etc.
These are all noble things, but the fundamental thing that must happen to provide for the protection in law of the unborn is the destruction of Roe.
And just like many moderate pro-aborts, Mr. Steele came out against this rather fundamental need of unborn children.
“And no, you didn’t explain how Steele can be the first pro-abortionist ever who is a die hard anti-ESCR.”
Sure I did. I said his answer was muddled. In another thread, I actually said that his answer was confused and internally contradictory.
Nonetheless, he said it, not me.
“In retrospect was Steele’s answer on Roe flippant and sloppy, even perhaps too pragmatic, well - yes.”
Yup, I agree.
And he should be held to account for his answer.
“But does it tarnish him when he has demostrated again and again through word and deed and as a truly Catholic member of the community so much that one single segment of one single debate during one very tough election in a very blue state held nearly 2-1/2 years ago is going to be curtains for one’s membership in the GOP.”
No, not by itself.
But if this fellow is going to be CHAIRMAN of the party, then yes, he is sufficiently tarnished so that I will likely leave the party.
I will not belong to a political party that has as its leader someone who has said on national TV that he accepts Roe v. Wade.
If he didn't mean it, let him retract it. If he would like to clarify what he meant, let him do so.
But he's had well over two years to do so, and I haven't seen it.
If he HAS clarified, and HAS reiterated, sometime after the date of this interview/debate, that ROE MUST GO, then I will be happy to fall in line.
Until then, fuggedaboutit.
sitetest
Let' see what he does. If he turns out to be "just another RINO", then we can rub this one in the RINO cheerleaders faces just like we did McIdiot.
Well, then I'm silly.
But if the man wants me to believe that he's pro-life, he has to at least affirm that Roe must go.
If his last statement on Roe is that he accepts it, then he isn't pro-life.
“Anyway I’m sure Steele has made a pro-life statement since, I believe maybe in connection with his run for this chairmanship but I don’t know where.”
Oh heck, he says he's pro-life all the time!
But so does Bob Casey, Jr. Who votes with NARAL 65% of the time.
The thing is, I judge these turkeys based on what they say and do, not on what letter they stick to their backs.
A pro-lifer is a pro-lifer. A pro-lifer, at the very least, affirms that Roe was wrongly decided and must go. And then, a real pro-lifer says that the lives of unborn children must be protected in law.
Folks who accept Roe are not pro-lifers. Whether they're Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or what-have-you.
He must address the question of Roe, and affirm that it must be in some way entirely nullified, so that the right to life of unborn children will once again be respected in law.
Otherwise, he can say he's pro-life all day long. He's nothing but a fraud.
But a very likable, personable fraud who can give a great speech.
sitetest
I am not sure about the rest of the states, but I knew about Florida from Email I get from the RPOF.
“Over turning Roe v. Wade “at the national level” would be the first step in winning the issue.
Thus the concern.”
You are not getting it. It will not happen by a constitutional amendment.
It will not work. It will fail as it has failed before.
If you don’t understand political realities and how to work toward a goal, not much more I can say. Michael Steele understands it and is working toward creating a culture of life with victory.
Congratulations to Mr. Steele! He appears to be a very impressive leader.
My apologies. I thought you were being a wiseguy. (I should have clicked on your link perhaps).
There seems to be a few people taking pot-shots at you here about your post... I find that disconcerting.
In discussing Roe, Steele says, “I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.” This statement is somewhat ignorant. If his statement were true then societies “progression” is what brought about Roe in the first place. And “as the court is supposed to do.” is Pollyanish at best.
The problem here is there are a lot of people in the “conservative” party that scoff at folks who seem to be “one issue” voters. The issues here are too great to lay down just because we want republicans who are conservative financially. Much of the party base is willing to throw out the baby with the bath-water, so to speak. If conservatism is not about the moral and social issues then it is about nothing, IMHO.
I’m glad there are people who feel strongly enough about abortion to fight against it with everything they have. Not everyone has to be a warrior for every cause, but praise God there are those who do fight.
Meghan McCain did campaign for her dad on the college campuses during the NH primary. On Fox & Friends in Jan 2008, Meghan called Obama a, “Cutie pie.” I suspect if her dad wasn’t running for President, she would be drooling over Obama.
Well said...
You are not getting it. It will not happen by a constitutional amendment. It will not work. It will fail as it has failed before.
And of course being for overturning Roe v. Wade doesn't necessarily mean one is for a "constitutional amendment".
I am for overturning Roe v. Wade and I'm for states and the people of the states as is their Constitutional right to pass pro life laws.
Based on what you posted, you have a severe case "not getting it".
Your comment is ironic.
Okay everybody is a comedian. ;)
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is what is needed if you ever want to win an election.
FReegards...
You actually think Steele would vote against a Roberts or Alito?
Of course Steele would overturn Roe if he could but that is not something the Senate can do (again).
But Roe is not the do all of the movement. There are lots of other things that are important, but of course it needs to be overturned.
All I have to say is you are going to look like a fool if you leave the Party and Steele hammers away at abortion.
“That would place him with the many pro-aborts who voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or the ban on partial birth abortion, or pro-aborts who have voted against federal funding of abortion, or pro-aborts who have voted for parental notification, waiting periods, etc.”
Yes and as the the anti-ESCR that would place him as the ONLY politician in America who is against it and for Roe.
I.E. you are wrong. Steele bungled the segment got caught off gauard whatever. It’s history the man is pro-life if you don’t believe it ask him. If you don’t ask then you don’t really care. The GOP is the only political vehicle in which you will have a chance to overturn Roe (something Steele agrees with you on but you are too unwilling to see it). If you go out into the wilderness you are weakening your cause. We need to stick together.
“any instance of a Catholic in a high profile position can only help the Church. “
Even if that person is Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry?
I’m a devout Catholic and Pelosi and Kerry are heretics who have harmed the Church by confusing and deceiving so many.
I have not yet looked into Michael Steel’s social morals, but I can only hope that he is true to his Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.