10 Things You Didn't Know About Michael Steele

USNews.com ^ | Danielle Burton

[Salvation]

10 Things You Didn't Know About Michael Steele

By Danielle Burton

Posted April 7, 2008

--snip--

1. Michael Steele, who was adopted as an infant, was born at Andrews Air Force Base in Prince George's County, Md., on Oct. 19, 1958.

2. He grew up in a family of Democrats. Steele credits his mother, Maebell, and Ronald Reagan with turning him toward the Republican Party.

--snip--.

3. One of the first in his family to go to college, he earned a bachelor's degree in international relations from Johns Hopkins University and a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center. Steele also spent a few years at the Augustinian Friars Seminary at Villanova University, --snip--

4. After graduating from law school in 1991, Steele joined Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, an international law firm, based in Washington, D.C. In 1997, --snip--

5. Steele rose quickly in the Republican Party, beginning at the local level in Prince George's County as chair of the Prince George's County Republican Central Committee from 1994 to 2000. --snip--.

6. Steele became the first African-American elected to statewide office in Maryland, taking office as lieutenant governor in January 2003.

7. In 2004, Steele was tapped to speak at the Republican National Convention, --snip--

8. When Sen. Paul Sarbanes, a Democrat, announced he would not seek re-election, several prominent Republicans, --snip-- persuaded Steele to run for the Senate seat. In November 2006, --snip--

9. On Feb. 1, 2007, Steele was named the chairman of GOPAC, a political action committee working to elect Republicans to office --snip--

10. A devout Catholic, Steele is a member of St. Mary's Catholic Church in Landover Hills, Md. He regularly attends services with his wife, Andrea, and their sons, Michael and Drew.

 

[Inkie]

You’re a Democrat so nobody will expect you to ever say anything good about the Republicans. If the party followed your advice to “fix” itself, they’d be Democrats. You’d be quite happy with one-party rule. The worst thing about having that now is that Nancy Pelosi is only two heartbeats away from the presidency. Now that is a scary thought. She is a politically vicious, doctrinaire and stupid woman. Joe Biden is almost as scary. He was right on Jimmy Carter’s coattails when backing the Ayatollah against the Shah. See what they have wrought. And he’s next in line. I guess that’s A-OK with you. You learned nothing from the 1930s.

[EternalVigilance]

I’m as far away from being a Democrat as is possible. Do you always make claims that you can’t in any way back up?

[Inkie]

Why did your post sound like one?

[EternalVigilance]

Something to do with your reading comprehension.

[Caramelgal]

11. He's slick.

I think he is actually quite legally savvy and is a realist.

Transcript from “Meet the Press,” Oct. 29, 2006:

Russert: Another issue that has emerged in the campaign. Here's the latest headline. “Religious leaders and abortion foes are pumping more than $140,000 into the final weeks of the Maryland U.S. Senate contest to motivate ‘values voters’ by elevating such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage. National Right to Life's political action committee plans to run radio commercials on [Michael] Steele’s behalf ... and has spent more than $72,000 supporting [his] candidacy with ads and mail.” The National Abortion Rights Action League supporting your campaign, Mr. Cardin. The issue is being engaged. And let me ask each of you. Mr. Steele, if you’re a United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?

Steele: I don’t--vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we'd have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn't we? I haven't seen that bill proposed. I don't think...

Russert: That's been introduced in the Senate.

Steele: I don't think anyone's going to propose that this day.

Russert: So you wouldn't do that?

Steele: No.

Russert: Would, would you encourage--would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?

Steele: I think that that's a matter that's going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken the position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that's ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We're seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.

Russert: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?

Steele: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.

Russert: But what's your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?

Steele: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade is a, is a matter that should've been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.

Russert: Is it your desire that they keep it in place?

Steele: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

Before the SCOTUS made abortion on demand with no limitations the “law of the land” with the RvW decision, abortion laws were decided at the state level. It was legal in a only a very few places, severely restricted in many others and illegal in many more.

After RvW abortion was made legal everywhere. And look what happens when a state legislator and its citizenry vote to place any sort of limitations on abortion? Stare decisis currently trumps any and all state laws. I don’t like that one bit (and I don’t think Steele does either) but we’d be blind or foolish to think it could be otherwise in the current climate.

As far as a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion, as much as I’d like to see that happen, I don’t think there is enough support currently to make that a reality.

The SCOTUS makes bad decisions and past history makes that very evident, but the SCOTUS also does not, in reality like to overturn itself.

Realistically, the best any of us can do right now is to fight for very solid legislation at the state level to bring the abortion issue back to a position prior to the RvW decision.

Fred Thompson took a very similar position:

Reverse Roe & return abortion to states, to allow SOME bans

Q: You believe that abortion is the taking of life; so why leave it up to the states where, as you well know, before Roe vs. Wade, some states allowed abortion on demand?

A: What the situation is now is as follows. Because of Roe vs. Wade, all states are restricted from passing rules that they otherwise would maybe like to pass with regard to this area. If you abolish Roe vs. Wade, you’re going to allow every state to pass reasonable rules that they might see fit to pass. There hasn’t been a serious effort to put forth a constitutional amendment because people knew that it wouldn’t pass. What I’ve been talking about is directing our energy toward something that was halfway practical, something that might could get done. So now where we have no states with the option of doing anything about it, then we would have however many states wanted to. You could move from zero yard line, to the 60- or 70-yard line instead of standing pat, which is where we will remain if we don’t abolish Roe vs. Wade.

[Hiddigeigei]

Maybe you should start educating him by having him read the Constitution; if he hasn’t already.

[papasmurf]

Yer shootin’ blanks. Unless, and until, you nay sayers start posting links to your resources, then you are only wasting your electrons.

[Hiddigeigei]

Yer shootin’ blanks. Unless, and until, you nay sayers start posting links to your resources, then you are only wasting your electrons.

Here's the resource in plain text:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

[Coleus]

He regularly attends services with his wife, Andrea, and their sons, Michael and Drew.

Services?  I bet a non-Catholic wrote that.

and no mention of attending the seminary?

 

[pepperdog]

I agree with Eternal Vigilance. Your replies are not in the spirit of debate but accusatory and demeaning. No where did EV indicate he wanted one party rule, but he would have been correct to say that to some of us it looks like we already have it.

Yes, it's scary to have Pelosi and Biden in the positions they are in, but it isn't helpful nor successful to keep on doing what we've been doing. And that is exactly what is happening here.

The Republican Party loved Colin Powell and why? Dare you answer that without mentioning race? Of course not.

Now the Republican Party loves Michael Steele, he of the “scary looking guns” and “yes, we still need affirmative action” documented and verified comments. And yet we are not supposed to notice? How stupid would that be?

The Republican Party came up with the stupid Change We Can Believe In slogan after Obama had bought and paid for the word Change, how stupid was that?

The Republican Party allowed the nomination of a man who actually set up the gang of 14 that worked against many Republican principles, or what some of us thought were Republican principles and voted against our interests over and over again. How stupid was that?

When it appears the organization is “stuck on stupid” is surely doesn't hurt to debate how they might recover and maybe, actually win an election.

[deport]

and no mention of attending the seminary?

---

For what it’s worth......

“Steele also spent a few years at the Augustinian Friars Seminary at Villanova University, —snip—”

[EternalVigilance]

Michael Steele is pro-choice for states. Thanks for illustrating that so well.

His position is poison.

Our foundational principles are contained in the founding paragraph of this free republic:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

Unalienable rights cannot rightfully be alienated by individuals or states.

Michael Steele's belief that they can be shows clealy that he has no moorings in the principles that make America America.

[EternalVigilance]

"The Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny...the principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost." - Frederick Douglass

[fightinbluhen51]

He’s not so conservative on gun rights.