“I couldn’t agree more with xzins’ sentiment about double-talkers....”
Then why accept Mr. Steele's double-talk on the issue?
“...but I’ve never forgotten the symbolism of his not appearing at the Right to Life Marches,...”
Well, I've been to the March for Life 10 out of the last 11 years, including all the years that Michael Steele was Lt. Governor. I don't remember him being there. If he was there, he made no effort to let folks know it.
So, what comprises his vast public pro-life record, other than mellifluous words? Has he run any fundraisers for pregnancy aid centers? Has he protested out in front of any abortion mills? Did he publicly tell his governor that he was wrong to allocate tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for embryonic stem cell research?
If he did any of these things - these actual actions, I, living in Maryland, am entirely unaware of them.
“We don’t need more fire-and-brimstoners who shout to the converted but can’t articulate our positions or effectively convince those who DON’T see the supreme value to the unborn.”
Then Mr. Steele is unqualified, in that he can't even communicate his position clearly to those who DO see the supreme value of unborn children.
“But Steele ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 and for the Senate in 2006 as a strong pro-lifer...”
Although he later proved worthless in any efforts to dissuade our extremist pro-death governor, I'll give him 2002.
But it's pretty clear that he tried to blur the lines in 2006. I don't view him at all as a strong pro-life candidate in 2006. I view him as someone who thought he had the pro-life vote in his pocket in 2006, so he said things that softened significantly (or even vitiated) his pro-life stance.
By the way, here is a New York Times article from March 2006 that quotes Mr. Steele in a way that clouds opposition to Roe:
Here's the money paragraph:
Senators cast votes on matters of substance and national import: up or down, yes or no. It is in this area that Steele is less comfortable — and at his most vulnerable as a candidate. It is not always apparent if he can clearly enunciate where he stands — or maybe he just doesn't want to. Even on some of the issues that are closest to his heart, he defaults to soft, imprecise language. Steele says that he is proudly “pro-life” but seemed to equivocate when I asked if he favors greater restrictions on abortion or its outright ban. “The dance we do is, we put too much pressure and weight on one decision,” he said, referring to Roe v. Wade. “We have to re-evaluate that.” He claimed that he was not advocating overturning the decision, only asking if we “have to live with the reality of a decision that was made 33 years ago.”
“...David Brody are defending Steele on abortion...”
Who cares? Look at Mr. Brody's quote:
“Look, here's the reality. Steele's critics have a huge task ahead of them if they're going to make the case that the guy is not pro-life enough. He's got the solid track record on the life issue. It's hard to argue against it.”
Again, what the heck is his “solid track record on the life issue”? As far as I know, it's words.
And words are readily contradicted by other words.
And in 2006, he definitely muddied the waters on his “record” on life.
As well, I followed the 2006 campaign closely, since I live in Maryland, and was enthusiastic about Mr. Steele's campaign. I was disappointed at the time that there was virtually no mention of his pro-life views in his literature or on his website. He didn't talk about it except in the vaguest terms. He went around proclaiming himself “proudly pro-life,” but without any of the particulars cited by the folks you quote as being in favor of a total ban on abortion.
Again, it looked to me like he was taking the pro-life vote for granted and trying to soften his pro-life position to get votes from pro-deathers.
That's not exactly “staunchly pro-life” or solidly pro-life.
It's trimming. It's straddling. It's compromising.
I'm glad to see Mr. Steele this week move away from his pro-death words of two years ago, but I wish it would have been less hesitant, less relativized. I wish it had been words that evinced stronger, undeniable conviction.
sitetest
Why do you folks keep insisting I have accepted anything on Steele when I keep asking questions in an effort to understand his position? Why is asking questions and not just accepting what strangers fed me suspect?
“...but I’ve never forgotten the symbolism of his not appearing at the Right to Life Marches,...” Well, I've been to the March for Life 10 out of the last 11 years, including all the years that Michael Steele was Lt. Governor. I don't remember him being there. If he was there, he made no effort to let folks know it.
To the best of my knowledge Michael Steele wasn't president of the United States. Why is Steele picked out in this way, just because I pointed out an unhappy fact about Reagan?
So, what comprises his vast public pro-life record, other than mellifluous words?
If I were to use your tactic, I could ask the same questions of President Reagan.
Reagan is the great president of my lifetime, and he failed in this way. Why change the subject in this way? It only makes me discount much of what you write because you obviously have an agenda. I just want the whole truth, and am not interested in attempts to muddy the waters.
These are distractions from the truth. I'm not interested in this "Ah HA but he said this one thing here..." either pro- or con. FR seems to be turning into this bizarre place where only those who march in lockstep with accepted wisdom are allowed.
Sorry, I go my own way. I don't follow religious or secular leaders who tell me how to think. I ask questions and look for information. That this is seen as hostile to many here is downright weird.
Thanks for the additional excerpts, I will add them to the material I'm reading. I may very well come down on your side of the divide, but it won't be because of the insinuation that if someone is seeking answers they are somehow suspect, and that a couple of awkward sentences in a "gotcha" interview are the summation of a man's life.