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.
“Why do you folks keep insisting I have accepted anything on Steele when I keep asking questions in an effort to understand his position?”
Well, you give the appearance of defending his double-talk.
If it walks like a duck, etc.
“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?”
You knocked President Reagan for not coming to the March in person, I figured what's good for the goose, and all that.
Let's face it, Mr. Steele was quite a hot commodity during his term as Lt. Governor. The trip from his home in Prince George's County to the National Mall for the March for Life is about a half hour. In rush hour. If he was so darned “staunchly pro-life,” I'm sure that the march organizers would have been DELIGHTED to have this prominent local up-and-coming Republican officeholder from a blue state come be an honored guest at the March.
But he didn't.
That's fine. But then show me his “staunchly pro-life record.”
“If I were to use your tactic, I could ask the same questions of President Reagan.”
The difference is that Mr. Reagan never said that we should accept Roe vs. Wade. If he had, I'd have a much different view of his position on abortion. Once he owned up to his own (modest) mistake in the late 1960s, he never wavered from the most adamant opposition to legal abortion.
The subject here happens to be Mr. Steele's wavering in his own opposition to legal abortion. What he said during the 2006 was that we should accept Roe. That's not pro-life.
It vitiates his previous pro-life words.
That's the issue.
sitetest