No, I'm not happy with the election of Mr. Steele.
In his 2006 Senatorial campaign, Mr. Steele said this on Meet the Press:
Meet The Press on October 29, 2006.
MR. RUSSERT: ...Mr. Steele, if you’re United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?
LT. GOV. 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...
MR. RUSSERT: That’s been introduced in the Senate.
LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t think anyone’s going to propose that this day.
MR. RUSSERT: So you wouldn’t do that?
LT. GOV. STEELE: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts [emphasis added] to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a 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.
MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.
MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?
LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. 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.
MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.
I'm willing to say that this is a muddled attempt at straddling the fence. I'm willing to say that he was trimming his sails against a Democrat opponent in an overwhelmingly Democrat state. I'm even willing to give him a mulligan, and if he “clarifies” his position back to a more uniformly pro-life position, I'm willing to forget it.
But what he said isn't pro-life.
And unless he appropriately clarifies, I can't support him, and will likely quit the Republican Party.
sitetest
That’s posturing. No where does he say he supports Roe. Roe is not a purview of the Senate but the SCOTUS. Why don’t you go on and read what he says about ESCR? So is Steele the first anti-ESCR and pro-abortion politician in history - I think not.
“But what he said isn’t pro-life.
And unless he appropriately clarifies, I can’t support him, and will likely quit the Republican Party.”
That is INSANE. Steele is a devout Catholic, pro-life to the core, a Knight of Columbus and former seminarian. I’ve heard he is a daily communicant as well. This is a good and decent man. And would be unheard of as a pro-abortionist. So much pro-life he is that he is also anti-ESCR unlike say Orrin Hatch or John McCain.
Did you quit the GOP when Ken Mehlman was Chairman?
Dear sitetest,
Snap out of it!! Steele is on OUR SIDE.