I noticed that too, sitetest. He's trying to speak out of both sides of his mouth, depending on the audience.
When he is on the national stage and millions of people are watching, he wants people to think he favors the status quo, i.e., stare decisis. When he is interviewed on CNS (with a worldwide readership in the 6 figures) he wants to give the impression that Roe should be overturned. But then he softens that stance with "in my personal view". In other words, "personally I am opposed to abortion, but...." leaving plenty of room for tap dancing for the mainstream media.
The fact of the matter, which some people can't seem to grasp, is that you cannot be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and at the same time in favor of the courts following stare decisis. Steele's position is untenable.
One statement to the national media and another to conservatives is a continuation of the policy of deceiving conservatives.
They’ve lost me.
Abortion destroys life.
Homosexuality destroys lives.
That is why both are abominable sins, injuries.
I’ll not support the destruction of lives.
How else can one express any of these things except IN YOUR PERSONAL VIEW?
The comparison between the audiences of MTP and CNS is equally deceptive, as those numbers might as well be exactly the same because millions and millions more have read these comments as we are now, after they've been diseminated online.
For some reason some folks have decided they don't like Steele, and their "basis" for this is an interview on MTP where if one is honest one has to admit Russert was pushing and pushing to get Steele to use words and phrases liberals LOVE to get conservatives to say so they can be used in ads and stories to color their positions.
When one does a search for backing for this position, there seems to be ONE source--that single interview.
On the other hand, there are multiple sources supporting Steele's pro-life position.
I've demonstrated with multiple sources the failure of those who are trying to hang the stare decisis quote around his neck as if it means Steele wants RvW to insure abortion remains the law of the land. While I'm glad PM has decided to use italics, he has shown an unwillingness to be honest about the actual meaning of the term.
Those who are attacking Steele have ONE item in their corner--the MTP interview.
As someone who's trying to find the truth about his position, I am finding it easier to determine the dishonesty of those who for some reason don't want this man to lead the party. I'm not sure WHY they don't want Steele in charge, but their use of this issue is dishonest, based as it is on the wording in one interview with a liberal reporter, and not on the man's entire career, his repeatedly stated position, and the support of multiple pro-life sources.
“Steele's position is untenable.”
I agree.
But the question is it's untenable. There are three reasonable theories:
- He's cynically trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth in an on-going effort to appear to accept Roe to pro-aborts, and pro-life to pro-lifers;
- He's not as articulate as we all thought he was;
- The statements during 2006 were in the context of his trying to win the Senate seat in Maryland. Perhaps he thought it was necessary to try soften his pro-life position, and he tried to do it in a way that he could still claim to be pro-life, but in a way that would be less offensive to pro-deathers. Obviously, he failed to "thread the needle," and obviously, he shouldn't have even tried. If this is what he was trying to do, it was gutless and cowardly.
But perhaps now he's trying to correct that error. However, his equivocation makes me wary.
I've said repeatedly that I'm willing to give him a mulligan on the 2006 statements. I certainly gave Sen. McCain a similar forbearance for his 1999 remarks about Roe.
But if the 2006 remarks were his first effort to strike the golf ball, I must say that this second effort hardly qualifies as a particularly good shot.
Doubt remains.
sitetest