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.
My concern with Steele is life. He has statements that quibble. Since I don’t trust the party any longer, I don’t trust quibbling statements.
I am certain they did not promote life during the last election. I’m certain they didn’t talk about judges.
They talked about earmarks and Afghanistan and Joe Plumber. And they lost their shirts, and it should have been obvious that they’d lose their shirts. I would say that they’re perfectly comfortable losing, and that Peterson and his banking crisis are also evidence that they were throwing the race. And throwing their friends under the bus.
I’m tired of dealing with deceivers.
“This parsing is a silly attempt...”
I disagree. Most of us have been taken for a ride by one or more RINOs, including some folks who once seemed solid conservatives, but who eventually turned out to have drunk the liberal Kool-Aid. It is completely legitimate to determine whether or not a Republican official is really conservative or not.
“How else can one express any of these things except IN YOUR PERSONAL VIEW?”
Well, those of us who believe in God often have no trouble stating things as objectively true, as absolutes.
I have no difficulty saying, “Roe should be overturned, and that is an absolute, transcendent, objective truth.”
If someone says, “That's just your opinion,” I'll answer, “Whether you wish to acknowledge the objective truth of it or not, it is objectively true.”
“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...”
Yep. And Mr. Steele did it. And no one put a gun to his head. I'd have had no problem saying, “Sorry, Tim, but Roe must go. Unborn children should be protected in law, it should not be legal to procure the killing of an unborn child for any reason at all throughout all nine months of pregnancy. But that is the law of the land and will be until Roe is overturned, vacated, or vitiated, whether by a new decision of the Court, a constitutional amendment, or federal legislation removing the issue from the courts.”
Instead, Mr. Steele AFFIRMED that the question RIGHTLY belongs to the courts, and that Roe should be retained.
“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.”
I'm sorry, but I've read your arguments closely, and P-Marlowe’s as well, and to my reading, you fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the language used by everyone involved.
“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've tried to deal with you with an attitude of respect, but your insult here goes over the line. I'm as interested (perhaps more?) in the truth as you are. But I will not accept as party chairman someone who is telling us to accept Roe and move on.
It is no longer clear that Mr. Steele is truly a pro-lifer, and the objections of those folks making that point are valid.
“..., 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,...”
The problem with this insult is that it's based on a false premise. Mr. Steele's “career” comprises principally party-building activities. He's never served in a legislature, never voted on any matter regarding the issue of abortion. As Lt. Governor, he served under a rather extremist PRO-ABORTION governor, and seemed to have very little positive effect on the PRO-ABORTION governor.
Thus, his public pro-life “career” is all words.
And so it follows that when those words are contradicted by other words, we should pay attention.
sitetest