“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
He is not running for a religious office.
I know that's hard for some to see as important, but it most certainly is. He is a devout Catholic, which has zero to do with a government position.
Yep. And Mr. Steele did it. And no one put a gun to his head.
And he said nothing that convinces me he is pro-abortion.
I couldn’t agree more with xzins’ sentiment about double-talkers. I am equally sick and tired of pro-life Republicans who can neither articulate nor decisively lead on this issue in anything but cosmetic ways.
I have heard beloved Republican figures talk about abortion, and do next to nothing about it. We all love Reagan, but I’ve never forgotten the symbolism of his not appearing at the Right to Life Marches, but talking long distance, without the added punch of his physical presence—which would be seen on television broadcasts every year.
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.
We have a choice—do we go with the same-old same-old and talk to ourselves and congratulate each other on how wonderful we are for believing, or do we have people like Steele, who aren’t afraid of believing as they do OR with working with others who don’t see things as we do? Because whether we want to admit it or not, if we are only talking to those who see things as we do, we’re not going to get anywhere.—DW
But Steele ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 and for the Senate in 2006 as a strong pro-lifer who supports overturning in the long term and politically achievable abortion restrictions in the short term while opposing taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research. Steele, a devout Catholic, also opposes capital punishment. The National Right to Life Committee, a Republican National Committee member who has known Steele for twenty years, and David Brody are defending Steele on abortion. Says Brody:
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.
http://spectator.org/blog/2008/11/19/steele-scrutinized-on-abortion
Some pro-life Republican activists are citing an interview Steele gave to Meet the Press in 2006 where it appears he’s less than supportive of overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that allowed virtually unlimited abortions.
NRLC endorsed Steele for his Senate campaign and sent out mailings across the state for him.
As LifeNews.com previously reported, Darla St. Martin, associate director for NRLC, told LifeNews.com that Steele was 100 percent pro-life…
“As someone who has known Michael for almost 20 years I can tell you these charges are absolutely false,” Terhes says.
“Michael is the only current candidate for RNC chairman who has ever been endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee,” Terhes explained. “Oh, and by the way, it’s not easy running for public office in Maryland as a staunch pro-lifer. But that is exactly what Michael did. He never backed down. Never made excuses.”
Terhes also cites the Washington Times, which endorsed Steele’s Senate campaign in part because of his pro-life views.
“Mr. Steele is staunchly pro-life (parting with many Republicans who support abortion in cases of rape and incest),” the paper said in its October 2006 endorsement.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4586.html
NRLC endorsed Steele for his Senate campaign and sent out mailings across the state for him.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4574.html
For me, Mike Steele is the best of all possible Presidential candidates:
• He’s Pro-Life
For me to support him, that’s a given. I’d never vote for anyone who approved of the murder of unborn babies. Steele opposes abortion on demand, and even the issue of abortion for victims of rape and incest isn’t something he’s comfortable simply glossing over. Some politicians favor abortion in those instances without qualms. From what I’ve read, Steele even sees that issue as complex and difficult. In short, he might even be more pro-life than I am. That’s exactly what I want in a candidate; somebody who’s more likely to err on the side of life.
http://darwen.us/southcon/2005/12/more-on-michael-steele.html
Steele is the beneficiary of one of the human race’s most extraordinary acts of compassion: He’s adopted. He also had a mother who eschewed welfare and toiled away at low-paying jobs to send him to top schools….Steele is pro-life, even to the point of having qualms about rape and incest exceptions (which is the place where all principled pro-lifers find themselves, though most pro-life politicians have cut corners in order to make their commitments more palatable to voters).
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200408311251.asp
FEC disclosures updated today showed that the National Right to Life Committee has spent $72,373 on Steele’s behalf with more money reported every day.
“…Michael Steele opposes abortion, which I’m sure is why the National Right to Life Committee is advertising for his campaign. But I understand why he would want to deflect that question – because over 60% of Marylanders support a woman’s right to full reproductive options, including birth control and abortion.”
http://www.mddems.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/902796
Not related directly to the abortion question, Tomas Sowell makes the case for supporting Steele:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-sowell_05edi.State.Edition1.1b42e7f.html