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
“I couldn’t agree more with xzins’ sentiment about double-talkers....”
Then why accept Mr. Steele's double-talk on the issue?
“...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.
So, what comprises his vast public pro-life record, other than mellifluous words? Has he run any fundraisers for pregnancy aid centers? Has he protested out in front of any abortion mills? Did he publicly tell his governor that he was wrong to allocate tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for embryonic stem cell research?
If he did any of these things - these actual actions, I, living in Maryland, am entirely unaware of them.
“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.”
Then Mr. Steele is unqualified, in that he can't even communicate his position clearly to those who DO see the supreme value of unborn children.
“But Steele ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 and for the Senate in 2006 as a strong pro-lifer...”
Although he later proved worthless in any efforts to dissuade our extremist pro-death governor, I'll give him 2002.
But it's pretty clear that he tried to blur the lines in 2006. I don't view him at all as a strong pro-life candidate in 2006. I view him as someone who thought he had the pro-life vote in his pocket in 2006, so he said things that softened significantly (or even vitiated) his pro-life stance.
By the way, here is a New York Times article from March 2006 that quotes Mr. Steele in a way that clouds opposition to Roe:
Here's the money paragraph:
Senators cast votes on matters of substance and national import: up or down, yes or no. It is in this area that Steele is less comfortable — and at his most vulnerable as a candidate. It is not always apparent if he can clearly enunciate where he stands — or maybe he just doesn't want to. Even on some of the issues that are closest to his heart, he defaults to soft, imprecise language. Steele says that he is proudly “pro-life” but seemed to equivocate when I asked if he favors greater restrictions on abortion or its outright ban. “The dance we do is, we put too much pressure and weight on one decision,” he said, referring to Roe v. Wade. “We have to re-evaluate that.” He claimed that he was not advocating overturning the decision, only asking if we “have to live with the reality of a decision that was made 33 years ago.”
“...David Brody are defending Steele on abortion...”
Who cares? Look at Mr. Brody's quote:
“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.”
Again, what the heck is his “solid track record on the life issue”? As far as I know, it's words.
And words are readily contradicted by other words.
And in 2006, he definitely muddied the waters on his “record” on life.
As well, I followed the 2006 campaign closely, since I live in Maryland, and was enthusiastic about Mr. Steele's campaign. I was disappointed at the time that there was virtually no mention of his pro-life views in his literature or on his website. He didn't talk about it except in the vaguest terms. He went around proclaiming himself “proudly pro-life,” but without any of the particulars cited by the folks you quote as being in favor of a total ban on abortion.
Again, it looked to me like he was taking the pro-life vote for granted and trying to soften his pro-life position to get votes from pro-deathers.
That's not exactly “staunchly pro-life” or solidly pro-life.
It's trimming. It's straddling. It's compromising.
I'm glad to see Mr. Steele this week move away from his pro-death words of two years ago, but I wish it would have been less hesitant, less relativized. I wish it had been words that evinced stronger, undeniable conviction.
sitetest