I am beginning to get a little frustrated with our esteemed RNC head. The man manages to gaffe more than Biden, and in ways which indicate that he is actually liberal leaning. What is this hip-hop theme about? Thugs don’t vote, and even if they did, that is an interest group I am none to interested in having any political power.
All of this is besides the point. What is the point is that Steele recently made a stupid-ass comment which undermines his Catholicism and pro-life credentials to the extreme. He recanted, but it is hard to reconcile the two statements.
On the Politico:
How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states.Let them decide.
March 12th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
What a fool. He was trying to have a fresh new take on the issue that’s supposed to make the other side like him more.
I thought he was actually going to get past this bullshit about wanting the other side to like you.
People who can’t think shouldn’t be allowed to talk. That would leave only Camille Paglia in the liberal media.
March 12th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Uh, you know that he’s a hundred percent correct constitutionally, right?
I didn’t have a problem with it. We don’t make the argument that Roe was very poorly decided enough, I’m glad he did. He’s being a strict constitutionist in arguing that the issue should go to the states. I’ve heard nothing else bad about him on the life issues, and I know that some of the bigger pro-life groups like him and are willing to work with him. Fine with me.
March 12th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Fabius:
“Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.”
He’s clearly talking about the right of an individual woman to choose an abortion. Then he hedges his opposition to Roe as a “legal matter,” since he just finished explaining he doesn’t feel that it’s a moral one.
Either he was being really unclear at the beginning, or he sensed the hot water he had gotten into and tried to deflect the “individual choice” phrase to refer to the States.
March 12th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I should have admitted in my original post that, while I don’t have a problem with it, I can see how it’s going to be twisted and run with my the media, pro-choices, and the crazy-type pro-lifers. If he doesn’t figure out a way to avoid these types of gaffes, we’re in for a problem.
But I don’t think he believes, or intended to say, that abortion as a choice can be a moral right. If anything, he took the question too literally, as a matter of constitutional law. His pro-life stance has never been seriously question by other conservatives, and most pro-life groups like him.
He’s not going to encourage pro-choice policies within the GOP. And emphasizing the constitutionality of the issue is an argument that pro-lifers don’t focus on anywhere near enough.
A reader e-mailed the Corner today:
“When debating social issues, the key is not to serve red meat to the faithful; the key is to convert those who are reasonable by using logical arguments that appeal to those who are not as emotionally attached to this argument…
The “Moderate” side of our Party, wants to throw the Social Conservatives under a bus by saying look we aren’t going to build our party if we don’t start bringing moderate voters into the party. The more “Conservative” wing of our party, would rather make arguments that preach to the choir rather than bring in those who are not fully vested on either side.
What I want is to win the issues. If government stops funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research I don’t care we20win that arguement by appealing to the fiscal senses of moderates. The same can be applied with Abortion and Gay Marriage , in the nature of a strict consturctionist view Should judges or the voters be the arbitrators on these issues?”