Introducing Your New Republican Party-Updated
The new RNC chairman articulating what appears to be quite a new party line with respect to abortion [HT: Hotair]:
GQ: Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Steele: Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
GQ: You do?
Steele: Yeah. Absolutely.
Update: Steele reverses himself.
Here is the full exchange regarding abortion:
GQ: 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?
Steele: 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.
GQ: Explain that.
Steele: 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.
GQ: Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Steele: Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
GQ: You do?
Steele: Yeah. Absolutely.
GQ: Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Steele: I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
GQ: Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
Steele: The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Steele is arguing for overturning Roe. Now I recognize many think that is just the start of the battle, not the end of it. I recognize Feddie disagrees with Steele (and I also disagree with Steele on a host of issues right now). But isn’t the first step dealing with Roe?
This is very disturbing and will cause more problems than his indiscreet remarks about Rush. I mean it is not rocket science. He should explain as someone who was adopted that in a civilized society wee do not kill babies.period.
this is a very poor defense of the pro-life position.
Steele is pathetic. I’ve just about had it with the GOP.
“Steele: The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.”
How exactly is thios a new line . In fact are we not fighting for that?
Allowing states to address the issue is only a temporary measure. The ultimate goal is to ban abortion on the federal level.
“Allowing states to address the issue is only a temporary measure. The ultimate goal is to ban abortion on the federal level.”
Freddie I agree in large part. But that will happen only after we get it too the States and it is argued and debatee and afefr many victories and defeats.
If Roe was overturned tomorrow we are looking at perhaps 20 to 25 years before eventhing like a Human Right amendment could be passed if then. We shall go through like 4 or 6 Chairman at the every least till then.
I just saw that Steele reversed himself: “I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment.”
I was somewhat confused by what Steele said. It sounded to me as if he was saying that the states should decide, and they should decide to give women the individual choice to abort. If that is so, then that is simply unacceptable. It would be akin to saying in the Dred Scott era that the states should be allowed to decide the issue of slavery, and they should decide it in favor of keeping slaves.
If you have another way of reconciling Steele’s inarticulate comments, I would love to hear.
As I have said elsewhere, the charitable interpretation is that he’s being inarticulate. That is not a quality in a national party chairman.
Mr. MacIan
I think Steele is saying that we need to return to the pre-roe framework
I guess this is one reason I never get upset over if a person is for a Human Right Amendment of not to the US Const.
The whole point is irrevelant. Until we get it back to the States and fight the hundreds of hard battles there there never will be a Human rights amendment.
We shall go through a whole succession of Presidents till we get to that point.
Further and I know this riles people but not all the party is Pro-Life. Yes we can threaten to leave all the time.If we do then we can become as irrevelant as the New York Pro-Life party. If Steele is not advocating for a Human Right amendment but is still talking about getting it back to the States I am satified to a certain degree.
I bet he will not try to change the party platform or have people run against established Pro-life people in primaries in the GOP
We would be much better off as GOP pro-lifers recruiting striong pro lifers (among other issues) to run in Republican primaries than announcing or threatening we are to jump every 5 seconds
What bothers me about Michael Steele’s comment is the sloppiness of it. I do not demand everyone in the GOP leadership to be 100% pro life (that is something Democrats do in demanding everyone be 100% pro choice). So if Steele said this is my view (federalism) and this is the view of the GOP (pro life), I would be fine with that.
The MSM smells blood with Steele. Gunning for Steele is like hunting in one of those “game parks” where they lead the animal out on a halter and you shoot it in the corral. With Steele bouncing back and forth on issues he comes off as feckless and incompetent.
The problem with the suggestion that Steele was trying to articulate a federalism argument is that he said it was an individual’s choice not a choice for states. It takes time to adjust to a new job. Steele’s problem is that he doesn’t have the luxury of the usual breaking in period. PG
Mr. Maclan:
“It sounded to me as if he was saying that the states should decide, and they should decide to give women the individual choice to abort. If that is so, then that is simply unacceptable.”
I agree that any legal regime—whether it is federal, as under the current Roe regime, or state—that tolerates abortion is gravely evil, and all persons of good will have an obligation to reform it. However, pro-lifers need to take our allies when we get them. And if there are individuals who, though aren’t personally pro-life, are opposed to Roe v. Wade on federalism grounds, then I think pro-lifers would be wise to work with them in crafting an effective coalition. Any way you cut it, overturning Roe is step one and, as the past 30+ years have repeatedly demonstrated, it haint an easy step to make. Let’s worry about the post-Roe world once it becomes, please God, a reality.
That said, Steele is in a leadership position, and I do think pro-lifers in the Republican Party have a real interest in making sure that Party leadership doesn’t undermine the pro-life movement. For example, I don’t think pro-lifers should try to eject Rudy Giuliani out of the GOP, but I do think they were right to fight tooth & nail to prevent his nomination for the Presidency.
The reason why the inability (or refusal) of party leaders to articulate the pro-life worldview (whether its because they are not pro-life, or simply can’t articulate it) concerns me so much is that we are moving way beyond abortion as a country. President Obama just signed an executive order providing for federal funds to perform research on human embryos that necessarily kills those embryos. He carefully and intentionally left the door open to therapeutic human cloning.
And in the midst of these developments, the best that Republican party leaders seem to be able to do is argue (usually half-heartedly), that abortion regulations should be left up to the states. Though I’m very partial to that argument as a procedural matter, I’m beginning to think that it is not sufficient in our time. Why can’t our leaders simply explain why they oppose abortion and embryonic stem cell research, rather than merely saying that they do? When embryo farming is right around the corner, it seems to me that we need to move beyond the procedural argument and explain the substance.
I like Michael Steele, or at least I liked him. But one must question his fitness for the job at this point. Is it really that hard to articulate the pro-life position, even with the issue of state vs. federal rights mixed in?
It shouldn’t be, not if it is really part of who you are.
Closley held beliefs can always be articulated. Steele is wishy-washy on life.
“Closley held beliefs can always be articulated. Steele is wishy-washy on life.”
Well, duh. So were McCain, both Bushes, Reagan when he was Governor… so are many Republican officials when they’re not running for office.
The pro-life crowd has convinced itself that because it got the GOP to appease it with platform language and empty rhetoric, that somehow means the GOP is fundamentally a pro-life Party, and it isn’t. It’s an alliance of people for whom abortion is a paramount issue, and those for whom economics, taxation, foreign police or other issues are paramount.
And it’s not even an equal alliance. They get war on Iraq, quashed regulations and low taxes; you get mostly rhetoric.
(Dems have similar issues, but at least on abortion the party platform is mostly about maintaining the status quo, so the fissures don’t show as badly.)
http://rightwingnews.com/
A robust defense of Mr. Steele.
Muskrat We got Roberts and Alito. Other than the GOP there is really no pro-life choice. Also, taxation, strong defense, second ammendment are also important issues. In fact, of all the GOP folks I know, none are single issue voters. This is an image projected onto us.
Perhaps Steele should write his position on abortion on his hand so he can recall it. Time to give the heave ho to this maladroit flim-flam artist.
“The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.”
Mr. Steele has managed to make George W. Bush sound lucid by comparison. What is he saying here?
As best I can parse his remarks, it seems he is saying that a state should decide whether to criminalize abortion or not to do so.
I can remember a lot of blather on this blog in support of a recent Republican presidential nominee who advocated a similar viewpoint.
As Tommy Duncan sang, time changes everything.
John-
I think you should go back and read my posts. If you think I made excuses for McCain’s squishy positions on certain life issues, you’re sadly mistaken.