Michael Steele is not pro-life. And he must be replaced as the Chairman of the GOP as quickly as possible.
Steele just did an interview with GQ which is quoted in The Politico.
The key part of the conversation is this. It’s shocking and I trust you’ll agree that Michael Steele’s days as GOP Chairman are numbered:
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.
Now, you can rant and rave how poor Michael has been taken out of context once again and how the media has manipulated him again. I don’t want to hear it anymore. I don’t want a GOP Chairman who makes headlines weekly with his flubs.
And if he meant what he said then I want him out as well.
This is not the first time Steele has referred to his pro-choice credentials. CMR raised this issue months ago and we were told by many that we didn’t understand, it was a nuanced position, the media took him out of context and even that Steele was a good Catholic.
Remember this little conversation with Tim Russert on Meet The Press when Steele was running for Senate.
MR. RUSSERT: …Mr. Steele, if you’re United States Senator, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t — vote for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion? I think we’d have to have that get to the Supreme Court, wouldn’t we? I haven’t seen that bill proposed. I don’t think…
MR. RUSSERT: That’s been introduced in the Senate.
LT. GOV. STEELE: I don’t think anyone’s going to propose that this day.
MR. RUSSERT: So you wouldn’t do that?
LT. GOV. STEELE: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Would, would you encourage — would you hope the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think that that’s a matter that’s going to rightly belong to the courts to decide ultimately whether or not that, that issue should be addressed. The, the Court has taken a position, which I agree, stare decisis, which means that the law is as it is and, and so this is a matter that’s ultimately going to be adjudicated at the states. We’re seeing that. The states are beginning to decide for themselves on, on this and a host of other issues. And the Supreme Court would ultimately decide that.
MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.
MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?
LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that should’ve been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.
MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?
LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.
I’m done. Michael Steele cannot lead the Republican Party. I don’t want a leader who attacks conservative leaders. I don’t want a leader who smiles and agrees when Republicans are called Nazis. I don’t want a leader who waffles on abortion every time he’s asked about it. That’s not good enough. If this party wants the support of pro-lifers then Michael Steele must go.
UPDATE: Steele clarifies his statment. Ed Morrissey of HotAir has it but adds he still doesn’t know what Steele believes. “The two statements cannot be reconciled with each other. They are mutually exclusive. And Steele has offered both as his views in two successive days.” More at Hot Air.
UpdateII: Fallout is already occuring from some heavy hitters among social conservatives. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released a statement on this issue:
“I read the article last night so I am familiar not only with his comments about the life issue but also about theefforts to redefine marriage and ‘mucking’ up the constitution. I expressed my concerns to the chairman earlier this week about previous statements that were very similar in nature. He assured me as chairman his views didnot matter and that he would be upholding and promoting theParty platform, which is very clear on these issues. It is very difficult to reconcile the GQ interview with the chairman’s pledge.”
March 12, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Agreed! Get him outta’ there!
March 12, 2009 at 6:04 pm
We pro-lifers have a tendency to flippantly dismiss anyone who steps even a little out of line, and sometimes we can be our own worst enemies.
This is simply because too many people have claimed to be pro-life, and then let down. Once bitten, twice shy. 276 times bitten…?
Steele should go; yes, already, Steele should go. But he won’t, he’ll hang on through 2010 at least.
My question is, who’s going to take up the slack when all the pro-life donors stop giving?
March 12, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Take the Steele test:
1. Read the WHOLE article, not just the abortion part.
2. Note how many times you squirm in your seat as he barfs up yet another Goodthink platitude.
No way around it, he’s the Establishment, The Man. He’s so worried about about appearing illiberal that it is impossible to ignore that he’s stepping the Hegelian Mambo– think the GOP is too right-wing? Wait ten years and they will have danced to your very spot right now if not skipped past it leftward.
March 12, 2009 at 7:27 pm
The GOP can keep Steele, while the social conservatives find something better to do with their money come the 2010 election, because they will not trust Steele. Can you blame them? Then, in 2010, when the GOP loses five more seats in the Senate and 30 more seats in the House, will the GOP turn to Anuzis or Blackwell or Romney for chairman? Will it make any difference then?
This is ultimately about putting someone out there in front who can make good hires for administration and inspire fundraising. Steele has stumbled badly here, and it is doubtful he can recover. This is a PR nightmare. He should step aside for someone who is ready on Day One to lead the party. This is why there is some wisdom in choosing someone who has already been a state chairman.
March 12, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Pat:
You can never be banned. Without you and Tragically Unhip Mom, this wouldn’t be any fun. But never mind all that. Let’s get back to Judge Scalia for a case in point.
Scalia would contend that the matter should be left to the States. More precisely, he contends that such is what the Law says. At the same time, he has admitted how this interpretation of the Law differs from his personal convictions. Were it up to him, not even the states would have the option of legalizing abortion. But he concedes that the Constitution does not provide that option, unless it is amended. This is not done from the bench, but through the legislature and through state conventions.
I believe that Steele is attempting to draw the same distinctions. I also believe he is doing it very badly. It is the most reasonable way, I think, to explain the dichotomy in his answers.
March 13, 2009 at 1:33 am
Oy vey. I’m gonna have to start figuring out how I can responsibly vote independent in 2012. Dare I saw that I’m feeling a little “Shea”-ish about now?
Screw the Republicans. How bad must they be defeated before they finally realize that “centrism” only gets Democrats elected?
March 13, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Mr. Steele is playing the cozy stare decisis game, so that he can appear to be pro-life without having to actually committing to support overturn of Roe v. Wade. If the Courts uphold Roe v. Wade, it’s the law. If the Courts overturn it, states decide whether it’s the law.
The pro-life issue is too important for us to play games. Stand up for life or sit down, Mr. Steele! As the T-shirt sez, “Stare decisis is fo’ suckahs!”
March 13, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Oh I am done too. With Palin appointing a Planned Parenthood board member to the Supreme Court, Sam Brownback leading a Senate red carpet welcome for a pro-abort Health and Human Services appointee, and more. This is sick — but it also illustrates the dilemma: where does the donkey end and the elephant begin. Or has this really become “the republicrat party”?
Last presidential election we had two candidates, allegedly from different parties. But they both had pro-choice endorsements. They both had huge contributions from the same people; including Teresa Kerry and George Soros.
Who funds the party, runs the party. And the Republicans and Democrats are funded and run from the left. And this explains a lot of what is happening.