12
Mar 09Steele yourself.
I really don’t have anything against Michael Steele. I think he’s out of touch and in over his head, but anyone would have trouble getting anything done with today’s GOP.
That said, the man’s recent GQ interview can’t be too encouraging. Maybe it sounded better in person, but it reads like a man who won’t be in charge much longer, especially with stream (dribble?)-of-consciousness quotes like this:
[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?
[MS:] 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.
As TNC points out, “I’ve been reading about Steele for years, but I still have no idea why he’s a Republican. I’ve yet to get any sense of deep conviction from him.”
On a personal note, I hate the implication that being adopted means you’re likely to come up pro-life. I’d salute Steele for deflecting the question if I thought it was intentional.
Update: The right’s whirlwind of outrage is already full-force, and Steele just dove for cover… again.
Tagged: culture, news, politics
March 14th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
well, that’s just the point, isn’t it? i mean, why is he doing interviews with GQ in the first place? does their readership mirror the base — or is he in such an all-fired rush to “expand the base” that he’s talking to any and everyone?
i didn’t previously have a (big) problem with steele but something seems to have happened between his senate run and the 08 election.
on the bright side, at least GQ didn’t make him debate kerry washington again because that would’ve definitely ended his days a chairman.