Patterico's Pontifications

11/12/2010

Michael Steele: Vote For Me, You Racists!

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 10:40 am



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]

So Steele is on a radio show with Al Sharpton and they have this exchange:

Sharpton said he couldn’t believe Republicans would even think of ditching Steele as RNC chair.

“You’d be the first brother run out after doing a good job. It would be interesting to see them have a historic win, and the brother takes the fall. Usually the brother takes the fall when they lose,” Sharpton said.

“You’re right. Well, you know, that’s going to be remain to be seen,” Steele said.

No, Mike, you complete idiot, they are talking about running you out because you have been a continual embarrassment.  You know, I live in Northern Virginia, and in 2006, I watched you run for Senate in Maryland, since the local stations covered that campaign pretty closely.  You were genuinely impressive in that campaign.  But then you became Chairman of the RNC and got a bad case of diarrhea of the mouth, saying one idiot thing after another.  Like saying the Afghan war is “a war of Obama’s choosing.”  I mean just google “Michael Steele gaffes” and you will get over 26,000 results.  Seriously it is hard to figure who is worse, you or Joe Biden, but we certainly know who hurts the Republican cause, more.  And I and other conservatives have looked at each other and thought, “he just can’t help himself, can he?”

That’s why your job is in jeopardy, because you can’t keep that trap shut or at least keep your foot from entering it.  Your race has nothing to do with it.

On the other hand, Ed Morrissey disagrees with me on this, arguing that Steele was not saying this was about race.  He writes:

Sharpton never used the word “racist,” and Strong [the reporter I quote above] correctly leaves it out of the quote, but his second paragraph makes Sharpton sound as if he made that argument explicitly and Steele’s “You’re right” was in response to it.  In listening to the actual interview, Sharpton made his accusation slightly less explicit than making that flat-out accusation.

No, he didn’t say the world “racist,” but he said it was about running out a “brother.”  It could have been more explicit, but it was explicit enough.  No one listening to that is confused about what Sharpton was saying, the least of all being Steele.  Sharpton was race baiting (big surprise) and Steele was yukking it up and agreeing with him, thus ratifying that race baiting.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

47 Responses to “Michael Steele: Vote For Me, You Racists!”

  1. This was the first election in a long time where I wasn’t part of one of those 72 hour programs.

    Why? The RNC couldn’t afford one. The entire organization has been a complete mess. They fired a lot of great people in 2009 so Steele could install his friends… even people who were excellent at their jobs. This was selfish.

    Then Steele used his chairmanship to bolster his own book sales and even charged for speeches instead of giving speeches to promote the GOP (which has traditionally been considered part of what he’s already paid to do).

    No doubt, Steele has made millions thanks to being the chairman. But he’s done so in a transparently selfish way. He wasn’t interested in winning.

    Al Sharpton can say Steele led this ‘historic win’, but that’s just a lie… Steele said we weren’t ready to lead yet and shouldn’t win. He hardly led anything.

    Steele has made a lot of complaints about racism that make absolutely no sense and are obviously meant to deflect legitimate criticism.

    We need a selfless RNC Chairman instead of one who will actively bash his own party, obviously as he just did in this interview. Morrissey is mistaken… Steele said it was “right” that the RNC would kick Steele out because he’s a “brother”.

    I’m disgusted mainly because Steele has been sharp as a tack on cable news for many years and has to realize he’s full of crap.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  2. Ed Morrissey is often mealy-mouthed and overly defferential.

    Smart guy, but I stand by my opinion as stated above.

    And, yeah, Steele has been terrible. Like many, I wanted him to get the job. Like many, I was wrong to do so.

    It’s time to move on before 2012.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  3. I was for Kodos, I mean Blackwell

    justin cord (82637e)

  4. Why on earth is he even having an interview with Al Sharpton in the first place?

    He might as well have an interview with Brad Friedman or Ted Rall or Ed Shultz. There is no chance this interview would further the GOP cause, which is Steele’s damn job to ensure.

    The reason is that he wanted this accusation to emerge and reduce the chances he’s replaced. It is quite predictable Sharpton would attempt to call the GOP racist.

    He should be replaced by the end of the day, with this interview being the justification. We do not need race hustlers.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  5. Hear, hear, Dustin.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  6. “The Brothas” (or sometimes “Brothas and Sistahs”) is common shorthand for “the black community” pretty much everywhere.

    Kind of like a mafioso referring to “our friends”…

    mojo (8096f2)

  7. I live in NVa too. I also was impressed with Steele in the MD run. Then he went to RNC and more than reversed my opinion of him.

    A shame.

    Dan S (b5ccb6)

  8. steele is on a par with obama. Both got their jobs due to affirmative action. biden got his because he is dumber than an affirmative action president.

    Jim (844377)

  9. Dan, I was sure he was going to be excellent. He is a great speaker and capable of cutting through the BS to get the point he wants to communicate out there.

    It’s a shame his point has been ‘The GOP sucks’ and ‘The GOP is Racist’.

    Everyone should just let me run things for a while. I’d put Romney and Palin in charge of the RNC, have both of them endorse Mitch Daniels for President, and get Bolton tacked on as VP. Alas, no.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  10. I think Murkowski should run. She’s shown she has bi-partisan cred by winning a write-in in Alaska driving right down the center, upsetting an ethically challenged Republican candidate with a bad campaign strategy who still got a hefty chunk of the vote. There are not many people who can unite the center like she has — in a write-in no less.

    If she switched parties and ran as a Democrat to the right of Obama, she’d grab the Hillary supporters and considering his poor performance, have a real chance at winning.

    She’d be unbeatable as the Democrat nominee in the general with her cross-over appeal.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  11. The word “racists”is included in a thread title, and Jim-the-racist comes out of the woodwork to give credence to Sharpton’s race-baiting. Beautiful.

    Icy Texan (5aae2f)

  12. As silly as that is, I admit Murkowski is a lot better at politics than I’ll ever be. Winning that write-in bid is impressive. No doubt, the actual price is paid by the presumed goodies for Alaska in the future, so there’s a clear way to pull the rug out from under her by letting Alaska stand on her own two feet anyway.

    Obviously that has nothing to do with Michael Steele or the GOP’s future. Murkowski was rejected by the Republican party in a primary and is thus a weak candidate who happens to be great at hard ball politics.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  13. If the GOP chose Palin and the Murkowski wrestled the nomination as I stated, the fact that Murkowski is far more popular in Alaska than Palin is right now would count against Palin too.

    I don’t think beating Palin in the general election is terribly tough, but Murkowski would do it running away.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  14. She’s the lost Maine sister from the other coast,
    maybe they deserve her, they stood by while Palin
    had to chose between bankuptcy and staying in office, they put a total hack to replace Stevens, trusting the verdict of DC jury,

    justin cord (82637e)

  15. I don’t think beating Palin in the general election is terribly tough, but Murkowski would do it running away.

    Murkowski, with no executive experience and a few scandals, would win the general election running away? Against two candidates with executive experience?

    Yeah, I think you’re reading too much into this odd election. Palin wasn’t on the ballot. Miller may have been her guy, but he had his flaws and it’s not like Murkowski ‘ran away’ with an election that could be decided by less than 1000 votes.

    Murkowski wouldn’t win a single state in a Presidential election.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  16. it’s not like Murkowski ‘ran away’

    3-way split. My point is Murkowski, if she can secure the Democratic nomination, loses a bit of support on the left, but drives down the middle to a decisive win, which Obama can’t do — not decisively, anyway.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  17. They broke every rule in the book, in order to do this, they used every instrument at stake, come to think of it, this reminds me of another set of races, where the other candidate disqualified the signature of all his opponents, and later had his
    two major opponents’s divorce records, leaving him with the likes of Nancy Skinner in one primary, and
    Alan Keyes in the general, but he meant well; some might even say he was a ‘good man’.

    justin cord (82637e)

  18. The idea that Murkowski could win a national election shows how delusional Christoph is. Also, the idea that the RNC Chairman should be bipartisan?! Giveme a break.

    JD (c8c1d2)

  19. thank you Mr. Steele please to enjoy your lovely parting gifts

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  20. As the Democratic nominee, having challenged an ineffective, widely seen as failed Obama, having grabbed the re-energized Hillary voters and now vindicated centrist Democrats who almost beat Obama and now see the light, with the U.S. in an economically weakened state, with her history as a liberal Democrat become Republican who is more popular in Alaska than is the conservative base’s preferred candidate, a half-term governor, and the power of the Democratic Party aparatus behind her, and the appeal to the sort of non-conservative Republican voters that she attracted so many of in Alaska, after having the political legend of success for achieving a rare write-in victory, she wins easily.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  21. Actually there may be another reason why the DEms back her so assiduously;

    http://alaskareport.com/news/z46392_lisa_murkowski_crime.htm

    justin cord (82637e)

  22. If this were someone other than Al Sharpton, I give more credence to Mr. Morissey’s argument.

    It is possible that another person might use “brother” simply to mean “person who happens to be black”, without the “raaciist!” overtones.

    But this is Al Sharpton, so we can assume he meant to call the GOP a bunch of racists, and Steele went along with him. You’d think the GOP chairman would automatically defend the GOP? Guess not.

    kishnevi (9ee373)

  23. Christoph – if my aunt had nutz she would be my uncle.

    JD (c8c1d2)

  24. Without a doubt, this is yet more flamebait.

    Moderate Republicans are so powerful because they have honed themselves into a niche. It looks like the very opposite of leadership when they attempt to broaden support (Romney).

    It’s really for the best that we just ignore this clumsy attempt to derail an interesting discussion.

    The RNC chairman should be an effective reformer (sad to say, we need to clean that operation up). They should be a clear speaker who doesn’t mince words. They should be extremely good at bringing in donations.

    Palin isn’t perfect, and neither is Romney, but both would be quite good at this role. I think the best arguments against are merely hopeful they would do more than merely chair a political party.

    JD’s got an insightful point, even though it ought to be quite obvious. This is an explicitly partisan position.

    I see no reason not to co-chair the party. I cannot think of a single thing Steele does that requires an explicit command structure. Also, our party is bitterly divided in many ways.

    It’s time to think outside the box.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  25. Now getting back to the main point, what does Sharpton have to do to become anathema, to any right of center figure. Hannity, Beck, Huckabee
    (i’m using that expression advisedly)have all had him on, the only who never has is Limbaugh, radio or TV

    justin cord (82637e)

  26. We should demonstrated our bi-partisanship by appointing Chuck Schumer and David Plouffe to be co-chairs of the RNC.

    JD (c8c1d2)

  27. Steele has got to go.

    This has been clear for some time. Like, when he said blacks had no reason to vote for Republicans. Or that Afghanistan was Obama’s war of choice.

    Both of which Dan Riehl defended him on, oddly. And Riehl took money from the RNC without disclosing it, oddly.

    Has Riehl defended Steele yet on this?

    Patterico (21a124)

  28. Justin Cord, Al Sharpton is excellent at generating headlines.

    And *every* single time, the headlines turn out to be aspersions and assumptions about something that isn’t at all accurate.

    People who work with Sharpton are transparently attempting to get more attention, usually for financial reasons. We should have just offered Steele ten million dollars to promote the Republican Party.

    Kishnevi’s right… Al Sharpton was obviously going to take this in the ‘conservatives are racist’ direction. I don’t think there’s any relevance to GOP politics when the democrats pretend to adore Steele despite making fun of him. I doubt they can keep the act up… nothing these blowhards hate more than a black Republican.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  29. Both of which Dan Riehl defended him on, oddly.

    Comment by Patterico

    That’s got to be the least likely turn of events for Dan. Even the most RINOish Squishy Republican thought that commentary was out of line.

    I was probably paid off by Castle to bash O’donnell, so I guess I have no place to complain.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  30. thank you Mr. Steele please to enjoy your lovely parting gifts

    Comment by happyfeet — 11/12/2010 @ 12:47 pm

    Heh. Well said. He’s given it a good try but can’t seem to help himself sometimes. There are lots of others who would do an exponentially better job.

    no one you know (325a59)

  31. Both of which Dan Riehl defended him on, oddly. And Riehl took money from the RNC without disclosing it, oddly.

    It’s a fair point. His counterpoint was, basically, look, it wasn’t a lot of money. But to a person who doesn’t have a lot of money and is suddenly paid to do what they love, politics, it can be a big deal for emotional as well as pragmatic reasons. Wishes for more (success and money) to come in the future, for example.

    Steele getting booted out sends the right message too: The RNC Chair promotes the GOP, not the other way around.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  32. The recent successes of Republicans in the midterm elections had nothing to do with Steele. He needs to show us exactly what the GOP gains by his presence, which will take some convincing.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  33. He should not be reelected just for being stupid enough to go on Sharpton’s show.

    Dear Chairman Steele,

    Do you think it’s an appropriate use of the Chairman of the RNC to appear on Al Sharpton’s radio show?

    It’s not me, it’s you.

    Darin H (c335c2)

  34. Riehl, was paid a modest sum for advice they had no intention of implementing, in terms of media strategy. He complains enough about their blinkered
    strategems that I consider him sincere.

    justin cord (82637e)

  35. I would say our successes were *despite* Steele, who seems to disparage conservatives at every turn.

    Patterico (21a124)

  36. SPQR, I wonder what could have been if the RNC had been optimistic enough to expect such a rebound. They were completely blindsided by reality.

    A lot of state level politicians had to work things out on their own. We did very well despite the kind of political party help we had in the recent past, but I think we missed an opportunity.

    Al Sharpton insisting the recent success was Steele’s is completely irrational and quite racist.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  37. He complains enough about their blinkered
    strategems that I consider him sincere.

    Comment by justin cord

    I’ve only been reading Dan frequently in the past few weeks, but you gotta admit, Dan is outspoken in the exact opposite direction and it’s quite surprising he’d defend Steele’s comments. Just read his recent few entries and compare.

    I don’t think he’s insincere either. I think he’s just not very serious sometimes.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  38. I believe you can be sincere and have undisclosed money influence your thoughts and feelings. The reason disclosure is important is precisely because compensation sincerely influences people.

    Christoph (8ec277)

  39. I know there’s a lot of gaffes to pick from, but the one I’m still the most pissed about is the “Honest Injun” comment. I mean come on.

    It just makes me cringe just thinking about it. Oh hey, what’s the best way to negate the image of an up and coming party that is colorblind and is leaving its racial issues in the past? Severe and unecessary racial insensitivity? Bingo!

    wt (554c07)

  40. “You’d be the first brother run out after doing a good job. It would be interesting to see them have a historic win, and the brother takes the fall. Usually the brother takes the fall when they lose,” Sharpton said.

    The fact that Steele is looking to Sharpton of all people for approval of his job, is telling.

    The fact that Sharpton tells Steele what he wants to hear – is also telling.

    It seems Morrisey ignores the historical Sharpton.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  41. I hope the GOP dumps this asshat soon.

    SteveP (1ed126)

  42. Don’t know how he meant it, don’t care. At least Howard Dean could claim with justice that his ideas helped the Democrats win in 2006–Steele’s been nothing but deadweight, and we’ve got time to break a new chairman in before the next election. Pull the plug already.

    M. Scott Eiland (596a11)

  43. I’m sure Murkowski is not very relevant to this discussion, but I’d be even surer of a bet that she does not run for US President.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  44. Why is Steele talking to a racist? Wonder if it occurs to Sharpton that this “once a brother gets a job it becomes a job for a brother” attitude is why people resist affirmative action and may try to avoid hiring “brothers?”

    How, too, is it that everyone who has genes from Africa is a “brother” or a “sister?” What a phony, racist, separatist attitude that is.

    Wondering (d9ad9c)

  45. Steele is an ineffective manager to boot, just totally skilless at managing people

    this in addition to the lack of fund raising skills, confidence building and his off script outbursts and self destructive behavior

    EricPWJohnson (4380b4)

  46. Why Maria Cino?

    Because she is a powerhouse chief executive. She’s also extremely likable, with the requisite public speaking eloquence to make an impact on the public.

    In light of current concerns, she has the executive/managerial record of major impressive results, and which especially reflect fiscal responsibility and prudence; in her political roles, she has demonstrated a deep respect for the power of the ground game and the requirements for its successful implementation.

    Do not take a chance. Go with the one with the best record of bringing the right results: Maria Cino!

    Steve (e4d8b3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5042 secs.