Michael Steele is a comical wingnut

Quote :

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele will call for an end to the "era of apologizing" in the GOP and urge his fellow party members to "focus all of our energies on winning the future" in a speech today to a gathering of RNC officials in Maryland.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/cheat-sheet/white-house-cheat-sheet-steele-1.html

Did I miss the "apologizing" from the GOP? When the hell did it begin? I could have sworn they've spent the last 4 months attacking Obama and just about every other Democrat,while doing their best to obstruct any and all legislation.

Their leader Limbaugh has said "I hope Obama Fails",Dick Cheney claims we're not safe under Obama,and just recently House Republican Leaders Twist Obama Statement on Israel for example.

Oh,and btw,since when does 4 whole months constitute an "era"? :rolfcry:

Highlights from Michael Steele’s “Change in a teabag” speech
Posted by Jed Lewison • May 19, 2009 at 4:49 PM Pacific

Shorter version of Michael Steele’s “Change in a teabag” speech to the RNC:

(1) We’re not going to talk about our failed past ever again.

(2) We really hate President Obama and everything he’s doing to America.

(3) There’s never been a better time to be a Republican.

Here’s a highlight reel of Steele’s speech…which almost seemed like a comedy routine:

The Daily Show did a quick bit on his argument against gay marriage, which he apparently made not realizing it was a fairly substantial argument against all marriage.

And the Colbert Report had a clip of him exposing the whole Pelosi affair as the simple sleight of hand trick it is, a distraction from their support for torture.

Good stuff. I'll post the clips in the morning when they're up.

Heretic wrote:

The Daily Show did a quick bit on his argument against gay marriage, which he apparently made not realizing it was a fairly substantial argument against all marriage.

Keith Olbermann has a hilarious take on Steele's idiotic claim that it would hurt small business and "cost him money"...

So in other words...he's just an ignorant shill...

Steele On Health Care: What's Individual Requirement?
By Rachel Slajda - July 20, 2009, 9:50AM

Michael Steele, chairman of the RNC, doesn't seem to know the basic terminology of the health care debate.

In a Q&A at the National Press Club just now, Steele was asked if Republicans support an individual requirement to get health care (also known as an individual mandate).

"What do you mean by an individual requirement?" he asked the moderator. After she explained, he dodged the question.

"Again, that is one of those areas where there is different opinions...I don't do policy," he said. "My point in coming here today was to begin to set a tone, and a theme if you will."

The gift that keeps on giving......

Steele: No reason for black GOP base
By: Andy Barr
April 21, 2010 05:43 PM EDT

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told a group of students that African-Americans “don’t have a reason” to vote for Republicans.

Steele was asked Tuesday night during a speech to roughly 200 students at DePaul University why African-Americans should vote for GOP candidates.

“You really don’t have a reason, to be honest,” Steele responded, as was first reported by the Chicago Sun-Times. “We haven’t done a very good job of giving you one.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2252E5D3-18FE-70B2-A85D9575C167FBCC

From the Department of Who You Crappin....
Steele Makes Up Facts: ‘George Bush Created A Lot Of Jobs’

Quote :

STEELE: George Bush created a lot of jobs.

HAINES: Beg your pardon?

STEELE: I think there were jobs created in the eight years that George Bush was in office.

HAINES: No I’m sorry, you’re mistaken. [...]

STEELE: I think jobs were created. I’m almost confident about that. And I think the markets reflect that. [...]

HAINES: So, did the Lehman blow up and all, that didn’t happen on Bush’s watch? … You were talking about the markets. The markets tanked. [...]

Quote :

While Steele is “almost confident” that Bush created jobs, the facts disagree. As the Wall Street Journal noted in the last month of Bush’s term — in an article that Burnett references on air while fact checking Steele — Bush’s job data “shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” A paltry 1 million jobs were created under Bush; that’s “a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration.” Even President Carter — who conservatives love to cite as the paragon of poor economic management, and who only served one term — created 10.5 million jobs. That’s more than three times as many jobs as Bush, in half as much time. More jobs may be created under Obama in this year alone than in Bush’s eight.

The Journal article doesn’t even account for the jobs lost after it was published due to Bush’s economic policy, and before President Obama’s began to take effect, as this chart demonstrates:
Bikini chart

Man, this dude is certifiable...

GOP chairman: Afghan 'war of Obama's choosing'

Quote :

Republican chairman Michael Steele drew criticism from within his own party Friday, including calls to resign, after saying the 9-year-old commitment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan was a mistaken "war of Obama's choosing."

"This was a war of Obama's choosing," Steele said. "This is not something the United States has actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

As criticism swelled, Steele issued a statement stressing his support for U.S. troops, but he did not acknowledge his factual error about a war launched by former President George W. Bush in response for the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Looks like your link was jacked; came up 404 not found. This the right one?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100702/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_republican_chairman_afghanistan

But seriously... talk about epic fail. Either the GOP didn't realize what a retarded twit this guy was prior his election in their vacant appeal to their constituency now that we have a black president or they're assuming their constituency is too retarded to see through endless and obvious bullshit.

With a party of Bush supporters, AGW denialists, and creationists, I can't figure out which.

Honestly... How can anyone possibly defend that statement and expect to be taken seriously? Is anyone even trying? Do they know this guy is on TV promoting the party without a chaperon?

Well, they're not all morons. While I don't agree with Think Progress' assessment that they are not refuting Steele's statements (I think the statement was too stupid to warrant one; only the severely mentally deficient could buy such nonsense), it has a nice collection of conservatives condemning his statements:

Quote :

- Leading conservative pundit and McCain presidential campaign advisor Bill Kristol called Steele’s comments an “affront…to the commitment of our soldiers” in Afghanistan and demanded that the chairman step down. [7/2/10]

- RedState founder, leading movement conservative, and CNN contributor Erick Erickson said that Steele “has lost all moral authority” and he “must resign.” [7/2/10]

- Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Steele’s remarks were “totally unacceptable” and said that he should “apologize and resign.” [7/03/10]

- Former Bush State Department official and Keep America Safe founder Liz Cheney said that Steele’s Afghanistan comments were “deeply disappointing and wrong” and that it is “time for Steele to step down.” [7/4/10]

- This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said there was “no excuse” for Steele’s comments and told host Jake Tapper that “Mr. Steele is going to have to assess as to whether he can still lead the Republican Party as chairman of the Republican National Committee.” [7/4/10]

- Speaking on Fox News Sunday today, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) demanded that Steele “apologize to our military” and said that Republicans “need a chairman who’s focused.” [7/4/10]

- On CBS’s Face The Nation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called Steele’s remarks “unwise” and said “we must win this war.” The senator was thankful, however, that Steele was “backtracking so fast he’s gonna be here fighting in Kabul soon.” [7/4/10]

Heretic wrote:

Well, they're not all morons. While I don't agree with Think Progress' assessment that they are not refuting Steele's statements (I think the statement was too stupid to warrant one; only the severely mentally deficient could buy such nonsense), it has a nice collection of conservatives condemning his statements:

It probably won't be decided until until the fat man weighs in.
Me? I'm keeping my fingers crossed,hoping that he defends him.

I follow both parties in Washington/New York Newspapers, Drudge, RSS, you name it.

Here's my opinion: it's NOT the party they are associated with. It is the PERSON you should be concerned with.

Both parties. R and D. And if you had any sense at all, you would vote for the person, not the party.

I say get rid of all of them nationally, even if it means replacing them with grass root candidates.

At this point, what do we have to loose?

Parties of R or D are both responsible for the shape of our country. Not the party, but participants of both that hold the R or D after their names.

They don't switch from one party to another without reason. The only reason is to further their careers and to get voted again by ignorant people that don't both following their voting records and etc.

I don't at this point, think there is a real honest politician out there.

UrRight wrote:

I follow both parties in Washington/New York Newspapers, Drudge, RSS, you name it.

Yeah, well I would hope that everyone does that. I take that as a given.

UrRight wrote:

Here's my opinion: it's NOT the party they are associated with. It is the PERSON you should be concerned with.

I always base my vote on who I feel is the best candidate, based upon my policy preferences.

UrRight wrote:

I say get rid of all of them nationally, even if it means replacing them with grass root candidates.

That approach doesn't seem consistent with "voting for the best person." In effect, you are saying that the "best person" cannot belong to one of the major parties.

UrRight wrote:

Parties of R or D are both responsible for the shape of our country. Not the party, but participants of both that hold the R or D after their names.

They don't switch from one party to another without reason. The only reason is to further their careers and to get voted again by ignorant people that don't both following their voting records and etc.

Yeah, well "party switchers" are the exception, not the norm, so your point seems irrelevant.

The bottom line is that I vote for the person who will vote the way that I want them to vote on the issues that I consider most important to me, and our country.

While I understand the juvenile novelty of "throwing the bums out," I really don't see how that's going to help our country. To be perfectly honest, I see that approach as being simple minded and counterproductive.

Ok, I voted for Blago after dipstick went to jail.

I didn't care if he was Demo or Repo.

You vote on their word...then things happen:

He promised the end of corruption at the time he ran the first time.

Look what they got in IL based on Demo really believing Blago would put an end to corruption. They ended up worse.

Nothing. You don't know who to trust anymore.

That's my point. And Obama did the same. Bush did the same...Clinton is when I first started following politics. Our economy was no doubt in great shape, but who is to say he didn't know or ignore 9/11/ in the midst of his "impeachement"? It's a slip and slide with politicians. Give me ONE I can trust on the local, state and Federal level.

I don't go for parties. They switch if they think they will loose. I look up "How they voted, etc." before I vote. I write letters to them...I write the govs the POTUS...no matter what state...it's gotta be that way, or nothing will change.

In any state or entity. Write and call. Make your feelings known. Don't vote for the party...the party is over. Don't vote based on what you "hear". Do your homework and weed them out. Republicans and Democrats are both to blame for our problems today. No doubt.

UrRight wrote:

Ok, I voted for Blago after dipstick went to jail.

I didn't care if he was Demo or Repo.

You vote on their word...then things happen:

He promised the end of corruption at the time he ran the first time.

Look what they got in IL based on Demo really believing Blago would put an end to corruption. They ended up worse.

Nothing. You don't know who to trust anymore.

Yeah, well obviously not the former Governor of Illinois. You seem to be really obsessed with Illinois politics. If that is where you live, then that's your right of course, but I really don't think that you can compare Springfield to Washington in any meaningful way.

UrRight wrote:

That's my point. And Obama did the same.

What's that supposed to mean, exactly? I voted for Obama, and I certainly don't feel that he has betrayed me in any way. As far as I'm concerned, he's done a pretty good job so far, especially considering the difficult circumstances that he inherited. I certainly haven't seen any evidence of "corruption."

UrRight wrote:

I don't go for parties. They switch if they think they will loose. I look up "How they voted, etc." before I vote. I write letters to them...I write the govs the POTUS...no matter what state...it's gotta be that way, or nothing will change.

I'll just put aside the ridiculous contention that party-switching on the National level is common.

That said, there are clear differences in approach between the two major parties, especially at the National level.

I suspect that most everyone who posts here is involved enough to write or call their representatives and make their own views known.

I learned through IL politicians growing up in IL and listening to INDIANA politicians that both the states need to get thier prioritie straight.

I worked for politicians in Dolton. Way back in the '80s and the shitz I can tell you would blow your mind.

And that stuff still goes on...in other states/municipilties. I know the tricks.

Let's drop it for tonight. Gotta leave early for Michigan then head down to Bass Lake. Will continue this when I get back.

My point is, you don't judge a book by a cover. So much to learn...so little time. I was fortunate to be exposed way early in local politics. I can only tell you what I know, and experienced and it would shock the hell out of you and others.

Local politics are no different than state and federal. Don't forget..I worked for the Feds, so I worked from the top down.

Frankly, I don't give a damn about local politics, and I sure as hell don't want to discuss it on the National Forum.