Republicans: "Look Y'all-We Got Us One Too!"
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
Republicans: "Look Y'all-We Got Us One Too!"
I hate to be cynical, and I certainly hate to drag the issue of race back into the public debate while President Obama and literally millions of Americans of good will are working so hard to put this ugly issue behind us, but where I come from we believe in calling a hat a hat. And the fact is, the Republican Party's selection of Michael Steele as the very first Black chairman of the Republican National Committee in its 153 year history, just reeks of political manipulation.
But I'm virtually certain that my Republican friends are going to say, "We just can't win-first you criticize us for not being inclusive enough, now you're criticize us for electing a Black man as head of the party. Exactly what do we have to do to make you happy?"
Well, I can't answer for the rest of America, but I can answer for myself. What I would personally like to see is a Republican Party that INCLUDES minorities, not use them-and I think that's exactly what's going on with Steele-he is being used, even though it's with gleeful delight on his part-but that's exactly why the effort is going to fall flat on its face.
One of the Republican Party's biggest assets is also its greatest liability-it's clumsy. The party leaders are so out of touch with any reality other than the acquisition of power and wealth that they're totally oblivious to how clumsily transparent the elevation of Steele actually is. But their clumsiness and lack of finesse is also they're greatest asset, because many people in this country (and I'm sure I'm going to hear from them) simply refuse to believe the Republican leaders are so dumb that they think they can fool anyone with such a ploy, so the accept the gesture as sincere.
But anyone with an ounce of sense can see that this is a gimmick. Republicans were defeated so badly in the last election, and Obama is so popular, that they figure Black must be the political flavor of the season, so they went out and "got them one"-it didn't matter who, just long as his skin was dark. But again, they're so politically jaded that they're completely out of touch with the American people.
The American people didn't elect President Obama because he's Black, they elected him because he demonstrated that he was an intelligent, competent, statesman. He was also elected so overwhelmingly because for the past eight years the Republican Party has clearly demonstrated that it was overflowing with corruption, incompetence, and greed . So while it's hard for the RNC to believe, for the very first time, we had an election that was based strictly on the issues and relative competence, and not race.
But back to the RNC's failure to understand the American people. If part of the Republican calculation was that by making a Black man head of the Republican Party it's going to help their numbers in the Black community, they're going to be sadly disappointed.-in fact, they've hurt the Republican brand even more. If they'd ever taken the time to truly get to know the Black community, they would have known that the only thing more toxic to Black people than a flat-out racist, is a Black conservative, with the notable exception of Colin Powell-because we suspect he's not truly conservative, just loyal.
Most Black people have very little use for Black conservatives. It's not that we disagree with everything they say, but because we're suspect of the reasons they're saying it.Without exception, every Black conservative I've come across is an opportunist. Their conservatism tends not to be so much grounded in their actual philosophy as it is an opportunity to gain exposure. They realize that conservatives are looking high and low for Black people who will step forward to validate their views towards the Black community. So they gleefully allow themselves to be used in return for personal wealth, position, and notoriety.
Clarence Thomas is a case in point. There is no way that a man of his renowned level of mediocrity should be sitting on the highest court of this land--he shouldn't even be allowed to sit in traffic court. But due exclusively to his willingness to validate the conservative view of Black America, he's been given one of this nation's highest honors.
Thus, most Black people look upon Thomas precisely the same way as White American's look upon a man guilty of treason against the United States--and other Black conservatives are not far behind.Why? Because most of these people would have voted against the Civil Rights Act for their own personal gain if they'd had the chance. And to demonstrate how transparent they are, Thomas took the unprecedented action of lobbying his colleagues to except a meritless challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to become president, but he didn't say a word as the Supreme Court literally appointed George Bush president after the 2002 election.
People like Thomas tend to be self-serving, and wholly lacking in character. Black people have suffered with a long history of such people, going all the way back to slavery. These were the very same people who would informed on slaves who were trying to escape to freedom: "I don't know what's wrong wit him, boss. Ya jest can't get him to appreciate nothin' you do for us. What he needs is a real good beatin'. Want me to do it?"
But I guess one could say, that's a gross generalization. How can you justify putting that baggage on Michael Steele? Well, a Wikipedia article points to some of his activities during his 2006 run against Benjamin Cardin for the Paul Sarbane's U. S. Senate seat:
"The Washington Post reported that on election day the Steele campaign arranged for buses of low income people from Philadelphia to distribute fliers at polls. The flyers contained incorrect information, including a statement that Michael Steele was endorsed by prominent state Democrats and African American leaders who had not, in fact, endorsed him. The homeless people were falsely identified as volunteers although they were paid, and the campaign funds used for this purpose of hiring the homeless were not timely or properly reported or attributed to the campaign".
Then, "Just prior to beginning his campaign Steele defended former Gov. Bob Ehrlich's decision to hold a $100,000 fund-raiser at a country club that did not have any non-white members, saying that the club's membership's policies were "not an issue" because "I don't know that much about the club, the membership, nor do I care, quite frankly, because I don't play golf.'"
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.Sphere: Related Content
Spot on, Mr. Wattree! If the Repubs believe that putting Steele at the head of RNC is suddenly going to make them look more inclusive, diverse or progressive in any way, they are even more deluded than usual. Tokenism is not change.
February 2, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, all I can say is this: What a poorly written article. You obviously don't know who Michael Steele is, but that's ok. I didn't expect you to be one to watch FOX News. Let me tell you this: Michael Steele didn't win because he was black. He won because he was conservative.
Your argument for why there are black conservatives is laughable. "They realize that conservatives are looking high and low for Black people who will step forward to validate their views towards the Black community." Give me a god damn break. You honestly don't think a black person could find something morally wrong against abortion? You honestly don't think a black person could not want taxes raised?
"Most Black people look upon Thomas precisely the same way as White American's look upon a man guilty of treason against the United States--and other Black conservatives are not far behind. Why? Because most of these people would have voted against the Civil Rights Act for their own personal gain if they'd had the chance." What a Joke. For decades, it has been a template of the major media that Republicans are the party of racism. It repeats uncritically any charges of Republican racism, no matter how unfounded. Democrats, on the other hand, are always given a pass whenever they commit racist offenses. Even a cursory review, however, will show that the media template is totally contrary to history.
Slavery is the greatest evil ever to beset black people in this country. In the decades leading up to the Civil War, there was intense political debate on what to do about it. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 for the express purpose of ending slavery. The Democratic Party, by contrast, defended it to the bitter end.
After the war, the Democratic Party held a lock on the South for more than 100 years. All of the "Jim Crow" laws that prevented blacks from voting and kept them down were en acted by Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures. The Ku Klux Klan was virtually an auxiliary arm of the Democratic Party, and any black (or white) who threatened the party's domination was liable to be beaten or lynched. Democrats enacted the first gun-control laws in order to prevent blacks from defending themselves against Ku Klux Klan violence. Chain gangs were developed by Democrats to bring back de facto slave labor.
I'd also like to say this. 97% of the black community voted for Obama. If 97% of the white community voted for McCain, it would be called racism. And that's precisely what it is. Racism.
February 2, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Wow, all I can say is this: What a poorly written article." - Then there were 431 more words.
Your first sentence in response was a lie. The rest of the diatribe was regurgitated talking points, strung together, but each point non-transformative. Ditto-head isn't just a derogation; it's an apt descriptor.
You are obviously not a conservative. This is easily discerned from what you consider to be core conservative beliefs. Nobody wants their taxes raised, but rational individuals understand that cutting taxes, while at the same time deficit spending, is an act of abject self-interest, and a cowardly shirking of personal responsibility. Yet Conservatism has at its core, a belief that individuals should accept responsibility.
The GOP is the Party that welcomes the racists in under the Big Circus Tent of Republican inclusiveness. This has been the truth since Nixon played the southern strategy, while spitting on the grave of Abraham Lincoln. What party do members of the Council of Conservative Citizens vote for? What Party do the Minutemen with their Simcox vote for? What party do readers of VDare prefer? You point out past transgressions of the Democratic Party, while skipping over more recent, as well as contemporary wrongs by the Republican Party, providing evidence once again, that in our modern world: that two wrongs do indeed make a righty.
February 2, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you look a lot smarter than you come across here.
"Slavery is the greatest evil ever to beset black people in this country. "
Who made you the judge of tragedies and evils? What arrogance!
Sickle Cell Anemia, drugs, ghettos, growing up with chronic high crime, lynchings (state sponsored and otherwise), relative scarcity in comparative educational funding, deep poverty, job description, institutionalized segregation.
February 2, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong on every issue. First, the only thing remaining of the "Party of Lincoln" in the current Republican Party is the name. The transformation started under FDR and was essentially completed during the civil rights era when most of the racist Dixiecrats in the South switched from Democrat to Republican.
And most thinking people can clearly see that the racist, sexist, and homophobic tendencies is endemic to the Republican Party, thus, it is not even a debate worth addressing.
Just look at the last election. One of the primary reasons the GOP lost was that they focused to heavily on trying to portray Obama as "different" rather than the issues that concerned the American people. The American people were worried about losing their children in the greedfest in Iraq and losing their homes, while the GOP was busy trying to portray Obam as a possible terrorist.
And click onto youtube and take just a cursory look at the Republican convention's idea of inclusion--it looked like the Jolly White Giant in the beginning stages of chickenpox.
But with all that said, I have to admit that I can't accurately accuse the GOP leadership of being racist, because they don't care anymore about poor and middle class White people than they do Blacks. With them it's all about power, dollars and cents--dollars for them, and the total lacking of common sense among their base.
February 2, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But with all that said, I have to admit that I can't accurately accuse the GOP leadership of being racist, because they don't care anymore about poor and middle class White people than they do Blacks. With them it's all about power, dollars and cents--dollars for them, and the total lacking of common sense among their base."
Nice one, wish I wrote it.
February 2, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did get upset until I read this:
"I'd also like to say this. 97% of the black community voted for Obama. If 97% of the white community voted for McCain, it would be called racism. And that's precisely what it is. Racism."
why can't 97% of the black community vote for Obama because he's the better candidate? Why does that "have" to make them racists?
I can't agree with this part.
February 2, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't get upset until....
February 2, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am pleased to be commenting on this after a fan and a right wing unfettered by the truth critic.
First, your assessment of why Obama was elected is right on. He was not elected because he is black (my wife prefers mixed race because our kids are mixed race), but because he is an elegant, eloquent, well spoken statesman who seems quite pragmatic.
Ah, there in lies the rub with your argument and there in lies the delicate line I must take with this. I am no fan or opponent of Steal. In fact I don't really know who he is. He has no prominent political face. I think perhaps the Republican Party has been a bit cynical, but cannot we follow Obama's example and not make race an issue. Or wait, maybe you are right and the Repoublican Party tried where Obama stood above and did try to make the race the issue. I think you ARE RIGHT...they just don't get it.
February 2, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans like blacks as long as they are white on the inside....like...well you know.
C
February 2, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Mr. Steele is qualified. Absolutely NO DOUBT about it. However, there have been African Americans qualified for that job for years. Its just highly suspect that after this election---the RNC FINALLY RECOGNIZES that they need to be more inclusive...Kind of slow for people who are supposed to be SMART....NOW they decide to push a little harder to be more inclusive....This just took too long.
Unfortunately as a result it looks like tokenism....So we are not arguing that he was qualified. He probably was qualified the last time the RNC was looking for a new chair! Now had this guy or another "qualified African-American" been elected in past RNC chair elections then race wouldn't be AS MUCH of an issue. But because of President Obama's election, and the way the GOP ran their campaign and past campaigns, it dampens the impact of the historical fact that the RNC's chair is African-American-ONCE AGAIN showing how late (ok better late than never-even if it was another minority or woman, or minority woman), and out-of-touch they HAVE been. But kudos for trying.....it just rings too much "A day late and a dollar short."
February 2, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
My take on Steele is that he was the least crazy of the nominees. :-)
February 2, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
but because he is an elegant, eloquent, well spoken statesman who seems quite pragmatic.
I don't know, I just like this line.
Could not say the same thing about our chief executive officer last year.
February 2, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clarence Thomas is a case in point. There is no way that a man of his renowned level of mediocrity should be sitting on the highest court of this land--he shouldn't even be allowed to sit in traffic court. But due exclusively to his willingness to validate the conservative view of Black America, he's been given one of this nation's highest honors."
Eric, this is a damn good paragraph. You know that SOB wont even comment during argument. I despise him. His opinion reek of everything I hate about our country.
Amazing is it not? All of the opportunities this man had and he wishes to share them with no one.
But, TV changed America. The Black Man and the Black Woman were there, on screen, all of a sudden. With the South screaming the whole time.
The RNC is involved in a propaganda war with people like me, and you have to hand it to them.
w had minorities in his administration.
So, 95% of everything w did was pure evil. But 5% was not that bad.
Oh, and I hope I don't sound racist, but what are the odds that one Rice is replaced with another Rice--sort of--and they are both Black Women?
February 2, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
D,
I hate political correctness. We will never become one people in this country until you're able to feely speak your mind without having to insert the disclaimer that "I hope I don't sound racist"
I told one of my conservative friend--and believe it or not, I do have a few--that the only thing he can do that would truly insult me, was to treat me like he feels he has to censor himself for my benefit.
As I pointed out to him, he might have something to say from his perspective, even if it's painful for me to hear, that I badly need to either address or consider. Therefore, if he censors himself, he depriving me, and himself, the opportunity for personal growth and understanding.
You comment on my posts quite often, so I'm sure you know that I make it a point to write about those issues that many others often avoid--that's why I call me column "Beneath the Spin." It is my view that it the issues that many people find more comfortable, and "prudent" to avoid, are the very issues that need to be addressed. We avoid these issue, because more often than not, they are precisly where the truth, and our major problems reside.
February 2, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get me started about that man, dd! We still have the tapes of the vicious way they took Anita Hill down! And that was nasty, nasty piece of work!
February 2, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
My 2 cents worth: you buried the lead. I would've started with the bit about who Steele was, because a lot of readers (such as Wabeka) lack the reading comprehension to follow an argument past two or three paragraphs.
February 2, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I considered that, and you are quite correct--it's a simple matter of good journalism. But I wanted to leave my point in the tag--I guess it's the desire to be a poet in me. I quite often find that and good journalism are in direct conflict.
And it is ironic that you would bring that up, because just last night the head of a poetry site was telling me that she relies on a lot of what I write for her political information, so she hoped I ws playing fast and loose with the facts.
I pointed out to her that though I do have the vanity, and ego, of a poet, I never allow that to interfere with my interpretation of the facts. What I do instead is apply that need to the construction of the piece--and now you've cause me to rethink even that.
Thank you for the input. It's very valuable.
February 2, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
..how did humpty from the "humpty dance" become RNC chairman?!!!
February 2, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is just rude and crass. Completely indefensible.
There is no reason to attack a good performer like Humpty that way.
:-D
February 2, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100% with this article. Having a Black chairman of the RNC is no good if the GOP is still insensitive to nonwhites. You have people like Saltman and Allen, KKK and other white supremicists organizations, and others who are racists bigots. Until their attitudes changes, and the GOP show they are genuinely interestd in policies that affect nonwites, they will never win the support of nonwhites. With Obama in the WH, they can continue writing off the Black vote. As a mater of fact, they can continue not receiving votes from non whites for a long time. Putting Steele, a Uncle Tom in front is not going to change anything. The GOP is still seen as a white person's political party. That is who all their spokesmen are: old, white men. They are as bad as dinosaurs, and going that route.
February 2, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
How dare you insult the GOP that way. They're not just insensitive to non-whites, They're insensitive to everyone. Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Native Americans...you name it. The way they vote in mass against the stimulus bill was a perfect example.
C
February 2, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Party of Nothing For Everyone
February 2, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaahahahahhaahah
February 2, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done. While I won't pile on about the Republicans being the party of racism in contemporary America (I don't have to, the evidence is solid and overwhelming) I will point out that they are, by far, the preeminent party of grandiose empty gestures. And Michael Steele is one, most definitely.
February 2, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"lobbying his colleagues to except a meritless challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to become president," you mean accept, not except. Otherwise excellent, recommended.
February 2, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, thank you--the heat of passion.
February 2, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, thank you--the heat of passion.
February 2, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have to agree with this article pretty wholeheartedly. I think the title is one of the best parts about it. The republicans see a black man being elected to the highest office in the country and they think they can sway people with an empty gesture like this. I think it's complete crap and just about any educated person would see through this. Though he is qualified to be at that post, this isn't the first time a black person has been qualified for this job and the only reason they are giving him the job is because Obama was elected.
February 2, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I think Wabeka went off the reservation a bit, he wasn't totally off in his critique of this article or the ideological blinders democrats love to wear these days, when a single generation ago the story of race in this country was hardly so cut and dried.
For much of the first 100 years of the republican party, black Americans made up a loyal constituency. It wasn't because they were beholden to Lincoln, though I am sure that had something to do with it, but it was because the black community is actually fairly conservative in their ideals. It wasn't until the republican part started to leave behind its core values of moderation and probity that many of their traditional constituencies started to depart.
Likewise, despite the New Deal and the Civil Right Act, the democratic party had a long history of supporting a very racist status quo in the American south and elsewhere. Democrats talked a good game of equality, but they were every bit as cynical and self-serving as any republican until very recently.
Steele is perfectly representative of his party today and more than qualified to represent its "interests" at the national level. He is ideologically blinded by bankrupt theories of governance that have proved to be inadequate to our needs as a nation. That mantra will simply mean my vision for a resurgence of a more principled and old school conservatism comes all the sooner.
Far from being a me-too moment, Steele's election just might be the straw that breaks moderate conservatives' backs.
February 2, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same game Jason, you are attempting to rationalise the last 40 years of the GOP consciously marketing itself to racists, because the Democrats did it previously. Do two wrongs make a righty?
The Democratic Party evolved away from it, whilst the Republican Party Devolved into it. Which side of the political bipolarity it wearing the blinders?
February 2, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then the republican party can just as quickly evolve out of it again. The democratic party leadership are continuing to try and live up to its ideals even now.
Why do you always stop just short of actually understanding what I write?
I am not seeking to justify anything. Instead, I am offering a wider context with the hope of inspiring a new hope in the democratic party that change can actually come to the rest of the country as well. Sure, some small percentage of republicans will never change and perhaps get worse, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest than many of them can and will change given a chance.
Why are you so eager to leave all those citizens behind?
February 2, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please cite said "evidence."
And please define "many."
Also, what does "given a chance" mean exactly?
February 2, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Given a chance" means democrats start acting like ALL republicans can change instead of NONE of them can. It loses liberals nothing to start living up to their core values of charity and empathy and the Golden Rule. A more reasonable tone and an open mind is going to gain many converts.
"Many" is an increasing number of self-identified conservatives who are focused on strategic solutions for the country's many issues instead of obstinate obstructionism and mutual destruction as a result.
"Evidence" is the latest Rasmussen poll which has 19% of republicans thinking their party has been too conservative these last 8 years and another 39% who are willing to consider that they should move in a new direction. Granted, that leaves nearly half the party in the hands of zealots, but it is certainly a start.
The democratic party changed this year with a small group of pragmatic progressives with a grassroots plan for action.
It can happen on the other side of the aisle.
February 3, 2009 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love you Jason! The notion that it is only when the Democrats start being nice to Republicans that they will then be willing and/or able to become less intolerant and moderate. Brilliant! Heh-heh-heh.
And how you can cite that poll as "evidence" with a straight face is remarkable. But to be fair I didn't clarify "compelling" evidence, did I? My bad.
In another comment you say this: "I find him [Steele] to be more of the same, unfortunately, meaning the GOP misses its first opportunity to truly change with the times. Change is coming to the republicans, one way or the other."
Yes change is coming... or, you know, NOT!
But hey if the Dems play nice all will be well with Republicans. None of that pull yourself up by your own bootstraps anymore eh? "We'll replace our ignorant, intolerant and bigoted leadership when the Democrats stop pointing out that we're a party run by ignorant, intolerant bigots! And not a minute before! Hee-hee.
Love it.
February 3, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love you denying a possibility for change because it doesn't fit within your frame. You sang the same sorry tune during the primary elections.
The numbers I cited provide at least circumstantial evidence that rank and file republicans are changing. Obama's election in the first place was due in large part to the 19% of the GOP who are not happy with the party.
Your oversimplification of my point aside, how about you prove where being combative somehow delivers results? I asked The Clever Bulldog a very reasonable question in a reasonable tone of voice and, lo and behold, he acted reasonably.
That you think spitting in someone's open mouth when they are going on and on about something will somehow lead to great cooperation and understanding is what is really funny. I suspect you don't get very far in the real world with that kind of attitude.
February 3, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: All we need to do is examine the last forty years of culture wars to see how damaging continued divisive rhetoric and tactics will be.
If democrats are truly looking for better outcomes, then embracing your "enemies" is certainly the first step and is in keeping with your supposed core values.
Of course, if you all are hypocrites, then by all means, give as good as you got these last eight years and expect that we will somehow get better results.
February 3, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh you poor thing. I can't believe I actually have to say this...
I never have advocated vicious confrontation between the parties. I am all about them getting along as well as they can to actually get something done. I'm simply mocking you. By saying it is your party that has the problem. It is your party that refuses to change. Despite your naive faith. And your repeatedly railing against Dems and liberals and progressives is well... mockable!
Others have done their best in these pages to rationally and reasonably try to explain this to you in very nice civilized terms and you refuse to listen... or maybe it's comprehend? That is also why I say your resemble the Born Agains. Refusal to see the other side. You are actually doing more harm than good.
It is clear to me now that you will never see this. Oh well.
February 3, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are again accusing me of holding the same sort of derision and spite for people who disagree with me that you do. I am merely pointing out hypocrisy where I see it. The labels fits plenty around just fine. You more than most.
If you are unwilling or unable to deal with your own issues and problems, that is not for me to decide. That I am doing more "harm than good" is hardly a self-evident fact and would actually be disputed by a number of people blogging on this site, so you appear to be in the minority on that opinion. Except, of course, with the "Me, too!" crowd who make outside voice so very welcome around these parts.
Not sure what you mean by me somehow belittling "progressives" as that is the political label I am actually willing to claim based on where I would see this country go. You may be a liberal or a democrat, but you are no progressive. Progressives aren't quite as fond of the status quo as you appear to be.
Let me explain it one more time so that you may actually understand it: Parties don't change. People change and the parties follow. The democratic party has been regressive and corporate-friendly for decades. That doesn't all of sudden change just because you elected a black guy president.
Accusing me of your fallacies doesn't make your argument more profound. It's called "projection" and is sad and pathetic. Perhaps you should check into it before you start throwing stones.
February 3, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. Coming from you... that's very rich.
Oh... and you wouldn't know "progressive" if you fell over it.
February 3, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, you are a perfect example of the type of democrat who will make Obama's job much harder. When we are still stuck in the same place four years from now, you can take a look in the mirror to figure out why.
I am officially ignoring your immature and pedantic crap from now on. Life is too short. Enjoy whatever last word you choose to leave, because my last word to you is the period at the end of this sentence.
February 3, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
*sniff*
February 3, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rarely even comment on liberals or democrats unless it is to point out when they are being hypocrites by not living up to their core values, which seems to the MO for a number of people around here, you included.
February 3, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Steele is perfectly representative of his party today..."
now that's an honest comment... at least you admit it.
And it is accurate, at least north of the Mason Dixon line. Steele might be called a true representative of the republican party, except, maybe, for some of those deep southern members?
Just don't tell them he's their rep, they may take umbrage to that proposition.
I can see Steel showing up the day after the vote, at one of their country clubs: it would be like a line out of Blazing Saddles..
As Steele approaches the half-crocked faithful gathering of Southern R's in the clubhouse, one of them breaks the ensuing, unholy silence with the lament...
"The Chairman is a ******!!!"
February 2, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty funny. See, we can have a calm and cool conversation on things political.
I hope Steele is as crazy as I know he can be. I hope he comes out with more puppy commercials and engages in shady back-room deals. I need a totally discredited and demoralized republican leadership for the chance of something new taking its place.
I find him to be more of the same, unfortunately, meaning the GOP misses its first opportunity to truly change with the times. Change is coming to the republicans, one way or the other.
February 3, 2009 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I totally disagree, Wattree! Like Steven Colbert, the Republican Party does not see race. What it sees are the lengths to which people will grovel to toe the party line. Rush Limbaugh is getting hundreds of millions of dollars to say, "I want him to fail!" Who cares if he is white, as long as he declares unrestrained loyalty.
Clarence Thomas was selected not for being black but for being a pure acolyte of the Church of Unfettered Profits. Antonio Scalia was not appointed because he was Italian. Condoleeza Rice never faltered in her support of the Bush agenda. Alberto Gonzalez was not seen as Hispanic.
Steele's appointment is reminiscent of Palintology. She was not selected because she was female. It was her all-in support of the Reich! She had been purifed of her liberal demons. We have it all on video.
Okay, I guess I really do agree. The appearances of the people above-referenced does present them as black, hispanic, female, qualified, but one does not have to take more then one layer off their facade to open the onion up to who they really are and cry for one's country.
The task ahead? Scrub. Rinse. Repeat.
February 2, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are some Republicans complex enough to be compared to an onion, but never an artichoke. Artichokes have hearts.
February 2, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There really is little to say about your post other than job well done and you have hit the nail right on the head. Bravo!
February 2, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clarence Thomas may be both black and republican, but he is also an accomplished, intelligent, distinguished, and diligent jurist. The O.P. may dislike him, or feel that all persons of his race ought to agree with him, or any number of things, but the aspersions he casts on Thomas are not appropriate.
Steele, likewise, is a well known politician in Maryland who appealed to a broad spectrum of voters. He's conservative. Many people are (really, I mean it, there really are conservatives out there even if you'll never see one at TPMCafe).
Has their race been used by them and others to advance their ideology and interests? Certainly. The same could be said of Thurgood Marshall. Or Langston Hughes, for that matter.
My favorite part is this quote:
"If they'd ever taken the time to truly get to know the Black community, they would have known that the only thing more toxic to Black people than a flat-out racist, is a Black conservative, with the notable exception of Colin Powell-because we suspect he's not truly conservative, just loyal."-the O.P.
The reason I like it is that you don't have to go outside the text to find the internal contradiction... African American Conservatives are -excluded- from the category of African American PEOPLE.
Very "...and what do we burn other than witches?"
February 2, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clarence Thomas' judicial philosophy is vindictive at best. Accomplished? Not so much.
February 2, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
...nice second negative. Points scored.
February 2, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
About character:
Thurgood Marshall is to Clarence Thomas what George Washington is to Benedict Arnold.
About competence:
If Clarence Thomas left the bench and was replaced by Soupy Sales, the Supreme Court be no less competent.
February 2, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously know very little about Benedict Arnold, but that is an entirely different story not particularly relevant here.
I'm far from sure why anyone thinks Clarence Thomas is incompetent. He's a right wing guy, but he's a well reasoned right wing guy. He may not be as flashy as Scalia but he is both thoughtful and consistent.
February 4, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look dude you don't get it. They had to clear out of that ballroom by 5pm because a wedding was booked for the hall. They were way behind schedule and had to elect someone. Steele was the guy with the most votes at the time so they screw it and gave what is arguably the worst job in the world to a black guy. Perfectly in keeping with Republican orthodoxy.
February 2, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now THAT was the funniest part of the RNC. They really met in a hall where they had to leave by 5?? I couldn't believe it when I first heard it. Priceless.
Almost made up for my disappointment at "Chip the Klan Grand Dragon" not winning. And I was even working on a song for him...
Chip the Klan Grand Dragon
Lives in Tennessee
Where Lynchburg lived up to its name
And Robin Smith rules the GOP
...and then I heard he withdrew. :)
February 2, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon these guys blew hundreds of thousands of dollars on Sarah Palin's wardrobe a few months ago and got humiliated. They haven't exactly covered themselves in glory the last few months and I doubt any of their fatcat backers are showering them with cash right now. Even if anyone was inclined to they haven't exactly proven themselves adept at handling finances.
If this keeps up they'll be meeting in a highschool gym next time.
February 2, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
...uh...airport toilet stalls
February 2, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
New GOP sobriquet: The Wide Stance Party!
February 2, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
They dubbed themselves the "bottom up party". I think it's more like buns up kneeling.
February 2, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's so evident that he's being used. It just won't work, whatever they're attempting to do.
February 2, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Clarence Thomas, Steele is a self-hating man, there's nothing black about him except in his undershorts. Tho you can't blame the two when the GOP has been supplying the vaseline. So, we have an African-American president and two Oreo-cookies, on SCOTUS and on the figure head chairman of the RNC. One is honest, the other two are frauds. Discussion over. Thanks to the GOP, we now known skin color doesn't make you. Pimping your ass to the GOP makes you. Alleluia! Praise the Lord.
February 3, 2009 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink