What is up with Michael Steele?

[LowlyPion]

What is this guy doing? Does he really represent Republicans? If so which ones?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo7TNGhmKpQ

Certainly he doesn't think he represents the Country Club Republicans that likely wouldn't have him as a member already because of his race, like say that South Carolina guy (Katon Dawson) that eventually lost to him on the last ballot who had to write a cya letter to his own country club on the eve of running for the position.

Neither do I see him representing Blacks in the Republican Party - those few that can even be found I'm guessing. His "hip-hop" campaign notwithstanding.

Nor the Christian Fundamentalist Palin/Huckabee wing with his cloudy statements recently about abortion and supporting women's right to choose. In fact I think Catholics are boycotting him at an upcoming event.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/03/64678189/1

And here he is bellyaching that Obama isn't reaching out to him? Whatever for? Obama is dealing with real problems. Why should he bother to deal with Steele since he looks to be for the most impotent and without any real power base? Other than Steele himself who cares what happens to the guy?

 

[russ_watters]

That's a prett good point he makes about "being on the wrong side of history".

In any case, I don't see anything in the clip that has anything to do with the things you said about him, until the last paragraph.

 

[Hurkyl]

LowlyPion: Which was the point of this thread? Is it that you want to know "what is up with Michael Steele?" Or is it that you want to make assertions about Michael Steele?

 

[LowlyPion]

So who is leading the Republican Party? Does Michael Steele have any constituency? Or for that matter any currency with Republicans any more if ever? Like just what is his supposed base?

Or is his apparent impotence at driving any debate, or is his feeling slighted because Obama has not reached out to him - for what I cannot see - merely a symptom of the fact that there is a vacuum in the GOP, that permitted his ascendancy to begin with, because there wasn't anything better?

For instance I see this attack ad today about the lack of cohesive message coming from the GOP over the budget. Aside from the sarcasm of the ad, it does make the point that the Republicans look uncoordinated and in some disarray over the budget. (Recall the goofy budget with no figures they issued the other day.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOZjytQM1C8

 

[Hurkyl]

It's funny, all of those sentences ending with a "?", yet I don't think you meant to ask anything at all...

 

[mgb_phys]

So who is leading the Republican Party?

I think your question may contain a logical fallacy

 

[LowlyPion]

Well it looks like the RNC clipped his wings.

Steele yields powers to foes in RNC
Accepts limits on spending

By Ralph Z. Hallow
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Capitulating to critics on the Republican National Committee, embattled Republican Party Chairman Michael S. Steele has signed a secret pact agreeing to controls and restraints on how he spends hundreds of millions of dollars in party funds and contracts, The Washington Times has learned.

The "good governance" agreement revives checks and balances Mr. Steele resisted implementing for RNC contracts, fees for legal work and other expenditures that were not renewed after the 2008 presidential nominating contest.

The agreement, proposed by several current and former RNC officials, goes further, making 33-year RNC veteran Jay Banning, who was fired by Mr. Steele along with his deputy last month, an on-call adviser to the RNC treasurer. Mr. Banning was seen as a trusted liaison to RNC members critical of Mr. Steele's tenure and financial management.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/06/steele-yields-powers-to-foes-in-rnc/

I suppose this means that there won't be any Republican Hip-Hop outreach concerts thrown with Steele having to account to the committee through their money guy?

I wonder if the RNC regrets they ended up with him after his performance to date?

 

[WhoWee]

What is this guy doing? Does he really represent Republicans? If so which ones?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo7TNGhmKpQ

Certainly he doesn't think he represents the Country Club Republicans that likely wouldn't have him as a member already because of his race, like say that South Carolina guy (Katon Dawson) that eventually lost to him on the last ballot who had to write a cya letter to his own country club on the eve of running for the position.

Neither do I see him representing Blacks in the Republican Party - those few that can even be found I'm guessing. His "hip-hop" campaign notwithstanding.

Nor the Christian Fundamentalist Palin/Huckabee wing with his cloudy statements recently about abortion and supporting women's right to choose. In fact I think Catholics are boycotting him at an upcoming event.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/03/64678189/1

And here he is bellyaching that Obama isn't reaching out to him? Whatever for? Obama is dealing with real problems. Why should he bother to deal with Steele since he looks to be for the most impotent and without any real power base? Other than Steele himself who cares what happens to the guy?

Your post sounds more than a little racist. The (doesn't represent the country club crowd and the hip hop) crap is uncalled for...if someone else made comments like that you would cry foul.

Michael Steele is the ELECTED leader of the RNC. The Left doesn't like him because they are afraid of him. Obama claims he wants to work with Republicans...maybe he should start at the top...with Steele. Maybe Obama is afraid Steele will make him look bad?

 

[LowlyPion]

Your post sounds more than a little racist. The (doesn't represent the country club crowd and the hip hop) crap is uncalled for...if someone else made comments like that you would cry foul.

Michael Steele is the ELECTED leader of the RNC. The Left doesn't like him because they are afraid of him. Obama claims he wants to work with Republicans...maybe he should start at the top...with Steele. Maybe Obama is afraid Steele will make him look bad?

First of all if you are familiar with his election you would recall that on the last ballot - down to the last 2 candidates standing - Katon Dawson was the guy who quit his country club just prior to running for Head of the RNC, and it was his country club that had covenants against blacks. If you are looking for racist associations maybe look under Katon's bed, not mine.

In the interview I'd say there was an intimation that Steele may have expected Obama to have responded to his reach out for some reason. A reason that I find a little hard to divine given all that Obama has on his plate and the erraticness of Steele.

As to being afraid of Steele ... who? why? He repeatedly shoots his feet. He has lost the NY congressional race. He's accomplished little that I can see. Maybe explain a little your theory on why anyone should be afraid of a toothless lion?

 

[turbo]

Your post sounds more than a little racist. The (doesn't represent the country club crowd and the hip hop) crap is uncalled for...if someone else made comments like that you would cry foul.

Michael Steele is the ELECTED leader of the RNC. The Left doesn't like him because they are afraid of him. Obama claims he wants to work with Republicans...maybe he should start at the top...with Steele. Maybe Obama is afraid Steele will make him look bad?

Let's see how this plays out, but you might also want to Google on Pat Buchanan's recent statements on the failures of the GOP. Does the RNC really want Steele at the head? They have already clipped his wings pretty decisively and let's admit it - the GOP is not exactly the group most likely to "play nice" with blacks unless they are really conservative. The GOP is old, white, male, and out of touch. Buchanan hit on all of those in the past month or so.

 

[WhoWee]

First of all if you are familiar with his election you would recall that on the last ballot - down to the last 2 candidates standing - Katon Dawson was the guy who quit his country club just prior to running for Head of the RNC, and it was his country club that had covenants against blacks. If you are looking for racist associations maybe look under Katon's bed, not mine.

In the interview I'd say there was an intimation that Steele may have expected Obama to have responded to his reach out for some reason. A reason that I find a little hard to divine given all that Obama has on his plate and the erraticness of Steele.

As to being afraid of Steele ... who? why? He repeatedly shoots his feet. He has lost the NY congressional race. He's accomplished little that I can see. Maybe explain a little your theory on why anyone should be afraid of a toothless lion?

You found it necessary to attack him...why is that?

Michael Steele also has a lot on his plate. He has an uphill battle ahead that should delight the Lefties. Michael Steele has earned his place and pointing fingers at formerly unreferenced third parties doesn't change your racist comments about him.

First you attack him...then you defend yourself by defending him? You can't have it both ways.

 

[LowlyPion]

Michael Steele has earned his place and pointing fingers at formerly unreferenced third parties ...

Look again. I referenced Katon Dawson in the original post.

Just curious can you on a more positive note identify any accomplishments by Steele since his ascendancy to head the RNC?

Was his Hip Hop suggestion a stroke of genius? Has minority participation expanded at all in the Republican Party? Or is it all cosmetics?

Was his feud with Limbaugh productive after he had to eat humble pie and apologize after his remarks?

When Kirsten Gillibrand assumed Hilary's place in the Senate, how did that symbolic Congressional by-election battle turn out, in a district that was supposedly as I recall more Republican than Democratic?

Now the RNC has given him a financial handler? Isn't that a little like putting back the training wheels on the bike?

 

[WhoWee]

I missed the first reference to Dawson...my mistake, sorry. But it's still a nasty attack on a good guy.

Now to be fair, how many DAYS has Michael Steele been in charge...is he at 100 days yet?

I'm not sure his job is to attract minorities (or label people as such) or to join South Carolina country clubs. Are McCain or Bush or John Boehner or Michele Bachmann members of that (southern) country club?

Michael's job is to reshape the party and attract young new talent. He's clearly qualified, here is a little on Michael Steele's life:

http://www.answers.com/topic/michael-steele
and
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/30/raw-data-michael-steele-biography/

I think he has found his niche as head of the NRC. He's shown leadership in the past, is devoted to his beliefs, delivers a consistent (conservative) message and is generally well liked. Similar to Limbaugh, he isn't running for a public office and the "feud" was dramatized by the media. He doesn't need to agree with Rush on every issue. It might actually be better if the 2 of them debate platform issues (to test public response) than 2 future candidates that could ultimately hurt each other.

Next, his job is to travel and raise money...not sit around in a disbursement office. There's nothing wrong with LARGE expenditures going through a third person approval process or a committee. He is certainly involved in the decision making and planning processes. Maybe now, when funds are held back from someone like Specter...Steele won't take the heat.

If he loses a few far right guys (until election day), he'll pick up even more independents (and yes...quite a few disgruntled moderate and conservative Dems). That is what scares the Left...all he needs is time.

 

[LowlyPion]

Then I'm sure you will want to read this one too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Steele

I don't see anything in his behavior since ascending to the RNC chairmanship that would suggest that anyone but Republicans should be concerned about has abilities. And this latest fiscal leash looks merely to confirm it.

Honestly if you are happy with him, I don't see the Democrats wanting him in their tent, or concerned that he would be in yours. Enjoy the harvest.

 

[Al68]

The GOP is old, white, male, and out of touch.

Nonsensical false stereotyping, with no purpose other than to stir up hatred.

Buchanan hit on all of those in the past month or so.

Buchanan is the one who's "old, white, male, and out of touch."

 

[turbo]

Nonsensical false stereotyping, with no purpose other than to stir up hatred.Buchanan is the one who's "old, white, male, and out of touch."

Those were Buchanan's statements. They have drifted off public news feeds, and the only reference I found left when making that post was linked from Huffington, which is verboten here. Thus, the "Google" suggestion. He actually said those things.

 

[Al68]

Those were Buchanan's statements. They have drifted off public news feeds, and the only reference I found left when making that post was linked from Huffington, which is verboten here. Thus, the "Google" suggestion. He actually said those things.

I don't doubt he said it. I assumed he did when I posted.

 

[turbo]

BTW, Steele may actually be able to buck the small-tent GOP radicals if he chooses his fights wisely. For a devout Catholic and RNC chairman to say publicly that abortion is a matter of personal choice is a pretty brassy thing to do when facing those ideologues. His words ring true to moderate Republicans, but can they sway the Independents and the conservative Democrats when the right-wing noise-machine has the bully pulpit? I would love to see the GOP repudiate their regional/religious strategy and return to actual fiscal conservatism. I supported the GOP for a long time until the party was hijacked by Reagan's controllers and abandoned "spend as you go" philosophy. Deficit-spending (borrowing) to finance tax-cuts for the wealthy was the last straw for me and a lot of other conservatives. If William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater were to rise from the dead, they couldn't get elected dog-catcher in the GOP. Sad.

 

[Al68]

Deficit-spending (borrowing) to finance tax-cuts for the wealthy was the last straw for me

Your last straw never happened, except in the fraudulent claims of Dems. All one has to do is look at the publicly available budget numbers from the 80's to know that total income tax revenues doubled, while the percentage of it paid by the rich increased.

The deficit was caused by an almost tripling of gov't spending.

Fortunately for Dems, most people don't bother fact checking, so they can commit fraud with impunity.

 

[turbo]

Your last straw never happened, except in the fraudulent claims of Dems. All one has to do is look at the publicly available budget numbers from the 80's to know that total income tax revenues doubled, while the percentage of it paid by the rich increased.

The deficit was caused by an almost tripling of gov't spending.

Fortunately for Dems, most people don't bother fact checking, so they can commit fraud with impunity.

So the fact that Reagan never submitted a balanced budget, engaged in deficit spending, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy is all OK if you are a Republican? Nothing in the Reagan years spoke to fiscal conservatism. And BTW, I have never been a Dem. You can't pigeonhole people into "either-or" that easily, and it doesn't take a degree in economics (what the hell is THAT worth) to figure out who is getting screwed and who is sucking up the cream in any particular political situation. Ideology does not change the truth, and despite the tactics of Fox et all, volume and repetition does not alter the facts.

 

[Al68]

So the fact that Reagan never submitted a balanced budget, engaged in deficit spending, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy is all OK if you are a Republican? Nothing in the Reagan years spoke to fiscal conservatism. And BTW, I have never been a Dem.

First, I never said you were a Dem.

Second, I do blame Reagan (partially) for the deficits of the 80's, I never said otherwise. But they were not due to tax cuts.

Dems completely fabricated that story, and it's obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the budget numbers.

The income tax burden was shifted from the poor and lower middle class to the rich any way you look at the actual budget numbers. Dems just rely on the fact that most don't. And they use "volume and repetition" to convince people of their lies.

 

[turbo]

Second, I do blame Reagan (partially) for the deficits of the 80's, I never said otherwise. But they were not due to tax cuts.

Dems completely fabricated that story, and it's obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the budget numbers.

Dems didn't fabricate that story. George HW Bush derided Reagan's plan as "Voodoo Economics" during the Republican primary. He was right, and I supported him.

 

[Al68]

Dems didn't fabricate that story. George HW Bush derided Reagan's plan as "Voodoo Economics" during the Republican primary. He was right, and I supported him.

Well, they did fabricate it. It's verifiably false from just looking at the budget numbers.

GHW Bush was wrong then, and was wrong when he agreed to raise taxes later.

The bottom line is that the budget numbers from the 80's are a matter of public record, not a matter of opinion. The difference in what people believe is based solely on whether they looked at the numbers or believed what they were told by politicians.

 

[Count Iblis]

So who is leading the Republican Party

Russ Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin.

 

[WhoWee]

So the fact that Reagan never submitted a balanced budget, engaged in deficit spending, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy is all OK if you are a Republican? Nothing in the Reagan years spoke to fiscal conservatism. And BTW, I have never been a Dem. You can't pigeonhole people into "either-or" that easily, and it doesn't take a degree in economics (what the hell is THAT worth) to figure out who is getting screwed and who is sucking up the cream in any particular political situation. Ideology does not change the truth, and despite the tactics of Fox et all, volume and repetition does not alter the facts.

The problem I had with Reagan was his huge increases in defense spending...but it did work and the USSR went broke. At the same time, oil was cheap and we had it...Russia didn't.

Do you realize that many of the tax incentives Reagan initiated for business are still not being used to the full extent? Some tax breaks have an immediate effect...others are often under-utilized or wasted. Last year some $9 Billion in (employer programs) tax Reductions went unused...mostly because they are too complicated and time sensitive...some have a 28 day window.

I believe a return to real conservative fiscal responsibility will become the favorite tune of all Americans in 2012. You have to practice what you preach Mr. Obama (and Congress).

 

[WhoWee]

Russ Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin.

The Left would like this to be true...but how do you classify Glen Beck and the 912 Project...it seems to be taking on a life of it's own.:rofl:

 

[LowlyPion]

...but how do you classify Glen Beck and the 912 Project...it seems to be taking on a life of it's own.:rofl:

So what's your Intense Debate Reputation Meter rating there? Those people are apparently only fooling themselves.

At least Beck makes Steele look like he has some kind of gravitas.

 

[Gokul43201]

The GOP is old, white, male, and out of touch.

Nonsensical false stereotyping, with no purpose other than to stir up hatred.

Both are assertions without any support or argument.

Some statistics might prove useful (I am ignoring the bit about being "out of touch", since I can't see that as measurable in any objective manner). Also, to make work easier, I'm restricting this to members of the current Congress (so leaving out statehouses, state legislatures, etc.).

(I) Maleness:

Republican members of the present Congress who total 218 (Senate + House) consists of 21 women (nearly 10%) and 197 men. Among the 313 Dems in Congress, 71 are women (about 22%) by my count¹, 242 are men. The relative maleness of the GOP is not as stark as the relative femaleness of the Dems, but there are significant differences either way. Both parties are also significantly more male than the adult US population, which is a little less than 50% male².

1. I got numbers out of these wiki lists: House, Senate

2. I ballparked it from numbers here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People

Specifically, the GOP is significantly more male than the rest of Congress.

(II) Whiteness:

Again, it is easier to quantify the lack of whiteness in each party. Of the 39 Black members of Congress³, all are Democrats (making up 12% of the party). That fraction is pretty close to the 13% of the US population that is African American. The 0% on the GOP side is not so close. Of the 9 Asians (and Pacific Islanders)⁴, 2 are Republican and 7 are Democrat. And of the 25 Hispanics⁵, 5 are in the GOP and 20 are Dems. So, depending on how many of the Hispanics fall under the "Whites" column, the GOP is somewhere between 97% and 99% White while the Dems are between 79% and 85% White. The US population lies in the 65% to 80% range for whiteness², by the same measure.

So again, the GOP is significantly more White than the rest of Congress.

3. African Americans in Congress (wiki)

4. Asian Americans in Congress (wiki)

5. Hispanic Americans in Congress (wiki)

(III) Oldness:

I ignored members of the House (too many of them, and I couldn't find age distributions by Party anywhere) and in the Senate, there does not appear to be a significant difference in the average age⁶ of Dems and Reps (both numbers are within a year of 62, the average over the entire Senate⁷).

So, going by the average age, the GOP is not significantly older than the rest of the Senate.

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators_by_age

7. http://www.centeroncongress.org/learn_about/feature/qa_members.html#age SUMMARY: Two outta three (ain't bad?)

 

[atyy]

Specifically, the GOP is significantly more male than the rest of Congress.

How does "significantly" mean?

 

[WhoWee]

So what's your Intense Debate Reputation Meter rating there? Those people are apparently only fooling themselves.

At least Beck makes Steele look like he has some kind of gravitas.

This is what I had in mind...quite a few 912ers are on board. The Washington Times is the only news link. The other 2 are to demonstrate what I meant by taking on a life of it's own...shows momentum.

http://ncsl.typepad.com/the_thicket/2009/02/states-assert-sovereignty.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/20/states-cite-10th-amendment-in-effort-to-cut-stimul/
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/20/states-assert-sovereignty-with-10th-amendment/

 

[LowlyPion]

This is what I had in mind...quite a few 912ers are on board. The Washington Times is the only news link. The other 2 are to demonstrate what I meant by taking on a life of it's own...shows momentum.

Beck will undoubtedly flog that to within a fractional inch of its life if he thinks he has a market for his infantile theatrics.

But the premise of the site is seemingly so oriented toward Christian Fundamentalists (Principle 2 alone is already exclusionary in its call for the primacy of God) as to seem to have lost its way from the very Constitution that Beck pretends to embrace.

A life of its own? It can't even eat or breathe on its own. If Beck pulled the plug, I think it would be a merciful euthanasia. Those people are lost. Abandoned by the consequence that the last administration they helped put in office demonstrated that in the World their Principle 1 that America is good simply got lost.

I think Steele's problem is that he is not one of them. They wouldn't even let him speak at their Teabag parties on the 15th. And outside of the socially conservative the Republican Party is looking a trifle thinned.

 

[Gokul43201]

How does "significantly" mean?

"Significantly" means the difference is larger than any errors in my counting and any fluctuations from someone dying and being replaced by their widow or a special election happening here or there unexpectedly and/or under unusual circumstances.

For the age of the party, I drew up a frequency table with 8-yr spans to estimate the average age (rather than actually count every single senator). My error bar on the estimate is a year or two, and the difference between the mean values was smaller than that, hence no "significant" difference.

 

[WhoWee]

Beck (not talking about Hannity and Rush didn't participate) repeatedly stated he didn't want the Tea Party gatherings to be Republican or Democrat...Steele wasn't invited accordingly.

As a result, independent groups are forming in small towns to run local (independent) candidates.

As for the state government leaders challenging under the 10th Amendment..they were prompted by "no child left behind"...a Bush initiative.

 

[lisab]

Steele now says Obama wasn't vetted, because he's black.

...what the......?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/22/steele-obama-wasnt-vetted-because-hes-black/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This accusation of "liberal guilt" kills me. If that was really a determining factor, Jesse Jackson would have been President long ago.

Thrilled to see a black man as President? Absolutely!

Willing to vote for a person just because they are black? Absolutely not!

Every time a Republican claims that Obama was elected for reasons other than his superior intellect, superb political skills, values, wisdom, pragmatism, his global perspective, his quick wit, and his charisma, they just put another nail in the Republican Party coffin and prove that they have no idea what is going on.