Steele Crazy

[Crackpot]

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/michael-steele ... 042&page=2

'World News' Political Insights: Michael Steele Not Gone, Just Not Relevant for GOP
RNC Chairman Hangs on to Diminished Post, to Democrats' Delight

ANALYSIS By RICK KLEIN
July 4, 2010—

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's latest gaffe was almost certainly his worst in the minds of top Republican strategists and lawmakers -- affecting both policy and politics in the run-up to critical congressional elections.

For Steele, that means a fate that might be worse than an ouster: irrelevance over the remainder of his time in power.

The RNC chairman last week called U.S. involvement in Afghanistan "a war of Obama's choosing."

"This is not something the United States actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in," he said, without mentioning the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan by U.S. and NATO forces. RNC later defended Steele's comments, saying he wasn't advocating a withdrawal but pointing out that President Obama "does not have a cohesive strategy for Afghanistan."

In practice, there's no realistic way to oust the RNC chairman. The only thing Republicans dread more than another six months of Steele at the helm is a divisive and almost certainly fruitless battle to remove the Party's first black chairman, four months before the first midterm elections of President Obama's time in office.

Nothing in Steele's history suggests he'll take the path being advocated by a growing number of influential Republicans. The suggestion by Sen. John McCain on ABC's "This Week" today that Steele "is going to have to assess as to whether he can still lead the Republican Party" appears unlikely to provoke such a reassessment.

That means another half-year of Steele. But he'll be leading a diminished RNC through the remainder of his time in power.

Already, money that would have flowed the RNC's way in a midterm year is being rerouted, primarily through the entities that fund House, Senate and gubernatorial campaigns. Outside groups -- most notably American Crossroads, under the leadership of former key Bush operatives Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie -- have also sprung up to claim cash that might otherwise wind up under the control of the RNC.

House and Senate Republican leaders, meanwhile, have long since given up trying to coordinate election planning or policy proposals through Steele's RNC. That means less power over both money and messaging so long as Steele stays in power.

Republicans view Steele's comments last week, casting doubt on the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, as worse than the typical gaffe he's become known for.

His comments undermine his party on both policy and politics. Republicans had hoped to exploit Democratic divisions over the way forward in Afghanistan; that's a tough storyline to press when the RNC chairman sounds like liberal Democratic House members.

And Steele's comments play into the Democratic game plan for the next few months. Like Rep. Joe Barton and House Minority Leader John Boehner, Steele gave Democrats a chance to highlight a prominent GOP voice saying something controversial -- feeding their efforts to frame the election as a choice, rather than a referendum on Democrats' leadership.

So long as Steele appears likely to hold on to his post, the only people eager to talk about the chairman of the Republican Party in the months ahead will be Democrats. In a season where they've found few bright spots, Steele continues to shine for his opponents.

Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures

This guy has been on a downward spiral ever since he was coerced into apologizing to Rush. It almost seems that he's gone from trying to reform the Republican party before that point to embodying everything wrong with it afterward. In fact this last "gaffe" goes so far beyond the pale that I'm beginning to think he's doing it on purpose.

[Lord Jim]

I'd say that article gives a pretty fair analysis...

I supported Steele for the chairmanship when he ran, though I knew from his Senate campaign that he was a little on the eccentric side, (I think he would have fit in well in the Senate, btw...where colorful, opinionated eccentrics are in abundant supply...) but I felt that after two consecutive electoral drubbings, Steele might just bring the sort of energy and fresh perspective into the leadership of the RNC that was needed.

And I wasn't one of the first to jump ship on him when the gaffe's began, (and CP, I believe they started before he got into it with Rush) I knew that he wasn't a novice at being a party chairman; he had been both a county and state party chairman in Maryland. I really believed that he knew what went into doing the job effectively; raise money, recruit good candidates, build an effective electoral organization, and communicate an appealing message. I had hoped that he would buckle down, and focus on the job.

In the event, he seems to have failed on every count, and as the article points out, the real action now for the midterms on the GOP side is through the House and Senate campaign committees...His management and interpersonal skills, (as well as his seemingly addictive love of the spotlight) have alienated donors, fund raisers, top consultants, and others critical to the party's success to such a point that he has made the RNC pretty much irrelevant to this election cycle.

I'm convinced that if Steele were white, given the inept and counter productive way he has handled the job, he would be out. But again, as the article points out, it's very difficult procedurally to remove a party chairman who doesn't want to go, and there is very little stomach to mount a serious effort to remove him, especially so close to the election. The GOP leaders are well aware of the fact that the very same Dems that have been making hay over Steele's brain-mouth-disconnect problem, would turn right around and talk about how the Republican's showed how "racist" they are by getting rid of "the black guy"....(Hell, Steele is such a mercurial loose cannon he himself might run around the country claiming that.)

So in other words, the consensus that has been reached is that when you total it all up, the potential cost of a nasty fight to get rid of Steele is worse than the damage he can do if he's left in place, isolated and irrelevant, through the elections.

Though it would be nice if Steele were to simply leave voluntarily before then, (which I doubt very seriously will happen; he just loves the limelight too much) I'm inclined to agree with that conclusion.

I'm sure that if we do succeed in taking back the House, he will try to claim some of the credit; but that won't wash given his track record. His chances of being re-elected to the leadership post are less than zero, no matter what happens. He has managed to alienate just about everyone who counts in the process. If he had set out deliberately to make sure he left himself with absolutely no allies or supporters, he couldn't have done a better job.

[Sue U]

The Michael Steele muppet on The Daily Show is almost as hilarious as Steele himself.

"Of course a lesbian bondage sex show is a legitimate party expense; it's a party, ain't it?"

[Crackpot]

(and CP, I believe they started before he got into it with Rush)

Maybe but I don't recall them. (aside from saying he's do the Daily Show then backing out) The Rush thing was rather early on after all. I do recall him talking about making changes that were unpopular to some but made sense to a centrist like me that someday hopes to vote Republican again.

[Lord Jim]

One of his first bonehead plays was when he tried to seriously compare the importance of his job to Obama's...

I believe that was before the Rush incident...

And since then, it's not the case that he has been toeing some "ultra conservative" line... he has said things that alienated both moderates and conservatives, (like saying he didn't think we could re-take the House, for example)..

He's really been all over the map ideologically, (another time recently he started talking about the GOP's lack of appeal to minorities...hardly an ultra-right view, or one designed to appeal to Limbaugh...Keith Olbermann had a field day with that one...)

This latest Afghanistan nonsense doesn't play well with most Republicans across the board....Obama has more support for his Afghanistan policy among Republicans than he does from with in his own party...

What Steele said in this case sounds more like it should have come from Katrina Van Den Heuvel or Ariana Huffington than from the Chairman of the Republican National Committee...

Maybe he can get a job as a commentator for Moveon.org....(Or NPR....)

[Crackpot]

Oh I didn't say he's been "Ultra Conservative" only that in the beginning he seemed to have some good refreshing ideas. Since then he's made Crispin Glover look stable. Heck I go so far to say that at this point I find it hard to believe he's performing his job in good faith. He doesn't seem to be even operating from a consistent philosophy. I have a better idea where Steve is coming from.

[Lord Jim]

I too thought he had some good ideas, CP...which is why I supported him...regarding out reach, taking a more modern approach, etc....I thought he might shake things up some, in a positive way....

(Instead, he "shook things up" the way San Francisco got "shaken up" in 1906....)

And he must have been successful in selling the national committee members on the value of the approach he promised...there were a about half a dozen candidates, and a number of ballots, and he finally emerged victorious...

But there wound up being a Grand Canyon sized gap between the promise and the performance...

Like the old saying about a hospital:

"We may not agree on exactly what a hospital should do, but the one thing we can all agree on is that it shouldn't be making healthy people sick"...

The one thing a National Committee Chairman shouldn't do is make himself a distracting object of controversy and ridicule....

And of course, it wasn't just the gaffes...

Let's not forget that lovely S&M strip club fiasco...

Which in all fairness to Steele, he wasn't directly involved in, and had no prior knowledge about...

But it was symptomatic of the sort of "loose ship" unengaged in the day to day hands on running of the RNC "management style" that Steele employed...

I find it very difficult to imagine such a thing happening on Haley Barbour or Ed Gilespie's watch, for example. Somebody in the senior staff would have had the political smarts to see this as a potential PR disaster and brought it the attention of the boss before it happened. (And Haley or Ed would have quashed it before it took place, and probably fired whoever was stupid enough to come up with such an irresponsible idea.)

[Econoline]

He doesn't seem to be even operating from a consistent philosophy. I have a better idea where Steve is coming from.

Ooooooh........HARSH!!!!!




But true.

[Sue U]

Oh this is gonna be GREAT!!!!! Please please please please let it happen!!!!

NEW YORK, July 7, 2010
Palin Touted to Replace Michael Steele
Sources; Some GOP Insiders Pushing for Her, Despite Report Embattled RNC Head Is Likely Keep Post, Even after Latest Gaffe

There's been a buzz in Republican circles suggesting that Sarah Palin could take over as the party's top dog. Bill Plante reports.

(CBS/ AP) Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is in trouble with many in his party after speaking out against the war in Afghanistan. Some are even calling for him to be removed.

And, reports CBS News Senior White House Correspondent Bill Plante, there's talk in GOP circles that Sarah Palin should replace him.

[more at the clicky-linky thingy, but really, what more could even be said?]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/ ... 3582.shtml

Hahahahahahah! They want to replace a wacky embarassing loose cannon with a totally batshit insane embarassing loose cannon!

Those Republicans! Whatta hoot!!!

[loCAtek]

[rubato]

The Democrats deserve a better party of opposition than this batshit-stupid krewe of morons.

Both of the worst economic collapses of the past 100 years are Republican creations. The latest one after an unbroken record of > 20 years of failed economic policies and predictions.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Oh this is gonna be GREAT!!!!! Please please please please let it happen!!!!

NEW YORK, July 7, 2010
Palin Touted to Replace Michael Steele
Sources; Some GOP Insiders Pushing for Her, Despite Report Embattled RNC Head Is Likely Keep Post, Even after Latest Gaffe

There's been a buzz in Republican circles suggesting that Sarah Palin could take over as the party's top dog. Bill Plante reports.

(CBS/ AP) Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is in trouble with many in his party after speaking out against the war in Afghanistan. Some are even calling for him to be removed.

And, reports CBS News Senior White House Correspondent Bill Plante, there's talk in GOP circles that Sarah Palin should replace him.

[more at the clicky-linky thingy, but really, what more could even be said?]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/ ... 3582.shtml

Hahahahahahah! They want to replace a wacky embarassing loose cannon with a totally batshit insane embarassing loose cannon!

Those Republicans! Whatta hoot!!!

The crazy part of my brain says " WOW the stupidest person in public life takes over the stupidest party! WAY too much fun.!" The sane part of my brain recalls that Republicans have caused the two worst crises in the past 100 years and learned nothing from either one of them; they don't need a rabid idiot to lead them any further astray and more deeply rape a country I love.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

You know this is funny....

I read the article Sue linked to....

And about half a dozen others I found doing a Google search for "Palin replace Steele"...

And I can't find one...

Not a single one....

Of these supposed "GOP insiders" being quoted by name...

I did find a couple of clearly tongue-in-cheek comments from a couple of folks at conservative publications, but not one single sincere, serious endorsement for the idea....

The only "buzzing" that seems to be going on about this is at liberal leaning media organizations...this is a media manufactured story...

And if they honestly think there's a snowball chance in hell this is going to happen, they are seriously buzzed....

[Crackpot]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599200394400

Does Sarah Palin Really Have a Chance?

By MARK HALPERIN
1 hr 10 mins ago

The music swells and then picks up tempo. Sarah Palin is talking about how 2010 will be the year that "commonsense conservative women get things done for our country." She's worried about "these policies coming out of D.C. right now, this fundamental transformation of America," and reports that she is not alone. "Moms kinda just know when something's wrong," she says. "You thought pit bulls were tough? Well, you don't wanna mess with the mama grizzlies!"
Can a two-minute Internet video reshuffle a Republican presidential race before it has even started? Palin's glossy yet authentic clip, released without any fanfare July 8, did just that. It was the surest sign yet that she means to be an energizing factor in this year's midterm elections and will mount a real bid for the White House in 2012. Most compelling is the way the video targets women, specifically moms, whom Palin exhorts to vote in the midterms and halt the Obama agenda. The video features image after image of everyday, determined, smiling, patriotic mothers and grandmothers, all keen to join her army of supporters. Palin calls it a "mom awakening." If Palin can inspire GOP and independent women to turn out for the party's candidates in November, she could decisively influence the outcome of the midterms. (See TIME's special on After Alaska: Sarah Palin's Year of Living Large.)
Palin doesn't need specific policies to crank up the energy - or even specific criticisms of Obama. She knows that injecting emotion into the conversation is the most efficient way to spark a movement. Her charming if idiosyncratic way with words may also be an asset: "Look out, Washington, because there's a whole stampede of pink elephants crossing the line, and the ETA stampeding through is November 2, 2010. Lotta women comin' together." (See photos of Sarah Palin's life since the 2008 election.)
John McCain saw this inspirational side of Palin when he named her his running mate in 2008. Ultimately, that move did him no good, but Palin's video proves that she is savvy and sophisticated enough to harness her star power for political effect, shrugging off the cartoonish taint that has clung to her since she and McCain lost. Many GOP insiders and consultants, some of whom had dismissed Palin's chances as a presidential contender and written her off as a political flameout, say they are impressed by the competence and impact of Palin's new approach. Says veteran Republican strategist Greg Muller, "She's set herself up very, very well. She is only going to get stronger." The majority of voters are still skeptical. A new TIME poll shows Palin losing to Obama 55% to 34%, a lopsided margin that leads some Republican strategists to predict a wipeout if Palin is eventually chosen as the party's nominee.
But that might not matter. Palin has stayed busy endorsing candidates in competitive Republican primaries, picking her share of winners and losers and, in some contests, helping determine the outcome. Her political-action committee raised more than $865,000 in the past three months and has beefed up its staff. Palin has enjoyed some personal victories too: Levi Johnston, the father of her grandchild, made a public apology to Palin on July 6, complete with a retraction of past damaging allegations he made about her family. This week Johnston and Palin's daughter Bristol reannounced their engagement after months of estrangement, removing - with apparent serendipity - a blemish from her wholesome narrative. (See photos of the fashion looks of Sarah Palin.)
The question for Palin now: Can she build on this moment? Although she has taken few steps to prepare for a presidential contest, her path is becoming clearer. It starts with a big advantage: She would be the only woman against a half-dozen or more Republican men. As long as she leaves the door to a race open, she can freeze the field, prevent other GOP hopefuls from gaining much traction, keep the media in a perpetual will-she-or-won't-she frenzy and jump into the race whenever she likes. That would be impossible for an ordinary candidate, but Palin could splash in as late as November 2011, just a few months before the voting begins. There is no deadline for signing up for the Iowa caucuses, and when it comes to competing in early-state contests, she will have a far easier time than any previous insurgent. Her candidacy would require almost none of the usual time sinks that force politicians to jump in early: power-broker schmoozing, schedule-intensive fundraising, competitive recruitment of experienced strategists, careful policy development. She would have immediate access to cash, with even small Internet donations likely bringing in millions.
Already the most arresting political figure other than the President, Palin will be even more visible in the coming months. After a year of profitable speaking, bookselling and punditry on Fox, she will do some promotion in August for the paperback release of her best-selling Going Rogue. When it airs in the fall, her documentary series about Alaska on TLC will attract both curiosity and viewers. And after the midterms, her second book, America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag, will hit stores in time to rack up millions in Christmas sales. She keeps in touch with her fans via Twitter and Facebook; on July 13 she pushed back hard after the NAACP criticized the Tea Party.
Palin thrives on the unpredictable, and as her new video shows, she can adapt quickly. "What she knows, you can't teach," says Mark McKinnon, a top strategist for George W. Bush and McCain. "And what she doesn't know she can learn - and she's learning fast."

[Sue U]

Palin/Bachmann 2012!!!

Crank up the crazy!!!!

[Lord Jim]

Palin/Bachmann 2012!!!

[Sue U]

Just you wait.

[Lord Jim]

Well, for starters, I have yet to see a preference poll among GOP voters where Palin has ever finished first. (And these are polls with six names or more to choose from where a "first place" finish could be had with less than 20% support...in most of the polls I've seen, Romney finishes first.)

I have however, seen polls where even among those Republicans who have a "favorable" view of Palin, less than a third say they would support her for the Presidency.

Some pundits have compared Palin's strong activity in the midterm elections to Nixon in '66....

There is however, one minor difference:

Richard Nixon:

United States Congressman, 4 years
United States Senator, 2 years
Vice President Of The United States, 8 years

Sarah Palin:

Governor of Alaska, 2 years...(Because she quit half way through her first term)

And oh, I almost forgot:

Mayor of Wasilla Alaska (Pop. 10,256...if you don't count the moose...when Palin was Mayor the population was only a little over 5000...she was re-elected with about 900 votes..not by 900 votes...900 votes total)

Sarah Palin is certainly "acting" like someone running for President, but I am convinced that "acting" is operative word here. It's the best way for her to keep the cash register ringing....

I think she'll pretend that she's running right up until the moment she would actually have to throw her hat in the ring and then beg off. I do not believe she will actually seek the nomination for one very good reason:

If she did, she would lose and lose badly. And if that happened, the marketability for Sarah Inc. would evaporate; the mystique would be gone.

If she actually got in the race, she would no longer be able to control what kind of questions she got; and her lack of knowledge would be painfully on display, on a more or less constant basis....

She'd also have to participate in debates, and standing up on a podium repeatedly, being compared to folks who actually know things, the bloom would come off her rose very quickly....

Plus she'd have multiple opponents spending millions of dollars highlighting her short comings in TV ads...and reminding people of her quitting as governor...(Republicans don't nominate quitters for the Presidency)

A lot of Liberal Democrats are ignoring these cold hard facts, because they would so dearly love to see her nominated, that it's affected their judgment. They're confusing Palin's personal popularity, (which has more to do with the unpopularity of the targets she has picked...the liberal mainstream press, the federal government, illegal immigration, etc...than anything else) with a willingness to support her for the Presidency. Unfortunately for their fantasy, all the polls indicate that the vast majority of Republicans have no problem differentiating between liking a person because she attacks disliked targets, and believing that person is qualified to receive the Party's Presidential nomination....

Sorry to be such a buzz kill Sue...

[Sue U]

Jim, I don't disagree with you on any of the above (except the part about Mitt Romney being more popular than carbuncles). With the understanding that that's as things stand now. However, politics is a very fluid business. In July 2006 I would have to have been smoking crack to have bet Obama would even be the Dem nominee in '08, let alone win the election. And look what's happening now in GOP primaries around the country. Mainstream candidates are being turned out in favor of Teabagger-approved ideologues. The rhetoric is off-the-charts insane. (In the last two days alone: Bachmann equating paying taxes and healthcare legislation to slavery??? Palin attacking the NAACP as "divisive" for condemning racism???? WTF??????????)

The far-right radical wing of the GOP political power structure, with the ready assistance of corporate front groups (see Citizens for a Sound Economy, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity) and all the free media whoring that Fox can spew onto the airwaves, has stoked the Teabaggers and tapped into a powerful vein of ignorance and/or rage that they want to exploit in service of an anti-regulatory laissez-faire-capitalist economic agenda and a reactionary Christian-fundamentalist social policy program. Their spokesmodels don't need statesmanship or wisdom or even the capacity for advanced thought, especially if the audience is already the party faithful: telegenicity and wads of cash is all it takes to win a primary. (Success with the wider general electorate may not take much more, but that's a different story) So yeah, it could happen.

Palin/Bachmann 2012!!!!

[Big RR]

A lot of Liberal Democrats are ignoring these cold hard facts, because they would so dearly love to see her nominated, that it's affected their judgment.

for any who are idiotic enough to embrace that viewpoint, all I can ssay is be careful what you wish for, and imagine what it would be like if she won. Stranger things have happened; don't make the mistake of thinking how bad an incompetent like her could be--the past administration clearly shows how bad a barely competent president could be when he turns the reigns over to his zealots.