One of the stories that is quickly becoming legend is that Michael Steele had Oreo cookies thrown at him when he debated in 2002. But the only source I can find for this happening is from Michael Steele himself, on Newsmax of all places:
Steele has said that during a 2002 campaign debate, Democratic Party supporters pelted him with Oreo cookies black on the outside, white on the inside.
This has been confirmation enough for the Washington Times and RedState to write about it as if it were gospel, but I require a little more than propagandist’s claims of veracity for something to be “true”. Even Steele seems to deny the incident really happened:
At the candidates’ only televised debate in late September, there were reports that Townsend supporters passed out Oreo cookies to represent Steele, joking he was black on the outside but white in the middle.
Paulson denied the incident happened and said the only documented accusation came from Ehrlich spokesman Paul Schurick.
Steele, however, said an Oreo cookie rolled to his feet during the debate.
“Maybe it was just someone having their snack, but it was there,” Steele said. “If it happened, shame on them if they are that immature and that threatened by me.”
Considering the party he’s a member of, and the company he keeps, it’s quite possible the whole thing happened in Michael Steele’s mind.
Steele has a marked tendency to lie.
However, this entire matter smells like the work of Paul Shurick who is Ehrlich’s handler. And Shurick never tells the truth.
Case in point, when Ehrilch was campaigning for Governor in what was going to be a razor-close race–9/11 happened. In response, campaigns across the country suspended operations and urged monies be sent to help victims and their families.
Except for Ehrlich’s campaign headed by Shurick. Less than a week after 9/11, the Ehrlich campaign held a meeting challenging its fundraisers to raise $2M in a month for the campaign. The media got wind of this meeting and in response–Shurick did what he does best: lie. But the damage had been done.
It’s the Republican way. Remember back in 2000, when the Bushies were promising to bring honor and decency ‘back’ into the White House? You know, all that rot about “the grownups being in charge”? Well, the first thing Bush and Co. did after sneaking into office was trot out a phony story about the outgoing Clinton administration trashing the White House. They lie; it’s what they do. Why honestly debate the merits of your position when you can more easily score some cheap political points with your benighted base?
The really sad thing is that most Dems are so compromised that they lack the balls to just stand up and call out the liars. Still, no excuse for the depravity of the Rethugs.
Since when did the Democratic Party become the party of transparent excuses?
When Steve Gilliard portrays Steele as a minstrel, it’s “stupid” but not wrong.
Or, if you’re Kwesi Mfume, it’s okay, because it’s just “stating the obvious.”
When Democratic staffers get caught stealing Steele’s credit report, it’s perfectly okay because “the appropriate action was taken.”
When the President of the Maryland Senate calls Steele an “Uncle Tom,” it’s taken “out of context.”
Finally, if it were conclusively proven that Steele was pelted with Oreo cookies, he would not have condemned it.
I’ve been called an “oreo” and I’m a progressive. Most blacks who endure those kinds of comments, ignore or laugh at them. They don’t run to white folks looking for support … unless they really are one.
Keep wishin’, Tuco.
Now you have some company to help you MSU.
They don t run to white folks looking for support & unless they really are one.
How do you know? Where do you lefties get this “There can only be one (usually negative) reason why a person would do such a thing” kind of thinking? Even if all the “black + progressives called Oreos” – you know ignore the person who calls them that or laughs at them, does that mean Steele must be an Oreo?
How many “black + progressives called Oreos” – who ignore the person who calls them that or laughs at them – do you actually know? 10? 20? 100?
Certainly, you don’t know all the blacks (including, but limited to, progressives) who have been called ‘Oreos’, and how they have reacted to it.
>blockquote>also a Democrat, held an event at the same country club that the Governor did?
To be fair, most of the criticism of Steele over the incident was how he responded the the information that the club didn’t have blacks rather than just him physically being at the club.
So we can use the n-word and “articulate” now, because Blacks will just ignore it or laugh?
I don’t have to wish, since there’s a legacy of Oliver’s blog posts to support my conclusion.
Oliver didn’t condemn Gilliard’s Photoshopping of Steele on moral or ethical grounds.
He never condemned the theft of Steele’s credit report as being wrong, so what logical reason is there to suspect that he would have a problem with Oreo cookies?.
He might call it “stupid,” as he referred to both of the two above incidents, but I suspect that’s about as outraged as he would get.
Speaking of outrage, has Oliver ever expressed any over the fact that Peter O’Malley, a Democrat and the brother and chief political advisor to Baltimore Mayor, Martin O’Malley, also a Democrat, held an event at the same country club that the Governor did?
This was the event that led to the depiction of Steele as, well, you know.
Oliver…
Steele, however, said an Oreo cookie rolled to his feet during the debate.
Maybe it was just someone having their snack, but it was there, Steele said. If it happened, shame on them if they are that immature and that threatened by me.
You call that “seeming to deny” that the incident happened? In a public debate, an oreo cookie rolls to the feet of one of the debators. Happens all the time right? Someone is having a snack during a politcal event, and oops! one of their cookies ends up on the floor under the feet of someone on stage?
What Steele is doing is graciously deferring judgment, by simply stating the facts and letting others draw their own conclusions about motive.
My own guess? One or two people tossed one or two cookies. Hardly the same as being “pelted,” but not an innocent act either. Had one person thrown one “Mammy” doll at a black Democrat, I think your take would have been a little different than you had on this incident.
Is it OK for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in an editorial, that Clarence Thomas is not really a Black but rather a Black* (with an asterisk) because his positions do not reflect those of “mainstream” Blacks?
Isn’t it racism or bigotry to stereotype members of a race in terms of how they should think?
Let’s see if I have this correct; I’m trying my best to keep up.
(1) All are created equal, kind of.
(2) Whites are encouraged to decide whether they should view the world through a liberal or conservative or some other frame, without having their “standing” as a white person called into question.
(3) Blacks may also have this choice someday, but they are not quite ready to be that independent in thought and deed.
(4) We’ll get back to those Blacks with an asterisk if and when it’s OK for them to start thinking, speaking, and acting on their own.
(5) Prepare to be patient about this, but know that someday we will overcome these restrictions. Meanwhile: stay in your place and please don’t distract us with your thoughts about what is best for all folks, including Black ones.
(6) By the way, send money and give us your vote so we can look out for you.
The Steele episode is believable because there have been numerous food attacks against conservatives by liberal wackos. The attacks against Ann Coulter with a pie and against Pat Buchannan with salad dressing were caught on camera.
I don’t know of a single incident where conservatives in the audience have pelted a liberal with food. Do you?
Tuco…
To be fair, I found this quote from Mfume (in response to a question about this incident)…
“Racially tinged attacks have no place in this campaign for U.S. Senate,” said Mr. Mfume, who has chided his party’s lack of support for his campaign. “If they did, I could very well be the object of public racial humiliation, based on my skin color, by people who don’t like my politics.”
“Black bigotry can be just as cruel and evil as white bigotry. There are too many bigots in too many places,” Mr. Mfume said, repeating a common refrain from his speeches.
The quote you mentioned came from one of Mfume’s spokesmen.
This is absolutely a perfect example to show how the standards of decorum are selectively applied, depending on the point of view of the observer. It seems patently clear that O-Dub would excuse almost any racial visual images, words, or actions, so long as they are directed at a Republican.
Steele also says “if it happened”. He’s not even sure (apparently he can’t keep his story straight).
I believe the original post wasn’t about whether or not Steele is an “Oreo,” or whether it’s acceptable to call him such. The post, if I read it correctly, was about whether or not the story of Steele having Oreo cookies thrown at him was true or false. As OW points out (again), even Steele appears to be dialing down the story. So it looks like he and his pals have scored their cheap political points– setting up a straw man and pouncing on it– and are now letting it die.
Apparently, though, that Straw Man has enough stuffing left for the winger trolls here. How many of the winger comments are about the original point, which was the verity of the “Oreo” story? How many drifted into the Straw Man green room?
See how the Noise Machine works? You don’t have to tell the truth if you’re a Rethug, you just throw some political chum in the water and watch the wing-nut sharks go ballistic. At the moment the lie leaves your lips, the substance of it is no longer important. You’ve got your base ranting and raving, and that’s the important thing.
Oliver…
Steele also says if it happened ….
The story as written makes it quite clear that Steele says an oreo cookie rolled under his chair during the debate. Clearly, the “if it happened” refers to whether is was a deliberate, racially-motivated stunt. But I know you know that.
Alex…
You don t have to tell the truth if you re a Rethug, you just throw some political chum in the water and watch the wing-nut sharks go ballistic.
Funny, that’s what I though about Oliver’s post. My first thought when I read the headline, “Is Michael Steele s Oreo Cookie Incident A Lie?,” was to post simply, “I don’t know Oliver, why don’t you tell us?”
Of course, he didn’t tell us. He’s just “asking the question,” i.e., chumming. And from a few people, including you, he got the desired response: Steele is lying. Now you can use that in future arguments: “Well, we know that Steele lied about the oreos, so he’s probably lying about this.”
I’ve always wondered about the veracity of this story. It just struck me as odd that if the incident had occured it would’ve been played up much more by the republican party during the campaign, ya know? Besides… word of mouth alone would’ve spread it far and wide… it would’ve been grist for radio shows in the morning in Maryland… you can’t pay for that kind of material regardless of your bias(es) and intention.
Backing off, Tuco?
In your first post, you were pushing your fantasy:
I noted the big “if.”
Now that you’ve been called on it, you don’t want to talk cookies anymore. How come?
I stand corrected on your technical point, but isn’t the function of a spokesperson to speak for that person?
If Mfume hasn’t contradicted his spokesperson’s comments, they’re as good as coming from him directly.
I honestly have no idea what it is you seem to be so proud of having done.
The point is–which, of course, you’re avoiding–that I have failed to find a single condemnation by Oliver of the most heinous type of behavior toward a black Republican.
Please set me straight if you think I’m wrong about this.
You seem to think that Oliver has unearthed some grand conspiracy about Steele lying based on the following:
–Newsmax writes “Steele has said that during a 2002 campaign debate, Democratic Party supporters pelted him with Oreo cookies black on the outside, white on the inside” without a direct quote, raising the possibility that the reporter got what Steele actually said incorrectly.
–He then claims that Steele claiming that an Oreo cookie rolling to his feet is a denial of something he may never have said.
If you think any of this is more important than insulting African Americans with racial slurs and characterizations, well, you only have yourself to live with.
Once again, Tuco, you insist on drifting off into countless side issues.
In your original post, you went to great pains to make a case that Oliver would not condemn an event–if it could be proved that such an event ever happened!
The whole point of your post was based on a hypothetical: “Well what if Steele had been pelted with cookies, huh?”
In the rush to imagine what might have been, you neglect the actual substance of Oliver’s post: this fabulous tale of Democratic perfidy is made up.
Now, your imaginary friends are waiting. Run along.
Quaker…
In the rush to imagine what might have been, you neglect the actual substance…
Hmmm. Again, that sounds just like what Oliver himself did. It’s a fact that Steele said that a cookie rolled under his seat during the debate (the direct quote said this; an indirect quote used the word “pelted.”)
Oliver, ignoring the substance of Steele’s claim, rushes to imagine that Steele may be lying. Rather than condemn an incident that has not been disputed, Oliver asks instead whether Steele was lying. Why do you suppose he did that?
Gosh beats me. Maybe it’s because the endlessly repeated story is about Steele being pelted with cookies by a throng of Democratic supporters.
Let’s see. “Pelted” with cookies by lots of people. Or one cookie rolls on stage from an unseen source.
No difference worth mentioning.
Quaker…
Endlessly repeated? I never heard it until Oliver brought it up, and I live in Maryland and I voted for Steele.
Also, I haven’t heard a direct quote from Steele saying that he had been pelted…so if that word is the basis of your suspision, how could he have lied if he never said it?
Regardless, I think the point stands…Steele encountered an oreo apparently presented to him in some way by someone present at the debate, and Oliver, who loves to talk about race and racism, ignores that aspect and asks instead whether Steele lied about it. He didn’t even think to hedge his bets with a simple and obvious, “If this is true…, but if not…”
Maybe it’s just a blog thing. Click
here.
At least in blogdom, the story has become something of legend. Apparently, documenatry support for this retelling is…(ahem)…sparse.
It never happened.
Think about it. Such debates are usually pretty staid affairs; the audience is actively discouraged from doing anything beyond polite applause after a candidate answers. Additionally, the candidates aren’t the only folks on the stage. There’s usually a moderator and/or a panel who asks the questions of the candidates. The media is also present–not just to report on the substance of the debate but the candidates demeanor and reactions.
Yet, the only person in this college auditorium who noticed a cookie was Michael Steele?
Baloney.
The only other report I can find about this incident is here: http://www.nbc4.com/politics/5244730/detail.html
For one thing, it’s sort of confusing that ONE cookies was thrown by blacks (plural). I’m not sure how to interpret that.
Another thing, is that it’s interesting that the two stories conflict. Then agin, who knows, maybe it’s not interesting. If Oreo cookies were passed around (as I’ve read in multiple reports published in 2002), it’s possible that one rolled toward Steele’s feet and another was thrown as he was leaving the building.
Either way, I think there is a point here, which is that the myth that he was “pelted” with Oreos (I’ve also read that they were “thrown” at him and that he was “assaulted by them”) is very widespread and yet hasn’t been substantiated. There is a valid question of whether the Oreo cookie analogy itself is degrading or racist, but there’s also a valid question about whether the Democratic supporters violently attacked Steele or not.
Oops, in the sentence after the block quote, I meant to say “one cookie”, not “one cookies”.
[...] >> Our Senate hopes for a Kilgore effect. Me too. >> Election Day + 1: The fight begins >> Is Michael Steele s Oreo Cookie Incident A Lie?
[...]