[...]

…members of the Congressional Black Caucus said Baltimore lawmakers in the General Assembly should “cease and desist” from making racial comments about Mr. Steele — the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland.

“My plan is to meet with them and ask them to stop this at once,” said U.S. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Baltimore Democrat and former Black Caucus chairman.

Rep. Albert R. Wynn, a black Prince George’s County Democrat, admonished Baltimore lawmakers and even described Mr. Steele as “a likable guy.”

“I think the comments and the attacks were outrageous and reprehensible. It does a disservice to the African-American community, and it creates a herd mentality that whatever the Democrats say we should repeat,” Mr. Wynn said.

…one of them supposedly was thrown by blacks at Steele during his campaign with Gov. Robert Ehrlich.

Steele’s chief of staff, Paul Ellington, explained Thursday, “The Oreo cookie incident happening during the 2002 gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University as Mr. Steele was leaving the building.”

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.

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.

I never heard it until Oliver brought it up, and I live in Maryland and I voted for Steele.

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.

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…”

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.

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?

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.

I noted the big  if.

Now that you ve been called on it, you don t want to talk cookies anymore. How come?

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.

The quote you mentioned came from one of Mfume s spokesmen.

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.

In your first post, you were pushing your fantasy:

Finally, if it were conclusively proven that Steele was pelted with Oreo cookies, he would not have condemned it.

I noted the big “if.”

Now that you’ve been called on it, you don’t want to talk cookies anymore. How come?

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.”

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.

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.

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.