Steele Runs Away from the Crazy Cons

2:02 pm EST February 5th, 2006 | Uncategorized | 16 Comments

In order to win in Maryland, Steele has to move from the right, but to get enough money to be competitive – he’s got to court the lunatics

In the final quarter of 2005, Steele’s campaign received 115 donations steered his way by the Madison Project, a group that, according to its Web site, endorses only “Republicans who clearly demonstrate their conservatism. . . . Our values are pro-life, pro-family, limited government, defenders of religious freedom.”

Phil Singer , a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington, argued that the donations show that Steele is out of step with Maryland.

“Michael Steele [is] trying to hide the fact that he’s George Bush ‘s ideological soul mate,” Singer said. “He doesn’t want Maryland to know that he is too conservative for the state.”

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

16 Responses to “Steele Runs Away from the Crazy Cons”

  1. Semanticleo says:
    February 5, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    Thus the race for the tepid middle ground begins. If the American people want change to be real, they’d better start re-evaluating their risk tolerance for change
    or , they should not expect honesty in the race for a seat, or the WH.

    Until they do, hypocrisy and lying just to get elected, then doin’ whatever
    TFTWant will continue to be the modus operandi of the
    ethically challenged winners of the lying contest.

  2. ian says:
    February 5, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    What an intelligent, non-talking point, comment from the DSCC. Hey, don’t they have to worry about an investigation for stealing Steele’s financial records?

  3. Oliver Willis says:
    February 5, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    You do understand that the DSCC is supposed to have talking points, right… oh, wait, it’s Ian. Time to talk slow.

  4. ian says:
    February 5, 2006 at 4:02 pm

    Yes, well you make it look like it is something magnificant they have said since you quoted it.

    But again, they should probably stop attacking Steele as they are being/going to be investigated.

  5. factcheck says:
    February 5, 2006 at 5:02 pm

    The question is, as he courts the CCC wing of the Republican party, will they let him through the front door or make him go through the kitchen?

  6. Quaker in a Basement says:
    February 5, 2006 at 8:02 pm

    Ian,

    Since you follow Maryland politics so closely, maybe you could fill us in on how that investigation is going.

  7. Marty says:
    February 5, 2006 at 10:02 pm

    “You do understand that the DSCC is supposed to have talking points,…”

    So an article highlighting Democratic talking points is proof positive of what the Steele campaign is and isn’t doing?

    Wow! Why don’t we call Ken Mehlman and find out exactly what the Cardin and Mfume campaigns are doing.

    You crack me up.

  8. Marty says:
    February 6, 2006 at 11:02 am

    Quake-
    You would think that most people would assume that there would be an investigation about this-

    Steele’s campaign referred questions to the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, which dismissed the issue as a distraction.

    “Apparently, the DSCC has replaced the researchers who stole the lieutenant governor’s credit report, and they’re at work trying to divert attention from the Democrat primary their party bosses were unable to prevent,” said NRSCC spokesman Dan Ronayne .

    He was referring to an episode last year in which a pair of Democratic researchers resigned after using Steele’s Social Security number to access his credit report without authorization.

    I wasn’t answering your question- just why it was brought up.
    But sorry, you’re right. I missed the jibe from some time back. I guess context is everything.

  9. Marty says:
    February 6, 2006 at 11:02 am

    And Quaker- IF you would simply read the article Oliver linked to, you would know a little more about what Ian wrote.

    Or don’t you follow Maryland politics? You do realize that the race in Maryland is going to be closely watched, don’t you?

  10. Quaker in a Basement says:
    February 6, 2006 at 11:02 am

    Gee, Marts.

    I’ve read and re-read that article and I don’t see an answer to my question. Maybe you could point it out for me?

    You do realize that the race in Maryland is going to be closely watched, don t you?

    Yes.

    Are you making a point here?

    (And if you don’t understand the jibe about following Maryland politics, that’s a reference to a boast ian made a few weeks back.)

  11. Quaker in a Basement says:
    February 6, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    I wasn t answering your question- just why it was brought up.

    Ian is trying to deflect attention from the subject of the thread, which is how Steele positions himself for the campaign.

    Instead of talking about that, we get the predictable squawk: “Credit report! Credit report!”

    Since the news of the FBI investigation broke, five months ago there have been no new developments. That doesn’t stop our callow little friend from pretending it’s relevant.

  12. Quaker in a Basement says:
    February 6, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    They may both be relevant.

    Just not to each other.

    Try to follow me here. Oliver was talking about how Steele is going to position himself by embracing conservative groups or distancing himself from them.

    Ian chimes in with a taunt about an investigation that has nothing to do with Mr. Steele’s positioning and that has gone exactly nowhere in five months. My reply to ian questioned the relevance of his remark. See?

    Maybe next we can return to debating Cookiegate.

  13. factcheck says:
    February 6, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    Marty, if you have a problem with the investigation post about it on your own blog- too bad noone will read it.

    This topic was about Steele having to court the far right wing, who won’t vote for him, in order to try to get campaign donations.

  14. Marty says:
    February 6, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    So the potential felony identity theft of a political opponents identity to obtain credit report by the staff of the DSCC Chairman isn’t realtive but DSCC talking points about a conservative group encouraging 115 donations of mostly $100 or less to a Republican candidate are?

    Is that really newsworthy? Wow- a conservative group is backing a Republican. Fancy that! Obviously not a racist conservative group.

    Or- Maybe they are!?

    (Cue the dramatic music!)

  15. Marty says:
    February 6, 2006 at 8:02 pm

    Speaking of irrelevant…

    Ian and factcheck are two similar peas from opposite pods. But you keep trying guys!

    Quake- I did get your point the first time. I just get a kick out of what Oliver finds newsworty sometimes. Democratic talking points, in this case, to prove his …. Democratic talking points.

    Let’s see 115 donations of approximately $100 or less from individuals who were encouraged by a conservative group who would normally support Republicans given to a Republican Senate candidate in a toss-up state where the current Senate seat up for grabs because of a Democratic Senator stepping down.

    Next thing you know, Moveon.org and Kos will be encouraging like minded liberals to donate to Democrats’ campaigns in possible toss-up states.

    What’s this world coming to?!

  16. Quaker in a Basement says:
    February 7, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    Next thing you know, Moveon.org and Kos will be encouraging like minded liberals to donate to Democrats campaigns in possible toss-up states.

    Well that was lame.

    Of course MoveOn and Kos will encourage liberals to donate. And conservatives will point to those donations and say, “See? Candidate Shmoe is a wild-eyed radical because she takes money from Kossacks!”

    OW correctly notes the donations from the Madison Project because those donations are an indicator of Mr. Steele’s dilemma as a candidate.

    Yes indeed, other candidates will face the same dilemma as part of the calculus of electoral politics. You’re certainly perceptive on that point.