Silent Steele

7:02 pm EST February 15th, 2006 | Uncategorized | 12 Comments

Michael Steele seems to think if he just keeps his mouth shut for 9 months he can squeeze out a win

Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele announced his bid for U.S. Senate in October with a promise to be a different kind of candidate, to build bridges between citizens and government and to be a voice for all Marylanders.

Since then, however, with debates raging on a series of national and state issues – including the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice and the revision of minimum-wage laws – Steele has stayed out of the fray.

“I don’t need to talk about issues right now,” Steele said during a recent interview with The Sun. “I need to establish a relationship with voters.”

One would think that you establish relationships with voters by talking about the issues, but then again every time Steele’s opened his yap he’s either making up racial incidents or comparing stem cell research to slavery and nazism.

>> Steele s Views on Katrina Remain a Mystery as Bush Administration Reels over Emergency Response

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

12 Responses to “Silent Steele”

  1. Marty says:
    February 15, 2006 at 10:02 pm

    You are really scared to death of this guy aren’t you?

  2. Marty says:
    February 15, 2006 at 10:02 pm

    By the way- funny how you haven’t written one word about Al Gore’s speech in Saudi Arabia. Or did I miss something?

  3. Oliver Willis says:
    February 15, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    I’m not scared of Steele at all, I just don’t want him to be my senator in a million years. As far as Vice President Gore, I wrote about how Sean Hannity, like the rest of the right, distorted it.

  4. SaveFarris says:
    February 16, 2006 at 8:02 am

    You didn’t seem to mind this strategy when Kerry was utilizing it.

  5. Marty says:
    February 16, 2006 at 9:02 am

    Oh yeah- that’s right. You wrote a Media Matters talking point about Sean Hannity. But what’s your opinion on Gore’s speech in Saudi Arabia?

    Do you think it served a purpose? Proper venue? On target? You must think it was all good or bad or parts were pertinent or something.

    I know that you’d rather just attack Hannity, but I’d really like your opinion on Gore’s speech.

  6. Oliver Willis says:
    February 16, 2006 at 11:02 am

    I think it was a great speech, and I’m sad that George Bush gave Vice President Gore the material to give it.

  7. SaveFarris says:
    February 16, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    I m sad that George Bush gave Vice President Gore the material

    George Bush didn’t ram airplanes into buildings.

  8. Dana says:
    February 16, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    Let me add a specific point to my previous note. A couple of current black Democrats in the House currently represent (barely) majority white districts, following changes to their districts due to court orders and the 2002 general redistricting; Mel Watt is one of them. But none of them was initially elected from a majority white district, and the current districts they represent are heavily black even if not always majority black.

    The only “district” to deviate from that pattern, for a Democrat, is the Illinois senate seat currently held by Barack Obama.

  9. Dana says:
    February 16, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    Michael Steele and Lynn Swann just worry the dog crap out of the Democratic partisans, and it’s easy to see why: Democrats routinely lose the “white” vote, and depend on their traditional 90% of the “black” vote to win the elections that they do win. Mr Steele and Mr Swann challenge that 90%, and if those candidates can win just 25% of the black vote, count on those seats to be wins for the Republicans.

    Our honored host knows that, of course. What I’d really like to see him address is the fact that there is not even one black member of the House of Representatives who did not win initially win his seat in a majority black district. The last two black Representatives who did win from majority white districts were both Republicans (J C Watts and Gary Franks).

    Why is it, I wonder, that the Democrats, the party which is just so inclusive, is so unwilling to elect black representatives for white districts?

  10. Sundown says:
    February 16, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    Why not, Dana?

    My own perspective; I want to vote based on the person, not the race.

  11. Dana says:
    February 17, 2006 at 8:02 am

    That’s great, Sundown. So, why don’t white Democrats seem to want black people to represent them in Congress? You, individually, might not be the problem, but the fact that there isn’t one single black Representative in Congress who was chosen by whites to represent whites seems to be a statistical analomy, given the number of majority white districts represented by Democrats.

  12. Dana says:
    February 17, 2006 at 1:02 pm

    The Leader of the Free World misunderstands; Republicans have only 10% of the black vote normally, so the problem of white Republicans not voting for black representatives is one of there being very few black Republicans from whom to find Republican candidates.

    Even with that problem, the last two members of the House of Representatives who were first elected to represent primarily white districts were both Republicans (J C Watts and Gary Franks).

    When you say:

    Statistically, voters, regardless of party affiliation, will cross party lines to vote for a candidate the same race as their own& .black, white, Hispanic, Asian& does that sound very far-fetched to be considered a statistical anomaly?

    You are raising a valid point, but it is one that misses the point. The point is that the Democratic Party, which is so dependent upon the 90% of the black vote it gets to win the elections it does, is unwilling to support black candidates when it comes to having them represent primarily white voters.