Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich running for RNC chairman? On one hand, an odious public figure whose petulance led to the shutdown of the government, on the other hand a failed lieutenant governor and failed senatorial candidate (by double digits). SWEET. I wonder if rapist Mike Tyson will endorse Steele again?
UPDATE: Pam Spaulding had similar thoughts. It is as if they’re thinking “hey, lets get a black guy too”. Problem is that is all that’s in common between a moron like Steele and the President-Elect.
Not many horses in the GOP stable these days, are there?
Michael Steele? Why? Was Alan Keyes busy?
My thought too. After all, Keyes was such a wonderful choice in Illinois when they couldn’t find another right wing black guy to oppose Obama.
Oh, you mean they’re looking for someone who would be good for Republicans?
Then again, Howard Dean was a flop as a presidential candidate, but he worked out pretty well as DNC chairman. I think he’s a reprehensible guy, but there’s no denying he got results.
J.
The major difference between Steele and Dean, though…what new ideas has Michael Steele ever brought to the table?
Look, Dean failed as a candidate because his ideas and strategies were too bold for a cowed Democratic electorate, which is why they went with a softer, “safer” choice in Kerry (and due to a number of campaign trail gaffes, admittedly). Obama became a viable candidate this year in part because Dean’s ideas on campaigning and political debate had finally taken root.
I ask again, what does Steele bring to the GOP besides more of the same philosophy?
I mean, besides him being black and all.
I mean, besides him being black and all.
What more does he need? I mean, the Repub’s VP candidate was a woman this year just so’s they could say “We’ve got one, too.” and that worked out pretty well for them…
JT: I think he’s a reprehensible guy
Because….?
Seriously. That’s a pretty strong term so I’m curious and would like to know just what Dean’s done that qualifies him in your view as “reprehensible”.
Howard Dean kicked the Republican Party’s ass in 2006 and 2008. By “reprehensible” I think you meant to write “formidable.”
but there’s no denying he got results.
There’s also no denying that Howard Dean got Iraq right every step of the way.
And why is he so reprehensible? Because he’s like [Adolf] Hitler, as the National Review Classy Corner suggested?
“I think he’s a reprehensible guy, but there’s no denying he got results.”
What exactly makes Dean reprehensible in your mind, Jay Tea?
Hey, we’re all askin’, Mr. Tea. You’ve defended a President that led us into an unprovoked invasion of another country. You’ve defended a candidate who ditched his first wife to marry an heiress. What did Howard Dean do that puts him in the class of “reprehensible” that these others didn’t?
Must have been that whole balanced budget the entire time he was Governor of Vermont, or that whole cutting of state income taxes twice. Or maybe the expansion of universal health care for children and pregnant women. Or his several endorsements as Governor by the national rifle association.
But then, he did make the mistake of showing authentic emotion. And he does help elect democrats.
I mean, really. What a slug.
Jeez, I never thought I’d say this, but please Jay, return to this thread and respond to some of the intelligent questions above.
The bronze age moralists think it’s awful Dean allowed civil unions for gay couples while they memory hole Newt leaving his first wife when she had cancer
The only reason that JayTea finds Howard Dean reprehensible is because of how successful Dean has been in helping Democrats get elected. For JayTea, goodness of character goes hand-in-hand with ideological agreement with him.
You know what, Tea? I find YOU reprehensible.
“Jeez, I never thought I’d say this, but please Jay, return to this thread and respond to some of the intelligent questions above.”
I doubt he will because that would mean arguing in an intellectual honest and vigorous way. And as he has shown time and time again in the past, he is incapable and / or unwilling to do so.
Which is why I’ve said the only proper response to Jay Tea and others of his ilk is, “Shut the fuck up.”
My apologies, I have been absolutely swamped with personal matters. A couple of examples why I find Dean so reprehensible:
1) “During a meeting Friday with the Democratic black caucus, Dean praised black Democrats for their work for the party, then questioned Republicans’ ability to rally support from minorities.
“You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room?,” Dean asked to laughter. “Only if they had the hotel staff in here.””
2) His history of inflammatory and gratuitously insulting remarks. He — as the elected leader of the Democratic party — called Republicans “corrupt,” “brain-dead,” and “evil.” And not just individuals or policies or positions, but the entire party. That is the kind of crap one expects from the bomb-throwers, but not the leader of the party. There you would at least like to see a smidgen of maturity and tact.
3) “We’ve gotten rid of him (Saddam Hussein), and I suppose that’s a good thing.”
But as I said, I give him credit. He was a flop as a presidential candidate, but he led the DNC to its greatest triumphs. The DNC took a chance in choosing that loose cannon as its head, but it paid off.
J.
So jt, what is reprehensible about #1? The Republican party is hardly integrated. Number #2 is true for the most part, though I would wonder the context since you didn’t post the article. Same goes for #3. Saddam is gone and that’s a good thing, didn’t seem to prevent Americans from dying in Iraq though.
I’m shocked– shocked I tell you that Dean called the party of Alan Keyes and Michael Steele brain dead and corrupt. You know — the party that for now seems to be “They got them a black man–now let us get us one of ‘em.” C’mon, my friends and I played the see an African American at the RNC drinking game. Our collective asses were stoned cold sober at the end.
But that stuff about some Republicans being corrupt and brain dead was just absolutely mean, uncalled for, childish—and true. Shall we all feel the larger biceps of John and Sarah after all their bomb throwing, non question answering, vilifying, clothes buying, terrorist mongering? . . . .
But I will give Michael Steel credit–I just don’t know what for yet.
There’s also no denying that Howard Dean got Iraq right every step of the way.
Denied.
Jay:
1. Let’s check out voting patterns is, say, South Carolina.
2. Oh noes! A political party leader is–gasp–partisan! I’m just as shocked as you are, but please be careful when clutching your pearls soo’s you don’t hurt them.
3. ???
And this is what makes Howard Dean so reprehensible. It’s almost like he’s responsible for a secret group of torture sites, broke the law to spy on his own constituents, or sent U.S. soldiers into harm’s way for no good reason. Thanks for clearing that up, J. Howard Dean is clearly worse than 100 Hitlers.
SaveFarris seems to think I’m going to click on his link to Howard Dean’s take on “El Surgo”. You got a better chance of seeing God. Here’s a better idea, let’s compare Dean’s statements about Iraq with the Cheney Administrations. I wonder how that would come out? Oh, oh, here’s an idea: Let’s compare George Bush, Jr.’s statements about Iraq WsMD in the awesome run-up to the Invasion with Saddam Hussein’s. Good thing that smartypants Al Gore wasn’t Preznit! Do you realize we may not have even invaded Iraq if that Nobelist had been Prez?
A couple of examples why I find Dean so reprehensible:
Seriously, making a bunch of self-evidently true statements and attacking the opposing party makes one “reprehensible”? He didn’t call anyone a terrorist or a traitor or imply that anyone had a child out of wedlock with a black prostitute. You seem to find him reprehensible because he made statements you don’t like which you can’t deny. He’s pretty much the least reprehensible major politician I can think of. He simply gets on your nerves because, unlike other Democrats, he opposes the Republican party directly. Pretty low standards for “reprehensible” unless you define it as, “offends my very delicate sensibilities.”
Jay Tea, you know why Republicans lose and you know why Barack Obama won running on “change” and running against “the smallness of our politics”? Because voters were tired of listening to Republican whining such as what’s coming from you.
“A couple of examples why I find Dean so reprehensible …”
Jay Tea, are you kidding me? Dean’s a partisan and makes partisan comments. If you think that makes someone reprehensible I think your time would be better spent scolding the reprehensible fuckers at your own blog, not to mention rethinking your own rhetorical style, such as it is.
Like I said, Jay Tea, you are beyond personal embarrassment.
For starters, Jay Tea, maybe you might want to say something to the idiot DJ Drummond, whose “analysis” of the polls proved so entertaining, for his post on veteran’s day which included these lines:
and
So here we have a guy on your own blog using Veteran’s Day as a chance to make snide cracks and accusations about the patriotism of Obama and Democrats — even in the face of the facts. Unless you’d like to explain why these statements are so radically different than Dean’s …
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/11/11/veterans.php
But I will give Michael Steel credit–I just don’t know what for yet.
He looks good in a suit.
Certainly nothing reprehensible in this now classic wizbang rant:
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/10/23/breaking-obama-supporter-attacks-and-mutilates-mccain-volunteer.php
Jay Tea, would you care to suggest why Dean is reprehensible for making fun of Republicans but stoking racial panic and hysteria is not?
SaveFarris:There’s also no denying that Howard Dean got Iraq right every step of the way.
Denied.
It’s just amazing, the ability Farris has to post links to articles he claims support his position but actually do just the opposite.
The benchmarks were not met. The surge did not accomplish what it was supposed to. And here’s the quote from the article showing how Dean, according to Farris, got that wrong:
Whoops.
It used to be amazing. But he’s done it so many times it’s not amazing anymore, it’s likely.
Black guys in leadership positions are evidently the new Ugg Boots and Tickle Me Elmo’s. Get one today, the other party has one.
Jay Tea: His history of inflammatory and gratuitously insulting remarks. He — as the elected leader of the Democratic party — called Republicans “corrupt,” “brain-dead,” and “evil.” And not just individuals or policies or positions, but the entire party.
This is your criteria of what makes someone “reprehensible”?
Please point me to all, or even any, of the posts where you proclaimed Bush, Cheney, McCain, Palin, Rove, Rumsfeld, Bachmann, Pfotenhauer et al to be reprehensible. These are, after all, elected and other leaders and prominent members of the Republican party. And they have on many, many occasions called Democrats and others who disagree with them terrorists, un-patriotic, not “real” Americans and variations of “corrupt,” “brain-dead,” and “evil”.
To me “reprehensible” is advocating torture, committing treason by revealing CIA agents, violating the Constitution with illegal wiretaps, showing contempt for Congress by ignoring lawful subpoenas. Y’know, things a bit m0re henious than calling someone names.
Three possibilities: 1) JayTea finds a fuckload of people reprehensible. 2) JayTea can deal with a fuckload of cognitive dissonance, finding Dean reprehensible while not his Republican brethren likewise (while doing much things much, much worse), 3) JayTea was caught with his pants down by everyone on this board, and had to go find the best examples he could of Dean misbehaving. Unfortunately for him, there’s not much there, but he’s not intellectually honest enough to admit that he’s a fucking partisan hack.
My money is on the last one. JayTea, you’re reprehensible.
there has been no progress on the most critical benchmarks
Whoops!
Nice try, Farris. But still fail.
First article you link to is from July 2007. You then support your contention that Dean was wrong by linking to an article about an report that says things have been done. Except that second article is from July 2008, a year after Dean’s evaluation of the situation.
It also includes this bit:
IOW, the embassy report doesn’t jibe with the other assessments including that of the non-partisan GAO.
You really should read more than the headlines, Farris. Even all the way to the second sentence at least.
“My apologies, I have been absolutely swamped with personal matters. A couple of examples why I find Dean so reprehensible:”
Jay Tea, you should have never came back to this thread. Without reasons you looked like a moron. With reasons, you’ve proven you are a moron.
And I repeat… Southern. Fucking. Strategy.
The whole party is racist, because it uses a campaign strategy that is racist. I know you don’t like being reminded that your support a racist party, but it is the truth. It couldn’t be more obvious unless they showed up to campaign rally in white hoods.
Jay Tea, was “reprehensible” the word of the week on your vocabulary calendar?
In a Wizbang post of yours today you write, speaking of Bill Ayer’s 1974 Prairie Fire Manifesto:
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/11/12/true-banality.php
So, um, Howard Dean = Sirhan Sirhan?
You really should read more than the headlines, [conservative commenter]. Even all the way to the second sentence at least.
Is there a way to make this appear automatically with my comments?
Regarding the substance of OW’s post, Steele has a perfectly good resume for the position as RNC chairman: he’s an experienced attorney, he’s been chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, 4 years of executive experience as lieutenant governor, he’s chairman of GOPAC, he has a lot of media experience (albeit mostly on Fox News). Personally, I don’t see this as solely a “hey, let’s get a black guy too” thing — Steele has been angling for the position since 2006.
I see a bigger problem in his being moderate on a few social issues: he opposes the death penalty, thinks Roe should be upheld as a matter of stare decisis, and doesn’t necessarily toe the Ward Connerly line on affirmative action. To the extent the GOP is Palin’s Party now, I doubt that such wobbliness will be acceptable in the party chairman.
That manifesto is now out as a PDF for free downloading
I suppose it doesn’t count as intellectual property theft if you’re stealing from pro-communists.
“This edition ofPrairie Fire is published and copyrighted by Communications Co. in response to a written request from the authors of the contents. … The publisher’s copyright is not intended to discourage the use of material from this book for political debate and study. It is intended to prevent false and distorted reproduction and profiteering. Aside from those limits, people are free to utilize the material.”
I wonder if LGF got copyright holder Communications Co.’s approval of their PDF reproduction. Seems unlikely.
Michael Steele is Black. Who would have known.