Oh Sure, Blame the Black Guy

Michael Steele

You probably thought I meant President Obama. Nope. I was referring to Michael Steele. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think race has anything to do with stupid stuff. Apparently the Republican Party is afraid to fire Steele for fear of looking racist but their spin machine is not above making him look foolish. Also don’t get me wrong; Michael Steele has said plenty of stupid things to damage the Republican Party as its token African American. But then the Republican Party is not immune from stupidity, regardless of race. Wait, isn’t Michael Steele the only non-white in the party? Oh yeah.

Well, the “Republican National Committee political director Gentry Collins resigned from his post Tuesday morning with a stinging indictment of Chairman Michael Steele’s two-year tenure at the committee.”

Top RNC Aide Quits; Blasts Michael Steele

Funny story. I was out with a colleague the other night. She (white woman) had just been through a painful split with her ex and told me she was dating a black man. I said something like, ‘That’s awesome!’ wanting her to be happy and loved. Then she told me he was Republican (which she is not). My jaw hit the floor. I was totally, ‘You’re kidding, right?’ You; an avowed liberal, are dating a Black Republican?’ That’s like a Jewish Nazi supporter isn’t it? Gays for DADT? I guess compromise does exist. Back to Michael Steele.

When your party is blaming you for not getting out the vote, losing the Senate, and blowing the majority of the budget in the mean time I guess you invite that criticism. I agree Steele has made some strange statements but I hardly think the party can blame him for their not complete tsunami takeover of the world although he does appear to make a convenient lightning rod. I actually think the Republicans could do with a little introspection. It ain’t Steele’s fault (though he didn’t help). People are just beginning to realize what the French call being sold a chat en poche (cat in a bag, or pig in a poke in American terminology. In business language; a bait and switch).

I actually like what Michael Steele has brought to the Republican Party. He is making a real attempt to manage the party’s business. Sometimes he even sounds sane. I think it’s disappointing that the Republican Party in making him their token example of inclusiveness will gladly throw him under the bus when things don’t go according to plan.

Say Hello to my Little Friend

Perhaps they need a token Latino. Oh, wait a minute; here comes Marco Rubio, Latino AND Tea Party. I think we’re on to something here. Get the popcorn. Should be interesting.

Related Video:

Maddow on Michael Steele


About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Oh Sure, Blame the Black Guy

  1. robert verdi says:

    Compared to some of the knuckleheads and criminals in Congress I always thought Steele was never as half as bad as laid out. With that said his biggest flaw was to forget that his primary job is to raise money and recruit candidates, not turn into some pundit.
    By the way your using the phrase “jewish nazi supporter” to describe black republicans (even if tongue in cheek) is quite ugly.

  2. GROG says:

    This is yet another ugly example of how the far left absolutely abhors the thought of a black, hispanic, or woman in the Republican party.

  3. shortchain says:

    The propensity of the modern GOP to choose, as leaders, feckless grifters, soulless ideological automatons, crazy old farts, and sociopathic machiavelli wannabees is amazing.

    Michael Steele may not be utterly incompetent, at least in making what’s left of the official GOP party organization work for his benefit, after Rove and crew took their balls, bats, gloves, and funding and went home, but there’s no question the power base of the GOP has shifted, leaving him sitting on top of a heap of rubble, sifting it for shiny objects.

    The national media doesn’t even bother putting him on their shows much anymore. From their booking patterns, you’d have to assume that John McCain, COF, is the de facto leader of the GOP. But then that would be overlooking the fact that the GOP has had a merger — or acquisition, we won’t know which for some time — with the Murdoch Empire, and the rest of the media can’t very well call Rove for interviews. He’s busy lying to the people who watch Fox, he can’t be bothered.

    I’m not convinced about the popcorn. What kind of snack food is appropriate for watching the dying embers of democracy dwindle into ash?

  4. mclever says:

    Mr. Universe is amazed at the idea of a Black Republican.

    I’m always amazed at how many people think that everyone else must engage in identity politics, as if that were the only thing that mattered. For some people, sure, membership in a particular group–be it race, gender, culture, or religion–makes it easier for them to support someone who is also either in that group or advocating policies that are obviously intended to appeal to that group. It was probably an appeal to identity politics that led McCain to think that nominating Palin as his VP would bring in hordes of women voters. (Maybe a few Republican women got extra fired up, but his choice tended to have the opposite effect among moderate-to-left-leaning women, if you’ll recall.) Being in the same “group” might sometimes make support easier, but it usually isn’t the primary factor.

    Do you honestly think that if McCain had been a black man and Obama had been a white man with everything else the same, that McCain would have won 90% of the black vote two years ago? Or even 50%? There might have been a swing of 5% or so of those marginal moderates who were having a tough time deciding anyway, but no way would the majority have flipped just because of the race of the candidates.

    Not all blacks support Democrats. And not all women support Hillary (or Sarah). And not all Christians are Republican, or vice versa. And not all Jews are liberal or “pro-Israel.” Gay rights advocacy isn’t always the number one priority for someone who is homosexual, because they might care more about tax policy or terrorism.

    People are complex beings, and in a two party system, support for one party or the other is always about compromise. Compromises between which issues are most important to you and which party you think will help make the world closer to what you want it to be. If you’re both anti-choice/pro-life on abortion and anti-capital punishment on the death penalty, then which party do you choose? If you support privatizing Social Security and expanding gay rights, which party do you choose? If you support 60%, 70%, or maybe even 80% of the Republican policy platform but happen to have darkly pigmented skin, which party do you choose? I would posit that this isn’t the easy answer that we like to think it is. Sure, identity is a piece of the puzzle, but we shouldn’t treat it as if it were the whole puzzle.

    In my opinion, this is the same mistake people make when they dismiss Mitt Romney as a likely nominee for President. Those who dismiss his chances frequently assume that “those conservative fundamentalists” won’t vote for Romney because he’s Mormon. His religion may cost him a few votes in some sectors, but not nearly as many as people think. And his appearance of reasonable moderateness and business acumen may bring in more votes than he loses to the few fringe bigots.

  5. @Hokey Pokey,
    How about you stick to a single name, instead of posting each time under a different moniker?

  6. shiloh says:

    This is yet another ugly example of how the far left absolutely abhors the thought of a black, hispanic, or woman in the Republican party.
    ~~~~~

    Another (((inane flyby generalization))) by grog and since PK is no longer w/us, 538’s new winger wannabe court jester ~ thanx for sharing.

    apologies to PK who occasionally said something rational …

  7. Mr. Universe says:

    @Mule, GROG,

    You guys really don’t get the tongue in cheek thing, do you? I actually am defending Steele in a weird kind of way.

  8. shiloh says:

    @mclever

    to the few fringe bigots.
    ~~~~~

    Would posit right wing bigots have ever so much more difficulty overcoming their bigotry than left wing bigots, which is in and of itself an oxymoron. My only proof being (((69.5 million))) voted for Obama 7.5 million more votes than cheney/bush received in 2004 and yes there were a variety of factors ie the economic collapse, cheney/bush’s Iraq War etc. but Obama won IN and VA breaking a (44) year Rep hold on those states.

    The real test of course is whether one can ever imagine the Rep party nominating any minority as their presidential candidate.

    It comes down to the power brokers in each party who generally control who is their presidential nominee and what their racial prejudices are. Political expediency often trumps racial fears ie why the Reps nominated a good looking Hispanic in NM as their governor candidate and a good looking Latino in FL to be their senatorial candidate and a good looking, not too bright minority in SC to be their governor candidate. Winning is the bottom line as these candidates may not have been a good fit in OK, NE, KS, ID, UT, WY etc.

    Again, it is kinda amazing a young, relatively inexperienced bi-racial, African/American Democrat, who’s a Muslim born in Kenya 😉 yada yada yada got 69.5 million votes running against a military war hero who picked a prom queen as his v-p.

    Or not. 🙂

  9. Mr. Universe says:

    So most everybody picked up on my intentional typecasting. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

    I think the point regarding my friend is that I was more shocked that she was dating a Republican than someone of a different race. But yes, I am often surprised that African Americans and Latinos would vote Republican whenit often seems that the Republican agenda is counter to their interests.

  10. mclever says:

    GROG,

    Your characterization of the left as “abhor[ing] the thought of a black, hispanic, or woman in the Republican party” is a vast mischaracterization of people on the left.

    If anything, liberals are confused when someone in a minority group chooses the Republican Party, because identity politics would suggest that those minorities would choose the liberal camp where minority issues are more prominently advocated. Valid or not, there is confusion when someone makes unexpected choices about the priority of their ideological spectrum. But (generally) not hate.

    I would like to say that seeing hate in confusion says more about you than it does about the liberals you are criticizing, but that would be unfair. Instead, I will suggest that perhaps you’re experiencing similar confusion because you don’t understand how liberal priorities are different from yours. If so, then when you try to fit a liberal’s view into your paradigm, you’ve got the wrong context, and you might jump to “hate” as the conclusion, because you don’t understand it. I obviously don’t know your thoughts, so I can only suggest that you revisit your thinking, because you’ve reached an incorrect conclusion.

    My priorities are not your priorities, and I shouldn’t expect them to be. Not better, not worse. Just different. And that’s part of what makes this country so great, is that all of us with our different priorities and goals and dreams can push and prod and pull each other into figuring out a balance between maximizing liberty for each individual and promoting the general welfare of the nation as a whole. We need some people to remind us not to trample others in our stampede for freedom, just as we need others to remind us not to trample liberty in our pursuit of equality.

  11. mclever says:

    @shiloh

    The results of the election in 2008 do little to prove bigotry on one side or the other. I saw, read, and heard enough racially bigoted commentary (from both right and left), that I harbor no illusions about Obama’s victory absolving the left of bigotry. Left-wing liberals may be bigoted about different things, but they can be just as prejudicial and judgmental as any “racist redneck Republican.”

    In answer to your question, I can most certainly imagine a Republican candidate who happens to belong to a minority group, if the “power brokers” decide that the person’s appeal to identity will give them the margin needed to win the next round.

  12. shiloh says:

    mclever, as you offer no evidence we’ll just have to disagree, take care.

  13. mclever says:

    I’ll note that when discussing the reaction of (some) liberals to a minority whose political choices run counter to the expected “identity” choice, I used the word “confused,” and Mr. Universe used the word “surprised.” Both common reactions to encountering something unexpected, and neither involves “hate.”

  14. Mainer says:

    Where the hell did I put my bullshit flag? I may have to lay in a new stock. Some of us on the left get confused when we see groups vote Republican not because of bigotry but because why would people vote for those most opposed to them or who they are or what they believe. Steele is an interesing case. I do think at thimes he was out in front of the curve and said some curious things. I think he was a knee jerk candidate for the position he holds but for the Republicans to now wnat him under the bus is quite amazing. Steele did preside over a pretty good election cycle for the Republicans by most any metric applied. That the Republicans didn’t get the Senate was Steele’s fault how????????? Had Sarah and Dimwitted left well enough alone I seriously believe the Republicans would have had both houses going into the new year. SO teaper flame throwers can the plan and loose elections……ahhhhhhh it is Steele’s fault. Not as much money comes in because Rove and that slimeball at the Chamber of horrors get large portions of it going to them and that is Steele’s fault how? So now the old stale white guys and their new hero Jaccuzi, or Azzui or Anzio what ever think putting in a white guy will make every thing right? Steele is a conservative, I get it. His problem is in todays Republican world he isn’t conservative enough and like our president he is still black. The man can’t fix that. He was black yesterday, he is black today and I strongly suspect he will be black tomorrow. Again just like our president. That I think he may have been inept on some things has nothing to do with his color, that he didn’t get to pull off all that was wanted by his side had nothing to do with his color. I find it amazing he isn’t getting credit for what he did do. Were that the Democrats had a good lightening rod this time around because obviously ho hum Kaine wasn’t the answer and he is white (maybe I don’t like people that look like me…..no I don’t inepitude and from what I can see no color has a lock on that).

    That I still don’t get why a person of color, or a female or a gay person or a poor working stiff of any color, gender or sexual orrientation would vote for Republicans does and will continue to baffle me. That isn’t bigotry it is confusion over why people vote for people that don’t even like them let alone would try to represent them fairly. It is though a strange time we live in apparently S&M even lives in the political world.

  15. shiloh says:

    Mainer ~ Steele did preside over a pretty good election cycle for the Republicans by most any metric applied.

    Agree w/everything you say except Reps did well in 2010 despite Steele as he had absolutely no effect ~ repeating, he was a non-factor. The RNC was terrible at fund raising as they are now (15 million) in the red. Again, it was outside conservative fund raising helped by a few Rep billionaires and a political environment not positive to the Dems lol which was responsible for all the Rep gains.

    And yes, Steele was a bumbling fool who put his foot in his mouth constantly, but, but, but no one was paying any attention to him anyways. Again, he was a token pick to offset Obama becoming president, so if anything, the Rep hierarchy is to blame for anything Steele did or did not accomplish.

    A wave election is a wave election regardless, so Howard Dean probably got too much credit as well …

    Again, one party screws up or doesn’t meet the expectations of the voters and is replaced by the other party. The voters didn’t/don’t like Reps either, but the Dems were in charge, so they get the voters rath. Politics is not all that complicated, eh.

  16. mclever says:

    Mainer, your confusion about why certain people would vote Republican is similar to a conservative’s confusion as to why any businessman or billionaire would vote Democratic given the differences in tax policy. Sometimes other interests out-weigh one’s own personal, private gain (or the perception thereof), and different people come to different conclusions about what the scales say.

  17. filistro says:

    The Freepers are entertainingly tying themsleves in furious knots over this. In terms of moral equivelancy and self-righteousness, they’ve gone all the way from Michael Steele to Bristol Palin, and here is how they do it.

    They currently have about 8 threads going in which they argue that having Michael Steele as RNC chair (even if they dump him) showed they’re NOT racist… unlike liberals who proved they ARE racist by voting for Barack Obama even though he’s not qualified.

    Furtheremore, Dancing With The Stars proves liberals are HYPOCRITES… because liberals are all upset that Freeper-Teapers are loyally voting en masse both online and via phone to keep Bristol in the contest just because Sarah is her mother, even though Bristol is clearly not the best dancer.

    Got all that? To summarize:

    *Wingers… not racist… elevated Michael Steele
    *Liberals…. racist… elevated an unqualified black man solely because of his race
    *Wingers… loyal.. elevating an unqualified teenager because of her name
    *Liberals.. hypocrites… objecting to elevation of the unqualified when they did it first

    Is your head hurting yet? Should I go through it again? Just remember… wingers aren’t racist, liberals ARE racist, wingers are loyal supporters, liberals are hypocrites. And we somehow learn all this from Michael Steele.

    There you go. You’re all up to date 😉

  18. shiloh says:

    James Webb, Secretary of the Navy under Reagan and former staunch Rep, strong on defense, switched to Dem when he realized the Dems were more a We the People! party than the Reps. It was that basic.

    ie personal preference.

    Richard Shelby, AL, switched to Rep for political expediency. Same w/Specter. Oops!

    To each his own …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s