Nothing Fresh About Steele
Posted by Bryant Daniels on 02.01.2009
It's Contrived...Yeah, I said it.
Michael Steele's election as the new head of the RNC on Friday does almost nothing to rebuild the Republican brand, no matter how black he is. In fact, as Steele proved in his remarks following his election, calling bipartisanship "overrated," he really brings no fresh perspective to the GOP. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently spoke about how the GOP is in serious danger of becoming a regional party; a small sect of deep south ideologues with waning power on the national stage. I doubt highly that the new leader of a group on track to become the permanent minority should be calling for less unity amongst his fellow citizens, and that's really what makes the Steele pick contrived in the same way Sarah Palin was. Steele wasn't elected for his fresh perspective on conservatism (calling for less bipartisanship), or for his wonderful track record as a campaign winner ( he lost a 2006 Senate race in Maryland), or for his years of high ranking public service (his claim to fame, the highest position he's ever held prior, was Maryland's Lieutenant Governor). No, Steele was elected because the stuffy white guys that run the GOP finally saw that they had an image problem, and in classic GOP fashion, they thought they could fool everyone into thinking they turned over a new leaf. Remember all those Hillary supporters Palin was supposed to bring in, simply because she was a woman? Seriously, what jackass thought that would work? If you answered the same jackass who thinks Michael Steele will bring minorities to the GOP, give yourself a cookie.
I believe in bipartisanship. I'm willing to accept compromises between the Republicans and the Libertarians.
But seriously, how do you get a racial minority to vote against affirmative action, or a poor person to vote for lower taxes on the rich?
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 10:33 AM
As an Independent voter, your column brings out the worst in politics by highlighting the elementary school mudslinging all too common in today's media. Thank you for your opinion and making sure everyone knows it. However, with the new president and his policy of hope, I would suggest you follow suit and offer solutions instead of presenting yourself as knowledgeable in all that is the GOP mindframe.
Posted By: Guest#6365 (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 11:08 AM
So when the democrats do it, its a world changing event but when the republicans do it, it's a cheap ploy for votes?
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 11:46 AM
"But seriously, how do you get a racial minority to vote against affirmative action, or a poor person to vote for lower taxes on the rich?"
Hey Paul, I'm not sure about a racial minority voting for affirmative action, but for decades now the GOP has managed to get poor people to vote for lower taxes on the rich. Check out the states that are the traditional stalwarts of the Republicans... Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and there poorer rural communities moreso than rich urban centers. You get poor people to vote against their interests by tying it to their culture, which is what the whole southern strategy was about it the first place.
Not to mention getting religious people to vote against some of the core principles of their faith (charity for the poor, aid for the sick and the parable of the Good Samaritan) for issues less central to their faith (homosexuality)
Posted By: Ray Church (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 08:46 PM
Crappy attempt at a column. Seriously. This is just like a liberal to hate a conservative being appointed to the RNC. I can't take someone like you seriously. At the very least, you could've taken some time to write a clear, well thought argument about this. Instead, you resorted to typical liberal bias by using Sarah Palin.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 09:16 PM
It's just like when Obama ordered a missle strike in Pakistan. If Bush did it, he's an agressor. If Obama does it, he's just trying to fight terrorism.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 09:19 PM
He brought up Sarah Palin because they both represent the republican party's reluctance to try anything fresh or new other than LOOKING new. "Ooh, a woman! A black guy! Let's start being a little inclusive, and people won't notice our narrow-mindedness!" It's bullshit. It's like you see on some products in the grocery store. "New look, same old product!"
Posted By: James (Registered) (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Mr. Church:
There's a vast gulf between charity and government aid. That is the gulf of volition. It isn't charity if the taxman takes it and the congress distributes it.
And so my question is, how do you take a liberal poor person, who believes he's entitled to money for nothing while the rich deserve to lose money while getting nothing, and convince him that that's not fair?
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Thanks for keeping it racial.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on February 02, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Paul,
You clearly have a "dain bramaged" view on the liberal ideology. You are clearly talking about socialism. Furthermore, the Republicans are the party that started Corporate BAILOUTS. Eitherway, the Democrats are about helping remove the class division. If that means rich people get LESS money, that is fine. Only a good person would want to see everyone in a place to succeed. Before you throw that last point in my face, you do realize that you have to be VERY fortunate to be a successs.
Before you try and throw that point in my face, Europe is FAR more liberal than the US. Furthermore, they have greater stability than us. So, are you saying Liberal > Conservative=UK or Canada > US?
Posted By: David (Guest) on February 02, 2009 at 03:30 AM
There is an inherent irony in being lectured about identity politics by a Dem/Lib. Priceless.
I'm sure you were really concerned about Howard "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for" Dean's stance on "bipartisanship".
And, hey, waitaminnit...did you say,
"But seriously, how do you get a racial minority to vote against affirmative action[?]"
Oh, I don't know, maybe by not assuming that all racial minorities engage in some kind of lock-step group think and are capable of critically examining an issue without defaulting to some prescribed position based solely on their ethnicity?
Isn't assuming that racial minorities all think the same way kind of...racist?
Posted By: lol (Guest) on February 02, 2009 at 07:17 AM
To Mr. Paul:
Oh, you mean exactly what the Democrats are doing with OUR tax money? To pay for honeybees, STDs, ATV paths, and skate parks?
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on February 02, 2009 at 07:46 AM
David: I disagree. A good person would not want to see the lazy, the incompetent, or the evil to succeed. To have that occur cheapens the success of every person who works hard, has talent, and plays by the rules. Success isn't a matter of fortune; you make your own path in life.
Lol: I was using the word minority to mean a person, not a group. If it helps you to give it a face, phrase it this way: how do you get Jesse Jackson to understand that affirmative action is unjust?
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on February 02, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Paul -
Go back and read your response again and really think about it. Whether you meant one individual member of a minority group or all members of minority groups is utterly irrelevant. The implication is still that all members of a minority group share the same narrow set of opinions. You may not have meant it that way, but that is how it is written.
And it hardly matters whether I can convince Jesse Jackson that affirmative action is unjust. He's made a career of profiting from racial inequities. That said, if you are specifically citing him as an example of someone who is so "partisan" about a particular issue that he can never be convinced otherwise, then, yes, that would have been a far more apt way of putting it.
I don't mean to beat up on you. Church's comment actually got me more irritated and I had intended to respond to his assertions about people of faith voting against the tennets of their faith, but I guess I got hung up on the affirmative action thing. Maybe later...
Posted By: lol (Guest) on February 02, 2009 at 11:40 AM
It’s time to debunk this whole thing about being “entitlement” vs. “earning”.
You know what, if you believe life begins at conception – if you believe that abortion is murder, you believe the fetus is *entitled* to live, they are ENTITLED TO THE BASIC ESSENTIALS OF LIFE.
Food. Clothing. Shelter. Education. Medical attention and opportunity for success. These are essentials. Once you *pop* out of the womb, whether or not the mother is a cock-sucking crack-whore or a pill popping heiress, they are entitled, ie DESERVE to get the things they need.
That’s why we vote people in to carry out these responsiblilties vs. having to do it ourselves. I’m an anarchist, so I believe that we SHOULD be able to govern ourselves, but I understand 98% of people are just too fucking stupid to comprehend basic things like charity and kindness for their fellow human.
There is a piece of me that hopes that Christianity is the *right* religion. See, I hope that Jesus returns as a baby in the 21st century and we do the whole nativity story in modern times. He would be born poor, out of wedlock, probably live in a ghetto, probably BLACK (because he would be a minority) and all those who talk about “entitlement” and “handouts” would turn their backs on his ilk and deny him. Probably at least three times.
Then the cock will crow, and they will burn in hell for their wickedness. And I will laugh and laugh and laugh watching their flesh sear and listening to them moan and beg and plead for “forgiveness”.
Yeah, fuck you. You “earned” your place in hell. Cunts.
Posted By: Anarchist (Guest) on February 03, 2009 at 12:04 PM
STAY CURRENT