Black is the New Red
Posted by Jake G. on 02.01.2009
The GOP shows it's "diversity"...
A while back I wrote about how it was a bad time for the GOP because they had failed to get together post the election and still seemed to operating under the failed mindset that caused them to lose the White House, the Congress and the Senate. So imagine my surprise when I heard the news that the GOP had regrouped and were now the party of the people. The GOP is now apparently the party of black people too. Haven't you heard?
Michael Steele is the new chairman of the RNC. Don't fret if you've never heard of Steele, just know that he's black, he's a fan of Lincoln and he's making a difference in the communities with minorities. Hey that sounds awfully familiar? He's the GOP's Barack Obama, naturally. Or at least he's their pretend answer to him. The former Maryland Lt. Governor is already taking shots at the President and is ready to go toe to toe with him, "How do you like me now?" is his call to action as he's ready to square off with Barack.
Steele himself might be qualified for the job, but his credentials get lost in the coincidence of his appointment. Now far be it from me to knock the Republican Party for finally trying to get some different shades of pigment into their camp, but doesn't this seem awfully familiar to something we've seen before? You may remember that during the Presidential campaign there was a woman running for the office on the Democratic ticket and she came awfully close too... And then suddenly the GOP also had a woman looking to be in the highest office in the land. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?
Who cares if Sarah Palin had nothing in common with Hilary Clinton but old vaginas, she was a woman, she was a Republican and she was making history too! Now we find that Michael Steele is suddenly the figurehead for the Republican Party, the first black to do so, just days after the first black President is sworn into the office as the leader of the Democratic Party. Anything you can do, I can do blacker better.
Cynics and right wing pundits will say that it's racist to call out the GOP for suddenly putting an African American into power, after all he was voted in. Just as they said it was sexist to complain that Sarah Palin came out of nowhere the moment the GOP thought they could steal some female votes. Historians however will remember that this isn't a new GOP trick. When Barack Obama was running for the Illinois Senate seat, the Republicans flew in an opponent matched up for him... It was Alan Keyes. You can guess what shade of complexion he is. I don't need to tell you who won, but rest assured people saw through the veil.
No matter how historic Sarah Palin's run for VP or Michael Steele's appointment as the RNC chairman is, they sadly don't represent a sign of the GOP becoming a bigger broader party. They might be a step forward, but they're two steps back. You can't just throw any woman to the front of the Party and expect women to vote for her, just as you can't throw any African American to the front of the Party and expect blacks to vote red. Come on GOP, give Americans a little more credit than that. You only hurt yourself more by suggesting the notion that blacks and women can't tell the difference between one another. Maybe you can't, but we can. The American populous isn't always the smartest bunch, but they can see through veils as thin as these, no matter how dark a veil you slap on the GOP, it's still old and white underneath.
I must take issues with your article, as I believe you have missed the point regarding the GOP and their election of Michael Steele (and a couple other things).
1. The original GOP candidate for Senate against Obama was Jack Ryan, who had to withdraw due to scandal. Alan Keyes was a replacement that had to step in at the last minute. He was inserted due to his principles and the fact that the GOP had by and large already conceded the race since Obama had a massive lead. It had nothing to do with his skin color.
2. The Republican Party primarily elected Steele because of his moderate, yet still ideologically conservative views. They are attempting to step away from the far end of the spectrum and Steele represented the best overall package. Yes, he is black, but he is also Catholic, well-educated, a great speaker, and from a blue state, which are all areas the GOP needs to improve in.
3. The Clinton/Palin and Obama/Steele comparisons are far off base. I will concede that the GOP put out Palin as their version of Clinton for women voters in the election. However, Steele is not running for elected office. He was chosen to head the party as its chairman. There is a huge difference between being a candidate and being a party chairman. Steele's primary goals will be fundraising and spreading the GOP message in a better manner.
The primary purpose for electing Steele is not to copy the Democratic Party or make history. I believe your assertions are far off-base in this regard. Barack Obama being elected President is what history will remember, not the selection of Michael Steele as GOP Chairman. The Democrats already did that in 1989 when they elected Ron Brown. Therefore, if the GOP is copying the Democratic Party as you claim, they are copying something they did 20 years ago, a far cry from trying to "out-black" Obama as you insinuate.
You are more than entitled to your opinion, however I feel that your viewpoints are strongly misguided.
Posted By: Adam B. (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 12:35 AM
"Who cares if Sarah Palin had nothing in common with Hilary Clinton but old vaginas"
I hope you're also planning to comment on Biden's & McCain's old penises?
You're right, the American populous IS smarter than some people thought, and one of us suggests re-reading editorials before publishing them.
Posted By: Older and tired of sexism (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 03:06 AM
Adam B, allow me to play Devil's advocate here.
1. Yes Ryan dropped out, but you're telling me that there were no Republicans in Illinois that could have been nominated? As we've seen with Roland Burris, there is always somebody willing to take the booby prize. And then, once they decide to fly someone in they choose Alan Keyes? Again, no Republicans anywhere else who would just be happy to be in a race for a Senate seat?
2. Steele's win was no slam dunk. To a lot of hard core Repubs, he's a RINO. It did take him six ballots to get the win.
3. Do you think Steele would have even been in the conversation if Hillary had won the Dem nomination and the White House? Or John Edwards or Joe Biden?
Posted By: Rob Bonnette (Registered) on February 01, 2009 at 05:46 AM
Adam's right. Steele was the best qualified candidate in the running, and the only one who could string five words together without sounding like an extra from Deliverance. I'm sure he saw Obama's election as an opportunity to win the RNC chairmanship, but I don't think it's as simple as "the Republicans chose a black guy, too" because it was a competitive process and wasn't even settled until the fourth ballot. Steele earned his spot. Now is his chance to show what he's made of.
Posted By: The Great Hibachi (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 06:18 AM
While I think Steele's race is a factor in his selection, he's hardly the token black guy (Palin was another matter, but oddly she's not any more).
The Republicans seem to be trying to rebrand themselves as fiscal conservatives first and social conservatives second, and that's where Steele comes in. He's a bright mind and advocate for low taxes and spending.
Most beneficial to him, though, was not his race, but his geography. The Republicans were forced out of the Northeast this Fall, and it's going to take a lot to make inroads through that region.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on February 01, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Steele saying stuff like this:
"You and I know that in the history of mankind and womankind, government -- federal, state or local -- has never created one job," "It's destroyed a lot of them."
... doesn't exactly inspire confidence about his qualifications.
Posted By: C (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Rob, I can respect those viewpoints and I'm going to try and reply to each of them. However, let me preface this by saying I can only speak for myself and not the party as a whole.
1. Alan Keyes had actually had high-profile campaign experience due to running for President in 2000. Was his run largely a joke? Yes, but he at least had SOME national recognition. I don't think many politicians would want to run in a race that was by and large not winnable. It would be nice to say you ran for Senate of course, but why would you want to be known as the guy Obama trounced? On top of that, since Illinois is a predominantly blue state, we didn't exactly have a multitude of options. I feel Keyes had the best chance at the time.
2. I know a lot of hardcore Republicans (I'm fairly hard-line myself, though I know enough to be pragmatic and that you have to give some) and most are ecstatic with Steele. It gets to the point where you have to swallow your pride and do what is best for the party (and by proxy the country from the GOP point of view). Look at John McCain. I supported Mike Huckabee in the primaries, but once McCain was my candidate I threw my full support behind him. The GOP realized that electing a more moderate outsider was their best chance, as almost anyone else would draw comparisons to Bush, which is the last thing the GOP needs right now. As far as Steele being a RINO, I disagree, as his social policies are by and large in line with Republican principles and he's a strong fiscal conservative, which is what we need right now. Is he the radical far right? No, but that's not what the GOP needs right now. It took six ballots due to so many potential candidates, since we did have six of them. I feel the rounds can't show like or dislike to Steele, as the bottom line is who wins. It's just like primaries for President. In the long run, nobody remembers or cares about how many it took, just that Obama and McCain won.
3. Are we assuming that the GOP would have still lost in the strong fashion they did? If so, I think absolutely Steele would have been considered and elected the same way. Again, Steele was elected based upon his more moderate, yet still conservative views. It wouldn't have mattered who the Democratic candidate was. Had the Republicans still gotten as soundly defeated as they did, you would have been looking at Steele to represent a new face for the party.
I know there are quite a few on here that see it as a ploy (there's already another column damning it), but I think it's a smart move by the GOP. Look at it like this. Right now, the GOP is at rock bottom and there is no place to go but up. Doesn't it help that upward movement to have a party chairman that represents the constituencies you are trying to make in-roads with?
Posted By: Adam B. (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Alan Keyes sounds like Kermit the Frog?
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 01:54 PM
I remember the senate election from four years ago. My dad is about as die hard a republican as you can get, and even he was disgusted enough by the Keyes pick to vote for Obama. Good times.
Posted By: Josh (Guest) on February 01, 2009 at 07:13 PM
Given you insist on using race a unit of analysis I think you are missing a very important difference. Mr. Steele has two African-American parents whereas Mr. Obama is only somewhat black and therefore somewhat historic.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on February 02, 2009 at 12:04 AM
I would like to introduce to you one of the first Mixed-race Personal Listings Service you may find on the Internet! It is created to black relationships between White Women and Black Men.Here it is b l a c k w h i t e friends . c o m
Posted By: christina (Guest) on February 02, 2009 at 01:38 AM
Alan Keyes, no longer a member of the Republican party, has commented on the selection of Michael Steele as RNC Chair. Read his comments dated February 1, 2009 at www.LoyaltoLiberty.c o m
Posted By: guest (Guest) on February 02, 2009 at 02:25 AM
Great article!! Too bad I didn't have to read it in order to know the information because like you said, "The American populous isn't always the smartest bunch, but they can see through veils as thin as these, no matter how dark a veil you slap on the GOP, it's still old and white underneath."
Ps. You forgot Rich.... Filthy rich!
Posted By: LawrenceNY (Guest) on February 02, 2009 at 05:43 PM
I love how this country is overly obsessed with black and white. Like there are no Asians, Hispanics, East Indians or, and this is crazy, NATIVE INDIANS.
I propose that a law is decreed where no couple can be comprised of the same race. That way, when they have children, they will all be of mixed race. Even homosexuals cannot be of the same race. If they adopt, they MUST adopt a child of mixed race.
Yes, the world will be better when we fuck the labels and stench of race and heritage away from ourselves.
Posted By: Anarchist (Guest) on February 03, 2009 at 12:05 PM
STAY CURRENT