Micheal Steele wins as GOP chairman

[BMW540I6speed]

So the RNC now believes in affirmative action?

Michael Steele is not a moderate. And judging by his dismal performances defending right-wing extremist positions on the Bill Maher show he is not a competent spokesperson for any part of the political spectrum. While this may be a truly cynical pick, and it's hard not to think that after the GOPs past behavior, I'm glad they did it for one simple reason. There will be fallout from this within the RNC and any splintering of that party is good.
His election is telling, though. The GOP is so desperate to reinvent itself as a tolerant, multicultural party after three decades of divisive, fear-mongering Atwater/Rove political stratagems, it apparently is now willing to tolerate having a "magic negro" in the leadership post.

 

[Lemon law]

Oh how ever quick the GOP is to write the epitaph of Micheal Steele, when his tenure has not even started yet.

Come on admit it GOP, you really wanted Rush Limbaugh, but you can't afford Rush's salary demands in these tough economic times. And have to settle for Donavin McNab lite for a QB when everyone wanted a dogfighter like Micheal Vic.

 

[Moonbeam]

So what the hell is autocorrect?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So what the hell is autocorrect?

I don't know. Does it have anything to do with that evil paper clip character that sometimes pops up?

"I see you're trying to post some incoherent rant on the Internet. Can I help?"

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Oh how ever quick the GOP is to write the epitaph of Micheal Steele, when his tenure has not even started yet.

Come on admit it GOP, you really wanted Rush Limbaugh, but you can't afford Rush's salary demands in these tough economic times. And have to settle for Donavin McNab lite for a QB when everyone wanted a dogfighter like Micheal Vic.

Donovan McNabb is a first rate quarterback, way better than Michael Vick ever was. He might not make it to the hall of fame, especially without a ring, but he's not too far off either.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"going further"? Buahahaha... The reality is the GOP has been moving left lately... it's no wonder they are losing.

-Unitary Executive
-Unchecked pres/VP powers
-PNAC
-Invasion of Iraq


These are what you call "moving to the left"? Really?

:roll: Are you really that stupid? Picking a couple things(that are arguably neocon) that are pretty much hyperbole doesn't mean much. Plus, the D's voted for the use of force. So your 1 almost valid point is pretty much mute as both parties voted for it.

A mute point? Is that at all similar to a moot point by any chance?

Yes asshat - it auto corrected to the wrong word. sue me troll.

Take a deep breath buddy. Just correcting a common mistake :roll:

Pretty funny that you just felt you had to respond to that post with some lame excuse though.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"going further"? Buahahaha... The reality is the GOP has been moving left lately... it's no wonder they are losing.

-Unitary Executive
-Unchecked pres/VP powers
-PNAC
-Invasion of Iraq


These are what you call "moving to the left"? Really?

:roll: Are you really that stupid? Picking a couple things(that are arguably neocon) that are pretty much hyperbole doesn't mean much. Plus, the D's voted for the use of force. So your 1 almost valid point is pretty much mute as both parties voted for it.

Oh, I get it now. Anything that you think is OK is right-wing, anything you disagree with is considered "liberal" or "left wing". Got it. Brilliant thought process on your part. Maybe a logic class it your local CC is in order?

And what does who voted for it have to do with anything? Answer: nothing, troll.

Invading countries without reason is a right-wing act, not liberal. Nixon and Bush both support the unitary executive theory of unlimited executive power, that sure is hell isn't "liberal", are you that clueless?

Expanding government power without any checks or balances isn't liberl, either, and that's what Bush did (or tried).

You fail at logic. Go troll elsewhere.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:roll: Are you really that stupid? Picking a couple things(that are arguably neocon) that are pretty much hyperbole doesn't mean much. Plus, the D's voted for the use of force. So your 1 almost valid point is pretty much mute as both parties voted for it.

A mute point? Is that at all similar to a moot point by any chance?

Yes asshat - it auto corrected to the wrong word. sue me troll.

Offhand, can you tell me what you typed that it autocorrected some misspelling of 'moot' to 'mute'? I've been trying to replicate it, but so far no luck.

:roll: no. I don't remember. Does it matter that much to you or are you just trolling again?

Caught red handed saying something really stupid and instead of owning up to it you deny, obfuscate and lie. Yep, you are heading to the right.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Pepsei
on 2nd

Michael Steele:

Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons or any gun that they want?

Michael Steele: Well, I mean you draw the line. I mean, what do you need an assault weapon for? I mean, if going hunting, I think that?s a little overkill or whatever, but the reality of it is, I think it?s important for a society, a community to draw the lines as we?ve drawn in a number of other constitutional areas, but I don?t think that that means that you go to a total ban for those who want to use guns for skeet shooting and hobbying and hunting and things like that.

Ok, that's fail. No way will he last long. He just turned off a good amount of the base.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but appealing to the GOP base is what the Republicans have been trying for the last two elections and the results were catastrophic.

I hope you are joking, there's no way you're this dumb.

 

[JD50]

I guess I should have read the whole thread before responding to eskimospy, I didn't realize that this thread was now about Cad's using the word "mute" instead of "moot". What a bunch of morons.

And to those of you that think that the last 8 years of big government, big spending, nanny state, irresponsible Republicans come even close to resembling real conservative values....yea, that's pretty dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Pepsei
on 2nd

Michael Steele:

Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons or any gun that they want?

Michael Steele: Well, I mean you draw the line. I mean, what do you need an assault weapon for? I mean, if going hunting, I think that?s a little overkill or whatever, but the reality of it is, I think it?s important for a society, a community to draw the lines as we?ve drawn in a number of other constitutional areas, but I don?t think that that means that you go to a total ban for those who want to use guns for skeet shooting and hobbying and hunting and things like that.

Ok, that's fail. No way will he last long. He just turned off a good amount of the base.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but appealing to the GOP base is what the Republicans have been trying for the last two elections and the results were catastrophic.

I hope you are joking, there's no way you're this dumb.

Uhmmm, no. '06 was a classic appeal to the base, and '08 saw a moderate candidate (McCain) repudiate almost every single one of his moderate positions for a hard right stance along with the selection of an ultra-right running mate. He tacked hard right on the Bush tax cuts, habeas corpus, offshore drilling, warrantless wiretapping, the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and so on... and on... and on...the list is huge. Are you saying there was another reason they were doing this other than to appeal to the base?

Don't be silly.

 

[quest55720]

I need to find out more about him. If he is a real fiscal conservative then I am all for this pick. The party has gone way way to far left on spending and expanding government.

 

[AlienCraft]

That he's Black is just a coincidence, right? Why sure it is!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Caught red handed saying something really stupid and instead of owning up to it you deny, obfuscate and lie. Yep, you are heading to the right.

OR, telling the truth.... but you wouldn't know much about that... :roll:

You taking up the troll flag now? or are you going to post something on subject?

 

[LegendKiller]

This is such a joke. I'd love to think they voted him in based upon his qualifications and merit, but this just seems like such a blatant pandering to the non-core republican base at this point. First, they made the "me too" grab with Palin, trying to get women on board. Now they look like they are pulling a "me too" with the black vote. I don't know too much about Steele, so maybe somebody can shoot that idea down.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
"going further"? Buahahaha... The reality is the GOP has been moving left lately... it's no wonder they are losing.

-Unitary Executive
-Unchecked pres/VP powers
-PNAC
-Invasion of Iraq


These are what you call "moving to the left"? Really?

:roll: Are you really that stupid? Picking a couple things(that are arguably neocon) that are pretty much hyperbole doesn't mean much. Plus, the D's voted for the use of force. So your 1 almost valid point is pretty much mute as both parties voted for it.

Oh, I get it now. Anything that you think is OK is right-wing, anything you disagree with is considered "liberal" or "left wing". Got it. Brilliant thought process on your part. Maybe a logic class it your local CC is in order?

And what does who voted for it have to do with anything? Answer: nothing, troll.

Invading countries without reason is a right-wing act, not liberal. Nixon and Bush both support the unitary executive theory of unlimited executive power, that sure is hell isn't "liberal", are you that clueless?

Expanding government power without any checks or balances isn't liberl, either, and that's what Bush did (or tried).

You fail at logic. Go troll elsewhere.

lol, for someone who claims *I* need logic classes you sure do a piss poor job of supporting your conclusions about what I think. You see, logic means every step lines up and provides a path from beginning to end. Your spittle spew "logic" is missing quite a few steps, likely due to ASSumptions on your part.

The "invasion" was a bipartisan thing if one actually looks at the voting instead of the hyperbole. So while some of you libs want to try to erase that from your history - you can't. Also, "invasion of Iraq" isn't a ideal that left or right have so it's doesn't really help your argument.

Again, if you would READ, you'd know why you fail. You can whine about Bush all you want but the things you point out are arguably neocon - which yes - is LEFT of Conservative in many of the things they believe.

So again, for the morAns - the GOP has been moving left - not right in it's recent past and there has been no rational explaination to the contrary - especially when one looks at things as a whole.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:laugh: Gotta love the AP editorializing in it's "news". "the most moderate candidate in the field"...according to who's definition? A liberals? Puhleeze.

Anyway, I support Steele as GOP head and hope he does help remake the GOP into a better party but if that means becoming less Conservative - he will find his tenure short lived... The GOP masses are looking for strong Conservative leadership - not spineless BS.

Here teh problem with that... We went through 8 years of a strong conservative + control of house and senate for the first 6 and now the public sees what we got. its not going to happen again, sorry to break it to you.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Caught red handed saying something really stupid and instead of owning up to it you deny, obfuscate and lie. Yep, you are heading to the right.

OR, telling the truth.... but you wouldn't know much about that... :roll:

You taking up the troll flag now? or are you going to post something on subject?

Text

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Caught red handed saying something really stupid and instead of owning up to it you deny, obfuscate and lie. Yep, you are heading to the right.

OR, telling the truth.... but you wouldn't know much about that... :roll:

You taking up the troll flag now? or are you going to post something on subject?

I note you still haven't simply admitted "my mistake, I meant moot" (which would have ended all debate) and have resorted to excuses about computer error on a believability par with "I didn't inhale" thus feeding the fire with your denials, but let's move on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...itics/31repubs.html?hp

"We have an image problem,? [Steele] said. ?I think how we begin to correct that image problem is defining ourselves to the people of this country.?

?We?ve been misidentified as a party that doesn?t care, a party that is insensitive, a party that is unconcerned about minorities,? he said, adding, ?Nothing can be further from the truth.?
...

In a final ballot fraught with racial and political symbolism, Mr. Steele faced as his only remaining opponent Katon Dawson, the chairman of the South Carolina party, who had been criticized for belonging to a whites-only country club

Let's talk facts. You whine and moan about the librul media, and the AP's coverage. Here's the facts. Steele's final opponent for the chairmanship belonged to a club whose charter mandates only whites can be members. The image problem of republicans is not the media's doing, it's reality's doing. It's great that they ultimately rejected Dawson in favor of Steele, but for Steele to claim that republicans actually do care about minorities and aren't insenstitive when the runner up for chairmanship of the party belonged to a "no blacks" country club for 12 years is fairly disingenuous.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
This is such a joke. I'd love to think they voted him in based upon his qualifications and merit, but this just seems like such a blatant pandering to the non-core republican base at this point. First, they made the "me too" grab with Palin, trying to get women on board. Now they look like they are pulling a "me too" with the black vote. I don't know too much about Steele, so maybe somebody can shoot that idea down.

It's like the GOP chose Uncle Remus to head the Klan.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Caught red handed saying something really stupid and instead of owning up to it you deny, obfuscate and lie. Yep, you are heading to the right.

OR, telling the truth.... but you wouldn't know much about that... :roll:

You taking up the troll flag now? or are you going to post something on subject?

I note you still haven't simply admitted "my mistake, I meant moot" (which would have ended all debate) and have resorted to excuses about computer error on a believability par with "I didn't inhale" thus feeding the fire with your denials, but let's move on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...itics/31repubs.html?hp

"We have an image problem,? [Steele] said. ?I think how we begin to correct that image problem is defining ourselves to the people of this country.?

?We?ve been misidentified as a party that doesn?t care, a party that is insensitive, a party that is unconcerned about minorities,? he said, adding, ?Nothing can be further from the truth.?
...

In a final ballot fraught with racial and political symbolism, Mr. Steele faced as his only remaining opponent Katon Dawson, the chairman of the South Carolina party, who had been criticized for belonging to a whites-only country club

Let's talk facts. You whine and moan about the librul media, and the AP's coverage. Here's the facts. Steele's final opponent for the chairmanship belonged to a club whose charter mandates only whites can be members. The image problem of republicans is not the media's doing, it's reality's doing. It's great that they ultimately rejected Dawson in favor of Steele, but for Steele to claim that republicans actually do care about minorities and aren't insenstitive when the runner up for chairmanship of the party belonged to a "no blacks" country club for 12 years is fairly disingenuous.

Except I did when I berated jman19 for trying to troll with it. It was a fuck up and obviously I know the difference but as usual around here when the libs can't back up their BS they troll the poster.

Uh so? The other person was part of an exclusive club - and? Do that then automatically disqualify someone who is/was ever a part of the black caucus? And even further, just because you libs and the media want to protray racism in the R party does not mean it's reality. 1 person who YOU think might be racist due to membership in a golf club doesn't make it so. Otherwise, going by your "logic" the D party is racist due to Byrd. F'n hack.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:laugh: Gotta love the AP editorializing in it's "news". "the most moderate candidate in the field"...according to who's definition? A liberals? Puhleeze.

Anyway, I support Steele as GOP head and hope he does help remake the GOP into a better party but if that means becoming less Conservative - he will find his tenure short lived... The GOP masses are looking for strong Conservative leadership - not spineless BS.

Here teh problem with that... We went through 8 years of a strong conservative + control of house and senate for the first 6 and now the public sees what we got. its not going to happen again, sorry to break it to you.

No we didn't. There was not 8 years of "strong conservative". That's what I've been showing you. Just because you libs want to claim it was conservative doesn't make it so. Republican does not automatically mean Conservative and the last 6 years have proven it - both in the White House and Congress. And yes, the public saw what unConservative R "leadership" will do and voted them out. I say good riddance and lets bring on some real Conservatives and strong leaders because we will need it after seeing what only 2 years of lib control of Congress has done. Hopefully people will wake up from their "change" trance before things get too out of control and I think Steele just might be the guy to articulate what good Conservative leadership can do for the country. Time will tell if he succeeds - just as it will for your messiah.

 

[Lemon law]

I somehow doubt Cad makes a good argument with "No we didn't. There was not 8 years of "strong conservative". That's what I've been showing you. Just because you libs want to claim it was conservative doesn't make it so. Republican does not automatically mean Conservative and the last 6 years have proven it - both in the White House and Congress. And yes, the public saw what unConservative R "leadership" will do and voted them out. I say good riddance and lets bring on some real Conservatives and strong leaders because we will need it after seeing what only 2 years of lib control of Congress has done. Hopefully people will wake up from their "change" trance before things get too out of control and I think Steele just might be the guy to articulate what good Conservative leadership can do for the country. Time will tell if he succeeds - just as it will for your messiah."

Not when the GOP leadership went lock stock and barrel in support of GWB&co during all eight years of the GWB administration. The Cad argument in my mind represents more of the Rush Limbaugh faction of the GOP, that basically only represents about 25% of the total GOP vote, and only about 10% of the national vote.

But since the RNC chairman is purely a GOP decision, what we have here is the more rational 75% of GOP votes over ruling the 25% GOP fringe that wants a lock step continuation of GOP gridlocking of all national legislation. And with the elections of 11/2006 and 11/2008, basically vindicating the more rational and honest 75% of the GOP and discrediting the irrational 25% of the GOP, the election of Micheal Steele as RNC chairman may be a bitter pill for Cad to swallow, but its good news for 90% of the entire nation.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I somehow doubt Cad makes a good argument with "No we didn't. There was not 8 years of "strong conservative". That's what I've been showing you. Just because you libs want to claim it was conservative doesn't make it so. Republican does not automatically mean Conservative and the last 6 years have proven it - both in the White House and Congress. And yes, the public saw what unConservative R "leadership" will do and voted them out. I say good riddance and lets bring on some real Conservatives and strong leaders because we will need it after seeing what only 2 years of lib control of Congress has done. Hopefully people will wake up from their "change" trance before things get too out of control and I think Steele just might be the guy to articulate what good Conservative leadership can do for the country. Time will tell if he succeeds - just as it will for your messiah."

Not when the GOP leadership went lock stock and barrel in support of GWB&co during all eight years of the GWB administration. The Cad argument in my mind represents more of the Rush Limbaugh faction of the GOP, that basically only represents about 25% of the total GOP vote, and only about 10% of the national vote.

But since the RNC chairman is purely a GOP decision, what we have here is the more rational 75% of GOP votes over ruling the 25% GOP fringe that wants a lock step continuation of GOP gridlocking of all national legislation. And with the elections of 11/2006 and 11/2008, basically vindicating the more rational and honest 75% of the GOP and discrediting the irrational 25% of the GOP, the election of Micheal Steele as RNC chairman may be a bitter pill for Cad to swallow, but its good news for 90% of the entire nation.

No CAD is right GWB was a social conservative and fiscal liberal. If fiscal conservatives are the fringe then I am right there. The republican party under GWB turned in the democratic party light on fiscal issues. Big spending running up huge deficits are not what a fiscal conservative would do. Now that GWB is gone the republican party can move back to the right fiscally.

 

[Lemon law]

Cad and quest55720 would have a point with "No CAD is right GWB was a social conservative and fiscal liberal. If fiscal conservatives are the fringe then I am right there. The republican party under GWB turned in the democratic party light on fiscal issues. Big spending running up huge deficits are not what a fiscal conservative would do. Now that GWB is gone the republican party can move back to the right fiscally."

But its a totally ridiculous point to later claim you have the right version of "consevatism", when these very folks now claiming to be true conservatives were missing in action opposing the GWB platform back when the worse damages were being done.

In other words, Cad and Quest55720 are simply engaging in revisionist history.

The fact is that in terms of regulations, conservatives got exactkly what they had been bellyaching for for 50 years, and even went back as far as dismantling regulations and reforms put in place by Teddy Roosevelt. And most of GWB fiscal policy is Ronald Reagan the 2'nd, and I sure don't see Cad or Quest denouncing that even now.

Leaving them with the same circular Limbaugh argument, true conservatism always works, Liberalism always fails, yet nobody knows what either is when its happening.