DOWNLOADS: (155)

PLAYS: (2666)

Embed

Former RNC chairman Michael Steele was on MSNBC's "NOW with Alex Wagner" this morning and used the Ron Paul "states' rights defense" to attack gay marriage during a debate on the Prop 8 ruling with Don Choi. But when he was asked by John Heilemann how he would feel if a state passed a law saying he couldn't marry a white woman, he went into an incoherent and belligerent rant about his skin color making bigotry against gays different from racism against blacks, and used the typical conservative tactic of feigned outrage at even being asked the question. Huh? See, he didn't appreciate being asked THAT question when trying to justified HIS flawed position. Hey, Michael, racism and bigotry hurt.

Choi: Michael, I really get lost in some of your vocabulary, all I know is that when I fell in love it was worth fighting for and you can put all this vocabulary and talking about this state and that state, but bottom line is what translates in my book is that you don't think I have the deserve to be married in every state of America.

Heilemann: Michael, I'm curious about if you think it would be okay in modern America where it there would be in some states in America where black men could not marry women? If local states said that was unacceptable.

Steele: First off let's just be very clear about a couple of things.

Heilemann: Just answer the question.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (499)

PLAYS: (1909)

Embed

The whole Michael Steele debacle -- embodied in the RNC debate that took place earlier today -- really underscores, to a large extent, the realities of the 2010 Election. To wit: Why should Republicans be eager to replace their leadership in a year where they made historic gains in the House? Shouldn't they reward the mastermind of such success?

Indeed, that's a point Steele emphasizes in his defense. Indeed, he explicitly takes credit for the outcome in the House: "My record stands for itself. We won."

The answer, as everyone knows, is that Steele didn't mastermind this election at all. He was at best an incidental figure in the outcome. The 2010 results were not the product of anything concocted or engendered by Michael Steele. All he really managed to do was blow a lot of fund-raising opportunities.

So who WAS the mastermind of the 2010 Election? If anyone, it was Roger Ailes -- a reality that hardly anyone seems to want to acknowledge, including Democrats. Indeed, this was the Fox Election in every respect. Nearly every candidate who won got major a push from Fox. The most energy came from a Tea Party "movement" almost wholly engendered by Fox's relentless and unapologetic propagndization campaign.

The GOP owes its House victories not to Michael Steele but to Fox News. That makes Steele utterly dispensable, especially after two years of gaffes and goofiness. So Steele is out there promising to go all-out to defend himself. In RepublicanSpeak, this means he's going to viciously attack his opponents.

Gee, wonder if he'll bring up Saul Anuzis' predilection for mentoring young neo-Nazis. Or if he'll again claim he's being held to different standard as a black man. Get out your popcorn!

Meanwhile, in today's debate, Steele did bring up a point not very popular with the Tea Party set:

Calling the GOP "the party of Lincoln," Steele stressed that Republicans must continue efforts to reach out to non-traditional constituencies, namely Hispanics and African-Americans.

"This country is a lot bigger than we think it is sometimes," Steele said. "We cannot be a party that sits back with a litmus test and excludes. The national chairman cannot go into a state and say, 'You're less Republican than we are, I will not talk to you.'"

No wonder they want to get rid of him.

DOWNLOADS: (342)

PLAYS: (1011)

Embed

According to the Wall Street Journal, Michigan Republican leader Saul Anuzis is the front-runner to replace Michael Steele as chairman of the Republican National Committee.

We're sorry to see Steele go, because he's provided so much amusement over the years. But where Steele never failed to provide us truckloads of Republican dumbassery, Anuzis may more than make up for it in far-right wingnuttery.

You may recall that Anuzis argued vehemently last year that Republicans needed to attack President Obama's agenda as "economic fascism" -- and from the things he was saying then, it's clear he had become an ardent follower of the cult of Jonah Goldberg and his fraudulent "liberal fascism" thesis.

But Anuzis' thing about fascists goes much deeper than that, as Heidi Beirich at the SPLC noted earlier this week. Because Anuzis has not only long maintained an association with one of Michigan's leading young white supremacists -- a former campus activist named Kyle Bristow -- he has adamantly defended him:

Bristow led the Michigan State University campus branch of Young Americans For Freedom (MSU-YAF) and was so virulent in his politics that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) began listing it as a hate group in 2006. Bristow also served as a Republican precinct delegate.

enlarge

Credit: Courtesy SPLC

Kyle Bristow, left, and Saul Anuzis

Bristow’s MSU-YAF engaged in extensive racist activities. One of its first stunts was presenting a 13-point agenda that would have established a “Caucasian caucus” at MSU and, in turn, eliminated all student government representation for practically every other non-white, non-heterosexual, non-male or non-Christian student group at the university. Bristow was on record saying, “Homosexuality kills people almost to a degree worse than cigarettes. … these [pro-gay rights] groups are complicit with murder.” MSU-YAF sponsored a “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day” contest, held a “Koran Desecration” competition, jokingly threatened to distribute smallpox-infested blankets to Native American students, and posted “Gays Spread AIDS” fliers across campus. Bristow’s YAF also brought several extremists to speak at the MSU campus, including Holocaust denier Nick Griffin, leader of the whites-only British National Party (for more on YAF, read here).

None of this seemed to bother Anuzis. “This [Bristow] is exactly the type of young kid we want out there,” Anuzis, then already the GOP state chair, said on a radio program in May 2007, the year after MSU-YAF’s more outrageous activities were made public. “I’ve known Kyle for years and I can tell you I have never heard him say a racist or bigoted or sexist thing, ever.” Just this past October, Anuzis’ Michigan GOP issued a press release attacking a Democratic candidate for secretary of state because she once interned at the SPLC, which the release said used “fear and intimidation” in its hate group listings.

Since receiving this outpouring of support from Anuzis, Bristow has graduated to the top ranks of the American radical right. Now a law student at the University of Toledo, Bristow recently self-published a novel, White Apocalypse, whose plot revolves around a series of violent revenge fantasies against Jewish professors, Latino and Native American activists. A major subplot ends in the bloody assassination of a character apparently based on an SPLC staffer. Several notable white supremacists and anti-Semites have endorsed the novel.

Anuzis compounded the creepout factor Monday, when he went on Neil Cavuto's Fox show and said:

Anuzis: And I think we've got to get back to the fundamentals -- find somebody's who's basically going to make sure the trains run on time, raise the money, and then implement the best get-out-the-vote program Republicans possibly have in 2012.

Considering Anuzis' thing about fascism, maybe that wasn't an accidental reference.

Seem fitting, though, that Anuzis is being heavily backed by the Tea Party as well -- which is why he was so adamant in his support for the Tea Party's influence in the GOP.

George Zornick has more at ThinkProgress.

DOWNLOADS: (182)

PLAYS: (644)

Embed

All right, Chairman Steele. I'll take your challenge. You said this to David Gregory:

MR. GREGORY: Our investigative correspondent, Michael Isikoff, has said that "Not since Watergate have we seen this kind of special interest money without transparency washing into an election cycle." Are you worried about this?

MR. STEELE: No. I don't know what they're talking about. No one's produced one shred of evidence that any of that is happening. And, you know, I--look, you know, when President, then candidate, Obama was asked to disclose some of his donors because there was suspicion of their being, you know, the foreign source of money into his campaign, they refused to do it. So don't give me this high and mighty, you know, holier than thou attitude about, about special interests flooding, flooding the political marketplace. The Democrats have been dabbling in those areas and clearly disclose it. If you, if you think that there's something out there, disclose it, Nancy. Disclose it, you know, anyone else who's got that evidence. Don't just make the charge and sit back and say, "Oh gee, see." Give, give the evidence. Put the evidence out there and then let's have that discussion about whether or not they are, in fact, foreign...

MR. GREGORY: But, Chairman, are you denying, are you denying that there is special interest money, that there's outside money that's coming into the campaign that is not being disclosed?

MR. STEELE: I...

MR. GREGORY: We don't know who the individuals are in these, some of these groups that are sponsored?

MR. STEELE: I--Dave, how would, how would I, how, how would I know that? I don't run those organizations, number one. I'm prohibited by law from engaging such--in such activity, number two. So I know we don't take it, and I suspect that those organizations out there, those 527s and others know what the law is and are complying with the law. So if you have evidence to the contrary, produce it. Otherwise, put up or shut up.

I am here to "put up". And when I'm done, you should sit down and shut up, Mr. Chairman Steele, because you obviously don't bother to read much, or get out, or even watch the evening news.

Continue reading »

So basically, everyone says they just love DNC chair Tim Kaine so much, they don't even care if they lose Congress this year. And that yucky Howard Dean, the one whose leadership led to taking the House, the Senate, and the White House? They seem to pretend he had nothing to do with that:

Senior Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill are expressing confidence in party Chairman Tim Kaine despite the possibility of huge losses in the midterm elections.

In an interview with The Hill, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the Obama administration will “absolutely” have confidence in Kaine’s leadership even if Democrats take a drubbing this fall.

Axelrod praised Kaine’s work on the nuts-and-bolts of party building, especially in comparison to the more controversial leadership style of Kaine’s GOP counterpart, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

“I think Tim Kaine is out there doing what he should be doing — building the party, building the party apparatus,” Axelrod said. “That is what you want a party chair to do. That is the guts of the job.”

Even though it really upset party insiders when Dr. Dean did it!

Lawmakers and party insiders contacted by The Hill expressed unified support for Kaine’s work as chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and praised him for working to channel President Obama’s grassroots support into a tool for governing.

Kaine has worked quietly to integrate the White House’s political arm, Organizing for America (OFA), into the party’s structure while also juggling a heavy travel and fundraising schedule to prepare for the midterm elections.

Those efforts have seemingly insulated Kaine from the maelstrom of blame that can often tarnish party leaders who sustain heavy electoral losses during their time in charge.

[...]Kaine’s smooth relationship with congressional leaders stands in stark contrast to that of his predecessor at the DNC, Howard Dean.

Dean famously bickered with then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) during his tenure, though the former Vermont governor also attracted accolades for his “50-state strategy,” which some say helped Democrats regain control of Congress in 2007.

Kaine is much more reserved than the outspoken Dean.

The former Richmond mayor isn’t known for his sound bites, and unlike Dean and Steele, he is not gaffe-prone.

Thank God we don't have to worry about Tim Kaine ever telling Democrats they need to stand up for the voters! Because that would really hurt their feelings.

The Party of Fiscal Responsibility? Seriously?:

The Washington Times reports today, however, on a new matter that has nothing to do with Steele's notorious gaffes, and more to do with his notorious mismanagement.

The Republican National Committee failed to report more than $7 million in debt to the Federal Election Commission in recent months -- a move that made its bottom line appear healthier than it is heading into the midterm elections and that also raises the prospect of a hefty fine.

In a memo to RNC budget committee members, RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen on Tuesday accused Chairman Michael S. Steele and his chief of staff, Michael Leavitt, of trying to conceal the information from him by ordering staff not to communicate with the treasurer -- a charge RNC officials deny.

Mr. Pullen told the members that he had discovered $3.3 million in debt from April and $3.8 million from May, which he said had led him to file erroneous reports with the FEC. He amended the FEC filings Tuesday.

When it comes to consequences, the financial problem could cause all kinds of trouble for Republicans. Deliberately filing deceptive FEC reports is criminal, and could lead to stiff penalties -- if not formal charges -- before the elections.

And while the Republican National Committee is already downplaying the significance of this, there's reason to believe the party is aware of the seriousness of the situation.

Actually, despite the fact that this is not strictly Michael Steele's fault, unnamed members of the RNC are quick to start pointing fingers his way:

Mr. Pullen said that Mr. Leavitt, acting on orders from Mr. Steele, tried to limit his access to the unreported past-due bills that the RNC owes for goods and services by barring staff members from providing him any information unless approved by the chairman. According to Mr. Pullen, he complained and Mr. Steele then allowed the information to flow.[..]

A faction of committee members has been critical of Mr. Steele's fundraising operation.

Before Mr. Steele took over as chairman in January 2009, RNC fundraising typically far exceeded donations to the Democratic National Committee.

Back on May 31, 2006, for example, the RNC had $43.1 million in cash on hand compared with the DNC's $10.3 million. Part of the RNC's edge over the DNC stemmed from Republicans holding the presidency, though they were about to lose control of Congress that year.

Wow. That's a whole lotta money they've lost. And they think we should trust them with the deficit?

The first Republican Abraham Lincoln famously proclaimed, "My concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side." Now, in the latest sign of the transformation of the Party of Lincoln into the Party of God, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle declared the Almighty is on her side. And to be sure, Angle, who just two weeks ago proclaimed "God has a plan" for pregnant victims of rape and incest, is far from alone in believing in the Divine Right. As it turns out, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee, Jan Brewer and Michael Steele are just some of the Republicans who believe they have been touched by the hand of God.

Angle's revelation came in an interview with Ralph Reed, the Christian Coalition hatchet man turned Jack Abramoff crony. As Huffington Post recounted the exchange:

"How do you explain all this? You're now a national story, are you kind of overwhelmed by it all?" asked Reed.

"I believe that God has been in this from the beginning and because of that when he has a plan and a purpose for your life and you fit into that, what he calls you to he always equipped you for," Angle replied.

As Americans learned last month, if nothing else Sharron Angle is equipped with a heart of stone. Given the 2008 Republican platform and John McCain's prime-time mockery of the "health of the mother," Sharron Angle's extreme position on abortion sadly is not unusual among hard-line conservatives. But what is unique is her frankness in claiming the suffering of rape and incest victims is divinely mandated:

MANDERS: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

ANGLE: Not in my book.

MANDERS: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

ANGLE: You know, I'm a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

For Sarah Palin, one of those things can be found in her mirror.

Continue reading »

Oh noes! We sure hope they can't quit you, Michael Steele, the gift that keeps on giving. But just in case, is there a 99 percenter plan on wingnut welfare?

Open Thread below...

DOWNLOADS: (817)

PLAYS: (856)

Embed

Ron Paul went on CNN with Don Lemon on Sunday and actually defended Michael Steele for his bizarre comments attacking Obama for the war in Afghanistan:

LEMON: And before we misconstrue everything, you are coming out in support of the comment, right?

REP. RON PAUL (R), TEXAS: Not in the entirety. I come out in support of Chairman Steele because I think it was overkill. He made a casual comment. He wasn't setting policy and all of a sudden people jump on him like we're not allowed to have a discussion?

As a matter of fact I did like what he said so I enjoyed the fact that we're willing to have a discussion about the popularity of this war. And truly it is Obama's war, even though it was started during the last administration. Obama said this is the good war. He's expanding the war. The American people aren't with him.

The majority of the American people are tired of the ward and they'd like to see it ended; they'd like to see our troops come home.

I mean this idea that as soon as somebody has a discussion, even if it's not in the discussion, people are clamoring for him to resign? I don't think that's quite fair.

LEMON: Congressman, you have to let me get in on this because it seems like, you know -- I understand what you're saying -- you want people to talk about the war. But it seems like he wasn't factually correct. Very little of what he said, if anything, was correct factually in those comment. And he came back himself --

PAUL: What I'm saying --

LEMON: Hang on one second. He came back himself and clarified them. Why are you supporting him for a comment that he had to clarify?

(CROSS TALKING)

PAUL: Well, he -- I didn't hear his clarification. But if he clarified his statement because -- he wasn't making a policy statement. If he came back and said, I'm not stating policy, that is not exactly my position --

STEELE: But he wasn't telling the truth.

PAUL: Pardon me?

STEELE: He wasn't telling the truth.

PAUL: Well, I think you're not telling the truth right now yourself.

LEMON: He said that this war -- he said that this war was started by -- or basically saying the war was started by the Obama administration. No one even wanted --

PAUL: No, he did not say that.

LEMON: That no one wanted to go -- let me finish -- no one wanted to go into this war. In fact, when we went into the war, most of the country supported it and it was started, again, under President Bush. So most of what he said if not all of it was not factually correct.

PAUL: That's right. But he's saying politically this is Obama's war. Even in the last campaign -- as a matter of fact, I thought Obama was more hawkish on this war than McCain was because he was calling for increasing troops in Afghanistan before the Republicans were.

So I think in many ways, at least politically, this is Obama's war. And it is a political issue. The Republicans really suffered from the fact that the Iraq war continued for so long and hurt us at the polls.

So, I think that Republicans ought to have a right to at least say that maybe this war isn't going well and not blindly support every single thing that is being done. And then all of a sudden, if an individual does -- you know, people accuse you, oh, you're un- American, you're unpatriotic. You know, they pile on and then they pressure somebody like Steele -- like Chairman Steele that he has to back off.

He didn't have a policy statement. He was merely making a casual statement. And when he said, for over 1,000 years and even longer, nobody's been successful in invading Afghanistan, he is telling the truth.

Paul wants to have his cake and eat it too: He admits that Steele was just flat wrong when he claimed that Obama got us into this war. But he then wants to claim that Steele is right that it's "Obama war".

Republicans are such lovely creatures. If Obama were to play the consummate pacifist and immediately withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, the attacks would be even more savage. They're going to attack him no matter what he does.

Michael Steele's comments on Afghanistan remind me of my favorite definition of a gaffe: "saying the truth in the worst way possible."

To wit, Steele said that Afghanistan is a war of Obama's choosing, and that everyone who's occupied Afghanistan has come to grief over it. Now one can quibble a bit over the details of who came to grief and who didn't, but basically he's right. Afghanistan went badly for the Russians and the British, most recently. There's a reason Afghanistan is called the "graveyard of Empires" and if the US isn't careful it'll be the graveyard of the US empire.

Likewise, yes, this is a war of choice for Obama. He could have done his review, said, "Hey, there are almost no al-Q'aeda fighters in Afghanistan anymore, so we won, let's go home." He could have said, "Fighting in Afghanistan is seriously destabilizing Pakistan, which is far more important than Afghanistan, so let's go home." He could have said, "Yes, if we leave, some al-Q'aeda camps might spring up but we can always bomb them and anyway there are plenty of failed states where al-Q'aeda can set up camps and we can't occupy all of them."

The point is that continuing in Afghanistan was a choice. Obama could have chosen otherwise. Not being in Afghanistan will not create an existential threat to the US.

So yeah, Steele was right. Of course, being the RNC chairman, Steele isn't allowed to say things that make sense and contradict Republican warmongering.

Now here's a truth that Steele didn't tell. Obama has to stay in Afghanistan because war spending is one of the only reliable forms of stimulus he has. The economy is in bad shape, and it needs that stimulus. Since he can't get a new large stimulus through Congress that means he MUST keep the Afghan war going if he doesn't want an economic disaster, which would then lead to an electoral disaster.

This is the sad truth of America: the only acceptable form of Keynesian spending is military Keynesianism. Instead of hiring tens of thousands of teachers, building a high speed rail network across the country, refitting every building to be energy efficient and doing a massive solar and wind build-out to reduce dependence on oil, well, the US would rather turn Afghans and Pakistanis into a fine red mist.

That fine red mist is what's keeping the American economy from going under entirely. And so, even if it's the wrong thing to do, even if it's the graveyard of America's Empire, the war will continue.