Steele just ain’t up to the job

It’s starting to look like the selection of Michael Steele as chairman of the Republican National Committee was, at best,  a lame Republican attempt at affirmative action and, at worst, the latest gross mistake by a party that just can’t seem to get anything right.

When Steele was selected, some wondered if he was the right person for the job. His job performance since taking the post appears to confirm those fears.

The latest FUBAR with right wing blowhard Rush Limbaugh is just the latest in a growing series of screwups by Steele and few expect the missteps to end.

Where’s the inclusion, Steele?In an Ideas piece, Solomonese says GOP chairman seems focused more on style than substance. [Politico]

4 Responses to "Steele just ain’t up to the job"

  1. spartacus  March 5, 2009 at 11:52 am

    When even the elected ‘leader’ of the Republican party is dressed down by Limbaugh, told he IS NOT the leader of the Republcan party, and then feels that he needs to genuflect and pray at Rush’s altar by crawling to him and apologising for daring to say what 90% of the American public thinks about Limbaugh, then that ‘leader’, Mr. Steele, definitely has a problem. Personally, I have always thought Steele is an idiot (receiving DC TV stations gave me more than enough exposure to him over the years to form that opinion). However, I didn’t believe him to be a gutless hack. Since no Republican dare stand up to Rush Limbaugh, and the few who have dared disagree with him on air have had to publicly apologise for doing so and beg for forgiveness, I’d say the Republican party needs to hold another election for RNC chairman and elect its true leader: Rush Limbaugh. By kowtowing to this loudmouth, drug addicted, racist, rude, obnoxious and ignorant blowhard, the Republican party is showing that it has no desire to be inclusive, but exclusive, since the majority of the public finds Limbaugh repulsive. By becoming subservient to him, they’re quickly making themselves not only repulsive, but a national joke.

  2. RichardKanePA  March 5, 2009 at 11:57 pm

    The problem is, Who rather than Michael Steele should be the Republican chairman? If Doug has a suggestion, perhaps the Republican Party will mill it over. As far as Rush goes, Hitler was once thought to be a clown. Rush couldn’t become anywhere near as bad as Hitler. However, Spartacus’s suggesting that the Republican Party pick the shillest person for the job is a step in an ominous direction.

    Historically, there was also “After Hitler Us” by some leftists in Germany.

    An afterthought: Besides Rush, Ron Paul also has a big following among people who usually consider themselves Republican. but when Republicans belittle Ron Paul the way Steele did Rush, they don’t later see a need to apologize. Why is this so?

    My guess is the mere fact that Steele was at first willing to take on Rush may mean he is the best person for the job.

    RichardKanePA

  3. adamrussell  March 5, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    He was right the first time. Its too bad that his GoP controllers made him backpedal. Republicans are all about using whatever it takes to win and the truth be damned.

    Ronald Reagan said it best – “The 11th commandment is that thou shalt not speak ill of another republican”. In other words – “If you see another republican doing wrong, just shut up about it. Party loyalty is more important than honor”. The republican culture embraces this value system. If any republican disputes this then let us hear you repudiate the Reagan aphorism. Tell us Reagan was wrong.

  4. almandine  March 5, 2009 at 9:31 pm

    There are a lot of assumptions being voiced here… most probably without much merit.

    Maybe Steele responded quickly to the Limbaugh thing, without thinking as much as he should, and then had better thoughts. A statement of Mea Culpa and all. No conspiracy of the “party elite” to deal with, no jukin and jivin to make up with Rush… perhaps a screw-up, but who hasn’t done that? From the comments you guys mostly post, why are you even interested in weighing in… other than to stir the pot?

    It seems to me the real issue is the one Rush raised – do we want to succeed at destroying individual liberty? Do we want to abandon our heritage and turn Socialist? Why not address the message and not the messenger?

Comments are closed.