Thursday, March 26, 2009

Michael Steele Has a Plan...

Now it may not seem like a plan, but you just wait:

STEELE: So if I do something, there’s a reason for it. Even, it may look like a mistake, a gaffe. There is a rationale, there’s a logic behind it. […]

Q: There’s a rationale behind Rush, all that stuff?

STEELE: Yup, yup. … I want to see what the landscape looks like. I want to see who yells the loudest. I wanted to know who says they’re with me but really isn’t. … It helps me understand my position on the chess board. It helps me understand, you know, where the enemy camp is and where those who are inside the tent are.

And Michael Steele's next prolonged absence from media appearences begins.......................NOW!


  1. As usual, a very well thought our post. How do you do it?

  2. Hey, did you guys ever see the story about Steele shipping in Blacks from Philly to help sway minority districts into thinking he was a dem? I used to be a member of the Republican party until I first heard this, which kinda tuned me out of politics completely. I only bring this up because of this recent piece from the Sun:

    I don't understand, or know what to think anymore. Obama's big government spending is out of control, and Micheal Steele is a damn idiot. Eric Cantor has had some good ideas, maybe he can pull the republicans to victory in 2009.

    What do you guys think? I would like to have an honest dialogue.
    I am no troll, and only think you guys are wrong on merely 90% of the issues. :)
    For some background,I used to frequent Redstate, but their endorsement of John McCain put them at odds with my beliefs. Personally, I am more of a Mitt Romney Conservative (if such a categorization exists), but I am open to contesting my ideas.

  3. AWWWWWWWW!! :) :8
    HOW CUTE!!

    I see "Practical Conservative" has found a place where he can get his rocks off with liberals.

    Well my "conservative" friend, more power to you. Hope you burn in hell!

    Ironic how your initials are P.C.?

  4. @Anonymous

    My poor, lost, friend, come back into the fold! Those of us who seek smaller government as true tenets of conservatism are the true face of the movement! Comments such as yours are the reason why I left the far, far extremist websites. All you do is prevent good,electable candidates from reaching the voters!
    I probably agree with you on 99.999% of the issues, but in my many years I now realize that angry, hateful speech is not the way to win back the country! I LOVE Jesus Christ with all my heart, and want this country to prevail. As conservatives, we have to go to the issues that voters care about!!! How do you think we lost the cause, we started to focus on things like a gay marriage amendment (which should be left to the states! And not addressed via amendment no matter how many of us want that!)

    I realize that this is not the proper forum to address you, but I have no other choice. We can work together and "battle" liberal ideology with civil thought.

    Remember, we can be a stronger movement. But to be taken seriously we should not be acting like crazy lunatics.

  5. Practical Conservative-
    I don't think you'll find many Steele fans on this board, so I guess we all agree on that.

    I don't know terribly much about Cantor, perhaps JJ or someone else will be able to give an opinion on him.

    You said you disagree with 90% of our positions, which makes me curious- what do you agree with? I'd be interested to hear your stances on general political issues- gun control, foreign policy, reproductive rights, gay marriage, etc.

    That's the attitude that led the republicans to two huge defeats in a row- please keep it up!

  6. @Practical Conservative
    Welcome to the site! If you described yourself as a Mitt Romney conservative, then you're probably right about the 90% thing, but we're definitely always interested in honest debate.

    It's funny you brought up Eric Cantor though. Although I'm ordinarily no fan of his, I was actually about to write a post about how this week I somehow found myself in legitimate agreement with him and several other house republicans. And on his banking plan no less!

    There were few details in today's outline of the House Republican budget alternative -- but on the thorny question of future bank bailouts, the GOP had a clear plan. And it looks a lot like Paul Krugman's preferred method.

    TPMDC noted the first stirrings of the GOP's Krugman love earlier this week, when House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) joined the liberal economist in lamenting the taxpayer subsidy built into the Obama Treasury's latest bank rescue plan. But today's Republican budget alternative goes even further, directly repeating Krugman's past criticism of the Treasury's bailout ethose:

    "In sum, the message with bailouts of this magnitude is that your profits will be private but your losses socialized."

    Now, House Republicans go on to extrapolate a future of socialized losses as well as profits -- a prediction one suspects Krugman would reject. And then they go right back to Krugman-ville with this proposal:

    [O]ur plan supports a process to address insolvent institutions that stops throwing good money after bad into failing institutions and places insolvent ones into temporary receivership. ... For insolvent firms, either the FDIC or a Resolution Trust Corporation-type entity would restructure these firms in receivership by selling off their assets and liabilities, reappointing private management, while protecting depositors -- a process that builds off Washington Mutual's arranged sale last year.

    Although it's pretty unexpected, this is good news for everyone. If there was some way of pursing this legislatively, I'm pretty sure it would be a winner, something along the lines of the "good bipartisanship" coalition that voted down the first draft of the bailout.

    Hope you stick around and look forward to hearing from you.

  7. Practical Conservative3/28/09, 1:17 PM

    Thank you for the welcome.

    Good question. The issue that immediately jumps out is Gay Rights. I am infuriated when republicans talk about minimal government interference, but then propose an AMENDMENT defining marriage! That is not the government's role.

    Personally, I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Several of my good friends are gay, and I don't see any harm in them being married. Its just a word if we treat it as one, right?

    I do have a BIG problem with extremists on my side of the spectrum, who want to demonize, and spout hateful rhetoric using the Lord's name to justify such acts. It's TOO much, and too reminiscent of the inquisition.

    This, I believe, is one of the reasons why so many honest conservatives have left the party, because it means immediate association with hate and bigotry and "backwoods" America. An image, I feel, that will further alienate America.

    This is too much like Southern Democrats before the mid 70's, and their staunch refusal to recognize Civil Rights. You can only demonize and strip rights from a person for so long before you need to grow up or face annihilation.

    Newer conservatives, I hope, are starting to get this. Look, I think that you guys are wrong on matters of National Security, the War on Terror, etc.; just based on what I believe the threats to America are. I do agree with you on the need for Greener Energy sources and stricter pollution standards, but I equate this with national security and public health. Regulation, is not necessarily a bad thing. (Especially if We were in power :)

  8. "While this might turn highways in many southern states into dangerous warzones, Obama has rightfully noted that the results will be “fucking sweet."