Michael Steele Compares Himself To Obama, Says Race Behind Calls For Resignation

video

by Steve Krakauer | 9:03 am, April 5th, 2010

» 12 comments

When this week’s latest “remarkable” RNC scandal broke this week – introducing bondage-themed nightclubs into the political discourse – the media and late night shows had a field day.

But many brought up how RNC Chairman Michael Steele could still have his job (since the scandal was hardly his first recently). On ABC’s GMA this morning, race was introduced into the discussion.

George Stephanopoulos set the tone of the interview by peppering Steel with questions about how many consider him to personally be a liability – and some think he should no longer be RNC Chairman “I hear my donors, I hear our base out there I hear the leadership,” he said. “We’re taking steps to make sure that we’re even more fiscally conservative in our spending.”

But then came ‘the question’ – the one you’ll see replayed all day today on cable news. Stephanopoulos asked a viewer question from “Myron,” who wanted to know if Steele feels “that as an African American, you have a slimmer margin for error than another Chairman would.”

“The honest answer is yes,” he said. “Why is that?” asked Stephanopoulos. And here was Steele’s answer:

It just is. Barack Obama has a slimmer margin. A lot of folks do. It means a different role for me to play and others to play and that’s just the reality of it. But you take that as a part of the nature of it. It’s more because you’re not someone they know. I’m not a Washington insider even though I grew up near D.C. My view on politics is much more grassroots-oriented, it’s not old boy network-oriented. So I tend to, you know, come at it a little bit stronger, a little bit more streetwise, if you will. That’s rubbed some feathers the wrong way.

There’s a lot here – the comparisons to Pres. Obama, the idea Steele is being “more streetwise” in his Chairman tactics – but many will react the opposite way, as MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough did this morning on Morning Joe: “When I talk to senior Republicans in Washington and I ask, ‘Why is Michael Steele still on the job?’ they laugh. and say, ‘What, you think we’re going to fire an African American in the age of obama? are you an idiot?’”

Will this be the end of the beginning of the end of Steele’s chairmanship? But at this point, it may be more important to ask what Steele might say on the way out.

Here’s the key part of the interview:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

abc, ABC News, GMA, Good Morning America, joe scarborough, Michael Steele, msnbc, RNC

Zakk

Here’s the crazy thing. I do think of Steele the same way I think of Obama. He’s a nice guy who I think I would really like to hang with, but overall I wish he would shut the F#@k up and go away.
Toshiba2

Steele is right!
The Real Royal King

This is really an unsavory stew the Republicans are continuing to simmer with no hope of it improving. At this point, even if Steele were to resign, it would seem to all to be firing. All of the gaffes Steele makes, and there are so very many, even the Lesbian bondage voyeur club, pale to the money issue. RNC fundraising stinks, but RNC expenditures are stunning. Steele has blown through proportionately more money in a year than W did in two (2) terms. Certainly, the Democrats have no dog in this fight, although I suspect they would like to see Steele remain Chairman for Life. Usually, the most recently serving Republican president or the most recent Republican presidential candidate have enormous impact on the chairmanship. W seems as interested in the party as he does in thrice-warmed borscht, and I am not sure McCain could lead a troop of Cub Scouts to Baskin-Robbins. It strikes me that, despite every stale generic poll anyone cares to cite, the dead and stinking possum in this picture is not Steele, but the terrible leadership vacuum in the party. That doesn’t seem destined to resolve itself anytime soon. There are more Prima Donnas and Primo Dons that in a Midwestern roadshow of “Giselle”.
felixw

TRRK, your concern over this matter is disingenuous. Anybody running the RNC will be subject to character attacks form the left (and from you). And if anyone needed proof, they should just look at what you say about McCain in this same post. I am sure you would have no problem with an upstanding character like Bill Clinton, but John McCain is too sleazy for you, huh? Of course, I understand why you would want to avoid discussion of real issues — 15 million people out of work, government debt threatening to bankrupt the nation, etc. But everyone can see through this Saul Alinsky technique by now, and understand what it is really is — just the constant spinning of propaganda to discredit anyone who disagrees with a far left agenda.
The Real Royal King

So, the same old gloom and doom, and tiresome references to Alinsky. It’s been a very, very long time since you have come up with anything to contribute Felix.
The Real Royal King

Sorry, I hit the “SUBMIT” too soon. For what it’s worth, the media does seem to be piling on in an unseemly, even if not unfair manner at the moment. But, we have been resigned to a bumper sticker news presentation these days, it seems. As for the character attacks on any RNC chairman, that is simply a gross misstatement of fact. The RNC was ably served by Gilmore, Racicot, Gillespie (a poor candidate for governor, but a good Chairman) and even Martinez. There have been some notable stinkers, Atwater, Mehlman and Barbour, but, on the whole, RNC chairman tend to perform their duties better than their Democratic counter-parts, Howard Dean notably excepted. Steele is one of the stinkers, but in an affable sort of way. He is more inept than crooked or mean-spirited.
writer

If Steele was a liberal, the King would be doing his usual…bawling his eyes out and crying ‘racism’ at anyone who dared to question such a fine man. Any and all charges of impropriety would be lies made up by rich over privileged white Christian males who have never faced the ‘yoke of oppression’. And just as the King has said he wouldn’t want to ‘label’ Louis Farrakhan, he would likewise not want to ‘label’ Steele.
The Real Royal King

When one starts a sentence with “if” one must use the conditional verb, in this case, “were”. So, you should write, “If Steele were a liberal ….” Of course, since the argument you make is spurious, it hardly matters. Steele’s ideology is irrelevant. I would hardly consider him a conservative icon, anyway. The essential point is that he is inept and ill-suited for his job. I am very happy he continues to hold it.
writer

Your elitist snobbery even applies to grammar. Well done. But back to the topic. For a long time now, we’ve heard leftists such as Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo tell us that any (White) person disagreeing with Obama doesn’t actually have disagreements. That’s virtually impossible. It’s only because Obama is black. As Janeane says, it’s ‘racism, straight up.’ So why doesn’t the same rule apply with Steele? So when you say Steele is ‘crooked’, it can’t be because you actually think he’s ‘crooked’. It must be because you’re racist. Aren’t you, (White) Royal?
writer

Point of grammar. “He’s more inept than crooked…” implying he is crooked, but the ineptness is to a greater degree. And pray tell, how was the argument ‘spurious’? You don’t mind ‘labeling’ others. You wouldn’t ‘label’ Farrakhan. So what was spurious?
TylerDurdin

Typical negro response.
NORBIT

Democrats have long used Racist Accusations against their political opponents as a means of stifling honest debate; but even more pernicious, they use it as a means of keeping their black voter base loyal to them, and firmly ensconced in their Ideological Plantation!