Oh, Michael Steele

[Ameriplan]

Steele is in the unfortunate situation of trying to defend his party's past actions while also increasing popularity for the future. Not easy, but I'm not a fan of his.

[angus]

"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."...

"It was the president who was trying to be cute by half by flipping a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRmkef2wZo&feature=player_embedded

This seems, to me, to be a reasonable statement.  Obama and his surrogates bought support for the Afghan effort cheaply.  They did it by comparing it to Iraq.  I do agree with the statement.  Not that I agree with either effort--I wrote my senators (Feinstein and Boxer, at the time), asking them to vote NO when Bush asked for authorization for use of force in Iraq; as for the Afghan effort, support for it was also bought cheaply by George W. Bush, who exploited the lives of 3000 innocent civilians killed on September 11, 2001 in order to convince NATO to follow the U.S. into the poppy fields.  Nor am I a big fan of Michael Steele, for that matter.  He seems to be given to poor judgment.  Folks often focus on his verbal gaffes, but his administrative weaknesses demonstrated during his tenure as GOP henchman are the bigger problem.  Nevertheless, the statement, taken at face value, seems accurate to me.

There's sort of he question as to whether Steele actually believes what he said [or if he believes anything he says], or if he was just trying to score a cheap political hit on Obama's handling of Afghanistan relating to the McChrystal issue that served as the segue into his remarks.

Fair enough, and this particular sentence is the hardest of those quoted to defend:  "This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

I'm a little surprised he'd go that far.  But all the other quoted part is reasonable.  And even that sentence is probably more of hyperbole than anything else.  I tend to forgive hyperbole myself.  I often say stuff like, "oh, you gotta be kidding me, everyone knows that cozumel is a better dive than maui."  But of course, everyone doesn't know that.  It may be that I just had good experiences every time I dived in cozumel and only a pretty good (mind you, still pretty good) experience in maui.  Or maybe there are some people who have only been to maui but not cozumel, or vice-versa.  Or maybe some who don't even dive.  Or don't even give a rat's ass either way, since maui has different charms than cozumel and would likely appeal to different crowds than cozumel, etc.  But you know, it's hyperbole. Like, "Spider Man could kick Super Man's ass."  Okay, first of all, Super man is dead.  And long before he died, he was in a wheelchair and so you'd have to overturn his wheeled chair to even get to his ass.  And third of all, who'd ever want to kick super man's ass?  Even Lex Luthor stayed away from his ass.

You know what I mean.  He was doing the hyperbole thing. 

Maybe.  Then again, you may be right.  He may just be generally ignorant. 

Still, the statement in question seems reasonable.  I'll stand by that.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Democrats, rejoice!  Steele is staying! 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Putting Palin in would be like putting in Romney. Atleast the Romney folks rallied behind Romney supporter Saul Anuzis who had a legitimate claim to know what he was doing as a party chairmen in a Blue state who managed to avoid the fate of similar state parties like Illinois and New York during that same period.


Palin's pick would divide the party because, those not supporting her in 2012 will be looking to undermine her. She has no record of leading a party organization. Its not just fundraising. And worse, she has already picked winners and losers publically in many primaries. Picking her know would be a bad move.

It doesn't matter anyway because we can't get rid of Steele.