Carol Platt Liebau: The "Iniquity" of Michael Steele

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

The "Iniquity" of Michael Steele

This piece by Howard Kurtz discusses the unveiling of Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele as the source of some very critical remarks about Republicans and the Bush Administration.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm always uncomfortable with this sort of behind-the-back distancing, but sometimes it's necessary. If ever a candidate would need to do it, it's a black Republican running in a blue state. Anyone who thinks that Steele didn't "intend" to be "caught" is crazy. There are a million other ways to convince reporters that one is what they'd consider a "reasonable" Republican without getting caught (for one thing, speaking with each of them privately would be a start).

Instead, Steele gets what he wants: A discussion of his "true" views about the Administration (which can only help him in Maryland), without looking as though he was willing to flip the bird to his party in the plain light of day (which would have alienated all 100 Republicans currently living in Maryland).

What's particularly noteworthy is Kurtz's comparison:

The only other public figure who looked as bad yesterday was former Democratic congresswoman Mary Rose Oakar. Now head of the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, she refused at least five times to say on the "O'Reilly Factor" whether she thinks Hezbollah is a terrorist group.

Come on. Does Howard Kurtz really intend to say that refusing to acknowledge that a terrorist group is a terrorist group -- and an enemy of America -- is on par with a Senate candidate engaging in what's become a relatively routine political ploy of "distancing" oneself from a controversial figure or party? Surely Al Gore, Tim Kaine and John Kerry -- all of whom have "distanced" themselves from someone or something in the recent past -- would disagree.

13 Comments:

Blogger suek said...

Oh my gosh...that woman is a _congresswoman_??

I saw the interview - thought she was "just" the head of the group sueing the government for not doing enough to safeguard people who had gone to Lebanon inspite of multiple warnings from the State department (no, neither O'Reilly nor she made any mention of this), and is of the opinion that the US Government should be flying helicopters into a war zone to fly people out to safety. And she's a _congresswoman_??? holy moses.

10:45 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Who cares about your corrupt party?

Americans are trapped and dying in Lebanon! Our soldiers are dying in providing security to the Iraqi government that funds terrorists and has police death squads.

11:21 AM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

United States Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said today that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki refused to answer his questions about whether or not Hezbollah is a terrorist organization.

"This morning I asked him directly, 'Do you believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization?'" Durbin told reporters after Maliki's address to Congress. "He did not respond. He would not respond to that question."

11:54 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Apparently you and Jill care enough to print some off-topic crap in a post about it...

12:46 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Oh my gosh...that woman is a _congresswoman_??

No, not anymore, but I don't think her Arabist views would disqualify her in a Democrat primary.

12:49 PM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

So this is what over 2,500 American have died for, what over 18,500 Americans have been wounded for, what the American people have spent over $320 billion helping create: a government that makes nice with Iran, backs Hezbollah, and some of whose members think the killers of American soldiers deserve a statue? We can't bring back those lives, heal those wounds, or recoup that money, but we can say enough is enough."

12:54 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Is this what our troops are dying for? No, it isn't. Our troops are dying in vain, just like in Vietnam. That is why every Vietnam Vet's heart aches, whether he admits it or not. It was all a waste. Now we have this war. Mission acclomplished? What was the mission? If it was to break the hearts of this generation's soldiers, the noble ones who sacrifice at the President's call, at last we can say to President Bush, well done, quasi-soldier, well done. Maybe after you are done wrecking the White House you could finish serving out your term in the military, they got a lot o' potatoes that need peelin', soldier, and you're just the man for the job.

1:09 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Our troops are dying in vain, just like in Vietnam.

"C'mon folks! We've got a war to lose! Now whose with me?"

Great election year slogan, that. Good luck with it.

2:34 PM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

eLarson only can think in terms of bumper stickers.

2:59 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

Charles Barkley: "I was a Republican, before they lost their minds."

3:22 PM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

As if straight out of the neoconservative playbook---

According to a former official, Israel and the United States are currently discussing a large American role in a “multinational” deployment, and some top administration officials, along with senior civilians at the Pentagon, are receptive to the idea.

A CIA officer said that the Bush Administration seems not to understand Hezbollah's deep roots and broad support among Lebanon's Shiites, the country's largest single ethnic bloc. “A U.S. force is going to end up making, not keeping, peace with Hezbollah. Once you start fighting in a place like that you’re basically at war with the Shiite population. That means that our soldiers are going to be getting shot at by Hezbollah. This would be a sheer disaster for us.”

3:35 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

What makes Viet Nam vets hearts ache is that they were not able to finish the job due to people like ditto and Jill. The same holds true for those who fight in the ME now.

12:30 AM  
Blogger amber said...

Marshal, I makes my heart ache too, truly.

5:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google