Skip to comments.Want something worse than re-electing Obama? Well, here it is.............
Posted on 11/13/2012 1:08:28 PM PST by bestintxas
Michael Steele, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, floated the idea of running again for the RNC chairman position on Sunday.
Asked directly if he would run again on C-Span, Steele said, "It's not a bad idea. I can go shake up the house a little bit more, what do you think?"
"Are you serious?" asked the host.
Asked when he would announce a decision to run, Steele said, "Oh, I've got time for that."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Give the job to West, that will work even better!
He gets booted out, calls us racists, and now wants back in?
I hear Keith Olberman is looking for work.
Politics is so much fun. ;-)
This is not good, but it is not worse that the re-election of Obama.
We found a young lady in Arizona on another thread involving vehicular assault who is more qualified for the job.
We don't need their kind around here.
Is the guy running Brietbart these days a Mittbot perhaps? Anyone know?
When the Chairman starts picking the winners and losers you get a debacle like we had last week.
I’m with you. It may have been said in jest — but nothing — NOTHING — is worse than re-electing Obama.
Best to make your criticisms in terms of specific failures on his part ~ rather than generalities. I think he did a great job bringing in Hollywood lesbian supporters ~ even Lindsay Lohan ~ somebody got a picture of her without bruises?
Once burned, twice shy.
Steele is a nonstarter . . . . . . . . but, so is anyone who isn’t a guaranteed, 24kt, dyed in the wool, honest-to-God conservative!
But, the GOP is such a crap organization, they won’t care what their former base thinks.
GO TEA PARTY!!
Mike is pulling your legs ~ he keeps a pulled leg box next to his fireplace in fact ~ tosses one in every now and then just to watch the fat boil and spark!
You simply make the RNC irrelevant to Republican politics and that gets rid of the worst of the GOP-e.
Sorry, but, there is nothing worse than re-electing obama.
There may be things equal to re-electing obama but not worse.
We can’t sink any lower than we already have.
His handling of the NY 23rd congressional district (the Dede Scozzafava screwup) was enough to disqualify him forever, as far as I'm concerned. He took a formerly conservative district, did everything possible to bash the conservative who was winning it, and with Dede's help apparently has given it permanently to the Democrats, or at least until the tides shift.
He did? Wow ~ I thought that was the regular district Republican Committee who selected skuzzifuzzy ~ http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/17017/ny-23-scozzafava-tapped-as-gop-candidate/- that was as of July 22. All the other stuff came about LONG AFTER the Republicans didn’t run a primary or a convention to select a candidate to run in a special election ~ very Romneyesque if you ask me. Doug Hoffman was the candidate of that quaint New York party called The Conservative Party. Seriously that committee hadn’t had to worry about a candidate for ages The problem started when the local Republican Representative, John McHugh resigned to become an Obama lackey ~ take it out on that puke. Every other character in this clown show played a secondary roll and did not cause the problem.
One of the things political parties do is get behind their own candidates to the exclusion of outsiders.
Frankly, we'd be better off if we protected our party brand a bit more ~ this last year we had 16 known candidates for the nomination, and only 3 of them had been lifelong Conservative Republicans ~ the best kind BTW.
We should have controlled entry so that candidates who'd been Democrats, or Libertarians, or who'd accepted appointments from Democrats, or who were lead campaign folks for Democrats, or who made donations to Democrats, were FORCED to come across with some exculpatory representations, or stay out of our party and stick with their own kind!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28942.html ~ this piece, full of Steele quotes on the matter, suggests your memory is faulty ~ so unless you’ve got something more, accept the fact that you were wrong about scuzzyfuzzy’s popularity with Steele ~ Think about it we want to FLENZE Preibus for, among other things, turning on Akin, the Republican candidate for Senate in Missouri ~ and somebody still has a grievance about the previous RNC Chairman who backed having a Republican win the office ~ according to this article either scuzzyfuzzy or Hoffman ~ because, as it turned out, there was this Democrat running and all of us wanted to beat him didn’t we ~ or did we? So many questions; so little time.
Sorry, bad, but not worse than re-electing Obama. Not even close.
Over stating things, although I do consider Steele to be suboptimal for the job.
I believe that his problems were threefold: He was too much of an activist for the Rockefeller-Ford-Eisenhower old guard; Not enough of of an activist for the fire eaters who were to become in part the organizational backbone of the tea party; Widely viewed as an affirmative action pick.
Normally, the NY Conservative Party gives their line to the Republican. They refused to do so with Scozzafava because she was strongly pro-abortion. And FWIW she was also corrupt and further to the left than the Democrat.
As for getting behind your own party’s candidate, that wasn’t too far from the time when the Republican Establishment betrayed the winner of the Republican primary in Alaska, and instead basically let the current Senator Lisa Murky from Alaska run again after having lost the primary—winning because of corrupt support from the national party.
Return of the Corrupt Bastard’s Club in Alaska, after they had been shoveled out and several of them jailed after Sarah Palin won the governorship.
Steele was only one of those involved. Another was Newt Gingrich, who went out of his way to support Dede—presumably so he could get back into the good graces of Steele and the GOPe.
I used to work in NY, and lived there for quite a while. The chief purpose of the Conservative Party was to hold the NY GOP’s noses to the grindstone, especially on the right to life. As long as they did the minimum, the Conservatives would give them their line. Dede did not meet the minimum.
No way he new every significant detail on any of those guys.
Indiana, for instance, has a sore loser law that prohibits that but does Alaska?
I think there were questions about it. I don’t remember the exact details, but something about not having signed up in time to qualify for a write-in line on the ballot. Anyway, the responsible official in Alaska decided that it was OK.
But the real problem was that the party didn’t back the winner who was running as a Republican. Lisa Murkowski was kept on with her chairmanship of an important committee, giving the impression that she could bring a lot of pork back to Alaska, as her father had earlier. And somebody evidently paid off the Eskimo chiefs, who told their tribal members to vote unanimously for Lisa.
She ran as an Independent, and splits from the party on important votes whenever she feels like it.
I disagreed with them leaving her with seniority and on whatever committees she was on but she may have talents with older men ~ kinda' like that Petraeus girlfriend we've been reading about ~ ability to get under a desk perhaps!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.