It’s the second time (out of several hundred) where Steele has taken the right side on an issue.
On the other hand, I agree with you. Why is he out there publicly attacking Cheney, whose comment I must have missed, when he could have been attacking Obama for his recent very public announcement from the White House of LGBT Pride month?
Frankly, he did it because he sees a chance to shut up a dangerous critic on his own side who is making him look bad. Whereas attacking Obama might offend the Log Cabin Republicans.
THAT is not admirable at all.
Maybe I missed something, which is entirely possible, but I don’t see Steele in your light. Did he attack Cheney? What was the context? I also don’t see Cheney making Steel look bad. I know that he’s more outspoken and I’m glad Cheney is. However, I don’t think the chair of the RNC needs to be as outspoken on everything. It’s a hard call. If Steele jumps on everyone with whom he disagrees, the Republican party will shrink so that we will never win another election. However, I DO want the plank of the party to remain very strong with conservative principles. I do understand the arguments to the contrary. This is just MHO.
It shouldn't be an either/or -- he should do both. Publicly correct Cheney for his ill founded opinion, and YES, he should have attacked Obama for the LGBT Pride declaration. For starters he could have asked what the "T" stands for.
We need GOP officials to start holding accountability for themselves and representing those whom they seek support: US. If they aren't willing or able to do so, they should get the hell out and allow others to step in.
I’ll guarantee you that the libtard media is pitting conservative voice against conservative voice, and specifically asked Steele about Cheney’s comments, so Steele was put in the position of answering. I like his answer (and don’t always like what he says).
I truly do not believe Steele came out, unprovoked, and disagreed w/ Cheney.