RNC gets black, too (no going back)

Yes thats him. Every time I think the Republican party has hit bottom, they did a little deeper.

Well, it may be a cynical move but I think it is a step in the right direction for the party. The fact that he is black doesn’t mean that they’re suddenly an equal opportunity employer or have a broader appeal, but I think it does force them to be more mindful of race issues. Is he a great pick? Nope, but they have to start somewhere.

And think of all the terribly worse people they could have gone with. Say for example, if they pandered to the base and went with Palin?

Well to be fair to Steele, he had to distance himself from other Republicans and play the moderate card, because he was running for Senate in the People’s Republic of Maryland to replace Paul Sarbanes. There hasn’t been a Republican senator elected from Maryland since Charles Mathias won reelection in 1980.

Republicans chose Steele over four other candidates, including former President George W. Bush’s hand-picked GOP chief, who bowed out declaring, “Obviously the winds of change are blowing.”

But the 168-member RNC clearly signaled it wanted a change after eight years of Bush largely dictating its every move as the party’s standard-bearer.

So all that sneering they and their mouthpieces had been doing over the Change thing …

There’s a difference, for lack of a better word I’ll call it a chasm, between playing “the moderate card” and camouflaging your party affiliation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092300889.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2153432/entry/0/

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/09/mdsen_what_party_does_michael.php

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/09/mdsen_gop_groups_ad_claims_dr.php

There is only one important question to ask about Michael Steele (I actually don’t know the answer here):

Is he a neocon?

The rest is hacking at leaves.

What? There are plenty of scummy non-neocons. Neocon is merely one flavor of the “scumbag” rainbow.

Ok, the “Steele Democrats” banner was pretty shady…

Micheal Steele: Forever Failing Upward at Salon.

As I brought up when you brought this up during Steele’s campaign, complaining about the color or not having his party on his signs is holding him to a standard no one else so much as even thinks about. Misleading voters, however, is pretty shitty.

Would you call “Republicans for Granholm” shady too?

How about…

Yeah, and check out this one, where Obama claims to be Jewish!

Dude, those other signs say STEELE in big letters and DEMOCRAT in smaller letter underneath. There’s no comparison.

Huh? My point on all of this is that all campaigns advertise groups that support them. Obama isn’t claiming to be Republican nor Jewish. Granholm isn’t claiming to be Republican. Steele isn’t claiming to be Democrat. But they all are trying to get members of those groups to vote for them. Teh horrar!

And as I said when Steele using standard campaign tactics first came up, if someone is going to use party affiliation as a voting criteria, they only have to look at the party affiliation identified on the ballot to make the “right” choice.

Yeah, and the banner behind them says “STEELE” in big letters and “DEMOCRATS” in equally big letters. OMIGAWD HES PLURAL!!11!

You know … About this particular guy? Whatever.

If it’s an indication that the RNC is willing to pursue a more moderate path and feel the need to drag every issue to the rightmost conclusion, I’ll happily celebrate it. I hope they see success with the move and that politics sticks to the center for a bit.

Knock it off, dude, I know you’re smart enough to get this. Every political campaign runs signs that say “<other party> for X,” which is understood by everybody to mean “crossover appeal.” They also all run signs that just say their name and their party, which is understood by everybody to mean “If I don’t know who this guy is, but I’m in that party, I should vote for him.” There’s an enormous difference between “Democrats for Steele” and “STEELE DEMOCRAT.” The former is standard practice and unlikely to be misunderstood by any adult, and the latter is an incredibly blatant attempt to trick people.

Look, I could give a shit about the new figurehead at the front of the lameballs party, but that’s a dirty trick, no question.

Worse than that is the sample ballot those guys handed out. It’s in the linked content I provided too.

All this over a missing “s” or “for” on one campaign piece? The banner in the picture had “Steele Democrats,” which is grammatically similar, if not the same, as “Democrats for Steele.” The misleading sample ballot had “Ehrlich-Steele Democrats.” I don’t really follow Maryland politics too much, so I don’t want to defend Steele too much, but this kind of thing happens all the time when candidates are running against the demographics of their district.

Indeed, and when this came up before, I was right along with you saying that the sample ballot was dirty pool.

BTW, the thing that really riles me up is your implication that Steele was being deceitful by using blue as his campaign color. If nothing else, I would really appreciate you either explaining that notion or stop putting it in your litany of Steele’s Evil Deeds (Done Dirt Cheap.)

Blue’s fairly well accepted as the color Democrats use. Red and blue America, right? By itself it’s not a big deal, it’s not a deal at all, but when put into the context of Steele’s other smooth moves it fits a pattern.

Blue’s also fairly well accepted as the color Republicans use. Out of the '08 Republican contenders, who didn’t have a mostly blue logo/sign? Hunter?

What’s weird is this is a new thing. See also, Regan’s “tide of blue” with his landslide victory.

I seem to remember hearing that the whole red = Republican, blue = Democrat business only dates back to 2000. Prior to that, the networks were in the habit of alternating them.