Oh My! DeMint: Michael Steele Is Reason Why GOP Didn't Take Senate Too

There is a growing movement to oust Michael Steele out of the RNC Chair. Yesterday, Jim DeMint (R-SC) added his voice to the chorus:

The lack of a well-organized voter mobilization effort by the Republican National Committee could have cost the GOP “a few Senate seats,” Sen. Jim DeMint suggested Sunday.

Partly as a result, the South Carolina Republican suggested he wouldn’t support a second term for controversial RNC Chairman Michael Steele, saying on "Fox News Sunday" “I’m looking for some alternatives right now.”

“I haven’t decided who would support," DeMint said, "but we need a strong national Republican organization to help organize the energy of the tea parties and the other citizen activism that we are seeing out there right now. We need to make sure that we have a lot of boots on the ground.”

The senator said, “I appreciate Michael Steele’s service.” But he added the party’s get-out-the-vote effort lagged under Steele, asserting “where we lost a few Senate seats, our ground game was not as strong as it could have been. We were actually out manned on the ground.”

I actually think that it is a bit unfair to blame Steele for not taking back the Senate. There was hardly anyone before election day that thought that the Republicans would be able to overcome the 9-seat deficit to take back the Senate. Only 1/3 of the Senate was up and about half of those we'ree Republican incumbents. They would've had to flip almost all Democratic incumbents to do it. Three of those seats that were lost were from very heavily blue states of California, Delaware, and Connecticut, and Colorado leans Democratic most of the time. The only loss that was a complete waste of a seat was Sharron Angle's loss to Harry Reid in Nevada.

Now, he has been prone to gaffes during his 1st year, but he has seemed to have toned it down, over the past few months. I don't know, if I would agree with it, but his departure seems more and more likely with every passing day.

Too Dumb to Ingnore: Steele Said That Obama Chose Afghan War, Nearly Impossible to Win

At a RNC fundraiser in North Carolina, Michael Steele was caught on tape chastising Obama on the war in Afghanistan by saying that....Obama chose to be there? Ugh:



This is from The Hill in response this video:

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) pushed out the video, which shows Steele saying that the war is of Obama's choosing and that it is nearly impossible to win a land war in the Central Asian country.

"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in, he said. But it was the president who was trying to be cute by half by building a script demonizing Iraq, while saying the battle really should be in Afghanistan. Well, if he is 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?"

The war started with Bush 9 years ago, and Obama start the war. Bush did because we were attacked by Al-Quaeda, which were stationed in that country. They attacked us first.

Regarding his comment that it's "nearly impossible" to win a war in the Central Asian country, he referencing the history of the region. Invaders from Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union in the 1980's haven't had trouble conquering and holding onto the mountainous country. He isn't saying that it is impossible for the US to. win, but it doesn't sound that way from how he said it.

This is just another gaffe in the long line of gaffes from the leader of the RNC. He's quickly becoming the Republican answer to Joe "FDR is 1st President to address the nation via TV" Biden Hey, maybe Steele will be VP in two years.

Unfortunately for Steele, this won't be the case because he has an unforgivable flaw that Biden doesn't have. He is a Republican. So, the mainstream media won't let him forget his gaffes like they have done w Biden.

There have been increasing calls from the right that Steele should resign for a while now because of his foot-in-mouth affliction. This comment is just making it worse.

Michael Steele Backs Hoffman: Two Republicans Are in the Race

In an interview with Politico, Michael Steele caved to the those who were backing the Conservative Candidate Hoffman. He didn't chastise other Republicans like Palin, Armey, Pawlenty, etc for not endorsing their party's candidate:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said Friday that a victory by Doug Hoffman, the third-party candidate in the Nov. 3 New York special election, is a win for the GOP.

The actual Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, trails Hoffman, the Conservative Party nominee, and Democrat Bill Owens by double-digits according to a recent poll. But Steele argued during an interview with POLITICO that the GOP doesn’t need to worry about Scozzafava’s lagging ratings because Hoffman is essentially a Republican.

Unlike Newt Gingrich, Steele doesn't feel that going for Hoffman will destroy the party. In fact, he said that he will embrace the third party candidate:

“I don’t split the party into conservative or not,” he said. “I’m looking as the national chairman to walk out of there one way or the other with a win.”

“You’ve got two Republicans running in that race. My upside is that one of them will likely win,” Steele said. “We want to be supporting the one that wins.”

Asked if he would support Hoffman in 2010 if the Conservative Party candidate won the special election and sought re-election, Steele responded: “Why wouldn’t I?”

“Is he a Republican?” Steele asked. “He’s the Conservative Party nominee, but he ran initially as a Republican.”

This is a change from what has been said, so far, not from Steele himself but other state party leaders who nominated the more liberal Dede Scozzafava who were furious with Republicans from outside their state throwing their candidate under the bus.

Apparently, they've seen the writing on the wall, and the decision has been made by New York's 23rd district. The people want a more conservative Republican candidate not a RINO running for office.

Is Michael Steele Asking Conservative Commentators to Committ Media Malpractice When Discussing Sotomayor?

The GOP chairman raised some eyebrows this morning while substituting for radio host Bill Bennett by chastising fellow Republicans for criticizing Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor:

“I’m excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position,” Steele said. He added that instead of “slammin’ and rammin’” on Sotomayor, Republicans should “acknowledge” the “historic aspect” of the pick and make a “cogent, articulate argument” against her for purely substantive reasons.

Steele warned that because of the attacks, “we get painted as a party that’s against the first Hispanic woman” picked for the Supreme Court.

He also said that conservatives should refrain from speaking against Sotomayor because of how the overly liberal media outlets like MSNBC would react.

I personally like Steele, but he seems to have a Biden-like knack for putting his foot in his mouth. I wholeheartedly disagree with him on this issue.

Now, I'm not saying that we should just name call and make up stories to discredit her, but there should be a honest vetting process of his nominee by the press. We cannot be afraid to criticize her because the left will call us bigots. If we failed to vet her, we would committing media malpractice just as the media did when they failed to vet Obama properly.

Many people were "afraid" to vet Obama because he was the first black that had a legitimate chance at the White House. It wasn't right then, and it wouldn't be right if we didn't vet Sotomayor because she was the first latina nominated to the Court.

The "Affirmative Action" label probably should be avoided because there is no real proof that a reason why Obama picked her was her race or gender, but her quotes, legal rulings, and stances on legal issues are fair game.

As long as her race and gender are not used as reason why she shouldn't be confirmed and critics make a well-thought out and relevant case against her, it shouldn't hurt them with Hispanics. They must take the case to them, though. Maybe go on Spanish tv and radio to make their case why Sotomayor is outside of the mainstream and isn't right for the Supreme Court. Perhaps, they should also give a couple of alternatives of other Hispanic women that would be better suited for the highest court in the land.