RNC Chairman Michael Steele (a black man) is uncomfortable with Rand Paul’s opposition to the desegregation of lunch counters. I should think so. The problem for Steele is that he doesn’t have a vote in Congress, and Rand Paul would if he is elected in November. I don’t see how both Rand Paul and Michael Steele can co-exist in their current roles, so it’s pretty obvious that one of them needs to go. Anyone want to give odds on who that will be?
On the other hand, Michael Steele is just the kind of man who would fail to resign or be critical enough of Rand Paul to get himself fired. But, really, how can the GOP tolerate a chairman whose best defense of a racist is that he has a “philosophical perspective”?
hmmmmm … If Steele were fired for criticizing Paul, that might be the type of inflection point that makes it impossible for large swaths of people who reliably vote Republican to continue doing so. If the GOP can be branded as chest-beatingly hostile to non-whites, it could burn through their last shreds of credibility as a national party in short order.
I’m sure they’re telling Steele to shut his trap, but I don’t see how they can fire him and he’s such a loud-mouth buffoon that he may be uncontrollable – a real trojan horse.
“If the GOP can be branded as chest-beatingly hostile to non-whites…”
I only do this because I believe it, but that is basically what I wake up each morning intending to do.
Uncomfortable. That’s a nice way to understate things.
Michael Steele is the gift that keeps on giving. In all honesty, though, so is Rand and Sarah Palin. Please, give them more interviews, more, more, I say. Unfortunately, Palin won’t, and Rand has affirmed that he will no longer give national television interviews.
Heh – just to put a fine point on it, someone should ask Steele if he would vote for Paul if he could.