Steele calls on Reid to resign
From Fox News:
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele on Sunday called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for describing Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign as “light-skinned” with “no Negro dialect” unless he wants to have one.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no…
Bone headed maneuver. Reid is going to get throttled in this election, WHAT IS STEELE DOING?!? Why take a visible name, a recognized and reviled figure, and get him to resign right before the elections?
So the Democrats can replace him with an unknown individual who might win because he doesn’t have the track record and famous name?
How stupid can the RNC get??? This is an easy win in November if no changes are made, why jeopardize that? It’s not like the Democrat who will replace him is going to vote any differently for the remainder of the year. You’re getting the same legislative results, but allowing the Democrats to have a label change and minimize the risk electoral disaster in Nevada. Poor politics.
Just another of many reasons those of you who are Republican should give up on the Grand Old Party.
Latest posts by Mike McGowan (Posts)
- From one single father to the next - July 20, 2012
- Why isn’t anyone talking about the man - February 13, 2012
- Questions about the power of precedent - February 8, 2012
- Suffer not the Innocent to find relief - February 2, 2012
- Romney v. Newt: How the GOP and the conservative media killed the TEA Party - January 31, 2012
Print This Post
I believe Steele was referring to the leadership post, not the Senate seat.
Yeah. Talk about bone-headed. Duh.
The story has been updated since I wrote the piece. When I wrote it, the report only said “Steele calls for Reid to resign”.
In fact, upon a review of the article, the story has apparently been changed to the point where the direct quote I used has been entirely omitted…
I shal strive to be a little more behind the times in the future.
I think you overestimate the degree to which the average American still prefers weak, corporate-hack Dems like Reid over pretty much any obstructionist even-bigger-corporate-hack IGMFU Republican.
The party of Michael Steele isn’t likely to win Reid’s seat as long as they’re just the party of No. “Honest Injun!” as Steele would say…
Double post. And as I started writing the sentence in a different form, I left it as “over estimate” when it should have been “underestimate.”
Honest Injun!
@ Wonderin’
I don’t think I’m underestimating anything.
“Only one-third of Nevada voters have a favorable opinion of Reid, according to the survey by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research for the Last Vegas Review-Journal. The poll, released this weekend, indicates that a majority of voters in the state, 52 percent, hold an unfavorable opinion of their four-term senator. The 33 percent who see Reid in a positive light is down 5 points from November, with the unfavorable rating edging up 3 points.
The poll was conducted January 5-7, before news of Reid’s comments about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s race sparked a controversy.”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/10/poll-suggests-reid-faces-very-tough-re-election/
It shouldn’t be hard for you to be a little more behind the times in the future. That is usually the Twilight Time Zone of right-wingnuts. When the rest of the world is ringing in, say, the New Year of 2050, you guys should be celebrating the election of McKinley.
It probably can be blamed on the influence of Wm. F. Buckley standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” He was about as successful as King Knut holding back the tide, but Knut was wiser, knowing it was impossible.
Zzzzzzzz…
Ah, I recognize that sound . . . from behind the wall on the Wrong Side of History.
Mike, maybe if you’d spent a little more time reading, researching, and thinking and a little less time actually typing and posting… Just a thought.
@ Jericho
I’m on Central Time, when I posted this, it was 10:38 AM and the headline was half an hour old. I was on the topic quick, and, as is standard, the story changed as the 24/7 MSM picked up more details.
Proof that I did think about what I was reading: The players in the story began to clarify their remarks, and what I said should happen is what has actually happened.
Reid isn’t resigning. He’s going to get destroyed in Novemeber. The conservative who runs against him is going to use this line to drag him bodily through the mud.
Good times.
Should be a piece of cake in one way. Right-wingnuts always travel with a pot o’ mud or two. Easier for the flinging of.
Of course, the poll math still shows that, low numbers or not, Reid would still beat a Republican candidate. Low opinion of him or not, the people of Nevada still prefer a Democrat to one of the Party of No.
@ Wonderin’
I dispute your claim and label it “misinformation”.
According to the survey:
• 52 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Reid, 33 percent had a favorable view and another 15 percent said they’re neutral. In early December, a Mason-Dixon poll put his unfavorable-favorable rating at 49-38. The lowest Reid’s popularity had slipped before in the surveys was 50 percent — in October, August and May of 2009, when Mason-Dixon started tracking the senate race for the Review-Journal.
The poll also took a snapshot of how Reid would do against three potential GOP opponents. In each case — as in past Review-Journal surveys — it showed the senator would lose with only four in 10 voters supporting him. The potential match-ups would look like this:
• Sue Lowden, former Nevada Republican Party chairwoman, would get 50 percent of the vote to Reid’s 40 percent with 10 percent undecided.
• Danny Tarkanian, a businessman and former UNLV basketball star, would gain 49 percent of the vote to Reid’s 41 percent.
• And Sharron Angle, a former Reno assemblywoman, would get 45 percent of the vote to Reid’s 40 percent, a strong showing given her low name recognition statewide — 42 percent don’t know her.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-hits-new-low-in-poll-81060702.html
Jan. 5-7, 2010
You forget several things Mike.
1) an unfavorable opinion of Reid will not prevent Dems from voting for Reid over a republican. Study the complete partywise breakdown of votes in the poll, not just hypothetical matchups. Republicans would never vote for Reid; how many Dems in the poll say they’d vote GNoP? Study the raw numbers and not the cnn summary. 61 % of dems said they would vote Reid, but the remaining 39% didn’t say they’d rather support a Gooperj they’d simply prefer another Dem. Sorry.
2) the schism between GNoP candidates is pretty hefty. The talk is already about that the Red vote will end up split between RNC candidate and Tea Bagger candidate. The red split will ensure a Democratic victory. Again. Again and again.
@ Wonderin’
Well, the Dem voters who won’t vote Reid aren’t going to get another option, so they’ll 1) suck it up and vote Reid (not likely), 2) Vote third party (just as good as a vote for a Republican) or 3) Not vote (also just as good as a vote for a Republican).
In only one unlikely instance does Reid have even a glimmer of a hope. The other 4/5s of the time, he gets slaughtered.
One other point you neglected to mention: There is no “Tea Party” Party. There isn’t even a Tea Party candidate. The Tea Party, even though it is a mix of right wing people, left wing people, and moderates, will serve only to pull the Republican party farther to the right, and may have the same effect on the Democrat Party is Ms. Coakley’s performance in the Mass. Senate debate last night has any bearing.
As a matter of fact, it seems as though the Tea Party is endorsing a Republican canidate in Nevada, a Mr. Danny Tarkanian (http://www.truthout.org/topstories/120809vh04), so there goes that whole theory for ya.