Michael Steele - Time To Resign?

[Nevada_Ballin]

After his latest comments, maybe it's time he stepped down and let Sarah Palin step into that spot... :)


.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Zero comments on this. Now THAT is interesting... lol


.

[resnor]

I'm not even aware of what was said...

[resnor]

Ok...just Googled it...he's an idiot, and he's facing criticism from within the Republican party, and many are calling for him to resign. Probably should. I wouldn't be too pleased if a Dem was saying these things...and they did about Iraq...didn't see any of them resign. LOL. It's funny how when it's a Pub, people want their head. LOL.

[sideoutshu]

Zero comments on this. Now THAT is interesting... lol


.

Is it really that interestting? It's 4th of July weekend.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Ok...just Googled it...he's an idiot, and he's facing criticism from within the Republican party, and many are calling for him to resign. Probably should. I wouldn't be too pleased if a Dem was saying these things...and they did about Iraq...didn't see any of them resign. LOL. It's funny how when it's a Pub, people want their head. LOL.

If there's a Dem that said the same thing, he should probably resign too. I mean you have to have some sense reality. Which Dems have said what Steele said? I'm not talking about the "Obama's War" part, I'm talking about ""This is not something the United States actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in". Is he seriously that far out of touch? He tried to get on Obama for his "sense of history" and apparently doesn't have any of his own in a period he has been alive for.

And why is Ron Paul defending him?

And I do think this is the right job for Sarah Palin in the party. Regardless of her idiocracy, she could raise more money in a week than Steele could in a year.


.

[theanalogkid]

And why is Ron Paul defending him?


Did you watch the video on CNN when Ron Paul is talking about why he came out on his side. That would answer your question wouldn't it.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Did you watch the video on CNN when Ron Paul is talking about why he came out on his side. That would answer your question wouldn't it.

yea i saw it... and i saw him completely avoid the actual question at hand. He slid away from addressing the point that Steele had his facts completely wrong.


.

[theanalogkid]

yea i saw it... and i saw him completely avoid the actual question at hand. He slid away from addressing the point that Steele had his facts completely wrong.


.

No he didn't. He made the point that it is indeed becoming Obama's war and that he shouldn't resign over some casual comments. That's pretty much all Paul was getting at in his original defense of Steele.

[Nevada_Ballin]

No he didn't. He made the point that it is indeed becoming Obama's war. That's pretty much all Paul was getting at in his original defense of Steele.

He's swaying away from what Steele actually said, which was highly inaccurate. Ron Paul was just on CNN again a little while ago and he was saying the same things again. And it's a whole lot of "no sht Sherlock" comments. The "Obama's war" thing is not a problem. Of course it's his war now, he's the POTUS that has to make decisions on it. That's not the result of some deep-thinking philosophical epiphany. It's a given and it was made clear by Obama during his campaign that it would be the war he wanted to fight.

The problem arises when Steele was trying to blame Obama for us being there in the first place with his "no one has won a war in Afghanistan in 1,000 years" comment. Yo, Steele, maybe you should have told GW that.

Ron Paul is saying we need to leave Afghan right now and he's trying to align that as what Steele meant to say. That leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the GOP because they were the ones who always said that leaving is equal to conceding defeat. And that's what this conversation is about - does he need to resign as head of the RNC as a result of his comments since it flies in the face of everything the GOP has stood for during the Afghan war?


.

[theanalogkid]

The problem arises when Steele was trying to blame Obama for us being there in the first place with his "no one has won a war in Afghanistan in 1,000 years" comment. Yo, Steele, maybe you should have told GW that.


Steele didn't even hold an office in 2001.



Ron Paul is saying we need to leave Afghan right now and he's trying to align that as what Steele meant to say. That leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the GOP because they were the ones who always said that leaving is equal to conceding defeat. And that's what this conversation is about - does he need to resign as head of the RNC as a result of his comments since it flies in the face of everything the GOP has stood for during the Afghan war?


Republicans were the traditional peace party, since non-interventionism is actually a smaller government stance, it's only been the last few years that warmongers took control. Ron Paul holds the old Republican positions, unlike the majority of the party, and he's held those positions before you or I were born so I don't see how him repeating what he's been saying for the past 40 years can leave a bad taste in your mouth. In fact it shows he's actually got principles unlike the rest of them.

[sanantonio]

I guess I've grown so apathetic that I really don't care one way or the other anymore. The only reason I come in here any more is to joust with Sides, Res, and Sup and without Sup it's just not that appealing lol. Sorry Sides and Res.

In so far as Steele is concerned I haven't seen his comments but he's been a doofus for some time now so whats new? As for Ron Paul theres a time to be silent and a time to be heard he should have picked the former.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Steele didn't even hold an office in 2001.



Republicans were the traditional peace party, since non-interventionism is actually a smaller government stance, it's only been the last few years that warmongers took control. Ron Paul holds the old Republican positions, unlike the majority of the party, and he's held those positions before you or I were born so I don't see how him repeating what he's been saying for the past 40 years can leave a bad taste in your mouth. In fact it shows he's actually got principles unlike the rest of them.

1. No excuse for Steele not knowing when/how/why the Afghan war started.

2. No excuse for Paul to use his personal political opinion to defend above inaccuracies. It's fine that Paul wants to air his isolationist opinions but I think he's doing it on the wrong platform by coming to Steele's defense. He's jumping on the wrong soapbox for what he wants to talk about imo.


.

[theanalogkid]

1. No excuse for Steele not knowing when/how/why the Afghan war started.

2. No excuse for Paul to use his personal political opinion to defend above inaccuracies. It's fine that Paul wants to air his isolationist opinions but I think he's doing it on the wrong platform by coming to Steele's defense. He's jumping on the wrong soapbox for what he wants to talk about imo.


.

I'm not making excuses for Michael Steele nor do I care about what he says. It doesn't much matter to you since you think the Republicans have no shot this fall to regain control of Congress.

There's a clear difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. He also wasn't defending the inaccuracies. He was defending the general point that Afghanistan is a no-win scenario and that a person shouldn't just step down because of a casual comment. Joe Biden certain hasn't resigned over any gaffe he's made, neither did George W. Bush or Dan Quayle for that matter.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I'm not making excuses for Michael Steele nor do I care about what he says. It doesn't much matter to you since you think the Republicans have no shot this fall to regain control of Congress.

There's a clear difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. He also wasn't defending the inaccuracies. He was defending the general point that Afghanistan is a no-win scenario and that a person shouldn't just step down because of a casual comment. Joe Biden certain hasn't resigned over any gaffe he's made, neither did George W. Bush or Dan Quayle for that matter.

Where did I say the GOP has "no shot" in November? I think that's a bit inaccurate...lol.

Yes there is a difference and I think Paul leans towards isolationism. But that's just my opinion of him (along with being a nutcase).

The difference between Steele and the others you mention is that Steele has no place to discuss policy whereas the others do. One think I don't know but would like to is where he was when those comments were made and who he was talking to. That makes a difference to me about whether it's fly by night gaff or talking out his asz when he shouldn't have been.

.

[theanalogkid]

Yes there is a difference and I think Paul leans towards isolationism. But that's just my opinion of him (along with being a nutcase).


Since Paul doesn't support protectionism he clearly can't be an isolationist and you clearly lack an understanding between the two by this statement.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Since Paul doesn't support protectionism he clearly can't be an isolationist and you clearly lack an understanding between the two by this statement.

You clearly lack an understanding of the words "leans towards" .... i didn't say he was a hardcore isolationist.


.

[theanalogkid]

You clearly lack an understanding of the words "leans towards" .... i didn't say he was a hardcore isolationist.


.

Since he supports a free market which is free of tariffs and protectionism. Show me where he's called to end trade with countries. You aren't likely to find it. There's no way he can "lean toward" isolationism. He's a non-interventionist, not an isolationist.

You just said two posts ago


It's fine that Paul wants to air his isolationist opinions

That kind of says you called him an isolationist right there. BTW, I never said you said he was a hardcore isolationist.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Since he supports a free market which is free of tariffs and protectionism. Show me where he's called to end trade with countries. You aren't likely to find it. There's no way he can "lean toward" isolationism. He's a non-interventionist, not an isolationist.

You just said two posts ago



That kind of says you called him an isolationist right there. BTW, I never said you said he was a hardcore isolationist.

I know he's said he's all for trading with other countries but that's one of those things where I've gotta say I don't believe him. He is a politician. As for airing his isolationist opinions, that would be some of his ideologies that do fall under an isolationist ideas. I'm not going to nitpick on his political assertions. It's like debating whether a Republican who happens to be Pro-choice is really a Republican.

Ron Paul isn't the real issue here, he's just a by-product of the fallout. Back to the thread question in the title, should Steele resign?


.

[theanalogkid]

I know he's said he's all for trading with other countries but that's one of those things where I've gotta say I don't believe him. He is a politician.

You'd really have to look at his voting record then wouldn't you. He's record backs up being pro free trade. The only times he's voted no is against 'free trade' agreements because in actuality it's managed trade for the benefit of special interest groups not really free trade.

[Nevada_Ballin]

You'd really have to look at his voting record then wouldn't you. He's record backs up being pro free trade. The only times he's voted no is against 'free trade' agreements because in actuality it's managed trade for the benefit of special interest groups not really free trade.

I'm still familiar with his voting record when checking it out when he was running for GOP POTUS nomination. I also remember reading stuff he wrote about globalization. The guy leans towards isolationism and that's fine, i don't wanna hang him for it, I'm just saying he embodies many of the policy characteristics for it. Is a person who has conservative stances on everything but the war in Iraq/Afghanistan no longer a conservative? Or is this where we begin to create other labels like "moderate conservative"?

Politicians all the same at the end of the day, don't trust them for as far as I could kick an elephant. It all comes down to what flavor of BS you like the most.


.