I am appalled by all you liberal troublemakers who criticize my fellow Marylander Michael Steele for insisting that he wrote his book BEFORE becoming Republican National Chairman, even though the book makes numerous references to events that took place AFTER he became chairman on Jan. 30, 2009, just ten days after President Obama's inauguration.
Eric Kleefeld of TPM is in the vanguard of liberal bloggers who point out that "Unless Steele is remarkably clairvoyant," his book "could not have been written before he became chairman -- it is overwhelmingly a commentary on the political situation in America under President Barack Obama, as of late 2009." Here is some of the evidence Kleefeld cites:
The book is full of references to current events in 2009: The stimulus bill, the health care debate, foreign policy, ACORN, the party switch of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Tea Parties and the 9/12 March on Washington, etc...
On page 61, Steele says of Obama: "He champions bipartisanship, but he supports a process where Nancy [Pelosi] rams a 2,000-page healthcare bill through the House of Representatives on a Saturday night with just a single Republican vote." That vote occurred on November 7, 2009.
In his chapter, "Take Back National Security," Steele discusses the Iranian elections, the Honduran political crisis, and the Fort Hood shooting, among many other hot topics of this past year.
A few stray parts of the book may have predated Steele's chairmanship, and been incorporated into the overall narrative...
But even those are mixed in with current events...And finally, Steele refers to himself on pages 14, 28, and 73, as being the chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Have all you secular humanists forgotten what advocates of Biblical inerrancy know in their hearts: that at the end of the first five books of the Old Testament, what Jews call the Torah and non-Jews often refer to as the Pentateuch, Moses, its author, describes his own death and burial?
Believers understand that Moses' writing was divinely inspired, thus making such pre-event narrative entirely credible. Is it really too much to suggest that Chairman Steele's narrative falls into the same category?
The liberals' criticism of Michael Steele is entirely of a piece with their past contempt for him that has unfairly stained his enviable record. After serving as Maryland Republican chairman, he was lieutenant governor from 2003 to 2007, the first black elected to statewide office in Maryland's history, then ran unsuccessfully as its GOP candidate for the Senate in 2006.
His candidacy for lieutenant governor was unfairly criticized in 2002 by the pathetically liberal Baltimore Sun editorial board, which wrote that Steele "brings little to the team but the color of his skin."
Four years later, the similarly left-wing editorialists of the Washington Post denounced Steele's Senate candidacy with a screed that discounted his work as lieutenant governor, adding: "Despite his efforts to construct an image as an independent-minded newcomer, there is nothing in Michael Steele's past--no achievement, no record, no evidence and certainly no command of the issues--to support it."
Inexplicably, since he became national chairman, such harsh criticism of Steele has now spread to prominent members of his own party. After take-charge-guy Steele was barely in office a month, he proclaimed that he, rather than Rush Limbaugh, was "the de facto leader of the Republican Party," blasting Limbaugh's attitude as "incendiary" and "ugly." Limbaugh responded by charging that Steele was not fit to lead the Republican Party. Steele's steely rejoinder was to abjectly apologize to Limbaugh, explaining: "I realized words that I said weren't what I was thinking."
Steele has since unkindly been called an "idiot" by a prominent Republican Congressional staffer. Politico reported that "key party leaders are worried that the GOP has made a costly mistake" in electing him. One of the few black members of the Republican National Committee, Ada Fisher, urged him to quit because he''makes us frankly appear to many blacks as quite foolish."
More recently,Republicans have been disturbed by Steele's prediction that the party will not win control of the House this year, and wouldn't know how to lead if it did. And, news that the chairman has been padding his personal bank account by charging up to $20,000 for speeches -- in addition to his $223,500 salary and unlimited expense account -- has shocked some party leaders. "Holy Mackeral! I never heard of a chairman of either party ever taking money for speeches," says former GOP national chairman Frank Farenkopf. "The job of a national chairman is to give speeches. That's what the national party pays him for." Steele's book is another stumbling block.
So is the fact that some major Republican donors are so unhappy with him that they've stopped contributing to the national committee. One big, longtime RNC donor and member, Christine Toretti, told the Washington Times: "I don't plan to give to the Republican National Committee this cycle and no other major donor I know is planning to either."
Steele remains a stand-up guy in the face of all this adversity. The Washington Post quotes him as declaring to ABC News: "If you don't want me in the job fire me. But until then, shut up. Get with the program or get out of the way."
Update: Some vicious liberals have dared to fault Chairman Steele for demanding the resignation of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid because the latter once referred to then-Senator Obama as a "Negro." I must say that once again I side with Chairman Steele. Admittedly, I went back to Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech and counted ten times that Dr. King used the word "Negro" in that most famous address. But I'm sure that, were he alive today, Rev. King would have apologized to Chairman Steele for doing so.
How will Trump’s administration impact you? Learn more