Steele: Cutting Off Pro-Stimulus Republicans "Absolutely On The Table For Me"
Michael Steele just can't stop.
We're previously reported that Steele has gone back and forth on the question of whether the Republican Party would support primary challenges or decline to help out pro-stimulus Republicans. Now, in an appearance on right-wing talk radio, he's reiterated that this is a possibility.
Steele was pressed today by Laura Ingraham, who very much wants the party to cut off any wobblers, about whether the party would refuse to raise money or give money to GOPers who back the stimulus and earmark spending:
Said Ingraham: "Will you make good on that pledge that the RNC will not raise money and give money to Republicans who continue to put a stick in the eye of fiscal conservatism?"
"As I said, that is something that is absolutely on the table for me," Steele replied. "I'm not backing down from that. I'm not backing down from that."
Steele did add that this is ultimately up the state parties, citing his own past experience as a state GOP chairman. So if those state chairs want to revolt against an incumbent -- say, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania -- it looks like they'll have a friend in Chairman Steele.
Here's a question: If earmarks alone are a cause for withdrawing support, is Mitch McConnell next?
(Via Think Progress.)
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Somebody give the microphone back to Susan Collins.
March 4, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where was "Dr." Laura's passionate hate of deficit spending during Bush's tenure?
March 4, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it was there, you must have just missed the comments and blasts. Same with lush and insanity and cooter and the rest of them. They were always deficit hawks and were blasting the king 24/7. They never spouted off talking points that supported the king's agenda. Never. They have always been rock-solid, deficit hawk conservatives, through and through.
March 4, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for him. And I think the dnc should cut off every dem that doesn't toe the liberal agenda line 100% of the time. They are not true dems and should be ostracised and thrown out of the party. Dems need to be pure. Let's primary them out next go around if they are not 100% on board.
March 4, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sincerely hope you are joking.
Any politician that is solely a parrot of their leadership can be replaced by just that, a parrot.
March 4, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Michael A is kidding. But there are plenty of posters here who think that should be done -- Steve Labonne, BlueinColorado, for example.
They think we should force the Blue Dogs to join the republicans and punish any Democrat who doesn't toe the party line 100%. In fact, Labonne said "so what if Bayh votes with the dems 90% of the time. He's only voting with us on the 'easy' votes." Of course, that means he'd rather have that seat go to a nutter like Mike Pense who's guaranteed to vote with us ZERO!
Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
March 4, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"AAAK! Michael Steele! You be da man!
AAAK! You be da man!
AAAK! Michael Steele! AAAK!"
Of course Michael A's joking. Where would Dems be without Lieberman (sigh, I hate even typing his name), the Blue Dogs, and half of the New Democrats? We'd be a super-minority.
March 4, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know I can't stand traitor joe, but you are right. The vote is too close, because republicans are being idiots. Once again, obama was three jumps ahead when he gave traitor joe a pass. The guy is freaking brilliant. I remember everyone calling for traitor joes head, and so was I, but where would we be without him? Obama knew he needed the vote so throw him a bone and forgive and forget. Obama is freaking brilliant.
March 4, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we wonder why Franken's being held up in Mn?
March 5, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steele plays to his audience and tells the interviewer what he thinks they want to hear. It probably worked for him in the past when not too many people were paying attention to him, but it's going to bite him now.
March 4, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are very right... that is why he got into so much trouble on DL's show when he made the 'incendiary' and 'ugly' comments!
he wanted to appeal to DL's viewers!!
March 4, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you Steele.
Purity is paramount!
Purge those apostates!
March 4, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Lord this man doesn't have a strategic bone in his body. How does the Republican party survive by pushing out every moderate? There was a post up on Kos today contemplating Specter making the big switch in order to get re-elected. Not sure if Snowe would have any trouble in ME but she may leave just out of disgust. The way things are going and the rate at which these guys are self-destructing, I wouldn't be surprised to see some defections. Hard to say though, loyalties can be a hard thing to break.
March 4, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>body. How does the Republican party survive by pushing out every moderate>>
The same way the Dems survive by forcing out all of the conservatives/blue dogs--they DON'T!
Yet, there are some people here who say the republicans are stupid and self-destructive for their purity tests while advocating we enact them.
March 4, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
As we have already seen, Steele doesn't speak for the RNC.
I imagine that an incumbent U.S. Senator requesting funds to run on will get her money, regardless of what Steele has said. Give up many more seats, and the only funds Republicans can raise will be from historical preservation societies.
If I were a Republican, I couldn't remove Steele fast enough.
March 4, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, I do love seeing Republicans getting burned by the conservative tactic of turning "we're in favor of this" into "you must 'pledge' to do this no matter what the consequences, or you don't really mean it."
Steele, for once showing a bit of savvy, hadn't made any "pledge," he'd just raised it as a possibility. But that doesn't matter a bit to Dr. Laura. Pretty soon all Republicans will be asked to sign the purity pledge in writing, just like the "no taxes" pledge. (At least I hope so!)
March 4, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess driving O Snowe to the blue side of the aisle would be a huge victory for Fats and Steele!
March 4, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mike and the Fat Man" has a better, more sing-songy CBS primetime show feel to it.
March 4, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my experience, when someone says, in a repetitive, self-pep-talky sort of way, "I am not backing down on this one. I am not backing down," then be prepared to watch that person back down.
March 4, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would I listen ,much less take seriously, rich people complaining about how it's bad to tax the rich???
March 4, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? If you're going to troll, at least troll with some kind of context.
March 4, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how much longer Rush will tolerate his inconsistent and erratic behavior?
March 4, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Steele is the 2nd best gift for the Democratic party right now. He is just behind Rush Limbaugh.
March 4, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how anyone can take this little twerp seriously. Eventually the Powers That Be are going to realize they made a huge error and can his ass.
March 4, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So how will the GOP get rid of this guy, now that they have discovered that they voted for a media hound and a nut cake?
March 4, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way the Democrats could use 3 more votes, maybe they will defect and come over to our side or at least change to independants. Keep it up
Steele.
March 4, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Steele is my neighbor.
He's a likable enough guy, but when he gets interviewed he says some idiotic things.
Mike, you are trying to hard.
March 4, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep on giving those interviews baby!
March 4, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steele is da-man the hip-hopper man.
March 4, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barnum & Bailey, move over! There's a NEW, vastly more entertaining circus in town! More popcorn, please!
March 4, 2009 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK:
Someone help me:
"I'm not interested in primaries."
I thought that is what Party Chairs do: They worry about primaries - and then state elections. They worry about primaries because they are worried about state elections. In fact, primaries are important because they occur before state elections.
And elections are important because they impact Party strength in (this case) the Senate.
And Party strength is important because...
well, you see my confusion.
mphillip
P.S.: What I am not confused about, and Republicans evidently misread, is that Steele's desire to be RNC Chair had nothing to do with the Party, but everything to do w/Obama-jealousy. We've seen it before.
That's why, I suspect, Steele can't stay away from interviews.
Bless his heart.
March 5, 2009 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink