I wouldn't go as far as saying the GOP, or conservatives as a whole back Steele.  Most would be happy to see him resign.

If I'm not mistaken, Steele is on the same catapult that Pelosi and Reed are on. You know, the one the Conservative movement has it's hands on the release lever.

So you're saying the DP runs the trains on time?

That said, not sure what your beef would be.  Unlike the DP, which defends every member no matter how stupid or gaffe-prone (I don't recall anyone in the DP demanding Van Jones resign), the GOP actually has some principles which its members may cross at times.  When your only principle is power, you don't get your knickers in a wad over little things like this.

I agree Steele should resign.  I like the guy, but even before this incident I felt he was out of his depth in this job.

At first, I liked Steele, but it quickly became apparent that he wasn't ready for prime time. He can't even get the upper hand in a debate against lightweights like self hating Alan Combs or DL Hughley.

  So you're saying the DP runs the trains on time?

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.  

Look, here's the deal:  

'Support of the troops' ranks next to pro-life on the list of core conservative issues - issues that are at the very fabric of the political platform.  The GOP enjoys a total monopoly on the issue and that's not an overstatement.  If you think back to the Bush era and you think back to the positioning back then:  it was you either support both wars or you don't support the military.  Even in the 04 election, we exhausted how much time on pointless boomerflashbacks to the vietnam era in which John Kerry 'didn't support the troops and didn't support the war'.  To date, even Obama who's normally more than happy to give a big fat middle finger to republicans on almost all of their dear issues, hides from anti-war issues whenever possible.  

It's a treasured position - an asset that is to be preserved at all costs.  And unlike the life issue, which is going to die with the boomers, the 'support the troops' shit is going to stick around as a dogwhistle that the GOP can bring along indefinitely.  In the immortal words of the honorable democratic governor of illinois, "it's fucking golden".  

Flash forward to today, both parties are turning their backs on the whole war issue all together for now.  It's an afterthought.  The dems aren't going to bring it up because they don't want to have the debate on an issue they don't have command over.  That's not what you do when you're facing 'anti-incumbent sentiment'.  The GOP hasn't brought it up, have they?  You think it's a coincidence that one of their beloved issues hasn't been a front line discussion though the electoral season?  Do you think it's just "we haven't gotten around to bringing out that war club" yet?  Obviously, it's pretty deliberate that they haven't used it - probably because in a time where you're seeing double digit unemployment numbers and abysmal consumer confidence, the last thing people want to talk about is spending bajillions of dollars on a military operation that, regardless of where you are politically, isn't really going so well.  Want to bet money there's a memo that came from somewhere that said "Don't' talk about the wars, assholes!"?  

So, here we are running into generals where the GOP, despite it's otherwise fucktarded platform, is miraculously  is almost on even footing.  And then Steele, the chair of the RNC, the guy who more or less is supposed to be the keeper of the message who not only 'steps off message' (which is the understatement of the fucking century).  Now you've got two problems:  

1.  You have to figure out what to do with Steele, which in the zerosum culture in GOPland these days, probably means you have to oust him either by force or a 'resignation to pursue work at [insert think tank or fundraising outfit].  RUTROH!!! That's not good, because newsflash:  Mike Steele is black.  Now, you've got the party that - in popular perception - doesn't like people who aren't white and again - popular perception - is that Steele was put in that spot just because he was black as some pretty blatent pandering.  So now, you have a black guy who was so far off the platform that you almost have to run him out on rails.

And if you're fucking dumb enough to not believe that those perceptions exist or the the idea of pig roasting a black gop leader doesn't cause ops a seizure inducing migration,  you either don't spend nearly enough time in the continental united states or you post on the internet as Nitro Cruiser.  

2.  You have to have every snot nosed reporter tossing softballs at GOP candidates.  The ones who aren't 'media ready' run the risk of opening their mouths in a way that either continues the slide or reinforces the perceptions in 1.  

Now, of those 2 things:  which do you think the GOP had in mind for the run up into this election?  

1.  Did people or the press say Obama & the DP don't 'like people who aren't white' when Van Jones resigned?  No, because it's a given that only Republicans are racists, or have a 'popular perception' as racists, a perception aggressively perpetuated by media.  Solution: give the job to Ken Blackwell, who should have won the job in the first place.

2.  It's ironic that the only 'reporters' not tossing wet kisses, let alone softballs, at Democrats, especially Obama, have been of the 'snot-nose' variety.  GOP candidates (especially conservative candidates) routinely get the hostile, often condescending & demeaning, interrogation approach from the 'non-snot-nose' press.  I'm OK with that.  Builds strong bodies seven ways.

That's great Down_low the liberal wanna-be mentions me in a comment! Good, very good. Never got this kind of attention from any other blogger, especially a noob here that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Good thing I happened by your blog, looked interesting, but turned out to be snoozer as usual. Nice to be thought of, even by a dip shit like you, but I'll have to warn you I don't roll your way, just so we are very clear.

Isn't it amazing how if someone doesn't agree with you they are "fucking dumb"? It's the same in many of your comments. Well who the hell are you? I'll tell you, just some stupid ass with an opinion, except your so insecure about yourself, others must be "fucking dumb"? I told you, your credibility isn't worth spit, especially when your qualifier is "you're fucking dumb" if you don't believe good ol' Dan's gospel. Nobody likes a punk Dan, especially one that doesn't know squat about the people being addressed. Might work in Chicago, it don't fly here. You must have low self esteem, were you picked on as a child? Did someone in the military steal your girl friend (or boy friend, wouldn't want you to think I'm homophobic, so I state that in fairness since you are sensitive on that issue)?

I enjoy a battle of wits, just hate fighting an unarmed man such as yourself. Sounds like you were stroking yourself over Steele's boneheaded comment and couldn't wait to blog about it. It must really have chapped your hide worse that the wet leather jeans you wore at your "pride" parade. Here's a flash... voters didn't select Steele, the RNC did. Daiwa brought up a excellent point about conservatives policing their own. You moonbats must really hate that, still mourning over Byrd and all. Did it pain you to defend the honor of the military you despise so much, just to make your point? Stick to your boring spreadsheet article. You get a red down arrow! LOL

I'll be happy to increase the number of reads your articles get for you. Might help keep your readers awake.

Was there something 'liberal' expressed in this article? 

I think we have another case of somebody not comprehending.....

I think that's actually a possibility, but I'm pretty sure it depends on how (not to mention 'if') they exorcize Steele. 

When last I checked it was just Krystol and Liz Cheney who were flacking this one out and they're basically non-combatants.  TDB ran a bit this morning about McCain being pretty critical but apparently stopping short of a resignation call.  McCain can do that mostly because he's 'safe' in Arizona. I thought I caught something about the teabagger in SC doing just about the same thing, but I think he's considered safe too. 

If they keep that up, they can probably name whoever they want.  If this becomes a feces slinging fest, things are going to go south very quickly. 

I am a bit surprised though, that Palin hasn't opened her mouth.  I can't decide if that's because she thinks she's the heir apparent to the job or if she's smart enough/handled well enough to know that she'd fuck up bad situation. 

I think it's even worse than you think.  I sort of expect media coverage to have a good slant being in the blue outpost of Illinois.  But some of this has just become silly. 

As an example, and I won't bore you with the overdrawn details, we've got a pair of congressional candidates:

1.  Is a real buddy of Obama (not the kind of buddy like Limbaugh would put:  "THEY'RE BOTH FROM ILLINOIS AND THEYRE BOTH LIBERAL), but an actual real life associate, kept his mouth shut during the Blagojevich financial disaster, and who had a whole lot of involvement in a bank that's since failed. 

2.  An incumbent, benign centrist conservative. 

The centrist conservative has eaten more shit for non-controversy than you could imagine.  Everything from "he's gay, we think" to "oh noes, he exaggerated his military record" which are two issues that are distinctly unimportant to people in Illinois.  Sadly, state GOP has probably had as much to do with the the faux outrage as the dems have - as which of those two even seem to be something the dems remotely give a shit about?  Otherwise, it's just mud politics that a guy who's name is probably tied to at least a couple of federal investigations is getting away with. 

Who other than a flaming liberal would use the term "teabagger"? LINK

Here's another one, scary isn't it?

Wait.  Wait. 

"HE USES THEM THERE LIB-RUHL WORDS". 

I'm really unclear as to why the word 'teabagger' upsets this guy so much.  I mean, I don't really care---as it does do a wonderful job of turning him into a drunken commentor in joeuser land, but good god man:  give it a rest.  Like half of America is using that term.  Most of the people in and around major urban areas (which I assume Nitro is not) say much worse on a regular basis about these assclowns.  Relax. 

No it shows your ignorance and crude behavior. If you took just a small amount of your time to see who posts here, you'd find your support base very thin.

So another's rude behavior makes it OK for you? Your parents need a kick in the ass if they raised you that way. But you know, I just don't believe all urban people feel that way, might just be wishful thinking on your part. You must be a regular Oberman and Madlow viewer if you assume your choice of words are normal. Tell you what, use it in all your articles...let everyone see how hip and cleaver you are. That will show them.

You'll have to reduce it, but I believe I found you a great avatar photo (my previous comment). Kinda states your reality if I say so myself.

Once again:  why do I need this vast support base? 

It's just a commonly used phrase to describe those folks. You're going to have to deal with it.  There are many, many people who don't take the tea party movement very seriously.  It's just how it is, man. 

YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YOU LISTEN TO LIMBAUGH AND HANNITY!?!!?!

Do you really think that shit sticks?  Seriously? 

Again Nitro, sad to let you know, but most urban folks think the tea party crowd are a bunch of foaming at the mouth retards. That's mostly why the tea party is lead mostly by hicks, largely made up of hicks, and focuses solely on hick issues, from a hick point of view.

I'm sure that attitude gets Hoo-Ahs from like(closed)-minded people, but your arrogant condescension doesn't serve you well, which I'm sure is of no concern to you.  Your disdainful stereotyping merely shows your willful ignorance.  You're welcome to it, but it blinds you to reality.

Which is what?  That on some planet the tea party is actually not a largely rural/exurban phenomenon?