Michael Steele Calls Limbaugh Show 'Incendiary' and 'Ugly'

When I first heard that Michael Steele would be leading the RNC as it's Chairman, I had high hopes. Those hopes have been diminished of late. Mr. Steele admits that the Republican Party has not been true to conservative principles and that the party needs to return to it's roots. He has articulately expressed his view that the party has lost the trust of it's conservative base in recent years. However, in a couple of media interviews I have seen, Steele seems to be clueless about how he plans to regain that trust. Michael Steele's lack of a comprehensive plan to return the Republican Party to basic conservative values and principles is very troubling.

Now there is this interview on CNN's DL Hughley Breaks the News from Saturday.






So, instead of getting back to basics, Mr. Steele has apparently chosen to criticize those who never left them. What was he thinking? To whom was he trying to curry favor with these remarks? The only thing which these remarks accomplished was to provide fodder to the White House and the Huffington Post. If Mr. Steele is firmly committed to the cause of conservatism, then I would think that he would consider Rush Limbaugh a valuable ally in the fight against Liberalism. He clearly does not.



Mr. Steele offered an explanation of these remarks which where nothing less than 'craptacular';

“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. "It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not."

Rush Limbaugh responded to Steele's remarks on his radio show.







Mr. Steele needs come to grips with a few realities. First, neo-conservatism has proven to be a loser for the Republican Party and needs to be wholly abandoned. Second, if the Republican Party wants to ever again be in a position to set the national agenda, they are going to have to truly embrace core conservative principles and values and boldly, poignantly, and authoritatively articulate them. And, third, if the Republican Party fails to regain the trust of America's conservatives, they have an alternative. There is a party which has consistently remained faithful the conservative values and principles for many years, the Libertarian Party. This is an alternative which I am seriously considering.

Peace With Honor?

The fact that the Democratic Party is fully vested an American defeat in Iraq should come as no surprise to anyone who is a student of American history. The Democrats have a long and dishonorable history of capitulation to the enemies of America and its' allies, and a serious distaste for victory in military conflicts.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt sold millions of people in eastern Europe into communist bondage at the Yalta Conference. On Roosevelts' watch, the Soviets took eastern Poland, Moldavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Albania. Between 12 and 20 million Europeans were murdered and at least 10 million were sent to slave labor camps.

Under President Truman the Soviets took the rest of Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Romania and North Korea. Truman abandoned our ally, Chiang Kai-Shek and supported Mao Zedong. Truman believed that Mao Zedong was an "agrarian reformer". This "agrarian reformer" murdered between 34 and 65 million Chinese.

President Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur over differences on how to conduct the war in South Korea. General MacArthur wanted to win it. Truman's precedent setting policy of non-victory was continued by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. At a point when America could easily have had a victory in the Vietnam conflict, President Kennedy refused to order an invasion of the north. President Johnson escalated the ground war in Vietnam and refused to bomb the North Vietnamese, preferring instead, to have thousands of American soldiers come home in body bags.

When Republican President Richard Nixon brought the communist to their knees with continuous bombings in the north, a truce was finally negotiated in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords. However, the Democrats were determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Democratic congress took full advantage of the watergate scandal and refused to allow Nixon the wherewithal to enforce the truce. Not surprisingly, the North Vietnamese invaded the South. The Democratic congress continued their policy of abandoning South Vietnam into the Ford administration, and in late 1975, South Vietnam fell to the communists. As a result, 2.5 million innocent people in Indo-China were murdered. The Democrats have long referred to this abandonment of our ally as "peace with honor".

President Carter abandoned our pro-American ally, the Shah of Iran and allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to take power in Iran. The Ayatollah repaid Carter by allowing a mob of Islamic students to seize 52 Americans and hold them hostage for 444 days, releasing them on the very day on which Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President. It would seem that the tender ministrations of Democrats only work when a Republican is elected who has threatened to bomb them.

During the Clinton administration there where numerous terror attacks on Americans and U.S. Forces both at home and abroad. Clinton did nothing in response. In addition, Saddam Hussein was thumbing his nose at the United Nations and Clinton gave only lip service to taking action until the day before he was to be impeached by the Congress. Then he ordered air strikes in Iraq. Saddam was undeterred. President Clinton continued the Democratic Party's tradition of capitulation when he coaxed Israel into offering the PLO everything they wanted in the way of concessions, save one; the destruction of Israel. The talks failed.

Since the Iraq war began, the Democrats have been trying to sabotage the effort. Even though they saw the same intelligence reports that the President saw, and, on the basis of that intel, voted in favor of the operation, they insist that the President deceived to them. They have mis-categorized the war in every conceivably heinous way imaginable. They have falsely accused our troops of atrocities. They have insisted we are bogged down, in a quagmire, and that we cannot win. They draw repeated comparisons to the war in Vietnam. An apt comparison indeed. Just as in Vietnam, the Democrats are determined to achieve an American defeat in Iraq and abandon yet another ally. If they are successful, they will no doubt call it 'peace with honor'. There is nothing, whatsoever, honorable about it!