Blitzer failed to challenge Steele's conflicting statements about Iraq and Bush, blue "Steele Democrat" paraphernalia
SUMMARY: During an interview with Michael Steele, CNN's Wolf Blitzer did not ask Steele to reconcile his conflicting positions on the war in Iraq. He also failed to challenge Steele's assertion that he is "not running away from President Bush" and that he has "never run away from" being a Republican, despite his having been exposed as the "candidate" who reportedly told The Washington Post that he "probably" did not want President Bush to campaign with him.
On the November 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer failed to ask Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the Republican Senate candidate in that state, to clarify his conflicting positions on the war in Iraq. As Media Matters for America noted, on the October 29 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host and NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert led into a debate between the Maryland Senate candidates by reciting Steele's seemingly contradictory positions on the war. Instead of asking for clarification during Steele's appearance on The Situation Room, Blitzer asked Steele only two questions on Iraq: "Do you disagree at all with the president of the United States when it comes to his strategy in trying to win the war in Iraq?" and "Would you agree with the president" that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is "doing a, quote, 'fantastic job' when it comes to Iraq?" To the first question, Steele replied in part: "We're trying to win this thing. I'd like to see them correct the course immediately because the course we're on right now is not achieving the objective." Blitzer did not follow up by asking Steele to reconcile that statement with his view, articulated as recently as August, that the Iraq war has been successful, and, in June, his statement that he believes in "staying the course."
Blitzer also failed to challenge Steele's assertion that he is "not running away from President Bush" and that he has "never run away from" being a Republican. In a July 25 Washington Post column by Dana Milbank, a candidate speaking "under the condition that he be identified only as a GOP Senate candidate," spoke "critically, if anonymously, about the party he will represent on Election Day." Milbank wrote that the candidate "spoke of his party affiliation as though it were a congenital defect rather than a choice." And when asked if he wanted Bush to campaign for him, the candidate responded, "To be honest with you, probably not." Later that day, ABCNews.com reported that "[t]he GOP Senate candidate who anonymously described his Republican affiliation as an 'impediment' to his electoral prospects while speaking with the Washington Post's Dana Milbank and others ... is none other than Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele."
Additionally, on CNN, Blitzer remarked to Steele, "You never see the fact that you're a Republican in [your] signs and in [your] commercials," but then failed to challenge Steele's assertion that "I'm the only candidate that's required in this race to put his party affiliation ... on the placard." Blitzer did not mention that Steele actually put a different party affiliation on some of his paraphernalia. As the Post reported on September 24, at a rally in Baltimore, "Steele supporters waved signs and grabbed bumper stickers that said 'Steele Democrat.' " The signs and bumper stickers are, like Steele's website and other campaign gear, blue -- the color that came to represent the Democratic Party in the 2004 election -- and the word "Democrat" appears in smaller type beneath the word "Steele." The Post article quoted "Steele supporters" as saying that the "Steele Democrat signs should be read as if they said 'Reagan Democrat.' " Terry Lierman, chairman of the Maryland Democratic Party was also quoted in the article, as saying: "Steele's new logo is the biggest election fraud perpetrated on the voters of Maryland in this campaign to date -- and proves that Steele thinks his only chance is political identity theft."
As noted by the weblog Crooks and Liars, onscreen text briefly identified Steele as a Democrat:
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the November 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: But a lot of people are saying that you're doing well in part because you're running away from President Bush. Is that true?
STEELE: Look -- no, I'm not running away from the president. I'm not running towards the president. I'm running for the United States Senate, and I'll keep saying it over and over again. This election is about my state. It's about the people in the state. I've had a conversation with them now for over a year and they're responding to the conversation. This is not about Ben Cardin. I could care less about Ben Cardin. This is about my putting myself out here before the public and having them evaluate me, the qualifications that I bring to the job, and the kind of senator I'm going to be. And as of, at least the [Baltimore] Sun poll, I'm down by six with a plus or minus three. Our internal polls have us much closer. This race -- I'm going to follow all the way through to the end, buddy.
BLITZER: Have you asked the president to stay away from Maryland?
STEELE: No, I have not. No. The president came in for me in the early phases of the campaign back in November. He did a great event for me. I've had his father and his mother. We've had the vice president in. We have had a great deal of support from Republicans around the country, but I've also had a great deal of support and endorsements from the likes of [entrepreneur and recording music executive] Russell Simmons, [Radio One and TVOne founder] Cathy Hughes, [actor/director] Charles Dutton, and a host of other folks who --
BLITZER: You know --
STEELE: -- who see the value of this campaign and want to be a part of it.
BLITZER: Lieutenant Governor, I have a suspicion that if you were to call the White House or the Republican National Committee in the next few hours and say, "Can the president or the vice president drop by" --
STEELE: "Ya'll come."
BLITZER: -- "the state of Maryland?" I'm sure they'd be happy to come in and try to help you. But you're not going to make that call between now and Tuesday?
STEELE: Absolutely. No, no, look, the president's got enough to do. My focus right now in the next five days is going to be on this state and on the people of this state to have a conversation about the things that are important to them.
BLITZER: A lot of signs behind you -- "Michael Steele, U.S. Senate." I've been watching a lot of the commercials. You never see the fact that you're a Republican in those signs, in those commercials. Are you running away from that? That's the criticism you've heard that's been leveled against you.
STEELE: No, look. Hey, Wolf, I've -- I've been Lieutenant Governor of the state of Maryland for four years, elected as a Republican. I was state party chairman. That's Republican. I was a county chairman. That's Republican. I've been a Republican for 30 years of my life, and I've never hid -- hid it. I've never run away from it. I'm a Lincoln Republican. I'm very proud of that. I'm proud of the history of my party and its relation to African-Americans. We walked away from that relationship over the years. I've been trying to rebuild it, and we've had some success. And so, you know, I'm the only candidate that's required in this race to put his party affiliation on the -- on the placard. I don't see why, but, you know, in case your viewers don't know, "Hi, I'm Michael Steele, and I'm a Republican." I mean, so --
BLITZER: I think they --
STEELE: -- beyond that --
BLITZER: I think they know by now. I want you to listen to what the Reverend Al Sharpton --
[...]
BLITZER: A final question because we're all -- because we're all --
STEELE: -- because I believe fundamentally -- I believe -- a fundamental match between a man and a woman.
BLIZTER: A fundamental -- a final question. Do you disagree at all with the president of the United States when it comes to his strategy in trying to win the war in Iraq?
STEELE: I do. I have some real concerns there. I noted that in the piece before, the comments about the Defense Department -- I think the Defense Department, Secretary Rumsfeld, have an obligation to step up and put the proper strategy on the ground and listen to the generals. They will tell you the strategy that should be in place. This should not be emanating out of the Pentagon. This should be emanating from the generals on the ground. And I think it's important that this administration in partnership with the White House -- with the Pentagon, the State Department, and the Senate, and the House leadership put the onus on the Iraqi government to step up and take control of the insurgency, take control of building out the democracy that they voted three times for. The strategy of using a conventional means against an insurgency is incorrect. It's out of step and out of tune. We're trying to win this thing. I'd like to see them correct the course immediately because the course we're on right now is not achieving the objective, and that is stabilizing an Iraq that will be an ally for the United States, not an enemy.
BLITZER: Would you agree with the president -- what he said yesterday -- that Donald Rumsfeld is doing a, quote, "fantastic job" when it comes to Iraq?
STEELE: Let's put it this way: He wouldn't be my secretary of defense.
BLITZER: All right, we'll leave it right there.
Republican Party: [link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Lord I sure hope nobody challenges me Tuesday morning, I've never been arrested before.
After all, even if you get challenged and have your day completely wasted by people trying to cause disruption and "consternation," it's still "100%" your responsibility, according to Tommy's patented Real American Voting Guidelines. Don't you know voter supression doesn't really exist? It's all just a bunch of "whining liberals" who are bitter about losing elections and cable news ratings.
In right-wing personal responsibility Fantasyland, you should bring your own portable generator to your Democratic-area polling place because if the power mysteriously goes out and invalidates your vote, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
TO: KR FROM: "Tommy"
They're on to me.
And one illegal immigrant voting is reason enough to require voter IDs, keeping thousands of citizens from casting their ballot.
Try at least 748 in one single election, according to an election result task force run by a few years back: [link to www2.cnn.com]
In other words out of the 984 votes that unseated Bob Dornan a few years back, 748 of them were cast by illegal immigrants.
"One?" Please show a little more respect for the truth.
You'll probably of course dismiss this example as most Dems do by baselessly labeling it racist. But the fact is as far as I know, no Democrats in the house challenged the findings of the commission. They instead went out and had a party because even though hundreds of illegal immigrants took advantage of our voting system, at least it wasn't enough to make Bob Dornan lose.
PS-- I already know Dornan is a loser and a nut too, but that doesn't change the fact of the commission's findings.
Did you even read the link that you posted.
It doesn't say any of the votes were by illegal aliens!
Try again!
anything other than the confusing headline?
"Task force Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers, R-Mich., said investigators had found concrete evidence of 748 illegal votes by non-citizens, not enough to throw Sanchez's victory into doubt"
Please hang up and try again!
You must be stupid.
Non-Citizens are not illigal aliens.
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
Hang up and try again yourself stupid!
Alright? So.... then we'll call them what they were: Hispanic (and I can say that, because the Democrats at the time said it was a witchhunt against Hispanics) non-citizens who voted illegally.
Either way, we were talking about voter ID cards. Whether they jumped the border or um... well whatever else you propose the Hispanic non citizens who voted illegally did... they voted illegally, and a voter ID card could solve that problem.
Because you could illegally obtain a voter id card!
And that wasn't the point. You were trying to negate someone else's statement and you were wrong.
You need to apologize to that poster for your wrongfulness!
Wes1, I have decided under the recommendation of SuperLib to apologize to you. You said this:
"And one illegal immigrant voting is reason enough to require voter IDs, keeping thousands of citizens from casting their ballot."
I responded by saying at least hundreds of illegal aliens have been caught voting.
In fact, as I just admitted to SuperLib, there have been hundreds of non-citizen Hispanics who have been caught illegally voting. It is possible that these weren't "illegal immigrants," somehow. SuperLib would probably assure us that they were all on visas. So sorry. I guess.
If you don't think there's any problem in this country, however, with illegal immigrants voting, you're delusional. [link to www.fairus.org]
This link doesn't back up your calim either.
I have made up my mind, you are both deceitful and stupid!
I meant to spell claim!
Wrong-o.
"Democrats have characterized the probe as a witch hunt, charging that Republicans sought to unfairly single out and intimidate Hispanic voters."
I have made up my mind: You can't stop with the one-liners at the end of each post with an exclamation point!
Claimed they were Hispanic.
Admit that you have no basis for this claim.
What some Democrats claimed has no bearing, we are discussing what you said.
One Liner!!!!!
I will stop, but only after you admit that you apologize to me for falsely stating that the article didn't back up my claim that the Democrats said that at the time. You insisted I apologize to Wes1 for saying that the folks mentioned in the article were "illegal immigrants" when they were in fact "non-citizens" voting illegally; I followed suit; I insist you apologize to me.
apologizing for again?
The fact that you mislabeled people?
The Democrats were as bad as you?
I'm not sure which.
I want you to apologize for falsely claiming that the article I gave did not back up what I was saying about the Democrats claiming it was a witchhunt against Hispanics. Even you backtracked after I gave a specific quote showing it did.
If you don't want to apologize and don't hold yourself to the same standard as you did me a few minutes ago, fine, but I'll be moving on to another thread.
But I never said that.
I stated the links did not back up your claim of illegal aliens voting.
Why do you keep doing this to yourself!
That should be a question mark at the end of the last sentence.
"Because you could illegally obtain a voter id card! "
YOU'RE RIGHT! In fact, you can illegally obtain anything, even a driver's license. So let's just give up, eh? Whoever wants to vote: there's nothing we can do. If people want to get in a plane and fly down here and cast a vote, who cares? The right to vote in this country's elections shouldn't be relegated only to this country's citizens, right? That's bigotry! If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to vote, he can fly right down here and get himself a ballot. We can't win. If we use cards, people will just get them illegally.
There are many ways to insure that all votes are cast by legal voters.
When you go to the polls, how does the person at the desk know you are a legal voter? Your name is on their list because you registered. In my county, we need to give them our name and address.
How many illegal aliens know your name and address and the fact that you will not show up to vote?
Not many. But some political operative that keeps track of this stuff (Karl Rove) would know!
Nice try Stupid.
shows your mind is incapable of any thinking, and that indeed, the only thing you are capable of is word-parsing and regurgitating talking points.
Let me ask you, oh knowing one: What does it take to register? You think VOTER REGISTRATION insures no illegal immigrants vote!? I would laugh, except I think you're being serious.
I needed to go to my Town Hall with a copy of my Birth Certificate to register.
I also needed a form a Governement ID.
That sort of takes away the need for a Voter ID, doesn't it.
You just keep setting yourself up!
Non-Citizens can be here legally. Maybe you are too stupid to know that or maybe you are intentionally misleading, I'm not sure.
And, if you had read the article, you would have noticed that they looked at over 7800 votes and determined that 624 were from illegal voters. Not necessarily Hispanic.
Your bigotry is showing!
I already explained why I insist on calling them Hispanic earlier: because the DEMOCRATS at the time SLANDERED Bob Dornan and accused his calls for an investigation a witchhunt against Hispanics.
Please try to keep up in the conversation. Take notes if you need to, just to remember where we're at.
The facts remain that no-one but you called the illegal voters Hispanic.
You need to rent a brain!
Stop ending every comment with an unfunny one-liner followed by an exclamation point. It's just annoying.
The fact is the Left was the one who called them all Hispanic when they said the entire investigation was a witchhunt against Hispanics. It's not fair that they get to use baseless rhetorical devices and I am not.
And second, you won: The report does not say they were all "illegal immigrants," rather non-citizens voting illegally. Does that not worry you, then? Do you not mind non-citizens voting illegally? Probably not-- they typically vote for Democrats, thus the reason Grey Davis before an election granted everyone in California driver's licenses regardless of immigration status. From there, it's a matter of walking up to a poll. Why did he do that? Because illegal immigrants vote Democrat. This is why nothing is happening with regards to illegal immigration: Democrats get their votes, Republicans get their labor.
Who's in charge of all three branches of Government?
Who is doing nothing about it?
You are very, very stupid!!!!!!!!!
You're right, they're in the position right now. But what have Democrats proposed? Nothing of substance. Do you think the day the Democrats are elected they will defy all their past actions-- granting driver license to illegal immigrants before elections, granting amnesty before elections, criticizing the idea of building a wall, the refusal to propose any bills that would do a thing about illegal immigration-- and give us the security we need?
You have finally said something of substance.
I agree that the Democrats are no better at securing the borders than the Repubs.
I don't agree with your ideas on how to do it, but I agree something needs to be done.
There, no exclamation point.
"Task force Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers, R-Mich., said investigators had found concrete evidence of 748 illegal votes by non-citizens".
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Great reporting from CNN. What is this supposed "concrete evidence" Ehlers mentions? Haven't I heard similar "slam dunk" type claims from our leaders before about WMD's.
Show me the data or at the very least it would be nice if we could get an opinion from someone just a teentsy-bit more impartial than Mr. Ehlers.
But even if you concede the point, the article doesn't say they are illegal aliens.
You have covered that point pretty well yourself. I did not intend to slight that point at all by it's omission in my post.
Steal Democrats' votes.
So they're number one assignment is to prevent anyone from voting who isn't supposed to be voting. I'm thinking they mean immigrants. How dumb would someone have to be, to risk deportation, to vote in a mid-term election if they were in this country illegally?
Or maybe they're trying to prevent convicted felons, who may or may not be able to legally vote. This I'd love to see. Your average NeoCon, questioning some scary biker looking guy who wants to vote. I'd pay to see that.
Anyway you look at it, the Republicans in power have been working OT during the last several election cycles to see that Americans are denied their most basic rights.
It is possible to baselessly challenge a voter in a heavily Democratic area. If the resident election judge refuses to allow the challenge (because it is obviously baseless), he/she is then threatened with 30 days in jail if they don't entertain the challenge (according to instructions in the Republican booklet). Long lines and chaos necessarily ensue at the polling place, ensuring that some (likely Democratic) voters are discouraged by the wait and go home, never voting.
Anyone who knows my writings knows I am no fan of conspiracy theories or rampant speculation. However this scenario is indeed a possible intended result of such instruction.
It will be interesting to watch to see if this is indeed what Republicans in MD are up to.
is often the only way that the Republican Party can be successful in an election.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
is your side so confident you're going to win this year? We might just steal the election again!
BTW-- how many Republicans have been convicted in the past six years for election fraud? I can name a few Dem's. [link to www.findarticles.com]
Who's been running the country for the last six years? What makes you think any investigations would even arise? And the discrepancies in the 2004 race between the exit polls and the final results all favored Bush...funny about that, huh? Whether anyone was convicted for that, or everything that happened in 2000, does not affect the reality of the situation.
I'm not convinced that the Dems will win. I'm convinced people will vote for them over Republicans though. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some more mysterious discrepancies show up this year.
Enough with the exit poll crap. The exit polls are so fallible it is incredible you are trying to cite them. Exit polls have over stated Democratic vote percentages the last 4 presidential elections prior to 2004. [link to www.washingtonmonthly.com]
You will try, but you know there would be more than just Liberals shouting this time around.
Try because the majority of the public wants a Democratic congress, or haven't you seen the polls lately?
Like I said, your side has accused of us of stealing at least two of the past three elections. Why are you so confident we won't steal this one, then? I guess it proves the disingenuousness of all the liberal fear-mongering about "stolen elections' we've heard about for the past 6 years.
I never said it.
I go by the polls.
Also, re-evaluate your statement about illegal aliens. You were wrong again.
I was never wrong. You're holding on to the hope that hundreds of "non-citizens" in California were all on visas, not illegal immigrants. In other words, you're a moron.
You can't let go that you are completely wrong and have no way to back it up.
Everything you posted says illegal voters not illegal aliens.
Keep it up and you might get Karl's job!
I personally have never been one to believe or even argue about "stolen elections". I don't really believe much solidly without pretty strong evidence.
That said, what happens to your argument if the Democrats don't make the huge projected gains in the election that they are almost universally predicted and believed by supposed Democrats (according to you) to make?
If the Democrats don't win, would that provide some evidence that the election was indeed rigged. Using your own logic, I can't see how you could argue it doesn't.
Anyway, all of this back and forth about who will win is pretty silly to me. We will all know soon enough.
Steele made his "staying the course" comment in June. According to the other link MMFA gives here ([link to mediamatters.org] more info on Steele's changed position, however, the first example MMFA gives of Steele changing his rhetoric is October 5 in an interview with the editorial board of Maryland Gazette.
Sure, Steele changed what he said, but what happened in between then?
Oh yeah, that's right! Gen. Pace, August 3rd: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
It was shortly after that time that I too, stopped using ridiculous phrases like "stay the course," because clearly, the general admitted the current course was not doing us any good.
As for Steele acting like a Democrat; yeah, so? Democrats do the same thing in southern states like North Carolina (see the pro-life, anti-abortion Heath Shuler.) The "big tent" technique has done Republicans well for years, and now we have Democrats copying it. It's just politics. Who cares?
And who cares about "Steele Democrat?" It sounds like a copy of the phrase "Reagan Democrat." Are you going to complain that Reagan ran like a Democrat now?
Did Reagan ever produce blue bumper stickers that said "Reagan Democrat"? Steele is trying to mislead people due to the harsh climate for anyone bearing an (R) next to their name on the ballot.
But I agree with your other point - all these guys are playing the game to get elected...MMFA is concentrating on the Republican tactics.
No Reagan didn't have bumper stickers, you're right. But I just think Steele is capitalizing on that a bit, if you understand what I mean. I think he's more trying to get across the message that "hey, I'm a Republican, but even Democrats can agree on most of my campaign message." Of course, I have no concrete evidence that that is why he is putting out those bumper stickers and signs, but neither does MMFA have any evidence that he's putting it out to look like a Democrat. But even if that is the case, we both agree, both parties are doing it. And I think it has a lot to do with area. Democrats have problems getting elected in the south; so, they run more conservative candidates and portray a more conservative message there. Republicans have problems getting elected in New England, so it doesn't surprise me that they're running more liberal candidates/people acting more liberal to get elected. It's just smart politics.
say this ""hey, I'm a Republican, but even Democrats can agree on most of my campaign message" and he should wait for the big resounding NO we don't agree with you. Actually Michael “Dollar Bill” Steele is backpedaling on many of his previously held right wing positions. I live in MD and I have monitored Steele over his public political life. He will do anything and say anything to win. I have no respect for this disingenuous clown.
I'll take you at your word that he's disingenious, since I don't live there. But again, both parties are doing this this year. Look at the candidate I mentioned earlier running for the Democrats who is adamantly anti-abortion. How likely is that? No surprise: he's running in North Carolina.
aunt is a stuanch Democrat and she is against abortion. I know many older Democratic church ladies that are, but even they don't propose to force their views on others.
Reagan didn't use the term Reagan Democrat. That's what the pundits used to describe the Democrats that were attracted to Reagan and voted him into office by an overwhelming majority.
There's a big difference with that and what Steele is doing.
I understand that. Please read my response to the first individual who said that. In fact, go ahead and make a habit of reading what I say, completely, before responding to it. That way, I don't have to keep posting messages like this one.
I completely read and understood what you said.
That doesn't change the point that I was making.
Steele is saying this himself. Because other people do it, doesn't make it right.
Keep trying though. You aren't the dumbest Rebublican I have met and there is a chance that you might learn how wrong you are someday!
You need to re-read your own posts because they invariably contain misinformation and straw man arguments.
Nobody is saying you can't run liberal republicans in liberal areas and conservative democrats in conservative areas.
The complaint is that Steele is trying to trick people into thinking he is a Democrat.
Like I said before, you need to increase the scope of your thinking.
Maybe because a lot of peolpe have been saying that staying the course hasn't been working for years.
Maybe because anyone with half a brain could see that it wasn't working.
Maybe you need to do a little independant thinking for once!
Your own link doesn't state that they are illegal aliens!
Are you on Drugs?