Same Old Republican Crapola

Michael Steele has been elected the first African-American chair of the Republican National Committee. While he may look different than former chairs of the RNC, he is still quite the Republican when it comes to talking out his head and his ass at the same time.

Depending on whom he speaking with, Steele has two opinions on Barack Obama.

When speaking with Tavis Smiley, and a predominantly black audience, at the Black State of the Union conference in February of last year, Steele said this:

I'm very proud to see Barack Obama do what Barack Obama has done and is doing. I am philosophically polar opposites with the man. But it doesn't change the fact that we are from the same community. And it doesn't diminish nor weaken my pride in what he's done. I would hope that all of us would be just as proud of an African-American Republican achieving such success.

And yet, at a question and answer interview with NewsBusters.org, Steele says that media attention to Obama is based on "level of white liberal guilt."
When asked if he thought it was a race issue, he replied:

For some folks it is, yeah… Politically, I think some people [in the media] are so anti-Republican—I just look at how they chewed up Hillary to get to Barack. What they were trying to figure out, who's the best player to go up against the Republican establishment and who could trump certain things we'd be able to talk about that maybe Hillary couldn't, and certainly, the race issue would be one of those landmines the [Republican] Party would have to deal with…. If the shoe were on the other foot, they would be scrutinizing the heck out of a black Republican or a Hispanic Republican…. If he wins, he's a media creation, he's a brand. America doesn't need a president who's a brand. America needs a president who can lead.
So, to conservatives, he thinks Obama is a "media creation;" yet when speaking to Black audiences he says, "I'm very proud to see Barack Obama do what Barack Obama has done."

And there's more Michael Steele double-speak.

“As chairman of the party, [a Federal Marriage Amendment] is in the platform. We will support it and if members of Congress introduce the bill, then we will be the advocates for that legislation. Personally, I do not like messing around with the Constitution. I really don’t and I’m conflicted by it and I really appreciate the idea of wanting to put something like that, same with the pro-life issue, same with gay marriage but I really believe we are a federal government.”
So, he supports banning gay marriage, but he's against it? Huh? What? Huh?

Oh, well, this clears it up a bit. As Lt. Governor of Maryland, he told religious leaders in 2006, that marriage is between one man, one woman, and God:
"Marriage is not a purely human institution. Marriage defines not only the relationship between a man and a woman but also their journey through life. They should not be brow-beaten into thinking something that goes counter to what the people in the community aspire to."

I'm lost here.
He is against 'messing with the constitution,' but he's for amending it?
Why do I feel like it's the same old thing with a new face?