From the GQ Blog on men.style.com: The Reconstructionist
The truth is, I've formulated a very large, very paranoid theorem as to why this whole thing with Steele happened in the first place: Steele was put in as head of the RNC for an important reason: He's a sacrificial lamb. They knew that he wasn't the far-right demagogue you'd expect to be heading the GOP - why else would there be all this talk of Rushbo as "the de facto head" of the party? - and that his views weren't entirely in line with the major points of the party.
His election sent the racists into screaming fits, swearing that they'd leave the GOP and never return, because the party's main components know there's no follower quite as devout as the one who leaves and comes back. Steele's views, which the right's talking heads can spin as being "liberal", will be cited as the reason that they're putting together a vote of no confidence against him, conveniently whitewashing (if you'll pardon the expression) that the vote is being pushed by someone who became a Republican because the government desegregated his school.
Steele will be ousted, and the right-wing talking heads will claim it's a victory for "conservative values" over "liberalism", with the added coded message that they put a black man "in his place". This is also the main reason why I don't buy into the idea floated by some that the GOP won't oust Steele because it'd make them look like a bunch of racist crackers: their cover story is already written for them, thanks in large part to this interview.
Now, you can buy into all that, or you can just say, "Steele's got diarrhea of the mouth." Hey, either way, the result is the same. The difference is whether you're going to take the logical, succinct approach, or you're going to come up with a sprawling, meandering, half-baked conspiracy hypothesis like I did.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice?Wow. Just wow. Yeah, I'm wagering he'll be gone by this time next week at the latest. After this, they're really going to accelerate the process of throwing him out on his ass.
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”
(...)
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
(emphasis added)
The truth is, I've formulated a very large, very paranoid theorem as to why this whole thing with Steele happened in the first place: Steele was put in as head of the RNC for an important reason: He's a sacrificial lamb. They knew that he wasn't the far-right demagogue you'd expect to be heading the GOP - why else would there be all this talk of Rushbo as "the de facto head" of the party? - and that his views weren't entirely in line with the major points of the party.
His election sent the racists into screaming fits, swearing that they'd leave the GOP and never return, because the party's main components know there's no follower quite as devout as the one who leaves and comes back. Steele's views, which the right's talking heads can spin as being "liberal", will be cited as the reason that they're putting together a vote of no confidence against him, conveniently whitewashing (if you'll pardon the expression) that the vote is being pushed by someone who became a Republican because the government desegregated his school.
Steele will be ousted, and the right-wing talking heads will claim it's a victory for "conservative values" over "liberalism", with the added coded message that they put a black man "in his place". This is also the main reason why I don't buy into the idea floated by some that the GOP won't oust Steele because it'd make them look like a bunch of racist crackers: their cover story is already written for them, thanks in large part to this interview.
Now, you can buy into all that, or you can just say, "Steele's got diarrhea of the mouth." Hey, either way, the result is the same. The difference is whether you're going to take the logical, succinct approach, or you're going to come up with a sprawling, meandering, half-baked conspiracy hypothesis like I did.
