RNC Chairman Steele: Friedman a 'nut job'

by smkovalinsky | October 1, 2009 at 05:53 am

204 views | 36 Recommendations | 11 comments

RNC Chairman Michael Steele was fed up on Thursday, and lashed out at Thomas Friedman, columnist for the New York Times, for claiming right wing talk may lead to an assassination of President Obama. Friedman made reference to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, words which Steele strongly objected to:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman a “nut job” on Thursday for suggesting that current fury in among the conservative grassroots is creating the “same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the [former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak] Rabin assassination.”
After being read Friedman’s comments during an interview on CNN’s “American Morning,” Steele lashed out at the Times’ columnist.

“Where do these nut jobs come from?” Steele said. “I mean, come on, stop this.”

Asked by host John Roberts if Steele was calling Friedman specifically a “nut job,” the RNC chairman responded: “I’m just saying to make those kinds of equations, you know, examples, and put that out there that way, to me is just crazy.”

“I’m sorry, but if you’re going to approach this discussion, approach it from a rational position, you’re saying because you disagree with the president on policy, that all of a sudden we’re going to make this leap into, you know, assassinations and all this other stuff,” Steele continued.

“I mean, at the height of all this stuff on Bush and people complaining and protesting, and jumping up and down, you didn’t have this kind of conversation,” he added. “Now all of a sudden you’re going to color it because of a public policy debate...because the president is black.”

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

QueensHart

at 05:57 on October 1st, 2009

Good for Steele

Sudha K (not verified)

at 07:18 on October 1st, 2009

In the interview with Steele, John Roberts refers to an astounding statistic - the Secret Service says that the threat level against Obama is 400% higher than that for Bush. That statistic comes from a recent book by Senior Washington correspondent for Newsmax, Ronald Kessler. The book is called "In the President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes With Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect,"

rng

at 07:38 on October 1st, 2009

Let me think about this...Tom Friedman has won a Pulitzer Prize for his journalism on multiple occasions. He is a serious, seasoned and well-respected journalist with multiple peer-to-peer awards and also an OBE.

Michael Steele is a career politician currently trotted out as a Republican spokesman as he is a man of color and who is so partisan and beholden to his party that had to grovel and apologize to Rush Limbaugh after he criticized him

I seem to able to draw a conclusion quite quickly as to who might be a nut job and who isn't. Calling Michael Steele, Micheal Steele, we have your check for selling out your integrity, calling Michael Steele.

Sheesh

Roy C

at 07:42 on October 1st, 2009

RHG. Your argument is entirely based on character. Friedman's column about Obama was awful. He is not nuts, but Friedman is "off his rocker" for sure on the Obama issue and assassination.

Freidman in his column was afraid his own musings about it would cause an assassination. That is nutjob stuff, especially compared to all the crap written about Bush including a feature film about Bush's assassination, columnists wishing for Bush to get the "Fredo" treatment (Godfather II) and all the rest of the stuff I heard on KPFA about his Bush had done a "Reichstag" fire in 9/11 to allow the "takeover" of the government.

rng

at 07:51 on October 1st, 2009

If Bush had been black - I would have agreed with you summation. It adds a whole different dimension to the issue. Friedman's fear that the current vitriolic and emotional opposition could lead to violence is an entirely reasonable conclusion. My comment above was satire. I would more generally weigh Friedman's observations more heavily than Steele, he is a damn sight smarter. There is danger ahead Will Robinson if this rifle-race-religion cocktail continues to be stirred and agitated by people that should know a damn sight better. Opposition is healthy, hate not so much, and a lot of those people out there with guns are filled with hate (and some with race hate). That, my friend, is a very dangerous recipe for this country

Roy C

at 07:56 on October 1st, 2009

Oh, really?

In my lifetime we have experienced the assassination of JFK, and the attempted assassination of Gerald Ford TWICE, and Ronald Reagan once.

I knew for about a year before it happened that RFK would be killed. I felt it. It was just as significant an assassination as his brother's.

And even the Democratic right "Dixiecrat" George Wallace got shot.

You don't need to be black to be shot and killed as president of the US. I mean, really.

rng

at 08:03 on October 1st, 2009

You don't have to be, but it has helped amp the chances. As he is the first, we have no historical comparison, but add in the fact that Presidents have been assassinated before and that this one is black, and you can figure the odds yourself. Measure the increase in the levels of threats against this President versus others. That is the only hard data we have here

Denial is not just a river in Egypt anymore, apparently.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 12:46 on October 1st, 2009

rng, President Obama is not the first black president. He is the first to acknowledge his bi-racial ancestry.

A common theme with earlier black presidents is that they all passed for white and hide their racial backgrounds in most cases. One of these was Abraham Lincoln. A summary of his Assassination can be read here. Any 'historical comparison' is left to the reader.

Roy C

at 08:10 on October 1st, 2009

Oh, Jeez.

I am well aware of an increased possibility of assassination because Obama is black.

The topic is: if Friedman a nut for writing in his column that he himself bringing up the possibility of an assassination of Obama increases the probability of an assassination?

And, the answer is YES. Friedman is a nut to couch his discussion in those terms.

This is what happens when you live by the rational mind and lack wholeness, as the modern secular intellectual does.

Friedman's reaction is pure superstition that he cannot avoid because he has a lack real connection to his unconscious where "superstition" comes from, and apparently suffers from a bit of an obsessive-compulsion complex.

rng

at 08:17 on October 1st, 2009

I am well aware of an increased possibility of assassination because Obama is black.

You pretty much denied it/ ignored it earlier

This is what happens when you live by the rational mind and lack wholeness, as the modern secular intellectual does.

That is the biggest load of self-justifying bull dust, mumbo-jumbo pretend science, and it is such an easy cop out - you are not connecting to the unconscious, tribal memory etc when anyone disagrees with you, so you just don't know. Right!

The fact is, regardless of whatever you posit you or anyone else does or does not connect to, is that openly discussing an issue in a widely read and dispersed media can make it more likely to happen. Nothing amazing there