Black Maryland Democrats must be very afraid of Michael Steele.
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.If the next set of "upstanding citizens" are wielding nothing more lethal than Nabisco™ products at the next rally, Lt. Gov. Steele will be fortunate.Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.What such people are doing to Michael Steele stems from the same type of mindset out of which white racism and many other delusional phenomena are born: the ability to call a lie the truth in order to justify one’s actions or the actions of another. That’s how Mrs. Marriott can baselessly refer to Lt. Gov. Steele as ‘anti-black’ without flinching. That’s how she can say that “Sambo,” “Oreo” or "Uncle Tom" references to a black man aren’t racial and she can do so with a straight face and (probably) without feeling the burden of a guilty conscience. These things merely are because a majority of a certain population--black Democrats--calls it the truth; no need to provide concrete evidence. And woe to those who dissent; woe to those who will not be a part of the mob."Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."
During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore.In 2001, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. called Mr. Steele an "Uncle Tom," when Mr. Steele headed the state Republican Party. Mr. Miller, Prince George's County Democrat, later apologized for the remark.
"That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial," Mrs. Marriott said. "Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial."
Because that's what Mr. Steele is being subjected to: the words and deeds of a mob. And, like someone else we all know well, this particular mob will define the meaning of "is," along with anything else for which it wants to create new definitions.
Some might dare call it evil.
(Thanks to many people)
UPDATE:
From Darkstar in the comments:
I heard Marriott on the radio. She did not state what was attributed to her but not quoted directly. She also said that the cookie incident should not have happened.If these things are true, then many people--including me--owe Mrs. Marriott an apology, along with black Maryland Democrats in general.Please note that Steele, himself, has said that Blacks at Morgan were not throwing the cookies.
Now, what she was directly quoted as saying, she said it is accurate.
"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."
That statement is what public debate should be about. The pros and cons of the statement can be argued. I find nothing foul about what she is directly quoted as saying.
She said that Miller kept asking her questions about certain things.
On this one:
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
She said that was what he was asking her AND she disagreed with it.
Given that another person quoted also said that the direct quotes were correct, but the attributed statements were not correct, I find the author suspect.
I will be busy tomorrow, but please, readers, email me or post here if you have any more information on this matter. Something this serious should not be misrepresented.

