Friday, November 14, 2008

Maybe Not The Best Man For The Job

The possibility of Michael Steele leading the RNC has much to recommend it. Those of us who supported Mr. Steele like and admire him, not because he's "clean and articulate" but because he is a man of courage and the epitome of grace under fire. Mr. Steele deserves a prominent place in the national GOP. I'm just not sure that the head of the RNC, at this time, is that place.

There is a war in the GOP brewing over what to do now that we've lost in two election cycles. One side, mine, says we sacrificed our competitive advantage when our elected officials became more concerned with aggrandizement of power than with principle. The other, probably best epitomized by David Brooks in Tuesday's New York Times. Broadly read, Mr. Brooks advocates remaking the GOP as sort of Democrats-Lite. Quite honestly, I don't think 2006 or 2008 told us much more than going to the polls with an unpopular president while in the midst of an unpopular war or financial crisis is not a good evolutionary strategy for a political party. In fact, the election results of last Tuesday don't indicate that conservative (or as Mr. Brooks would have it, Traditionalist) issues are an electoral loser. Prop 8, for instance, won in California despite California going easily to Obama.

Whoever leads the RNC will be at Ground Zero of this struggle. In that regards, Mr. Steele's potential election to the RNC gives me pause.

He is a founding member, along with John Danforth and Christine Todd Whitman, of the Republican Leadership Council. Those two names alone tells the average conservative just about anything they need to know about the group but a look at its "Partners" is even more troubling. Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice. Republicans for Choice. Republican Majority for Choice. Log Cabin Republicans. Republican Main Street Partnership. While no one is advocating purging these groups, I think even these groups would admit that they exist because they represent viewpoints which are outside the mainstream of the GOP as expressed by our national platform.

Mr. Steele's stated opinions place him comfortably in that part of the party occupied by Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and his co-founders of the RLC.

While we and the Dems need a coalition to win, in the final analysis we must stand for something. For the GOP, we must spend some period of time defining what that something is. In my view, to quote Jim Hightower, there is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. Mr. Steele is probably the most conservative candidate we could reasonably run on the Atlantic seaboard from Maryland north and we need to recruit more like him to run for office. But, in my view, Mr. Steele is not the man we need at the helm of the RNC during the next two years.

21 comments:

Harold Kleinfelter said...

I completely agree. I think Steele is just looking for a high profile job.

Greg Kline said...

Is Newt better? (Cue commerical with him and Pelosi.)

streiff said...

At this point Newt carries too much baggage.

I'm not saying I have a candidate, either, just that in my view Steele isn't a good choice for the GOP at this particular moment.

Sheldon BAker said...

How much does that position pay ?

Jeane Anders said...

$134,000 /year, that would make him a beneficiary of the Obama tax cut.

Marc said...

The head of the RNC really doesn't set policy. His job is to help build the party and get Republicans elected. Steele has a good amount of experience with the retail side of politics. He worked locally in PG County, he ran an excellent Senate campaign, and he's headed a conservative grassroots organization for the past couple years. Beside that, he's good on TV and he can articulate Republican principles well.

If the GOP is to win in 2010 and 2012, it needs to reach beyond its base. It needs to recapture the youth, the suburban vote, and peel off minority voters. An RNC led by Steele has a good chance of succeeding in these areas. He may not be ideal, but he's the best guy for the job.

streiff said...

I think we all know what the job of the RNC chair is.

Having the party headed by someone who isn't necessarily in tune with the party's platform isn't a great move at this particular time. The next RNC chair is going to set policy by recruiting candidates and representing the party on TV. We need to be sure it is the right guy.

No one is saying that he isn't good only that he's neither uniquely qualfied nor indispensable.

Anonymous said...

not in tune with the party platform? Name one issue Streiff...

I'm beginning to think you and Andy Harris are cut from the same angry cloth.

streiff said...

ooooh, cutting repartee.

Just because you've taken the time to read neither Steele's positions (link provided in the post) nor the 2008 GOP platform doesn't place a requirement on me to read them to you.

But you asked for one. Okay. Steele is in favor of leaving Roe v Wade intact. The national platform isn't.

This tragic self-beclowning could have been easily avoided, couldn't it?

warpmine said...

Baggage like that of Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton. Baggage be damned, he's got answers that make sense. Since Newt's not interested in the position it's a non starter.

I agree, Steele is a great guy but I don't think he's right for the party chair. If the DemonRats can put a clown like Howard Dean as their chair then the GOP can put such a man with GOP platform core principles as their chair.
We all saw the the Deaniac was a loon from day one and look, after two election cycles, the Loons are now in power.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Streiff you should re-read the 2008 Republican Party plan on human life...

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm#5

How many times is R v. W mentioned?

More importantly, your comments show how little you know about Michael Steele. Because if you knew anything about Michael's background, you would know that he is a devout pro-life Catholic. Almost to a fault because he even opposes the death penalty based on his pro-life stance.

But just like Andy Harris, you completely ignore Steele's "body of work" and point out a single inconsistency to say Steele is too liberal for the Republican Party.

streiff said...

I don't have time to deal with idiots (that would be you).

I'm quite familiar with Steele's background. Unlike you I'm also familiar with his actual positions on issues rather than the positions you think he has. His abortion position is that he's against abortion but doesn't want Roe overturned. That is essentially the John Kerry/Nancy Pelosi/Joe Biden position. The "safe-legal-rare" formulation.

So what does the 2008 platform say on the subject:

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

Go away.

Anonymous said...

I think it's rather important that the RNC be led by someone who isn't a lightning rod of hate (e.g. Gingrich). Mr. Steele is eminently qualified, as you know, and is also quite likable.

Mr. Steele is a social moderate from what I've read on him and a fiscal conservative. I daresay that this would be a good representation of the rank and file registered Republican who votes but doesn't give to the Party or go to conventions. Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I'm right, but I dare say it.

Marc said...

streiff, I think you overestimate the power of the RNC chair. He does not "pick" candidates -- the voters in Republican primaries across the nation do that. And by articulating Republican views, he does not set policy. The main Republicans who will be setting policy in the coming two years are Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. The head of the RNC is a cheerleader and fundraiser. He's also a grassroots organizer. Steele is a perfect fit for the job. Just because he doesn't line up behind the GOP platform 100% is no reason to reject him. In fact, I'd imagine you'd have a hard time finding any Republican who agrees with the platform 100%.

streiff said...

No one said "pick". I think we all know enough about the electoral system to understand the voters do that via primaries. I said "recruit". There is a big difference and one of the major failings of our party apparatus over two election cycles has been its inability to find good candidates to run against vulnerable Dems.

Quite honestly, I don't see the evidence of either his organizing or fundraising chops. Those two deficits coupled with his RLC affiliation makes him a non-starter from my perspective.

He's not a perfect fit for the job. A guy like Haley Barbour is a perfect fit for the job but we probably won't get him.

Anonymous said...

Already had Haley Barbour as Chairman of the RNC - Dole '96.

streiff said...

I guess that's news to some people but not to anyone who has followed politics for any period of time.

M.R. Newman said...

He'd be fine in the job, but I'm beginning to be of the mindset that we need him here in Maryland more. We need him to run for office in Maryland as he's one of the few statewide names we have left.

I think Fred Thompson would make a great party chairman.

Chester Peake said...

Fred Thompson may be great, but he's still percieved as another "Old White Guy". Not that there's anything wrong with that, per-se, but as we've seen, the American voter is more interested in perception than substance. Michael has both.

I believe Michael Steele is more pro-life than his association with some of the (left-of)centrists in the party may let on. Remember he ran with a pro-choice Bobby Ehrlich, and many pro-lifers only voted for Bobby because Michael was on the ticket. He even dared to attend pro-life rallys at Lawyer's Mall while Lt. Gov. That risked being seen in the media as going against his boss, but he did it. He's a former candidate for the priesthood, so I'd say he is pro-life.

Yes, we need to move the party to the right, both economically (no pork) and socially (pick your issue). However, it will not happen all at once, and there has to be a way to do so without alienating ALL centrists in the party immediately. We need to convince them our ways are correct, not boot them out. If we can't convince Republicans to move to the right, how are we going to convince the general population to do so?

Pulling in the poles of the big tent a bit is important, but don't collapse the whole thing in the process.

Sad that Michael lost the Senate race 2 years ago, or we could have had an African-American 2-year Senator in contention for the top spot. Republicans have put many Blacks and Women in positions of authority, even more so than the Democrats have. Yet they get to claim the first (excluding Bill Clinton) Black President? We should have had that honor.

As much as I would like Steele to run for office again here, in Maryland that might just be a lost cause. Even MOM has been able to survive the storm of bad approval ratings, so much so that Bobby E. may not run again either. Do we cling to feeble hopes for our "superstars" here, or let them thrive elsewhere in positions where they could do more good?

There are similar debates going on about Sarah Palin's future in the party as well. Some want to scapegoat her and squash her (closet democrats?) and others want to see her take a national role. I don't think she lost any of her gleam and superstar status that united the base, she just succeeded in ticking off the left-leaners. Good for her!

Anonymous said...

What has GOPAC accomplished since Michael Steele has taken over as chairman. When one looks at the website it looks like Steele Inc... GOPAC seems dedicated completely to branding and promoting Steele.
How much of the substantial amount they raised actually benefited any Republicans. From what I can tell they raised in excess of $8 Million and donated less than $100,000 (GOPAC spent more than this on Limos and staff travel!!)

Also, is Steele using his Maryland LtGov campaign fund to pay for his campaign for chair of the RNC? If so, how much to date?

What consultants is he employing for this RNC pursuit? I submit it is probably the same ones who he used in his Senate campaign...and they not only advised the Republican Senate Campaign Committee during the 2006 Debacle but also advised Elizabeth Dole and a pltehora of other losers.

I suggest that the Republican party needs a tactician and not a Spokesmodel. Mr Steele has never missed an opportunity to promote himself and any organization he has been affiliated with were simply vehicles (see GOPAC).

Just a few thoughts....thank you for your time.


Randy Sears

Anonymous said...

I almost forgot!!! Steele wrote an OpEd in September 2007 in the Washington Times calling for DC Statehood...what's up with that? The more one digs the more evident it gets, this guy is a BAD choice!!

ShareThis