Yes, this has lots to do with Georgia Republicans. – Erick
Lt. Gov. Steele knows I like him. And he knows I’d support him if he were RNC Chairman. But at this present moment I am in the no camp. I can be persuaded, but I stand at “no thanks” right now.
And frankly, I’m a bit aggravated by a lot of folks on our side who have gone all fan boy on Michael Steele. To use Joe Biden’s lingo, “a mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy” is no more a qualification for RNC Chair than for President of the United States. And that, frankly, is why a large number of people are supporting Michael Steele.
I want to support Michael Steele because of what he has done, not because of who he is or what he represents. I would encourage people who are supporting Lt. Gov. Steele to start talking about him as a serious leader, not him as a face to put up against Barack Obama. Why? Because the RNC Chairman’s role is much more of a behind the scenes role than an “in front of the camera” roll.
And thus far, based on what he has done, I have concerns. Again, I am persuadable, but I’d like to get these addressed:
1. Listening to the call conducted today with bloggers, I get the strong sense Lt. Gov. Steele really has no earthly idea what the RNC Chairman does, but seems to think it is about being the face/voice of the GOP while out of the White House. As an elected Republican, let me assure all of you there is a great deal more to the job of Chairman of the party under whose name I qualify to run for office. If Lt. Gov. Steele is only the face/voice of the party, who will be responsible for running it? I fear that it will be the same DC consultants that are running his campaign and demand party contracts for their friends. One of the great problems at the RNC and the other party committees has been the self-dealing consultants who put their contracts above recruiting and electing conservatives.
2. There is, as there always has been, a movement afoot to marginalize pro-life voters who are, in fact, a very significant part of the GOP base. Lt. Gov. Steele, Christie Todd Whitman, and John Danforth started the Republican Leadership Council. The group’s purpose was to move the GOP leftward in the same way the Democratic Leadership Council’s purpose was to move the Democrats to the right.
The Republican Leadership Council lists among [its "Strategic Partners"](http://www.republican-leadership.com/partners):
- GreenGOP.org
- Log Cabin Republicans
- Main Street Coalition (Fire at will, AceinTX)
- Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice
- Republicans for Choice
- Republicans for Environmental Protection
- Republican Majority for Choice
- The Whitman Series
- The WISH List, which describes itself as “the nationrsquo;s largest fundraising network for pro-choice Republican women candidates at all levels of government.”
The RLC alone makes me deeply leery of Michael Steele as RNC Chairman. These groups want to purge the GOP of social conservatives, but for whom there would have never been any winning Republican coalitions in the last thirty years. Then there is [his position](http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Michael_Steele.htm) that *Roe v. Wade* should remain in place, a position that is outside the platform of the very party he wants to lead.
As Streiff, a Maryland resident, [noted](http://redmaryland.blogspot.com/2008/11/maybe-not-best-man-for-job.html), “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. “sup id=’fnref1-2006-01-26′>a href=”#fn1-2006-01-26″>1/a>/sup>
There is also this: at this time, the GOP needs a work horse, not a show horse. There are enough big egos in the party apparatus in D.C. already competing for air time. Lt. Gov. Steele would, I’m afraid, cause friction among the big egos as he became a dominate voice in the party mdash; and that would disrupt more than help. We need someone who can bring all the egos together and [rebuild the party.](http://www.rebuildtheparty.com/)
Lastly, I’m having a hard time gauging how successful GOPAC has been in the past couple of years and would appreciate any information on that.
Again, I can be persuaded. But right now, put me in the “we need an RNC member” camp — that’s where we’ll find the work horse. I am very comforted that the RNC committeemen and women who will actually be voting on this are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise. [NOTE TO THE RNC: Mike Duncan must go.]
For you activists who bristle when I say this, I’d tell you to look at Georgia. Two years ago the activists began agitating for one of their own to be party chair. They got what they wanted, but not what they needed. And the Georgia GOP has gone from being a gem of a party to a craptacular excuse for a party.
We need a competent manager and organizer, not a face.
div class=”footnote”>
hr />
ol>
li id=”fn1-2006-01-26″>
p> In fairness, he was running for Lt. Governor of Maryland and being in favor of overturning em>Roe/em> would have been the immediate death of his campaign. I’m practical enough to understand the realities of abortion politics in this country, but to also start the RLC and fill it with pro-aborts bothers me.
a href=”#fnref1-2006-01-26″ class=’footnoteBackLink’ title=”Jump back to footnote 1 in the text.”>#8617;/a>/p>
/li>
/ol>
/div>
{ 42 comments }
It is the pro-life-at-all-cost faction that is making the Republican Party irrelevant. How many seats have been lost because these people want to use the awe and might of the US Government to force that point of view down the throats of the several states?
If they took a more moderate approach and framed it as working to strike down RvW as bad law and to take the issue out of the hands of the very place Republicans say that they do not look for answers, the Federal Government, it is likely abortion would be much more limited than it is now.
Social conservatism is what most Americans are. They are not, however, social conservative activists. Conservatives want government out of our lives, not more government to make sure everyone is living by someone else’s set of rules. This is what is intolerable to many otherwise conservative voters. Pretty much every friend of mine who is a Democrat is one because of the social conservative activists, the SOcialists who Believe In God (SOBIG’s) who want an economy based on Lenin and a social policy based on Leviticus.
So, I would try to persuade you to not turn against Mr. Steele based on social conservatism at the Federal level, which is a long term big loser for the GOP, except in small regional enclaves. After all, is the GOP to be about laisez-faire style of governments, or big brother?
an economy based on Lenin and a social policy based on Leviticus.
Wow, that pretty much sums up the GOP in the last 8 years. I agree. The ProLife-or-the-highway Republicans are a major problem, and its why the GOP is a national party no more.
Erick,
I have been one of those on his band wagon, but I really didn’t know his social views. I have assumd they were pro-life & pro-family.
The purguing of social conservatives has been tried before & it got us Bill Clinton. Now that we have Obama- the republican party wants to try it again!!
If what you are saying is true about Steele , I couldn’t even be persuaded to support him.
Doug, I believe there are some issues that are right- like supporting and protecting life. If it costs elections or control of political power-it’s worth it!
Michael Steele was a good candidate for senate but the idea of Steele as RNC Chair doesn’t work for me. That position requires the political vision and policy depth of Newt. As a moderate African American Democrat, I must say that the GOP must “step your game up” because the Dem plan is to explain the Blue Dogs section of the party by adding current moderate Republicans.
Doug Deal, you are correct about elements of the GOP who function by creating a 10 issues test and only wanting members of the party who agree with 9 of the 10 issues. Saxby and Isakson confer with a few Dems and those GOP elements go crazy. The American people want bridge-building and hopefully the new Democrat party will compel the GOP to be more open—look at the scoreboard.
Putting Steele at the head of the RNC would be an uncomfortable façade because most rural Republicans are repulsed by the moderate GOP movement.
Erick, the answer lies within Chip Saltsman.
Steele is a good candidate for elected office, but we need someone who is a proven organizer and mover – that’s Saltsman. Look at what he did in Tennessee or for Huckabee.
Chris and Doug
I agree
It is not surprising at all that the GOP would exploit someone for a pony show. Look at what they did to Sarah Palin. There needs to be some serious policy regrouping and strategizing rather than putting puppets in place.
If it weren’t for the dirty politics of the Bush campaign in 2000 John McCain would have been our president then and wouldn’t have had to play towards the social conservatives that killed his campaign this time. No more Bush-types, No more Palin-types, No more Steele-types please.
Erick,
I would disagree with you on only one point; while we are out of the majority and White House, the RNC Chairman needs to be both a recognizable face as well as an organizer. Howard Dean filled that role for the Dems during that period and has proved to be both a good spokesperson and grassroots organizer for the DNC.
That’s why I’m supporting Newt, because he has shown he can do both. Steele lacks organization credentials and Saltsman is nearly a complete unknown to the base, though I have known him since he was TN GOP chair. Gore lost TN under Chip’s leadership.
Who gives a crap what a city councilman from Macon thinks about the RNC?
Bill,
we both know that the Brits recognize him as the 69th most influencial conservative in America while I only rank 22,942nd and you rank 103,811th.
And, who cares what the Brits think about?
basicly no one for the past 60 or so years.
Wonder who Erick is receiving his impressions from on the Georgia GOP? Perhaps it’s because Sue Everhart didn’t feel the need to call Erick for HIS advice.
i have been generally excited about the idea of steele for rnc chair–i thought he should have been ken mehlman’s successor instead of the weird thing they did w/ martinez and duncan–given what erick has said i do now have questions–and i think the biggest is does anyone have any idea what kind of county chair and state chair he was? an honest assessment of how he did in those roles should give one an idea about how he’d do in this one–did he grow his party in the state? what kind of candidates did they recruit? did he lay any of the groundwork for the gop guv victory in 02? or was he an innocent bystander? i am sure someone must know–i would imagine there are rnc folks who were around when steele was a state chair that likely know…
these are actual questions i’m asking, not rhetorical, i’m wondering if anyone can shed lite on this…
I’m on record supporting Steele for Chairman but it’s doesn’t matter all that much because I don’t have a vote.
I like Steele because he does have experience as a State GOP Chairman, an elected official and Chair of GOPAC. Is the most qualified candidate on the planet? Probably not, but of those who’ve expressed an interest I think he is.
Reports indicate Newt doesn’t want the job, and I’d take Steele over him anyway. Fred! might be interested, but what experience does he have in Party building? I’m sure there are others out there and I’d like to hear from them.
Steele’s relationship with the RLC does concern me but having listened to the conference call on Friday and from what I know about Steele he’s certainly not hostile to social conservatives. I think he would count himself as a social conservative as well as an economic conservative.
During the conference call he expresses support in principle to idea of bringing the GOP into the 21st century technologically. The GOP is way behind and is losing it’s ability to communicate with many voters as a result. He promised to take a look at Rebuild The Party which Erick and others have started. I was glad to hear that.
I think Steele would do a great job as RNC chair, not because he’s black but because he’s smart and has a good idea of what the Party needs to be doing.
BTW, I have a link to Steele’s conference call audio on my blog.. Take a listen and judge for yourself.
It would seem to me that it is Erick who is the one most hostile to the non-social conservatives than the non-social conservatives are to people like him.
But, HEY! You Roe-v-Wade-is-the-be-all-to-end-all-issues people just keep trying to screw this party up with your Utopian ideals.
Doug and Chris, I’m sympathetic to what you are saying, but I don’t don’t want a squish in leadership.
Here’s the deal: the Club for Growth has never picked a pro-choice candidate. Why? Because the socially-liberal, fiscally conservative politician is, to steal from Jonah Goldberg, the jackolope of politics.
Rebuild The Party plan seems all about marketing and very little about issues. How about platform with real solutions?
So on other words ERICK has promoted BIG SPENDING LIBERALS over a GOLDWATER style conservative because he thinks being 11 trillion in the red and growing is a great trade off!
Erick,
I agree with your sentiment to a certain extent. I just think the Federal government is the wrong battlefield for social issues. Democrats gain too many allies from big government fearing independents who should really be at home in the Republicans.
I guess what I am looking for at the national level is a social agnostic, and a small government fiscal conservative. To me it does not matter if you are socially conservative or liberal at the Federal level as long as you do not try to use the power of government to push your ideals on everyone else. I do not think a nation conservative coalition is sustainable when it seeks an activist government, because it pretty much flies in the face of what it means to be a conservative.
Erick
You can be king of a small tent party. Also guys like you are the death of the real GOLDWATER conservative movement.
The father of the Conservative Movement
WIKI-Barry Goldwater was the American politician most often credited for sparking the resurgence of the American conservative political movement
He was criticized in 1964 as a radical reactionary, yet he energized a conservative grass roots movement which, sixteen years later, helped to nominate and elect Ronald Reagan. However, after 1981, the influence of the Christian Right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater’s libertarian views, that he openly voiced his opposition.
In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired Senator said, “When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.” He said about Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass,” in response to Falwell’s opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court where Falwell said, “Every good Christian should be concerned.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
Do you think Goldwater would be welcomed in by Erick and the GOP today?
what is john kasich doing these days? he would be my first choice to become the next rnc chairman.
let’s hope this decision is not overly influenced by anti-gopers like konop who only uses the (r) when it is convenient to seek public office. kind of like saxby.
3J,
The last I heard he is going to run for governor of Ohio in 2010.
John,
In retrospect, opposition to Sandra Day O’Connor is well justified. Her brand of “what makes me feel good today” juris prudence is one of the things that is wrong with our country.
Three Jack
You voted for and supported the out of control spending that I warned about years ago. And when I warned about the mortgage crisis you laughed thought and thought I was “CHICKEN LITTLE” It was awful easy for you to take a popular position at the time and take blind eye approach to real issues.
When I ran for office I made it clear when asked numerous times, my family, community and COUNTRY comes way before any PARTY!Call me whatever you want but I am an AMERICAN FIRST!
If you had stood up than instead of promote this irrational policy maybe we would still have a real conservative movement!
Yeah, 3Jack! What do you have to say about THAT!?
I consider myself pro-life. And not one of those squishy three exemption pro-lifers. If the destruction of a fetus is murder then that is wrong. And it is then wrong if it was concieved by rape or by incest. The only time the destruction of a fetus is justified is in the self defense of the mother. And even then, preservation of the fetus should be second only to the survivability of the mother.
That said, the issue is about #478 in the top 400 issues this country has to deal with. And to disqualify someone because the associate with those who believe that the destruction of a fetus is not murder is absurd. The only issue sillier than abortion is gay marriage.
As for the C4G, I suspect that the best fiscal conservatives have a internal moral compass that tells them that taking money from a worker in Alabama to name a post office after some guy who died in Idaho is wrong, just like murdering a fetus.
Frankly I think those who oppose abortion yet don’t see an issue with the ridiculous spending habits of congress are the ones who don’t give a flip about the unborn, but decide to use their plight to be able to stick the plunder in their pockets. And _those_ people are the ones who will make sure fetuses are dying to keep the issue alive and stoke the flames of division for their political purposes.
Murder is defined as “the unlawful killing of a human being.”
Since abortion is legal, killing a fetus isn’t “murder” anymore than killing a cow is “murder” to the PETA folks.
Yes, I know. Harsh, cruel words. But, reality.
Hat tip to Bill.
When you all can tell me a fetus is a person using something other than a single source, we can start to talk turkey.
Careful, Odin. You might upset the Republican Vegans.
Erick-
Completely agree. We all said Obama shouldn’t be supported just for the clear social accomplishment of electing an African-American to office. We all said we shouldn’t support Hillary just for being a woman. We all said we shouldn’t elect Obama simply for his rhetorical talent. Or because his wife dresses well.
Steele is no different. Our party was once one of innovation and ideas. The Democrats used to be more “conservative” than the Republicans, consistently clinging to failed economic systems — first slavery, then socialism. It was Lincoln and other Republicans who had the moral courage to yell STOP to slavery, and even more significant, do something about it. It was Goldwater, Reagan, and other Republicans who had the intellectual courage to yell STOP to government stifling our economy and do something about it.
Nobody should have voted for McCain because a woman was on the ticket. I don’t even like Palin’s rhetoric — I don’t want a hockey mom running the most powerful country in the world. She has *much* to prove before I would ever consider voting for her.
Erick, you are right that social conservatism is crucial to being conservative, and to the success of our party. So is fiscal conservatism.
But note this: the successful are BOTH. Erick, we both know that the intellectual foundation of conservatism predicates God, and God is both moral truth and intellectual truth. Forget one, and we are leaving something critical out.
That all to say that I too am not convinced Michael Steel is the real deal for what we need as RNC Chair. We need a workhorse and an ideas (wo)man.
Chris
Well said Farris for 10!
Odin, Bill, whoever else–
Please tell me the exact moment at which a “fetus” becomes alive and can be called human. Is it the moment that air touches skin? Is it the moment of the first breath of air? Since you folks seem to pound this subject so often with such disdain, why don’t we define some things?
Policy should be about principles. We get all wrapped up in our emotions about our most important issues rather than applying principles and facts to them. The Constitution guarantees the protection of life. No one has yet definitively established the moment at which life begins, and it is clear that unborn babies (aka “fetuses”) can live outside the womb long before their full-term birth date. I agree with Chris that all human life has purpose and should not be destroyed, even while yet in the mother’s womb. This view is based on principle and fact and has a Constitutional basis.
While Doug has stated that he believes the “pro-life-at-all-cost faction” of the GOP makes it “irrelevant,” I believe it’s clear that our elected leaders’ unbridled economic misconduct from 2000-2006 is what, in fact, has made us irrelevant.
The people don’t trust our party to do what they say they will, because those who carried our banner did exactly the opposite. Elected Republicans have taken us down the road toward socialism, but yet we cried against it in our opposition to Barack Obama. George Will put it best in his Sunday column:
“Conservatism’s current intellectual chaos reverberated in the Republican ticket’s end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big government — verily, “socialism” — would impend were Democrats elected. John McCain and Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a Toledo plumber that he would ’spread the wealth around.’
“America can’t have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans — whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society gave birth to Medicare in 1965; a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a time of record profits for the less than 2 percent of the American people-cum-corporations who farm — and their administration were partially nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking around to see if some bit of what is smilingly called ‘the private sector’ has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities eligible for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be ’spread around.’”
http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/11/16/the_hyperbole_of_a_conservative
The people of our party need to have an honest pow-wow with the party leadership and throw some people out. I think we can start with tossing Sue Everhart from the GA GOP because of her staunch support of Saxby long before the primary. Shedding the unprincipled at state and national levels is going to require people at the grassroots level to get past their infatuation with anyone who gets on stage and says conservative-sounding things. Instead, we need to go to conventions with our message and beliefs on our lips and not be fearful of telling the “big shots” what we think (like those who had the fortitude to boo Saxby at the state convention when he mentioned support of the immigration bill).
I feel that the GOP is devoid of a strong, credible voice for our core beliefs right now. We’re still reeling from the mess created by Delay, Frist, Hastert, Bush, Craig, Stevens, Newt, etc., etc. Yes, I did say Newt, because his hypocrisy in attacking Clinton while not having his own personal morality in order destroyed his credibility with the American people.
I’m looking for a fresh face–maybe someone we don’t know yet nationally. We need someone to step out and articulate our message who can hold our leaders to that message once we regain influence. Too many of our politicians saw the opportunity to make themselves rich and walked away from conservative policy. We’re going to have to identify those people going forward and challenge them in primaries, no matter how much money they have. Otherwise, we’ll be stuck with bloated government micromanaging our lives forever.
Maybe Michael Steele can start that process, maybe not. We had better find someone who can.
JSM,
The people of our party need to have an honest pow-wow with the party leadership and throw some people out. I think we can start with tossing Sue Everhart from the GA GOP because of her staunch support of Saxby long before the primary.
You and Erick can join forces and bring it the f*** on. Neither of you know shi*t about anything with regards to the job Everhart has done, but you THINK you know. Let’s see you lift more than your jaw when it comes to working within the party.
JSM, Part 2
While Doug has stated that he believes the “pro-life-at-all-cost faction” of the GOP makes it “irrelevant,” I believe it’s clear that our elected leaders’ unbridled economic misconduct from 2000-2006 is what, in fact, has made us irrelevant.
Doug is actually correct. You know why? Because there was NO other litmus test for candidates other than your “pro-life” issue. As long as someone told you “I’m pro-life” you didn’t bother considering whether or not they were actually competent in their job.
You were blinded by that one issue in deciding who should receive your support. I knew Saxby was incompetent back in 2002. But, folks like you sucked-up his essence because all you gave a sh*t about was your abortion issue.
When you can demonstrate you have competence in analyzing someone’s qualifications beyond their religion or life choices, JSM, maybe those of us who can see the forest will start listening to your big ideas.
Whatever, Bill. I haven’t claimed to know everything about the job she’s done–I just know what I saw. I saw her at a meeting in the spring of ‘07, and she was already shilling for Saxby. I knew right then that we had almost no chance of seeing any opposition to him in the primary. In my eyes, that is a failure of the state party.
It’s very hard for me to see how her other accomplishments could overcome this lapse of good judgment. She and the state party leadership should have left the door open to a possible challenger.
Part 2 –
You’re full of crap, Bill. You can’t back up one thing you have just said about how I judge a candidate. Not one thing.
i have found that institutionally, in ga unless there is some sort of scandal the state gop tends to be fairly hostile to primary challenges to incumbents, esp. as compared to the dems–but that is anecdotal based on things i’ve seen the last couple of cycles…
JSM,
she was already shilling for Saxby. I knew right then that we had almost no chance of seeing any opposition to him in the primary. In my eyes, that is a failure of the state party.
THAT shows you don’t know what the role of the state party is. Her role is to support elected Republicans and see that they get reelected.
Had there been a primary opponent, she would have stayed out of it. Why didn’t you run?
JSM,
I’ve seen your arguments on the pro-life issue for a long time on this blog. That’s pretty much ingrained in your frontal lobe.
Bill, you’ve seen my pro-life arguments, but clearly you’ve seen nothing else. You and a few others try to pounce on anyone who has a clear argument against abortion rights and label that person. It’s as if you guys can’t handle the fact that there are good reasons to take a position you don’t agree with. That won’t work with me. You need to pay better attention.
As far as Everhart’s role, I’d be dismayed to find that the chairman’s role is to back the re-election of an incumbent more than 18 months before an election, helping him pad his war chest and secure key support before others have a chance to announce their intentions to run. If that is the chairman’s role, we’re hurting ourselves, as evidenced in this election.
Why didn’t I run? Several reasons, one being that I clearly wouldn’t have seen any support from the party chairman.
JSM,
At what point in Bush’s reign did you decide he was not qualified, assuming you do think that way now?
Medicare Prescription Drug Bill.
Comments on this entry are closed.