RSS Feed MenuOn January 30, 2009, 168 members of the Republican National Committee will meet in Washington, DC to elect the next Chairman of the Republican Party. To be sure, the election comes at a critical time for the GOP’s future – on the heels of staggering defeats in the last two election cycles and with little outward signs of a return to the “grandness” that put the “G” in GOP. For their part, Democrats are relishing their return to the White House with a popular and historic figure in Barack Obama. While Democrats are unified behind their party’s leader (at least for the time being), the Republican party appears to be adrift with no national leader to steer it through its present state of affairs. Is the election of a new Chairman a panacea for the GOP? Certainly not. But the selection of the individual who will lead Republican efforts at the local, state, and national level for the next two years will, at the very least, set the tone for how we begin to rebuild and revitalize our party.
One of the six candidates for the job is former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. Steele’s personal story is an inspiring one. After Steele’s father died in 1962 of alcoholism-related liver disease, his mother refused to go on welfare. Instead, she worked as a laundress earning minimum wage to support her two children, both of whom went on to obtain undergraduate and graduate degrees. Steele also spent time at the Augustinian Friars Seminary at Villanova University, in preparation for the priesthood. Steele credits his mother’s determination, his Jesuit education, and Ronald Reagan for his conservative political ideology. A former county and Maryland State Party Chair, Steele holds the distinction of being the first African-American elected to state-wide office in Maryland. He ran an unsuccessful, but impressive bid for the United States Senate in 2006, raising more money than any other GOP candidate that cycle and performing respectably in heavily blue Maryland. In the ensuing years, Steele has served as the volunteer chairman of GOPAC, rising on the national stage after prime-time speeches at the 2004 and 2008 GOP National Conventions and as a frequent commentator on the Fox television network and conservative talk radio.
Steele offers a complete package as a potential Chairman for a floundering GOP – a grassroots activist, former elected official, tested fundraiser, and media-savvy spokesperson; and yet, some within the GOP accuse Steele of not being conservative enough. The primary basis for these claims – Steele’s affiliation with the Republican Leadership Council, a political action committee dedicated to helping moderate (and often pro-choice) Republicans get elected in traditionally blue states. Steele, a devout pro-life Catholic, joined former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman and former Missouri Senator John Danforth in 2006 as co-leader of the organization in his effort to promote conservative outreach in decidedly non-conservative areas. He ultimately ended his tenure last year to focus exclusively on his efforts at GOPAC. Steele’s critics label him a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and say that his affiliation with the RLC undermines his conservative and pro-life bona fides such that he can’t be trusted to run the GOP.
It remains to be seen whether Steele’s critics have enough sway to prevent his election as Chairman, but their criticism highlights a fissure that runs deep through the party. Will the voting members of the RNC apply a litmus test for conservative pedigree – a kind of guilt by association – that precludes Steele from becoming Chairman? Or will the GOP embrace a “Big Tent” theory that Ronald Reagan so effectively employed to expand Republican majorities and buttress the Republican “brand” throughout the 1980s? We’ll know soon enough. The Republican Party has much to gain from leaders like Michael Steele.
ronin72 // Jan 24, 2009 at 1:54 am
Could you please list, or at least name a Steele critic that names him “RINO?” I find this hard to believe.
KenDenslow // Jan 24, 2009 at 7:47 am
Wait, Steele and Christie Todd Whitman? We just give him a pass on this? How can you fellows at the New Majority possibly call yourselves conservative? Does GOPAC pay for this site? There are far more qualified candidates who will actually keep this party to the right.
pat // Jan 24, 2009 at 9:56 am
The idea that a rino like Steele will come riding to save our party is nonsensical. You guys are pathetic. What is needed is a return to the Reagan 1st principle: GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM. The beast must be starved and drowned. The Obama era will pass. Will there be a the right kind of conservative party ready to take over when the time comes? Not if people like Steele have anything to say about it.
dragonlady // Jan 24, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I vote for the Big Tent philosophy. Give Steele a chance.
CoalMan // Jan 24, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Conservatives didn’t loose the election, McCain did! We will continue to loose them until we decide whether we actually stand for something. Something that allows us to gather and rally together, and fight the good fight not a rear guard action against our own fifth column Dragonlady, we have always been the “big tent” party. Traditionally we cared only for your thoughts and actions in the path we took not your color or gender. We need a statement of principals, some rules of engagement, we need to seek the nexus of our agreements.
CoalMan // Jan 24, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I’m sick and tired of hearing “the Reagan ere is over”, when there was no Reagan era! Reagan lit a path that we lost our way on. Men like Newt in his ascendancy and some other virgin Republican legislators who marched in with him had the right idea. They published their goals and stuck to them, things were good and the path was brightly lit; and we’d still be on it if the power hadn’t gone out and Newt hadn’t tripped on his hubris.
dragonlady // Jan 24, 2009 at 2:38 pm
CoalMan, we may want to be the BigTent party, but then let’s allow debate on what we should stand for in the party, as you put it. Lot of other posters are accusing each other of being RINOs and Democrat-lite on this site. I consider myself conservative, but I can agree to disagree and still be pleasant.
CoalMan // Jan 24, 2009 at 2:48 pm
We need a real person, a cross between Newt and Joe the plumber, with a little Steele thrown in. We need an aggressive, well spoken, populist whose unafraid to go toe to toe with Democrats and foolish policies. No more “middle of the road” McCain wannabe’s whose main purpose in life at this point is once again asking the press to love and honor him. WE need someone who will not be taken in by this left leaning press but will march to our music because its the tune we all sing. If I had my way I’d give Joe the plumber the reins and damn the torpedoes.
CoalMan // Jan 24, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I’m sorry, if direct and passionate is not pleasant, then you have my fullest apology, Dragonlady
ronin72 // Jan 24, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Who branded Steele as a RINO? He seems to have garnered the support of folks Like Michelle Malkin, and she’s far from a middling moderate republican. Maybe I missed a memo somewhere?
I (gag) hope that he has a vision that’s worthy of the party, but the vote for Chairman is not an one I can make. Hopefully (there I go, again) the party can pull it’s trunk from it’s rectum long enough to make an effective change (damn you, Obama) for the good of all of us.
con-gma // Jan 24, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I am afaid I must agree with the majority of the posters here. To celebrate a man who is aligned with Todd-Whitman sounds like a recipe for disaster. We spent an entire wasted year on the rino mccain, it it yeilded nothing,excepy Palin and the Plumber. McCain is back to showing his true stripes and bending over to obama and the dems. What a tangled web we weave when we lose our path.
dragonlady // Jan 24, 2009 at 6:38 pm
No worries CoalMan. No offense taken.
dragonlady // Jan 24, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Just curious for those who think Steele is a RINO…what makes you say that? He’s been generally fiscally conservative (for tax cuts, health savings accounts, anti-gov’t spending) and did not support timetables in the Iraq war.
InTheMiddle12 // Jan 24, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Interesting discussion. Michael Steele, from what I’ve seen on TV, appears a smart man who’s more in touch with where Ameicans are today then the current Chair – just my opinion.
I’m one of those Republicans the party lost starting with Bush’s second term and in this current cycle. The GOP doesn’t feel inclusive to me anymore and frankly, I haven’t felt wanted in the party unless I sign on to anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-Christianity (I am a Christian by the way, just don’t like it mixed with politics). I’m more a fiscal conservative than social conservative and I’m waiting for the party to offer me something again. I’m not giving up but I’m not terribly hopeful either though Mr. Steele would definately get my attention.
ronin72 // Jan 24, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Just curious, middle, but why Bush’s second term? Anything in particular? Just the war? Did you think Kerry would have offered you something more? Does the democratic party seem more open, somehow? More tolerant of differing viewpoints? my prescription: Spend some time in the fever swamps (Huffpo DKos and DU), and watch them eat their own for a day or two, and come talk to me. Of course I hung there during the 04-05 cycle, so they had nothing to look forward to, then… maybe they’re just talking about macrame and needlepoint patterns, now, instead of assassinating the President or wild conspiracies… and driving down anyone who had a conflicting opinion about world events.
InTheMiddle12 // Jan 25, 2009 at 6:42 am
Bush Doctrine at the top of the list. I do not believe that the constitution calls for invading a sovereign nation that didn’t attack us. It cost America its integrity, moral leader’s role in the world, countless lives (american and iraqi), countless treasure, etc. As the grown child of two WWII vets who was raised with a consciousness of war, I found it appaling that America would abandon the true enemy (al quaeda in afghanistan) and attack an old enemy who was contained and losing power daily. That’s really the cornerstone of my disagreement. Sadly, Katrina confirmed my convictions along with keeping Rumsfeld as long as they did and Libby’s breaking of the law. Outing Valerie Plame I saw as treasonous, and it came out of the Vice President’s office for political purposes.
coleman // Jan 25, 2009 at 7:24 am
It would be helpful to know what the “smoke-filled room” thinks. I for one miss the days when insiders who knew what they were doing ran things, as opposed to rule by amateurs and glib pundits.
My picks for that room would be Frum, Gingrich, Buchanan, McCain, Romney, Sam Brownback, Colin Powell, Brad Wine, and a few others that Gingrich, Brownback, and Frum would agree on. Whoever they like, I’ll like. We need more followers in the GOP, and a dozen or so real, tested leaders (and far fewer media demagogues who are self-appointed kingmakers).
Anonymous // Jan 25, 2009 at 8:03 am
There is No one in the RNC leadership who can get the party out of the mess it is in. The party needs to move swiftly away from the right wing fundamentalists as fast as it can go.
Brad Wine // Jan 25, 2009 at 8:13 am
The basic premise of my piece (and I think one of the driving principles of this site) is that there is a chilling effect paralyzing our party because a number of our fellow Republicans embrace a view that you are something less of a Republican/conservative if you choose to associate yourself with ideological moderates (see the comments of con-gma, pat, and others). Few of Steele’s critics (certainly none of the folks who have been critical of him in the comments below) have indicated how Michael’s political views are somehow less than conservative. To the contrary, a number of unquestionably conservative thinkers in our party (Gingrich, Malkin, Hannity, Barbour, and others) have praised Michael as: 1. conservative and 2. capable of communicating conservative values to a new and larger audience. Are the bomb-throwers in our party really willing to throw all of that out the window because Steele worked for two years with Christine Todd Whitman to elect moderate Republicans in liberal parts of the country? Really?
Brad Wine // Jan 25, 2009 at 8:14 am
A brief note to my friends (here and elsewhere) who feel they are at liberty to throw out the RINO label and accuse others of being “Republican lite” – your holier-than-thou attitude is extremely unbecoming, and a recipe for ensuring that our party remains in a permanent minority status. Having lost a string of elections, we must find ways to grow our party by showing people of all stripes that they have a place in the GOP. This isn’t cookie cutter politics. What works in the South may not work in the North East or the far West.
That having been said, I AM NOT advocating that we abandon conservative values in the process. We have to communicate the inherintly conservative/Republican principles of personal liberty and responsiblity and the limited role that government has as it relates thereto and do so in a way that attracts people to our party, not drive them away. We can’t say to folks – we want your vote, but we don’t want your input. We can’t say that someone isn’t good enough for our party if they don’t agree with us completely. Reagan not only employed a big tent theory, he also articulated the “Eleventh Commandment” – “Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republicans.” We would all do well to remember this before we question whether someone truly belongs in our party – whether its in our leadership or as a rank-and-file member.
InTheMiddle12 // Jan 25, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Well said Brad but I fear that the current controlling elements will be loath to open their minds and feel secure enough to allow debate from the cross range of conservatives that exist. Though I’m conservative by nature, I’m clearly not anything like the controlling aspect of the party, in its current form. Thus, why I voted Obama. I didn’t leave the GOP, the GOP left me.
dragonlady // Jan 26, 2009 at 9:03 am
Yes, I agree we suldn’t call each other RINOs or Dem-lite but moderates suldn’t derisively refer to social conservatives as the “oggedy-boogedy” branch or whatever Kathleen Parker called it. Just because you believe in socially conservatives values does not make you small-minded. Scorn cuts both ways.