Today the Republican Party decided it wanted to actually try and win some seats in 2010. It did so by selecting an intelligent and forward-thinking new Chair of the Republican National Committee.
Michael Steele is New RNC Chair
Contary to most of the people here on Gather and on talk radio who favored divisive and non-thinking types - types that would have assured additional Democratic gains in 2010 - the RNC actually make a thoughtful choice.
There is hope yet for the Republican Party!!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 87
Did they select Steele because they want to move toward a more moderate agenda and push away the extremists on the right? Or did they select him as a counter to the first black president?
Berf: We have got to get positive somewhere!! If we spend ALL our time pointing out every little thing, again, nothing will get done, fighing will continue, and our FOCUS will again be lost.. Be patient.. And God Bless Us All.
Just announced on the news you may be better off to go to smaller banks, and credit unions as the big ones (banks) are probably gonna raise their rates. I hope our banks are safe? I cannot imagine after all that money...No surprise about the rate hike, but good grief, I am already, when in a time crunch, spending almost three dollars at banks for a money order. Hello 7-11. Sorry, got off subject David.. I apologize..Ellen B
He might be the right choice for them. I'm not particularly fond of him.
By the way, interesting that you referred to him as the most moderate of the bunch. Personally, I don't know enough about some of the others who were in the running to make that assessment, but I did hear Hannity today gleefully exclaiming that Steele was a conservative.
"Isn't that something like people in a leaky rowboat deciding that they had better learn to swim??..... "
The leaky rowboat part is pretty easy to figure out, but how is electing Michael Steele RNC chair "learning to swim?"
And:
"since the GOP has all but put itself in a sink or swim position, it is nice that they finally realized that at least one oar fell overboard somewhere along the way.........."
is again a mixed or at least incomplete metaphor. If the GOP is "sink or swim," how does one or more oars falling overboard impact them sinking or swimming? Sinking has nothing to do with oars.
Hence the reference to cryptic. The logic doesn't flow, and thus one must discern what it is that you are attempting to say. When a writer leaves it up to the reader to translate he or she risks that person guessing wrong.
I never met him personally, but through watching the debates and seeing him as a political commentator I came away with a similar opinion of him.
That would be interesting, except I never said it. I did say he was "intelligent and forward-thinking," which isn't the same as moderate. But it is interesting that you think so.
"Personally, I don't know enough about some of the others who were in the running to make that assessment, but I did hear Hannity today gleefully exclaiming that Steele was a conservative."
I didn't make that assessment. And frankly, Hannity would gleefully exclaim that anyone the Republicans picked would be a conservative. Besides, isn't that supposed to be a given? Wouldn't even a moderate Republican be a conservative by definition?
Sorry again, David, but you needed to refer back to he first analogy to understand the second.
All I am trying to say is, the Republicans have not had their act together since Reagan (if even then). And having 12 years of father and son Bush has put the GOP on a trend that has ended up pretty much actually defining the Party for what it is.....when it isn't. It has been 20 years since Reagan and the GOP has been nothing but Bush-defined, Bush-identified, and Bush-represented ever since then........
That fact should have been obvious to anyone in the GOP......
That doesn't mean to imply that the Democrats have held to their core principles either, but depending on your point of view and whose brochures you read, that might actually be a good thing.
In my book they are the walking dead.
Actually John, the Centrists cringe when either of those speak, mostly because they know they do it just to pad their own pockets. But we saw this week what happens when someone actually says so out loud. The far left have their own share of "Limbuaghians," though apparently they don't as good a talent agent because they don't get as much air time.
In my book they are the walking dead."
Ah, but in the movies the walking dead can make your life a living hell. In all seriousness, however, it would be a mistake for the Democrats to rest on their laurels or forget that they are in office for all of us. The public wants effective government, and yet tends to swing from one set of panderers to the other and back again. Complacency gets you unelected.
Excellent point, Roy. Abraham Lincoln won the Republican nomination (and the Presidency) because of a split vote. Sometimes it comes down to the lesser of evils.
"I'm not so sure this was a matter of making an intelligent choice as it was settling for anybody on the sixth try. That they actually chose somebody intelligent comes across as an accident more than a planned move, considering how many ballots they had to go through to get to Steele. And considering that all 5 of the previous ballots were hard-fought and bitter contests between the two top-runners, both diehard social conservatives. So we'll have to wait and see if the GOP will actually listen to this guy, or fight him all the way." (Roy Hilbinger)
Steele is someone that I would of voted for if he had run for President... I like his way of thinking.....
My apologies. I still had another post on the brain.
I don't think so. McCain was considered a moderate Republican, but most conservatives (that I know and speak to) consider him much more liberal. He did slant more right for the GOP primary, but that has not been his history. Bloomberg is another example. He's got an R after his name, but I don't know many who consider him conservative.
Mmm, if I understand what you mean ... and maybe I don't ...
But if I do understand....choosing Michael Steele is a good thing because now the GOP seems to be if not plugging the leak, at least swimming in the right direction and trying to find the other oar. Whereas if they had chosen (if he had been in the running), someone like, oh ... Lincoln Chaffee, the other oar would be sacrificed and the boat would continue to sink?
Isn't that something like people in a leaky rowboat deciding that they had better learn to swim??.....
THE ONE & ONLY BERF .., Jan 30, 2009, 6:18pm EST
I could be snide, but of course that would be out of character for me.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Michael_Steele.htm
If he hasn't changed his stand on the issues since then, looks like he'll lead in the right direction.
The question is, did they make the right choice for the right reasons?
Julie Ann Dawson, Jan 30, 2009, 6:14pm EST
The only thing the GOP wants to be serious about is creating big government and corporate cronyism.
Jack E., Jan 30, 2009, 6:34pm EST
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Michael_Steele_Immigration.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Michael_Steele_Principles_+_Values.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Michael_Steele_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Michael_Steele_Abortion.htm
Also, while I agree with the comments about him being sharp and well spoken (he has regularly filled in for Bill Bennett on his talk show), Steele's organizing skills are unknown and the Republicans need a state by state rebuild to get some new talent in Washington to replace the McConnell's, Spector's, and Hatch's who are long in the tooth and over the hill.
Enjoyed the article. Thanks for posting it. 10 sent your way.
Well AC, I would argue that very few would consider McCain to be a "moderate" anything. Perhaps erratic would be a more accurate description. The "more liberal" is only a relative thing...being anywhere towards the center of conservative is still conservative, just not as religiously so. Certainly not liberal, and as I already suggested, he isn't particularly moderate. I think he just wings it most of the time, which maybe isn't such a bad thing for a Senator.
"Bloomberg is another example. He's got an R after his name, but I don't know many who consider him conservative."
Actually, Bloomberg now has an "I" after his name. He was a registered Democrat but switched parties to Republican solely to run for Mayor of NYC, with Rudy's blessing. Then a couple of years ago decided to dump the whole pretense and go Independent. I agree, Bloomberg is definitely not "conservative," though he has many conservative ideals. Frankly, he's one of those guys that actually just works hard for his city and doesn't particularly think too highly of all the ideological troglodytes who can't make a decision without consulting their particular party's playbook.
In what way, Wade?
Well, Christos, I hope you know that your statement can be easily read the wrong way. So perhaps you would like to provide some substantive support for why you think either of those particular people would be "funny" as candidates (I'm assuming you mean for President in 2010, though that isn't actually clear from what you wrote).
As an aside, I'll offer a couple of (relatively) quick thoughts.
Blackwell as a Presidential nominee would guarantee that the Republicans would lose not only the Presidency but more House and Senate seats. Blackwell epitomizes the old school of the GOP. The only way the party would run him is if the "all we need to do is become more far right and manipulate the system" side of the party had control. Which again, would guarantee further losses. Luckily for the GOP, Blackwell's 2004 shenanigans will keep him from winning any primaries anyway. What is needed is the "thinking of the future" side of the party (of which there are many) to regain control.
Which brings me to Jindal. Jindal will not run in 2012 unless he has some sort of egomaniacal derangement. Given that Jindal is an intelligent and thoughtful politician, Governor, and from what I can tell (since I've never met him) personality, this seems unlikely. If he runs in 2016 I think he has a chance, assuming he doesn't get caught up in any party or personal silliness before then.
From what I know of him, Melissa, I very much agree.
"The RNC, imho, got caught in the overly conservative side after Bush. Now, they're moving further into the middle taking a hint from their Democratic neighbors. I'm proud of this choice, the RNC finally seems like they might be doing something right."
On this I'm not so sure. The GOP is struggling with identity right now, as the Democrats did in the last decade. There are two factions of the party and it's not clear which side will win out. The premise of this article was that choosing Steele showed that the Republicans had started to think, but Roy Hilbinger above pointed out, Steele only won on the 6th ballot after a split vote. The fact that they had so many contenders, in retrospect, suggests that they are not sure which direction to go (since they using just crown an heir apparent).
So we'll see how this works out. Steele's first challenge is to get his party organized.
Okay, we'll let that one ride. As for the basis of the rest of your comment (which I won't recopy), there has been some increasing diversity in the Republican party. This likely has more to do with the increased wealth of many African-Americans and other minorities in the US than it does with any real attempt to address minority issues within the party. But that is a topic for another thread.
Since you mentioned them, I note that Powell, Rice, Obama, Steele, and many others all reflect something very important about how minorities are viewed in the US. All are intelligent, respected, and thoughtful people who happen to be black. Jindal is another intelligent, respected and thoughtful individual who just happens to be Indian-American. Others have risen to the top because they are intelligent, respected, and thoughtful and who just happen to be women.
That's a pretty good sign.
I find it hard to believe anyone could characterize Christie Todd Whitman as "ultra-liberal." She clearly is a moderate Republican, and did get write a book (It's My Party, Too: Taking Back the Republican Party... And Bringing the Country Together Again) in which she rebuked the far right for hijacking conservative principles. It seems most conservatives are now saying exactly the same thing now in an attempt to distance themselves from the Bush Administration. But "ultra-liberal?" Not even close.
"It remains to be seen what direction he will take the GOP in, and whether they will follow."
Yes, it does remain to be seen. As I noted in a comment above, the party has some tough choices to make, and it seems they are still not sure which direction to go. I had thought they had chosen by selecting Steele, until Roy reminded me that Steele only won on the 6th ballot, which suggests there still is some power struggling within the GOP.
This definitely remains to be answered, Randy. Howard Dean got a lot of flack for his 50-state organization philosophy, and even after it seemed to have been just what was needed for the 2008 election, he still didn't get a whole lot of accolades. Sometimes being in charge means dragging your own people along kicking and screaming into the future. The GOP needs Steele to be able to do that, despite the likelihood that many will fight him every step of the way. Time will tell.
All are intelligent, respected, and thoughtful people who happen to be black. Jindal is another intelligent, respected and thoughtful individual who just happens to be Indian-American. Others have risen to the top because they are intelligent, respected, and thoughtful and who just happen to be women.
That's a pretty good sign.
David K., Jan 31, 2009, 4:24am EST
...choosing Michael Steele is a good thing because now the GOP seems to be if not plugging the leak, at least swimming in the right direction and trying to find the other oar. Whereas if they had chosen (if he had been in the running), someone like, oh ... Lincoln Chaffee, the other oar would be sacrificed and the boat would continue to sink?
Actually, Steele and Chaffee together would make the GOP a power to contend with in the future. But Linc's a bitter man these days; he's left the party to become an independent and he's left politics to be a university professor. I know Linc fairly well. I worked with his father, John H. Chaffee, on a variety of issues (being something of an activist in various humanitarian and environmental causes), and when John passed away Linc stepped right into his place. Unfortunately Cheney (Bush was merely a figurehead) and the PNAC crowd he brought with him hated Linc and basically made it impossible for him to win re-election to his seat. They defeated their own purpose, though; their own Republican offering, Stephen Laffey, lost to Linc in the GOP primary, the bitter divide evidenced in the primary turned a lot of Linc's potential supporters away from the GOP entirely, so an extremely liberal Democrat got the seat instead (not that the neo-cons can tell the difference between a screaming liberal and a moderate - they all look alike to a neo-con), the GOP lost the majority in the Senate, and Linc Chaffee retired from the party and public life after his very painful betrayal by the party he grew up in and supported.
Now all this is coming from me, basically Green Party but forced to vote outside my own party (usually for Dems, but not always) for a lack of viable candidates. But I supported Linc regardless; like Steele he's (in your own words) "excruciatingly intelligent", he's moderate, and he's a dedicated environmentalist for what would be, from a Republican POV, all the right reasons. But whereas I think Steele is strong enough to stand on his own, I don't think Linc is. If the GOP were to have a real epiphany, Michael Steele with Lincoln Chaffee as his running mate would give any Democratic ticket after Obama a real run for their money. But only if a newly-moderate RNC could convince Linc that he wouldn't be chewed up and spit out again. As I said, he's very bitter right now, and he needs a lot of healing. But I think the GOP needs him and more like him if they expect to survive.
That's the key, Lee (sorry for the alliteration). If people become informed, and can present their opinions intelligently, then we can work through our differences of opinion.
If they come up with good alternatives to Obama's/Dem's plans and actually stick together, that will help a lot in what normally is the reshuffle of the midterms.
Waiting for a Limbaugh/Steele fight. I think Steele's worst enemies will be from the far right. I don't think he thinks that where they need to play. He certainly wants to make the party more appeal to folks they are turning off right now. Will they let him? Yet to be seen.
But Linc's a bitter man these days; he's left the party to become an independent and he's left politics to be a university professor.
Roy ? Hilbinger, Jan 31, 2009, 9:49am EST
for a lack of viable candidates.
Roy ? Hilbinger
Of course, Chaffee's record is well recorded and his name and his stance on issues pops up easily in a search. But ... I couldn't find out very much about Michael Steele's positions that I could compare to L. Chaffee.
Here's what I could find from here and there:
L. Chaffee:
Endorsed Obama.
(CNN) – Former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee was known for keeping a low-key profile on Capitol Hill, but the Republican -turned -Independent is making waves with his exceedingly blunt comments on newly-minted Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin:
She's a "cocky wacko," he told a Washington think tank earlier this week
M. Steele:
Backed McCain.
“I love Sarah Palin. When they picked Sarah, it changed the political dynamics of this race. That’s the underlying issue or fact of the 2008 campaign,” said Steele.
L. Chaffee:
Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
M. Steele:
Make tax relief permanent and repeal the death tax
L. Chaffee:
Q: Do you favor federal subsidies for embryonic stem cell research?
I voted for a bill for federal funding.
Embryonic stem cell research could help with many diseases
M. Steele
Support stem cell research that involves no embryonic cells
I do support stem cell research. ... do what we need to do without destroying that, that embryo.
Source: 2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006
See embryonic stem cells as lives
Q: Why are you opposed to using embryonic stem cells? Taking of a life?
A: Yes, I see that as a life, and I don't think that we should use federal funds to do that. 1
L. Chaffee:
I have consistently voted against any federal attempt to ban women's reproductive freedom & choices.
Strongly supports "Abortion is a woman's right"
M. Steele
Pro-life Republicanism is mainstream of America
So, M. Steele may very well hold the same views as Chaffee on those issues for which I could find no record (doesn't mean Steele isn't on record somewhere, just means I have to leave the house soon and can't search anymore], meaning IF they were together and held more of the same views than different ones, you could be right and they might could be a "GOP" powerhouse to contend with.... if ...
Actually, Steele and Chaffee together would make the GOP a power to contend with in the future.
Roy ? Hilbinger
So you know where I'm actually coming from, if I had had the chance (and if he had seemed like he really wanted to be there) I would have voted for Fred Thompson. +shrug+ I actually voted for McCain ... for the same reasons you sometimes vote dem. Lack of other viable candidates.
I doubt if I can comment intelligently about whether or not L. Chafee would be chewed up again ... the GOP - well (for me) there are moments of pure light coming from them. And then, there are the John McCain days. Meaning it could go either way at this point.
But only if a newly-moderate RNC could convince Linc that he wouldn't be chewed up and spit out again. As I said, he's very bitter right now, and he needs a lot of healing. But I think the GOP needs him and more like him if they expect to survive.
Roy ? Hilbinger, Jan 31, 2009, 9:49am EST
"Once approached by Democratic Leader Harry Reid to switch parties, Chafee has long supported liberal policies. He backs legal abortion, gay rights, federal-funded health care, strict environmental protections and a higher minimum wage. Opposes ANWR drilling. "
So, in light of that (if its true?), perhaps it wasn't so much that L. Chaffee was betrayed by the party as it was that he didn't agree with the party platform?
Stephen Laffey, lost to Linc in the GOP primary, the bitter divide evidenced in the primary turned a lot of Linc's potential supporters away from the GOP entirely, so an extremely liberal Democrat got the seat instead (not that the neo-cons can tell the difference between a screaming liberal and a moderate - they all look alike to a neo-con),
Roy ? Hilbinger
I'm not sure how this got into a Steele/Chaffee tandem, but it would seem highly unlikely. Chaffee was always a moderate; Steele always a pretty strong conservative. Chaffee got fed up with the silliness of the party; Steele is now in charge of that silliness. He might be able to bring some intellectual fortitude to the job, which is much needed, but he isn't going to swing the party too far to the center. At best he will have a more intelligent game plan and at least try to get some diversity in views. Right now the GOP is a one trick pony. It worked to have everyone in lockstep until they were all marched off a cliff by their own blindfolded leaders. The Democrats, on the other hand, are a party of such diversity and diverging views that it has been hard for them to seem organized enough to rally everyone at the same time. Obama mastered the "herding cats" concept and had a unifying theme everyone could relate to, even though their reasons for supporting him weren't all the same.
What the GOP needs to realize is that they represent principles that can be applied to benefit all people, not just the elite few with the (largely mistaken) belief that benefit will trickle down to the masses. If and when the GOP stops thinking that "not wealthy" means "lazy," they will have a chance to again lead the country.
Needless to say, the Democrats have their own party issues that they need to fix also.
I always get a kick out of statements like this (which I have admittedly taken completely out of context to make a point). We have largely been reduced to calling people "liberal" and "conservative" (or "progressive" and "neocon" depending on your point of view). And yet we also largely don't know what that means. Take abortion for example, no one is "for" abortion, but the two sides stake out "pro-life" and "pro-choice" positions that effectively accomplish absolutely nothing other than to give everyone a platform to scream from. Would it not make more sense for both sides to work together toward the absolute common goal of both of them - reduced or eliminate the need for abortions in the first place. Shouldn't we all work toward reducing or eliminating unintentional pregancies? Too often we lose sight of the real goals just because we've lined up behind our figurehead bumper sticker and no longer think.
Sounds about how the last 8 years have been.
In all seriousness, however, it would be a mistake for the Democrats to rest on their laurels or forget that they are in office for all of us.
Like the Republicans did.
The public wants effective government, and yet tends to swing from one set of panderers to the other and back again.
Who else have we got to choose from? (well, I voted mostly Libertarian, but who else even knew about them?)
Shouldn't we all work toward reducing or eliminating unintentional pregancies?
Lee says
I'm sure everyone would agree on that, or would like to. The problem is, many do not agree how that is best done.
Some "contraceptives" work on an already viable and fertilized egg. If one believes life begins at conception, this kind of contraceptive is the same as an abortion. For others, from what I've 'heard' in other threads on Gather and elsewhere when the subject came up, it's just another day, another pill (or whatever), like curing a cold, getting flu shot, doing a cleanse or taking a diuretic.
Also, there are some who believe that there are no unintentional pregnancies ...
Then, on both sides there are those who think anything and everything 'the other side' thinks is worse than silly and mean, and only this side of being moronic (IF they are in a good mood), so 'they' fight and scrape and nit pik each and every 'yes' and 'no' ... as well as, once an agreement is made (if there ever is one), one side or the other has to take it a step further, push the envelope.
Would it not make more sense for both sides to work together toward the absolute common goal of both of them - reduced or eliminate the need for abortions in the first place.
Lee says,
I agree, but again I think the problem lies with 'many' people. The 'goal' for many people is unclear and sometimes even "hidden" in token agreements (agree to one thing when your goal is something further on).
An example that comes to mind (since it is the one you used) from one side is once abortion was made legal (before the first trimester ended?), people learned to live with it as a necessary evil (as in no one wants abortion, but what can ya do? with shoulder-shrugs and face grimace).
But then, the envelope got pushed out to include the second trimester... and got further pushed to include partial birth abortion, which if abortion as first instituted was a necessary evil, then partial birth abortion could be considered evil personified and questionably necessary. Not to mention all the side issues irt the reasons for the need of... the sad life of unwanted ... horrible actuality of rape etc And all through the discussions of those side issues, neither side can actually agree if any of the bad things that happen or any of the other reasons for abortion are really the fault of or the responsibility of the one who is aborted (the lump or the baby, depending on which 'side' one is on).
All that is not to start an abortion thread but to show how working toward a common goal is sometimes really hard especially when even the basics of the problem cannot be agreed upon, and the 'common goal' .. the end zone ... keeps getting pushed further and further by one side or the other.
We have largely been reduced to calling people "liberal" and "conservative" (or "progressive" and "neocon" depending on your point of view). And yet we also largely don't know what that means.
Lee says
+shrug+ I don't know if it matters about the labels or even if the labeling is really an issue. Labels help us order the world around us. This is a book, that is a girl, he is a Christian, she is an atheist. All actually do tell us something about the object sometimes mmm?
And although I think they are used derogatorily .. progressive and neocon do tell us something about the beliefs of someone else, and generally the label isn't applied until after hearing the stand on or the beliefs irt one or more issues. Without going too deeply (I couldn't even if we wanted to) that's how it seems to me having lived a certain number of years. Labels? In general, not really a problem for me.
Here's how I see it breaking down irt the issue you brought up. If someone believes that abortion is okay and that sucking a tiny perfectly formed little body (or one not so perfectly formed) out of the mother into a garbage bag is more similar to scraping plaque off one's teeth than it is to a human being being sucked through a jet engine ...generally one could assume that person to be, at least on that one issue, a 'progressive'/ liberal. +shrug+
If someone believes the opposite, that the little person has a right to life and protection from those in society who would 'label' it a lump ... generally one could assume that person to be, at least on that one issue, a 'neocon' / conservative (busybody? misogynist? etc) ...
Sooooo ... all other side issues and 'humanitarian' reasons aside, until the liberal can view the baby as more than a lump, more than 'plaque', and until the conservative can view the baby as just a lumpier form of tooth plaque there really can be no common goal; only compromises that we may or may not be able to learn to live with.
I have a feeling the steps and problems associated with hashing out that one issue are comparable (although, of course, not exactly) to the steps and problems that come with many of the issues with which we struggle. In other words, the "sides" very often can't even agree on what the actual problem is, much less the solutions or how far those "solutions" should be taken before they are no longer solutions, but become themselves problems.
"And it is so" requires no thinking, and without thinking - and listening - there is no way to resolve the conflict. Meanwhile the very situation that we hope to resolve (or people we hope to care about) get caught in the cross fire.
David K., Feb 1, 2009, 2:57pm EST