Michael Steele is a member of the Republican Leadership Council. The brainchild of Christine Todd Whitman. From their website:

“Inspired by a drive to get back to the fundamentals of the Republican Party, Senator John Danforth, Lt. Governor Michael Steele, and Governor Christine Todd Whitman created the political organization the Republican Leadership Council, which advocates for the historic Republican principles of liberty, individual responsibility, and personal freedom.”

Read pro-abortion and social liberalism.

I wrote about this group in a blog on Redstate over a year ago. These are the people who have led the Republican party into the terrible position it is now.

If you want more of the last eight years, then support Steele. But know what you are doing.

I like Steele, he didn’t let race rule his politics.

coughPowellcough

If Newt Gingrich doesn’t want the job, then I’ll support Michael Steele.

He already says he wants the job. He’s already done the job well, and we need him. He’s been very supportive of the next generation of Republicans, and he excels at mentoring and managing. Newt Gingrich!

are usually reserved for three-ring circuses.

The size of the tent isn’t as important as what goes on inside it. If enough people are attracted by what’s inside, the size of the tent can always be increased later.

…if what’s in the tent isn’t Conservative, it won’t get elected.
Even in California, the number of people who say they’re Democrat but in thought are conservative amazes me.
Democrat Lite didn’t win the Oval Office this year, it won’t in another four either.
Hopefully they keep all this in mind.

Note to lefties;
“Don’t be afraid to see what you see.” -Ronald Reagan

Activists taking Action

Join the RedState Strike Force

Senate Conservatives Fund	House Conservatives Fund
The Precinct Project	Jeff Gorell for Assembly

Conservatives Victorious in 2010

This from FoxNEWS, says Michael Steele is considering a run and seeking Newt’s endorsement, as he has declined a run:

In a statement issued by the former House speaker, Gingrich said he was not interested in seeking the post of Republican Party chairman.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin is running this blub and a poll re Newt for RNC Chair

He crumbled on the behemoth bailout.

He cuddled Nancy Pelosi on Al Gore’s global warming couch.

And he’s played footsie with Hillary Clinton on health care.

Is Newt Gingrich really the best choice for RNC chairman?

Draft Michael Steele website

… but if he is aligned with Whitman, then he is a big no in my book. As of now, I still lean Newt and his massive mailing list from drill here drill now… to start using the internet to reach out to voters in the GOP.

from Hip Hop Republican

Nominate Michael Steele web site

link:

http://www.draftmichaelsteele.com/forward?path=node/1

and here are 10 things you may not know about him

Michael Steele great choice to run the RNC

As a Maryland resident again living under the dictatorship that is the Democrat party in Maryland, I have to say the years under Ehrlich and Steele were a miracle.

Michael Steele is a great answer to Barack Obama, and man, the black people wouldn’t know who to vote for!

therefore I don’t expect the GOP to do it.

i like steele, and would prefer him over newt

today’s WSJ posted articles by Steele, Danny Vargas, Richard Land, Henry Olson, and Peter Robinson. Of these I thought Vargas had the best sense of where we should go.

here is Steele:

Most Americans today see a Republican Party that defines itself by what it is against rather than what it is for. We can tell you why public schools aren’t working, but not articulate a compelling vision for how we’ll better educate children. We’re well equipped to rail against tax increases; but can’t begin to explain how we’ll help the poor. We exclude far better than we welcome.

Things were different as recently as 20 years ago. Back then, Ronald Reagan made it cool to be a Republican — it wasn’t just his specific policies, but the timeless truths he so eloquently gave voice to, and upon which his policies were based. That’s the Republican Party we must re-establish.

We must articulate a positive vision for America’s future that speaks to Americans’ hopes, concerns and needs. It’s time to stop defining ourselves by what we are not, and tell voters what we believe, how we’ll lead, and where we’ll go; how we Republicans will make America better; how we’ll make their families more prosperous, their children better educated, their parents more secure, and all of us healthier, safer and stronger.

Our challenge lies not in beating Democrats, but in uniting around a message that solidifies our ranks and attracts new people to our cause. We have to listen to what Americans are telling us about their hopes, desires and needs, and then translate that message into proposals for meaningful action squarely grounded on the values we Republicans have always stood for.

Our faith in the power and ingenuity of the individual to build a nation through hard work, personal responsibility and self-discipline is our uniting principle. That is the sacred ground upon which our Republican Party was built. For the sake of all Americans, it is the ground we must reclaim.

here is Vargas:

Sadly, too many Americans view the GOP as out of touch, intolerant, the party of the rich, and unable to govern effectively. To be successful and regain the majority, we must change these perceptions and communicate more effectively with all segments of society, expand the base and allow for varying view points, while remaining true to our core values of limited but effective government, individual liberty and personal responsibility, and respect for traditional values.

Our message must offer a clear, optimistic and compelling vision for the future made up of ideas, reforms and solutions Americans can embrace. And this can be done without pandering, patronizing or compromising on our core principles. But it cannot be done without engaging in dialogue, listening to concerns, and making every effort to welcome citizens from various segments of society into the party infrastructure and to run for elective office.

both messages are pretty good, but the difference appears to be Steele wants to rebuild the party, Vargas wants a to make the party ideas more appealing. We need both. Vargas is not running but i like what he had to say.

The term “big tent” is usually used by those who want to squeeze social conservatives out.

To the extent that the GOP has strayed from fiscal conservatism, I think we need to rebuild that leg of the party. Most social conservatives support the re-establishment of fiscal responsibility. I am very worried that there is a small group wanting to used rebuilding one leg to cut off another. I want to see how Steele addresses all legs before completely judging him, however using terms like “big tent” sets off warning signals to me.

I have been arguing for the past year or two that Steele is the perfect head for the RNC. He is a solid conservative who can articulate conservative principles but — for good and for bad — he does give off the “my way or the highway” vibe that many conservative Republicans do.

As someone who lived in Maryland during his years as the GOP Party Chairman there, I can tell you that Steele knows how to organize and inspire the GOP. The only time that the GOP had any life in Maryland was when he was heading the party.

Michael Steele should have been RNC Chairman two years ago, if it was not for the stupid idea Karl Rove (with all due respect to Karl, I think he’s a good guy) had to make Mel Martinez the chairman when as a US Senator he couldn’t even run the day to day operations. It was a move to appeal to the Hispanic vote that failed miserably. Mike Duncan was the rightful RNC chairman and Martinez stepped down.

Steele knows the party inside and out, he’s traveled across the country raising money for Republican candidates. He appeals to both conservatives and to moderates and he’s got great ideas on how to make the party great again! I trust that Steele would look to people like Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson and others being thrown around on ideas to stengthen our party. He can rally the base, as he did in his phenomenal speech to the Republican Convention this summer and came up with the catch phrase, “Drill, Baby, Drill.”

The bonus is Steele is an African-American, which is a huge plus for our party as we try and escape the image of being the party of the “over 40 Christian gun-owning white male.”

reaching out to those who are conservative at heart but have voted Democrat for their whole voting lives. At least that is how I want it defined. We need to showing these people that you don’t need government to be successful. The very groups responsible for passing Prop 8 in California also overwhelmingly voted for Obama. Something doesn’t add up in that equation.

Newt. Hire the resume. Resume’s rarely lie. The best one belongs to Newt. He’s been there, done that, and knows how to do it again. Newt can be drafted into running for RNC Chair.

By the way, Duncan is looking at running for another term.

His silence on the recent inside hack job of Palin shows why he is completely unfit for that job.

when he started pandering to the global warming crowd. At least, I hope it was just pandering. He does have a lot of good ideas but, every now and then, he throws a wild pitch. He needs a copy editor.

when did we become a litmus test party? Newt’s not good enough because he happens to think there is some merit to global warming? Steele’s not pure enough becauase he hangs out with moderate conservatives? Did you see how we have gotten beat in the last two elections? If either of those two want to head our party I am all for it. Forget about the litmus tests. Isn’t that same thing that the Dems did to oust Joe Lieberman because he disagreed with them on one issue, a move we all ridiculed the Kos crowd for. Last I checked if you want someone that agrees with you 100% of the time, get out from behind your keyboard and run for office yourself, until then accept that Steele and or Newt would make fantastic candidates.

If the RNC elects Newt as chairman, our insignificance will only increase.

I like what Newt did in 1994. I don’t like what Newt’s been doing since 2004.

Time to bring in some new players.

Michael Steele would be a terrific choice for GOP chairman. I would like to see Michael work closely with Newt Gingrich on strategy, Newt has an amazing mind for politics. The obvious downside to Newt Gingrich would be the MSM and the Obamunists pointing to the GOP as “Gingrich’s party”. We beat them on ideas, when they cannot label us.

Mr. Steele, we need closed primary elections in all 50 states for the 2012 election.

Michael Steele would be a terrific choice for GOP chairman. I would like to see Michael work closely with Newt Gingrich on strategy, Newt has an amazing mind for politics. The obvious downside to Newt Gingrich would be the MSM and the Obamunists pointing to the GOP as “Gingrich’s party”. We beat them on ideas, when they cannot label us.

Mr. Steele, we need closed primary elections in all 50 states for the 2012 election.

I don’t know why people say Newt is washed up or not electable (KnownFact). I say that is a sign that many have drank the media kool aid. (See the media bias thread or GDS, Gingrich Derangement Syndrome)

He is every bit of persuasive, knowledgeable than he ever was.

The public doesn’t even know who the heck Newt is, other than those that have seen him on Fox as a contributor.

It is an article of faith among many in the GOP community that the party’s strict pro-life stance – i.e, the Human Life Amendment plank of the GOP party platform – is an electoral winner. That may be the case in the South but evidence suggests that if the GOP wants to expand its geographical footprint, it needs to soften its stance on abortion. Just take a look at two recent efforts to ban abortion: South Dakota and Colorado. In South Dakota, the ballot initiative called for a ban on all abortions in the state except in cases where mother’s life or health is at risk or in cases of rape or incest for pregnancies of less than 20 weeks. It failed 55% to 45%. Here is the link for additional information:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#SDI01

In Colorado, the Human Life from the Moment of Conception which called for the definition the term “person” to include “any human being from the moment of fertilization. This mirrors the HLA language and it was defeated by a stunning margin of 73% to 23%. Here is the link for more information:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#COI02

I find it extremely interesting that the conservative blogs, talk shows – while all pointing to the success of Proposition 8 in California as evidence that conservatism is in touch with the American people – all have ignored the results of the abortion measures discussed above. It is time that the GOP faces facts. The fact is that the American people does not want to ban all abortions. The fact is that it is impossible to make the case for limited government and at the same time advocate for government to go through people’s private medical records looking for abortions. The fact is that unless the GOP reclaims the suburban vote in North East and West, it will be a regional, minority party with little influence at the national level.

I think it is time that the GOP to soften its abortion stance. Remove the HLA from the GOP platform. There is no effort from anyone to push for such a measure so why even have it in the platform? All it has done is given ammunition to the Dems to scare women. In place of the HLA, the GOP should adopt a more federalist approach to abortion by letting the state parties decide for themselves. By removing social issues from the national center stage, the GOP can focus its efforts on limiting the size of government and promoting capitalism. This is the only way to rebuild a national party.

Ronald Reagan won because he was able to bring a broad coalition of interests together under a ‘big tent.’

As RNC Chairman he will focus on what unites us, not on what divides us.

I’m sick of it…I don’t trust Steel because he helped for the Republican Leadership council with Christi Todd Whitman and John Danforth…the RLC is a moderate group made up of the same RINOs that have driven this party off a cliff…

Don’t believe me…Go to the site and check it out…make sure you read whitman and Danforth’s trash…you can go to about us and read about Steele’s involvement…

head of the RNC…well…he can’t be any worse than Duncan has been…(bet you didn’t even know who Mike Duncan was or that he runs the RNC did ya> if you did you get the booby prize). Problem is…I doubt he’d be any better!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Mark, you are absolutely correct in It is “rebuild” rather than “tear down and start over.” This is an important distinction.

I for one do not want to build onto this flawed foundation of decayed non-conservative principals.

However, conservatism does have a problem as to how to make the case that the conservative ideals will better the lives of African-americans and other minoritiesas a whole. Conservatism needs to make the argument that less government allows for improvements and freedom, and that we will defend those freedoms. Case in point is defending minorities in cases of obvious police racial profiling.

I’m on the petition and I hope he gets the job: I wanted him to be in the Senate for us and he ran a great campaign against adversaries who ran a brutal, despicable, kneecapping campaign orchestrated by Democrat consultants who get featured (at taxpayer expense) on NPR to “destroy” him.

I don’t believe in Parties “owing” things to anyone, and this isn’t a question of owing Michael Steele anything other than what he’s earned. He’ll be a great Chair of the RNC and I support his candidacy 200%.

we don’t compromise on limited government, free enterprise and strong defense.

We must keep the door open – offering our party as the only practical answer for those who, overall, are individualists. And because this is the great common denominator – this dedication to the belief in man’s aspirations as an individual – we cannot offer them a narrow sectarian party in which all must swear allegiance to prescribed commandments.

Yet that is exactly what is happening. Hard Core Fundamentalists are chasing away libertarians. And a significant percentage of Evangelicals have abandoned small government and liberty.

Some on Wall Street are giving up on liberty to save their jobs, the ones they put in jeopardy along wit the Dems in Congress. And we have an increasing population that knows nothing of Reagan and even of the Repub Revolution of 1994. Hell, they know nothing about Western Civilization either. The average public school student knows more about the myth of Sacagawea, than Lewis and Clark and Manifest Destiny.

I have nothing bad to say about Steele. I would guess my concerns would be that he would be too moderate, that he would become Democrat-lite, as the Tories are doing in the UK.

I think Gingrich is a much greater thinker. Not just over Steele but over most every national Republican. Sure his name is still caustic to some, but he is far and away of ahead of Steele when it comes to keeping traditional conservative ideals, AND adapting them to the dangerous and confusing future we face.

I like them both, I think Gingrich should be RNC Chair and Steele should run again for national office.

Here’s my hope:

When talking about a “big tent” I hope that doesn’t mean someone telling us that we need to compromise our values. We did that in election 2008. I hope instead that it means that we stick to those principles… but just because someone disagrees with us on one particular issue doesn’t mean they can’t vote republican.

It sickens me to know that friends of mine vote democrat because the are pro-abortion. When I ask them about virtually any other issue, they agree with republicans (as long as I don’t mention that it is a republican position). So they look only at that one issue and vote for a party because of that. That’s like saying you won’t marry someone because you don’t agree on absolutely everything. We need to change that notion while still pushing for candidates who adhere to all of the principles that the party stands for.

same Michael Steele that stated Reagan conservatism was dead after a republican debate on Hannity and Colmes? That Michael Steele? Really? He agreed with Ed Rollins. We want a guy at the head of the RNC that made that statement? Hannity even gave him a chance to correct his statement and Steele had none of it. No thanks.

I think he would do well. He seems to have the managerial & organizational ability, & perhaps he can tap into Newt’s idea generation & candidate recruitment ability.

We have the winning formula – limited government & fiscal responsibility, strong national security, & conservative social issues. What has been missing is the limted government & fiscal responsibility, & that needs to be reclaimed. The Democrats aren’t going to successfully claim it, & if we reclaim that & run candidates who are conservative & articulate the conservative message well we will win more often than not.

The most important point, is to learn the real leson of Reagan –

You don’t try to find the electorate and stand beside them. You have your prinicples, and you convince 51%+ of the American people to come stand by you. Conservative principles(all three legs of the stool) have the happy advantage of being correct, and working when they are tried.

The problem is not with conservatism, but with a Republican party that for many years has stood for nothing. If you are unable or unwilling to defend your own principles, don’t expect anyone to respect them.

My vote would be for FDT. One of the few on the national stage in many years who can clearly articulate conservative principles.

the hypocrisy of most redstaters here is entertaining…

…let a true social conservative like a Huckabee who is not part of the elite in-crowd of the so-called conservative East Coast-type conservatives dare stray in any minor comment from something that is seen as off the reservation, and you are all over him. Let Huck’s campaign mgr Rollins say “Reagan conservatism” is gone and you are done with him. But let an “in” with the establishment Steele make that statement and pal around with social conservatism enemies Danforth and Whitman and organize an organization that at its heart is attempting to downgrade SOCIAL conservatism as an emphasis (something Huck wouldn’t do in a million yrs) and you are all ready to jump on the bandwagon just as many of you had no real strong problem with sanctuary-city/gay-rights/pro-choice Guilliani. The GOP leadership and media today (and blogger-wannabe-conservative-leaders-media) are too influenced by East Coast free-trade-above-all money conservatives that do not have and never will have real support at the grass roots — ironically, these influences prevent us from a robust economic conservatism that plays it safe too often and dares not even consider bold conservative ideas whether in the area of outlining true TOUGH illegal immigration enforcement, or consider REAL conservatism economic policies (like opposing the bailout as Huck and real conservatives in Congress did as against our principles, or looking out for our national economic interests rather than free-trade-at-all-costs) or REAL conservative tax reform (like the fair tax) that actually might get somewhere with a more populist voting public. I see no signs that conservatives have learned anything yet, and unfortunately while the WSJ and National Review are leading the uneducated mouthpieces like Rush and Hannity, don’t see we are going to get very far politically. We also are so beaten down and desperate for leadership that even bright conservatives strangely continue to cheer someone like Palin who has never and does not now really ever show any CONSERVATIVE leadership socially or economically other than at the most superficial level (reform yes, true strong advocacy for conservatism no).

Hopefully “conservatives” will want to look for and advocate the most “conservative” viable person for the RNC job across-the-board economically and socially, while not burdening that position any more than we have in the past with being our “leader” until we see a true conservative leader emerge in the yrs to come.

If you’re into pragmatism, I guess “he’ll push for a big-tent” is important enough a qualification to headline Steele; if you are a conservative, however, moving us toward “a bigger tent” should be just about the lamest qualification (and didn’t McCain just magnificently show us how lame a pragmatic strategy that is… geez, Hispanics and moderates voted in much larger numbers against shamnesty-McCain the moderate maverick than they did against Bush).

This quote from Buchanan’s latest article says something similar to my comment above. click here

Yet, McCain might still have won had he not, like his three fellow establishment Republicans Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, been inhibited by the Mainstream Media and his own Beltway beliefs. Consider. In California, where a liberal judiciary had ordered the state to recognize homosexual marriages, voters, by 52 to 48, slapped the judges across the face and ordered the ban reimposed and placed in the California constitution. Arizona and Florida also voted to outlaw gay marriage, by landslides. The NYT deplored the “ugly outcome” of these three referenda and said voters were “enshrining bigotry,” thus calling the majority of Californians, Arizonans and Floridians bigots and their Bible-rooted Christian beliefs nothing but bigotry. …Yet, McCain, who might have been out front on these moral and cultural issues, paid only lip service — and lost Florida, and California by a landslide. In Missouri, where McCain eked out a victory, a proposal to make English the official state language carried six to one. In Nebraska, a proposal to ban affirmative action carried 58 to 42, but lost in a 50-50 tie in Colorado. Parental notification won 48 percent support in California, a far higher share of the vote than McCain got, while a measure to outlaw abortion except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother got 45 percent in South Dakota. Had McCain made an issue of Obama’s support for a Freedom of Choice Act that would eliminate all state restrictions on abortion, he could have forced Obama to defend what yet remains a radical and extreme view in America. …McCain failed to hold onto Bush’s share of the white working class, though Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate… Perhaps fearful his “good guy” reputation with his old buddies in his media “base” would be imperiled, McCain ruled Wright off limits and seemed hesitant even to go after the Ayers connections. Lee Atwater would not have been so ambivalent. Leo Durocher put it succinctly: “Nice guys finish last.” …Beltway Republicans are losing Middle America because they are ideologically incapable of addressing two great concerns: economic insecurity and the perception that we are losing the America that we grew up in. …Social insecurity is traceable to mass immigration, legal and illegal, which has brought in scores of millions who are altering the character of communities and competing with U.S. workers by offering their services for far less pay. These are the twin causes of death of the Reagan coalition, and as long as the Republican Party is hooked on K Street cash, it will not address either, and thus pass, blissfully addicted, from this earth.

Buchanan’s diagnosis is which is corroborated by the referendums he cites to is that the GOP needs to make a more robust appeal on social conservatism. Kilmer’s headline here apparantly thinks we need to focus on “a bigger tent”, which by implication of Steele/Whitman/Danforth’s GOP “Leadership” Council would have us put that even MORE on a backburner and continue to follow the East Coast conservative lead. I think 8 yrs of Bush’s big government “reaching out” to DEMs and illegal aliens and moderate McCain’s campaign is long enough to say enough’s enough for this tactic. Redstate is too myopically tied to the inside baseball of this Beltway conservatism that has plenty of room in the tent for Guilianis and Whitmans but mocks Huckabees and Buchanans.

While Steele claims to be prolife, he is not for overturning Roe (and squishy on restrictions):

On The Issues

Roe v. Wade should remain in place
Q: Would you hope the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade?
A: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point.

Source: 2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006
…
Pro-life, but we have to live with 33 years of reality
Senators cast votes on matters of substance and national import: up or down, yes or no. It is in this area that Steele is less comfortable – and at his most vulnerable as a candidate. It is not always apparent if he can clearly enunciate where he stands – or maybe he just doesn’t want to. Even on some of the issues that are closest to his heart, he defaults to soft, imprecise language. Steele says that he is proudly “pro-life” but seemed to equivocate when I asked if he favors greater restrictions on abortion or its outright ban. “The dance we do is, we put too much pressure and weight on one decision,” he said, referring to Roe v. Wade. “We have to re-evaluate that.” He claimed that he was not advocating overturning the decision, only asking if we “have to live with the reality of a decision that was made 33 years ago.”
Source: By Michael Sokolove, New York Times Mar 26, 2006

Is now really the time to move farther to the left of Bush, McCain on this flag issue to social conservatives of abortion and overturning Roe? To move farther to the left than we have been before in even the tepid RNC chair position has been on social conservatism? I for one say no, and predict that even pragmatically, a GOP that is embarrassed of the social issues of conservatism and thinks it can sell its party on capital gains rates is one that will stray even farther from gaining votes and hearts of the heartland.

Steele will be more of the same tactics that got us where we are.

Steele clearly supports affirmative action and its improvements:

From On the Issues

Steele: I support the current system and improvements to the current system, keeping in mind that while we have done very well in affirmative action at our universities across this country, I look at our boardrooms across the country, I look at NBC, CNBC, Fox, all these stations, all the corporate, corporate companies-and I don’t see affirmative action necessarily being practiced there when I look at the management, when I look at the leadership, when I look at those who have a decision-making role.”
Source: 2006 Maryland Senate debate on Meet the Press Oct 29, 2006.

Q: Are federal affirmative action programs necessary and effective?
Steele: Studies show enormous disparities still exist in education, healthcare, employment and economic opportunities along racial lines in the United States. I believe programs are still necessary to help close these divides. I support giving people opportunities. Programs must be fair to all Marylanders – of every color – and they should focus on economic empowerment. Source: Responses to Baltimore Sun Survey Aug 7, 2006

Q: Do you think the time for affirmative action is past?
A: Absolutely not. We’re just beginning to rediscover what we should be doing with affirmative action. Don’t look at our universities. We got that. Let’s look at our boardrooms, let’s look at the management structure. Source: Len Lazarick, The Examiner, “Power of the individual” Apr 28, 2006

Led commitment to $70M in grants to minority-owned business
As Lieutenant Governor, Steele chaired a 17-member task force devoted to reforming Maryland’s Minority Business Enterprise (MBE), which works to provide more opportunities for minority-owned small businesses and further spur job growth and economic vitality. Steele led the way in committing almost $70 million in grants and loan guarantees to strengthen and encourage Maryland’s small and minority-owned businesses.
Source: Press Release, “Black-Owned Business Growth” Apr 18, 2006

Why is Redstate (and NR, and much of the rest of our ‘conservative’ leadership) attempting to bandwagon us into cheering a full-fledged moderate to lead the GOP? Is there no across-the-board conservative available?!

Just to bring home this point. Whitman, Danforth, and the RLC are not even fiscally conservative, let alone socially conservative.

There is also a big difference in heading the RNC which represents all Republicans verses being a liberal blue state Senator. I am ok with Snowe and Collins from Maine as long as they don’t raise a fuss and try to remake the GOP into their own image. I don’t think we will get any better from Maine or anywhere in New England.

Michael Steele will be a disaster. He will not attack. He will be another smarmy gentleman to sit on the Sunday Morning talk shows grinning silly while the DNC chair calls the GOP liars, crooks, child molesters, big spenders and murderers.

He will go back the GOP HQ and bask in his moral victory for not engaging in such gutter comments.

I heart Michael Steele! The GOP needs a strong SPOKESPERSON right now, someone who can articulate vision and communicate without resembling the defensive “assumption” based style of McCain. We need someone who can expose the left’s lies with skillful dialogue, not by making funny faces!

Social conservativism is about getting the government to stay OUT of our personal lives. We can make our choices, thank you very much. As long as the government is not funding insidious anti family programs I’m good. But similarly they shouldn’t be trying to force conservative social values (whatever the heck that means) down people’s throats either. Leave social engineering up to the left. The right should let families and churches take the lead in this area.

Steele has proven he can communicate very effectively and is cool in the face of hostility. That’s the most glaring deficiency the party currently faces. A solid national voice. Give him a shot! Go Michael!

I know Gingrich has said he doesn’t want it, but I’d still love to have him there.

Reading through Steele’s position, the only one I’d disagree on was affirmative action and maybe he’ll rethink it now that we have Obama in the White House.

Gingrich is the ideas guy.

.

According to American Spectator, Fred is considering the position. Actually, he sees two different positions: a General Chairman (Fred) and a Chairman. Maybe Fred and Steele both could be a part of it. Who knows?

I know that the thought of a true conservative like Fred at the helm gives me more hope than I have been able to muster since Nov. 5.

Here are the links to the articles regarding this. One of them compares Fred vs. Steele.

In terms of candidates, it looks like GoPAC only gave $29,250 to candidates the entire year, $5000 of which went to Steele’s own campaign in Maryland.
By comparison, Fred Thompson’s PAC gave $41,900 to candidates and PACs in the first half of the month of October alone.
If Steele wants to be RNC chairman, he needs to explain this poor performance at GOPAC.

http://www.spectator.org/blog/2008/11/12/is-steel-a-better-talker-than

http://spectator.org/blog/2008/11/10/fred-for-general-chairman-perh