Steele would accept RNC chair if offered; Update: Video added
posted at 4:59 pm on November 12, 2006 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Steele said he would “be interested” in chairing the RNC on C-SPAN this morning:
Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele says he would be interested in chairing the Republican National Committee, if the job offer comes his way.
Steele spoke on C-SPAN’S “Washington Journal” show on Sunday.
The Republican says he doesn’t know who will be the new chair, but it’s something he is considering if the opportunity presents itself.
Update (Allahpundit): Here’s the clip. Is the man of Steele a RINO?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
WOW — Get him while we can.
Tom N on November 12, 2006 at 5:09 PM
I don’t want to see him shoot off his chance of a presidential bid (which he’s not ready for yet anyway) because he’s got talent, but what the heck… it’s an important job that surely needs doing now if ever.
If he wants it, hell yeah.
Christoph on November 12, 2006 at 5:11 PM
Thanks Ian.
I saw him on CSPAN he was great. I like his position on the No Child Left Behind Act. He wanted to get teachers to the table and look at the real effectiveness of the act. Although personally I would prefer a tax cut and higher state taxes to fund education, me being an anti-federalist and all. But at least someone is talking about accountability and effecacy instead of just good intentions.
Theworldisnotenough on November 12, 2006 at 5:11 PM
We could really use him to lead the TAKEBACK of the republican party. His campaign was straightforward, refreshing and on the issues. He reached out to African-American voters, and they responded to him because he is real, he’s not blowing smoke/coddling/lying/appeasing like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Steele is a man of principle, it would be great to have him contribute to shaping the republican party back to Newt’s principles. Plus, wouldn’t it be great to have more African Americans taking on the kind of prominent roles like are available in the white house? Republicans lost because they quit being republicans, spending money like crack whores and involved in scandals. Republicans should be republicans, and we’ll take it all back in 2008, because the dem’s will have so seriously screwed things up by then, we’ll have to.
JustTruth101 on November 12, 2006 at 5:21 PM
Steele in the RNC chair would be an excellent move, the Republicans should jump at this opportunity.
Maxx on November 12, 2006 at 5:26 PM
I’d celebrate that Michael “Stem cell research is the holocaust” Steele is going to run the RNC into the ground, but it’s actually halfway through to China at this point anyway.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 5:54 PM
That little video bite makes it hard to tell if he is a RINO or not.
I know little about Mike Steele except for maybe what Chuck Schumer’s office can provide.
/sarcasm mode off
TwinkietheKid on November 12, 2006 at 5:58 PM
It depends what issues he’s talking about, but look, Steele is from a Blue State so he’s not gonna be as conservative as a someone from the South or Midwest, but do I think he’s a Linc Chafee or even an Arlen Specter? No. Remember, he joined the party after being inspired by Reagan. He’s not Reagan, but he’s conservative enough to lead the party in my book.
Jim-Rose on November 12, 2006 at 6:24 PM
The guy is likely not as conservative as I would like, but he’s sharp and extremely articulate. A great choice for RNC, though he’d also be great in any number of other positions.
Mike O on November 12, 2006 at 6:29 PM
Grebrook, you have a few seats only in the Congress (nothing to overrule anything at all), but the chance to seriously in a long time act like German Shephers versus yapping Chihuahuas, and the risk of soon losing the Senate, and you can’t stop gloating. May you be struck by karma. And you will!
We, contrary to your side, do respect the election results and we will not claim that you ’stole’ them.
Use your intellect and not your cretinism.
Entelechy on November 12, 2006 at 6:30 PM
I prefer that we don’t educate illegal immigrants’ anchor babies.
SouthernGent on November 12, 2006 at 6:34 PM
Um, no, in the next Congress we will have exactly as many seats as you have now, 232. At 15 seat margin of victory ain’t small, kid. And as a writer in the Weekly Standard has pointed out, the seats you lost in Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York and Pennsylvania will be almost impossible to reclaim, as well as Shaw’s seat in Florida and Northup’s in Kentucky. New England is now poisonous territory for you. And Colorado has flipped to our side and you’re unlikely to take a seat back there. The only three seats I can see you taking back are Foley’s, Delay’s and possibly Sodrel’s, since he represented the “Bloody Ninth District” where the voters seem to enjoy throwing out their congressmen literally every 2 years.
By the way, this was the year in which you had to actually GAIN seats in the senate if you wanted to have any chance of holding onto it after 2008, because in 2008 you’ll actually be defending 21 incumbents. We’re only defending 12 next time around. That’s pretty lopsided. You’ll also be defending incumbents in rapidly changing blue territory, such as unpopular Wayne Allard in Colorado, Sununu in NH, Smith in Oregon. The popular Democratic governor of NC is going to make a run against Elizabeth Dole and undoubtedly unseat her, and now that Mark Warner is not running for president, he’ll probably run for the senate, that’s the inside word. John Warner will probably retire, and if he does, it’s a guaranteed pick up, and if he doesn’t, he’ll probably still lose to the other Warner. Also, in Maine, if Collins retires, that’s an automatic Democratic pick up.
Face it, you have no chance of taking back in the senate in 2008 because you’ll be playing defensive EVERYWHERE, and the only two seats that even look comptetitve on the Democratic side are Landrieu in Louisiana and Lautenberg in NJ, who will probably retire and Rob Andrews will win the open seat easily.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 6:43 PM
What brought up the RINO comment? Is there something out there that suggests he’s a liberal/moderate?
lorien1973 on November 12, 2006 at 6:44 PM
I don’t know enough about Steele to support him. I think people are being a little rash in putting him at the helm without vetting, but I do know the guy has chutzpah. Of course, I don’t know that would help him much as RNC head, given that Majordomo Dean steadfastly refused to debate Mehlman even once. And again, he has the anti-Bush baggage to deal with.
If Steele can position himself as a Reaganite, I don’t think the Presidency is too far from him. He has experience as an executive (though I’d prefer it if it were a governorship), and work as the RNC chair might give him the exposure he needs.
spmat on November 12, 2006 at 6:49 PM
Grebrook, get some tickets to Corteo. You live in a perfect world.
Entelechy on November 12, 2006 at 7:01 PM
What Steele actually said was: “Look, you of all folks know what happens when people decide they want to experiment on human beings, when they want to take your life and use it as a tool.”
He never used the word “holocaust”, that was the word the Washington Post “put in his mouth.” He also wasn’t talking about “Stem cell research”, instead… he was talking about “embryonic stem cell research”, which is the differenct between talking about “Lightening” as opposed to talking about a “Lightening Bug”.
Of course the left can’t see any difference between “embryonic stem cell research” and “[adult] stem cell research”. Liberalism requires that special kind of arrogance and amorality that allows you to think the deliberate manufacture and destruction of countless tiny human lives is fully justified if only it might possibly provide some small benefit to you at some possible time in the future.
Liberals refuse to see that even if “embryonic stem cell research” could guarantee each of us life eternal, its still morally repugnant to allow the taking of innocent human life for even that grand purpose.
Thus, if Steele would have said “Stem cell research is the holocaust”, I would have had to agree with him. And it would have been cause for me to support his placement in the RNC chair all the more.
Maxx on November 12, 2006 at 7:03 PM
It’s not a human life. It’s a damned microscopic fertilized egg. It’s potential life, and no more potential than sperm. Thus, if I were to hit you in the crotch with a sledge hammer, have I just commited mass murder?
Don’t answer that.
Yes we can. Whenever we discuss stem cell research it’s obvious we’re discussing the more controversial embryonic kind. Stop playing dumb.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 7:07 PM
Yeah, there’s nothing offensive about that all. Comparing doctors who are trying to perform life-saving research into diseases to a bunch of sick Nazi war criminals that tortured Jews to death in concentration camps.
Oh wait, I thought it was the Left that was making Nazi comparisons? So when you do it, it’s ok, but if some liberal blogger photoshops Bush standing in front of a swastika, then, HELL NO, OUTRAGE!
Hypocrites.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 7:10 PM
Something is not potential human life when it’s already human and already alive.
Your the one that made the misquote, not me.
And I think the Nazi defense would have been they were trying to save human life also. They just were not very particular about who’s life they had to destroy in order to accomplish that.
Maxx on November 12, 2006 at 7:32 PM
Steele recognizes that the GOP has lost its way. I think Steele can frame the debate much more effectively than any other GOP spokesman. Such as Katrina, Bush just sat back and let all the bl;ame fall on him. Steele could be a voice that frames future debates differently. The man on the street thinks Ray Nagin had been screaming for help for weeks before Katrina only to be ignored. That IS Bush’s fault.
Theworldisnotenough on November 12, 2006 at 7:40 PM
Embryonic stem cell reasearch and adult stem cell research. The later being viable and already treating diseases like Parkinson’s. The former being special interest science that its proponents can only use emotional pleas and obsfucation to get the public sector to fund it. Period.
Theworldisnotenough on November 12, 2006 at 7:44 PM
I just wrote a letter to the GOP editor saying they should go ahead and ask Michael Steele if he wants the position.
http://www.gop.com/GetActive/WriteNewspapers.aspx
Kokonut on November 12, 2006 at 8:32 PM
Need to have Steele on board at the RNC since he’s strong on immigration. I believe 2008 will be about immigration and the border problem with Mexico.
Kokonut on November 12, 2006 at 8:34 PM
Grebrook, you aren’t a Nazi. You’re an idiot. There’s a difference.
spmat on November 12, 2006 at 9:06 PM
Good grief, I sure hope the Pubbies don’t squander the opportunity to have class act like Steele at the helm of the RNC.
byteshredder on November 12, 2006 at 9:34 PM
I’m curious, weren’t you one of the jackasses screaming, before the election, that “THE POLLS ARE ALL LIES BY THE MSM WE’LL KEEP BOTH HOUSES FOR SURE”.
Yeah, thought so. Nice call there. You’re a regular Newt Gingrich.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 9:55 PM
I’m with Lorien. Why do people think Steele might be a RINO?
Grebrook: way to add to the discussion. Clearly, not every doctor uses human life as a tool. Embryonic stem-cell research DOES do that, and that is what Steele is warning about. When you start treating human life as a commodity, big ethical problems are not far behind.
And do you really not understand the difference between an embryo and a sperm?
Anyway, this thread is about Steele as RNC chair. If the impression he has given off these last few months is the real Steele, I think the GOP has got to get him doing something bigger than Lt. Gov.
Who wants a mustache ride?
PaisleyCow on November 12, 2006 at 10:20 PM
To respond to Grebook more substantive remarks about 2008, according to the nice charts of the election of 2002 here, it doesn’t look too hard to repeat. 2006 wasn’t a landslide, or even a mudslide. It’s more like the Republicans lost their shoe in a puddle. America likes a principled underdog, and right now that’s the Republicans. Besides, most of the embryos that will be harvested will from Blue-state mothers, and abortion is already decimating the Blacks, which was Margaret Sanger’s plan from the start.
pedestrian on November 12, 2006 at 11:04 PM
One of my links didn’t make it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate_election,_2002
pedestrian on November 12, 2006 at 11:05 PM
…the Republicans need to take a pause from surrendering long enough to pick up this guy’s option. It might prove the only bright spot in an otherwise bleak year for them.
Puritan1648 on November 12, 2006 at 11:12 PM
First off, women giving up embryos to be used for that type of research does not prevent them from having children. Your statement is bizarre, if nothing else.
Secondly, Hispanics have an intensely higher birthrate than whites, as do Asian-Americans, and both groups are Democratic. Asians by a varying 15-20 point margin and Hispanics by a 50 point margin (now that you shot yourselves in the foot on immigration).
And yes, the 2006 was a landslide election, specifically in the groups that mattered. A 22 point margin of victory among youth voters is the defition of a landslide.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 11:23 PM
Yes, I’ve seen that page before. I’m curious as to what you see on it that I don’t. Know what I see? 21 Republicans who have to defend their seats in 2008, and only 12 Democrats, all of whom are popular with the exception of Lautenberg, whereas you have about a half dozen senators who are unpopular.
And since we already know there’s going to be an organized attempt to oust Lindsay Graham in South Carolina in his primary, things may turn from bad to worse for you in 2008. At best, you’ll break even. At worst, we could probably pick up as many as 5 seats if the governor of NC runs against Elizabeth Dole and decimates her and Susan Collins retires to give us an automatic victory in ME, as well as Mark Warner running against John Warner in VA. Wayne Allard, Sununu and Gordon Smith are all toast. Even John Cornyn in Texas is unpopular, and nutjob Jim “God blew up the Twin Towers” Inhofe from Oklahoma. If the Dem governor out there runs against him, he doesn’t stand a chance. All of this will be just in time for President Clark, Obama or Clinton.
Grebrook on November 12, 2006 at 11:31 PM
Excellent points Grebrook. All praise the prophet Grebrook.
/sarcasm
PaisleyCow on November 12, 2006 at 11:41 PM
SAY WHAT?
I live in Texas and we LOVE John Cornyn–what are you smoking?
You know, Grabrook, most of the bloody Senate seats that you damn Dhimmis won, you won by 1-2% of the vote–hardly what I’d call a popular “mandate.”
And those guys ran by running as “rightist” or moderate Democrats on GOP-lite type platforms.
You’d better quick talking out of your *ss–that’s hazardous to your health and ours!
We’ll see you at 2008 at the polls…if we’re alive. Or should I say Im shAllah?
Jen the Neocon on November 12, 2006 at 11:53 PM
I’m smoking SurveyUSA:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=3478c82b-c958-4d76-bbb1-8d52710ab2e6
Cornyn’s approval rating is about 25% lower than Hutchinson’s on average. If I were to guess, I’d say it crashed after that whole, “Well, violence against judges isn’t that irrational guys. Come on.”
Oh, but Bush winning by 2%, that was a mandate, right? That’s what everyone in your party was saying after the election.
Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 12:11 AM
By the way, the Senate isn’t what matters when it comes to gauging the will of the people. The House is. The senate will always tilt in favor of conservatives and Republicans because there are more “red states” than “blue states”, and hence if every red states just elected Republicans and every blue state just elected Democrats it would 62-38 for the GOP. Winning in your own territory does indeed count for a lot. What matters more is the House and the popular vote.
The exact numbers are still fuzzy, but it’s clear at this point that the Democrats won the popular by at least the 8% margin Republicans won it by in 1994, which I’d say gives us a pretty big damned mandate. More likely than not, we won it by 10-12%, which is the largest mandate that would be required since the 70’s.
Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 12:14 AM
Is Steele a RINO? Hell, Dubya is a RINO.
Captain America on November 13, 2006 at 12:54 AM
Grebrook thinks he’s hot shit.
Between now and 2008, the Treason Party (your party) is gonna screw up the war on terrorism, as surely as the sun rises. You can’t help yourselves. Your party doesn’t have the foggiest idea other than cut and run.
And those moderates who were upset with the war as run under Bush, that gave you the margins you needed to win, PLUS the Republican voters who sat it out are going to vote your party out again.
One terrorist strike in the USA on your watch and your party will be out of business for years to come.
Opposition to the NSA terrorist tracking programs, giving captured terrorists ACLU lawyers and access to the courts, opposition to interrogation, and your innate hatred of the military will be all that is needed for the Republicans to beat you after the next attack.
Especially as they remind the voters that when the Republicans were in charge there were not terrorist strikes in the United States.
And given Al Qaeda’s boast to blow up the White House and that they will bring terrorism to the United States again, I’d say your party’s chance of staying in power or gaining the White House in 2 years to be near zero.
georgej on November 13, 2006 at 2:49 AM
Ah, a breath of fresh jingoism. Always stirs the senses in the morning.
No, actually, I’m pretty sure Bush will get the blame for it and your party will be out of business for a good decade or two, given that the public doesn’t support your agenda on gays in the military, civil unions, abortion, etc…
And thus if you fail on national security, your big issue, your entire party will collapse everywhere outside of Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia.
If there is a terrorist attack on American soil, the blame shall fall on you. 60% of the public believes the Iraq War has made America “less safe” and thus if there are any further terrorist attacks and they are conclusively linked to Iraq, the anger that will wash over this country against you will be unimaginable.
Unlike you, however, I don’t actively pray for terrorists to murder American citizens to help my political party in an election. A lot of you seem to be doing that nowadays. While you’re lecturing us about love of country.
Grebrook on November 13, 2006 at 3:10 AM
The average voter has no idea if we have too many or too few soldiers in Iraq. They’re just getting tired of carrying the Iraqi’s water for them, and can’t really see the point of continuing to lose American lives over there. A major attack against the US would get us fed up, and whoever had the most lethal plan would win.
pedestrian on November 13, 2006 at 4:36 AM
It’s not a human life. It’s a damned microscopic fertilized egg. It’s potential life, and no more potential than sperm.
Ummmm, no, that’s just plain wrong. A fertilized egg has a vastly greater potential to become a human life than does sperm.
Lehuster on November 13, 2006 at 6:29 AM
Comment pages: