It’s on: Gingrich versus Michael Steele for RNC chair
posted at 6:30 pm on November 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
A follow-up to Ed’s post from earlier today: The Washington Times spies a gathering storm.
Republicans close to each man say they are intent on ousting Mike Duncan when his tenure ends in January and to insert themselves to articulate a counter-agenda to President-elect Barack Obama´s administration.
A bevy of backers for each man, neither of whom is an RNC member, have been burning up the phone lines and firing off e-mails as they try to sway the 168 RNC members in the wake of the second consecutive drubbing of Republicans at the polls.
“The Republican National Committee has to ask itself if it wants someone who has successfully led a revolution,” Randy Evans, Gingrich confidante and personal attorney based in Atlanta, told The Washington Times on Monday…
“Steele is a good guy,” Mr. Gingrich said in an e-mail response to The Washington Times. “There are a number of good guys.”
I’m partial to Newt just because he seems at times to be the only man left in the party with any new policy ideas, but you can’t go wrong either way.
You know what this calls for. Exit question: Is it worth trusting the Wash Times this time when they teased us with a similar story about a Steele chairmanship bid that went nowhere two years ago?
Update: None of the above, says Huck, who’s evidently going the Obama-esque crony route.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
We need someone who knows how to win elections, specially considering how much Obama will be able to build on his already substantial political machine (thuggery included).
I like Steele, but it concerns me that he could not win his senate race, can he undertake the massive organization and rebuilding that will be needed? Or would he be better as a candidate for elected office? There are some very specific and tried skills that will be needed for this job.
neuquenguy on November 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Steele!
Of course, like others have said I want to know NOW! what is Newt’s stance on global warming and the cap and trade nonsense. Will Newt continue to be the Koolaid drinker sharing drinks with Nancy Pelosi or what?
Kokonut on November 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM
I don’t think Steele recognizes the challenges we face. I think Steele’s idea of leadership is *reaching* out to others and *expanding* the Party with more RINOs — hence his RLC ties and the “It’s My Party Too” relationship.
I don’t want RINOs running the Party anymore. I want hardcore Conservative pit-bulls with razros for teeth and, and Republican laser-guided missile launchers attached to their backs. Yeah!
Punchenko on November 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Steele all thew way… no thanks Newt
although I would rather have Fred Thompson as RNC Chair
Kaptain Amerika on November 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM
I won’t vote in the poll as there is no Fred in it.
Kaptain Amerika on November 10, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Newt for Chair… Steele needs to run for office.
Romeo13 on November 10, 2008 at 7:13 PM
I will be happy with either. Both men are conservative and have many positives, yet Newt has disappointed me by agreeing with the bailout and doing that ad with the dreadful Pelosi.
Steele is unknown in terms of what new ideas he might bring, but if you are a conservative such as he is, it will not be a problem. Not only can Steele appeal to minorities and the youth, he can appeal to Catholics and us conservatives who are left out in the cold.
I guess my vote will go to Steele.
jencab on November 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM
I can’t get past Steele saying that he thought Mike Huckabee would make a great VP. Deal-breaker!
JA on November 10, 2008 at 7:16 PM
No, he won’t. Check my last post in this thread. He would be treated like Clarence Thomas, except much worse.
keep the change on November 10, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Newt is the only living person who has successfully led the conservative movement to victory – not the Republican Party, the conservative movement. I would be happy to see him in any position in which he can influence policy and help set conservatism back on a winning path.
Newt’s an educator, though – that’s what I see as his greatest value to the movement. He can state conservative principles plainly and persuasively and back them up well. Does the RNC chair play any sort of an educational role at all? My impression is that the chair is pretty much a glorified fund raiser.
aero on November 10, 2008 at 7:17 PM
I voted for Newt since he’s articulated his ideas a little more widely. I like both and had anyone asked me what black people I’d vote for for president he’d have been on the top of my list. I’m glad Fred isn’t on this list as they aren’t going to run for president in the near future. In that respect maybe Newt would be the better choice in that it would leave Steele available to make a run and Newt is considered at least slightly damaged goods after his tenure as Speaker of the House.
Bob the RhinoKeeper on November 10, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Come on people.. The debate has been about the Republican party losing because – A.) too conservative or B.) not conservative enough.
I vote B. This is not even a fair fight. Gingrich is a statesman and experienced at putting together a conservative political movement that knows how to win. Think 1994 Republican Revolution! Put him in charge of shaping the party over the next four years and restoring some conservative values to the Republican party. Then, in 2012, we have a shot with a real candidate!
RobertCSampson on November 10, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Steele should be the RNC leader.
However, Gingrich should lead the policy formation off the camera to get the best of their strengths together.
Then, we add a third person to lead the technology/grassroots/internet/funding work.
The three would be a killer trio to get us everything back by 2016.
Sapwolf on November 10, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Newt for this role — he’s already a partisan hack (in public perception), whereas Steele is still relatively stealth. Why “sully” Steele with independents by putting him in the RNC role? Let’s try to get Steele a high-profile post, if not in the public sector, then in a major organization.
Thank-EWE! Another reason to dislike the guy.
Y-not on November 10, 2008 at 7:18 PM
I love both of these guys! Is there a way that they both can serve? Michael Steele has been with the Heritage Foundation for a couple of years and Newt has his own gig. Find a way for them both to work together at the RNC and I might contribute to the Party (if I have any money left after Obama shakes me down for taxes) We haven’t contributed for many years because they just haven’t deserved it.
BetseyRoss on November 10, 2008 at 7:18 PM
I decided this one in a nano second. Michael Steele all the way! Young, attractive, smart and great potential.
Sorry, but Newt doesn’t have the mojo he used to have. I see him interviewed and he rambles now. I like him, but I just don’t love him for this job.
jcheney on November 10, 2008 at 7:20 PM
It’s this identity politics – move towards the middle – appeal to everyone but state nothing crap that got us Obama. NO MORE!
RobertCSampson on November 10, 2008 at 7:21 PM
We just finished getting our butts kicked by the Howard Dean run DNC two election cycles in a row. I don’t think the voting public really cares much who runs the national committees, outside of us geeks on the blogs. I believe Newt is better suited to engineer a turnaround for the GOP than Steele is, so I hope Newt gets the job.
Also, as someone previously mentioned, Steele still has a shot at getting elected to something. The MD governor is up for reelection in 2 years. Hopefully Steele can win. He won on the bottom half of Ehrlich’s ticket in 2002, so it’s not impossible. With the coming economic times and the big deficit spender in the MD statehhouse now, you never know…
hump1201 on November 10, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Is it the job of the RNC Chairman to appeal to these voters or to organize the party so that we have a solid conservative platform and the organization to get out people elected? I am asking because I am not sure. A lot of what I hear about Steele makes him a great candidate for office, but I have not heard anything yet to support the actual job requirements in the NRC. Does anybody have a good view of what skills and talents are critical and how Newt and Steele match up against those skills?
neuquenguy on November 10, 2008 at 7:21 PM
I voted for Newt, and the result showed a 416-416 tie!
cap_losaltos on November 10, 2008 at 7:21 PM
It took me a while to come to conclusion on the vote. Gotta say that it was no easy decision- but would put Mr. Steele in the RNC chair and would ask Newt if he could be the campaign manager for the platform.
either way. they are both capable of running reaganomics.
hawkman on November 10, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Stop, Do what is best for the RNC, nothing else should matter….
KBird on November 10, 2008 at 7:22 PM
I don’t think putting Steele in the role would be a “me too” moment for Republicans. We’ve already had African Americans in high level positions, so it wouldn’t be breaking new ground to put Steele in charge. The downside for him, though, is that liberal blacks would turn on him, the way they did Rice and Powell.
I do think both men have solid strengths to bring to the chairmanship, but I’d give it to Newt, by a nose.
Dee2008 on November 10, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Sarah? I’d like Steele also. New blood.
Dingbat63 on November 10, 2008 at 7:24 PM
I have to go with Newt on this one. I like Michael Steele and feel he would be great as an elected representative, but Newt is the idea guy and the movement guy.
poljunkie on November 10, 2008 at 7:25 PM
We need to concentrate on the future. While Newt is awesome and deserves a high spot in the party to train the upcoming Republican Revolutionaries for ’10, Steele represents the future of the Republican Party.
malan89 on November 10, 2008 at 7:26 PM
We need ideas.
Punchenko on November 10, 2008 at 7:26 PM
What future does Steele represent?
Punchenko on November 10, 2008 at 7:27 PM
More *reaching* and *pandering*?
Punchenko on November 10, 2008 at 7:28 PM
I don’t give a damn about 2012 yet, 2010 first. Retaking control of congress is vital. Newt has done just that before, he can do it again. Steele would be great as a candidate for national office.
Let’s use Newt to get the congress back.
crashland on November 10, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Steele is energetic and is a new voice of conviction for the RNC. Newt has sold out one two many times.
Tobias2012 on November 10, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Ugh. Tied again.
Punchenko on November 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM
interesitn… last time I looked it was 50/50
interesting.
upinak on November 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Mike Duncan definitely needs to go. He runs the party like the rich old boy that he is, at the top of the old boy network. Donatelli needs to go also.
This cycle was a catastrophe, and it’s not all Bush’s fault.
eaglesdontflock on November 10, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Damn the vote is tied right now..LOL
I voted Steele….We need a new face. Love Newt and all but lets go young all over the place.
Dritanian on November 10, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Michael Steele for RNC Chair!
Enoxo on November 10, 2008 at 7:31 PM
For good or bad Romney will be tagged with this kind of stuff so forget about him running a seccessfull bid for Pres
Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say they’re changing their genealogical database to make it more difficult for names of Holocaust victims to be entered for posthumous baptism by proxy.
But the honorary chairman of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors, whose parents died at Auschwitz, says that’s not enough. He says the church has to come up with a way to undo what it’s done. He spoke on the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Nazi-incited riots against Jews.
A church spokesman says the decision to publicly denounce the church seems like a unilateral termination of the discussion.
Posthumous baptism by proxy allows faithful Mormons to have their ancestors baptized into the 178-year-old church, which they believe reunites families in the afterlife.
KBird on November 10, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Still tied. THUNDER DOME!
Punchenko on November 10, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Wow, what a split.
ackrite55 on November 10, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Does anyone even know what Michael Steele’s ideas are? From what I can tell, his only notable is that he lost an election to the Senate.
He’d get the Palin treatment x10.
Lehosh on November 10, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Holy cow. I broke a tie, now it’s tied again.
Gingrich has this going for him: he’s done this before as a congressman. Articulated a vibrant Contract with America, and accomplished darn near everything he and the GOP promised.
I like Steele just fine, but I think this job’s for Newt.
Pavel on November 10, 2008 at 7:33 PM
I like both, but I vote Steele.
surrounded on November 10, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Who does Sarah support? Hey, how about The First Dude?
bill30097 on November 10, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Badly done poll. Should have had a choice for neither.
bill30097 on November 10, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Newt!….the fire is still there!
Personally, I would prefer Bigger and Better thing for Steele. Perhaps a community organizer with no experience.
try again later on November 10, 2008 at 7:35 PM
And we heard previously, “If they think I’m going to vote for a woman because you put one on the ticket….”
The left does not stand for minorities or women unless they fit the liberal template. And then they act all offended when there happen to be minorities or women who happen to be of conservative persuasion. It’s time to get people like Zo, Tito, and Sarah out there to Joe SixPack. Who cares if they call it pandering. It’s time to play ball. If conservativism was so terrible, we wouldn’t have a Zo, Tito, or Sarah. Take it to them…they’re counting on using name-calling to keep the conservative message stifled.
hoosiermama on November 10, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Got to be Steele.
lizzee on November 10, 2008 at 7:37 PM
That is my concern. I know he is a good conservative, but a lot of the support shown here starts looking a little hopeychangey when I don’t hear specific ideas and past accomplishment to recommend him fort this particular job. From what I know about him I would be happy with him in the presidential ticket, but I have not heard anything yet to recommend him for RNC chairman, I am sure there is a lot, but I wish someone would put it on the table.
neuquenguy on November 10, 2008 at 7:37 PM
The vote is 50/50, with Steele ever so slightly ahead.
Come on people, get out the vote! Did I mention he’s black? lol
fourstringfuror on November 10, 2008 at 7:38 PM
neuquenguy,
You worry about Michael Steele’s run for the Senate in blue state Maryland? Look at Steele’s numbers in that race, he beat Cardin in places other than Baltimore city, Montgomery and P.G. Counties.
Michael Steele has my vote…
AceR on November 10, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Screw that! He needs to be a hard core tactician. He doesn’t have to appeal to anyone, he just needs a good plan and the nads to carry it out.
sheesh on November 10, 2008 at 7:40 PM
He would have my vote for any elected office he chose as well. I just don’t know what would make him the best RNC chairman. I believe that job doesn’t require a good politician as much as someone good on policy and organization. Perhaps I don’t understand the office well enough.
neuquenguy on November 10, 2008 at 7:41 PM
The thing is that Steele can appeal to these groups because he espouses conservatism. Sorry if you don’t realize it, but I am 25 and I talk to young people and minorities. I live in an urban area. When I talk to them about issues republicans support such as low taxes, anti-abortion, etc. they agree with them, but say that the republican party includes only “Cubans and old, white people.”
Jindal, Palin, and Steele are young and not the demographic of “white old men.” Didn’t Gingrich himself told McCain to pick Palin or Jindal because having an old white guy will lose him the election?
I am not about identity politics, however I am aware that our party needs to be enlarged and we have to appeal to people who need to be exposed to these conservative ideas.
California passed Prop 8 because of minorities! How come they vote democrat?! They are not exposed to republicans that are like them and that is the problem.
jencab on November 10, 2008 at 7:42 PM
BOY OH BOY…
This is about as close to a no-brainer as you can get.
Both men are great!
BOTH men will do well.
But only ONE has a take no prisoners mentality.
Only ONE has led a revolution.
Only ONE has that lightning fast quickness that is desparatly needed and knows that the other side wont play fair so why should we be expected to pull punches.
Newt. 110% Newt.
There are lots of places to use Steele though. A truly great man.
Handel on November 10, 2008 at 7:43 PM
I think this approach is backward. How about figuring out what the party wants to stand for and pick the guy or gal who can best accomplish the subsequent agenda? The battle between Steele and Newt completely ignores the fact that just months ago the McCain/RINO all but declared that social conservatives and evangelicals were no longer welcome in “their” party!
Before choosing a conservative standard-bearer, how about figuring out just what the party stands for in the aftermath of McCain’s epic failure in pulling the party to the left.
highhopes on November 10, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Steele.
I like Newt, but some new meat is needed.
MadisonConservative on November 10, 2008 at 7:45 PM
If this is truly the choice facing the RNC, then I choose Steele without hesitation.
Although, like others, I would be very conflicted if Fred was in the running.
LimeyGeek on November 10, 2008 at 7:45 PM
There are plenty of good tacticians in the GOP. What is needed is a reincarnation of Lee Atwater- somebody willing and able to get down and dirty and play hardball politics on the local level.
highhopes on November 10, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Allah, seems we need to update the discussion and add Fred to the poll.
conservative pilgrim on November 10, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Love em both, how about a co-chairmanship?
Security Mom on November 10, 2008 at 7:47 PM
You can’t add people to the poll once voting starts!
LimeyGeek on November 10, 2008 at 7:49 PM
I agree with you. I thin that instead of simply voting for one or the other based on who we like best, we should define what the RNC should be doing, what are the top goals, what demonstrated skills are required to bring them about, then chose the best possible person for that specific challenge. These are both great man and great conservatives, arguably the best, but neither might be the right choice.
neuquenguy on November 10, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Is that what the kids are calling it?
LimeyGeek on November 10, 2008 at 7:50 PM
With all due respect, what does Fred bring to the fight? One of the problems with the RNC chairs has been the proclivity to make it an emeritus position for politicians that have served the party well. Jim Gilmore comes to mind. Conversely the Dems have chosen pit bulls and political operatives like Howard Dean and Terry McCauliff (sp?).
The GOP needs to find the shrewdest and fiercest fighter and pick him/her with the mandate to do what is necessary to breathe life and relevance back into the party. Personally, my first act would be to make it clear that the GOP is the party of conservatives not frustrated Democrat wannabes like McCain.
highhopes on November 10, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Yeah, that’s about it.
I support Newtie for RNC chair. He knows how to get things done and cannot be outdone in making use of the internet and other new media. Newt has a lot of vision and will keep the party headed in the right direction. He has his stumbles (27 or so marriages, the silly Pelosi commercial), but he’s no RINO and he knows how to kick Donk butt.
Now, Steele is a great man who isn’t afraid to take on a media that hates him, but as others have said he should stay out of this role and focus on an upcoming campaign, Congressional, gubernatorial, or otherwise. He’s one guy who could take down Liberal Jesus in a debate without too much trouble – his deconstruction of Obama’s Greek Columns Speech was brilliant.
So, Newtie for RNC Chair, Steele for the future.
fiatboomer on November 10, 2008 at 7:51 PM
The RNC should go with Gingrich over Steele for the job, so long as Gingrich adopts Steele’s policy of seeking the votes of all Americans, in every corner of the nation. Steele should be entrusted with another large responsibility.
indythinker on November 10, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Damn! Damn! Damn! Tied again!
Punchenko on November 10, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Fiatboomer– I completely agree, Newt’s a packaging the message kind of guy, Steele has a serious future for elected office, my lean goes to Newt for this position.
LimeyGeek– naughty, naughty.
Security Mom on November 10, 2008 at 7:54 PM
As RNC chair, Saltsman could do quite a bit to further Huckabee’s national ambitions even in the pose of a neutral arbiter between candidates.
Anybody but Saltsman.
Marcus on November 10, 2008 at 7:55 PM
but he did come up with the clever drill baby drill at the RNC during his speech.
rslancer14 on November 10, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Who said Saltsman!? :-(
Punchenko on November 10, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Newt has already conceded the ideological ground on global warming. He proposes free market incentives to sequester carbon. I think Steele is a better choice because he will not let the media narrative go unchallenged. The media was against him in 2006 and I think he has something to prove. Newt on the other hand is more of a pragmatist and has too much baggage, his is an old stigmatized target rich opponent for the Dems. With the black vote paying attention like never before Michael Steele is the right choice. When he talks about the inconsistency between the black position on abortion and gay marriage with that of the Democrat party the medai will have a much harder time spinning it web of falsehoods. Steele is the better choice.
Theworldisnotenough on November 10, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Newt for Chair… Steele needs to run for office.
Romeo13 on November 10, 2008 at 7:13 PM
DITTO!!!
DCJeff on November 10, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Whoever added the Update.
Marcus on November 10, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Let’s see…a guy (Steele) who couldn’t win an election, or a guy who’s jumped the shark and is on the Global Warming bandwagon. Are these guys the best available? I sure hope not.
If so, we’re screwed 2010 and 2012, too.
Tom Blogical on November 10, 2008 at 7:59 PM
That is a tight poll. +16 for Newt with over 1300 cast.
carbon_footprint on November 10, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Triple that!
Having Steele run would nutralize any race issues in the 2012 White House bid. Blacks actually hold true to more conservative social values than they do liberal. It’s just that they’ve been sold a bill of goods by the likes of Sharpton and Jackson. Steele could set that issue straight.
katy on November 10, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Newt is so 1994. Micheal Steele has been a part of the RNC for the last 4 years or so. He is part of the problem not the solution.
None of the above.
William Amos on November 10, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Supports affirmative action.
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
Personally opposed to the death penalty
Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?
A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you’re going hunting? That’s overkill. But I don’t think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what’s the point of passing gun laws if we’re not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that’s where you need to start. We’ve got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it’s about how we enforce the law.
Michael Steele stumped for liberal incumbent Rep. Wayne Gilchrest against conservative state Sen. Andy Harris in a primary. So did Gingrich by the way.
No info on his Global Warming views.
He doesn’t sound all that conservative.
sharrukin on November 10, 2008 at 8:07 PM
I don’t know what Steele has done as far as organizing. It seems to me that Newt is a pretty talented at that, and strikes me as a much better talking head than Steele.
I’ll tell you what, if Mitt didn’t have his sights set on running again, he would be the perfect RNC head. Great at organizing, great at debating on TV.
Something has got to be done about the RNC. I had forgotten who the head of the RNC even was (Duncan). There was no unified message this year AT ALL! There was no “war room” or “quick response” team, or if there was I never heard a word.
The RNC website is horrible. I tried signing up to volunteer and tried to make a MyGOP login on their site, and ran into technical problems, and could never get an email back from anyone. I live in Oregon so I gave up as McCain wasn’t close to Obama here, and focused on trying to help Gordon Smith (I know he’s a RINO, but Merkely is a joke) get re-elected. Unfortunately McCain, Smith, every ballot measure that mattered, and even the local Mayoral race went the wrong way here.
willamettevalley on November 10, 2008 at 8:08 PM
please say it ain’t so about Steele… The guy needs to stick to talking heads appearances at which he is marginally ‘ok’, but the guy is adeptly unqualified to head the RNC… maybe not quite as inept as Martinez, but still! Steele? No Way! He can’t even hold a candle to a fraction of Newt’s political shrewdness.
Newt or bust!
gatorboy on November 10, 2008 at 8:11 PM
If these are the only two in the running the Republican party should come out OK. Either should be good for the party. I do favor Gingrich slightly, but mostly because I used to work for him and know him much better than Steele.
Buford on November 10, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Damn. This is a REALLY tough one. I mean, like flip a coin tough. Gotta vote for Gingrich though.
nickj116 on November 10, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Haha, 51-49 for Gingrich right now. Like I said, it’s flip a coin tough.
nickj116 on November 10, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Race shouldn’t matter, period.
If Steele wasn’t black, would he still be given so much love in this forum and in others? Methinks that the answer would still be YES.
The man ran for Senate in a year that was bad for Republicans. Any prior time, he probably would have won. Steele is both a fresh face and a return to traditional conservative thinking, untainted by the Bush Administration or personal scandal.
I like Newt, but he is old school in both thinking and execution. The fact that he has baggage also hurts his cause. If he wants to play the role of Yoda to young Jedi Steele, I am okay with that.
Steele can always run for higher office later. Right now, the GOP needs him as the RNC, if nothing else to counter the Obama PR machine aka the MSM. And maybe, just maybe, we can finally get someone at the top of the Republican Party to actually outreach to minorities without becoming a Pander Bear in the process.
My two cents, and worth every penny! ;-)
itzWicks on November 10, 2008 at 8:17 PM
I bet Huckabee’s breath smells really, really bad.
Punchenko on November 10, 2008 at 8:17 PM
I love Newt as much as the next Conservative.
But if 2006 and 2008 have taught us anything, is that it’s time for new blood.
Tesson on November 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM
The GOP needs a leader who will be able to explain where the party is now, what ideas will resonate within its own membership and how they will play out with non-conservatives.
I don’t believe Michael Steele to be that man at this time. The timing of this calls from Newt.
TennesseeTuxedo on November 10, 2008 at 8:24 PM
I think Newt is been battle tested. He can articulate conservatism like few can,,, and he is never short on ideas. He really stumbled, though, on the global warming thing and sitting on that couch with Nancy Peloser.
Hard call. I would vote Newt.
JellyToast on November 10, 2008 at 8:24 PM
I might be a tad wishy washy on this one because I like Steele, but dodn’t know as much about him (my fault, not his). But Newt seems a like the ruthless strategist the conservative movement needs (except for that dang global warming bs) and Newt won’t likely get elected to office again. Steele still has his chances elsewhere. I like Steele as a vocal member of the party, but I want Gingrich pulling the strings behind the scenes. Either way, we will be better off than we are now.
XWing5 on November 10, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Newt has too much baggage. Michael Steele would be a better choice. But in the end, I think the GOP is beyond repair. They are almost as bad as the mangy democraps.
Zorro on November 10, 2008 at 8:28 PM
Tesson, Newt hasn’t been in office for 10 years! And the RNC chair doesn’t have to be popular, but effective.
What does concern me about Newt is he’s fallen for the Global Warming hoax.
willamettevalley on November 10, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Steele, Gingrich is needed to guide the 2012 candidate from the wings.
I like Michael Steele. I could see his name on a ballot at some point down the road.
FireBlogger on November 10, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Gingrich is more articulate and savvy. He knows how to work and get the RNC back into shape. Michael Steele I think needs a few more years. I find him a bit weak when he went to support McCain more than the other conservatives during the primaries.
mariloubaker on November 10, 2008 at 8:39 PM
I voted Steele because I think the GOP needs fresh blood.
terryannonline on November 10, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »