Video: Michael Steele wants to be the “loyal opposition”
posted at 7:56 am on November 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Michael Steele stepped up his efforts to win the RNC chair in his appearance yesterday on Fox News Sunday. He spoke out against the continuing efforts to expand the bailouts, but warned that the Republicans had to start offering a positive agenda as an alternative to the Democratic expansion of government control. Being the Party of No didn’t help in the last two cycles:
“I think the other thing that I’ve found that’s been lacking over the last four years, especially the last two cycles–’06 and ’08—we don’t know how to talk to people. We’ve absolutely forgotten how to communicate a message … to espouse those principles in the context of people’s everyday lives. … Our party needs to have a voice, it needs to have a relevant voice that people can identify with.”
“We put $700 billion on the table that we didn’t have. We’re now trying to carve out an extra $300 billion to put on the table. My question is, when does it stop? You don’t want to keep feeding this trough here that people on the Hill seem to want to be at.
“To the Republicans in the House and in the Senate, over this lame duck session you can be against a whole lot of things but you better start to be about something and for something, as well. Out party can’t just be in a position where we’re sitting back going ‘no to this, no to that, no to that’ without any explanation, number one, and without some alternative proposal to put on the table.”
“I bring a different experience to the table. I was a grassroots guy from day one. I started out here in my hometown of DC working the streets and knocking on doors. I then worked the central committee in Maryland, Prince George’s County. Became chairman of the party there for six years. State chairman. An elected official and lieutenant governor of the State of Maryland. Now I’m chairing GOPAC, a national grassroots organization that’s geared toward training and electing Republican candidates. So I think I bring a host of different perspectives to the table. … I want to make our party relevant and I think the experience I bring to the table will help us do that. I’m tired of us sitting with our heads in the sand complaining and finger pointing. Let’s get up, pick ourselves up, go out here and engage the fight. I want to be the loyal opposition to this incoming administration.”
Steele hits the nail on the head with his warning about communications. The Republicans need to have someone who relentlessly offers positive alternatives along with rational opposition to the Democratic agenda. It’s not about being nice, but about positioning the GOP as the grown-ups while the Democratic Congress and Obama administration write one check after another.
Republicans need someone with national name recognition who can do all of that as well as reorganize the RNC, modernize its communications, and find effective candidates for Congress. The chair has to be ubiquitous, appearing everywhere and every day, making himself heard on every single issue. Only a few people already have that kind of personality, and Steele is already busily proving that he qualifies.
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:
I really like Steele. Other than him, who are the main contenders for this position?
Red State State of Mind on November 17, 2008 at 8:04 AM
The “party as a whole” cannot communicate a coherent message as long as we are squabbling about “real Republicans” , RINOs, and who is or isn’t a “true Conservative.”
Some folks need to learn what the old saw about throwing out the baby with the bath-water really means.
hillbillyjim on November 17, 2008 at 8:08 AM
I was thinking of dropping my Republican registration in favor of the bland ‘Independant’ registration after the whole McCain nonsense until I heard about Steele’s bid. I disagree with him on some things but the man can speak. As an added bonus, if he does get the nod for the chair it will be harder for the Dems/Obama administration to color everything from the RNC as racist if the chairman has dark skin. It’d be nice to blunt that angle of attack for once.
Browncoatone on November 17, 2008 at 8:09 AM
Steele and Newt co-chairs. Double the trouble for Democrats.
He is right about the lack of communication both from Bush and McCain.
igoramus08 on November 17, 2008 at 8:13 AM
Right. They’ll be the model of civility. Just ask Colin Powell (pre-Messiah endorsement), Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Alex Keyes, et al.
Vic on November 17, 2008 at 8:15 AM
The Republican Party had better move back toward being the party of Ronald Reagan and away from Beltway Elitism. Otherwise, they will never win another Presidential Election. If Michael Steele can do that, more power to him.
kingsjester on November 17, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Go positive and we lose. Haven’t any of you learned from the past 10 years. Dick Gebhart retired from congress after being the loyal opposition in the House.
He was replaced by Nancy Pelosi the most partisan attack dog that any minority party ever placed in the leadership. She is now the speaker and we are sitting around attempting to find our inner selfs.
It will be a good move for Michael Steele personally to be the Chairman of the GOP, but I fear a disaster for the party.
Jdripper on November 17, 2008 at 8:23 AM
That’s the McCain candidacy in a nutshell. The man was either incapable or unwilling to deliver his economic proposals(including health care) in a coherent manner. I think people really wanted to vote for the man, but he never gave them any substantive reason.
Steele’s right. Returning to their conservative principles is only half of the equation. The other key is communicating those principles and how they can be applied toward solutions for what ails this nation to the voters. And the deck is already stacked against them with Obama’s money raising juggernaut and the drive-bys in the tank, so they have no margin of error going into 2010 and 2012.
Doughboy on November 17, 2008 at 8:25 AM
The “party as a whole” cannot communicate a coherent message as long as we are squabbling about “real Republicans” , RINOs, and who is or isn’t a “true Conservative.”
Some folks need to learn what the old saw about throwing out the baby with the bath-water really means.
hillbillyjim on November 17, 2008 at 8:08 AM
Part of the problem is that the incumbent Republican president has always felt a need to qualify/apologize for his conservatism and the most recent Republican presidential candidate prides himself on having no commitment to Party and none to conservatism, either.
This is part of the reason for the squabbling — there is no standard bearer.
BigD on November 17, 2008 at 8:27 AM
As long as their are RINO’s and “compassionate conservatives” in this party there cannot possibly be a coherent message to communicate!
We cannot survive as a “big tent” party”. Look where it’s gotten us! We have to be about IDEOLOGY!!! The Dems are the liberal party. We are either the CONSERVATIVE party or we’re out of business!
edgehead on November 17, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Communication is key. W has been a disaster with the ‘new tone’ and his ‘new language.’ The New tone resulted in not challenging democrats. The new language undermined the credibility of his proposals, makIng any proposal seem poorly thought out.
Steele is capable of doing much better than what we have tolerated in recent years.
Right_of_Attila on November 17, 2008 at 8:36 AM
He mighta had me until, “my DC neighborhood.”
I’m sorry, but his rhetoric sounds forced, and he’s just as much a product of The Machine as Obama.
Despite GWB’s appointees carrying more diversity into government than Clinton or Obama’s ever did or will, Steele’s chairmanship will not be a positive for the RNC.
Joan of Argghh on November 17, 2008 at 8:39 AM
Steele is right on target. . . the Republican Party as it exists now is nothing but a bucket of mush where questionable ideas and principles simply sink in the ooze and are lost. We need broad based policies of substance that will sell to the majority of conservative minded Americans . . . but above all; we need unity within the Party before any significant progress can be made.
rplat on November 17, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Nope, sorry. No sharing of power. One leader only.
Chewy the Lab on November 17, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Steel made a good argument. Like it so far.
latinchic on November 17, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Communication is certainly the key. However, it is incumbent on our party to hire a child who knows the internet & start sending our message out over you-tube, my space, facebook & the like. We laughed at bambi when he did that, but it helped him. We couldn’t respond fast enough to that.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 8:56 AM
No kidding. Say what you will about the Dems, but they’re a united front. There may be dissention within the ranks behind closed doors, but you never hear about it, even from “anonymous sources”.
This backstabbing and bickering going on in the GOP must stop. If the behavior of the McCain campaign staffers and GOP governors in these last couple weeks is any indication of what we can expect over the next few years, then not only is party doomed to remain in the minority, but they may find themselves down by an even greater margin to the Dems.
Doughboy on November 17, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Yeah that’s exactly what’s been missing….our trying to out Santa Claus Santa er um Kwanza Clause.
The GOP needs to come to whatever bizzare agreement will get the RiNOs to stop their revolt and if they refuse then we need to punish them by going bluedog and coopting power from the Berkeley Battalions in the donk ranks itself….
never thought I’d type that last phrase.
sven10077 on November 17, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Don’t be fooled by Steele. He’s a gun grabber.
lodge on November 17, 2008 at 9:02 AM
This fight for the “soul” of the Republican party is ridiculous. We face the most horrid of all administrations right now. If the Republicans can’t all get together to fight the Obama nightmare, then we can never get together.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Indeed…..he is one of the “I’ll give you 85% of the donks at 95% of the price types….
I remember him from our time at APG.
I am glad there is room for his kind in our party but if he is the leader of our party I’ll find a new one thanks.\
The guy refused to castigate Mr. Moose during the “DC Sniper” hoopla where Mosse was racebaiting whites.
sven10077 on November 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM
The Dims promise people they can have it all with no effort or sacrifice — “free” universal health care, “free” mortgages (or at least a substantial reduction in your mortgage from what you agreed to pay, but only for those who’ve been irresponsible enough to stop paying their mortgages), free money (”tax credits” to those who don’t pay taxes in the first place), etc. — all financed by jacking up taxes on “the rich” and those evil corporations that provide us with goods and services.
Sadly, a substantial portion of our population now believe that they’re “entitled” to have a certain standard of living — whether they’ve ever done anything to earn it or not. So how does one make a “positive agenda” out of telling people that the way to succeed is to work hard, budget their money, save and invest? That’s the last thing Obama-idiots want to hear.
AZCoyote on November 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Back up to Doughboy. The Dems aren’t fighting with each other right now because they have no idea what they would be fighting. The don’t know what Obama will do anymore than we do. However, we know that his tendencies have not been patriotic so far.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Steele is impressive as well as being correct about the need to communicate ideas and rationale for those ideas.
Pat in NC on November 17, 2008 at 9:10 AM
And about Steele: anyone campaigning for RNC chair would have detractors within the GOP. How can any of us ever be 100% satisfied? Can’t we just get us a good cheerleader/communicator/fundraiser & hire some good admin people with computer skills & agree to whip Dem ass?
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Is it just me, because Pawlenty is starting to get on my nerves.
For Steele, he will be the RNC chairman and he better be. The current leadership is someone I don’t ever see in the media nor do I know how he looks like. I did not even know Mike Duncan was the leader of the RNC until the talk of replacing him came about two weeks ago.
The RNC better wake up to the reality that we need to modernize the party in terms of utilizing all mediums and to bring back the party to it core fundamental beliefs in conservatism. The party of Jefferson and Reagan.
Michael Steele will do just that!
He already is reaching out through talk radio, bloggers, and TV. He is the perfect guy to espouse conservatism and articulate it to all.
jencab on November 17, 2008 at 9:11 AM
If I, as a comservative, am going to put my vote and money to use why would I put them behind a man who agrees with several of the most glaring things I detest about the modern Democratic party?
1) my guns are mine and they have killed less people than Ted Kennedy’s cars or several politician’s libido.
2)any moron who backed McCain/Feingold or can make a serious(in their mind) and “prinicipled” argument for arbogating first amendment political speech is not fit to hold the founder’s jockstraps….
I can simply donate to the DNC and cut out the middle man.
sven10077 on November 17, 2008 at 9:13 AM
I’d rather have Newt, but whatevs.
CP on November 17, 2008 at 9:14 AM
That’s true to an extent. But think about issues like the energy crisis. Plenty of bluedog Dems wanted to vote in favor of drilling. Hell, even some libs did a 180 and were supporting the idea. But Pelosi held firm and would not allow a vote(at least not without ridiculous stipulations).
Same with the (Un)Fairness Doctrine. She prevented even a single Dem from crossing the aisle and supporting a permanent repeal when the GOP was pushing it earlier this summer.
And of course she kept enough Dems at bay during the bailout vote in order to force the GOP’s hand(enough of them anyway) in supporting it.
I’m certain there’ll be more infighting and dissent now that they control the entire government and are accountable for everything that goes right or wrong. But you can’t deny that Pelosi and Reid run a tight ship.
Doughboy on November 17, 2008 at 9:14 AM
There’s what the Dems say and then there is what America sees. Is America going to see Steele as a racist just because some Democrat tries to dismiss his logic out of hand by playing the race card? With an old white guy from the south they might get away with that nonsense and the racists in the Donkey house will no doubt throw cookies at him, call him a race traitor, and much, much worse. But Average Joe American? I don’t think that will fly.
I’m not saying he should get it because he’s dark skinned, just that like Sarah’s attractiveness it’s a nice added benefit.
Browncoatone on November 17, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Even more reason to put him to work where he can be useful for the party but not do any harm with votes or vetos.
Browncoatone on November 17, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Michael Steele has won me over. I am comfortable with his pro-life position and his ideas for the direction of the party. Plus, Newt dissed the ‘Cuda.
chunderroad on November 17, 2008 at 9:19 AM
I didn’t back Sarah because she’s cute I backed her because she helped enact the most sensible energy policy of our Governors.
I am not against Steele because he’s black I am against him because socially he is a democrat in many ways and is only GOP in a vacuous “fiscal sense” that the party has proved over the last decade was a false assumption by the voters of being able to be counted on in a jam.
sven10077 on November 17, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Steele: “Out party can’t just be in a position where we’re sitting back going ‘no to this, no to that, no to that’ without any explanation, number one, and without some alternative proposal to put on the table.”
There has to be a complete purge of the Republican Party. This will tick off many of those who have been the “do nothing” members that have helped us lose so many seats. I am sure there is plenty of new blood out there, we just don’t know exactly who they are yet. Forget about the past, what I am talking about is starting from scratch. The past is the past, we are in a new technological world, and we have been looking back for so long we will never catch up if we don’t reinvent the Republican Party.
The only issues that remain as part of the foundations of the Republican party have to be fiscal responsibility and social conservatism. Take those two issues and make them modern.
This is partly why I don’t think Newt is a good choice. Even though he had success during the 90’s, he is out of touch in 2008.
Get the geezers out and get the new blood in. Reagan is our hero, but what would he do today? Our house just burned down, so now it’s time to completely rebuild.
jcheney on November 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM
I agree that the past is the past. and as much as Reagan, was my president (i was there in Detroit & turned 21 when he was nominated–quite heady for a youngster), he is gone. He can be our hero, but we need to look forward. And just because Steele might be “soft” on the 2d, he won’t buck the NRA since they help fund so many of our efforts.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM
I’d rather have Newt, but Steele is probably light years better than whoever we have now.
petefrt on November 17, 2008 at 9:26 AM
The unions are strong Dem supporters both financially & in GOTV efforts. But do you think all Dems love the unions? no. but they need the money. So just because Steele might be what one poster called a “gun grabber” doesn’t mean he will trend that way since our party as a whole is 2d amendment strong.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 9:28 AM
Also back to Doughboy: See, as much as we hate Nancy Pelosi, we need one just like her. And if it is Michael Steele or whomever, we need to get behind them & go forward.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM
am i the only one here?
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM
No “might” about it….
if the GOP doesn’t stand for standing for Liberty why not go with Santa Claus?
Santa doesn’t have endless cash and the eventual implosion will be an interesting social sciences lab if nothing else.
The United States is a synthesis of our economy(why I am a free market guy read Hamilton)and our guaranteed liberties.
McCain wrecked the literal reason for the 1st amendment, if the GOP destroys the 2d then what’s left?
Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR nuked the tenth…the 4th is a joke ask Joe the Plumber….
at what point do we add the spare “S” to USA?
sven10077 on November 17, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Sven: then are you saying the GOP should be the libertarian party? actually, i like that idea but i don’t think we’ll reach critical mass in votes which is what it is all about.
kelley in virginia on November 17, 2008 at 9:34 AM
It depends. I think the GOP would be well served spending the next six months in introspection and leaning towards either embracing socialism-lite or trying to overtly gain the Union boyz and libertarians. The party that first overtly embraces protectionism in the coming recession will solidify its backing amongst the unions.
The question is do we let the donks do this, OR do we try to whittle off the gun-loving moonbat hating yellow dogs?
I am a free market guy, but I have to be honest we face so much unfair competition from state subsidized industry and dumping that when added to our 35% corporate tax it makes it hard for us to have ANY industrial base…..we’ll lose the cars and eventually the planes at the current rate.
Having an industrial capacity to crank out mil kit and back up capacity in case of a war with a first tier opfor is a strategic necessity we run the risk of losing….
the GOP *could* gain a lot of ground by barking the loudest about “GOOD UNION JOBS BUILDING BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE!” and quietly saying perhaps we need “protection” like our good friends the Germans and Japanese.
sven10077 on November 17, 2008 at 9:39 AM
We need more parties, not less. We’ve been bitten by a many-headed hydra that’s been operating with Dems for over a generation. They successfully have been able to find the least-common-denominator amongst them by personifying the RNC as Evil, Stupid, Immmoral moralizers. Insecure politicians and their tenuous toadies began to self-doubt, like many commenters here.
The GOP is in disarray because of the universal, dominating perception now fairly ingrained, that anyone who believes in God is an idiot, backwater, mouth-breathing knuckle dragger and incapable of actually being reasonable about issues. And a hypocrite. Anything but that! Damn Republicans are afraid of their own shadow. Which is funny cuz I don’t see how they can even see it with their head so far up their ass.
The GOP ran after the likes of televangelists and activists, thinking to court a group of people who are in reality and practice much smarter than the televangelists and who have no truck with that kind of Christianity and are not monolithic in their voting. The GOP no more understands “Christian” than they do “Conservative.” They aided and abetted the MSM’s goals in debasing the Ideals of community whilst whoring themselves out to their own stupid perceptions of the GOP base.
So, since we can’t get along, better to faction out lest anyone be perceived as horrors! a “christer” or “home schooler” or “snowbilly” or a bitter clinger. We rail at it, but we are secretly moved by it, too, to no good ends.
Fine. Tribalize. Then come together to agree on the Least Common Denominator (the Constitution might just work), then everyone can be secure in not losing their precious Identity.
Joan of Argghh on November 17, 2008 at 9:39 AM
The idea of Libertarian is good in theory. In practice, however, the Libertarians attract far too many theophobes, radical pacifists, and Ron Paul-type conspiracy cranks to be effective.
Lehosh on November 17, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Measured social conservatism plus third way econonomics has always been a winning formula. Unfortunately, the GOP has created the impression – fair or unfair – that it is not interested in governing, only in reiterating principles. If a majority of voters considers Democrats to be more competent on the economy, healthcare and so on, it is not because they have good ideas. It is because Dems talk aggressively and confidently about these subjects and therefore “own them” in the minds of people. Offering a positive message (that is, practical solutions that benefit people) does not mean being too nice or selling out. It means re-occupying the ground that was ceded to Democrats for no good reason.
As one writer put it, the first time most people heard about the McCain health care plan was when Obama started criticising it. See what I mean?
Too many Republicans seem to buy into the liberal myth that conservative policies are bad for “the little guy”, minorities and so on. They lack confidence to sell their ideas to anyone but “the base”.
By all means fight for free markets and against big government, but large areas of the economy are highly regulated for a variety of reasons, and will remain so. In these areas, Republicans must offer improvements that serve their natural constituencies: working people, families, small businesses, basically everyone except deadbeats and elitists. And why would this not include Hispanics and Asians?
el gordo on November 17, 2008 at 9:50 AM
The actual reality of things is that the ideology is almost entirely irrelevant. People will vote for anything if they think it’ll get the trains running on time.
The GOP’s problem is that right now they are the party of screwups, and they need to return to being the party of competence. The ideology really is secondary.
Lehosh on November 17, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Steele is very aware of this. He has been using a lot of these tools at GOPAC. Patrick Ruffini and the folks at RebuildOurParty are making sure that we catch up with all the new communication tools out there.
GOPAC was the only Republican organization that actually called me and asked me for money in this cycle. I was impressed with what it was offering and I gave.
rockmom on November 17, 2008 at 9:56 AM
That’s why losing this election was a good thing in the long run. We don’t have to defend every screwup and corruption deal in the federal government anymore. We can start remaking our image around a bunch of really good, competent, conservative, corruption-fighting Republican governors. When Clinton was president we had Tommy Thompson, John Engler, George Allen, and Mayor Giuliani leading the way on welfare reform, ending parole, cutting taxes, etc. We will do the same now with Govs. Pawlenty, Palin, Barbour, Jindal, Sanford, Daniels, etc. We have a good chance of winning Virginia next year and that will start the rebuilding.
rockmom on November 17, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Mr. Steele needs to show he’s a rock ribbed conservative. Let’s hear Christy Todd-Whittman bouncing under the bus…
phreshone on November 17, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Open letter to Michael Steele:
Dear Michael,
You said,
“I think the other thing that I’ve found that’s been lacking over the last four years, especially the last two cycles–’06 and ’08—we don’t know how to talk to people. We’ve absolutely forgotten how to communicate a message … to espouse those principles in the context of people’s everyday lives. … Our party needs to have a voice, it needs to have a relevant voice that people can identify with.”
Would you please take a moment to espouse to us here at
HotAir.com in the context of people’s everyday lives what you believe it means to be a Conservative and a Republican.
Seriously, it won’t be a waste of time, it will become virile. Surely you as a computer geek, knows the value of that.
Best wishes,
P. Monk on November 17, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Steele is right about communicating. Bush’s biggest failure was not Iraq, it was his communication (being president is hard, mission accomplished, Sadam tried to assassinate my daddy, etc.)
The Dems know the importance of crafting a message, delivering it convincingly, and shouting it from the mountain top. The last two election cycles were won on lies, and now we have Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to contend with. What good is the truth if no one hears it or believes it?
It is time to politely thank McCain for his service and let him enjoy retirement, and then have a nice pow-wow where some of our best minds create the message and strategy (Newt can be our architect). Steele’s photogenic face should be put out there to deliver the message non stop).
Laura in Maryland on November 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM
The mainstream media destroyed Newt in the 90s and they would do it again. Besides I didn’t care to see him sitting on that climate change couch with Nancy Pelosi. Every time I saw Steele as a contributor on the talk shows he came across as a sound and passionate conservative. But that is about all I know about him.
Renae on November 17, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Steele is a good man! I like his thoughts. He does have compassion. There are still some good Conservatives out there.
sheebe on November 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Steele, as long as he has Newt at his back…
right2bright on November 17, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I didn’t attribute this quote because my comment is regarding these issues generally.
In our righteous outrage and our zeal to find the way back, we’re acting as though we have a black & white choice: demand for ideological purity or “anything goes”. In reality, what we have to pursue is a balance between the two. The hardcore conservatives (among whom I count myself) are too few in number to win more than a handful of congressional districts without the cooperation of people who are at least SOME more moderate. Put more plainly, WE NEED THEM. That means we are going to have to make more concessions to them.
But of course we can’t just lurch violently left, to the point of being a baby-step to the right of the dems. Our party is defined by certain principles — small government, individual liberty, strong defense, respect for life — that are at odds with the dems, and are the reason we have two parties.
The goal must be the correct balance of the two. The correct balance is to be moderate enough to attract 50.0001% of the voters, and no more than that. That means we ideological purists are going to have to give up some of what we want, and the right-leaning moderates we want to attract will have to give up some of what they want.
Some of you may who have read my other posts may know where I’m going with this. The important thing is to stress what everyone from center-right to far-right has in common: our belief in what I’ve been calling “small government / big liberty”. Social cons (like me — a Bible-belt Southern Baptist Deacon and Sunday School teacher) are going to have to come to grips with the fact that real liberty means that we drop anti-gay rhetoric from our political dialog (as though they AREN’T doing those things now). I’m not suggesting “gay-affirming rhetoric”, but “sex-ignoring” rhetoric. If it allow us to attract people who will vote with us to limit the size and scope of government, and stand with us for free speech — a freedom that is fading fast in what we used to call “the free world” — then it is worth it. We (away from the political stage) can still have discussions of morality and faith without using them as political wedges. Our appeal to people of faith should be THEIR free exercise, not fruitless symbolic attempts to stamp out sin.
RegularJoe on November 17, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Is this really true? It seems to me that Howard Dean is more notorious than ubiquitous, yet the Dems have a succeeded in expanding at virtually every level. Isn’t it more important that the RNC chairman be a good political insider than a talking head? I’m not saying this disqualifies Steele, but it seems as if the focus has been more about choosing a chairman who appeals to the public, rather than to a sharp political strategist.
Y-not on November 17, 2008 at 11:08 AM
The reason we forgot how to communicate is the leadership has spent too much time trying to appease the dems, to show we can get along. If we want to communicate, we need to now our identity. As long as the Moderates are in leadership roles then our message becomes contradictory to the core Conservative base of the party.
lwssdd on November 17, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I do not like Steele for RNC chair. It is a classic case of the Peter Principle.
The man lost his run to a lame senator. He had margin at best impact in his present position, so let’s advance him?
Nonsense.
Captain America on November 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Comment pages: