Steele has made too many tone-deaf mistakes to have much benefit of the doubt left, and so far he hasn’t said anything that makes me think he’s likely to improve.

It’s more a question of effectiveness than ideology. He’s given some truly impressive speeches, and has rarely expressed an idea I strongly disagreed with… and even at that, as you said, we cannot expect total agreement with our every position as necessary to express support.

I think the angry Republican voters swearing to withhold their contributions from the RNC mean what they say. Michelle Malkin’s collection of “hell no” responses to GOP fundraising letters is eloquent testimony to the need for reassuring the base, and promising to avoid the mistakes of the past in 2010. I don’t see how you do that without expecting the top guy to accept responsibility for his mistakes, and gracefully step aside.

Doctor Zero on November 4, 2009 at 10:15 PM

My thoughts exactly.

We are missing the forest from the trees! The true debate is what constitutes this squishy middle that the media and the elites always seem to bring up when republicans win elections or when conservatives are resurgent. Yet they don’t bother to define the middle or worst it seems that the middle to them constitutes a person like Olympia Snowe or Scozzafava. This has to be addressed, as it is simply in my estimation a slimpery slope to socialism. I would term it incremental socialism as opposed to outright socialism. I think Glenn Beck said it on his show once that it seems the only acceptable choice to the “mainstream” media and elites is between progressivism and marxist progressivism (though I am more with you in that we are witnessing facist progressivism). Conservatism I would argue is the true mainstream of this country. There is nothing radical about Conservatism. Nothing. I am sick and tired of people claiming there’s a far right represented by conservatives and a middle where RINOs like Olympia Snowe occupy. What does Olympia Snowe believe in as a matter of principle? No one knows. But she will say that she is a republican who represents the politics of her state. Fair, but the politics of her state when viewed from the lens of national politics is liberal. What really is the point of her caucusing with the GOP?

I don’t want to get sidetracked Dr. Zero, but this whole governing from the center as a political philosophy outright is sickening. Governing from the center should result from the political design construed by the Founders limiting the power of the federal government. This is achieve specifically with the Senate rules of consent needing 60 votes to end debate on any legislation and thank God! However centricism as a political philosophy to run on is ridiculous and it implies that conservatism shares the extremes of politics with liberalism/marxism. I wholeheartedly reject this and our party needs to assert more what is reflected with every Prop 8 or 13, that conservatism is mainstream and that the center of this country is on the right.

Thing is, Steele may be doing the best thing possible… by not being “the face of the party” he can’t be frozen and attacked. (grin)

Mew

Who is the right next chair? And why?

publiuspen on November 4, 2009 at 10:08 PM

A challenging and crucial question. Let it never be said that Mr. Steele is faring poorly at an easy job.

CK MacLeod on November 4, 2009 at 9:34 PM

I don’t hate Steele, and regret if I came off sounding like I was howling for a scalp. I meant exactly what I said: I don’t think he’s very good at his job, and we need the best of the best running the show in 2010. Steele has made too many tone-deaf mistakes to have much benefit of the doubt left, and so far he hasn’t said anything that makes me think he’s likely to improve.

It’s more a question of effectiveness than ideology. He’s given some truly impressive speeches, and has rarely expressed an idea I strongly disagreed with… and even at that, as you said, we cannot expect total agreement with our every position as necessary to express support.

I think the angry Republican voters swearing to withhold their contributions from the RNC mean what they say. Michelle Malkin’s collection of “hell no” responses to GOP fundraising letters is eloquent testimony to the need for reassuring the base, and promising to avoid the mistakes of the past in 2010. I don’t see how you do that without expecting the top guy to accept responsibility for his mistakes, and gracefully step aside.

But that’s the point – the PR cost of pulling him down wouldn’t be worth it. RNC Chair might seem more important than it is precisely for the reason you indicate, and, yes, once a national leader steps up, it will fade.

A good sign the Republican Party has learned them would be replacing Michael Steele as the chairman of the RNC. He’s just not very good at his job…

Strongly agree. He has been embarrassing.

But such an odd position to fill. Is it a visionary position? A salesman? A fundraiser? A strategist? A dealmaker? A debater? Machiavellian or Reaganite?

Is this position even more important since we lack a single, strong national leader?

Does this position then become neutered when that national leader steps up?

Quickly, without googling, can you name three RNC chair from the last 20 years? I couldn’t. Looking at the list, I remember a few of the names now.

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Lee Atwater
Clayton Keith Yeutter
Richard Bond
Haley Barbour
Jim Nicholson
Jim Gilmore
Marc Racicot
Ed Gillespie
Ken Mehlman
Mike Duncan
Mel Martinez
Michael Steele

Who is the right next chair? And why?

Needless to say, we agree a lot more than we disagree. I think what I reacted against most strongly was the tone, please excuse me if I over-simplify, of RINO-hunting fervor, particularly in the call for Steele’s scalp. If we agree that gaining effective control of the party is a main objective, I think we have to aim to have a party worth gaining control of, and part of that includes paying due respect to the party-building concerns that may lead Steele, Gingrich, and others to make concessions, mistakenly or not.

Finding the right balance between holding party leaders and candidates accountable and engaging in internecine combat is difficult. Lately, I’ve been sensing a lot of the latter tendency among people I usually side with. Talk of “Stalinist purges” is disgustingly inappropriate, but ostracizing people for straying from some rigid, mostly imaginary party line or perfect political praxis is behavior more fitting to the Marxist left than to a movement for liberty. I’m confident that you know that, but there are many who don’t seem to.

There are quite a few congressmen in DC from obscure districts. And the amount of pork they each tuck into bills, as a trade for their vote, add up to huge sums. So as with the gigantic amount of power over the lives of all Americans, the power to not only be adept at discussing the needs of the St. Lawrence Seaway, but the ability to put it in perspective with the needs of the Alabama Intercoastal Waterway, the water table in New Mexico, and make sure that the representatives of those needs understand that everyone must be conservative rather than everyone getting the Seaway plus a $1,000,000 skateboard park in their district is a better long term value for the American People.

Otherwise, we’ll also get a mindset like Frank’s replete with Fannie’s and Freddie’s and skateboard parks. Oh, yeah, and a Boston Chunnel.

Can I pay $10 somewhere to make it stop?

You don’t respond to the objective success of the unified party-movement – Virginia – and the objective failure of the party-less movement – NY-23 – but tearing apart the party in favor of the movement.

Both the party and the movement need to get better at what they’re trying to do. NY-23 was a come as you are affair for all concerned.

CK MacLeod on November 4, 2009 at 1:49 PM

A unified party is certainly the best scenario. You could make the case that in our current climate, neither the party nor the movement can win alone… they need each other. The gathering momentum of State growth has made party success without some appreciation of the movement an achievement of highly dubious value. Can there be much doubt that Dede Scozzafava would have answered that “call of history” when Obama needed her?

I’m not a third-party enthusiast, either. I understand the frustrations that lead conservatives to consider that alternative, but I don’t see how we could possibly spare the time it would take to build and nurture such a party. If we ever really had such time to spare, that moment has long since passed.

Taking back the GOP is the only way to go, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy, or that success is guaranteed. The successes in Virginia and NJ, to the extent the GOP leadership can be credited with them, don’t make up for the failure in NY-23… especially since that’s exactly the kind of failure that could get us in deep trouble in 2010.

You outlined an excellent set of if/then conditions that could have granted Hoffman victory in your post today. The original decision, from which the rest of that tragic flowchart depends, was picking an awful candidate like Scozzafava. The primal mistake of poor candidate selection is the most important thing that needs to be corrected going forward, because, as you illustrated, an awful lot of things have to go right to save the party from such an initial calamity.

Odds are looking towards 2010 they’ll freeze Tuesday in amber as well, no matter what happens in Washington, and only dip the most cautious toe into the water as far as pushing any conservative candidates in Blue or Purple states. Fortunately, the 2010 Republican primary season should solve a lot of the GOP’s problems for them, compared to the nominees they’d pick if the old smoke-filled rooms and dealings like the NY-23 selection process were the norm.

Both the party and the movement need to get better at what they’re trying to do. NY-23 was a come as you are affair for all concerned.