Replies

Here is a post from a few days ago which I think is still relevant:

I think the position today is unique in its historical context. The chairman will become the default spokesman of the party. I suspect he is also going to be the leading policymaker-if he has the stuff for it. He must carry his policy with his rhetoric and he must contrive a policy which will justify the rhetoric. I see no one else on the horizon at this time who can step up to that role. By virtue of their offices the minority leader of the Senate and the minority leader in the House might offer themselves. Mitt Romney might evolve to a party spokesman but that will be awkward for an undeclared candidate. By default, Michael Steele will be the face of the party and probably its brain.

As you point out, his responsibilities include the nuts and bolts of running the party and that means herding cats but also a host of other duties: although he inherits $20 million, he must raise tens of millions more; the entire IT footprint of the party must be adapted to the Blitzkrieg introduced by the Democrats in the last two elections; candidates must be found who can wage credible campaigns at least in a few areas where we might regain some ground; a strategy must be developed to penetrate the red states and that implies selling something that the voters want to buy; legislative strategy must be coordinated with our minorities in the House and Senate so that the party speaks with one voice; discipline must be established and ruthlessly maintained; and finally, a sense of urgency and destiny must be imparted so that the whole country knows what is at stake and what must be done, they must believe it can be done, they must believe that it will be done. They must believe that only the Republicans can do it.

In sum, he must define conservatism and throw down the gauntlet to the creeping statism represented by Obama and his ilk. He must define the limits; this far and no further! These responsibilities call for a Winston Churchill or a Newt Gingrich. They beg for charisma. The Republican Party might have only one more chance for survival. We need a wartime leader not a conciliator. The best analogy I can think of is that of England in 1930s reluctantly shaking off Neville Chamberlain, its exponent of appeasement, for Winston Churchill whose warnings had been so terribly vindicated that no one now could gainsay him. He told him what his policy was: to wage war. to wage war on land, sea and air. He told them what his aim was: victory. Victory at all costs, victory whenever the price, victory no matter how long or hard the road.

Since the Republican Party is that it position analogous to Great Britain after the fall of France, anything short of this level of commitment dooms the party which in turn shelters and nurtures conservatism and that ultimately dooms the Republic.

This is no time for business as usual. Can Michael Steele grasp the nettle?

Steele has been put in a corner by MSM 'Rats a few times, esp. Tim Russert and Mike Wallace.

Russert forced the Kool-Aid down Steele's throat on abortion, back when Steele was running for U.S. Senate in Maryland, a liberal State. So of course Russert chased him around the room until he said he didn't want Roe vs. Wade revisited. Good wedge issue if you're a liberal 'Rat trying to beat a conservative in a liberal State -- or get the conservatives fighting each other.

Steele is wrong on affirmative action, but he's clean and green across the rest of the issue spectrum as far as I can see. Some people have tried to interpret things he's said as being anti-2A but I don't buy it. Also pro-gay, but what he actually said was, he wants to compete for the gay vote based on economic and liberty issues. Ditto women and other Hillaryoid "identity-politics" groups.

As for Roe vs. Wade, I think he's really pro-life, Tim Russert or no Tim Russert. Well, actually, it's no Tim Russert, isn't it?

“Victory at all costs, victory whatever the price, victory no matter how long or hard the road.”

I had an instant gut feeling toward Mr. Steele and it was I liked him.
I hope like his name invokes Michael is a man of Steel conservatism a Churchill?

If not...will we even have a Republic after Obama?

A hard road ahead indeed!

>>a strategy must be developed to penetrate the red states and that implies selling something that the voters want to buy

Real fiscal conservatism of the sort the Republican Party pretty much abandoned 2001-2008 would be a great start.

I hope so -- in Steele's case I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and even support. But I do remember listening as he hosted for Bill Bennett's morning talker, that I wish he wasn't (1) so go-alongish and (2) that he was more firmly grounded in the Founder's ideals.

The Founders would never have allowed a HUD, an Education Department, the Federal Drug Laws, and so on and on. The Founder's set up a limited Federal Government -- none of these post-Wilson, post-FDR, post-LBJ programs without a vigorous national discussion leading up to a Constitutional Amendment. I have not heard Steele address this fairly. Nor has he fairly addressed the natural born issue, nor properly noted the absolute corruption, criminality, venality and treason of nearly all of Obama's political cohort.