« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Michael Steele: The Inclusive Candidate

By: Robert Bluey (Diary)  |  January 12th, 2009 at 10:45 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

[Correction: Steele does not make exceptions on the issue of life. A report in the New York Times incorrectly stated his position.]

A week ago I laid out the case against Michael Steele for chairman of the Republican National Committee. Tonight the candidate himself called me to talk about my criticism and his vision for the GOP.

As I said last week, Steele is an articulate spokesman who is the most recognized candidate in the race. Those are much-needed qualities. However, his actions and associations made me very skeptical. Our conversation certainly made me less concerned, but it hasn’t change my mind about the race. I support Ken Blackwell for chairman.

“The Republican Party is running away from conservatism,” Steele told me today. He explained that Republicans talk fondly about Ronald Reagan, but they have failed to translate his principles for a new generation. He also criticized GOP leaders for not fighting back against a biased press corps that portrays the party as racist and opposed to middle-class values.

Steele addressed his work with liberal Republican Christie Todd Whitman to create the Republican Leadership Council. He said he resigned his post when the organization began targeting Republicans in primaries. “I was trying to bring moderates and conservatives together on areas of agreement,” Steele said.

I questioned him about his decision not to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge during his U.S. Senate race in 2006. He stood by the decision, but said he would be the last person to support a tax hike. “I’ve walked the walk,” he told me, citing his conservative credentials and pro-life views. (Contrary to published reports, Steele opposes an exemption in cases of rape and incest and danger to the life of the mother.)

Steele also clarified his role in former Rep. Wayne Gilchrist’s (R-Md.) primary fight against conservative Andy Harris. Steele appeared at a Gilchrist fundraiser with Newt Gingrich, but was adamant he did not endorse the congressman. After Harris won the primary, Gilchrist played sore loser and backed Harris’ Democrat opponent. Steele called the move “cheap, embarrassing and unbecoming.”

Reflecting on our conversation today, I came to the conclusion that Steele sees himself as the inclusive candidate in the race for chairman. His past behavior, his endorsements and his willingness to reach out to me signal that he wants to broaden the reach of the Republican Party.

One other thing occurred to me. Steele is only 50-years-old and would make an excellent candidate for office in Maryland in years to come. Although things didn’t work out for him in 2006, he was hardly the only Republican to face an uphill battle. He might be better suited to run for Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s seat should she decided to retire or challenge Gov. Martin O’Malley.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • bc3

    We need a fighter, not a lover.

    We have far oo many RINOs in Congress.

    • horse

      I would only further the analogy; we need a fighter with fast footwork and finesse, not a slugger.

      We need a fighter who weaves in and out of the opposition, avoiding their clumsy swings while delivering the strategically placed jabs that force his opponent to change their game in response. The judges are rigged, so he can not just trade punches; he must deliver an obvious advantage (minimum 3:1 ratio) or he will always lose to the judge’s split decisions.

      Even if he is not the best choice, it is great to see Steele proactively reaching out to communicate and listen to the base at a place like Red State. That is a positive sign some leadership may be starting to get back on board with real conservatism. (we just have to keep them on board for the next four years). I hope whoever ends up in charge is quick and accurate with their left jabs.

  • Just_Saying

    I agree with bc3. We don’t need to “make nice” but we have to be conservative. If people don’t like it, they can move on. My thought is that a strictly conservative party is necessary, and would be well-supported. If that could be the GOP, great; otherwise, we need a new political party — with conservative roots and conservative beliefs!
    .

  • Old_Crow

    Just say no to CWAJGA Republicans (Can’t We All Just Get Along).

    • baseketball

      If you tell me and everyone in my camp, so to speak, to go away, you’re going to wind up with less than 30 seats in the senate, less than 100 seats in the house, and never win the Presidency again. No part of the Republican coalition is dispensable.

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

        Do you believe that Republicans should compromise their principles in order to get earmarks, small concessions in bills, and maybe a minor tax cut in a tax hike package every once in a while? With Reid’s and Pelosi’s new rules preventing Republican changes to bills on the floor, do you still think there is a place for Republicans compromising with Democrats? If you do, how? I’m curious to see what you think Republicans can gain from a “hail fellow well met” approach to Democrats who are playing for keeps.

        I personally think that if you really believe in your principles then you will not betray them. The far left Democrats can do the compromising from now on. What Republicans should be doing is peeling off Blue Dog Democrats.

        • bs

          are called “idealogues”. Politics is all about compromise. The hard part is figuring out what you are willing to compromise on. You are never going to get everything you want.

          Remember Mick.

          • DRP

            Oh, I looked into that philosopher you quoted, Jagger, and you’re right, “You can’t always get what you want,” but as it turns out “if you try sometimes you get what you need.”

          • bs

            than “what you want”. That’s the point of the lyrics.

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

            I always get that song confused with Sympathy for the Devil. Very apropos for this topic.

          • DRP

            It’s a quote from the TV show House, where they make the same point.

          • Scipio

            n/t

          • Scipio

            But… We cannot compromise our principals in favor of compromise for compromise’s sake. We can compromise on the things that make us roll our eyes, but not on the things that really matter.

            But I think this discussion misses the point. We need to consider what compromises we need to make within our own party. A political party isn’t a group motivated by single issues, and people will never all agree. One thing this electoral loss is proving to me, at least, is that we seem to have forgotten the things we (almost) all agree on.

          • bs

            The “what should we compromise on” is a fascinating discussion and one that should be had. I’ve been a part of a couple of those, and they’re hard and there is often a lot of disagreement on the list.

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

            People are talking about two different ways to compromise. Yes, we can compromise with people who are definitely on our own side, as long as we do not compromise our principles (and sell our souls). No, we cannot compromise with those who are at ideological war with us.

      • Old_Crow

        The Republican party has compromised basic core ideals over the past few years, and the resultant ‘Democrat Lite’ policies have failed to garner any support. We will never win by being a ‘kinder, gentler,’ version of the Democrats complete with a ‘new tone’.

        We need to be very aggressive and engage the Democrats, expose the fiscal and morally corrupt policies they stand for. Winning means forcing the other side to lose. We need to break their back financially, in the courts, and in the public square and offer them nothing in regard to compromise.

        Obama and his team are very vulnerable due to the shaky economy. Now is not the time for compromise but to put the nation first and fight every single liberal earmark, program, policy, and confirmation hearing.

    • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

      It was meant to be and us conservatives will go start another Party. We are what we are, we lose when we pretend otherwise.

  • Dan McLaughlin

    Good work giving Steele his due. I’m with the other Directors on this race but I like Steele, and in fact I think he’d be better off losing this race and trying to remain a viable force in Maryland politics. He’s a very impressive guy.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

      That’s the springboard to national office. He’s been Lt Gov already.

      • Scipio

        Hey… it could happen. O’Malley certainly isn’t working to keep himself popular, and sure has provided a lot of ammunition. We might be able to pick off another gubernatorial election in Maryland.

  • Scipio

    For the record, I would prefer if Steele would stay in Maryland politics and help break this awful entrenched near single-party system, but that doesn’t look like what he would prefer. Based on my observations during the election and Mr. Steele’s tenure as Lt. Gov., I have to say that I’d be glad to have him as RNC chairman. I would be comfortable with Blackwell, but my perspectives mesh more with Steele’s, being a fellow BlueState Republican.

    Maybe we do need an inclusiveness chairman. There are a lot of persuadable potential Republicans who are put off by perceptions about our party that are, for the most part, untrue…but are also unopposed. I’ve told people in Maryland I was a Republican, only to get responses that made me feel like I had espoused membership in the drown-puppies-and-kittens party…only to then have them agree with the Republican platform! There are also a lot of persuadable potential Republicans who disagree with one half of our fiscal/social conservatism balance. Since our party members in power have totally ignored the former half, and at times overemphasized government’s role in the latter half, forgetting the social movement it parallels needs to persuade people before political action should be taken**, I think we have a LOT of work to do. I think we need to stick to our beliefs, but we also need to consider how to best package those beliefs for people who aren’t traditional members of our voting block. Based on his experiences in Maryland, I think Steele would be a good choice.

    Regardless, I appreciate the thoughtful followup.

    ** But then, I’ve always viewed social conservatism as something that should be a mostly cultural movement rather than a mostly political movement. I would rather have people believe something than have something legislated. Our fiscal conservatism is in the most danger presently, and needs the most attention.

  • char

    The problem with this is that there are people in America who want to use the courts to dictate their beliefs (bypassing the any elected official and the democratic will of the people). Judges are appointed by political parties so social conservatives can either have their beliefs (including their religious beliefs) ruled as illegal or they can play the politics game and have a party that pays attention to their culture (much the way the Dems pay attention to the culture on the left with its rabid global warming scaremongering). The creation of an activist court that pushed law past what was democratically justified and as an unintended consequence meant that the side that didn’t play the game would be legally banished. Besides I happen to think that there are good reasons for being pro small government, pro life, pro gun, and pro God apart from “culture” and I like this country too much to let those good things pass into the night just because they are a part of our shared heritage.

  • AHALgal

    Steele should learn this. It’s not a compromise of values, but a compromise of tactics.

    I support Blackwell, and so far Steele has only reinforced my decision.