Fisking Michael Steele

He writes in Politico:

The Republican Party finds itself the minority party in America for the first time in more than 15 years. I’ll be the first to admit it has taken some adjustment. Republicans have engaged in some healthy soul-searching since Election Day, trying to come to grips with our minority status and debating the best way forward as we point out our differences with the Democrats and chart our return to the majority.

I don't know about healthy, but it sure hasn't been pretty. You need to stop defining yourself against your opposition, though, and start offering policies that actually appeal to people. This will require addressing what you've done wrong, and learning from mistakes.

This has been an important debate within the Republican Party, particularly because of the place in history America currently finds itself. Last year the Democrats told voters they would bring “change” to Washington, but their version of change has been to push America to the left farther and faster than I think anyone could have imagined.

It's been painful to watch, but surely we could have imagined it. I admit to hoping otherwise--during the campaign I naively gushed over a "return to Clintonomics". Instead we got LBJ 2.0. But one does not have to imagine pushing America farther to left this quickly--one need only look at historical examples. At the beginning of FDR's term, Congress was a rubber stamp. Bills were written in the White House and passed on the same day without even being read.

That is why I believe America needs the Republican Party now more than ever before. We may be America’s minority party at the moment, but Republicans represent the views and concerns of a majority of Americans.

So you think parties get voted out of office because they better represent the views and concerns of voters? You think Republicans lost the last two elections because of unavoidable twists of fate like "war is hard", the media "wouldn't report the good news", or simply "teh economiez accidentally blew up" ?

I realize it's your job to spin defeats, but parties don't lose when they better represent the views and concerns of voters.

Republicans across America – from our national and state leaders down to our local activists and grassroots supporters – have to get about the business of telling families how Republican principles of less spending, lower taxes, responsive and responsible government, personal freedom and strong national defense stand in stark contrast to the reckless policies we’ve seen from the president and Congressional Democrats in four short months.

Point by point:

• less spending: Republicans increased spending quite dramatically. What good is a principle that doesn't get applied?
• lower taxes: Yes, you did. But in a time of prosperity without commensurate cuts in spending, lowering taxes is irresponsible deficit spending.
  
• responsive and responsible government: If by responsive you mean overreacting to terror threats and if by responsible you mean grotesquely incompetent, o.k.
  
• personal freedom: Really? And here I thought you were the party of socially intolerant bigots and dominionist nutjobs. My mistake.
  
• strong national defense: Eh, welcome to the 21st Century. You already won the Cold War. Overreacting to a terror threast less deadly than the number of auto fatalities that year is not a sign of strength, but insanity.

Holistically, I don't think the contrast is stark at all. In fact--taken as a net whole--I considered Democrats to be better on these principles than Bush-Cheney Republicans were.

(i.e. Democrats are worse on some, but on the ones where they're better they are more significantly better, meaning a net plus)

Steele continues:

Republicans will not be afraid to agree with the president when we believe he is doing what is best for America, but neither will be afraid to disagree with him when we believe his actions are wrong for America.

A political party isn't afraid to have opinions and explain how it differs from their opposition; film at 11.

To accomplish this goal Republicans are turning a corner in three important ways:

First, the Republican Party will be forward-looking – it is time to stop looking backward. Republicans have spent ample time re-examining the past. It has been a healthy and necessary task. But I believe it is now time for Republicans to focus all of our energies on winning the future by emerging as the party of new ideas. Republicans are emerging once again with the energy, the focus, and the determination to turn our timeless principles into new solutions for the future.

Translation: We've spent enough time arguing amongst ourselves without any camp admitting that its overbearing social and national security conservatism and corporate supply-siderism has become toxic to the center. So let's brush it all under the rug and pretend everything's fine. Ignore the past and present, look forward!

Second, the Republican Party will not shy away from voicing our opposition to the president’s policies. His honeymoon is over. As a candidate, President Obama sounded moderate in his views. But as president, he is presiding over the most massive top-down expansion of government bureaucracy and spending our country has ever seen.

Yes, Obama has deftly claimed the rhetorical middle ground. That's smart politics. Pointing out that his mouth is in the center while his feet are walking left may be true, but it's not smart politics, particularly when the alternatives you offer have become toxic to the center.

Until you increase your own appeal to the center, yelling about how left Obama is while offering diametrically opposed alternatives is not going to help you persuade the center.

Candidate Obama talked about fiscal responsibility, about government living within its means. But President Obama is spending with reckless abandon and saddling our children and grandchildren with mountains of debt. Candidate Obama boasted about cutting taxes. But President Obama will have to raise taxes to pay for his massive top-down government explosion. Candidate Obama talked a lot about being bipartisan, but he has yielded his legislative agenda almost entirely to Nancy Pelosi who has repeatedly shut Republicans out of negotiations on important legislation, from economic stimulus to the budget to health care.

You know what's worse than hypocrites?

Hypocrites who call out other hypocrites for being hypocritical, i.e. Republicans who fail to govern according to their supposed principles (see list above) yet whine when Democrats do the same.

It's a second-order hypocrisy, and it won't sell. Voters will happy go with the Democrats' first-order hypocrisy which is at least rhetorically centrist and conciliatory.

Let me make one point clear – Republicans will not make our opposition to the president personal. Republicans will challenge policies of the president that we believe are wrong, but our opposition will be done in very sharp contrast to the classless way that the Democrats and the far left spoke of President Bush.

Ah, yes, I have a whole series from the campaign on Republicans staying classy. What lovely contrast.

Third, the Republican Party will seize upon momentum for a GOP resurgence that is already under way in states and local communities. I have traveled extensively since being elected RNC chairman, meeting with state party leaders and grassroots activists alike. There is genuine enthusiasm for a Republican balance to the reckless excesses of the president and congressional Democrats. I believe the Republican Party can ride that wave of local enthusiasm to victory in upcoming elections.

I'm sorry, was I interrupting your pep rally?

The Republican Party has turned a corner, and as we move forward Republicans should take a lesson from Ronald Reagan. Again, we’re not looking back – if President Reagan were here today he would have no patience for Americans who looked backward. Ronald Reagan always believed Republicans should apply our conservative principles to current and future challenges facing America. For Reagan’s conservatism to take root in the next generation we must offer genuine solutions that are relevant to this age.

Invoking Reagan in the context of not looking backward to Reagan's anachronistic policy proscriptions, i.e. recognizing that the problems of this age are not 1980's problems? Well done--seriously, I like this argument.

Republicans are getting about the business of America’s future, because our vision for America is far different than what the president and Congressional Democrats have shown thus far. And I fear the Democrats are just getting started.

Word of advice: stop spreading fear, stop trying to define yourself as being against Democrats, and concentrate on putting forward a coherent set of believable and actionable principles and policies that appeal to the middle.

Michael Steele's statement

Via TPM:

Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not.

Let's be honest-Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.

Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."

Up yours, man. You were supposed to be pro-moderate. If Specter is left-wing, I am too. Enjoy your rump of a party.

Deep thought

Independents haven't been enthralled by the Republican black guy Michael Steele.

Steele is nuts

Like many people with more moderate views than Rush Limbaugh, I had some real hopes for Steele's chairmanship. But he's been involved in a steady stream of disappointments and now appears to be insane.

Moderates are wondering what on earth has happened to their friend.

RNC Chair: Limbaugh's show incendiary and ugly

HUGHLEY: Like Rush Limbaugh, who is the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

STEELE: No, he’s not.

HUGHLEY: I will tell you what …

STEELE: I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

HUGHLEY: You know what? I can appreciate that. But no one will actually decry down some of the things he says. Like when he comes out and says he wants the president to fail. I understand he wants liberalism to fail. Like, I get it’s not about the man. But it is still about the idea that he would rather have an idea fail so his idea can move to the forefront. And that would succeed. And that to me is destructive.

STEELE: How is that any different than what was said about George Bush during his presidency?

HUGHLEY: You’re absolutely — let me say something. You’re absolutely right.

STEELE: So let’s put it into context here. Let’s put it into context here. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.

Seems only the recently elected chairman of the RNC can get away with saying that. But good for him. It's not an ego thing: Steele knows the GOP can't appeal to moderates -- and can't win -- if Limbaugh is the face of the party.

Update: Damn, I was wrong. The right goes nuts, Rush responds, and Steele is forced to apologize:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele says he has reached out to Rush Limbaugh to tell him he meant no offense when he referred to the popular conservative radio host as an “entertainer” whose show can be “incendiary.”
“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”

I thought there was a limit to this "criticize Rush than be forced to apologize" but now we see it pervades the Republican party from the Chairman on down. Only guys like David Frum are able to break from it.

Republican rap

A couple weeks ago:

Newly elected Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele plans an “off the hook” public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics, by applying the party's principles to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings.”

The RNC's first black chairman will “surprise everyone” when updating the party's image using the Internet and advertisements on radio, on television and in print, he told The Washington Times.

... "There was underlying concerns we had become too regionalized and the party needed to reach beyond our comfort" zones, he said, citing defeats in such states as Virginia and North Carolina. "We need messengers to really capture that region - young, Hispanic, black, a cross section ... We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings.

Well then:

More from Mr. "we have to elect moderates"

Nate Silver:

Republican chairman Michael Steele took Neal Cavuto's bait and suggested that he might be amendable to punishing the three Republican senators -- Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter -- who voted for the stimulus package by supporting primary challenges and/or cutting off funding.

There's just one problem with this. In Pennsylvania and especially in Maine, having a (R) by your name is a liability, not an asset. With leaners included, Democrats have roughly a 19-point partisan ID advantage in Maine and 16 points in the Keystone State. Collins, Snowe and Specter get re-elected in spite of being Republican, not because of it.

Theoretically, moreover, there would be little to stop any of them from pulling a Jeffords and caucusing with the Democrats. If one assumes that the principal motivation of each Senator is to win re-election -- and that's never a bad guess -- then the three Republicans must already be wondering whether life might be easier in the Democratic Party (or more likely, as independents who caucused with the Dems). If Steele pushes too far, he risks actuating this outcome.

TMV adds its USD $0.02

Steele disappoints

Andrew:

A reality check. As the party finds itself uniting in hostility to Obama, and the Independents and Democrats stay pretty much the same in terms of judging him, it's interesting to see Michael Steele being frank about reaching out to the center:

GALLAGHER: Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?

STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn't something that you just kind of like, "Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage." [...]

GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?

STEELE: What's the difference?

This, remember, is from the RNC candidate who was most regarded as eager to reach out to the next generation.

Feh.

I had higher hopes for Steele given his talk of "we have to elect moderates in the party", but if he won't even allow the GOP to support civil unions as a compromise for gay rights -- as almost 75% of the country does -- then the distance between me and this illiberal conservatism isn't going to budge much.

Below is how the Christianist right responds to any notion of civil unions for gays, along the lines that David Blankenhorn endorsed last Sunday:

In a surprising departure from his prior positions, David Blankenhorn, President of the Institute for American Values, partnered with Jonathan Rauch for a stunning op-ed in yesterday's New York Times called "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage." In it, the pair advocates the creation of a federal civil union law which would give same-sex couples "most or all" of the benefits associated with marriage while somehow strengthening religious conscience protections. Blankenhorn's concession is disturbing on several levels.

As we have seen elsewhere, civil unions are a Trojan horse for homosexuals' ultimate goal of marriage. Once a national civil union law is in place, denial of marital status would be almost impossible to defend. Far from a "compromise," Blankenhorn's position surrenders on the core question of whether the relationship involved (homosexuality) can be recognized as a social good. If it can be, the ability of other institutions to deny it recognition will be on a path of extinction. Their proposal also confines religion to specifically religious institutions or para-religious institutions. But any religion worth its salt (and light) demands moral behavior in all realms of life, so all sorts of freedoms will necessarily suffer curtailment under this regime. This is of little matter, however, because this proposal is a halfway house to the ultimate goal--something I suspect Rauch knows.

Yep, it's "stunning" that a fellow traveler would endorse something approaching equal civil recognition for same-sex relationships.

But that's Christian fundamentalism for ya. I expect better from Steele, and I demand better from a party that expects me to consider voting for them.

The first step is to admit you have a problem

"You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our words or our actions at this point."

Good going, Steele.

It's going to take a long time and a lot of effort for Republicans to rebuild credibility -- both outside their base and within it. But candor like this will help.

Baring major Democratic screw-ups, I estimate 6+ years.

Newt praises the Republican rump

Front matter: I'm not excited about the stimulus either, but I knew what I was getting when I cast my vote in November, and so did the rest of that 53% of Americans. And the stimulus is polling fairly well -- people want it.

I seldom think government spending on things other than basic security and infrastructure is a good idea. But if we must deficit spend -- and you know Democrats have been waiting years to dish out pork to their favorite interest groups as Republicans did during their own time in power -- then we may as well do it counter-cyclically. The Fed's benchmark rates are practically zero, sheesh.

But here's Newt Gingrich:

"What has happened in the past two weeks has absolutely revitalized the Republican base in this country, because they looked up and saw all of the House Republicans collectively having the guts to vote no and thought 'Finally we're back.' And overnight, it changed the tone of the Republican Party."

If I were a Republican member of the House, my vote would also be no on principle.

However, contra Newt I don't think zero members of the party voting for the stimulus is something to be proud of.

What it means is all the centrist moderates from purple areas have been wiped out and replaced with Democrats. We've been left with a very high proportion of Southern ultraconservatives who can be counted on to vote in lockstep.

Remember what the new RNC chairman Steele said: "We have to elect moderates in the party." Do that, Newt. Become a tolerant Big Tent party again, so you have enough diversity to not vote unanimously together. Then you'll be "revitalized". What you are right now is a rump.

As I'd said, rebuilding starts now

Steele Cleans House   [Andy McCarthy]

Fox News reports that the new RNC chairman has asked for mass resignations.

02/06 05:44 PM

Ambers:

More evidence that Michael Steele wants a clean slate at the Republican National Committee: on Friday, he axed the entire strategy division, including employees who've worked on data for more than 18 years. These guys have the institutional knowledge that, depending upon your opinion, have either brought the party to its glory days, or kept it from expanding beyond a base of whites.

Rebuilding begins now...after a little celebration

Pop the corks, Steele wins!

I'm 2/3 this cycle: Obama over McCain/Clinton, Steele over the other 5 RNC candidates, but Elwyn Tinklenberg fails to overtake Michele "McCarthy" Bachmann 43-47 in MN-06.

Ambers sums things up:

In the United States, in 2009, the head of the Democratic Party and the head of the Republican Party are black.

Granted, one has much more power than the other. (One is titular, the other is de jure.)

And one may have been chosen in reaction to the other.

But -- for a party that was not too longer ago openly dedicated to a strategy of using racial fears to attract white votes, it's something.

In a short stemwinder, Steele promised to broaden the party's geographic base and "stand proud" as the country's conservative party.

"It's time for something completely different," he said, to cheers.

"To my friends in the Northeast, get ready baby, we're going to turn it on. We're going to win in the Northeast. We're going to continue to win in the South... In the West."

"To those who are ready to obstruct," he warned. "[G]et ready to get knocked over."

Did Republicans choose Steele as a token? Some RNC members will think so, as will many skeptical Democrats. But Steele won this thing by himself. The RNC is a fractious, uncooperative bunch. And Steele patiently politicked his way through six ballots. Just a few hours ago, my correspondent Will DiNovi saw Steele and Ohio's Kenneth Blackwell face to face in the hall. "I know we've disagreed on a lot of things," Steele was telling him. Blackwell waited a little -- then he endorsed Steele.

Steele's election won't help the party attrack black voters immediately, but if Steele sets the right tone, he could help the party compete for them in the (way) future. As GOP strategists have always known, and noted, somewhat dyspeptically, it's white suburban voters, particularly women, who are responsive to a diversity message. The RNC isn't diverse yet; only five black delegates were chosen to attend the national convention. Steele was disgusted by that. It prompted him to run.

Even more than race, even as Steele lauded the party's conservative members, his election marks a step away from the balkanized Southern white ethos of the party. Steele, pro-life, has worked with moderate Republicans all of his life, although he did his best during the campaign to minimize those ties. If he reverts to form, it means that the RNC has just selected a chairman who will not prioritize social issues above economic issues. When people speak of broadening the party's geographic diversity, they are speaking in code. They mean that the party needs to welcome more moderates; needs to be more forgiving of departures from orthodoxy; need to be less antagonistic to pro-choicers and gays.

Duncan is out!

For those jonesing for some kind of election-related activity, today's balloting for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee is, well, at least mildly interesting.

After the first ballot, the hand-picked-by-Bush incumbent, Mike Duncan, was in the lead with 52 votes. Michael Steele was a close second with 46, followed by South Carolina GOP chair Katon Dawson with 28. On the second ballot, Duncan and Steele were tied at 48, with Dawson in third with 29. On the third ballot, Steele pulled ahead with 51 votes, while Duncan slipped to second with 44, and Dawson holding on with 34.

And at that point, Duncan decided to call it a day, withdrawing from consideration.

"Obviously the winds of change are blowing at the RNC," Duncan said, adding that he trusts the "vision" of his fellow members. "I understand what's going on."

"At this time, I wish to withdraw my name from nomination as chairman as the RNC," he said, to a standing ovation.

The low profile Duncan served through the Republican collapse of the late Bush term, and received little blame for GOP defeats, but had little record of success to point to.

I will be very surprised if Steele doesn't win now. Better stock up on that champagne.

Michael "We have to elect moderates in the party" Steele is surging...

Marc Ambinder:

Voting begins in two hours, but the chatter in the halls of the Capital Hilton is that Michael Steele has benefited from a last-minute surge of support. Steele's team estimates that he has at least 40 first-round votes in the bag, second only to current RNC chairman Mike Duncan, who will probably finish the first round with between 55 and 65 votes.

During a private meeting with members last night, Steele vociferously defended his personal views -- he's pro-life -- and his intention to broaden the party's reach to include those who disagree. He was well-recieved.

Now that's Republican change I can believe in.

Stop the presses

I agree with Sean Hannity? . . .

. . .

. . . [does not compute] . . .

. . . . . . .

January 16, 2009

Dear RNC member:

As someone who is not a voting member of the RNC, I won't pretend to be able to tell you how to vote, but I hope you will consider a few of my thoughts. As a member of the media who has witnessed some candidates make attacks on their opponents, my friend Michael Steele has always conducted himself in an honorable manner, focusing on his strengths rather than his opponents' shortcomings.

In my opinion Michael Steele is the best kind of conservative - an unapologetic conservative...and not just on paper...but in real life as he demonstrated in his tenure as Chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, and a US Senate candidate from Maryland.

Much has been made of Michael's communication skills. But there is a lot more to the story with Michael. While he is a great communicator, his first love has always been rooted in grassroots organizational politics. It seems to me that the Party must have someone who can effectively communicate a message, and at the same time have a demonstrated commitment to building the party from the ground up.

In short, Michael is the complete package.

I believe there are a few folks have tried to minimize the need for the next Chairman to be an effective communicator. If there were ever a time that the Republican Party is in dire need of a dynamic and charismatic Chairman who can fearlessly wade into the public battle every day - that time is right now and that man is Michael Steele.

It's no secret that I believe Michael Steele is the kind of leader who can lead the Republican Party toward an exciting resurgence and a fresh start. I hope you will consider his candidacy seriously. I certainly hope you will take my thoughts into account as we collectively strive to take the Republican Party in a new and admirable direction.

Thanks for listening,

Sean Hannity

Wha...? Go Steele!

Bravo, Steele

Via Sanders:

“They have been beating me upside the head with it and let me give it to you straight on: Wake up people. I mean what are you going to do? Are you going to kick these folks out of the party? I have watched this party self disintegrate for the last four or five years. I’ve watched this party isolate itself from itself.”

“This may be a unique opportunity to build a relationship or a bridge between the conservatives and the moderates in our party and so she asked me to serve on her board and I said well this will be good. It’ll be a pro-life conservative voice on a board with a pro-choice leadership that is looking to elect moderates. We have to elect moderates in the party.”

Also, his plan is now up. Click the link in the upper-right of the Scribd to read fullscreen.

The Next Right just posted a straw poll which looks encouraging.

Go Steele, go.

A week ago I offered my not-so-prestigious endorsement of Michael Steele for the RNC.

So I'm not at all surprised to find Andrew highlighting:

The Christianists are concerned about Michael Steele heading up the RNC. He's not fanatical enough on abortion:

The Republican National Coalition for Life and the Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association both have came out against Mr. Steele because he and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman were co-chairmen of the centrist Republican Leadership Council and because of his unclear comments about abortion on "Meet the Press."

He's soft on the gays too, apparently. The Washington Times, defending Steele, gets a little testy:

Republicans who are questioning Mr. Steele's credentials need to ask themselves why they find him so "threatening" and let his actual words speak for themselves.

And the beat goes on.

UPDATE: someone from Steele's home state of Maryland links me to http://www.steeleforchairman.com/.

Alas, the "Steele Plan" section is "Coming Soon!".

Michael Steele for the RNC

I think he has the right ideas for beginning to turn the party around. (via Bennett, worth the listen.)

I don't agree with all he has to say, certainly, but incrementally it's a fine step in the right direction from what we have.