Is Michael Steele singlehandedly fracturing Republican leadership?

[silus]

Can't recall in recent memory this kind of in-fighting between the republican commentators, pundits and party officials. Its kind of awesome.

[specsaregood]

Can't recall in recent memory this kind of in-fighting between the republican commentators, pundits and party officials. Its kind of awesome.

I think it is more that the party people want to get reelected/elected/gain control, the pundits want to continue to push an ideology that might not help that. ie: different goals.

[YumYum]

He has exposed a great divide in the Party. They will end up killing each other. Wouldn't it be kool if Steele was a member of C4L?

[silus]

http://r3publican.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ron-paul-steele.jpg

[Acala]

He is doing what he is supposed to do - position his party for success. Only the true zealots for empire can possibly think we can leave Afghanistan with any credible claim of victory. It is going to be an obvious disaster, everyone knows it, and the smart ones are building their stories and getting ready for the blame game.

I don't think there is any change in principle going on here. Just politics. But if it ends the war, I'm for it.

[lynnf]

even though he may have been right about the war, Steele is a loose cannon, doing damage to the party. but, maybe RP is profiting from this and getting position for the future. he's at least gotten some more press over it.

lynn

[klamath]

It has opened the debate in the republican party. Now with party and pundit leaders spliting it is making the republican rank and file have to debate this issue that for the longest time was considered untouchable.

[specsaregood]

even though he may have been right about the war, Steele is a loose cannon, doing damage to the party.

I'm not so sure. The more I think about it, I think it might have been meant to be a sucker punch to the democrats.

The poll cnn showed the other night that showed that only 66% of republicans support the war in afghanistan. While I found that heartening, it also showed that only 27% of democrats support the same war! If the republicans can manage to paint this war as Obama's war, they stand to further piss off their base and cause it to be apathetic. With a democrat controlled government, there is no way for the democrats to blame this particular issue on the republicans currently in congress (esp. not the escalation of the war). The democrats are already facing a tough nov. election year, issues like this could make it landslide for the GOP.

[silus]

^Yup! Funny how this "gaffe" is turning into an absolutely brilliant political maneuver.

[specsaregood]

^Yup! Funny how this "gaffe" is turning into an absolutely brilliant political maneuver.

And the left never saw it coming. They never expected the republicans to make noise about the war being escalated. Steele can do his mea culpas and not piss off the republican base, but still haven't gotten the message out to the democrats that it is their team that is to blame here. absolutely brilliant.

[specsaregood]

And the left never saw it coming. They never expected the republicans to make noise about the war being escalated. Steele can do his mea culpas and not piss off the republican base, but still haven't gotten the message out to the democrats that it is their team that is to blame here. absolutely brilliant.

And just to add to it. The GOP is gonna owe Dr. Paul if this plays out for them. Steele set them up with the jab and Dr. Paul took the opening and followed up with a superman punch. And Dr. Paul (the undisputed anti-war leader of the right) was the only one with the ability (credibility on the left and right on this issue) to do it.

[KramerDSP]

And just to add to it. The GOP is gonna owe Dr. Paul if this plays out for them. Steele set them up with the jab and Dr. Paul took the opening and followed up with a superman punch. And Dr. Paul (the undisputed anti-war leader of the right) was the only one with the ability (credibility on the left and right on this issue) to do it.

Makes perfect sense to me. You could tell Steele was taking baby steps in Paul's direction on foreign policy, even if he walked it back in many respects. Rush supposedly brushed off the whole thing and defended his (Steele's) character (but not his statements), while Coulter calls out Bill Kristol in a column. The lines are starting to form, however blurry they appear to be. Palin and Rand Paul have yet to weigh in on this, and I am very curious what their reactions will be.

[Chieftain1776]

It's frustrating. The thing is I don't think Steele is competent and honestly wanted him gone early. Then Ron Paul said he was the first RNC chair who really reached out and saw the above picture so I just "grinned and bore it". Now this.

I think the RNC model is b.s. anyway so Steele might have pushed donor money to more independent and effective groups than the RNC anyway. So, inadvertently, his reign has been good for the party overall and our cause specifically.

So I guess it's "Keep Steele" now ;)

UPDATE: Here's the piece I read about the RNC's structural problems: "Michael Steele Makes the Case for Party Reform (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/07/michael_steele_makes_the_case_1.html)"