PDA

View Full Version : National Review the Editors: Anybody but Steele




Agorism
12-15-2010, 06:17 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255315/anybody-steele-editors


Say what you will about him — Michael Steele plays by nobody else’s rules. He shocked the political world on Monday night by announcing he’d run for reelection as chairman of the Republican National Committee. We admire his pluck, but not his judgment. It’s time for someone else to run the RNC.

Steele is an infectiously likeable guy with an inspiring personal story. The adopted son of a laundress and a truck driver who credits his bootstrapping mother and Ronald Reagan with leading him to the GOP, Steele became one of the first in his family to attend college, and spent years at the Catholic seminary of Villanova before leaving to pursue a career in law and public service that would see him become the first African American to hold statewide office in Maryland and the first to chair the Republican National Committee.

We don’t doubt he will continue to be an asset to the party and to the conservative cause in any number of ways, but he has turned out to be ill suited to the RNC job.
His engaging manner on TV was one of his attractions as a chairman two years ago. It quickly went sour. Steele doesn’t have the discipline of a party operative. Whether it was lashing out at Rush Limbaugh or calling Afghanistan “a war of Obama’s choosing,” his gaffes distracted from the work at hand. Meanwhile, the $20,000-apiece corporate speeches, the Regnery book, and the accompanying media plugs all gave Steele, fairly or not, the whiff of the political profiteer.

Likewise, his tactical choices seemed at times driven as much by personal exigencies as by party priorities. In September, with midterms kicking into high gear and every piece of data indicating that Republicans could make substantial incursions into key blue districts, where was Steele? Speechifying and fundraising in Guam — no doubt in part because the party committeemen of Guam and other U.S. territories in the Pacific and Caribbean broke heavily for Steele in 2008. A similar calculus could explain why Steele sent $20,000 from his state parties’ budget to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, which has no voting members of Congress, zero electoral votes, and a population roughly the size of Scranton’s.

Steele has claimed credit for the historic midterm victories, but believing that he substantially contributed to Republican successes is no less delusional than Nancy Pelosi believing that she didn’t. In his resignation letter, RNC political director Gentry Collins — now a candidate for the chairmanship himself — painted a devastating picture of the fundraising mismanagement at the committee. The RNC raised $284 million for the mid-terms in 2002 and $243 million in 2006, a far better performance than the roughly $170 million for this cycle. The party’s neglect of big donors and its reliance on mass solicitations of small donors meant it spent a lot to raise this smaller amount of money.

This left it to third-party conservative groups to close the money gap and expand the field of seats in play. Even so, the RNC’s anemic grassroots mobilization and voter-turnout efforts — the kind of “ground game” that pushed Obama across the finish line in 2008 — almost certainly cost Republicans seats. No, Republican candidates had a big night despite the RNC, not because of it.

The party — and the country — can’t afford to hope for another political bailout in 2012, a cycle that will be even more important than 2010. Republicans will be looking to defend, consolidate, and expand legislative gains, and not just President Obama’s agenda, but the president himself, will be on the ballot. It is thus crucial that every GOP institution be running on all cylinders. For all the Herculean work of the outside groups, there are certain tasks for which only the party committee is suited, given its ability to coordinate with state parties. If nothing else, the subpar reputation the RNC has earned under Steele’s leadership will make it impossible for the committee to work at its optimum.

Steele’s poor performance as chairman has had one fortunate side effect — it has created a robust field of alternatives. It gives us no pleasure to say this, but none of them would be worse than Steele, and we believe any of them would be better. Someone else deserves a chance at the top of the RNC.

Inkblots
12-15-2010, 06:52 PM
Well, they can go take a walk, as far as I'm concerned. Michael Steele has always treated Ron with respect, which is more than I can say for most of his opponents.

specsaregood
12-15-2010, 07:03 PM
Well, they can go take a walk, as far as I'm concerned. Michael Steele has always treated Ron with respect, which is more than I can say for most of his opponents.

They show their cards of why they want him out....because of his afghanistan war comment. They probably knew better; but couldn't resist dropping that in there. He went afoul of their "all war, all the time" mantra and now must be put out to pasture.

If you have not emailed the members of your state GOP that sit on the national committee and asked them to support Steele. DO SO NOW. You should be able to find contact info on your state's gop website.

TheTyke
12-16-2010, 04:12 PM
They show their cards of why they want him out....because of his afghanistan war comment. They probably knew better; but couldn't resist dropping that in there. He went afoul of their "all war, all the time" mantra and now must be put out to pasture.

If you have not emailed the members of your state GOP that sit on the national committee and asked them to support Steele. DO SO NOW. You should be able to find contact info on your state's gop website.

This is important! We need to do it.

They've specifically stated why they're trying to get rid of Steele... because he poses a threat to the neocon agenda. He needs our support or we're taking a big step backwards.

Sola_Fide
12-16-2010, 04:27 PM
Whether it was lashing out at Rush Limbaugh or calling Afghanistan “a war of Obama’s choosing,” his gaffes distracted from the work at hand.

Those were gaffes?

nate895
12-16-2010, 04:46 PM
While I'd probably vote for Steele for public office if he held the same political positions he does now as the head of the RNC, he is not an effective RNC Chairman. He simply did not get the RNC in the game for the midterm election. If the RNC was in the game and everyone else was in the game just as much as they were, the GOP would have gained at least 2 more Senate seats, and at least 10 more in the House. Because the Democrats had a lot more effective turnout game (which is the job of the RNC/DNC, with the aid of local committees), they were able to stem tide and make what would have been a tsunami of Biblical proportions into a particularly bad tidal wave.

Agorism
12-16-2010, 04:50 PM
Ya Steele just isn't getting the neocon $$$$ donations.

Too bad.

Steele lacks a support base, but since he's against Aghanistan, he's increasingly turning to Paul's base as he was posting pictures of Ron Paul on his homepage last week.

nate895
12-16-2010, 04:58 PM
Ya Steele just isn't getting the neocon $$$$ donations.

Too bad.

That isn't how the RNC gets a lot of its cash. The RNC has gotten a great sum of cash from average everyday Republicans who send them $25-100 a year. Those donations have really dropped over the past few years (and rightfully so, in many respects), and Steele didn't do enough to get them back. Doing enough is not saying the right things. It's making sure every person who ever gave a dime to the GOP knows that you're saying the right things.

The fact is that my family, who have been loyal GOP party members since I can remember, got almost no correspondence from the RNC over the past couple of years. We used to get at least two a year asking for a semi-annual donation, and then several more that just made sure you knew what they were doing. Most GOP mailers we got were from the WSRP, and the one or two mailers from the RNC we did get just begged for money, and how it would certainly be put to good use. That isn't enough for most people. I want to know what they're going to do with it, specifically, not just broad strokes and nice rhetoric.

TheTyke
12-16-2010, 05:00 PM
Of course there will be a dip in funding when you turn away from the old controllers of the party and embrace the wave of the future - small donations from concerned Americans like Ron Paul supporters. Their reason for wanting to get rid of him is clear, and it's a major step back if us if a hardcore neocon gets in - embracing them holds no advantage for us.

Think of this in terms of who will support Ron's victory enthusiastically. Do you really think a neocon chairman will use that "fundraising clout" to put Ron Paul in the presidency? Their big donors wouldn't help anyway! This will only help if someone like Romney or Palin wins, and I think that'd be a step back for the conservative revolution. But Steele would do his level best even if the nominee was Ron.

Edit: I also think you're misreading the reasons for the dropoff. I spoke to a hardcore party man a few weeks back, and even he said from now on he won't be supporting the Republican organization in DC, but rather candidates he agrees with. People are fed up with Washington, and that means their own party as well!

The only victories that matter are when people like Rand Paul win, and he did...

nate895
12-16-2010, 05:07 PM
Of course there will be a dip in funding when you turn away from the old controllers of the party and embrace the wave of the future - small donations from concerned Americans like Ron Paul supporters. Their reason for wanting to get rid of him is clear, and it's a major step back if us if a hardcore neocon gets in - embracing them holds no advantage for us.

Think of this in terms of who will support Ron's victory enthusiastically. Do you really think a neocon chairman will use that "fundraising clout" to put Ron Paul in the presidency? Their big donors wouldn't help anyway! This will only help if someone like Romney or Palin wins, and I think that'd be a step back for the conservative revolution. But Steele would do his level best even if the nominee was Ron.

Edit: I also think you're misreading the reasons for the dropoff. I spoke to a hardcore party man a few weeks back, and even he said from now on he won't be supporting the Republican organization in DC, but rather candidates he agrees with. People are fed up with Washington, and that means their own party as well!

The only victories that matter are when people like Rand Paul win, and he did...

The RNC has had a model for a long time of getting small donations from average conservatives. They made almost zero effort over the past two years to continue that program. I guarantee you that if Steele sent out direct mail that stressed his, and the RNC's, conservative positions, the money would have flowed in. The fact is that only a select group of loyalists donated over the past couple of years. Whether it's really his fault or not, the buck stops with the Chairman.

specsaregood
12-16-2010, 05:09 PM
That isn't how the RNC gets a lot of its cash. The RNC has gotten a great sum of cash from average everyday Republicans who send them $25-100 a year. Those donations have really dropped over the past few years (and rightfully so, in many respects), and Steele didn't do enough to get them back. Doing enough is not saying the right things. It's making sure every person who ever gave a dime to the GOP knows that you're saying the right things.


That is the complete opposite of what the complaints about Steele have been bandied about including in the OP article:


The RNC raised $284 million for the mid-terms in 2002 and $243 million in 2006, a far better performance than the roughly $170 million for this cycle. The party’s neglect of big donors and its reliance on mass solicitations of small donors meant it spent a lot to raise this smaller amount of money.

They are saying he went after the small donors, but didn't get the big donors. Why? Because the big donors were coopted by the rovian groups...

If we can help Steele keep his job, I have a hunch he will remember it.

nate895
12-16-2010, 05:20 PM
That is the complete opposite of what the complaints about Steele have been bandied about including in the OP article:

They are saying he went after the small donors, but didn't get the big donors. Why? Because the big donors were coopted by the rovian groups...

If we can help Steele keep his job, I have a hunch he will remember it.

I do think Steele is a better option for us in the short term. However, I'm simply pointing out that he has neglected his duties as Chairman. The only donations he has gotten from either big donor or small donor are mostly from party loyalists or "finger-in-the-wind" Wall Street folks who just give money to make sure they don't get hurt when the next group comes into office.

There are multiple factors that have contributed, the two largest being a recession-going-on-depression and lack of popularity of the RNC amongst small donors. He had no control over the first, and didn't do enough to alleviate the second.

Agorism
12-16-2010, 06:01 PM
A great number of regular republican donors are neoconservatives or nationalists.

If they don't like Steele, that's fine with me.