New RNC Chairman Michael Steele Ran As Change Candidate In 2006
If the GOP truly seeks to reach out to a constituency beyond Rush Limbaugh’s listenership demographic, they could have picked no better candidate for Republican National Committee Chairman than Michael Steele, the first African American to get that slot.
When Steele promises to bring the GOP up to speed in terms of technology, reach out to minorities and, by implication, not seem to be yet another top GOPer who seemingly gives the back of his hand to moderates and centrists, people believe him.
There are several reason why. And you can perhaps sense some of them by watching this ad from 2006….when he ran for Senator…as a change candidate. He even suggests in the ad that both parties deserve some criticism — and the word “CHANGE” is plastered on the screen at the end.
So, in the end, the GOP went with its better instincts and decided candidates handpicked by former President George Bush or candidates who distributed a satire song making fun of African-Americans or Latinos might be part of an era from which they seek to inch beyond (but will Rush let them?). Newt Gingrich is already elated.
Steele’s biggest plus: the camera loves him and he knows how to use the camera. He’ll be a highly effective face for the GOP:
Time notes that Steele’s task of reaching out to blacks may not be easy:
For example, only one major Republican candidate — Mike Huckabee — showed up at a candidates forum at historically black Morgan State University in Baltimore during the last campaign. There hasn’t been a single black Republican in Congress in years, and the party has struggled to elect even local candidates who are black. Against that backdrop, and particularly given Obama’s support among blacks and Latinos, “merely putting Steele in a high-profile position won’t change things overnight,” says Daryl Harris, a political-science professor at Howard University.
Recently, Steele put out a “Blueprint for Tomorrow” that indicated a determination to strike a balance between Republicans pushing to return to the party’s core principles and those who “claim we need to modernize to meet today’s reality.” Said he: “To my way of thinking, we must do both, and quickly.” In the blueprint, Steele clearly borrows key elements of Obama’s groundbreaking tactic for generating record levels of donations with innovative social-networking tools. He calls himself a “technology geek,” and already posted on the RNC’s main website is his “Network for the Future,” which features links to Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, LinkedIn and blip.tv. At the very least, Steele knows his party needs to play catch-up.
So he ran as a change candidate…is perceived as one of the more moderate members of his party..and he knows how to use technology and social networking. A perfect pick to counter the Democratic Obama era? But some Democrats say appearance may not match reality.
Share This
Related Posts
-
John McCain Defends President’s Speech After Gun Vote
Posted on Apr 19, 2013
-
NRA Liars and Congressional Cowards
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
The Invasion of Our Nation Goes Unpunished (Al-Iraq News, Iraq)
Posted on Apr 15, 2013
-
The Medal of Honor for a Soldier Who ‘Didn’t Fire a Gun…’ – Part II
Posted on Apr 13, 2013
For some reason I find all this gushing over Steele to be just hilarious. What in God's name makes any sane moderate think this guy means one word from the video in this post?
While I wish Steel well, and I applaud the GOP for at least recognizing they have an image problem, I think it's important to realize that Steele's “change” mantra was a bit of wishful thinking.
Steele's no moderate– I campaigned for his opponent in the Senate race– and he's a standard anti-gay, pro tax cut, pro business, anti abortion conservative. He was hand-picked by Karl Rove in '06 to run in the Senate race in Maryland against Ben Cardin.
The Republicans have thrown away their credibility in the belief that they will benefit from having a quota black as head of the party. Steele in a devout catholic who if he were white no one would have ever heard of him. However, since he is black, he has been moved way past his ability level.
I believe he come off horribly on television, has no real grasp of the issues, has zero understanding of how to make things happen.
Steele will not help the Republicans overcome the demographic changes of the U.S., overcome the lost of white collar support, and to help them regain credibility on the issues.
Kim, being too conservative for Maryland isn't exactly a disqualifier for head of the RNC.
But it doesn't change the point that the claims of being a moderate aren't very honest, CS.
Jim,
Steele supports increase government spending, minority set asides, and was an apologist for the Bush Administration's expansion of the government and Steele wants more government entitlements. There is little about Steele that is conservative outside of abortion.
Jim, moderate Republican doesn' t mean that he is what you would consider a centrist or moderate. It means he's not as far right as many other members of the party- and SD points out some of the issues on which that's true.
He's still too conservative for you, I'm sure, but I would sort of expect that. I certainly wouldn't expect the Democratic party to elect a chairman that shared most of my views.
He's also anti-gay rights. He's a social conservative, and I agree with Jim that he's not a true moderate in his policy views. He may not be as hard right as some in the party, but he's no real departure from the last RNC chair.
And if you look back at who voted for Bush's entitlements, you will see a lot of so-called conservatives who spent like drunken sailors while they were in charge. Once the Democrats regained power they “returned to their principles” of cutting government spending rather than ballooning the deficit.
Yes, Kim, just as the Democrats whined and complained about partisanship and the bullying tactics of the majority when they were in the minority and now they're doing the same thing. So what's your point? Politicians acting as politicians is a dog bites man story; the minority party always finds its principles in order to try to make the majority look bad. If the principles that they're upholding make sense and exemplify responsible policy, then I'll support them. If the principles are in my opinion misguided or if they're obviously saying no to everything offhand without even considering it, I'll object to that.
CS- Its a lot easier to claim that you are voting your principles when you are not the governing party — now isn't it? Then you can sit back and blame everything that happens on the party in power.
My point is that Obama , unlike Bush, wants a bipartisan solution- because he knows that we are facing too many roadblocks to leave out a large chunk of our voters representatives. This is why he is going out of his way to reach out to Republicans.
Its a time to get involved- not sit back on your much -vaunted principles that you failed to put into practice when you had 6 years of opportunity!
kritt,
The problem with President Obama's idea about bipartisanship is that it is the old Democratic idea that bipartisanship is Republicans abandoning their principles and the Democrats getting whatever they want. I suspect that Axelrod just wants to be able to claim that the Republicans agreed with President Obama when the economic stimulus does not deliver as promised.
Its a lot easier to claim that you are voting your principles when you are not the governing party — now isn't it? Then you can sit back and blame everything that happens on the party in power.
I would think the Democrats know a thing or two about that, eh? They've done nothing during their tenure in the minority but find ways to blame everything on Bush and the GOP. So yes, Kim, this is what politicians do.
And I agree with SD here. Obama's bipartisanship is hollow as long as he doesn't rein in the Dem leaders in Congress. The GOP leaders are making it clear that they're willing to work with Dems if they will actually allow them to have some input, but so far that hasn't happened. Obama's honeymoon will allow him to play the good cop to Nancy's bad cop for a while, but it'll soon wear thin and most people who aren't partisan Democrats will see that postpartisanship is an empty promise if the majority leaders in Congress are not going to be prodded in that direction by the Chief Executive. They are the ones who have the power to either include or shut out the minority party, not Obama.
One more thing about the 'blaming the majority' concept. This is actually one reason why it's good politics at a time like this to act in a bipartisan manner and for the majority party to decide to include the minority in actual policy making (rather than pretending that schmoozing with the President should make them change their minds and their votes.)
If you're in the minority, and the majority proposes ideas that you disagree with in principle and know that your constituents disagree with, then there's absolutely no reason to vote yes. If you're actually given some input, then you can justify your vote (“We had to do something, and even though I disagreed with X, Y, and Z, I felt it was vitally important to pass the bill which included V and W.”)
Obama is politically smart enough to know that he needs that cover because the likelihood is that this bill is NOT going to help things in the short run (many of us believe it'll make things worse in short, medium, and long term, but I'll assume he doesn't believe that.)
Pelosi, on the other hand, decided to go all in and own the package and we'll see how that works out for her.