Nov 10 2008
Sorry Newt, No More Conservative Retreads
Word is out Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele are vying to lead the new GOP. Gingrich leading a ‘new GOP’ is a real oxymoron. We don’t need another tired old conservative standard bearer. We need Michael Steele:
A battle to take the reins of the Republican National Committee is taking off between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Maryland Lieutenant Gov. Michael Steele.
Republicans close to each man say they are intent on ousting Mike Duncan when his tenure ends in January and to insert themselves to articulate a counter-agenda to President-elect Barack Obama´s administration.
A bevy of backers for each man, neither of whom is an RNC member, have been burning up the phone lines and firing off e-mails as they try to sway the 168 RNC members in the wake of the second consecutive drubbing of Republicans at the polls.
One thing Gov Palin illustrated is it is time to get new blood in the leadership of the GOP and conservative movement. Steele is just the kind of fresh blood and energy and charisma missing from the gray beards. The failure of the current leaders in Congress, and in the think tanks and news media talking heads, is testament to why these folks should move aside and let the next generation take over.
Sorry Speaker Gingrich, you did well for us in the past but we need new thinking and new energy. You are just not the answer to the current GOP and conservative woes. You are more of the same failed policies and approaches. You helped lose the Gingrich revolution to conservative democrats. We don’t need a marginal ‘true conservative’ minority. Â That we have!Â
I for one will not take a GOP serious that nominates Gingrich over Steele.
Haven’t we learned anything from affirmative action with Powell and Rice and their betrayals?
I’ve read that Fred Thompson may throw his hat in the ring.
I’m in for Steele, and it doesn’t have anything to do with affirmative action. He is solid!!
combat18:
Rice did not betray anyone. Colin Powell never pretended to be a paleo con. He got his job because of his military and diplomatic history. To say either one of these people was an affirmative action pick is an insult to them and to the Republican party and the Bush administration.
Gingrich wrote a book called “Real Change” that explores how a real platform for positive change for America can be built. His web site http://www.americansolutions.com/ is full of ideas about real solutions to tough issues. Newt has shown in the past that he has the ability to develop a winning political strategy. Mr. Steele may be a nice guy, but what has he done in the past that would indicate he has the ability to help the conservatives regoup and win elections in the future?
I like Steele. He is very articulate and he is a new face. The GOP needs to attract new people.
Newt Gingrich had his chance.
Yes to Steele. No to Newt. Too much baggage. And old. We’ve done old already. Sorry Newt. It’s just the way it is. If there’s one thing I have felt lately it’s this: the oldagers, 50 and older (of which I am one :<) have passed the baton to the newagers….argh.
I think Newt would be a good advisor. Problem is, he wants to be the leader.
I could go for Steele. I agree that Newt has seen his day. But I would rather see Steele running for some office, not being the party chair. In that sense, I think Thompson might make a better chairman.
The party chairman is more of an organizational role, not a popular leadership roll. The chair decides which political races get funded and by how much. The chair develops national strategy. The chair doesn’t get out and make a lot of speeches or stump for candidates.
The party chair should be someone who isn’t going to be running for office, but is smart and thinks strategically. I would support Rove over Gingrich any day. Rove might not be popular with the left but party chairman isn’t a nationally elected office. Rove is a good strategist.
Yes:
Steele, Jindal, Palin, Romney, Jeb
No:
Newt, Arnold, Rice, Huck
Age isn’t the issue. newt is a blowhard with baggage.
Seriously…….
Next time we have a REVOLUTION, lets make term limits on ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS across the board a top priority.
This country is screwed up from having career politicians.
This country is screwed up because we allowed it.
Vote McCain 2012
Steele or Thompson, Gingrich lost his fire in 95 when the media turned his good ideas into a circus with him as the main star, all the while Clinton recovered and painted himself as not a radical attempting to change America, but as a defender of the status quo against the rabid right. Steele is fine, but Thompson is probably more qualified.
On a serious note. I’ll vote for any conservative with a strong economic background — and a solid understanding of foreign policy and the way the world works. Experience. Experience. Experience. Economics and business experience are the most important. Being an outsider is a plus.
The V.P. should be a philosopher.
On the social issues, I am more than willing to compromise.
So, this rules out Palin. I like her personally, but not as a leader (no econmoic background and f.p. experience).
Romney, Jindal, Giuliani, Robert Gates, Rice, Klimt — these work for me. That’s one powerful admin. I’m excited to see more.
I’m agnostic. I like Steele quite a bit from when I watched his run during the Senate race in Maryland, and Newt has some interesting ideas, though he’s loaded with the baggage of the 90s. I say let them both make their case to the Party, and let’s see which one really looks to the future.
Hate to spoil everybody’s party but the Fred is thinking about the job also.
Steele may be smart and he may be more than qualified, but if Obama bombs out, as I think he is going to, we can forget affirmative action for a long time. After all, Obama is having his IQ posted all over the internet and since it is above average, but still not genius, if he manages to impose all his far left programs on us and drags the economy down further like FDR did, then his race will go down with him. After all he is their Messiah. The Chosen One. If he fails, they all fail. Especially if he puts his people in charge of federal agencies and they make a mess of things like they did under Clinton. Just remember. No federal agency had books in good enough condition to be audited when Clinton left office and nobody dared say anything for of fear of being called a Racist because Clinton had put incompetent blacks in charge to be the patsies.
Colin Powel was a token figurehead put in charge of a disfunctional State Dept, saturated with embedded Clintonista loyalist civil servants who sabatoged everything Bush tried to do. So Powell’s job was to pretend that someone was listening to them and him. Condoliza Rice is a joke. She may be an expert on Russia but about Muslims and middle East negotiations she doesn’t know squat. Anyone with half a brain would know by now that you can’t negotiate with those people. Their religion requires them to lie, mislead, and do whatever is necessary to fool the infidels. We should have turned the whole area into glass immediately after 9-11. That is the kind of negotiations they understand. The least we can do now is turn Israel loose and let them solve the problem in whatever way they want to. As it is, we have two choices, we can let the Israelis kill Muslims now or let them kill innocent Israelis later. We shouldnt’ be vover there trying to tell Israel what to do. We dont’ really have a dog in that fight.
Klimt,
Who’s that guy KLIMT? Any foreign policy experience?
Again, I don’t think we want to put one of our most charismatic and well-spoken leaders as party chairman. For that job you want someone butt ugly, can’t speak in public worth a darn, hates talking to the press, but is brilliant. Don’t use up political “talent” on a back office position.
I am not sure Fred should be the chair but he should certainly be available. The party should be more actively using assets such as Thompson and Steele. Maybe the party could even get Walter E. Williams to write a position statement on economic policy. He has a wonderful way of articulating complex concepts in a way the average person can understand.
And rather than bashing the Democrats, criticism needs to be balanced with alternatives. Don’t criticize without making an alternative suggestion. Remember, our goals are the same, to make this country a better place but our methods differ. Suggesting alternatives gives them food for thought and might even be adopted or cause a modification in their path to adopt the suggestion in full or in part.
There should be all kinds of documents coming out of party HQ written by all sorts of individuals but being released in the name of the party. There should be all kinds of speeches being given by Thompson, Steele, Palin and others. We should never stop trying to influence the direction of things, even when not in power.
But the chair of the party should be almost invisible. He (or she) should be more of a behind the scenes facilitator and resource allocator. The chair shouldn’t be rallying the party directly, but the chair should be organizing a concerted, consistent, message with an array of powerful communicators delivering that message to the people. Leave the tactics to the “talent”, the chair should be thinking “big picture” and years in advance. The chair should be developing promising talent at the state and local level, mentoring them, developing them, and when the time is right, putting them on a larger stage. The party chair runs the “farm system”, develops “talent”, develops strategy, plans for the long haul. Putting a charismatic leader in that position is probably a waste of their charisma.
And people really should read Professor Williams’ articles. Each one is a gem.