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.
Advertisement
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.
Not to differ with the Editors' bottom line but "anybody" among those vying for RNC chairman includes at least one Obamacare advocate plus other status quo candidates who did not get the electorate's 2010 message. Now that the NR has said why Steele must go, please give us a 'down and dirty' assessment of the remaining field.
He did a bad job, and must be replaced.
But since we're not racists, we won't ever know who his friend in the Northern Marianas Islands is, or how they convinced him to misappropriate the money.
Now, let's elect an Asian, transgendered dyslexic women to re-affirm our commitment to diversity.
I confess, I didn't read the whole piece, but I have a couple of questions. You say he's going to be helpful to the conservative cause...when is he going to become a conservative? Mr. Steele may well be a great guy. I supported him (indeed sent him money) when he was running for public office--but what he's shown as HC of the RNC (props to Belichick) is that he's not a conservative.
Further, based on all evidence in front of us--including what you've included--he's been a complete disaster for the party. On the other hand, he may well have been wonderful for individual candidates, as people have been forced to donate directly to them to avoid having their money siphoned off for strippers and various other things.
But I really don't understand the NRO's infatuation with a man who's not conservative and not effectual.
And I don't understand why you spend so much effort to praise Steele and build him up only to chop him down in your last three sentences.
The main problem for the GOP is the same problem it has had for decades, and that is the lack of a single, unifying message about the role of government and how the party expects to govern it.
The real battle here is not to retain Steele, but to elect a traditional republican or one of the new tea party leaning Republicans. A traditional republican will further impoverish the organization and mean the money will go to support liberal candidates like Crist. Time to see what the future of the party will be.
On the NR cruise Ralph Reed showed himself to be very adept at organizing and polling. He diagnosed very well why the RNC did not do its job and lost us a couple of elections. The problem is the RNC is not the TEA party. We must get someone in there who is on our side, not Washington establishment's side.
I would not object to having Ralph Reed in there. While I like others who have done the job before, they gave us the crop of reps that gave us the problems we had.
I would prefer someone who thinks like the Tea party thinks, someone who would advocate not voting for this current compromise bill of the lame duck congress, for example. Someone who is not fond of the RNC would be nice for a change.
I agree with your assessment that Michael Steele is a good man but in the wrong job. However, the failure of the RNC to raise funds for the recent election transcends Steele’s mediocre management. Many conservative donors simply mistrusted the direction of the RNC and the candidates it supported and chose to contribute directly to candidates who better fit their philosophies. The same can be said for the Republican Senate and Congressional Campaign Committees. Until the RNC, RSCC, and RCCC wake up their influence will continue to diminish. Why contribute to organizations who gave us Arlen Spector, Lincoln Chafee, Mike Castle, Lindsey Graham, George Voinovich, etc.?
For all the laments over Michael Steele's "gaffes," the reason that he deserves a lot of credit for the recent success in November is the dog that did not bark. He did not do what one would have expected any business-as-usual party apparatchik to do, namely offend the sensibilities of the Tea Partiers and drive them away from voting for Republicans. More importantly, that will remain the most important job of the RNC Chair in the 2012 cycle. And yet, the Editors proclaim that anybody else running would be better, including, as Tim S. points out, an advocate of Obamacare (socialist) and "other status quo candidates who did not get the electorate's 2010 message."
We have just witnessed two years that indicate that Michael Steele will keep the numbers and energy of the Tea Party inside the Republican tent. Choosing anyone else puts that situation at varying degrees of risk, at least several of them at intolerable levels. The only way Obama gets another term is if the Republicans and the Tea Party become embroiled in what would primarily be a civil war. Steele understands that and will work to prevent it, while most of his rivals will either catalyze it or appear unaware of the danger.
I think Steele has been great for the Republican Party - His "leadership" has drained funds from the RNC and that organizations party planning minions. Let's face it - The RNC has given us GHWB, Bob Dole, GWB and John McCain - not to mention the fact that the RNC fought bitterly against the Reagan Presidency (see GHWB "voodoo economics). Let's keep Steele as the head of the RNC and keep it from getting any money or, more importantly, power.
As a Dallas Cowboys fan, I think of Michael Steele the same way I think of (former) coach Wade Phillips: he's a talented mensch whose skill set is a poor match for the position he has been operating in. There are dozens of political jobs that Michael Steele would thrive in: had he come of age in a more GOP friendly state he'd already be (at least) a popular congressman charming the heck out of everyone on the fundraising circuit.
Unfortunately, as with Wade Phillips, the team is succeeding (mostly) in spite of him. The GOP needs him somewhere that allows his considerable talents to flourish.
Read Charles Matheson's comment. He is not alone. I have read many others, here and elsewhere, decry the RNC as the entity that gave us (fill in the blank RINO). That is a major element of the current political zeitgeist. It is also what I have been writing about in all these comments about Steele. Many, many people in his position over the last two years would have cast their lot with the Republican establishment, alienated the Tea Parties, and seen fewer electoral victories. Some smaller number would have fully embraced the Tea Parties and presided over an attempted coup within the party -- which also would have been very disruptive, feasted on by hostile media, and resulted in (you guessed it) fewer electoral victories. Steele has ridden a unicycle on a tightrope and is now subject to complaints that he wasn't juggling.
As alluded to already, Steele did not take advantage of the Tea Party enthusiasm. Under his watch, the 72 hour GOTV effort was minimal at best. Reps. Boehner and Roskam funded traditionally RNC on-the-ground efforts in their respective states (to huge effect if you look at Congressional results in those states, Roskam helped flip the Illinois Congressional delegation from D to R).
Ken Blackwell was a much better fit to the Tea Party wave and should have been elected instead of Steele. Saul Anuzis fits the bill today. Saul has been very generous with his time to anybody trying to push the conservative agenda, and has all the fundraising prowess that Steele lacks. Furthermore, Saul is tuned into the Tea Party and has been since its inception. As a businessman, Saul can be counted on to run a tight ship at the RNC, and right the wrongs left behind by Steele.
Anyone reading my post may believe I think Steele is a schmoe, nothing can be further from the truth. Steele is perfectly positioned to perform outreach efforts for Republicans. He just doesn't have the chops to run the RNC.
Anybody but Steele isn't good enough for me. Steele has been fine, IMO. That said, I quit giving to the party and don't plan to start no matter who the Chairperson is. IMO, it's better to give to the candidates campaigns specifically. I voted with my dollars that way and I suspect many others did the same from the numbers quoted above.
This editorial identifies the right metrics—an RNC Chairman should be judged on the basis of money, turnout, and election results—but it gets the facts wrong.
With respect to fundraising, the RNC smashed the record for most money collected in a midterm cycle by any political committee whose party did not control Congress or the White House. According to the FEC, the RNC’s receipts this cycle are over $192 million, 47% more than the DNC in the 2006 cycle. By comparison, the other party federal committees raised 7% less than their Democratic counterparts’ 2006 totals. The fact that the RNC raised this much from small donors is even more impressive. The RNC needed about 190,000 average donations to match what a single donor gave to American Crossrods, yet the RNC still vastly outraised that or any other official or unofficial GOP organization.
As for turnout, approximately 8.5 million more Republican voters went to the polls in 2010 than in the last midterm, a 24% increase and the biggest jump in voter turnout U.S. history for either party. As for the vaunted 72 hour program, for which I was a volunteer in the past, prior to 2010, Republican turnout in midterm elections actually declined over four successive elections. In 2010, the RNC took a different, and more effective approach, helping to open a record 360 Victory offices across the country with paid staff persons in the 2010 cycle, compared to just 154 Victory offices in 2008 and 140 in 2006. Rather than sitting back in the months leading to the election, as the editorial suggests, Michael Steele travelled by to 48 states in September and October, speaking to hundreds of rallies, including places where Republicans had not seriously campaigned for years, if ever.
Finally, on election results, Republicans had the biggest gains in the House since 1938 and won the most state legislative seats since 1928. Republicans also won more close races (decided by less than 2,000 votes) than in previous wave elections such as 1994. To say that seats could have been won that weren’t ignores historical benchmarks. If, as the memo cited in the editorial asserts, another 21 House seats could have been won, that would have been the second biggest GOP gain in history, and the biggest since the 1800s. To characterize Steele as a failure because he only had the best showing in nearly a century as opposed to the best ever is nuts.
Several points need to be made for a fair assessment of Steele's tenure:
- The fundraising comparisons presented by NRO are misleading. Without a sitting President and with strong competition for marquee names as event draws, fundraising among big donors is an enormous challenge. As Steele points, the much fairer comparison is to Democrats when they did not have a President in office.
- The internet has enabled a seismic shift in giving patterns. I gave money during this cycle to probable 10 or 12 candidates, as well as to the state and national parties. Organizing and funding campaigns has become a serious industry with the parties playing an increasingly minor, but still important, role.
- Steele's biggest detractors are mostly the Beltway Apparatchiks who represent the same "Washington-first" arrogance that turned off so many to the Republican party. Todd Herman has done a very good job on the website and the updated look and feel has provided a welcome youthful relief from the tech dark ages that Duncan and co. represented.
- As for Steele's "gaffes", I think you have seen him tone down his approach and policy commentary in the last 6 months. It is not his role to delineate more than high level Republican principles and collective talking points, and I think he gets that.
Steele is there because he's a minority and was put there after Obama won. He's being pushed as a "leader" for the same reason Jindal and Rubio are, some acknowledgment of this would be nice but NRO is likely as caught up in the PC nonsense as the Republican establishment is. It's all Steele, Palin, Jindal, Rubio, etc. ...the message is "anyone but a young white man." That's the thinking of the Republican party as well and it's why it can't and won't capitalize on their recent success.
