Battle for RNC Chair is On: Steele vs. Gingrich
Two well known names, Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich, will run for chair of the Republican National Committee. Both men are household names in Republican circles, and both already play an influential role in the Republican Party.
Gingrich was the leader of the Republican revolution of 1994, which brought a conservative majority to U.S. Congress. This Republican Congress prevented President Bill Clinton from pursuing highly liberal plans, and worked with him for the good of the country, generally speaking to the satisfaction to the American people.
He was the man who renewed his party’s conservatism, and who articulated it in a new, fresh way that appealed to voters.
Michael Steele is also a true conservative, able to articulate this ideology in a way that allows voters to identify with it and to embrace it as a political ideology for the future.
He is also one of the few prominent African American conservatives who should be able to convince other minorities that conservative government is in their interest.
After leaving Congress, Newt Gingrich became a true Republican intellectual. He focused on the future of conservatism and launched a project aimed at developing conservative policy ideas that strengthen America. This resulted in him becoming even more popular among many factions of the Republican Party.
Gingrich was a man of ideas in the 1990s, and is still a man of ideas. As such, one could very well argue that he is the best man to lead the RNC.
But there is one problem with him: he’s connected to the past. Gingrich is, to a very large degree, history. If the Republican Party wants to make a comeback, it will have to come up with new leaders, not revive the old.
Gingrich had his chance to lead the party. It’s Steele’s time.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
My superficial analysis: Do you want the visionary who p*sses people off or do you want the likable guy who can build bridges.
Can they cochair?
I don’t think anyone is as good at the vision part as Gingrich- but we need a more warm and fuzzy PR guy like Steele.
If I had to choose one- I’d go with Gingrich and hope that he’d use others for PR. And we really need to find a district where Steele can run again and win- he needs more legislative or executive experience IMO.
NO Gingrich! Steele would be better able to build the party!
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2008/11/no-gingrich-for-rnc-chair.html
For all the good that he has done for the Republican party, Gingrich is too attached to the negative “old version” of the party. Not to say that he shouldn’t be as involved, but he should not be mouthpiece. I would say Steele as he represents a fresh perspective and as C Stanley said, Steele has more of a “warm-fuzzy” approachable quality. I also like hs background as a corporate securities attorney. That knowlege would be helpful in times like these