Tuesday, November 14, 2006
|
|
Unhappy
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
8:41 AM
|
|
Well, the Martinez pick sure isn't playing very well.
Of course, it's not meant for current Republicans. The pick is meant for that gigantic, untapped illegal immigrant constituency that Rove and Bush plan to legalize real quick. And, of course, all the Hispanic citizens who want that constituency legalized real quick.
Legalize your way back to the Majority! Don't adhere to principle or make a better case for yourself. Just create new voters out of people who were formerly unable to vote, according to law. Wait, isn't that the Democrat way-- felons, dead people? Yep, and it seems Republicans have adopted it.
Count me thoroughly demoralized. Not only is this guy not a terribly distinguished Senator, but his pick is a transparent little identity politics stunt. Even though the idea of Steele had the base charged up and had the potential to reach new constituencies while adhering to conservative principles, I think the White House boys thought the Hispanic vote was more likely to go Republican than the black vote, which is undoubtedly true, but a really horrible reason to appoint an uninspiring, part-time RNC Chair after the drubbing the Party just got. And, an uninspiring, part-time RNC Chair who has actively worked to pass the very legislation that has had the Republican base climbing the walls the entire Bush presidency.
Part-time??? My bosses wouldn't let me work part-time, and I daresay my job is less important than the RNC Chair.
But is there hope? Red State calls Martinez the "Harriet Miers of RNC Chairs." I guess that means we should get to work voicing our displeasure. Sarah K already has, in her eloquent open letter to Republican leadership-- "Dear Dumb Stupidheads."
You can write them, too, at info@gop.com.
Allah is tracking down rumors of some Rove treachery pulled on the RNC Members, who are by all accounts, ticked. From the Washington Times:
Some RNC members, already dismayed by last week's election that swept Republicans from control of Congress, expressed anger at the way Mr. Rove leaked his choice of Mr. Martinez immediately after a conference call in which the Florida senator's name was floated for the first time.
During the call yesterday with RNC members in which Mr. Rove, Mr. Mehlman and White House Political Director Sara Taylor participated, some members raised the names of Mr. Martinez and Mr. Duncan as possible successors to Mr. Mehlman, said an RNC member who was involved.
"But Rove and Mehlman never said they were going to name these people as chairmen, and we never voted or even gave our opinion," the member said.
The move was seen as a signal that the White House intends to push through Congress the "comprehensive" immigration bill -- which Mr. Martinez and Mr. Hagel backed in the Senate -- that was blocked by conservative Republicans in the House.
Chances of blocking that baby?
In the Senate: zero. I mentioned in the Kyl post yesterday that there were only 36 Senators who voted against the immigration bill that passed in June, three of whom were Democrats. What I overlooked was that four of those Senators — Allen, Burns, Santorum, and Talent — are now gone. That leaves the anti-amnesty Republicans fully eight votes short of a filibuster, assuming that the three Democratic holdouts join them. Which is unlikely.
So it all comes down to the House. You’d need all 200+ Republicans plus close to 20 blue dog Democrats. I’m not optimistic.
Me neither.
Poll: Who should be chair?
|
|
[Darvin Dowdy]"The elitists who plan and execute GOP strategy, view the core supporters who actually pushed 'W' over the top in 2000/04 as a bunch of hick/hayseeds that can be taken for granted/ignored."
Names of these "elitists"? Refs re: how you know that that's the way those "elitists" "view the core supporters"?
[GiveMeLiberty]"On the plus side, Martinez is Cuban which means anti-communist, anti-socialist."
Castro "is Cuban." Do you think that "means" Castro is "anti-communist, anti-socialist"?
[GiveMeLiberty]"Plus he [Martinez] says he will debate ideas with the opposition."
Meaning he's willing to debate those opposed to amnesty?
Who is "the opposition" in the view of Martinez?
Has anyone here seen Martinez debate anybody? I don't recall seeing him on TV.
|
|
A useful gauge of a conservative is what the antique media (AM) says - or does not say. I found little mention of this in AM sources.
Usually the AM attacks an effective conservative (Gingrich, Santorum)and plays "make-nice fake-nice" with ineffective or negative Republicans (McCain, Hagel and their ilk)
What have they said about Senator Martinez, other than the shopworn, empty cliches about being hispanic?
On the plus side, Martinez is Cuban which means anti-communist, anti-socialist. Plus he says he will debate ideas with the opposition.
This past election was devoid of actual debate of actual ideas. I hope Martinez means what he says on that.
Anyone out there seen him in a debate? I have not, I live a long way from Florida. Just curious.
And obviously, this helps pre-position the House of Bush to extend their dynasty.
Floridian Martinez will help Floridian Jeb, and help Bush nephew George P. Bush who currently labors at a major Dallas law firm. Martinez could dish campaign money and workers to assist the Bush political ambitions. |
|
MKHam: "W" and his advisors are rattled. Lost their confidence. And as a result are making very poor decisions. The President is a very, very lame duck. I believe he's just not thinking of 2008 or his Republican party. Understandable. We can only hope that they will regain some confidence and stabilize. We should try to be understanding and remember him in our prayers. "However", we have to start prep'ing for 2008. If we want to have a chance at winning in 08 we must understand that our opposition is not the Dem's, but those in our own party who got us into this mess. Those that forgot one basic principle: you need a majority of voters to win. The elitists who plan and execute GOP strategy, view the core supporters who actually pushed "W" over the top in 2000/04 as a bunch of hick/hayseeds that can be taken for granted/ignored. And insulted. They placed their bets instead on the throngs of street demonstrators carrying Mexican flags last April/May. What didn't dawn on them was the fact that "most" of these can't or won't vote. Or would only vote Dem. Another point lost on them was that their formerly solid, ultra loyal base would not lay down like doormats and pull the lever for straight GOP after being tune-out and insulted by their President. Somehow we've got to get these so-called strategist (like Rove and Mehlman) to resign- now. Not in January. Now. We need new/fresh ideas. A winning attitude. Not an attitude of "trying not to lose". DD http://streetlevel.townhall.com |
|
> Momof2 > Face it, Michael Steele got us all excited > and then LOST. By a LOT.
Steele 44.4% to Cardin 54.0%. For comparison, the incumbent (liberal) Republican governor Ehrlich lost by: Ehrlich 46.4% to O'Malley 52.5%. Ref: http://www.elections.state.md.us/elections/2006/results/general/index.html
Ehrlich is liberal and was an incumbent governor and was endorsed by the _Washington Post_, yet he still lost in his bid to retain the governorship. And he got a mere 2.0% more than Steele.
> Why are > conservatives now so in love with this > guy?
My letter is above.
> He opposes the death penalty,
Do you have confidence in our judicial system to hand down correct decisions in life-and-death cases?
> supports affirmative action, doesn't like > No Child Left Behind,
Is that the Ted Kennedy-written education bill Limbaugh keeps mentioning?
> and basically > trashed the Republican Party to try to > get elected in a Democratic State,
How so?
> and he lost anyway because Democrats saw > him as a poseur.
Simplistic. Repeating myself, Ehrlich was governor for 4 years, and was liberal, and was endorsed by the _Washington Post_, and _still_ lost, getting a mere 2% more than Steele did. Following November 7, Ehrlich observed that Maryland veered to the left in the 2006 election (see a recent _Washington Times_ metro section).
> If he were named head > of the RNC, Democrats would have a > field day highlighting all the bad things > he said about President Bush in his > campaign,
Such as?
> all the non-conservative > positions he holds, and the fact that as > Maryland Republican Chairman, the > only Republican he managed to get > elected was himself.
Maryland is a very liberal state. > I think it is quite a bit of identity politics > being played by conservatives who want > Michael Steele heading the RNC. The > only thing he has going for him in the job > is that he is black and ran some cute TV > ads in his campaign. Since when did > that matter to Republicans?
Steele counterattacked well. And that matters a lot. > Mel Martinez has a 100% ACU voting > record.
For which positions on which issues is Martinez courageous?
> He won a big election in a big state.
By how much? Will speaking as RNC co-chair hurt Martinez's re-election effort in 2010? Will Martinez the part-time co-chair advance the same views as Martinez the Florida Senator?
In other words, will there be a difference between the 2 Martinezes? For example, if Martinez brings pork to Florida, will that pork brought to Florida be RNC part-time co-chair pork brought for the benefit of the Republican Party?
> He chaired President Bush's > winning Florida campaign in 2000.
By how many votes did Bush win Florida in 2000?
> He did a great job as HUD Secretary.
What are 2 of his HUD accomplishments?
> He has also run a large local government, > meaning he has management skills.
Does Steele have "management skills"? Does Steele have RNC-type "management skills"?
> He wanted to run for Governor of Florida > this year, but agreed to run for the > Senate for the good of the Party. If he > hadn't, the GOP would have likely lost > that Senate seat in 2004.
Can Martinez do 2 jobs well? The RNC chairmanship requires a full-time effort. As a sitting Senator, Martinez can't give the job the effort it requires.
> And if Martinez' appointment is also > identity politics, perhaps some of that is > needed after an election in which > Republicans slid from 45% of the > Hispanic vote to 30%.
By what percentage did Republicans slide from of the Republican vote?
I have a relative who has several Republican co-workers that in Virginia voted for Webb and against Allen.
> Ken Mehlman > warned about this but nobody listened to > him. If you think we can continue to win > elections without getting those numbers > back up, I have a bridge to sell you. If > the GOP becomes the "party of the > wall," it will be a 25% party very soon.
So how do we persuade often-Catholic Hispanics to vote Republican? Have as an RNC chair a conservative, Republican Catholic (like Steele)?
|
|
Face it, Michael Steele got us all excited and then LOST. By a LOT. Why are conservatives now so in love with this guy? He opposes the death penalty, supports affirmative action, doesn't like No Child Left Behind, and basically trashed the Republican Party to try to get elected in a Democratic State, and he lost anyway because Democrats saw him as a poseur. If he were named head of the RNC, Democrats would have a field day highlighting all the bad things he said about President Bush in his campaign, all the non-conservative positions he holds, and the fact that as Maryland Republican Chairman, the only Republican he managed to get elected was himself.
I think it is quite a bit of identity politics being played by conservatives who want Michael Steele heading the RNC. The only thing he has going for him in the job is that he is black and ran some cute TV ads in his campaign. Since when did that matter to Republicans?
Mel Martinez has a 100% ACU voting record. He won a big election in a big state. He chaired President Bush's winning Florida campaign in 2000. He did a great job as HUD Secretary. He has also run a large local government, meaning he has management skills. He wanted to run for Governor of Florida this year, but agreed to run for the Senate for the good of the Party. If he hadn't, the GOP would have likely lost that Senate seat in 2004.
And if Martinez' appointment is also identity politics, perhaps some of that is needed after an election in which Republicans slid from 45% of the Hispanic vote to 30%. Ken Mehlman warned about this but nobody listened to him. If you think we can continue to win elections without getting those numbers back up, I have a bridge to sell you. If the GOP becomes the "party of the wall," it will be a 25% party very soon. |
|
Republican National Committee 310 First Street, SE Washington, DC 20003 p: 202.863.8500 f: 202.863.8820 e: info -at- gop.com
15 November 2006
Dear RNC,
I write to urge that Michael Steele be made RNC chairman.
Rove was behind Miers being picked. That was a disaster. Rove's pick of Martinez to co-chair the RNC is another disaster in the making. If you think Martinez moonlighting as RNC co-chair will attract Hispanics to the Republican Party, you're smoking something. Maybe Rove's metrics-- and we all know how bad those are for the party's political health.
Hispanics are often Catholics, and Catholics are all-too-frequently Democrats. A Catholic, Steele would be an excellent Republican role model to Catholic Democrats and new Hispanic Catholic voters, and would articulate a conservative vision to Catholics that would attract them to the Republican Party.
Steele is media-savvy, looks great on TV, ran an excellent campaign, and inspires. We need Steele so we get quick responses issued to Democrat insanity and attacks during the coming tumultuous two years. For example, during his Senate campaign, Steele quickly issued a TV ad with his sister rebutting a stem cell ad attacking him-- if I recall correctly, both ads came out within 24 hours of each other. As RNC chairman, Steele would inspire involved, attentive Republicans to help beat back the radical leftists who desire to wreck the country and Republican Party with U.S. defeat in Iraq and endless investigations of the Bush administration culminating in the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
Blacks have been ill-served by their lock step allegiance to the Democrat Party. Leftist ideas have grievously hurt blacks through the years, and were Steele to be on TV frequently as RNC chair, he would present a positive role model to help blacks recognize that their aspirations and conservative views are much better served by and aligned with the Republican Party than the Democrat Party. Abandonment of blacks to leftists is tragic for them, and hurts the Republican Party and the country.
The next RNC chair must be an effective campaign manager, articulate, telegenic, charismatic, and a conservative Republican role model to Catholic Democrats and blacks and Hispanic Catholics. The next RNC chair must be a fighting leader with backbone. Get STEELE!
Sincerely,
David Ford, in Maryland
|
|
When Screamin' Howard Dean wanted to be head of the DNC, he was suprisingly elected in a hotly contested race. How do the Rs get their chairman? Is the chairman appointment by a super secret society that we are all stuck with? Who is responsible for this? Anyway, I do not agree with Martinez as the annointed-one to lead our party. Heck, give it to Herman Cain. He's smart, politically savvy, and a good businessman. |
|
I live in Florida and voted for Martinez in the 2004 election. His conduct the past two years has NOT been representative of the people of Florida, outside the Miami area. His push for amnesty during that debate ensured he will never get another vote from me.
I had hoped Martinez would represent Floridians but unfortunately, my impression is he is only represent Latino Floridians.
Plus, he's a senator. Can't they find somebody who can actually devote their full time to the job ??? Very very disappointed in the GOP, again, if this plays out. |
|
This is clearly at least partly an attempt to reach out to the supposed "Hispanic vote". Our host is just pointing that out.
The card the GOP is trying to play isn't even going to work that well, since he's a Cuban and most of those supposed new GOP voters are Mexican-Americans or Mexicans. (OTOH, both Bob Menendez and Bill Richardson are supporters of Hispanic ethnic nationalism, so maybe a similar stance might work.)
It's also idiotic to reach out to that part of Mexican-Americans who support amnesty, since most of those people are already on the NCLR/LULAC/MALDEF side of things and the Dems are always going to be able to underbid the GOP. If the GOP wants part of the supposed "Hispanic vote", perhaps they should try reaching out to that segment that opposes amnesty. |
|
|
I agree that Steele would have been (still can be) a formidable RNC Chairman. But to bash Martinez and tar him with the "illegal immigrant" association by Latino-last-name (we're all part of the same 'hood?) is a low, cheap shot more in keeping with our liberal enemies. Martinez is a Cuban immigrant, like me. Cuban immigrants have been among the most ardent pro-Republican conservatives in this country. Please concentrate on the rational objections to Martinez vs. Steele to make your case. The GOP has already alienated some of its conservative base - please don't go out to alienate the Cuban conservatives as well. |
|
Whoa! Take a deep breath! Perhaps some Prozac at this point?
Let me see. Picking Martinez is considered "identity politics" but picking Michael Steele (a fine man,IMO) wouldn't be?
I have been intently following the conservative blogs all year and have concluded that the principals live largely in an echo chamber. They're talking to themselves and hear nothing of what the common folk out there in the heartland think. Forget about your "Republican base" They don't reflect the thinking of most Americans (just like the Kos "netroots" don't)and they certainly didn't carry the election for us.
And, by the way, before you hack at W for not "adher(ing)to principle", perhaps you need to recognize that there are many of us conservative Republicans out there who, as a matter of conscience, think that a guest worker program and a path to legalization are proper principles to apply.
Thanks.
|
|
|
My worst fears about the resurrection of the 1970s Republican party are being realized in a hurry. And I'm betting that much, much worse will come to pass once the Democrats take control. |
|
She just spontaneously wrote and e-mailed that letter without even thinking it might make good material for IMAO; I had to tell her to post it after she read it to me. She still has to get used to political blogging.
I certainly hope more people follow suit; the Harriet Miers incident does make me hopeful.
Mel as RNC chair is pandering to Latinos; Steele as RNC Chair would be pandering to conservatives... and we should be pandered too. |
|
First of all, we need a full-time RNC chair no matter who does -- part-time does not work. This is a non-starter. Mel Martinez might work as a fit if he resigned from his senate seat to do it full-time only and that is something that should be avoided.
Second, although I would prefer Michael Steele for RNC chair, it may not be all bad news for him. Why? Because he might make an excellent Vice Presidential candidate in 2008.
We need to think this through completely. |
|
|
|