Michael Steele to lead the Republican National Committee

[R.R.]

Hopefully.

Michael Steele for Republican National Chairman?

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), who came up just short yesterday in his Senate race against Rep. Ben Cardin (D), is mulling a bid for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, according to an informed GOP source.

Steele would not challenge current RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, but chatter among Republican insiders is that Mehlman has made clear for months that he might not return to his current post.

"Chairman Mehlman will be making an announcement regarding his future at the RNC in the coming weeks," said RNC communication director Brian Jones.

Mehlman has made outreach to the African American community a priority during his time as head of the party, and Steele would be seen as a logical successor to that effort.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/11/steele_for_rnc.html

[Janefinch]

Well, it would give him gainful employment, which he might appreciate even more once the minimum wage is raised.....

[Mucho]

A loser leading a bunch of other losers is just what the Repubs need. Have at it!

[R.R.]

Well, it would give him gainful employment, which he might appreciate even more once the minimum wage is raised.....

I thought he ran a solid campaign in Maryland. In any other year, he would have won it. He brought in many people to vote in the political process and vote Republican who otherwise wouldn't have. I'd be proud to have him chair our party. He's a class act.

[Amianthus]

Well, it would give him gainful employment, which he might appreciate even more once the minimum wage is raised.....

Somehow, I don't think that position is a minimum-wage position.

[R.R.]

A loser leading a bunch of other losers is just what the Repubs need.

This was a sixth year itch, nothing more. It's been happening since '47.

As for Steele, he ran the best campaign this year out of everybody. He just ran in the wrong year.

The winners were Chuck Shumer and Rahm Emanual, not Howard Dean. Dean had to hide from the cameras so he wouldn't flub it, like John Kerry tried to do. The Dems won in spite of Howard Dean, NOT because of him.

[Plane]

This is a bit less of a revolution than 94.


As far as I can tell the Democrats have not cleaned up their act , this six year ich may revisit in just two.

[Mucho]

This is a bit less of a revolution than 94.


As far as I can tell the Democrats have not cleaned up their act , this six year ich may revisit in just two.

 

The Dems held the Congress for 40 years . Bush has fucked thins up s badly, they will probly hold it twice that now.

[R.R.]

Plane is right, the Dems have learned nothing. For example, William Jefferson ran for re-election in LA, and the Dems there actually gave him the most votes.

[Lanya]

A loser leading a bunch of other losers is just what the Repubs need.

  The Dems won in spite of Howard Dean, NOT because of him.

We would have won seats no matter who was in charge.  But Howard saw to it that all 50 states had candidates.   And that is why we have control of the House and the Senate, baby.  The 50-state strategy.  Rahm didn't do shit. Neither did Shumer.  Shumer turned off the tap for Paul Hackett, for which I will never forgive him.   

[R.R.]

Rahm didn't do shit. Neither did Shumer.

They recruited some very good candidates. Conservative Democrats to run in some Republican districts. I tip the hat to them. It was smart politics. Many of these seats are going to flip back in two years, but it's good for the Dems in the short term anyway. Howard Dean didn't do that. I'm not sure what Dean did, besides hide from the cameras. Privately, Dean and Emmanuel got in some heated arguments. You say it was a bad thing for Shumer to cut Hacket's money, but you guys wouldn't have won the seat otherwise. Sherrod Brown was a better candidate than Hacket, hands down. Dewine would have held the seat against Hacket. Hacket said some really ridiculous comments about our Commander in Chief that would have made him unacceptable as a candidate, even during this sixth year.

The Dems won the Senate in 2001, when Jumpin Jim Jeffords voted with the Dems. You guys were stripped of that power very shortly after in 2002 when the American people saw what obstructionists the Dems were.

[syrmark59]

Lanya, as much as I dont disagree with Ricky on most, he is absolutely correct on Schumer.

Schumer was the architect of what most felt impossible, particularly when you consider that Ford lost in Tenn.

As for Ricky's claim that this was a "sixth year itch, nothing more", this was an unqualified disaster for the GOP. Losing the House was expected.The Senate was far, far more than GOP fatigue. Look at what races were lost and *where* they were lost. This election was a very wide indicator of very deep satisfaction with six years of total GOP control.

But mostly, when you look particularly at races in areas that Bush carried handidly in 2004, this is a sweeping rejection of Bush and his most identifiable issue, the Iraq invasion.

So much for the Kerry backlash GOPers were clinging to a few days ago. And as for your boy Santorum Ricky, he got what he fully deserved.

[Amianthus]

This election was a very wide indicator of very deep satisfaction with six years of total GOP control.

ROFLMAO

[Lanya]

Lanya, as much as I dont disagree with Ricky on most, he is absolutely correct on Schumer.

Schumer was the architect of what most felt impossible, particularly when you consider that Ford lost in Tenn.

As for Ricky's claim that this was a "sixth year itch, nothing more", this was an unqualified disaster for the GOP. Losing the House was expected.The Senate was far, far more than GOP fatigue. Look at what races were lost and *where*

_______________________
I'm more familiar with what Rahm Emanuel has done (or rather, not done) to help Democrats win.   You and R.R. may well be correct about Shumer.  I can't help disliking him for the Hackett debacle.   
Here's an article about Rahm from The New Republic.  (Via Atrios, because I can't get behind TNR's subscription firewall.)
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_11_05_atrios_archive.html#116300215361633375

[Mucho]

Plane is right, the Dems have learned nothing. For example, William Jefferson ran for re-election in LA, and the Dems there actually gave him the most votes.

You sure like to overblow  your few , puny victories.