The Strife of the Party

From The Washington Post:

Michael S. Steele’s already turbulent tenure as Republican Party chairman grew even more so this week as comments he made while releasing a new book sparked a messy feud over whether he is promoting himself at the expense of the party.

The book took GOP congressional leaders by surprise, and Steele’s controversial statements in promotional interviews are intensifying dissatisfaction over his leadership style and raising concerns about the effect it could have on the party’s prospects in this year’s midterm elections.

Original DVD cover

In a series of defiant interviews, Steele has assailed his Republican critics, saying the bickering is distracting from the party’s mission. Yet his own fiery rhetoric — “I’m the chairman. Deal with it,” Steele said Thursday — has contributed to the distraction, dampening what Republicans viewed as an otherwise positive week after two senior Democratic senators and a once-rising-star governor bowed to the political climate and announced their retirements.

There have been recurrent intraparty attacks on Steele’s management style since he was elected a year ago, as the sometimes-flamboyant chairman frequently has veered off-message. This week offered the latest kerfuffle, with the publishing of a book that GOP congressional leaders said they did not know he was writing. The chairman is promoting the book as the blueprint Republicans should follow to regain power, but party leaders said it was drafted without their input.

Some top Republicans first learned about the book, titled “Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda,” when Steele promoted it in television appearances, according to three top GOP congressional aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were unwilling to be identified as speaking ill of their party chairman.


The aides said that more than half a dozen Republican Senate and House leaders have been upset with Steele’s remarks and the book. None has spoken out publicly against Steele — in part, aides said, because the leaders see little benefit to continued strife within GOP ranks.

Outside Capitol Hill, however, some leading Republicans have been more outspoken. Three former Republican National Committee chairmen — Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., Jim Nicholson and Rich Bond — criticized Steele last month after the Washington Times revealed he has been delivering paid speeches nationwide.


Steele’s book has been in the works for about a year and is separate from his role as party chairman, an RNC spokesman said. Steele has hired a public relations firm to help him book media interviews. After Republican congressional staffers pleaded with his handlers in a conference call Wednesday to “get him to stop” speaking out in interviews, Steele’s RNC aides said they have “no control” over the chairman’s appearances or what he says, according to people on the call.

In the book, Steele argues that grass-roots activism will return the party to its core conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint and a strong national defense. And while promoting it, he has at times appeared to encourage the heated Tea Party protests that some Republican leaders worry could alienate independent voters.

“I’m the guy that they’re afraid of because, guess what? I’m a Tea Partier, I’m a town haller, I’m a grass-roots-er,” Steele said in an interview Thursday with KTRS (550 AM) in St. Louis.


Even if the dissatisfaction with Steele intensified, forcing him from office would take an extraordinary effort because of complex rules governing the RNC and because of the absence of a consensus candidate ready to take over a party torn between its moderate and conservative wings.

Steele stirred controversy when he told Fox News Channel on Monday that he did not think the GOP would be able to retake their congressional majorities this year. On that show, he also used a term considered derogatory to Native Americans, underscoring a point about his party’s agenda with the words: “Honest Injun on that.” At least two members of Congress, a Republican and a Democrat, condemned Steele for the remark.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) came to Steele’s defense this week, telling reporters that he is “a fan of Steele’s” even though he “makes a number of old-time Republicans very nervous.”

Others’ frustrations with Steele do not appear to have boiled over to a full revolt, several RNC members said Friday. “There are obviously some people not happy with Chairman Steele right now, but nobody is really talking about trying to remove him,” said Chip Saltsman, a former Tennessee Republican Party chairman who ran against Steele for the national chairmanship.

Former South Carolina Republican Party chairman Katon Dawson, who finished second in that race, rejected the notion that a challenge to Steele may be in the offing.


Removing a party chairman is rare but not unprecedented. Jim Gilmore was forced out in 2002 after feuding with President George W. Bush’s chief political strategist, Karl Rove.

In any case, firing Steele would require the votes of two-thirds of the RNC’s 168 members, according to party rules. Even his most vocal detractors say that prospect is unlikely. Steele has lavished attention on the low-profile and often-ignored members of the RNC.


Still, RNC members have taken steps to limit Steele’s authority. In the spring, the committee voted to require that any spending exceeding $100,000 be approved by the executive committee or the treasurer, who is elected independently from the chairman.

When Steele became chairman last January, the RNC had $22.8 million in the bank. At the end of November, the RNC reported having $8.7 million on hand as it headed into an election year with 37 gubernatorial races and dozens of competitive Senate and House contests.

Although the RNC raised about $84 million over that period, it spent $90 million, according to the party’s financial records.


Filed under Chimpy, Congress, George W. Bush, humor, Karl Rove, movies, Newt Gingrich, parody, politics, Republicans, Senate, snark, Wordpress Political Blogs

26 responses to “The Strife of the Party

  1. writechic

    I guffawed at the TV tonight listening to Steele condemn Harry Reid for his nonsense after Steele’s “Honest Injun” remark that pissed off normal Republicans and Native Americans.

    CNN didn’t ask ONE STINKIN’ question about Steele’s own step in the shit pile.

  2. writechic

    Nice cover, btw. I’m marry Liam Neeson before Russ Feingold. 🙂

  3. kaylaspop

    Please don’t fire Steele.

  4. writechic

    Incidentally, Nonnie, sissy-breeches Chris Wallace at Fox News did ask Steele about the “Honest Injun” remark. Steele says it’s not the same as Reid’s. And you know what? It’s not. Neither is a comparison of Reid to Trent Lott.

    Yet, all three politicians’ remarks represent a particular ignorance….which is a whole other post, I guess.

  5. Here’s Steele saying that “White Republicans are scared of me.” He wishes.

    • he’s right. they are afraid. from politico:

      “I don’t think there is any chance he’s going to be dumped before the next election for the obvious reason,” said one of the party’s most influential strategists and a key player on presidential campaigns.

      Asked why that would be, the Republican, who is not on the party committee, shot back: “You’re not going to dump the first African-American chairman. That’s the only reason. Otherwise, he’d be gone.”

      A longtime member of the party committee added: “The optics of pushing any chairman out don’t look very good, but [Steele’s race] puts a much finer point on it.”

      Those optics are fairly straightforward.

      The perception of an overwhelmingly white party launching a coup to take out a black leader when the country has its first African-American in the White House would be disastrous, say senior Republicans—a bigger distraction to the party than Steele’s frequent off-message detours are now.

    • writechic

      Okay, it’s a quarter to four; so, I’m only half accountable for what I say here.

      Reid said “Negro” because he is old and a little dumb.

      The only people I hear use the word these days are black people teasing each other.

      (I’m so gonna sound like an apologist when I wake up and read this.)

      • i know a lot of older people who don’t know what to call african-americans. they aren’t comfortable with that term (it doesn’t exactly fall trippingly off the tongue), and black used to be used derisively. of course, someone in harry reid’s position should know better, but it might have been a private conversation in which he let his guard down and reverted to what he used to feel comfortable with. i can’t speak for him, but i would put his civil rights record up against trent lott’s any day.

  6. He doesn’t understand the true party message: Get government of your back and into your pants where it belongs.

    • he seems to have gotten the same party message as princess sarah did–make as much money for yourself as possible, and the hell with what happens to everyone else. i think that’s the rethug’s mission statement.