Michael Steele Becomes First Black RNC Chairman

by Liz Sidoto - January 31st, 2009 - Yahoo! News

The Republican Party chose the first black national chairman in its history Friday, just shy of three months after the nation elected a Democrat as the first African-American president. The choice marked no less than "the dawn of a new party," declared the new GOP chairman, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. Republicans chose Steele over four other candidates, including former President George W. Bush's hand-picked GOP chief, who bowed out declaring, "Obviously the winds of change are blowing."

I like Michael Steele. During my involvement in running against G.K. Butterfield for Congress, I met Michael at numerous campaign events. I was always impressed with him. He is an articulate, intelligent, likable yet macho guy. He reminded me of John Wayne.

However I am troubled by the number of people who call Michael a moderate. What does that mean?

In our discussions of issues I never found him to be that moderate. More practical and open to new concepts than many in the party, he still seemed to me to always be a solid libertarian-conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. In contrast, I think any intellectual discussion of George W. Bush's domestic policies would have to find Bush a big government socialist. Yet the press always labelled Bush as extreme right wing. At least one obvious reaction to the Bush label is that whoever is doing the labelling in the press really does not have a clue.

However I don't believe a few single issue focused discussions like the ones I had with Michael can give you broad insight into someones overall views you really need to know them well, so Michael Steele makes me nervous. Actually Michael doesn't make me nervous, but the insistence by so many that he is "moderate" does. I am not a moderate and do not think moderates are prepared to defend liberty and individual freedom as vigorously as we need it defended at this critical point in our history.

Michael certainly made me angry with his initial comments on Barack Obama's Presidency. A couple of left of center (but not extreme) appointments seemed to satisfy Michael that Obama was not himself extreme. Has Michael not read anything about the Saul Alinsky method of using democracy to create a socialist state by deception and deceit? Does he really think that a man who taught this method would not use it to con his adversaries? It seemed to me that Michael was conned by Obama.

This initial tendency to be gulled by Obama does not make me feel comfortable that Michael is the man we need leading the battle to rid our party of the George W. Bush socialism. It concerns me that Michael may not understand the key issues America faces in the coming years. It concerns me that we are doomed to have two socialist parties dominating America.

If that is where Michael is leading, this was a horrible choice.