Posted on 11/10/2008 2:46:59 PM PST by BAW
A battle to take the reins of the Republican National Committee is taking off between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Maryland Lieutenant Gov. Michael Steele.
Republicans close to each man say they are intent on ousting Mike Duncan when his tenure ends in January and to insert themselves to articulate a counter-agenda to President-elect Barack Obama´s administration.
A bevy of backers for each man, neither of whom is an RNC member, have been burning up the phone lines and firing off e-mails as they try to sway the 168 RNC members in the wake of the second consecutive drubbing of Republicans at the polls.
"The Republican National Committee has to ask itself if it wants someone who has successfully led a revolution," Randy Evans, Gingrich confidante and personal attorney based in Atlanta, told The Washington Times on Monday.
Neither man seems inclined to give way to the other.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
They should both do it. Co-chair.
Or one of them can do it. Either one.
Or someone else equally as good as either of them could do it.
I think ... that would ... be the extent of the options.
I’d be more inclined for Steele than Newt. Newt went soft somewhere and got on the global warming bandwagon. He lost my respect when he did that.
We need new blood and Steele would be just fine. If he needs help with strategy, then he could possibly ask Newt for some advice.
Didn’t Newt go along with the man made global warming hoax??
I can’t get the picture of him on the bench with Pelosi out of my head.
Yep. Even did ads sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi
Steele yes, Gingrich no.
Newt quit. Like the Military, you are free to resign your commission but once you do you may never return.
He was re-elected but under fire for losing seats in the house. Instead of relinquishing his speakership but remaining in the House, he decided that if he couldn’t be Speaker, he wouldn’t play at all.
Fine, you quit. Don’t come back.
I see your point, however, you know that all of those issues are going to be on the agenda. If Newt is RNC chair, he will lean toward supporting the Democrats. One problem we had with the election is the illegals voting.
This is win-win, IMO. Both would be pretty good, although I lean towards Newt, just for his understanding of supermajority issues.
Either one of them would be a lot better than what we’ve had for the past eight years.
I also saw Fred Thompson mentioned again. He would be good, too, if there’s any chance he might take it.
Any one of those three would be a hundred times better than the current leadership.
I love ‘em both but Steele would put up a better appearance against his Highness.
It would be great if Steele could use and articulate Newt’s strategery on regaining power.
Either one would be good but Michael Steele is a fresh face.
“Steele could also criticize Obama without worrying about the “racist!” retort.”
I wonder if Steele would make a better surrogate then. It’s usually the surrogates that get down and dirty. Maybe Steele could capture a national office and then be a surrogate mouthpiece for the RNC. Wow, wouldn’t THAT be something!
Either would be good, but I’d rather see Newt chairing the RNC, and Steele in the Senate, as somebody else suggested.
Maryland...
” Newt went soft somewhere and got on the global warming bandwagon.”
Horse pucky... Global warming or global heating is not a political issue. Honest experts on both sides disagree about it.
Also, I think it would be much harder for the MSM to ignore Steele. The MSM already has fodder against Newt (whether true or not). They would be too afraid to ignore Steele. We HAVE to think about the PR, not just pure principals.
I prefer Steele.
I’d be thrilled with either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.