Michael Steele

Michael Steele is a contender for the RNC Chair. He has an extremely impressive resume and he is saying all the right things.

First, the resume. Steele is a lawyer in private life, specializing in business law. A former chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, Steele became Lt. Governor of Maryland in 2002. He made an unsuccessful run for US Senate in 2006, and in 2007 became the chairman of GOPAC. Other political activities include being a co-chair for the Republican Leadership Committee, and a senior advisor to GROWpac and a member of the RNC. He is also on the Administrative Board of the Maryland Catholic Conference.

When you look at Steele’s resume it is clear that he is definitely worthy of consideration for RNC chair. Business and law make up a large part of politics, he has the experience. He has the party experience, and he has worked with Republican PACS and been on the RNC, so he definitely has experience as far as promoting the Republican Party. He was a Lt. Governor and though he failed to gain a Senate seat he still had the experience of running, so he knows what goes into campaigning and governing.

All together you would say that Steele would be a good pick for RNC Chair. However, there is something that bother’s me about this guy.

I get the feeling that Steele is more about image than he is about substance. Don’t get me wrong, Steele obviously brings a great deal to the table, but I feel that in regards to his bid for RNC Chair Steele has crafted the image he thinks will gain him victory.

Why do I feel this way?

1)Steele’s GOPAC bio doesn’t mention his failed Senate campaign. Running for Senate is a big deal and something I feel is worthy of mention in a biography. I speculate that Steele thinks this defeat would be perceived as a negative, so he isn’t talking about it.

2)Steele’s bio fails to mention that he was a co-chair to the Republican Leadership Committee. The RLC is a PAC that promotes moderate Republicans. My belief is that Steele thinks his affiliation with the RLC would be perceived as a negative by conservatives, so he isn’t talking about it. I think this is a shame. Ideological conflicts between moderate and conservative Republicans need to be addressed for the overall good of the Republican Party.

3)In his bio on the GOPAC website, Steele is described as "An expert on political strategy, fund-raising, PACs, and election reform." While Steele might be considered an "expert" in that he is experienced, I’m not sure that in his PAC work he has really been exceptionally effective.

4)GROWPAC does not seem to exist anymore. I can’t find much information about this PAC, but it seems to have come into existence in 1998 and was originally called the "American Renewal Pac FKA-Black Congressional Fund. According to opensecrets.org it distributed $34,750 for House Republicans and $3000 for Senate Republicans in 2002, but by 2004 the organization had virtually no income or expenditures, and nothing at all by 2006. It’s receipts in 1998 were $320,000, in 2000 were $1, 037, 710, in 2002 were $847, 083, and 2004 were a measly $74.

I am going to assume that the purpose of this PAC was to support African American Republicans for Congress, that has not been a very successful effort. That this PAC no longer seems active also attests that while this PAC did very well for a while it was ultimately abandoned as unsuccessful.

I consider it to be a shame that GROWPAC failed. Steele is African-American, and I get the feeling that many people think that putting an African-American as head of the RNC would be a good move towards the GOP gaining more of the Black vote. They might be right. However, I think a better effort to win Black voters would be for their to be more Black Republican candidates overall, and making that happen seems to have been GROWPACs purpose. Putting one African-American in a high position would be seen as a token appointment, and I sincerely hope that people aren’t just supporting Steele because of his race. One appointment would be considered as token, but many Black candidates would be seen as the legitimate effort that it would be. The problem is that the RNC can’t support Black candidates over White candidates any more than it could get away with supporting White over Black. GROWPAC or something like it needs to be revived.

5)What exactly is GOPAC?

To be the Chairman of GOPAC sounds very prestigious, but that would depend upon what GOPAC is and what they do. Being in charge of GOPAC is only a big deal if GOPAC is a big deal.

Some raw information and opinion:

According to a wikipedia article, Steele said that regarding GOPAC, "it will soon be back as the powerful force it once was under Newt Gingrich."

GOPAC commissioned a post-election study from The Tarrance Group, a political consulting firm. The Tarrance Group also mentions GOPAC on the home page of their website.

Many of the Tarrance Group winning candidates were also endorsed candidates of the moderate Republican PAC, the Republican Leadership Committee.

Steele seems to be working with Gov. Tim Pawlenty. At the Republican Governors Association, Pawlenty made an effort to steal the spotlight from Gov. Palin, presumably to promote himself for a bid for the Republican nomination for President in 2012.

In a Nov. 7, 2008 piece by Jonathan Martin in the Politico, "GOPAC plans look back, look ahead," mentions that GOPAC commissioned the Tarrance Group to survey voters views of the GOP and release the findings to the media. The piece also mentions that the Tarrance Group worked for the campaigns of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

In a Dec. 11, 2008 piece by Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal, "How the GOP should prepare for a comeback," says regarding GOPAC, "It needs to be revitalized, or it’s original mission taken up by a fresh group." It’s a pretty inciteful piece, I include the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122895587373896541.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

According to opensecrets.org, in 2008 GOPAC America had $151,375 in receipts and $126,678 in expenditures. I find these expenditures quite intriguing they are in part:

INFOCISION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION $40,696 These were for fundraising

phone calls. I don’t know what exactly they were raising funds for, but considering that this was GOPAC’s largest expense, I hope they took in more than they spent.

COMPLIANCE CONSULTING COMPANY OF VA LLC $11,231 This was for political consulting. The question is raised, if Steele is an expert, why the need for political consultants?

Not counting Steele, McCain, or Coleman, this is a record of 5 wins and 6 losses. That is nothing to brag about, and certainly nothing to base a campaign for RNC Chair. Also consider that in political terms the $151,375 is chicken feed, especially when it is spread out to different campaigns.

The very odd thing is that GOPAC isn’t supposed to focus on federal campaigns, it is supposed to focus on state and local campaigns, and on training Republican leaders. Looking at the GOPAC website, I’m not so sure that these efforts are going very well.

As far as candidates I see two candidates under "candidate spotlight," and 29 under "past candidate spotlight." I don’t care about past candidates, and 2 current candidates aren’t very many. As far as education, I don’t see anything the website that a candidate couldn’t get from their local Republican Party.

The data suggests some questions.

1)Steele and GOPAC have a great deal of interaction with political consultants, the experts who are paid to tell politicians what they should do to win votes. What if the "experts" are promoting Steele because he is the person they want rather than the right person for the job. Considering that the Tarrance Group also worked for McCain and Giuliani, can their expert opinion be considered to have much merit? Aside from GOPAC, the Tarrance Group has a very large number of Republican clients. How much influence do consultants have over the Republican Party as a whole, and considering that consulting is a business, can this influence be purchased?

2)Considering that Steele and Pawlenty seem to be in cahoots, and that Pawlenty seems to be a rival for Sarah Palin’s spotlight, and that the Tarrance Group seems to have many moderate Republican clients, it there an organized effort to exclude social/religious conservatives from influence in the Republican Party?

Now some speculation.

I think that GOPAC wasn’t a big deal before Steele took it over, and I don’t think it’s a big deal now.

I think that Steele took the Chairmanship of GOPAC primarily for self-promotion. It was once run by Newt Gingrich, that is a good name to be associated with.

I think that a lot of people know that GOPAC is no big deal, but they are giving Steele a pass and not objecting when he is continually referred to as the "Chairman of GOPAC."

I think that Steele has been getting so much exposure because he is the insider party pick to be RNC Chair. I think the decision has already been made and all we are waiting on is for the vote to make it official. I don’t know who made the decision, or why, or how they will be able to transform their desire into reality, but I feel like it’s coming.

I could be wrong. We’ll have to wait and see. Even if GOPAC is a minor PAC and Steele is being promoted by insiders, that does not mean that he wouldn’t be as good a Chairman as anyone else. The problem is that we just don’t know, and outside the 168 members of the RNC, Republican voters have no say in the process.