After news hit that Michael Steele had 'stepped in it,' in regards to comments he made about the war in Afghanistan, many are calling on him to resign his post as the Republican National Committee Chairman.
Personally, I take exception to what Mr. Steele said that has landed him in so much hot water. He tried to write off Afghanistan as another one of Obama's failure's. He said, "has he not understood that, you know, that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? Everyone who has tried, over 1,000 years of history, has failed."
That war is far from over and it did not start on Obama's watch. I do not think it is productive to try to score political points off the backs of our men and women in the military, the same way the left did under Bush. The goal is to win in Afghanistan, and to win as a nation regardless of who is occupying the White House at the time.
Whether or not Mr. Steele steps down or is asked to do so, is still up in the air. Now the internet is buzzing with speculation and suggestions. One topic I have seen talked about much is the possibility of Governor Palin taking over as the head of the RNC.
Most notably, in this snobbish post over at NRO by Kevin D. Williamson titled, "An Idea for the RNC: Dump Steele, Hire Palin"
I do! Not that I disagree that Palin would do a better job as the RNC Chair, but I happen to think she would make a great presidential candidate, and I happen to know for a fact that she is a fine "freelance kingmaker."
Re: Steele and the RNC: Allow me to chime in with my usual observation on this subject: This is a job for Sarah Palin. Palin would be a much better RNC chairman than presidential candidate or freelance kingmaker. She'd raise tons of money and help recruit good candidates, i.e., she'd excel at doing the things Steele should have been doing instead of appointing himself Republican pundit-at-large.
A Chairman Palin would help set the right tone for the Republican party without having to get herself entangled in the minutiae of policy-development, which has not been her forte. Sure, she'd be polarizing, but so is Barack Obama, and these are polarized times. And it's one thing to have a polarizing party chairman, another to have a polarizing candidate.
Mr. Williamson then goes on to say that while such a job for Governor Palin would be good due to her ability to raise money for them, it would keep her away from the "minutiae of policy-development" which he says "has not been her forte." Are you kidding me? What an utterly ignorant, yet typical response from a GOP establishment type. Perhaps Mr. Williamson is unfamiliar with Governor Palin's many public statements, both written and spoken in regards to all the issues facing this nation today, "minutiae" and all.
In fact, just last week she was praised by many, even within the GOP establishment for the recent speeches she has given. She posted the details of her fantastic appearance in Virginia to her Facebook page, if Mr. Williamson or anyone else from the establishment is interested in educating themselves on Governor Palin's actual positions. Feel free to check them out here, guys.
I have no idea what the future holds for the leadership of the RNC or Michael Steele. I also don't pretend to know what Sarah Palin would do if offered the position. That said, I do know that this has been another instance where GOP insiders have exposed themselves as willing to use Sarah Palin for fund-raising, yet downplaying who she is and what she stands for. The RNC is treading on thin ice right now. After years of selling out to positions supporting bigger government and more spending, the base has still not returned to the party in the numbers they should have. Treating Governor Palin with a lack of respect and an honest assessment of what she brings to the table will not help them any further. At this stage, I don't believe the RNC deserves Governor Palin's leadership, but that is just my opinion.
Update: Kathryn Jean Lopez also weighed in at NRO here