The Case Against Michael Steele for RNC Chair

Prominent conservative blogger Robert Bluey makes the case against Michael Steele over at RedState.

As this race for the future of the GOP heats up, it occurs to me that Steele's image has been harmed -- not helped -- by this run for RNC chairman. This sometimes happens. While some candidates (think Mike Huckabee) benefit greatly from running for office (even when they lose), other candidates (think Jim Gilmore) actually harm their reputations.

In that regard, Michael Steele has, thus far, resembled Gilmore more than Huckabee.

I have a theory as to why this has happened: As long as Michael Steele was running for office in Maryland, conservatives would bite their tongue about his questionable political philosophy. After all, they reasoned, he was clearly better than the liberal Democrats running against him.

Steele's mistake, in my estimation, was in believing this conservative support was transferable to a national race. It was not.

What is more, the entrance of former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (the other African-American running) demonstrated a clear contrast to Steele. Blackwell has for years been a movement conservative, and sits on the boards of numerous fiscal and social conservative organizations.

Of course, as Bluey documents in his post, competence issues and staffing decisions have plagued Steele as well as ideological concerns, but it is probably fair to say he has been most harmed by his affiliation with liberal or moderate Republican groups.

Note: I should probably also mention that Robert Bluey and I are both supporting Ken Blackwell for RNC chairman. While I mention this for purposes of disclosure, the fact that two youngish conservative bloggers are supporting Blackwell is probably also indicative of Steele's problems in this race ...