The RNC elected its first African American Chair today, as Maryland’s former Lt. Governor Michael Steele edged out Katon Dawson for the position.
The bio of Michael Steele proves that he is qualified for the position, and will be a very good asset for the RNC. He was likely the most moderate of the candidates running for RNC chair, which will certainly help the RNC in their strategy to keep conservative values, while remaining current in today’s cultural evolution. Among Steele having government experience in Maryland, a Blue state historically, Steele is also an advocate for Affirmative Action (BINGO, like him already).
While this is a great moment in history, I can’t help but wonder about the motives of the RNC as to why they would vote in Steele. My first reaction was “OK, he is not Obama so why is the RNC trying to follow in the footsteps of our current victory?” Besides the fact that Steele is indeed a stand-up guy and I feel he is truly competent and qualified for the position, my concern is with the others in the room. Does anyone else reading this feel like the RNC found some sick way to equate Change with Black? This may be a deep question, but I’m serious. They tried it at first (and FAILED) when they thought having a woman VP candidate (Palin) would help bring votes. Now that Obama is in office, has the RNC gone to the tactic of fighting fire with fire? The RNC is mistaken if they believe that having a Black leader will bring them victory in the next election, and I hope they are ready for the Change that they are about to experience. While it is a wise choice, and I favor the choice, I think it might be Palin-esque in nature. The difference is, he actually WON!
Looking at some of his comments, its natural to feel as if the RNC is looking for Steele to be the Repulican’s Obama. Steele promises that the RNC will be “moved into the grass-roots,” hoping for fresh ideas from state parties. Who does that sound like? Obama is the King of grass-roots, and “fresh ideas” sound alot like Change to me. I think that anyone who would have won the RNC chair position would have said the same thing however… anyone with an ounce of sense would want to try to do what Obama’s camp did in during the campaign.. it only makes sense.
Contrary to what you may believe, I’m not a hardcore Democrat, and I am actually very excited for the RNC because their decision will lead to change among those that aren’t too enthused about the change that President Obama hopes for. I wonder what Rush Limbaugh thinks about this? He wants Obama to fail (many people took this way out of context) but now, since a Black man is leading Limbaugh’s party affiliation, how much more now will he have to watch what he says? Limbaugh wants to have this stigma that he is super conservative, but how conservative can the RNC be now that a moderate Black Republican is running the show?
Also, how will this effect those Republicans (and Democrats) who wouldn’t vote for President Obama simply because of his race? Will they support their party now that its being led by someone of the same race of Obama? If nothing else, I am super excited that many Americans will now have to face their misconceptions (or as Bush says, their misunderestimations) about race and political affiliation. — Yet another aspect of CHANGE in America
Also, for those Black Republicans who were closet Obama voters… what will happen to all of you? There is a point in a decision where emotion and logic conflict, so do you support your President for a second term (especially when you all know you voted for him), or do you go hardcore with your party affiliation now that someone who looks like you is the leader?
I congratulate the author of the phrase “Drill, Baby Drill” from the 2008 Convention, and I hope that you leave an epic and everlasting impact on the Republican Party. Too bad I will be campaigning against you in 2012! Obama 2012!!