I cited elsewhere that my number #1 complaint about Martinez is that ANY sitting Senator, Congressmember (or Governor, for that matter) should not be considered.

This is an important and full-time job, and there is simply no way that Martinez can tend to his duties on the Senate floor and lead the RNC at a critical time leading up to the Presidential elections at the same time.

At least in the case of Mike Steele, he won't have an office to tend to starting in January.

The voters rejected Congress. We do not need a chairman from there

Martinez also committed a massive gaffe during the Terri Schiavo debate about leaking a staff memo, and I do not think we can risk another competency challenged national spokesman

I blog on politics and government in Prince George's County, MD, Michael Steele's home county. I am and have been for over 40 years a registered Republican in that county.

I like Michael Steele.

But his record suggests that he would be a lousy RNC chairman.

Before Steele became Lt. Gov., he was state party chairman, and before that he was county party chairman.

On his watch in those two positions, the combined county (executive and council) and state leglative positions in the county went from about 20% Republican to 0% Republican.

On his watch, the Republican Party failed to even field candidates for most of those positions. With one exception in 2002 (she lost), the few individuals who filed to run for office as Republicans received no support from the county and state parties. Most Republican candidates weren't even listed on the Republican sample ballots.

In my opinion, with the one exception of Gov. Ehrlich's campaign, Mr. Steele was abysmal failure when judged on his record in getting Republicans elected to office.

I don't understand why anyone, would expect him to succeed on a national level when he failed on the state and local level.

Martinez seems to be a stupid choice.

But Steele would not be a better choice. As I said, I like him, but the RNC needs someone who is likely to succeed, not someone who failed to perform when he was on a farm team.

You know I'll begin with a digression - it is interesting to see that this website (created under exodus from *olipundit.com - due to severe differences over issues) have no problem swiping enmass at those who disagree with them.

Yes we're more than happy to breath, thank you very much, but that really didn't answer any of our concerns now did it.

1) Cited above in comment 1 - we need someone focused SOLELY on our party. What did the DNC show us in '06 - they stayed completely focused for two years on getting the party back into power. We need someone who can have that focus.

2) Comment 2 - We need fresh faces and going back to the people who screwed up the Senate in the first place really isn't my top choice.

3) Ok here's what I love Steele didn't win (in an area where there are 800,000 - yes read that again - more registered democrats) and you go "see what a loser!". The fact he made it a race, and is an extremely personable face on the party is huge. Plus how much policy does the RNC chair make anyway? I'd like a public face that is personable and makes people go "wow party of a big tent". See redstate.com for how independents abandoned us this election - why NOT put on a more "big tent" face to the party.

But no, continue to just claim we're dumb for not recognizing he lost. We DO recognize he lost, but ran damn near the best GOP campaign all year. Yeah Allen was more conservative but he couldn't seem to find a good campaign if we gave him a map and a compass. Plus see point one - the fact he's freed up is a good thing.

4) Lastly, immigration. Ok sincere disagreement of opinion. I think the enforcement-first group lost the pr war (it isn't enforcement only - but we're painted as such) and I might be more of a softy on saying I'm fine with a guest worker program (if you really care nronik.blogspot.com - post on how South Park Underpants Gnomes illustrates the immigration problem: seriously not a plug but if you care you can look I just don't wish to take up comment space by rehashing my idea) - but it IS a huge issue. And considering the base is already upset with Bush on so many issues, sort of slapping them in the face going "yeah I know I ticked off...lets see 1) fiscal conservatives 2) small government conservatives 3) GOP in general with not firing Rummy before the election...lets see if I can't show that I'm going to go with my pet immigration plan no matter what the base said in the election." So much for listening to the will of the people.

And here perception is important. Yes Graff lost in AZ and I do conceded that there is no good plan of simply putting up a fence and going "done" (nor do I think that has been my opinion on it at any rate). However, since Bush has worried us with squishyness lately, doing something like this just goes "well good! Finally got rid of those House GOPers that were giving me so many headaches." This just makes it appear he'll give up another aspect of the base on an issue he finds important.

So for a number of reasons this is a bad call. Simply calling us fools for talking about it, and saying we should just breath and sit in a corner like we're children until you adults figure out the proper political strategy is extremely patronizing and quite below the level of commentary this site usually provides.

I disagree with Martinez on immigration, but I object to him as RNC head because he is a lousy politician. He ran six points behind Bush in Florida in 04, and since being in office has shown no skill with the media, his constituents or his peers. As Bush is fond of saying, "He has a great story" but other than that, what positive case can be made for him?

And I very much feel that his selection is an extended middle finger from the President to the conservatives in the party. Maybe he feels we deserve it. Maybe he's right. But then again...maybe if the GOP had governed as conservatives, they wouldn't have gotten thrown out of office.

Rob:

I digress, but this site was here before "The Incident" at the other site. It's just that Kevin was wise enough to bring three of the four victims of Poli's temper tantrum (after AKM's short tenure at Redstate and Jayson's apparent retirement from the blogosphere).

As for the bloggers mad at the Martinez pick, while I love blogging and read them for much of my news, I recall a line from Rush a few weeks ago directed at bloggers (and I forget it verbatim, but I do remember the paraphrase) which consisted of "who died and made you king?" These same bloggers mad now were/are the same ones *cough*Malkin*cough* who were in favor of sitting out.

Rob--steele "made it a race" in terms of the blog view, but he lost by double digits--I'm not even sure if that puts him ahead of bush in '00 or '04.

I do not like the fact that Martinez said he is not going to be an attack dog for the RNC what kind of statement is that? If not he then who? Are we going to continue to be prim and proper and have the nasty DNC lie and get away with it. I believe in reasoned argument as much as the next guy however that did not work for Allen or Santorum they painted them as bad for America when the reality was they were great for America we need an attack dog who is not afraid to get down in the ditches and sling the mud.