Should Michael Steele resign?

As I'm sure most of you have heard - Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the War in Afghanistan a "War of Obama's Choosing", and declared that his battleplan (which was originally designed by Bush) will fail. The Chairman should be resigning as I write this, and the RNC should hold an special meeting to elect a new Chairman, now.

Should Michael Steele Really Resign?

Yes, without a doubt. Whether our Chairman meant it or not, he's speaking like our Democratic counterparts did few years ago, who as you might remember - lambasted the War in Iraq on a continual basis. There's no room for that in the Grand Old Party in regards to Afghanistan.

Who Should Replace Steele?

The former Chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party - Katon Dawson; I supported this man during his run for RNC Chairman back in 2009, because he was a bold Conservative who, unlike our current Chairman, brought Blacks into the Republican Party, and actually had years of experience running something.

What about Sarah Palin?

This idea of Sarah Palin running the RNC, which has been floating across the Blogosphere, is just ridiculous. As Chairman you need to be able to represent the entire RNC, something Sarah Palin cannot do. As Chairman you need to be friends with the media, that Sarah Palin is not. And as Chairman, a focus on bringing in new faces is a continual challenge, and that's something Sarah Palin will not be able to do.

Consider advertising on our site!

Conventions do not impact the Voters.

Just read an article on Hot Air that reviewed the four cities that are being considered to host the 2012 Democratic Convention, and what impact a selection of any of those Cities might have on the Statewide electoral results come November of that year. And I must admit the entire article was a complete waste of my time.

Convention Cities do not impact the Voters of that State. Here are just a few recent examples to chew over for a few minutes:

1996 RNC - San Diego, California - GOP lost by 13%.
2000 RNC - Philly, Pennsylvania - GOP lost by 4%.
2004 RNC - New York, New York - GOP lost by 18%.
2008 RNC - St. Paul, Minnesota - GOP lost by 11%.

Republican attempts to expand our political horizons have failed for four consecutive Elections (1992 RNC was held in Texas, a safe state), while our Democratic counterparts have remained within safe quarters five consecutive Elections (1988 DNC was held in Georgia, hostile).

Republicans will be playing it safe in 2012, as the Convention will be held in warm Tampa Bay, Florida, while Democrats have to choose between Minneapolis, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Charlotte. Memo for any Democrat who considers Charlotte - attend at your risk.

It doesn't matter where the National Democrats hold their Convention - Americans just don't like or believe their shit anymore. Period.

Consider advertising on our site!

The voting has just begun!

Note : the following post is mainly directed towards Republicans.

My fellow Republicans, a few Conservative Republicans created a website for us the base of the party to share our thoughts on the upcoming RNC chairman election,
http://www.chooseyourchairman.com/
I believe we should all share our opinion on this subject, as anyone of these candidates could become the next chairman of the RNC, I personally voted for Chip Saltsman, and I encourage all Republicans who voted in this poll to post whom you voted for in the comment section of this post.

Thanks, have a great New Years!

Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:

NO Gingrich for RNC Chair

There's a lot of talk about who will become the RNC's next chair. I want to make sure that I put my foot down on this one: not Newt Gingrich. I like Michael Steele, so let me give a few points.

*Gingrich is best remembered for government strife.
*Gingrich cheated on his wife WITH CANCER!
*Gingrich was chased out of Congress as an embarrassment.
*Gingrich didn't even have the guts to run for the nomination.
*Gingrich is seen as a symbol of Republican obstinance and will hurt our 2010 chances.
*Gingrich wasn't even effective as Speaker.
*Where's the results from the 1994 Revolution.

Meanwhile
*Steele has executive experience.
*Steele can bring minority participation.
*Steele has no negative reputation.
*Frankly, Steele seems to have more common sense.