By Michael Steele, on Thu Dec 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET
This morning on a teleconference moderated by LEVICK’s Michael W. Robinson, former White House special counsel Lanny Davis, and former chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele nominated “Simpson-Bowles” to be TIME Magazine’s Person of The Year.
Michael stated, “It reflects the bipartisanship the American people are looking for, and would hope will emerge in Washington. At least two individuals put information in front of the American people that challenges the status quo. I highly support that and have been an advocate of the value that Simpson-Bowles brings to the debate.”
Lanny added, “It is absolutely immoral to use credit cards to have our children pay for our debt. The one combination that won 60% in a bipartisan commission is Simpson-Bowles. This is a purple bipartisan moment. No political party has stepped up to the line. As TIME’S “Person of the Year,” this would be the moment to ask President Obama and Speaker Boehner to endorse this.”
Purple Nation Solutions is a D.C.-based strategic communications and public affairs firm founded by former White House special counsel and legal crisis management expert Lanny J. Davis and former RNC chairman, Lt. Gov. of Maryland Michael Steele. Situated in the heart of downtown Washington D.C., in proximity to Capitol Hill, the White House and federal regulatory agencies, we are a bipartisan, global, one-stop shop where law, media, and politics intersect.
LEVICK is the leading strategic communications firm that establishes and protects trust. LEVICK deploys uniquely qualified teams – armed with the instincts, influence, and experience needed to win your battles in an increasingly complex and challenging world.
By Michael Steele, on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
I was asked recently what lesson should the GOP have learned from the results of the 2012 presidential election. That’s easy: You can’t please everyone, but you sure can tick them all off at the same time!
Voters were not in the mood for petty political bickering or platitudes about “hope.” And they certainly weren’t in the mood for a conversation about “vaginal probes” or contraception. In fact, as the campaign dragged on they grew increasingly more skeptical of so called “political solutions” and even more negative about the direction the country was taking despite slight upticks in GDP and decreases in the unemployment rate. The most disturbing fact: more Americans now think their children will be worse off than they are.
These factors, among others, were intricate parts of a national debate that did not happen. Keep in mind, the stakes were already high due to the unceasing drag on the economy, the end of the Bush tax cuts, increasing tax rates vs. cutting tax loopholes. Consequently, the election results serve as an important lesson for both parties: for Democrats it’s time to stop blaming Bush and lead; and for Republicans it’s time for a reality check.
As I noted throughout the campaign, an overwhelming majority of voters sought answers and progress on the challenges we face, but Republicans found themselves preoccupied with amassing goo-gobs of cash instead and missed an important opportunity to use that cash to build on the successes of 2010 by communicating a message that was not bound by party lines. (To paraphrase my MSNBC colleague Chuck Todd after the election: “Republicans spent most of their time talking to themselves.”)
Consequently, voters were otherwise offered unprincipled drivel about nothing of much importance — that is, when we weren’t alienating African-Americans, Hispanics and anyone else who happened to get in the way of our talking to ourselves.
In my travels on behalf of federal, state and local candidates 2010, I saw a new generation of Republican leaders emerge who were serious about fiscal stewardship and who respected the opinions of those with whom they may not always agree. For example, then-candidates like New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina; or Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Bob McDonnell of Virginia reflected the communities they came from and spoke with clarity on the issues that mattered in the everyday lives of individuals and families.
They knew and expressed with authenticity that there is no magic formula, secret potion or handshake that will make the GOP more attractive to voters. It would require work. Honest, hard, often frustrating but always important work! And they were ready to do the hard work required of true leaders and they won — from New Mexico to South Carolina; New Jersey to Virginia — with a message that never compromised our principles but did demonstrate the true breath of the GOP’s tent and our commitment to strong families, a strong economy and a safe and secure community in which to live.
The Republican leadership forgot that and got spanked.
While the postmortems continue, the Grand Old Party must once again become the Party of Lincoln — The Grand Opportunity Party. The top-down puppet management of the Republican National Committee must recognize our strength does not rest in their special interests but rather in the interests of our grassroots; that it’s finally time to give way to those “Hip Hop” Republicans I talked about in 2009. And no, I’m not talking about (as I wasn’t then) dressing Sen. Mitch McConnell in some bling and a Pelle Pelle Throwback leather jacket. Rather, I’m talking about creating a state of mind within the GOP more reflective of America’s exciting and vibrant culture, as diverse as it is bold.
Read the rest of… Michael Steele: Opportunity Lost?
By Michael Steele, on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 8:20 AM ET
I am certain at some point during the past 18 months you found yourself feeling like that kid riding in the backseat of the family car on what is supposed to be the “great adventure” to “someplace special.” But the only thing you can muster after about 15 minutes is, “Are we there yet?” Well, kiddies, Tuesday night we arrived, and the trip that was Election 2012 was finally over.
When this journey started many of us had high hopes for an engaging battle of ideas, but what we got instead was more a battle of super PACs and their negative campaign ads. By the time of the first debate in early October, many voters were fed up and tuned out.
But a funny thing happened that night: President Obama finally got to meet Mitt Romney — not the caricature of the “rich white guy” or the plutocrat from, well, Pluto, but the husband and father, and the former governor of Massachusetts. It was this night, on the biggest stage of his political career, that Romney found his voice. He didn’t talk process or sound indifferent to the concerns of 47 percent of Americans, nor did he concern himself with the misdirection and bright shiny objects offered up by Democrats (e.g. campaign ads) but instead, looked every voter in the eye and talked to us with specifics and reminded us that we are not better off just because “it could be worse.”
Read the rest of… Michael Steele: Are We There Yet, GOP?
By Michael Steele, on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET
Contributing RP Michael Steele, Former Democratic Senator from Arkansas Blanche Lincoln and USA Today’s Susan Page talk about where President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are Tuesday and how Hurricane Sandy could impact the last week before the election:
Contributing RP, and former Republican National Chairman, Michael Steele, reported on the past weeks’ political conventions in an interview with John Stewart on his prestigious “Daily Show.” Watch it here:
By Patrick Derocher, on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM ET
Appearing on Tampa’s NewsChannel 8, former Republican Party chairman Michael Steele referred to his party’s convention plank on abortion as “way outside” the country’s mainstream thought on that matter. This comes in the wake of a Republican backlash against Rep. Todd Akin after controversial comments on abortion last week. [POLITICO]
By Michael Steele, on Mon Aug 13, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
Mitt Romney’s vice presidential selection was on its face a very good one—solid, strong and perhaps riskier than it needed to be. Less a “bold choice” (sorry Bill Kristol) and certainly not a “maverick pick” the choice of Paul Ryan was, at least for Mitt Romney, appropriate. For months, Romney and his campaign were beset by pundits, Establishment types and wannabe prognosticators divining who he would or should pick. From safe to out-of-the-box, names were all over the place; an no name wasn’t good enough to suggest (Kim Kardashian. Really?). But in the end Mitt knew what he wanted—he wanted it all! And in Paul Ryan he gets a little Rob Portman and Bobby Jindal (policy wonk), Tim Pawlenty (GOP grassroots, Sam’s Club Republicanism) and even Marco Rubio (Tea Party appeal).
Just as significant is that Romney, by choosing Ryan, has clearly decided to reset the narrative in his race with President Obama. And here’s where the wheels can come off pretty quick. For the past 4 months or so, the Romney campaign has argued, pushed and even distorted the facts to make the point that this election is a referendum on the Obama years. Sure Obama was dealt a bad set of cards, the argument goes, but leadership—especially presidential leadership is about what you do with the cards you are dealt. For Romney, the president just didn’t know how to play his hand. But in selecting Paul Ryan, Mitt has given the president a new set of cards.
Starting now, this race is no longer a referendum on Obama but rather a choice between Obama (“Status Quo Liberalism”) and Romney (“Reform Conservatism”). It appears the Romney-Ryan campaign is ready to make this argument and the Obama-Biden campaign can’t wait for it. In addition to jobs and the economy Romney now wants a broader debate about big ideas and even bigger policies, hence the Ryan selection, and is counting on Paul Ryan’s smarts and bookish charms to dissect Obama and Biden. But Paul Ryan and his budget have also given the president an opportunity to make the race not just about Bain Capital and Romney’s tax returns (you really didn’t expect them to give those up, did you?) but also about a return to “trickle-down economics” and “ending [fill in the blank] as we know it,” claims Republicans at least up to now have not been able to respond to effectively.
And in an ironic political twist, both campaigns are happy with this pick (at least for the moment). Republicans (especially conservatives) are excited to know a budget hawk would be a heartbeat away from the oval office; and Democrats are smiling like Cheshire cats because a budget hawk is a heartbeat away from Mitt Romney.
But all of this excitement about Paul Ryan being picked reminds me of the Jeff Goldblum quote from the Lost World: Jurassic Park in responding to how excited everyone was to be at Jurassic Park: “That’s how it always starts. Then later there’s running and screaming.”
A bipartisan group of senators and political strategists are pressing for a national presidential debate on the Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan.
The new effort is aimed at highlighting the nation’s grim fiscal outlook and forcing President Obama and Mitt Romney to provide specific solutions to tackle the nation’s record debt. Neither Obama nor his GOP rival has embraced the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson commission.
In a letter released Wednesday morning, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) called on the Commission on Presidential Debates to address the national debt this fall.
“Specifically, we request that you ask the presidential candidates which of the recommendations of the [Bowles-Simpson proposal] they would adopt as part of their plan to reduce the deficit. As part of this discussion, we believe that it would be essential to engage the candidates in a detailed discussion of their priorities for tax and entitlement reform,” the letter from the four senators states.
Three presidential debates have been scheduled: Oct. 3 on domestic policy; Oct. 16 town hall on foreign and domestic policy; and Oct. 22 on foreign policy. The vice presidential debate will occur on Oct. 11.
All four senators who signed the letter have demonstrated an interest in deficit-reduction deals during this Congress. Chambliss was a major player in the so-called Gang of Six, which unsuccessfully sought to craft a deal based on Bowles-Simpson.
A bipartisan group of political heavyweights on Wednesday night echoed the senators’ concerns in a letter sent to the Frank Farenkopf and Mike McCurry, co-chairmen of the Commission on Presidential Debates. The signers included former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, ex-Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), former White House special counsel Lanny Davis and former Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). (Davis and Gregg are columnists for The Hill.)
But it is the donations to the “super PACs” that have whipped Democrats into a frenzy and spurred the news media to turn their spotlight on the growing role and influence of these PACs and the individuals who fund their activities.
Such big donations lead some politicians and pundits to paint super PAC donors as nefarious agents corrupting the political process. The political left has especially been critical of the role that these organizations and their donors play since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens Unitedv. Federal Election Commission in 2010.
Specifically, the high court ruled that “the Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity.” In other words, PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions and corporations (both for-profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures for “express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes.” Citizens United essentially ensured that corporations would have the right to free speech, just as the unions were enjoying.
The Supreme Court gave little credence to the government’s argument that the First Amendment does not cover corporations because they are not “persons.” Corporations are, after all, the court would note, just “associations of people,” and the First Amendment should protect their right to petition the government.
That being said, most donations to super PACs have come not from corporations but from the wealthy individuals who run them. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top 100 individual super PAC donors in 2011-12 made up just 3.7 percent of contributors but accounted for more than 80 percent of the total money raised.
Given that labor-union political activities and money favoring Democrats had previously been dominant in federal campaigns, it is interesting to hear the screams of indignation now that Republican-leaning corporate moguls are stepping up their political and financial support.
Of course, super PACs are being criticized specifically for engaging in heavily negative campaign advertising. Yet, like them or not, such attack ads often work to drive up the negatives of opponents. Ironically, despite calls for less negative campaigning by the presidential candidates as well as their respective super PACs, research early in the 2012 campaign indicated that most voters found negative advertising informative and that candidates benefited from negative advertising sponsored by PACs.
The Citizens United case and its aftermath, however, have nothing to do with the fact that the campaign-finance-reform law passed by Congress and from which the Citizens United case was born woefully neglected to include an effective donor-reporting mechanism that could have been an adequate check on the mega-donations made to such PACs. Simply put: Congress should have written full disclosure into the law.
By January 2010, though, at least 38 states and the federal government had come around to requiring disclosure for all or some independent expenditures or election communications — stipulations intended to deter potentially corrupting donations. Yet, despite these laws, many voters go to the polls not knowing who funded those political commercials running incessantly for the past three weeks. In fact, in federal elections, PACs have the option of filing reports on a monthly or quarterly basis, which often means that funds are collected and spent long before the legal filing disclosure is required.
Read the rest of… Michael Steele: What’s So Bad About Super PAC-Men?
Lanny added, “It is absolutely immoral to use credit cards to have our children pay for our debt. The one combination that won 60% in a bipartisan commission is Simpson-Bowles. This is a purple bipartisan moment. No political party has stepped up to the line. As TIME’S “Person of the Year,” this would be the moment to ask President Obama and Speaker Boehner to endorse this.”
