The Big Question: Should the RNC chairman stay or go?

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Should Michael Steele resign as GOP chairman after his comments about the Afghanistan war?

Background reading here.

Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said:
Most people who’ve met Steele like him personally, but he long ago eliminated the possibility of a second term as RNC chairman when the current one expires in January, even if the GOP scores a landslide in November. The Afghanistan comments just underscore it. Barring further major controversies, it’s too messy to remove him now — or that seems to be the conclusion reached by Republican honchos. Anyway, most donors have long since decided to send their money to other GOP committees, not the RNC.


Alan Abramowitz, professor of Political Science at Emory University, said:
I suspect he’s going to have to resign, but what he’s really guilty of is spreading vicious truths.

Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog Contributor, said:
Not so much for his off the cuff and misguided comments as a new commander takes over — it's a free country —  but because the times have changed so radically since he took the job. More than 40 percent of young conservatives today support Ron Paul and Hayek has replaced Paul Krugman on the best seller list. The Tea Parties have advanced state sovereignty initiatives in almost 40 states, and some are quite sophisticated. More relevant today than the division between Democrat and Republican is the newer division between two paths of conservatism. Only Sarah Palin could support Rand Paul and Jan Brewer and Carly Fiorina and make it all fit together. She is the relevant politician of our day. She should replace Steele.


Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:
Michael Steele should absolutely not resign. The same neocons who led the GOP down the road to an Iraqi quagmire, record deficits and electoral defeat are now demanding that Steele resign. This has it backward: People like Bill Kristol, based on their record of having been consistently and utterly wrong about everything, should take a vow of silence.

Steele is right about Afghanistan: The fate of the old Soviet Union, and the big role played their invasion of Afghanistan in the unraveling of Soviet power, ought to be a lesson to us. This is a war we cannot win — and bankrupt nations (such as the U.S.) would do well to tend to their own problems rather than try to "nation build" thousands of miles away. Yes, we were attacked on 9/11 — but our attackers have long since left Afghanistan for greener pastures. To keep up the pretense that we are fighitng over there so they don't come over here is crazy: How many more decades must we occupy Afghanistan before we can claim "victory"? Two? Three? A century?


Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:
Steele only got chosen to begin with to put some token color into the Grand Old after the Obama landslide. With Obama in the toilet, the Reps don’t need that charade anymore. But it would be criminal for Steele to be fired (oops, forced to resign) for saying one of the few honest things he has offered us. 

Hal Lewis, professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, said:
He should have resigned (or been kicked out) long before his comment about Afghanistan. He has always been a weak choice for that job and has the potential to be a disaster as the midterm elections approach. And no, this has nothing to do with the color of his skin.


A.B. Stoddard, associate editor and columnist at The Hill, said:
Michael Steele should listen to the voices in the GOP who have criticized his comments and ask himself whether he can continue to lead the Republican party at this pivotal moment. Are Republicans he respects urging him to step aside? Is Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) the only Republican backing him up after he incorrectly characterized the Afghanistan war as a war started by President Obama? Does Steele believe he has created a reservoir of good will in his tenure thus far as chairman of the Republican National Committee that would allow him to recover from this incident? Does Steele worry about becoming a constant distraction from the GOP message as the party positions itself for the upcoming midterm elections? Does Steele understand that he will remain a punching bag for Democrats and a poster child for Republican division if he stays in his job?
 
If Steele answers such questions he will have his answer.


John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:
It seems as though the Democrats are scratching around desperately trying to find some way to deflect attention away from the mounting failure in Afghanistan.  Michael Steele's comments have been seized upon for that reason.
 
What Steele said is substantially accurate.  The war in Afghanistan has become "Obama's war" because the president committed another 30,000 to the fray, and then sacked one general and replaced him with a favorite.  Also, Steele's comment about history not being on the side of any force that tries to subdue Afghanistan is correct.  Ask Russia how her troops fared after a decade of trying to conquer the country during the 1980s.  The Russians gave up and went home.
 
Rather than resign, Mr. Steele should attack the Obama policy even more intensely.  He would receive plaudits instead of brickbats from the American people if he would urge a cessation of the struggle and the return of the U.S. forces.  Even more plaudits would come his way if he urged that some of those troops be sent to our nation's southern border to do what the U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to do - "protect them (the states) against invasion."