Thursday, July 8, 2010

Should Steele resign, would Palin be "improvement?"

With Michael Steele fending off demands from within his own party to resign as head of the GOP, several conservative members of the Republican Party are hoping a popular name among their ranks will take his place: former one-half term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Ridiculous as this may seem, it's not entirely an impossible scenario: even moderate Republicans across the nation have begun seeking out the endorsements of local Tea Party organizations, hoping to stave off possible usurpations of their seats through primary challenges of more conservative candidates.

Many may wonder (some like myself out loud): would a Palin-led GOP be a hindrance for Democrats, or a blessing in disguise? Many liberals may see her rise to power as threatening, brooding a potential presidential run for 2012 against Barack Obama.

But on the other hand, with Palin's polling numbers moving lower and lower as the public learns more about her, a Sarah Palin-led Republican Party might actually do more harm to the beleaguered GOP, causing the public to shift their support even more towards the Democratic Party.

So here I stand, conflicted: do I hope for Steele to stay in place, sure that his gaffes will continue coming and hoping that his remaining in place will prevent Palin from taking over a position of authority once more? Or do I hope that Steele relinquishes his post, that Palin takes over, and makes a bigger embarrassment of herself -- and her party in the process?

Is it too much to hope that neither happens -- that, perhaps Steele does resign, but that a reasonable, more balanced leader takes his place, who will lead the Republican Party away from such extremist views?

No comments:

Post a Comment