The Republican Party seems poised to have the greatest victory in November’s Mid-term National Elections since General Custer said, “Hey.  Would you look at all those Indians?”

That is, if their own “Beltway Squishiness” does not turn the whole country against them.

“Squish” is a term given by Conservatives to those who claim to be a Reagan Conservative, but whose actions reveal them to be at best ambivalent, and, at worst, Liberal imposters. For instance, like a certain noted national politician, popular in the Northeast, who is a Reagan Conservative one day, and a nanny-stater the next.  But, hey, he does have very nice hair.

Take the curious case of the Republican National Chairman, Michael Steele.  Known for his seemingly Conservative punditry on Fox News, the former Maryland Lt. Governor gained his present position on January 31, 2009, after 6 contentious rounds of voting within the leadership of the party.

While he campaigned for the position, Steele tried to negate suspicions that he was too moderate to lead the party because he came from a Democrat-controlled state.  He was also a former member of the Republican Leadership Council, a group that sought to curb the influence of “social”  conservatives in the party.

The race for the chairmanship came down to a choice on the final ballot between Steele and Katon Dawson, the South Carolina GOP chairman who secured strong support from party insiders after former RNC leader Mike Duncan dropped out of the race earlier in the day.   

Steele won on the sixth ballot, winning 91 votes to Dawson’s 77.

Since becoming chairman, Steel has been the face of the Republican Party, garnering more time on camera than the politicians of the political party he chairs, much to their irritation.

The first week of this year, Michael Steel went out on a tour to promote his new book, “Right Now:  A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda”.

 GOP lawmakers were so mad over Steele’s pronouncements on his book tour, including a prediction that Republicans will not win back the House and Senate in 2010 ( that was very supportive), that they had their aides give his aides a dressing down on a conference call.

One of Steele’s aides said at the time:

You really just have to get him to stop.  It’s too much.

Another aide said Steele was on “a Republican apology tour at the exact wrong time.” Yet another called Steele “unprepared and unknowledgeable” in interviews.  Steele’s camp says they had little control over his statements, as publicity for his book was handled by an outside firm, but were happy to report that he had softened his doom-and-gloom rhetoric. “Not this year” was spun into “playing to win.”

And now, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele finds himself under seige, trying to cope with the fallout over the holiday weekend concerning his clueless remarks claiming Afghanistan is a “war of Obama’s choosing,” which the United States never really “wanted to engage in.” 

Conservative pundits and GOP politicians were united on the Sunday talk shows in their condemnation of Steele’s remarks.  The politicians feverishly tried to distance themselves from the Republican Chairman by emphasizing their support for the escalating U.S. military campaign in the country while lambasting Steele for his “uninformed” statement.   Some said he should resign, one senator demanded and apologize to our Armed Forces, and at least one local GOP official wants to challenge Steele for his position.

This was the biggest backlash by his own party that Steele has ever experienced.  He has a reputation for going off script on touchy issues.   While he has lasted this long in his position and while Steele downplayed the backlash in a public statement Friday, behind the scenes he was actively trying to get all the support from GOP insiders that he could. 

One of the earliest to call for Steele’s head, Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the GOP chairman called him on Saturday to “persuade me that the remarks were taken out of context.” Kristol did not believe him, though he said they had a “long conversation” on the topic.  I bet.

Kristol said:

He’s a good guy.  He should be … a pundit on a million TV shows and he should give speeches. But he shouldn’t express the views he expressed as Republican chairman .  One thing as a Republican I think Republicans can be proud of is that we don’t politicize foreign wars. … And unfortunately, Michael Steele politicized this in a way that doesn’t reflect the view of the huge majority of Republicans. I think it would be better if he went. 

But hey, Mike, don’t worry.  You have a well-known political figure in your corner:  Ron Paul (R-Tex), perennial Presidential also-ran, isolationist extraordinaire, and favorite of tin-foil hat wearers everywhere, opined:

I would like to congratulate Michael Steele for his leadership on one of the most important issues of today. He is absolutely right: Afghanistan is now Obama’s war. During the 2008 campaign, Obama was out in front in insisting that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. Obama called for expanding the war even as he pretended to be a peace candidate.Michael Steele should not resign. Smart policies make smart politics. He is guiding the party in the right direction and we are on the verge of victory this fall. Chairman Steele should not back off. He is giving the country, especially young people, hope as he speaks truth about this war.

I have to ask myself, what is the agenda of the harsh critics demanding this resignation? Why do they support Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama’s war?

The American people are sick and tired spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year, draining our economy and straining our military. Michael Steele has it right and Republicans should stick by him.

Now, doesn’t that make you feel better, Mike?  Custer had the support of his Indian Scouts, and you have the support of Ron Paul.  What could go wrong?

Republicans had better get their collective act together immediately.  They are poised to make bigger political gains in both the Senate and the House than in the Mid-term Elections that brought us Newt Gingrich and the “Contract With America”.    Their choice is plain and simple:  run as Reagan Conservatives or embrace the squishiness that cost them the Presidency.

Sources:  foxnews.com, cnn.com, huffingtonpost.com