STEELE: I’ve been very supportive of gay rights activists… I do not support gay marriage because of my own religious tenets and my faith tradition, but at the same time I do believe in making sure that gay individuals have full privileges and benefits, whether it’s insurance and health and all the other things that couples would have in a relationship, and I would argue the same for heterosexual couples. I don’t understand why you have a man and a woman who live together for 7, 8, 10 years, whatever, why they can’t enjoy the same type of benefits.

Despite this concession, Steele did not back down from his point that many African Americans object to their own oppression being compared to the plight of the LGBT community. Listen to an excerpt from the interview:

In his discussion with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on MSNBC yesterday, The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart argued that African Americans might not fully understand the LGBT community’s struggles: “It’s an issue of whether — if I were to get married to my partner and we were to have children, that my children would have the same protections that your children have because you’re able to legally marry… In that regard, we’re talking overall [about] a civil rights issue and what African Americans continue to struggle with is exactly what lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are struggling with today.”

Suicide of a Superpower may have been more shocking because it pulled so many of Buchanan’s ideas into one place, but the concepts that Buchanan espoused on MSNBC and in his other writings for years were hardly a constructive part of the national conversation: my colleague Adam Peck’s detailed some of most shocking statements here. In 2006, he said that accusing then-Rep. Harold Ford of sexual laciviousness wasn’t racially coded because he “is a guy that likes Playboy bunnies. Almost all of them are white.” He suggested that then-Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rep. Nancy Pelosi were soft on inappropriate sexual advances towards Congressional pages because they’d marched in gay pride parades with the North American Man-Boy Love Association. On Chris Matthews’ show, Buchanan described immigration as a purposeful invasion of American soil. Off-network, he suggested that Anders Breivik, who committed last summer’s terrible terrorist attack in Norway may have been correct about the threat of a multi-cultural and multi-faith Europe.

In addition to being reprehensible, these ideas don’t display any sort of creative thinking or coherent worldview on policy or politics. They just represent an overarching fear of difference, and an attempt to legitimate ugly knee-jerk reactions. Even if you leave out the ugly conclusions Buchanan reached, it’s not clear why this quality of political thought and constant default to stereotype without analysis are valuable, worthy of not just the salary but the status that comes with a contributor position at MSNBC. Surely that money could have been spent elevating talented and creative thinkers for whom a slot on MSNBC would be a blessing, rather than Buchanan, who had his post by virtue of his run for president rather than any ongoing contributions. But then, when it comes to conservatives, perhaps Buchanan’s the best MSNBC could sign up given the competition from Fox News, which has a tendency to lock up conservative superstars quickly, leaving MSNBC to pick from the Michael Steeles of the wannabe conservative commentariat.

Buchanan’s tenure at MSNBC seems like a warning about trying to balance out a group of reasonable liberals with a single contributor or a small group of wildly conservative commentators. Maybe the virulence of his views was inoculate the network from demands that they bring on more conservative contributors. But that risk doesn’t seem worth it if it means keeping alive views after the American consensus rejected them. It would be unfortunate if MSNBC slowed that process by keeping Buchanan on the air for a decade even after the political mainstream recognized his ideas for what they were.

Steele appeared on MSNBC this afternoon where he elaborated on his criticism of Perry:

STEELE: We cannot be lackadaisical about these issues. We cannot be insensitive in that regard and say well just paint over it, because it still is a reminder of what’s beneath the paint. And I think again that’s what irks a lot of African Americans and a lot of minorities when it comes to how the Republican Party and sometimes its individual candidates respond to these types of things.

Watch it:

African-American GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain also criticized Perry, telling ABC News yesterday that the ranch name is “just plain insensitive towards a lot of black people in this country.”

These comments prompted a backlash from hawkish Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) over the weekend. Graham said on NBC’s Meet the Press, “If you think the pathway to the GOP nomination in 2012 is to get to Barack Obama’s left on Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, you’re gonna meet a lot of headwinds.” Similarly, ABC’s This Week, McCain criticized Romney’s drift toward a withdrawal position.

But the infighting within the Republican Party on Afghanistan doesn’t stop there. When asked about the leadership divide on Fox News this morning, RNC chairman Reince Priebus refused to take sides and wouldn’t even say whether or not he thinks the U.S. should begin a significant drawdown. “I’m not going get into the weeds on this issue,” he said. Yet over on MSNBC today, Priebus’s predecessor Michael Steele acknowledged that Americans are war weary and said that many Republicans have told him privately that the U.S. needs an endgame:

STEELE: Even at that time when I was getting slammed by the neocons in the party on this issue, I had a number of senators and congressman say “we agree with you but we can’t say anything because the republicans have hitched their wagons to this particular policy.” [...] I’m not an isolationist … particularly when it comes to protecting the interests of the American people but what is that interest we are protecting here? What is the upside for the cost that’s being expended right now? That is a legitimate question.

Watch it:

Nearly half of the GOP presidential candidates have called for some sort of with withdrawal, joining a growing chorus of Republicans in the Senate and the House who are calling for a winding down of the war. Given the diminishing support for continuing the conflict within the Democratic caucus, President Obama may have a tough time resisting pressure to draw down American involvement and maintain similar troops levels in the country as some military leaders have recommended.

– Sean Savett

Meanwhile, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has vocally called for Weiner’s resignation. But this has led many to questions if Priebus is exploiting the scandal for political gain by holding Weiner to a standard the GOP didn’t apply to their own members embroiled in scandal, especially Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) who admitted in 2007 to patronizing a prostitution ring. Vitter remains in the Senate to this day and easily won reelection in 2010. Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked Priebus about this double standard last night, but Priebus refused to address it and Van Susteren, not surprisingly, allowed him to evade the question:

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there a difference with Senator David Vitter, I mean, with the whole — with his whole little prostitution — he’s on a prostitution client list. Is that different?

PRIEBUS: Well, I don’t know if it’s different.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, nobody called –

PRIEBUS: Frankly, I’m not relitigating the David Vitter situation.

But even Priebus’s predecessor, former RNC Chairman Michael Steele, sees some “inconsistency” in Priebus’ acrimony, as he told MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow last night:

STEELE: It doesn’t matter if your name is Vitter or Weiner…[t]he consequences of breaking that trust should be equally applied. I heard what the chairman said today and thought it was a little bit not right. You can’t look at one case and say that this behavior warrants dismissal or you should quit, or look at another one that may be a degree or two more egregious and not see that same that requirement of removing yourself from office.

Watch a compilation of Priebus and Steele:

Unlike Pelosi, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did not call for a ethics investigation into Vitter, and remained largely silent on the scandal.

Vitter did, however, receive public support from fellow Louisiana Republicans. Realizing that the state’s Democratic governor would likely appoint a Democrat if Vitter resigned, the state GOP launched “a concerted push…to offer some support” for the embattled senator, the The New Oreleans Times Picyune reported at the time. Then-Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), who was in the midst of a successful bid for governor, issued a statement saying, “While we are disappointed by Senator Vitter’s actions…[t]his is a matter for the Senator to address, and it is our hope that this is not used by others for their own political gain.” Louisiana GOP Reps. Richard Baker and Charles Boustany issued their own “supportive statements,” with Baker saying Vitter’s illegal use of prostitution “does not define the whole of the man and it is not irredeemable.” He even urged to the news media to exercise “some restraint” when writing about the scandal.

Priebus is right to call for a high ethical standard for political leaders, but his indignation would ring less hollow if he applied the same standard to those in his own party as well.

But an increasingly isolated Gingrich has at least one defender on the right: former RNC Chairman Michael Steele. Appearing on CSPAN’s Washington Journal this morning, Steele said he “likes” Gingrich “very much” and defended the former House Speaker’s comments about Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) Medicare plan. Steele even suggested that some of Gingrich’s critics may be hypocritical, as many of them haven’t always supported the plan:

HOST: A lot of House Republicans and others in the party are sort of unhappy with him, what are your thoughts on that?

STEELE: Well, I think, I watched Newt respond to that since that interview. … And, you know, you could quibble with the words or whatever and I understand that, but what I think Newt was trying to say is that there are a broad range of budget plans and neither the right nor the left in extreme measures will be able to move with the American people in a new direction. That’s part of the debate. [...]

And keep in mind about the Ryan budget, a lot of the people that are sort of running around and trying to stir up a little cock fight about what Newt Gingrich said, a year a go were saying that the Ryan plan was not their plan. That it was Paul Ryan’s plan, not their plan. … What people don’t endorse today, they’ll endorse tomorrow.

Later in the program, a man called into the show asking why Steele, who is African American, was defending Gingrich after he recently made several racially-tinged comments. Steele again defended Gingrich, suggesting the comment in question was taken out of context. Watch it:

Indeed, before Ryan’s plan was the GOP budget, when it was his “Roadmap,” only 13 House Republicans signed on. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House Majority Leader Cantor (R-VA) “and others [in the GOP caucus] are not showing much eagerness to take up the roadmap’s specifics,” the National Review reported in January. Cantor, “like the others, is not championing the roadmap as the House GOP budget strategy.” Of course, the roadmap became the basis of the GOP budget strategy. This morning, Cantor said in a radio interview that Gingrich’s criticism of the Ryan Plan is wrong and that he is guilty of “tremendous misspeak.” Potential presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty also “explicitly declined to support” Roadmap.

Perhaps Steele is returning a favor. Gingrich came to Steele’s defense at a critical time early in Steele’s tenure at the RNC in 2009, when he was being criticized by some within the party. A year later, Gingrich again defended Steele, warning against “inside-the-party cannibalism.” Gingrich also said that Steele’s race made some “old-time Republicans very nervous.” Just a few months before that, Steele had defended Gingrich on charges of racism. In 2008, it was widely rumored that the race for RNC chairman would come down to a runoff between Gingrich and Steele, though Gingrich eventually withdrew.

HOST: What’s your take on this? Is this something that Republicans should really fear? … What’s wrong with a government shutdown?

STEELE: Well I think there’s — I personally, I think there’s nothing wrong with a government shutdown. I’ve been an advocate for it for six, seven months now. For the simple reason that it is the shocker. It is the reality check that the spenders need to have, that those who are trying to chart a different course need to have.

Watch it:

Indeed, Steele has been unafraid to call for shutting down the government for some time.

But he’s very wrong in saying “there’s noting wrong” with a shutdown. During a shutdown, many health care, veterans, passport, and other services cease to function, while law enforcement work can be hampered, and people may have trouble receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits. Moreover, the 1995 and 1996 government shutdowns, proudly started by former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ended up costing American taxpayers over $800 million in lost productivity and “rattled the confidence of international investors in U.S. government bonds.” Even if Steele doesn’t care about veterans services being cut off, the fiscal conservative should see something “wrong” in needlessly wasting hundreds of millions of dollars.

February 6, 2011 marks the 100th anniversary of President Reagan’s birth in Tampico, Illinois. Please take a moment to sign President Reagan’s 100th birthday card! After signing, please consider a contribution to the RNC to help the party elect conservative candidates committed to the ideals of President Reagan.

And as USA Today reports, “Priebus and the committee sent out a fundraising letter highlighting the new website, along with a pitch for suggested donations of $25, $50, $100 or more.” “Only with your generous support will the RNC have the resources to recruit and train the next generation of Reagan Republicans for the 2011-2012 elections,” the letter reads.

During an interview with Steele last night on CNN, host Eliot Spitzer noted that New York Times conservative columnist Ross Douthat had recently acknowledged the real purpose of the mandate and eventually got Steele to admit that the “logic” of it is correct:

SPITZER: What this system does is says they — these 30 million people — will contribute and therefore everybody else not only saves money because their taxes and premiums can go down, but more important, the care of this 30 million receives will be rationally delivered. … Why is that logic wrong?

STEELE: Well, I’m not saying the logic is wrong. But the logic can be right, but the cost can be a real pain in the you-know-what. … You didn’t show. You drew a circle. You’re not showing me how you save any money. Where is the savings? Where is the savings? I see no savings. I see a circle with an arrow.

SPITZER: Michael, you acknowledge the logic was pretty compelling. Let me just say this.

STEELE: Look, I’m all for logic. I want to know how much it’s going to cost me and my family and my business.

SPITZER: All right. All right. We’ve reached a big — [...] This is a good news interview because we agreed that we both like logic.

Watch it:

So Steele is “all for” the logic of the health insurance mandate, but his main concern seems to be the cost. While it’s unclear what cost Steele is referring to, the CBO said the fees levied from the insurance requirement would bring in nearly $70 billion over 10 years and that repealing the entire law itself — what Steele wants to do — would actually cost the federal government $230 billion over the same time frame. But if Steele is referring to the individual cost of insurance, then that is part of the “logic” behind the mandate that he agrees with: bringing more people into the insurance pool in order to bring costs down.

Spitzer is pretty good at getting conservatives who are against the mandate to admit that the “logic” of it is sound. Earlier this month, he pushed new Tea Party-backed Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on whether the mandate “makes sense.” “Yes, I understand the logic of it,” Lee finally admitted.

– Priebus’s law firm sought funds from Obama’s stimulus package: Connecticut GOP chairman Chris Healy noted that Priebus’s Wisconsin law firm helped its clients obtain federal stimulus funds, citing the fact that Priebus’s name was attached to the “Stimulus and Economic Recovery Group.” Priebus immediately responded to the story, claiming he had never worked with his firm’s “Stimulus and Economic Recovery” group.

– His law firm says the recently passed health care bill is constitutional: Priebus’s law firm not only says the law is constitutional, but has touted its benefits to clients.

– Implicated in voter caging: While Priebus was chair of the Wisconsin GOP, the state party engaged fomented voter fraud conspiracies and hatched a voter caging plot with well-funded right-wing allies to suppress minority votes. One Wisconsin Now Executive Director Scot Ross said, “When voter suppression allegations have surfaced in Wisconsin for the past decade, the name Reince Priebus isn’t far behind.”

– He has the backing of many of the Barbour clan: Henry Barbour, a committeeman from Mississippi and the nephew of Gov. Hale Barbour (R-MS), enticed Priebus into running for the RNC chair. Also, Nick Ayers, a close Barbour associate and executive director of the Republican Governors Association, reportedly gave behind-the-scenes support to Priebus, leading many to believe Priebus would favor Barbour for president in 2012. Priebus responded by saying, “I’m not Haley’s choice, I don’t think that Haley has any horse in the race, and he’s made that pretty clear on the record.”

– Priebus had close ties to former chairman Michael Steele, then stabbed him in the back: Priebus was Steele’s general counsel and frequently served as Steele’s top liaison to committee members. In a memo sent to RNC members, Connecticut Party chairman Chris Healy said that Priebus is partly responsible for the RNC’s poor performance. Commenting on Priebus’ run, Steele recently said, “It’s disappointing, you would hope that the bonds of loyalty were thicker than they apparently were.”

– Priebus mistakenly called for Obama’s execution: In a media conference call about Osama Bin Laden, Priebus slipped and accidentally called for the “execution” of Obama three separate times. “My guess is he would believe that Obama should be executed and he oughta be treated as a war criminal,” Priebus explained.

Priebus has said that he is dissatisfied with the 20 million dollar debt ran up by Steele, but as has been shown, Priebus worked closely with Steele during his tenure. So there’s a new face, but it’s still the same old party.

– Paul Breer

NOMINATOR: I would like to ask you at this time to join me in re-electing Michael Steele so that we can together defeat Barack Obama in 2012. Thank you!

UNIDENTIFIED RNC MEMBER: No!

Watch it:

Steele’s decision to seek a second term took many RNC members by surprise. Under Steele’s watch, the RNC has been hampered by anemic fundraising and profligate spending, leaving the committee with $15 million of debt — including $7 million they attempted to hide from the FEC — and less than $2 million in the bank, despite a banner year for Republicans and conservative fundraising. Money woes directly impacted the RNC’s ability to do its job, forcing the party to dramatically cut back on key voter turnout programs. For more on the embarrassing scandals and gross financial mismanagement that plagued Steele’s first term, click here.

Smelling gaffe-prone blood in the water, former Steele aide and current opponent Gentry Collins rushed to the RNC purity-pledger’s defense. Referencing ThinkProgress’s report of Steele’s comments this morning, Collins demanded that Steele “publiclly apologize to Mr. Bopp” for “slandering him over the public airwaves” in a display that proves why donors have been “abandoning the party”:

Collins, who served as the RNC’s political director under Steele before launching his own campaign for the chairmanship earlier this month, questioned Steele’s “temperament” and said the remark suggests “a complete lack of discipline demonstrating an unfitness for leadership of a national political party.”

“It’s no wonder major donors have been abandoning the RNC in record numbers,” Collins said Tuesday. “When the Chairman engages in name-calling of members of his own committee, he diminishes the RNC, the office of Chairman, and himself. For the good of the Committee, he should publicly apologize to Mr. Bopp. I’ve known and worked with Jim Bopp both on the committee and on campaigns – it would be hard to find a more principled leader in our Party. Mr. Steele should be thanking him for his service, not slandering him over the public airwaves.”

Collins is one of five candidates hoping to oust Steele. And in seeking his former boss’s post, Collins has certainly pulled no punches. He effectively coupled his campaign for RNC chair with a four-page letter of resignation assailing Steele for his fund-raising and leadership abilities. His public derision only augmented the GOP growing motivation to muscle Steele out of party leadership. Numerous GOP power-hitters like future House Speaker John Boehner (OH), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY), and Gov. Haley Barbour (MS) have signaled preference for a new chairman but are “resigned” to accept Steele “should no clear alternative emerge to defeat him.”

But with Collins landing the latest blow to Steele, the winner that emerges from the RNC’s “racially-charged food fight” is now anyone’s guess.

One of the most vocal opponents of Steele is Jim Bopp, a powerful RNC committee member known for his role in tearing down campaign finance and disclosure laws. Bopp, who is viewed as a leader among the RNC’s most committed ideologues, accused Steele of “playing the race card” by ending his candidacy announcement with an appeal to elect a RNC chairman who “will speak volumes about our willingness to truly be the party of Lincoln.”

On a Maryland radio show last week, Steele responded by mocking Bopp as an “idiot” who is upset for losing a lucrative contract with the RNC:

WBAL: Jim Bopp, who is an RNC committee member from Indiana, told the Washington Times — and I want to get your response to this — that you ended your 40 minute call with folks yesterday by using the race card. “Who you elect,” he said, “would speak volumes about our willingness to be the party of Lincoln.” What do you think about what Mr. Bopp is saying?

STEELE: Well, Mr. Bopp is an idiot. If he took that away from, and I don’t want to be crass and I don’t want to throw stones at him but I just think that’s an idiotic statement to make. I refer to myself as a Lincoln Republican, that’s who I am. I define myself through the party origins, the party that spoke to and about the freedom and emancipation of all people, not just black folks. […] Jim Bopp has been against my chairmanship from the very beginning, and I understand that, maybe it has something to do with my cutting his million dollar contract with the RNC, I don’t know. Regardless of that, the reality of it is, it’s crazy.

Listen here:

Steele regularly charges that Democrats “play the race card.” For instance, Steele blasted former president Jimmy Carter for noting that some of the opposition to Obama stems from race. Apparently Steele feels comfortable lobbing the charge of “race card” politics at his opponents, but became incensed when others use the same rhetoric against him. Ironically, Steele has said that he suffers from a “slimmer margin” of error as RNC chair because of his race.

Under Steele’s watch, the RNC has been hampered by anemic fundraising and profligate spending, leaving the committee with $15 million of debt — including $7 million they attempted to hide from the FEC — and less than $2 million in the bank, despite a banner year for Republicans and conservative fundraising. Money woes directly impacted the RNC’s ability to do its job, forcing the party to dramatically cut back on key voter turnout programs.

Steele has received stinging public rebukes from within his own party, and even within the RNC. Treasurer Randy Pullen publicly accused Steele of mismanaging the RNC’s finances and of trying to distort financial records, while the committee’s former political director — who is now considering a run for chairman himself — said Steele’s poor leadership cost the GOP electorally, and put the committee at a disadvantage going into the 2012 cycle. A member of the RNC’s executive committee has even called for an investigation into Steele’s financial management, accusing him of “cronyism.”

But nothing characterized Steele’s tenure as chairman more than his propensity to make a fool of himself on the national stage. Steele’s string of inaccurate, contradictory, off-message, and downright bizarre gaffes often made him a laughing stock for progressives, and an embarrassment for conservatives. Some of his highlights:

– Steele told Americans not to trust Republicans: “You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.” [February, 2009]

– Steele told African-Americans not to vote GOP: “You really don’t have a reason to, to be honest — we haven’t done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True.” [April, 2010]

– Steele defended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy by saying, “Trust me, after taxes, a million dollars is not a lot of money.” [February, 2010]

– Steele suggested God made him RNC chair: “But God, I really believe, has placed me here for a reason because who else and why else would you do this unless there’s something inside of you that says right now you need to be here to do this?” [January, 2010]

– On a radio show, Steele said he “absolutely agree[d]” “1,000%” with a caller who said House Republican Leader John Boehner and the rest of the GOP congressional leadership is “an absolute freaking joke.” [August, 2009]

– Steele suggested the GOP was not ready to govern: “We still have some vacancies that need to get filled, but then the question we need to ask ourselves is: if we do that, are we ready?” [January, 2010]

– Steele used the racial epitaph “honest Injun,” which a Native-American GOP congressman called “unacceptable.” [January, 2010]

– Steele contradicted his party’s position on Afghanistan, suggesting the war was unwinnable: “[T]the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan. All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed.” [June, 2010]

– Steele said the press gave President Obama a pass because he is black: “He was not vetted, folks. … He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office.” [May, 2009]

– Dismissing global warming, Steele said he worried more about global cooling: “We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I am using my finger quotation marks here, is part of the cooling process.” [April, 2009]

– Breaking a cardinal right-wing rule, Steele criticized radio host Rush Limbaugh and dismissed him as an entertainer: “Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it’s incendiary. Yes, it’s ugly.” [March, 2009]

– Steele said it was “proper” for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to spread disinformation about death panels: “I think it’s proper because its within the context of what people are seeing in some of the legislation that’s floating around out there.” [August, 2009]

Steele’s chairmanship has also been plagued by high-profile scandals, such as the infamous use of committee money at a bondage-themed strip club in California. Steele also quietly used his title to personally profit from speaking appearances, and took heat for “spending twice as much as his recent predecessors on private planes and paying more for limousines, catering and flowers.” There were also the recent revelations that Steele had hired six members of the same family, and that the committee was spending 18 times more on planning for the next Republican National Convention than they did on the last one.

In February, after a year of humiliating gaffes, Steele vowed he would not stop making them, saying, “Oh, no. Accidents happen, baby.” But now, it seems that the GOP’s tolerance for them has stopped.

The only person for the job, Phillips concluded, is former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whom he is hoping to draft into a run for chairman. In an open letter to Palin included in the email, Phillips pleaded with her to run, suggesting that no less than “the survival of our country” is on the line:

We are in a fight for the survival of our country. [...]

We need you as Chairman of the RNC. You have shown in the past no hesitation to take on the establishment. You did it in Alaska. If we end up with establishment control of the GOP and their support for an establishment candidate in 2012, Obama and the socialists will have won. An establishment candidate will not work to repeal Obamacare and the other programs Obama, Pelosi and Reid have put in place. We need someone who will put conservatives in control of the party apparatus, not RINOs. [...]

Finally, you are a superstar. You have an unbelievable ability to light up a crowd and to raise money. Both of which the Republican Party needs. Something is really wrong with the GOP when the RNC cannot fund a get out the vote campaign for mid-term elections. The GOP needs a conservative who can raise money and energize the troops. You are the only one out there with these unique talents.

Back in April, Palin expressed her support for Steele and said he was doing “a great job” as RNC chair. For his part, Steele has rushed to defend Palin in the midst of criticism she has faced from Republican leaders, telling them to “chill out.”

In his letter, Phillips explained that the letter would be sent to Palin “in the next few days” and encouraged supporters to build a movement to draft her. But the email also serves to suggest than anyone short of a far-right tea party conservative as chairman would be unacceptable to the tea party movement. Of course, if Palin did run — and win — the chairmanship, that would likely complicate or prevent an expected presidential bid in 2012.

The idea that Republicans did not receive a mandate isn’t just held by the president — it was a theme echoed throughout the night by Republican politicians and conservative pundits:

– Senator-elect Marco Rubio (R-FL): “We make a grave mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party.”

– Fox News pundit Brit Hume: “The Republican Party is not the beneficiary of some mandate this time around.”

– Former chief economic policy adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign Douglas Holtz-Eakin: “This isn’t a pro-Republican vote. This is a repudiation of what we’ve seen the past two years, it’s not an endorsement of Republican agendas.”

– RNC head Michael Steele: “There’s still the people who say, ‘well we’re not sure. We’re not sure about Republican leadership, we’re not sure about the direction.’”

– Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI): “This is not necessarily ‘we love Republicans.’ This is, ‘change course, the country’s on the wrong track.’”

Watch a compilation:

Unfortunately, some Republican leaders have signaled they are on an uncompromising mission to enforce what they believe to be their mandate. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said bluntly before the election that “there will be no compromise.” Presumptive Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has said that “to the extent that [Obama] wants to work with us in terms of where we’re going, I would certainly welcome it.” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) believes “the word ‘compromise’ has been misunderstood” and that his job will be “getting America back to the center right where it exists.”

If one were to look to public opinion, it’s also clear that no mandate for Republican policy prescriptions exists, as today’s Progress Report notes. The vast majority of voters — 64 percent — continue to blame either Wall Street (35 percent) or George W. Bush (29 percent) for the troubled economy. Fully 78 percent of all voters support comprehensive immigration reform, with a path to legal status by far the most popular. And voters from Connecticut to California and Michigan to Florida are more likely to support candidates who support an energy bill that cuts climate change pollution, polling shows. Voters clearly voiced frustration with the government yesterday — but they did not endorse a Republican policy mandate.

When host George Stephanopoulos asked RNC chair Michael Steele on ABC’s Good Morning America today whether Bush’s analysis is correct, Steele responded affirmatively:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Even Jeb Bush, son of the former president, had a pretty startling comment in the New York Times this morning. He said “tomorrow’s results will not be a validation of the Republican party at all.” Is he right?

STEELE: I think there’s some degree of truth to that. … I think there is a degree of truth to that. I think the American people right now are much more skeptical of the direction that the President and Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid are taking the country but they also have some concerns about the direction that Republicans will then lead when we take control of the Congress in 2011.

Watch it:

Steele’s view has been affirmed by GOP leadership. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — who said last week that his goal for the next Congress is to defeat President Obama in 2012 — noted today that Republicans “need to view this [election] with humility and gratitude. This is not about us…there is no poll data showing the public is in love with us.”

Indeed, the staggering economy appears to be the GOP’s best friend this election cycle because the Party is not only bereft of any new ideas but offers no real solutions for the country’s economic problems. Republicans have campaigned on cutting spending and reducing the deficit but can’t identify any specific spending that should be cut. They want to give costly tax breaks for the rich without offering any idea of how to pay for them or denying that they even have to be offset. Instead, when asked how they would fix the economy and create jobs, many GOPers simply retreat to the Party mantra: “tax cuts.”

Appearing on CNN’s State of the Union yesterday, RNC Chairman Michael Steele echoed this obstructionist pledge. Particularly troubling, Steele told host Candy Crowly the GOP is “not going to compromise on raising the debt ceiling” — something that will almost certainly lead to a government shutdown and economic catastrophe:

CROWLEY: Let me start first with the majority leader of the Senate saying the single most important thing that Republicans want to achieve in the next two years is to make the president a one-term president. You’ve had the Republican leader on the House side saying this is — no, we’re not going to compromise, and you yourself had said that Republicans are not looking to compromise. Is that what you’re taking away from the polls right now, that the American public doesn’t want the Republicans to compromise on anything?

STEELE: Well, I think that, to be very clear here, when we talk about not compromising, not compromising away on the principles that our party have run on and have stood for, for a long time. For example, we’re not going to compromise on creating more debt. We’re not going to compromise on raising the debt ceiling. We’re not going to compromise on increasing the burdens on the backs of small-business owners and families.

Watch it:

Republicans and their outside secretly-funded allies like Crossroads GPS have made government spending and the national debt a central focus of thousands of attack ads against Democrats. Many ads have specifically attacked incumbent Democrats’ previous votes to raise the debt ceiling (which only Congress can and must increase periodically to allow the government to keep functioning). It now appears that Steele is the latest Republican leader to join some of his party’s most extreme candidates in their vow to translate campaign rhetoric into a potentially catastrophic reality.

A report released last week by the Center for American Progress outlined the potentially devastating consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling:

– Government Shutdown: The budgetary implications of failing to increase the debt ceiling would result in “the immediate cessation of more than 40 percent of all federal government activities (excluding only interest payments on the national debt), including Social Security, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance.”

– Default on the National Debt: During the previous GOP-induced debt ceiling crises in 1995-96, the Treasury Department used extraordinary measures to avoid defaulting on the national debt. Deutsche Bank analysts believe that those same measures would be less effective today and the government would “not be able to stave off a government shutdown (or possible suspension of bond payments) for long.”

– Worldwide Financial Panic: “Refusing to raise the debt ceiling would recklessly disrupt the sale and purchase of new Treasury bonds, and could potentially cause a run on outstanding Treasurys as well, as investors sought other investments. This could have catastrophic consequences for our economy as well as the economic stability of the rest of the world.”

– Economic Catastrophe: Suddenly pulling trillions of dollars in public spending out of the economy, as well as inducing a worldwide financial panic and a run on U.S. sovereign debt would “almost certainly result in a severe drop in economic growth and employment” and could potentially “take us into a Second Great Depression.”

– Actually Increase Long-Term Deficits and Debt: By undermining the credit worthiness of U.S. government, annual borrowing costs would skyrocket. A mere doubling of the current rate the government pays for a 10-year Treasury note would nearly double the cost of annual interest payments on the national debt to approximately $600 billion—increasing long-term deficits and fueling even more high-cost borrowing. If investors begin pricing a “fear premium” into U.S. debt, costs could be driven even higher.

A vote to raise the debt ceiling will be necessary as early as February of 2011. As Roll Call recently noted, this vote would pose an early purity test for newly-elected tea party-backed members of Congress. With Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour also saying today that a government shutdown is “very likely” if the GOP wins control of the House of Representatives, it appears that the GOP is more interested in fealty to its tea party base than in seriously governing the country — even if that means risking an almost unprecedented economic calamity and needlessly inflicting untold harm on the nation’s prospects for a return to long-term prosperity.

Likewise, at Steele’s big RNC rally in Anaheim last weekend with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, he vowed to “say no to deficit spending, no to more debt, no to government control of businesses, no to government control of our affairs.” Watch it (beginning 5:30):

But Steele may want to take a look at his own domain before he promises to deliver better financial discipline. Since Steele took over the RNC, the national party has been crippled by anemic fundraising (despite a strong year for Republicans, the RNC has raised $90 million less than it did in 2006), embarrassing managerial lapses, and gross financial mismanagement. While observers have long been aware of the RNC’s money woes, Hotline On Call reports the situation is much worse than previously expected, as the RNC “is deeper in debt than initially disclosed,” and it has been slow to pay off those debts:

The new reports, filed late Monday night, show the RNC had just under $4.7 million cash on hand as of September 1, while carrying $2.46 million in debt — more than twice the $1.2 million debt disclosed when the committee initially filed its August report on September 20. What’s more, earlier reports to the FEC have been amended to show previous debts, since paid off, of $4.7 million in June and July. Most of that debt was paid off within weeks, but because outstanding bills existed when reporting periods ended, they are required to be reported as obligations on FEC forms. [...]

Several debts have been on the RNC’s books for months, the filings show. The party has owed a Napa Valley company $7,751 for bus transportation since May. They have owed Political Media Inc., a Washington-based firm run by internet marketing expert Larry Ward, a total of $27,500 for website development, for the same length of time.

Indeed, a number of Republican candidates preaching fiscal discipline have run into their own personal financial troubles. Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell has had a particularly tough time — she received a federal tax lien for more than $11,000 in unpaid taxes in 2006, almost had her house foreclosed on, and only paid off her college tuition 12 years after she graduated. Likewise, Florida GOP Senate nominee Marco Rubio faced foreclosure on his home in Tallahassee, and has been dogged by allegations that he misused party funds to pay for personal expenses.

As Hotline details, the RNC’s financial troubles have caused significant strife within the party. Steele and RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen have “feuded for months over the party’s finances,” leading many of party’s senior officials to split into opposing camps supporting either Steele or Pullen. “While you may not like Michael Steele, you are doing a great disservice to our party,” former Maryland GOP chairman John Kane wrote to Pullen, accusing him of leaking stories to the press. “You got a problem with Steele, settle it like an adult in December. Until then do your job internally and shut up externally.”