Steele in the WSJ: "Listen. Adapt. Be Positive."

Via Hot Air comes today's piece in the WSJ by former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele. Steele makes a strong case for his vision as potential chair of the RNC:
Republicans once said that the opportunities this nation has to offer rest not in government but rather in the hands of individuals. Over the past decade or so, however, we Republicans lost our way. The disparity between our rhetoric and our action grew until our credibility snapped. It wasn't the fault of our ideals. It was the failure of our leadership.

Over time, our principles morphed into baser motives. Continued political dominance grew more important to those who led us than the noble vision most of us originally signed on for. And to maintain power we turned to the controls of government -- we became the party of big government. We behaved like Democrats.

True, the country has changed and our party must adapt. However, it is wrong to believe we must change our principles or become conservative-lite. After all, the voters did not suddenly become liberal; but they have lost any sense of confidence that the Republican Party holds the answers to their problems.
No offense to Newt, but as far as outgoing image, Steele presents a younger image than Newt can deliver, even as Newt is the one that built the successful 1994 plan. Now, Steele as the image with his ideas, combined with the full support of Newt's American Solutions outfit could lead the GOP out of the "wilderness".
Most Americans today see a Republican Party that defines itself by what it is against rather than what it is for. We can tell you why public schools aren't working, but not articulate a compelling vision for how we'll better educate children. We're well equipped to rail against tax increases; but can't begin to explain how we'll help the poor. We exclude far better than we welcome.
Now, let it be said that the 2006 mid-term election was one where the Democrats won both houses by being against something, but the reverse did not work for John McCain this year (against Obama) even as it did for Obama (against Bush 43). On the whole, it is very hard to simply be against something and still win, without also advocating something you are for. In Obama's case, they capitalized on the novelty of his race, and the nebulous "hopenchange". Sure, the media was on the side of the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, but this too can be overcome by a party willing to convey its message directly to the people.
Our challenge lies not in beating Democrats, but in uniting around a message that solidifies our ranks and attracts new people to our cause. We have to listen to what Americans are telling us about their hopes, desires and needs, and then translate that message into proposals for meaningful action squarely grounded on the values we Republicans have always stood for.
This paragraph dovetails off of the above - though the side-lesson is Reagan's "bold colors" and not "pale pastels" from CPAC 1975. Bold Colors lead to a clear choice at the ballot box - McCain's pale pastels led to Obama being able to "steal" the tax cut issue from the GOP, even as the experts saw through his redistributive change.

Between Steele, Newt, and Ruffini's Rebuild the Party site, this is a great start. I could live with either Steele or Newt as RNC Chair.nn{democracy:4}