The New York Times does an interesting profile of the next United States Senator from Maryland, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. The personal biographical information on the man is compelling.

Open and personable, Steele had a prominent speaking role at the Republican convention in 2004, and by the following spring the Republican hierarchy was trying to coax him into the Senate race. The field was kept clear. Money was promised. It didn't matter that Steele lacked some of the attributes typical of a candidate running for high office. He was not a proven vote-getter, having ridden to victory as the running mate of Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a popular congressman from outside Baltimore who became the state's first Republican governor elected in 36 years. Steele, who is 47, had no personal fortune to offer up to the cause, no campaign war chest. He had been an associate in a law firm, then left that job to open a consulting firm that struggled.

What Steele had to offer, as a candidate, was personal biography, his inspiring life story: childhood in a poor section of Washington; college at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore; then three years studying for the priesthood at a monastery, where he wore the long white tunic of the Augustinian order before deciding that his call to service lay elsewhere. His mother had worked in a laundry, making the minimum wage; his stepfather drove a limo. His parents weren't educated themselves, but they valued learning and made sure the homework in their household got done. Steele's only sibling is Monica Turner, a Georgetown-educated pediatrician (as well as an ex-wife of Mike Tyson, the former heavyweight champ).

The thing is, the article never seems to realize that it answers the question found in its title, "Why is Michael Steele a Republican Candidate?" It talks about a philosophy of self-reliance, pro-live policies, a focus on family, on faith, and on exonomic opportunity, but never wants to accept that these are, in fact, the reason for Steele's finding a home in the Republican party. It talks about his outreach to Democrats (especially black Democrats) as if that is somehow a negative, when it is the ultimate positive.

I'd have to say that the article is worth the read, and reasonably fair -- especially given the source.

Posted by: Greg at 06:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.