I posted my own thoughts in the original thread. But I think the two schools of thought on this from within Republican circles is interesting, though not quite as mutually exclusive as one might think at first blush.

Clearly, some feel that just having a black guy that does well on TV in charge is enough to present a “new face” of the party. Clearly also, there is a significant contingent who desires nothing more than aggression seemingly for the sake of it, and want to find the person most offensive to liberals possible for any given position (a lot of Republican talk of Kristol’s replacement at the NYT can be filed into that category as well). It was interesting to see those sides square off in the reax posts.

For those thinking deeper, I think there is a good case to be made that Steele was the least offensive of the bunch, but I also mistrust the seemingly inherent disinterest in ideological or organizational development as a talking point, one way or the other.