RNC Chair Race

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: I am part of the base. But taking a static view of our base will kill, not build, our party.

This morning, American Spectator and Americans for Tax Reform held their Newsmaker Breakfast which was supposed to feature RNC Chair candidate Ken Blackwell, who has been endorsed by many conservatives and RedState. Because Blackwell was stuck in Ohio due to the weather, Louisiana GOP chairman Roger Villere and John Yob were there to represent the Blackwell campaign.

Let me briefly go over some of the positives I took away from this morning's meeting. First, Ken Blackwell's framing of the fundamental change that's needed within the RNC as a "shareholder revolt" is both accurate and bold. The grassroots within (and not within) state and local party organizations have to buy into the objectives and new strategy that the next chairman will bring. Second, I'm glad that Blackwell endorsed the RebuildTheParty.com plan within his own plan. Third, he's a former Secretary of State and could be helpful in voter turnout and anti-voter fraud efforts, if he's elected or not. Fourth, as the only candidate in the race with extensive experience as a candidate for public office, he could have some understanding of how to recruit and train candidates.

But some of the things Villere and Yob mentioned this morning bothered me.

First, Yob repeated several times that Blackwell's number one priority is to "inspire the base." Blackwell's own plan asserts that "an inspired base will lead to more volunteers, greater fundraising, and higher voter turnout." Nothing could be further from the truth. I understand why Blackwell is making this the standard line in his campaign: he's trying to appeal to the so-called "leadership" of the status quo base ... the members of the Republican National Committee. Not only does Blackwell blur the line between policymaking and electoral strategy building within his own plan. Taking this static view of our base, that it's our existing core of 30% of the electorate that we should depend on, is downright infuriating. Blackwell's plan does state that "we must once again begin educating the public about the moral superiority of limited government over the concept of big government socialism." Therefore, the number one priority shouldn't be inspiring the base by itself; it should be about growing the base by finding new and creative ways to articulate our principles, and to integrate voter contact, voter identification and voter persuasion projects. It's not time to rebuild the Reagan coalition of old. It's time to recalibrate, recalculate the electorate as it exists today, and build a new coalition to win elections.

Second, after it was mentioned that current chairman Mike Duncan used the Joseph Cao victory in the Louisiana 2nd as a reason to re-elect him, Villere quickly pointed out that not only did Cao receive nearly zero support from the national organization. But the Louisiana GOP worked hard to win more votes and win more parishes for McCain in 2008 than for Bush in 2004. This flies right in the face of the argument that it's the national organization that needs fundamental change. In fact, it seems like an argument for achieving fundamental change at the state and local parties. And while I see a lot about giving more resources to state parties and increasing accountability towards state chairmen from all of the candidates, this doesn't exactly require fundamental change at the RNC. In fact, the RNC could very well have fundamental change and we could still have many state and local parties in shambles. (See my previous post: We Don't Need a Chairman. We Need Leaders.)

Third, Morton Blackwell was in attendance and gave a strong endorsement of Blackwell. "Ken has gravitas. He will be taken seriously." said Morton. While I have a lot of respect for him, gravitas should not be a prerequisite to being RNC chairman. Sure, a candidate for high public office should have some gravitas. But I want my RNC chairman focused on winning elections! (See another previous post: Ability to Debate on Sunday Shows Should Not Be a Priority Prerequisite to be RNC Chairman.) Quite frankly, none of the six candidates convince me that they can find new ways to win and engage in an exchange of best practices.

(Aside: "Inspiring the base" and promoting "fundamental change" aren't mutually exclusive, and Ken Blackwell seems to have an understanding of this. But as for new ideas, John Yob said that he believes "markets work" and "if you stick with the status quo, you won't have any new ideas." This isn't exactly a convincing argument when it comes to separating yourself from all of the other non-incumbent candidates.)

I've already witnessed the lack of strategic creativity from all six candidates. But the lack of a dynamic vision of what our base is and what our base should look like is truly bothersome. So here's my mission to all who read and write here at The Next Right: after the election is done this weekend, don't take the lazy path and lobby the new national chairman for progress. Communicate with state party officials and push their buttons when it comes to winning at all levels: from Presidential electoral votes to city council races.

(promoted by Soren. This is a valuable debate)

I want to give my support to my friend Gary Emineth, the North Dakota GOP chairman. 

Gary's a good man and a good conservative who's made real progress in modernizing the North Dakota GOP.

Ryan James pointed out that Gary got himself into The Hill with an unfortunate quote.

I believe that Gary was telling the literal truth -- that only the 168 RNC members are the ones who will elect the next chairman. That's why RNC members, who represent us as party members, need as many opportunities as possible to see the Chairman candidates.

 Emineth is on our side -- creating another opportunity for the party to see the Chairman candidates and make them answer the tough questions.

I think that's critical. Let us see the candidates, on the blogs and in person. Let us question them and determine who's the best choice to lead the party.

To my knowledge, Gary is neutral in the Chairman's race at this point. That's all the more reason why we should support his proposal -- there's no strings attached.

Gary's the right kind of chairman. Conservative, smart, collaborative, and quick to support the changes we need. I support him.

Political observers of all stripes know that Mitt Romney wants to run for President in 2012. He seemed to have a future run in mind the day he quit the 2008 race at CPAC this past February. As the Boston Globe recently reported, Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC has barely doled out any cash to preferred candidates and is viewed as likely saving up for a 2012 run.

What then does Romney have planned for the next four years? Here are five reasons why heading the RNC would help him with another run at the presidency:

1) It’s the Economy, Stupid: The Republican Party became the party of big government conservatism and wasteful spending over the past eight years. It needs to reclaim a fiscally conservative message to broaden its base and appeal to working-class Americans. The biggest issue facing the country over the next year is likely to be the continued economic crisis, and unlike traditional party hacks, Romney has real credentials in this arena. He is uniquely positioned to be a party leader on economic issues.

2) Default Opposition to Obama: If he hopes to be successful in a 2012 run, Romney will first have to convince Republicans that he is the best alternative to a President Obama. By assuming the Chairmanship, the media will anoint him as the opposition leader by default four years in advance. Having a steady platform with which to contrast with Obama will give him a significant leg-up heading into the 2012 primaries.

3) Republican Message Control: Rather than having to worry about what the national party is saying and doing in the 2010 election cycle, Romney will be able to control that message (at least that coming from the RNC, Congress is another story). This will allow him to decide on a method of contrast and attack during his tenure that will then flow into his 2012 bid.

4) Re-shape the Party Message: Romney was sharply criticized in the 2008 primary cycle for flip-flopping on various issues, mostly social, to accommodate the Republican base. As Chairman, Romney would have the ability, both subtly and overtly, to re-shape the party message to his liking rather than feel the need to adjust his positions to fit party orthodoxy.

5) Continue to Chip Away at Mormon Issue: Being elected Chairman would not eliminate this as a potential issue for Romney. Ken Mehlman ran the RNC and it would be difficult to argue that a Jewish candidate would still not face significant opposition in certain circles of the party. But by taking on such a visible leadership role, this would allow Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to view him simply as the Republican leader rather than as a member of any specific religious faith.

After serving two-years as Chairman, through the 2010 election cycle, Romney could then announce his intentions to run for President and focus on the buildup of his campaign operation ahead of the primary election.

Critics of a Romney chairmanship would likely argue that assuming such a position would provide little political benefit for him. He would be wasting his time.

Why bog yourself down running day-to-day operations of a national party?

There is no requirement that the RNC Chairman be involved in day-to-day operations of a bureaucracy. Rather, Romney could install a capable, well-respected, and trusted Executive Director for the party while acting largely as a spokesman and big-picture planner. He would immediately become the face of the party. He could only dream of attaining this status over the next two years if he were to continue to stand on the sidelines.

Romney is too high-profile to run the RNC.

Says who? McCain had too little money to win the nomination. Obama was too inexperienced to be elected President. There is no rulebook to this game. The political media is scarcely paying any attention to the race for Chairman, let alone the average American, who does not even know that there is a race. The party has a leadership void and both the party and the media would embrace having someone high-profile at the helm.

Running the RNC may help him get through the primaries, but would be harmful in a general election.

George Bush headed the RNC in the 1970s a decade before becoming President. Given the messiah-like way in which Obama rose to victory in this election, it is hard to argue that 2012 will be anything other than a referendum on the Obama presidency. So why not accept this fact and start drawing contrasts where they exist right away? There is no better vehicle for Romney to articulate his message than by serving as the head of his party.

RNC duties would get in the way of fundraising for his campaign.

This may be true. But Romney’s considerable personal wealth makes this less important of an issue than it would be for most candidates. In addition, the benefits of traveling to all fifty states for the RNC and building up considerable institutional support amongst RNC members and GOP activists far outweigh the costs of reduced fundraising capacity.

Disclosure: This author is not supporting Romney for this position.

The Nation has a profile on Howard Dean that's well worth reading.

Money Graf:

A few months later the state chairs asked Dean and the other contenders for DNC chair to give $200,000 a year to each state party. Dean enthusiastically embraced and enlarged the plan en route to easily winning the DNC race and gave every state the resources to hire at least three or four organizers and access to a high-tech database of voters, which became the twin cornerstones of the fifty-state strategy. Under Dean, battlegrounds like Ohio still took priority, but every state got something. That might not sound like much, but it was practically a revolution within the Democratic Party, which tended to view the DNC as a PR agency and ATM for Congress and/or the White House. "We had a great building and no debt," Dean says, referring to the work of his predecessor, the high-flying Clintonite Terry McAuliffe. "But there was essentially no technological infrastructure and no political infrastructure of any worth." The states, by and large, had been left to fend for themselves.

As someone who was skeptical about Dean, I'm surprised how successful he's been.  That said, there are certain lessons I think we need to learn from this moving forward:

1) COMPETE EVERYWHERE - This is the most important lesson we need to internalize.  That's why I wrote my controversial blog post about San Francisco.  Woody Allen says 80% of success is showing up and he's largely right.  Where Dean dispatched organizers (sidenote: I still HATE that term; any alternatives?) to Indiana and Alaska, we should dispatch organizers to Maine and Wisconsin with the goal of electing Republicans at the state and local level while hoping to pick up the occasional House or Senate seat.

It's important to physically show up and ask people for their vote.  I have a family member who is a VERY Conservative Republican Redneck Bitter Clinger who lives in John Murtha's district.  This guy votes the straight Republican ticket EXCEPT for John Murtha.  Why does he vote for Murtha?  He votes for Murtha because every 6-8 months Murtha shows up at the bar he hangs out at and talks to him about the state of world affairs and the guy just likes Murtha personally.  If John Murtha can do this, why can't we pick off some Dems doing roughly the same thing?

In 2009, there will be a Governor's race in New Jersey.  With the economy tanking, Governor John Corzine wil eventually raise taxes.  Unfortunately for him, New Jersey has a history of tax revolts.  This gives us an opportunity, but we have to start organizing for it now.

I live in Austin, TX.  We have a House seat here I'm convinced is winnable.  I'll address this in more detail later.

2) Nuts can still do Nuts and Bolts - It wasn't just The Scream.  As anyone who remembers his 2004 Presidential campaign can attest, Dean frequently made colorful remarks.  As DNC chair, that didn't matter.  Dean's responsiblity was strictly electoral, he didn't have any role in shaping public policy.

On our side, that means reaching out to the Ron Paul crowd.  They've shown that they have a knack for online politics and they've been successful.  While I find their views on Foreign Policy masochistic, I still agree with them on more issues than not.  Why not bring them aboard in a more systematic way?

3) Apostates are OK; Grandstanding RINO's are not - While the article doesn't touch on this, another major factor in the Democrat rise was that they nominated much more conservative candidates.  Democrats were willing to tolerate a few ideological apostates in order to win; they just won't tolereate those members grandstanding against their own party.  We should take the same approach.

Thoughts/Suggestions?!?

Governor Sara Palin will participate in four campaign rallies across Georgia on Monday on December 1, 2008 on behalf of Sen. Saxby Chambliss runoff election. The rallies will be in Atlantia, Augusta, Macon and Savannah areas. 

When you consider posting your nominees for the RNC Chair race, I would like for you to stop and consider who Saxby Chambliss has chosen in his hour of political need -- and inwardly digest.

ex animo

davidfarrar

According to the AJC Newt would be willing to accept the chairmanship but supporters will need to let the RNC know that they want him. He is not a member and will need to campaign for the post if he wants it.

(Unscientific poll here.)