RNC Chairman

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Over the past year, while participating in several national conservative events and serving as the national political director of Conservative Solutions ("Let's Get This Right") in the support of the republican presidential campaign and 23 races for Congress, I met many committed young conservatives working and supporting the Republican Party. In their exuberance and excellent online efforts, they have invested themselves in Rebuilding the Party. They also wish to see a change in the leadership of the GOP. However, even if they are correct that the Republican National Committee (RNC) needs new leadership, it will be the delegates ("old timers") who will decide the fate of the Republican Party.

As detailed in prior articles, the Republican Party needs a person who is able and willing to be the conservative spokesman for the values and principles of the Republican Party. The Party does not need a leader who bends to pressure from incumbent elected republicans. If we stopped and asked people on the street "who is the Chairman of the Republican Party," very few people, even republicans, could answer the question. However, if we asked"who was the Chairman of the Democratic Party" more people could have answered the question. Why? Because the democratic chairman was more visible and outspoken than Republican Chairman Mike Duncan.

This year, let's hope that the RNC delegates will look seriously at the other exceptional candidates for chairmanship of the RNC. We need a person who 1) is a skilled spokesperson capable of challenging the democrat incumbents and their positions and espousing conservative principles, 2) understands web 2.0, social networks, working with the new media (bloggers, vbloggers, et ál) and the power of an independent free market Internet and does not try to controll all communication solely through the RNC website, 3) is visible and inspiring thus able to recruit others to join and work with the party, and 4) is honest and open in calling out Republicans when they fail to live up to written Republican Party principles and the Party's platform.

Today's 16 year-olds will vote in 2 years and the 14 year-olds will vote along with their older peers in the next presidential elections. These young conservative voters are active in the new media and social networking. The number of young voters either lost or gained to the GOP will be influenced by the person chosen to be the new RNC Chair. While having willingly supported the current chair, I also agree with a majority of conservatives that it is time for a change in the leadership of the RNC.

 However, CNN reports:

For the third straight day this week, incumbent chairman Mike Duncan picked up backing from the party membership, earning the support of Arkansas committee members Jim Burnett and Reta Hamilton. In a letter to party members, Burnett insisted that Duncan not be blamed for the party’s electoral drubbing in November. Instead, he wrote, Duncan managed to raise a record amount of money and compile a substantial e-mail list in the face of a Democratic headwind. Meanwhile, Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis scored the support of Rhode Island GOP chair Giovanni D. Cicione, who published a letter on Anuzis’ blog praising the Michigander’s energy and commitment to technological innovation. Duncan leads his opponents with 22 public endorsements, followed by Anuzis, who has 13. South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell each have 12 endorsements. Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele has nine pledged votes, and former Mike Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman has none.

The Tolbert Report identified:

Raising money and compiling email lists are certainly important; however, many younger members of the party are looking to candidates such as Chip Saltsman, Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele, or Saul Anuzis to bring a fresh focus to the party, one that welcomes new members and embraces new technology (two areas where the party did not do well in 2008.) But with few Young Republicans represented on the RNC, there may be little chance of having this concerns considered. As of this posting, Chairman Doyle Webb (the only other Arkansans having a vote on the RNC) has not yet committed to any one candidate. By all reports, the race is still wide open with the vote to take place on January 28. The question remains will the members of the Committee stick with Duncan out of loyalty to him or will they listen to many party members who are looking for a change.

Are we clear on the role of the RNC Chairman or does it need to be better defined? 

As a co-founder of Rebuild the Party, I’m staying neutral in the RNC Chairman race (at least for now); yet, I’m heavily invested in the process and ensuring we elect the best man for the job. 

I’m encouraged that the race for Chairman, hopefully in small part due to our efforts at Rebuild, has morphed into a more open process.  For a job as important as RNC Chairman, candidates should endure at least as stringent a job interview process as candidates for office.  In years when our Party holds the White House, we don’t have such a luxury.  In years when we get crushed, like we have the last two cycles, we do have that luxury.

Our Party is in crisis.  Let’s resort back to our Crisis Management 101 books.  Crisis is defined as a “turning point” and “danger and opportunity.”  At this turning point, we have a tremendous opportunity to leverage our best talent to revive the Party. 

RNC voting members have power, this time around, to choose who our fearless leader will be.  We all have an opportunity to use our voices, and any communication tool at our disposal, to influence the choice of the voting members.

The process for picking an RNC Chairman is crucial.  If we can agree that the RNC Chairman’s race is a job interview, then we should have a specific job description, at least as it fits each cycle, understanding that the job of Chairman with a Republican president differs from the job when there is not.  From what I can see, the only official job description of the RNC Chairman is “CEO” of the Republican National Committee.

Similar to the Vice Presidency, the RNC Chairman’s role is amorphous, so I seek to define it for the upcoming term:

1. Director of Operations at the Republican National Committee, providing guidance and leadership on message, fundraising and political strategy for the Republican Party.

2. Chief messenger of the Party, communicating the Party’s positions, ideas and opinions on current events through all media.

3. Chief fundraiser of the Party, making themselves available to headline Republican events across the country to raise money for the RNC and local Party organizations.

4. Director of Party Relationships, building and maintaining strong relationships with State Party leaders, allied 3rd party groups, issue groups, demographic groups and niche “wing of the party” groups.

What is not included in the job description as Kathryn Jean Lopez touches on (and I’ve been musing about):

1. Chief Policy Advisor for the Republican Party

2. Chief Agenda Setter for the Republican Party

This is not to say that showing leadership on issues, and robust knowledge on tax, energy, health care, and [name that issue] policy, is not a plus.  It is.  But I think we need to take care to frame the RNC Chairman’s job for what it should be, unless I’m totally off base and we expect a Chairman to be what we want in a 2012 presidential candidate.

I’m interested in your thoughts.  

Republicans have come down with Howard Dean Envy. A great summary of Dean revisionism from the left can be found at Ari Berman's piece in The Nation singing the praises of the outgoing DNC Chairman, who laid the groundwork for the Obama campaign with his 50 State Strategy. Cahnman blogging in this space picks up the theme. And numerous candidates for RNC Chairman have offered up their own version of the 50 State Strategy.

I am going to dissent on this one. I've consciously avoided any references to a 50 State Strategy because I think a cookie-cutter state-by-state approach is secondary to building up good candidates and using technology and open grassroots platforms to mass-empower all Republican activists everywhere with one fell swoop (as opposed to 50). New technologies are a tool for nationalizing elections and at the same time empowering individuals to act on the hyper-local level. Less important are the traditional middle-men -- and this applies to state and local parties, and to some extent, the RNC.

Dean the candidate was transformative. He showed that one could not only augment but supplant a traditional political organization using online tools. This lesson has since been learned by the likes of Ron Paul... and by the President-elect of the United States.

Dean the chairman has been less so. To be sure, the 50 State Strategy was a marked departure from the committee's traditional DC-centric focus, as evidenced by Rahm Emanuel's fierce resistance to Dean doing long-term organizing in places like Alaska and Mississippi as opposed to winning targeted 2006 races.

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.

RNC Chair candidate Chip Saltsman has a blog post up on "rebuilding online".  In it, he runs through his plan for addressing our online deficit, and pays brief attention to RebuildTheParty.com - he is one of the two candidates who have endorsed the plan.

Unfortunately, his plan is defective in a major way.  He begins well enough with a true statement.

We need to break the mold when it comes to our tactics and strategy online.

I would actually drop the word 'online' from that sentence, however.  I think we need to modernize not just our online operations, but our entire approach to campaigning.  As an example of what I'm talking about, let me look at one suggestion Chip made.

I recommend that we reorganize the party structure by integrating e-Campaign staff into every department. In fact, the committee should consider making the e-Campaign director deputy chief of staff.

The first part of that, inserting an eCampaign specialist in each department, is something I believed in through the BC04 camapign and my tenure at the RNC.  I discovered, however, that it actually doesn't work.  While it sounds great on paper, it ends up creating a half dozen or so marginalized positions on the staff.  Why? The simple answer is the division heads.

Rather than address this just to Chip's people, I thought I'd post it here so anyone can chime in, and all the candidates for Chairman can consider it.

Staff

I have worked with a lot of political professionals over the last 15 years. I have worked with some who really understand the potential of online campaigning, but don't understand the actual technology.  I have worked with many who viewed it as a threat to what they understand to be "the way" to campaign.  And I have worked with some who could have been truly transformative figures in a new era of campaigning.

Unfortunately, the division heads at the RNC don't fall into that latter category. Typically they fall into the second. The rare exception falls in the first.

You can put any eCampaign specialist into a department, but if the head of that department sees technology as a distraction or a fad (I've heard both words used to describe what we do), then that person will never be effective.

Instead of making a handful of staffers really unhappy, Saltsman should commit to hiring division heads who have demonstrated an understanding of online campaigns.  There are plenty of people that could fit that bill.

Structure

The next chair should rethink the fundamental structure of the RNC and the job functions of each department.  For instance, Communications is typically responsible for both the press and mass market appeals (like the web).  Anyone who has worked in both roles knows that you don't talk to people via your website the way you talk to reporters (though traditional Comms tactics may help you work with bloggers).

Why not rethink the way we communicate to bring it more inline with what has been proven to work in corporate America. 

Rarely do investor relations, media relations, and marketing rest in the same office. Typically sales and marketing share a common business line, as do media and investor communications. 

In politics, we typically separate sales (Political) and Marketing (Strategy, eCampaign) into separate pieces.  I would suggest the next RNC chair consider a realignment of these functions.  Political and Mass Communications (web or TV or radio or mail) should be closely linked and completely separate from the guys talking to the LA Times (assuming it's still around in 2-4 years).

Specific Examples of the Type of People You Need

If I were the RNC Chair, I would hire someone like Jon Henke to be the Communications Director.  He understands traditional media, but he also understands bloggers, how to read them, how to forecast them, and how to gauge what stories will move from new media to traditional media. You cannot underestimate the value of having someone who can see the future and know what the media will be talking about next week.  Someone who reads the paper every morning and reacts is of little use anymore.

As Political Director, I'd look to someone like Brian Donahue.  He was responsible for 72 hour programs at the RNC so he gets turnout and moving voters' feet.  He also understands the implications of the web in getting that job done.  He uderstands how volunteers can be brought in, groomed, and used to mobilize voters. More than that, given his current job, he also understands the media, and specifically the blend of traditional and new media.

I wouldn't have an eCampaign Director.  I think the very idea of that job serves only to perpetuate the idea of "the online campaign" as somehow separate and distinct from the rest of the RNC.  As the former eCampaign Director, I can say without reservation that the position simply creates a distinction that shouldn't exist.

You need someone who understands technology, databases, web/application development, list growth, etc, but that person is secondary to having someone who can drive the entire organization toward a philosophy that embraces these tactics.

I would look for a Chief of Staff who "gets it".  The Chief of Staff needs to be fundamentally aligned with the RNC Chairman's vision, but they also need to understand how that vision can be empowered by technology.  They need to have the requisite skills in budget management, personnel, etc, but the RNC will never be successful if the Chief of Staff isn't fully invested in the use of technology.

Baby Steps

I often talk with organizations or people who tell me they want to "take baby steps" online.  I always tell them I think it's outstanding that they want to be that aggressive.  The fact is, babies are exceptionally aggressive about learning to walk.  Their steps may be small, but they are certainly not timid.  

I would argue that all of these people, from the Chair to the lowest staffer, be prepared to push very hard. Thinking out of the box, and taking big chances will be the only way we can rebuild quickly.  We won't reverse our fortunes by taking things slowly.

Update: I got a note suggesting that my position here may be contrary to the Rebuild The Party plan (which Chip endorsed) which states:

Reorganizing the RNC. In order to accomplish these goals, the RNC's organizational structure will need to change. It is not enough to have a dedicated eCampaign division if other departments fail to use the Internet to transform how they do business in this new environment. The Internet should pervade everything the RNC does, and leadership on this front must come directly from the Chairman's Office.

I don't think my suggestion is contrary to that at all.  I agree that the RNC needs to be restructured. I agree that an eCampaign division is not enough, and I agree that leadership needs to come from the top.  I just disagree that placing an eCampaign staffer in each department is what I would call "Reorganizing."  That, to me, is simply paying lip service if those people don't have the authority to actually force change.

When the Bush Administration wants the agencies to do anything, they push the directive through OMB because those are the people that approve the budget. You either need executive leadership and budgetary authority to drive an organization - especially in a direction its not inclined to go on its own.

To echo and build on Patrick's post.

When a few of us channeled our efforts to RebuildtheParty.com, we intended to jumpstart the conversation about what the Party must do from a tactical standpoint to rebuild.  We did not intend to provide an all-encompassing manifesto that will guarantee a renewed Republican majority.

Our philosophy: rather than sit around and meet behind closed doors or wait for the perfect plan, let’s get started right away making changes within the party infrastructure. 

Let’s impact the conversations about what the Party must do to rebuild.  Let’s ensure, as a start, that the next Republican National Committee Chairman sets the right tone from a tactical perspective.  Most importantly, let’s open up the process so that we, the Republican people, have a say in electing our next Party Chairman.

If we, or anyone, had a precise, complete roadmap for what the Party must do from an ideological or policy perspective, what would we have left to talk about on sites like this one? 

The direction the Party heads is up to you, it’s up to me, it’s up to anyone who cares to participate in the process.  It’s certainly also up to Obama and the Left as their actions will often drive our reactions. 

The political roadmap for the Right is a perpetual work in progress, but one that must be based on the core principles of limited government and individual liberty.  As Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty have suggested recently, we must harmonize conservative principles and fresh solutions when confronting today's challenges.

That’s easier said than done.  In fact, it’s a gargantuan challenge, and one that should not be left in the hands of the entrenched consultant class of the last decade, the conservative movement dead wood (as Erick Erickson calls them) and purely self-promotional politicians. 

If the RNC -- and up and down-ballot campaigns and the grassroots activists they depend on -- adopts the principles as outlined on RebuildtheParty.com, we can build a more active coalition of right-leaning Americans who want to make a difference.  We will have the opportunity to reclaim the “party of ideas” and “party of the people” mantles, and create a culture of competition.

This is what the Republican Party is based on.  RebuildtheParty.com is not the answer.  It’s a step, one could argue a baby one at that.

Yet, when a baby takes their first step, we celebrate.  Why?  Not because they are an Olympic-level walker, but because they’re making progress.

This gem of idiocy was burried over the holidays what with terrorism and turkey on the menu, but it really is worth addressing.

One Curly Haugland, GOP chair of North Dakota is throwing his hat in the ring for RNC chair and fired a warning shot across the bow at other non RNC challengers and at Michael Steele in particular.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/27/steele-meeting-resistance-in-bid-for-rnc-post/

The above article in the Times includes such quackery as:

"In my estimation, 168 committed members of the Republican National Committee are a powerful army of qualified advocates for Republican principles; certainly much more threatening to the Democrats than one celebrity spokesman," Mr. Haugland said.
 

And:

"Your chosen path to leadership of the Republican National Committee exemplifies the problem we should immediately seek to resolve, that being the practice of allowing nonmembers to exert undue influence in the process of selecting our leaders" Mr. Haugland wrote Mr. Steele. "Getting the Republican Party back on the right 'track' is a job rightfully left to the Republicans who have been elected to run this railroad."
 

I found it very intersting to note that Curly's objections extend to others who HAVE been part of the RNC though not currently holding office.

Mr. Haugland said his objection to nonmembers seeking the RNC chairmanship applied also to Chip Saltsman, former Tennessee Republican Party chairman and campaign manager for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's presidential bid.

Meanwhile South Carolina GOP chair Katon Dawson (who also worked closely with Mike Huckabee on the election campaign of Glen McColl and on the front lines for SC's first black state legislator Tim Scott ) is under fire for of all things being a 'closet racist' in his country club membership???

Now call me stupid.. but I'm figuring that anybody with a brain in their head knows that dogging Steele in public right now, is about as benificial to your carreer in conservative politics, as dogging Palin during and after the election.

Curly has NO base in that RNC group, or support from influential voices in the movement outside it. He has no chance of winning that chairmanship. Which to me, begs the question, who stands to benfit the most from this 'insiders only' policy?

And wouldn't you know.. If Newt, Steele and Saltsman were out of the way.. one Saul Anuzis, GOP Chair for Michigan, (and a supporter and surrogate for Mitt Romney during the primaries) moves straight to the front of the line, becomming an almost shoe in for the spot.

He's been making the rounds gladhanding all the good ole boys, and has used his hard earned money to roll out with a splashy almost presidential campaign style website for his candidacy.

Now I won't go so far as to say that this is a Machievellian move by Mitt's surrogates to get his guy into the top spot, (Any more than I would say Huckabee is pulling the strings on Saltsman's candidacy, or that Newt may play kingmaker for Steele in exchange for his support in the future) These guys all have legitimate experience and resumes to challenge for the spot..but only the politically naieve don't see that every move fits into a bigger puzzle.

This IS politics people... and Curly is falling on his sword for somebody.. Because NOBODY is going to back him up on this ridiculous suggestion that 'more of the same' is going to lead the GOP out of the wilderness. He's officially dead to most conservatives. Which means somebody pretty important to someone must stand to reap the benifits of his political death.

Or he could just really be that dumb.

It will be very interesting to see how this power struggle plays out.

My money's still on Newt/Steele although my heart is definately with Huck/Saltsman

It's not hard to rebuild a political party. All you have to do is give the membership its voice and let them speak. However, even in this day and age of the Internet, that is easier said than done. Case in point: The efforts of Patrick Ruffini and Michael Turk and their Rebuild the Party plan. 

Here we have a couple of "former RNC eCampaign Directors"-- not exactly your average grassroot types -- trying to pass off their work as a bottom up, grassroot plan to rebuild the party.

True to form, there is no "About Us" button on their Rebuild the Party website. It never really gets around to telling us just who is proposing this plan. It goes on to suggest that other "ideas" can be submitted to the plan, but it never really explains who the "we" is that has the power to incorporate any additional suggestions into "The Plan," if, indeed, any other ideas will be added to the plan

Sure, the plan has co-signers, a "Coalition" if you will, but as far as I can see, what we have here is just the work of a couple of former RNC eCampaign Directors, trying to pass their plan off as some sort of grassroots effort, to be delivered to the top of the RNC, to be implemented from the top, down.

If Patrick Ruffini and Michael Turk were serious about creating a true grassroot plan to rebuild the party, they should actually go to the grassroots of the party to get their plan. This means allowing the grassroot to present their proposals and to actually vote on the ones the grassroots want adopted into the plan.

What we have here is the classic, "We lead, You donate" mentality that must be changed before any real rebuilding of the party can be accomplished.

When the political aspirations of the membership of a political party are acturately reflected, the common good of all will be achieved.  It is now time -- passed the time -- to bring the Republican Party back to its roots, its grassroots, so it can achieve the common good of all.

     ex animo

    davidfarrar

With Democrats winning large majorities in the House and Senate, it's difficult to see new Republican leadership emerging from Congress in the next couple years.   House and Senate Republicans will be playing defense and managing the losses, with little opportunity to move the ball forward on any of the Right's agenda. 

If the Right is to begin rebuilding, leadership will have to come from the outside. That is good.

We are at an inflection point for the Right; a moment in history when the Republican Party is undefined and listless, capable of being either renewed or captured.  The opportunity to mobilize around new leadership is the opportunity to re-take the Republican Party from the entrenched, atrophied Republican establishment.

The next opportunity is the RNC Chairman race in January of 2009.  It will be decided by fewer than 200 Committee members, but there is precent for the blogosphere to have a profound impact on leadership races.  We could do it in the RNC Chair race, too.

There are a great many candidates (and more ever day, it seems; Marc Ambinder reports that Jim Nussle is in and Newt Gingrich is interested).  However, the RNC Chair covers a wide variety of roles - from fundraising to operational management to communication; strategy and tactics - and it's not at all apparent that any of the candidates could possibly excel at every role.  Some are interesting, but others seem like minor functionaries looking to be elevated to a bigger fiefdom. 

That may be fine when the RNC Chair is just a support role to the Republican President or Congressional leadership.  But the RNC Chair will be in a unique position of Party and movement leadership in years ahead.   The Party will need both the tacticion and the strategist.  And the most important role of the RNC Chair may well be that of visionary leader.

So, who actually embodies the Republican Party ideals best?  I've previously suggested Fred Thompson would be an ideal fit as an RNC General Chairman - a communicator who gets the ideals, the policy and the message - while leaving the role of RNC Chair to the administrative manager.

It looks other people are thinking the same thing.  According to DC Examiner...

Republicans desperate to rebuild their party are looking for a new leader, and former Sen. Fred Thompson may seek the job. Thompson, a Tennessee conservative and former actor, is mulling a run for chairman of the Republican National Committee.

The American Spectator's Quin Hilyer says "there is more detail to the story"...

First, note the distinction between "General Chairman" and "Chairman." The potential Thompson run envisions a two-tiered system like the one that worked under Reagan with Paul Laxalt as General Chairman (but that didn't work so well recently with Mel Martinez as General Chairman). The General Chairman usually provides overall direction and philosophical moorings, and acts as the public face of the party doing media and speeches, etc., and also is available probably for big-money phone calls and events -- but the Chairman, with an Executive Director under him, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the RNC. Think Chairman of the Board vs. CEO, perhaps.

Quin also says Katon Dawson "knows how to get things done politically."   In light of the contention that Dawson is close to SC Governor Mark Sanford, that seems like a potential pairing [Fred Thompson as General Chair; Katon Dawson as Chair] that could appeal strongly to the limited government/leave us alone vision for the Republican Party. 

Hilyer's source says that Fred Thompson and his team are "looking at the lay of the land. If there is an indication of a wellspring of support, he will get in quickly."

If the grassroots Right wants to have an impact on the Republican Party, this is their chance to do it.

According to an American Spectator item this morning, the race for RNC Chair appears to be over. Or maybe it's not. But the game of who is in and who is out has some tongues wagging.

It seems the South Carolina GOP Chair Katon Dawson has been campaigning for the gig since last year sometime (Ok, not really. Just since the convention, according to the AS piece.)

Dawson, the owner of an auto-parts-supply company, has been calling GOP donors and fundraisers, among others, telling them he has lined up enough votes within the 168-member national committee to make him a prohibitive favorite for the job.

"He's made it clear he doesn't expect John McCain to win the presidency," says one RNC fundraiser who has received such a call. "Katon's an ambitious guy. He's made no bones about the fact that he wants the RNC job."

But no one takes seriously the notion that Dawson is anywhere close to having a large voting bloc of RNC votes. "There are too many others poised to get into the race," says one RNC member. "We're looking at between 10 to 15 potential candidates and maybe seven or eight of them already have constituencies on the committee. No one is in a position to call this thing over, particularly since our next president, John McCain, gets to pick the next chairman."

That point is something that Dawson has seemingly overlooked, and his aggressive campaigning at a time when most Republicans are fighting hard to get McCain elected President has angered a number of Republicans because they understand why Dawson, who has been a local GOP chair in South Carolina, and won the state party job in 2002, is running: in part, to help jumpstart a presidential bid for the governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford...

Dawson was actually campaigning for the job during the Republican Convention, something that angered not only the McCain campaign, but other Republicans with longtime ties to the RNC.

Apparently, some people are upset because Katon Dawson is actively campaigning while they're trying to elect John McCain. On the heels of all the "reform the rightroots movement" posts, this may stirke some people as odd.

I'd like to throw this out for discussion. Given all the chatter about reforming the GOP, is it bad form to start a campaign for Chairman months before the election?

I suspect it will only be another 36 hours or so before we see a lot more people jockeying for the RNC gig. After all, it is one of the three most visible positions within the GOP if McCain should fail to hold the White House. However, how early is "too early"? Should the body be cold before campaigning begins? Does it even need to be dead?