Why not Mitt Romney for RNC Chairman?

I don't think Romney passes the snif test for "transformational", frankly. But that raises the question of what we mean by GOP transformation.

...somebody who can fundamentally reframe the debate...

Perhaps I misunderstand him but Jon seems to imply that it is a rebranding/reframing effort as opposed to actual change to GOP positioning and our approach to building a new governing coalition. For my part, I believe the Reagan coalition no longer exists as an electoral majority. We need transformation that reimagines how the GOP can work toward a new majority coalition going forward. And I haven't seen anything from Romney that suggests he is capable of leading that change.

As to the Dean comparison, two comments: 1) we should be cautious in taking too many cues for the next right from the pattern the Dems have used to reinvent their coalition; and 2) Dean was able to tap into the new energy coming into his party; where is our new energy going to come from? We probably won't know until we see how the country responds to Obama's term. Remember Dean was a phenomenon of 2004 not 2000; in other words his rise followed on the heels of GWB's early success and the opposition thereto from the left. Will Obama similarly energize new blood for the GOP? But as point 1 says, we should keep in mind that their pattern may not map to our situation at all.

Let's be clear about Mitt. K Street and the Bush White House loved Mitt Romney precisely because he was the candidate of a Washington Republican Party that they were comfortable with. That party had lost touch with the rank and file and its concerns.

That said, I have no doubt that Romney would have beaten Obama like a drum in debate, yet lost the election: he exudes phoniness. Romney never convinced anyone that he was genuine.

The next RNC Chair will have the most important job since Ray Bliss in 1965: rebuilding the RNC from the ground up. We are likely to face a Democratic Party holding all the levers of power and in control of a vast propaganda apparatus in the mainstream media. The RNC will have to build out from its Southern and Western base into the rest of the country. It will be the work of probably two to four electoral cycles, but we got ourselves into this ditch by losing touch with the country and allowing the Iraq War to continue for too long without resolution, so it's our responsibility to rebuild both our party and our reputation.

Long hard slog, as it were. We need someone who knows both how to build a party and stay in touch with the concerns of people.

I will assume that "reframe" means to return to basic principles and rebuild a new core program, and the strategies and tactics that flow from it.  In other words, the Republican "house"  - assuming an Obama presidency and a filibuster proof Congress - will have been condemned in an unambiguous and decisive fashion.  Remodeling will not do the job.  It must be torn down and rebuilt from the foundation up.

The problem is fairly simple to identify.  I coincidentally found the results of two independent studies which illuminate the intellectual muddle infecting the Republican Party.  Heritage Foundation develops a "Dependency Index" each year.  This index highlights the degree to which U.S. citizens are partaking of government financed basic services - health, housing, food being the main components.  I worked the numbers by administration beginning with Reagan.  The two Bush presidencies have seen by far the greatest increases in these measurements, outpacing Clinton by 4 TO 1!

Further, an independent analysis of the increases in regulation illustrate the same point.  GWB has presided over two of the four administrations with the greatest increases in regulatory staffs and budgets since, if memory serves, WWII.  Admittedly this does not measure actual regulatory pronouncements, but those increases in staffs and budgets probably serve as a reasonable proxy for the amount of meddling in personal and business affairs.  Thus, the Bushes have overseen huge increases in dependency and regulation in U.S. society.  Is this consistent with - however you wish to define it - a core Republican principle?

Now that the Bush dynasty has come to a close, the first step in the likely aftermath of this election is to clean out any remaining decision making figures from the Bush I and II eras.  Give them a new suit and $50 and tell them to find productive work and don't let the door hit you on the way out.  If the core principles revolve around limited government, low taxes, individual freedom and a sound national defense, as I remember it to be, then leadership must come from those who have shown - say Palin, Pawlenty, Blunt, and others I don't know - they not only understand, but have lived these principles.  It is almost certain that the Dems will attempt within the first six months to enact legislation to stifle free speech, ensure more campaign contributions from unions and trial lawyers, further corrupt voter registration roles, and ensure that "investigations" of the Bush administration will create built in excuses for Obama missteps for 4 years.  This agenda must be exposed and opposed energetically from Day 1.