I am in the camp that believes that the RNC Chairman position should be split into two positions, a CEO position that would be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the RNC and, especially, its fundraising, recruitment, and party development activities (internet, voter outreach, etc.) and a General Chairman, who would be the public “face” of the party and have the responsibility of presenting our philosophy and ideas to the general public.

I agree that the CEO slot should be a RNC member, like Katon Dawson of SC. For General Chairman, my first choice would be Fred Thompson. I believe there is no one in the party who can better explain conservative policies and principles in a way easily understood by average Americans. Bit, I can support Mr. Steele in the Gen. Chairman position as well. Mr. Gingrich is an “ideas man” not suited to party building. This, combined with his negative image in the country at large makes him, in my opinion, wrong for a RNC leadership position. He should remain in his think-tank position and serve as an incubator for conservative governing ideas, his best destiny.

chair is to recruit and organize. If you want to be the face of the party run for office. If we don’t recruit better candidates at all levels and most importantly among hispanics we are on a losing track for the future.

In addition anyone closely connected with the RLC is a non starter for me and sends the wrong signals to both the party and the media about where we think we need to be.

The elections got me to back of the RMSP and McCain because as much as I despise them I despise the Dems more…The Gloves are off now and I’ll be working on exposing as many of these squish groups as possible…

Oh…now that the election is over…I’ll point you to last year’s, (maybe the year before)recipient of the RMSP Chafee Award…which goes to the squish who has done most to advance a “Moderate, (read liberal) agenda….it’s none other than John Sydney McCain!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Senate Conservatives Fund House Conservatives Fund Michael Williams for Senate

Marco 2010 Toomey US Senate SarahPAC

Rahm Emanuel started taking in a lot of conservative dems in 2006 in order to make the party into “big tent” party. They started accepting pro-gun and pro-life democrats and picked off many House and Senate seats. This was furthered by Dean and Obama’s 50 state strategy this year, which picked off states like NC, VA, and IN for the first time in decades.

Its hard to gain control of govt. if the GOP narrows itself to only its base. This seems to be the argument within the GOP nowadays. Some say go back to the conservative roots and some, like Steele, want to broaden the appeal of the GOP beyond conservatives. I understand you (Erick) being weary of broadening in that it will dilute conservative ideals, but you need to be the Big Tent party to get back control. You need a broader coalition.

Might be wise to push him for this post. Put aside your primary sentiments. The guy is a brainiac. He is a world class CEO. He understands fundraising and organization. He has no interest in Michigan or Utah and no future in Mass.

And Steele makes perfect sense. Ask people who the chairman of the RNC was and they most likely could not tell you. Ask who was the chairman of the DNC and they would say rather quickly: Dean. I understand the role of the chairman. Make Steele the man and he would have a face quickly. There are always people to put around him to make him work. Yes, we do need a face at this point in time. Not over and against Obama, but to show we are not just a bunch of old white guys. Like it or not that is the way we are seen. He would be a great choice in my opinion.

relies on only single-issue stances. I’m not trying to make an argument that we should go “centrist”, but take the primaries for example. We had two candidates in Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee who were anethema and euphoria, respectively, to only one part of the conservative coalition. I make no bones about the fact that I supported Romney. I actually had a non-official official role within his campaign here in mid-Missouri, and I can’t tell you how many people wouldn’t even consider Romney for no other reason other than he used to be pro-choice at one point. Meanwhile, there were people who were supporting Huckabee for no other reason than he was the most pro-life candidate you could ever find. Now, if you went outside the bounds of the pro-life discussion and focus on every other issue, the people I refer to above would agree with Romney’s stance on almost every single point, and disagree with Huckabee’s position.

But it’s not just pro-life. It’s national security conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and the rest of the conservative coalition that needs to realize this. We need to come to a conclusion that we can’t be worrying about who’s more conservative, or who can reach more people, or whatever you might think. We need to realize that our party needs to work more like a family. We may not always agree on everything, but at the end of the day, we are conservatives and Republicans. That needs to be the primary focus.

Look it up, best political commercial ever.

I like Steele, but we should put a person in there with a history of winning elections. If we want to play the ethnic games, then we should find a qualified Hispanic, as that group has at least shown, at times, a chance to vote republican.

And I say that as someone who thinks Steele would be a very good selection as RNC Chairman.

First of all, let me say that I am incensed by those Republicans who think Steele should be RNC Chairman because he is “a mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Frankly, I have called liberal Democrats who think like that racists. Erstwhile conservative Republicans who think like that are just as racist!

But to the point of Michael Steele himself, I find it most disheartening is, as you say, he does not know what the RNC Chairman does. If true — and forgive me if I am a bit skeptical of your claim, if only because he was once the head of the Maryland GOP — then that alone should disqualify him.

But perhaps my understanding of what the RNC Chairman’s responsibilities are is mistaken. I think that the RNC Chairman has three general duties:

1. Organize
2. Recruit
3. Articulate

As far as organization skills go, I do think Michael Steele is top-notch. During his tenure as head of the Maryland GOP was the only time the Maryland GOP had any life. Indeed, quite frankly, I think the primary reason that Robert Ehrlich won the Maryland governorship in 2002 was because of the groundwork and organizational framework put in place by his then running-mate, Michael Steele, when he was head of the head of the Maryland GOP. Furthermore, Steele’s run for the U.S. Senate in 2006 was also a testament to his organizational skills. Yes, Michael Steele lost badly, but considering the headwinds he was running against, he still did quite well. Indeed, although Ben Cardin was always ahead in the polls, Steele’s campaign was definitely the more aggressive and consistently but Cardin on the defensive.

As far as the recruitment of GOP candidates, Steele does have a less successful record here. I do not think he has a bad one, I just don’t think he has an exceptionally good one. To his credit, however, I think he has the ability to speak to both GOP “conservatives” as well as “moderates.” He himself is fairly conservative (affirmative action probably excepting) but he can also motivate moderates. Perhaps that is a byproduct of his living in liberal Maryland. And truth be known, I cannot think of many people who, considering the political milieu of Maryland, have or could be much better than Steele under the circumstances.

As for abortion, I think it is best to say that Michael Steele is “confused” like most Americans. Michael Steele does say (like most Americans) that Roe v. Wade should be maintained under the doctrine of stare decisis. However, he also thinks that abortion is murder and should be outlawed under most circumstances (also like most Americans). Yes, I think there is a great deal of cognitive dissonance going on in Steele’s head about abortion and can most definitely understand why this could be a “deal-breaker” for many. Trust me, I do understand. About the only good thing I can say about Steele’s take is that, again, it probably does mirror the thinking of most people on the subject: abortion is wrong and should be prohibited under most circumstances but Roe v. Wade should stand.

As for his ability articulate a conservative message, that, interestingly enough, may be his most problematic area. Make no mistake, Steele can articulate a very conservative message. As others here on RedState have noted, when he ran for the Senate in 2006 (and even when he was running for Lieutenant Governor in 2002, when he was Erhlich’s more conservative running mate), Michael Steele did not apologize for his conservative beliefs. Good for him! The problem is, however, that his same “big tent” mentality that makes him non-threatening to moderates occasionally also prohibits him from forcefully articulating a conservative message all the time. While I do think there is a time and place for a “big tent” mentality — hey, let’s face it, there is no way a “Jesse Helms” type of Republican will ever win in Maine — I do think that Steele goes overboard at times.

All in all, however, I think Michael Steele would be an excellent choice as RNC Chairman. Indeed, I think he would be the best choice among the front runners I have heard about so far.

Fred Thompson was my first choice for President this year and I cannot think of a better voice to articulate a conservative message. However, if his Presidential campaign is any guide, I don’t think he has the organizational ability to be the RNC Chairman.

Newt Gingrich is also a good voice for conservatism and is a great “idea” man. Moreover, in terms of recruiting, I think he could be the best of the bunch. However, I also think Gingrich is a flake who thinks more of his ideas than he should (e.g. I will never forget that while he was Speaker of the House, he came up with an idea to give poor kids laptop computers; thankfully his idea went nowhere). Also, I seriously question his long-term organizational abilities: Gingrich seems like the type of man who is always looking for his latest idea but who has a limited attention span to completely follow through on his last idea. Besides, if the rumors are correct, he is supporting Michael Steele now.

Finally, Mitt Romney may be the best of the bunch outside of Michael Steele. His organizational abilities cannot be disputed: look at his wins in the caucuses (notice that I did not say primaries) and his success in the private sector. Plus, with his money and “fame,” I don’t think he would have any trouble recruiting candidates, especially if he is willing to contribute a bit of the former. The problem with Mitt Romney is, however, I still don’t trust him. Let’s not forget that, until his run for the GOP nomination, Romney has never run anything as a conservative. Shall I mention his Senate campaign pledge to be “more supportive of gay rights” than Ted Kennedy or enacting “Romney-Care” while he Governor of Massachusetts. And speaking of auto industry bailouts, let’s not forget that one of the reasons he won Michigan is he promised the auto industry $20 billion in “assistance.” My fear with Romney is that he is able to parrot the conservative lines but I question if he really believe them. The real question about him is, as RNC Chairman, would it really matter?

Karl Rove- Seriously, is there a better choice?

Fred Thompson- I think that job was made for him.

Newt Gingrich- Why not, sometimes you just have to do things yourself.

**Mike Huckabee- Yes, and no I’m not crazy. I’m not real convinced he is going to run in 12. Furthermore, he is a deep thinker and takes pride in thinking outside the box. Furthermore, he just gets “it”. I think he would be a dynamic operator.

I’m familiar with Steele from his days in MD and his run against Cardin. He ran a pretty good race up until election day and I actually liked him as a person, though I disagree with him on policy. It was some of the shady stuff he did with Ehrlich which in that election that made me lose all respect for him.

You have to ask yourself this…..Do you really want the leader of your party to be a guy whose campaign bused homeless people from Philadelphia to the African-American areas outside of DC to hand out literature that falsely claimed prominent African-American leaders in the community were supporting him and Ehrlich? When choosing your leader, you need to find someone who is willing to express their opinions and make their case in a strong manner, convincing manner. What you don’t want is someone who was is willing to go along with a plan to gain votes by confusing voters. It’s cynical politics at it’s worse. You guys can do better than that and are going to have to broaden your base of support in minority communities.

You also have to ignore his ethnicity here too. If you think that having an African-American as RNC chair is going to get you votes, you are in for a rude awaking. Remember, in Steele’s Senate race, he only received 25% of the AA vote. While 10% better than Ehrlich in his Governors race, it doesn’t show AA’s flocking to him because of race.

He was a lt. governor. He couldn’t win an election to Congress in his own state. Besides sounding great on Fox News, what has he done to show he is qualified to be RNC Chair?

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/aceintx/2008/nov/17/update-the-rmsp-a-liberal-insurgency-in-our/

UPDATE: The RMSP, A Liberal Insurgency In Our MiUPDATE: The RMSP; A Liberal Insurgency In Our Midst: Part 1 dst: Part 1

What Everyone Should Know About The RMSP And Their Sister Organizations

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Senate Conservatives Fund House Conservatives Fund Michael Williams for Senate

Marco 2010 Toomey US Senate SarahPAC

Erick, I can’t thank you enough for bringing some of these items to my attention. I am ashamed to admit that I’m not as well informed on policy positions of all the GOP leaders as I should be.

Thankfully, I have RedState to get the meat of what people really stand for and what is really going on.

I disagree with people who think the GOP needs to get away from social issues, in order to be “big tent”. I think the “big tent” philosophy is what has gotten us where we are today.

Being pro-life is, for me, a position I will not and cannot compromise on. The social issues are what motivates the base of the party to knock on doors, make phone calls, and work for their candidates. If we lose that, we fall right into the Democrats trap.

The Republican Party must be a clear contrast to the Democrats. Not a middle of the road, philosophically aloof party. If we compromise on social issues, we’ll continue to get pounded at the polls.

This country is conservative at her root. The majority of Americans agree with social conservatism. Look at Prop 8, etc.

What we need is someone who can clearly communicate the ideas of social and fiscal conservatism so taht the heartland of America can really grasp the difference between the two parties. For too long that has been lacking.

We must not compromise on our values and our core principles. If we do, 2008 will look like a walk in the park.

Thank you Erick for pointing out the errors in Lt. Gov. Steele’s positions. Until I read this, I would have supported him.

What about Chip Saltsman? He had no money, no organization, and led the Huckabee campaign on a good run.

Any thoughts on him?

I have to say either he is a liar or he is saying my words to me…..the BIGGEST 2 and I keep saying it are THE GRASSROOTS are going to take back the party away from the Rockefeller Republicans and that “this is not your mother and fathers Republican Party”

an interesting article in the NY Times on NRO pretty much expresses the issue at hand…

NRO is OLD Republicanism their perceived intellect is going to end their run….we are the party of the middle class, the blue collar worker and we always have been

No more of letting Democrats act as if they give a crap about the poor, middle class, upper middle class and yes even the rich. We all know that less taxes on companies and the rich do indeed trickle down and everyone benefits by jobs! We must get that message back that the government is NOT the answer to a good life that self sufficiency and love of country and God and yeah those guns that keep the government at bay is indeed the Republican Party.

Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy

I think Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove would be better. The problem is that Rove is associated with Bush, and that gives the DNC all the ammo they need. People know Newt Gingrich, but how can he court younger and minority voters?
I’ve seen a few responses for splitting the chair post (as long as Mike Duncan isn’t involved) and I have to agree. Let Steele reach out to the minorities and younger voters (as long as he can prove he has the ability to convey how our solutions can help them) and let a Rove or Ginigrich oversee the borad picture.