« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Gettin’ Dirty

As party leaders prepare to gather later this week in Washington, D.C., tasked with the unenviable mission of reassembling the pieces of GOP, the six-way battle for RNC Chairman is significantly heating up.

The very dynamics of the race and current political climate lends itself to personal and even misleading attacks: Each candidate, vying to differentiate themselves in a fiercely Democratic environment, will invariably levy charges of ideological impurity to gain the upper-hand. Highlighting perceived vulnerabilities – media faux pas, ideological speeding tickets, charges of racism – is a staple of modern political dog fights, and this race is clearly no exception. Every campaign dabbles in the cloak-and-dagger world of opposition research, and those who don’t probably weren’t viable candidates in the first place.

Indicative of the present intensity, I offer this piece of graphic-heavy opposition on current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan:

Anti-Duncan Opposition Research

Throughout his term, Duncan was viewed by party insiders and reporters alike as a low-key fundraising wunderkind whose Solomonic solution to seat half of the Michigan and Florida convention delegates resolved the primary frontloading crisis that embroiled the Democrats and Howard Dean late into the primary campaign.

With former President Bush’s blessing, Duncan relieved Ken Melhman of his duties as Chairman in January of 2007 in a power-sharing agreement with Senator Mel Martinez. Per Bush’s directive, Martinez served as the de facto “face” of the Party in Bush’s absence, leaving Duncan to handle fundraising, the implementation of strategy, and to mediate intra-party conflicts. After parting ways with Congressional leadership on a series of key issues, the unity leadership structure devised by Bush crumbled when Martinez resigned in October of 2007 – at which point Duncan assumed the role of chief spokesman, too.

Republican losses in 2006 were a result of a confluence of factors, none of which included Mike Duncan. If pointing a finger helps you sleep at night while the Democratic majority works to pass the $825 billion “stimulus” plan, point to former Chairman Ken Melhman.

The attempt to not only link Duncan to our past-failings, but explicitly brand him as the sole cause for the curb-stomp Republicans endured in ’06 suggests an erratic, worried temperament on the part of his detractors. 

Duncan is a known quantity; the voters – RNC elected officials – are extremely educated in this matter. Opposition research, at least of this nature, will fail to change anyone’s mind.

Cross-posted at Skepticians.com.

[Full Disclosure: I served under Mike Duncan at the Republican National Committee as the Online Communications Manager for the 2008 Presidential cycle.]

COMMENTS

  • Democracy_First

    Please do not reelect Mike Duncan as Chairman of the RNC. It will send a horrible message to the media and the general public that our party has learned nothing from the past two election cycles. Not to mention, the activists and grassroots leaders of our party are totally against Duncan.

    Do not further weaken the Republican Party by reelecting this man.

    • James Richardson

      Duncan was not Chairman for the ’06 midterm elections.

      Just to be clear: Duncan was NOT Chairman of the Republican National Committee when America took us to the woodshed. Under his leadership, the RNC was the only Republican committee to out raise its Democratic counterpart — and by millions and millions and millions of dollars in this instance.

      • IJB

        But that’s not the only yardstick the RNC chair is being evaluated on.

        Things like *message* and P.R. matter too. (Among many other things.)

        On that alone, Duncan is disqualified, IMO.

        Let’s face it – fundraising is the least of out worries right now, and should be way down the list of criteria for RNC Chair.

      • humboldt

        To be fair, the McCain campaign that funneled most of the money to the RNC because the campaign was limited in what it could accept. Conversely, Obama, going outside of the campaign finance system, did not need the DNC to pay for any of his campaign, so didn’t need to spend any time pushing $ there.

        Please please please, I don’t mean to star a discussion on how terrible the campaign finance rules are and that McCain is a jerk for pushing it, etc…. just to make the point that Duncan didn’t necessarily do that great a job fundraising – that the Presidential pushed a lot of money there that did not happen on the Democrat side, thus allowing the RNC to outraise the DNC (by a hair).

        • Martin Knight

          … that had trouble raising money, not the RNC.

          Que?

          • humboldt

            the mccain campaign took public financing for the general election which meant they were not allowed to raise money for the general. Any donors who wanted to support McCain (or Palin) during the general election were directed to the RNC where they could contribute up to $71,000 per person.

          • Martin Knight

            The RNC raised money at a reasonable clip all year, while McCain’s fundraising numbers were anemic at best, until he picked Sarah Palin for his VP.

            At least that’s what I recall. I doubt the McCain campaign directing donors to the RNC can be credited much with the fundraising numbers the Committee posted up. If so, the NRSC and NRCC would have also been awash with cash.

          • James Richardson

            If we?re to credit the campaign and not Duncan for the RNC?s commendable fundraising, why then did the RNC consistently thump Howard Dean and the DNC ? even before McCain won the nomination? Moreover, after McCain won the nomination, Duncan?s hands were bound to the extent the committee and campaign could coordinate fundraising activities (see: FEC regulations).

            With Duncan at the helm, the RNC ensured McCain would remain competitive in the money game after Obama forwent his promise to accept public financing.

  • Martin Knight

    And I have actually come to the conclusion that Duncan is far from the villain/doofus that most of us (including myself) have made him out to be.

    I think he was more a victim of being a conventional thinker i.e. “follow the President, follow the nominee – do whatever they want” than being an incompetent. After McCain being the reason his own campaign couldn’t raise money, the reason the RNC could not help other Republicans, he is probably wishing he told McCain to go pound sand.

    At this point, I hope Blackwell, Anuzis or Steele (in that order) win on the 29th. But if he does, I’ll not prejudge or be part of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy on failure.

    I just hope he’s learned his lesson.

  • jimmuy8

    Until this party can at least make a show of holding someone responsible, no one will be held responsible ever–and we will all have to suffer.

    The same attitude that gave us McCain as our candidate is the same toxic stupidity that gave us losses in 2006 and 2008.

    If we had any leaders–true leaders–running the party, they would have already resigned in disgrace and humiliation. But there is no sense of honor or dignity among them, all that is left is entitlement and personal enrichment.

    Results matter.

    And the only result that counts in politics is winning. All this talk about how those in charge were good at this, or had some success at that is useless turd-polishing. They FAILED. All of them.

    Will we use the fire as an opportunity to reclaim the land behind the charge of new leadership? Or will we use it as an excuse to retreat behind the burnt timbers of the old?

    • Martin Knight
  • http://streetlevel.blogtownhall.com Darvin_Dowdy

    …be aware of the fact that fundraising is the 2nd priority. The first is who the donors are. This is a massive almost insurmountable problem that is not being even discussed by most. The donors want something completely different for their donations than what the GOP Base wants. Example: the U.S. Chamber & its 3 million members wanting to keep the flow of illegal cheap labor uninterupted and the Base wanting the exact opposite. Whatya’ gonna do? Votes or Money?
    Now can this Duncan fellow deal with this sort of dilema? Can any of the 6? My opinion is – No. None of the above. DD