« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Answers Wanted From All Parties Running for RNC Chairman

By: The Directors (Diary)  |  November 25th, 2008 at 12:25 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

We at RedState have ten items on which we would like your responses. We will print your responses to all ten items on the front page of RedState in the order in which they are received.

The ten items are:

  1. Please state your qualifications for the job and why those qualifications make you the best choice.

  2. Please explain how you see the role of RNC Chairman.

  3. Please outline how you see the role of RNC Chairman in terms of structuring the Republican message and platform.

  4. Please outline your goals for internal reform and/or restructuring of the RNC.

  5. Please explain your vision for expanding the GOP’s use of technology in the future and, in light of that, explain your preferred structure for the online apparatus of the RNC.

  6. Please explain what steps and resources you would use to rebuild, reform, or otherwise repair state Republican parties that need restoration and/or strengthening.

  7. Please explain what criteria you would use to vet and recruit winnable candidates.

  8. Please explain how you would recruit effective candidates for the 2010 United States Senate races and how you would help those candidates.

  9. Please explain why the Republican Party should remain a pro-life party.

  10. Please explain what benchmarks you think would be fair to measure an RNC Chairman to determine if that Chairman has succeeded or failed in his task.

Tags:
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • 10ksnooker

    Are they qualified to run for President?

    Reagan’s legacy … Through his economic policies, Reagan brought the United States to world leadership among major industrial nations in all the key dimensions of economic growth: investment (51 per cent growth), industrial production (30 per cent growth), manufacturing productivity (26 per cent growth), job creation (15 million new jobs), real per-capita income (18 per cent increase), and technological innovation (a rising U.S. market share in information technologies).

    I wonder what a few years of Obamunism might look like?

    • Diogenes314

      Nice litmus test. Fow about something that actually matters, like supporting judges that interpret law as opposed to creating it. Without this, your anti-abortion stance is irrelevant anyway.

      • aaronbg

        I am not insisting on ideological purity…if you want to be pro abortion fine, what I am saying is that the leadership of the party should be pro-life. If you disagree make a valid argument as to why. Don’t just provide a different litmus test and insist it is more important. By the way I actually agree with you that we need Judges who interpret instead of legislate..after all we have different branches for that very purpose.

        • Diogenes314

          I’m not. Mearly pointing out that your litmus test is irrelevant at this point, and the only way for your position to see the light of day is focuaing on judicial qualifications. Which, BTW, is a unifying rather than a divisive principle.

          Also, insisting on ‘pro-life’ is one thing. But then it (d)evolves into pro-life-enough, there are those who would want to excomunicate those like Steele and Romney because of guilt by association or evolving political beliefs.

          Barry Goldwater, your thoughts?

          • birdmojo

            I quickly scanned again for questions pertaining to Fiscal Conservativism. Nope.

            National Defense, maybe? Nope.

            9 stuck out… but it wouldn’t have with maybe a question or two surrounding it.

            Best of luck in 2010.

          • aaronbg

            Judicial philosophy is a critical principle but the point is that it is not in dispute among republicans as a party. Whereas our stand on life is.

            Why do we want judges to interpret rather than legislate? One reason is Roe v. Wade. So even in this becomes a divisive principle when looking at what we would want to accomplish by preserving that principle of Judicial Philosophy. The two are inherently linked are the not?

            And as far as any issue is divisive, should that be justification for it to be dropped from the party? If so then why should we stand up for the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, this too is divisive so why fight for it?

            Do you see what I mean now?

          • Dave_in_Fla

            There were plenty of people willing to excommunicate Romney because they didn’t believe his change in philosophy regarding the life issue. It didn’t matter that he now believes in the sanctity of life and that his position on judges who will deal with cases constitutionally will result in the legislative response we want (which was Rudy’s position also, despite his pro-choice stance). The fact that he once held a pro-choice position was enough to disqualify him from the nomination in the eyes of many in the party. However, these same folks have no trouble with Huckabee, despite his large government record and positions.

            Why can’t I drive a stake into the ground saying that if you have ever been in favor of larger government, you are an apostate and are not to be considered for a leadership position?

  • jeffreywturner

    Given the fact that the white population is dwindling, and blacks have repeatedly shown no willingness to stray from blind loyalty to whichever party supports the most generous entitlements (Dems for 40+ years now), I would like to hear how the new chairman proposes to move the party past the immigration issue and get us back on the trail of hispanic outreach, so we have more elections like 2004, and less like 2006 & 2008.

    • CarolT

      Can I add a sense of humor? Ed Gillespie had the best GOP website in 2004. It was fun to visit, maybe more so to me because I was a supporter of George W. Bush, but only voting for McCain. Does anyone remember the Christmas Card from the RNC from 2004? It was a classic, unfortunately, it was throw away by a family member with Alzheimer’s. I really looked forward to visiting the RNC website and blogging on it. I don’t usually do that.

      I read a very funny recap of the 2004 election where the Republicans saved every picture, quote, etc of John Kerry to have in response to what was in the news. Do you remember John Kerry and them saying he looked French? We were calling them freedom fries then, not French fries? I thought I might have read that article on The Weekly Standard, but have searched, it must have been on GOP Website by Gillespie.

      What I think doomed Romney was the MA health insurance law he passed, with Ted Kennedy by his side signing it into law. I am from MA and have to do the employer’s job and that law has made me one if not two extra days of work per year. It also has fines attached if the company does not have Section 125 Cafeteria Plans and does not offer all employees, even as low as 15 hours per week health insurance. There are pictures of Romney signing that with Teddy smiling. I understand Romney’s change of heart on abortion he was trying to do us a favor and get rid of Teddy Kenenedy in 1994.

      • CarolT

        Can I add a sense of humor? Ed Gillespie had the best GOP website in 2004. It was fun to visit, maybe more so to me because I was a supporter of George W. Bush, but only voting for McCain. Does anyone remember the Christmas Card from the RNC from 2004? It was a classic, unfortunately, it was throw away by a family member with Alzheimer’s. I really looked forward to visiting the RNC website and blogging on it. I don’t usually do that.

        I read a very funny recap of the 2004 election where the Republicans saved every picture, quote, etc of John Kerry to have in response to what was in the news. Do you remember John Kerry and them saying he looked French? We were calling them freedom fries then, not French fries? I thought I might have read that article on The Weekly Standard, but have searched, it must have been on GOP Website by Gillespie.

        What I think doomed Romney was the MA health insurance law he passed, with Ted Kennedy by his side signing it into law. I am from MA and have to do the employer’s job and that law has made me one if not two extra days of work per year. It also has fines attached if the company does not have Section 125 Cafeteria Plans and does not offer all employees, even as low as 15 hours per week health insurance. There are pictures of Romney signing that with Teddy smiling. I understand Romney’s change of heart on abortion he was trying to do us a favor and get rid of Teddy Kenenedy in 1994.

  • Jaded

    I suspect all those running are with family and friends for the holidays and we certainly don’t want anyone to think that Redstate is being ignored by the potential Chairman of the RNC because that would be disastrous for them….in that as a grassroots site there is MONEY to be mined here!

    Thank you if you accept my suggestion!

    • UnderCoverGuy

      I have to agree with Jaded and think that a lot of our RNC Chairman candidates are pretty busy during this shortened week as well, just like we are. I know I’m always the busiest when I try to fit 5 days worth of work into 3 working days. They are also probably going to take time to be with their families (just like we are) and to be thankful for all that God has graced them with. Isn’t God and family a key part of what our Party is all about?

      And besides, I don’t think that any of them will ignore the clout that RS has. I’m sure next week we will hear back from the candidates, which will just go to prove Jaded’s message above.

      Bringing this back up on the front page on Monday would be an excellent idea. Nice call Jaded.

      I second that motion. Move to vote? :-)

  • Pingback: Tags » Answers Still Wanted ::

  • Pingback: We once were red…. » Answers Still Wanted

  • Pingback: Erick’s blog » Saul Anuzis Responds to RedState ::

  • Pingback: ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Saul Anuzis Responds to RedState

  • tsquare

    Good work guys!

    Hold these guys to come here and answer these questions.

    Red State needs to become the ‘glue’ that keeps the right together in these ‘challenging’ times.

  • Dave_in_Fla

    I constantly struggle to understand why this is our litmus test. Why isn’t it support for the 2nd amendment, smaller government, lower taxes, Israel, etc…

    Why did we choose this one topic as the one heresy that we can not compromise on?

    Yes, I am Pro-life and I understand that the other issues don’t involve the purposeful and painful killing of an innocent human child. But this is the one topic on which we are unlikely to get any significant progress on a national level, and in the last election is was a complete non-factor. Pro-life people voted for the first national candidate in favor of infanticide, in droves.

    So maybe I would like to see an answer to #9. Just like I’d like an answer to #9a, b, c, etc… Where they explain why continued support for other core policies are important. For example, I’d like to know why Huckabee’s pro-life stance makes him more acceptable to us, despite his large government tendencies.

  • aaronbg

    Without Life there are no other rights to be bestowed. I understand what you are getting at with this but Life must be of primacy otherwise all the other rights lack meaning.

  • aceintx

    1. please state your understanding of the role the party platform should play in shaping the Republican message, agenda, candidate recruitment, party structure and encourage participation of activists in the convention process.

    2. Do you support the 2008 Republican platform process where in platform proposals were opened to internet participation by non delegates and even non Republicans thereby removing much of the motivation for activist to participate at the local, state, and national conventions because it removes much of the input delegates have to the party fundamentals and message?

  • aesthete

    11: Please explain how the Republican party will advance the ideas of federalism, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility while you are RNC head.

    12: Please show what efforts the Republican Party will make under your tenure to restore its image, and how it will distance itself from Bush.

  • aaronbg

    I understand what you are saying and I agree. Here is the deal though, we do it to every candidate on all issues. That is all part of the process. I rejected Huckabee because of his fiscal positions. I rejected Rudy because of image problems that I thought would be impossible to overcome e.g. appearing in drag. I rejected McCain because he was moderate for moderations sake. I rejected Romney because he gave me that car salesman smile one to many times. I rejected Tancredo because he was single issue on immigration. I supported Fred because he was the closest to my ideals. When that washed out I went Romney then Rudy then McCain out of duty to the party.

    My point is that people reject candidates for a multitude of reasons and not just the life issue, but you don’t hear about it as much because most people aren’t as passionate about taxes as they are about abortion. And no one is calling for us to drop fiscal responsibility from the party platform but there are elements saying we should drop our stance on life due to it being “divisive”. To that I ask again what issue is not divisive?

  • Diogenes314

    I just disagree.

    Judicial philosophy is a critical principle but the point is that it is not in dispute among republicans as a party. Whereas our stand on life is.

    The point is that it is also in dispute with the electorate at large, including independent voters and those who vote Democrat because of the GOP making this the centerpeice of their platform. I have no problem with the GOP being an anti-abortion party on principle. But IMO we should focus on practical matters to reduce abortion, rather than taking poseur stances like the HLA and insisting that candidates have never had a different opinion on the subject, or associate with others that do. Reagan and Gingrich won by focusing on what unites us as a party and appeals to the electorate at large. Call me a Liberal heretic, but that’s my position.

    Why do we want judges to interpret rather than legislate? One reason is Roe v. Wade. So even in this becomes a divisive principle when looking at what we would want to accomplish by preserving that principle of Judicial Philosophy. The two are inherently linked are the not?

    Eventually. But getting originalist judges on the SC isn’t going to guarentee the overturn of Roe anyway. Like it or not, they also happen to be the Jurists most likely to respect stare decisis. I’d predict that when it is overturned, it will be a 6-3, more likely a 7-2 decision.

    And as far as any issue is divisive, should that be justification for it to be dropped from the party? If so then why should we stand up for the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, this too is divisive so why fight for it?

    The 2nd amendment is supported by the majority of the electorate. Your way divides the GOP internaly, and from the electorate. My way (and Reagan’s, and Gingrich’s) unites the GOP, and divides the electorate from the Party of Pelosi.

    In my opinion.

  • aaronbg

    I don’t think either of you are getting what I am saying. So lets get back to the original thing that the Directors asked:

    Please explain why the Republican Party should remain a pro-life party.

    Reagan was pro-life, Gingrich was pro-life, they both made it a core part of the party because it is the right thing to do. They were rewarded for this by electoral success. This issue should not be stripped from the party principles, we are all in agreement on this from what I have read.

    What the Directors are asking for is for the candidates to explain why this should stay a principle. They are not asking for it to replace any other principle.

    No one is saying that the Republican party should only focus on the pro-life plank. We are just asking whether or not these candidates will keep the plank as is.

    Both of you seem to want the Republican party to retreat on this because it is divisive. If that is going to be our standard for what we should or shouldn’t support than we might as well just call ourselves the Democratic Party and only support issues that can garner 100% approval of all voters,
    Concede defeat and let the chips fall where they may, after all we would want someone to feel divided from everyone else.

  • JSobieski

    Not enough core issues upon which success can be based.

    We need someone who can and is in fact eager to explain conservative ideas.

    Find that person, and finding the backroom fundraisers and organizers will be easy enough to do.

    Fail to find that person, and all the political professionals in the world won’t be able to turn this ship.

  • birdmojo

    What happened with the font there.

    Anyhow, I’ve been tinkering with an essay on what happened and why (a sister essay to the “what happened between “Permanent Republican Majority and Now” essay that I wrote back on the 2.0 site) and I think that the questions listed here are representative of the problem.

    Were I a Republican Leader (or lay leader), I would hope for more to happen than the pendulum swinging.

  • BillM

    7 – Candidates are “electable”, (or ” – who can win”), their races are “winnable” (smacks forehead).

    8 – Similarly, candidates are “electable”, (or ” – who can win”), their messages for example, are “effective”.

    Hate being a nit, but eight years of strategery and five months of Senatese sure didn’t work three weeks ago.

    (why in the world are my first two paragraphs in a bolded, huge font?)

    As for 9, agreed with my homeboy Diogenesis from ConfirmThem that as is it’s little more than a litmus test, and the focus should be more generally on judicial activism, which covers a wide multitude of sins inc. Roe, while being more palatable (winnable, electable, effective, whatever :) ) to moderates & independents.

    On a sobering note, overturning Roe at a minimum will require a GOP POTUS replacing one of the four liberals or the kook Kennedy with a conservative who can get confirmed in a FAR more liberal Senate than the one that hailed Roe 75-25 in a sense of the Senate vote a few years ago WITHOUT a Dem replacing the 73 year-old Scalia.

    I do not think Roberts wants a 5-4 vote overturning Roe, due to all the attention it would bring the Court. Alito was one of the originators of the “hollow out/hearts n’ minds” strategy in the Reagan WH. Both are acutely aware of the possible backlash against GOP candidates nationwide should Roe be overturned outright, which IMO is why neither joined Thomas’ concurrence in the federal PBA case calling for such.

    Most Americans want restrictions on abortion (esp. PBA & parental notification), but also want the life, rape, & incest exceptions, and most also want adult women to be able to have abortions of convenience in the first trimester. This is where hearts & minds, prevention of unwanted pregnancies and offering women alternatives to abortion comes in.

    I won’t argue the moral side, but Roe of course is a Constitutional monstrosity. Sadly, all evidence points to us being stuck with it, in at least some form. Blame Poppy Bush for picking Souter over Edith Jones for Lord only knows what reason.

  • Dave_in_Fla

    I don’t want to jettison the pro-life plank, since I am very much pro-life. I personally would have a hard time voting for someone pro-choice.

    But dang it, I’m wrestling with the fact that we’re not going to make progress on this issue for the next 20 years and the voters just don’t seem to give a damn, one way or another. It is a question for me about issue focus toward winning elections not core philosophy.

    I really do understand what you are saying, Aaron. I’m just struggling with the dichotomy.

  • Diogenes314

    Really? The 1980 GOP platform…

    There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general?and in our own Party?we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers’ dollars for abortion.

    We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parent’s obligation and right to guide their minor children.

    As opposed to 33 paragraphs on agriculture alone. Some ‘core issue’. And maybe you can point out the part of the Contract with America dealing with abortion.

  • aaronbg

    I’m just struggling with the dichotomy.

    That is precisely why the question should be asked of the potential RNC Chair. The question isn’t should we or shouldn’t we…it is tell us why we should.

    Their answer will display their ability to convey the reasons why it is important. If they can’t answer this question to their fellow Republicans, then it is reasonable to say that they also couldn’t gain a consensus from the general electorate either. That would be a failure as RNC Chair. That is the same reason why we are discussing this now.

    For too long we have just said that we are pro-life without offering a logical reason as to why or an actual plan on how to roll back Roe v. Wade. To me this is why the question must be asked of the leadership…they need to lead…they need to convince us that we aren’t just spinning our wheels on an un-winnable issue.

  • Snake45

    It’s the only ISSUE of any kind on the list.

    I’ve been wanting to have a debate on abortion for some time, and it looks like this thread might be it. I hope to have time later to go back and read all the comments.

  • aaronbg

    Did the 1980 platform call for constitutional amendments for agriculture?

    Sorry but that was a dumb argument.

    The fact that the platform was succinct in it’s argument for the pro-life position doesn’t mean it wasn’t a core philosophy.

  • Diogenes314

    If the focus is on A)judicial overreach B)The right of the people to decide such matters legislativly at the state level and C)Issues that would reduce abortion (informed consent, increased availability of adoption) then you have a sensible position. If you focus on ‘rights of the unborn’ to the detriment of ‘women’s rights’ you’re cutting of all of our collective noses to spite your ideological face.
    Just my personal opinion.

  • aaronbg

    before any thing else can occur we must know why we support something….once we know why then we deal with how to get there.

    I understand that pitting any groups rights, even the unborn, against another groups rights is a losing position. I don’t think I have argued to do that…ever.

    My original statement was that life is an issue that deserves primacy because without life all other rights are meaningless.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Lots of textbook softballs here guys (and gals). How about;

    1- What do you believe are the pillars of our parties philosophy? How will they be simplified and articulated to help ensure the clarity of our message?

    2- Please define what is meant by “grassroots”? How you will strengthen “grassroots” efforts to articulate a Republican vision?

    3- What do you believe are the core conservative principles and how will they be used to form a winning coalition? Do you plan on appealing to demographics or ideals and ideas?

    4- How will you move old stalwarts of failed state parties out of their offices?

    5- How will you overcome an MSM that is devoted to destorting our positions and ideas? What is the primary means you plan to use in order to communicate with a vastly misinformed public?

    This is just a start.

  • Diogenes314

    No. It was an actual issue, not a meaningless sop to a particular constituancy with no chance of being implemented.

    Stll can’t find that CWA passage dealing with abortion, BTW…

  • aaronbg

    I never said it was in the CWA…I said is was a core issue in the party…that’s why I ignored that….Don’t put words into my mouth lest you go from being a classical liberal to a current liberal in tactic if not in thought.

  • Diogenes314

    Duly noted. I guess we just have a different definition of ‘core issue’.

    Reagan was pro-life, Gingrich was pro-life, they both made it a core part of the party because it is the right thing to do.

    My point was that in neither case was it the focus of the 1980 race or the CWA., And is the only issue being brought up here. And is the issue most likely to divide the party and chase away those we wish to attract. Which in my opinion is counterproductive and foolish.

    That is all. Carry on.

  • Deep_Thinker

    Are you willing to approach the Republicans who conduct themselves in similar ways to Stevens, Cunningham, Foley, etc. and strongly encourage them to not seek reelection before they make national headlines?

    Republican corruption and ethical lapses equal Democratic victories.

  • IJB

    Your list is stronger than theirs.

  • aaronbg

    Reagan and Newt’s philosophy on life was that it was a core principle. Their campaigns may not have run on it as an issue but a political leader is much more than just his campaign. If that were the case we would judge Barack Obama as a tax cutting Reaganite.

    The subject of life will always divide, as most principles do. In fact, I believe that is one of the primary functions of principles.

    As far as your “pre-emptive ad hominems” line, I would remind you that I was not attacking you as a person I was requesting that you not attribute words to me that I didn’t type as that is seen as a tactic of the left. Don’t confuse me with the enemy unless that is what you would like me to be.

    I have presented reasonable arguments as to why I believe life to be a worthwhile principle. You disagree, thats fine.

    I would say though that I don’t like you treating me like some single issue voter who can’t see beyond some “litmus test”. Anyone so inclined, can go back to the other posts on the candidates for RNC Chair and see that I have been skeptical on all of them for various reasons.