Earlier this afternoon, I attended the RNC chairmanship debate
sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform. As I noted in an earlier
post, it's difficult to determine from this sort of event who
would make a good RNC chair given that so much of that role
happens behind the scenes. During the debate -- which was more
like a forum since there wasn't much arguing going on -- there
was broad agreement that the party needed to stick to Republican
principles, make better use of technology, help Republicans
become competitive in all fifty states, and do a better job of
reaching out to young and minority voters.
Ken Blackwell used examples of his record of as an activist and
politician and showed flashes of humor to make the case that
Republicans needed to reinvigorate the base by returning to
conservative principles on small government and individual
liberty; RNC chairman Mike Duncan emphasized that in a tough year
for Republicans, under his leadership the RNC still did a good
job raising a lot of money and recruiting volunteers; Michael
Steele tried to deliver an optimistic message, dismissing as
"bunk" the idea that the Republican Party is at "death's door"
and he discussed providing adequate resources at the state and
local level; Saul Anuzis cited his experience in the blue state
of Michigan as an asset in expanding the map; Chip Saltsman
boasted that his leadership as state party chairman helped defeat
Al Gore in his home state of Tennessee in 2000, which made the
difference in electing Bush; Katon Dawson described how he turned
around a South Carolina Republican Party that was in disarray
when he took over in 2002.
Moderator Grover Norquist asked the candidates who was their
favorite Republican president (you can guess who each of them
named), and then Norquist followed up by asking who was their
least favorite president. Four candidates declined to take the
bait, while Duncan named Warren Harding, and Blackwell named
Hoover, for setting the stage for massive government intervention
before the New Deal, just as President Bush set the stage for
Barack Obama to pursue big government economic policies.
While, as I said, there wasn't much of an actual "debate," to the
extent that there was some back and fourth, it seemed to be
between Blackwell and Dawson -- which may or may not be an
indicator of anything. In his opening remarks, Blackwell noted
that he's won more elections than anybody else on the stage
except perhaps Dawson, joking, "we all know how difficult it is
to win races in the swing state of South Carolina." Dawson later
responded that there was difficulty in winning those elections,
and told me after that Blackwell benefitted from the Republican
Party infrastructure when elected to public office, but Dawson
was the one who was getting other people elected, which is more
in tune with the role of the RNC chair.
Dawson has been hurt by his longtime membership in an all-white
country club, an issue which he not-too subtly tried to address
in his opening remarks, when he asked Ron Thomas -- a black Army
veteran who he hired as his political director when he took over
the SC GOP -- to stand up to be seen by the hundreds of people in
attendance. When I asked Dawson about the controversy after the
event, he said it was a "political ploy" and that it had been
answered by his recruitment of and hiring of qualified
minorities, as demonstrated by Thomas.
One thing to keep in mind is that, as Dawson told me, the
audience isn't Americans for Tax Reform or anybody else, but the
RNC members who will actually be voting for the new chairman. So
that's why it's hard to say who "won" the debate in the
traditional sense.
