-
Morton Blackwell's Kind Words for Santorum
February 8, 2012 | 0 comments
-
President Santorum
February 8, 2012 | 57 comments
-
Now Can I Get an Acknowledgement That Supporting Santorum Wasn't Meant to Help Romney
February 7, 2012 | 32 comments
-
Peace Pipe with Jeffrey Lord
February 7, 2012 | 23 comments
-
Rubin Again Wishes Santorum Well
February 7, 2012 | 14 comments
The Spectacle Blog
A number of thoughts about the RNC Chairmanship race. First, many congratulations to Michael Steele. He is a good man, a great communicator, and a breath of fresh air in attitude and outlook. The downside risks with Steele are that he was probably the least conservative of the six announced candidates, AND the one with the thinnest record of nuts-and-bolts organizing, fundraising and electoral success. Those are significant concerns -- but I think he is sincerely more conservative than not, that he has a fairly good ear for political tone, that he will be a good representative for the party, and that he has all the potential in the world to put to rest doubts about his organizational bona fides. The tests will be if he spends more money on the grassroots than on consultants, if he takes an aggressive posture on candidate recruitment rather than leaving it to the NRCC and RSC, and if he serves an an honest broker ideologically while doing everything in his power to nurture the conservative grass roots. My hopes for him are much higher than my doubts.
Second, a note on Katon Dawson: I think he was by far the class of the field in terms of nuts-and-bolts stuff, and clearly an incredible talent in terms of party-building. I think his membership in an all-whites country club was what kept him from winning -- which is in one sense a crying shame, because I think the rest of his record shows him to be anything but a racist. I think the whole question about country club membership is a bogus one -- but, politics being a very real-world undertaking, the simple fact is that the media would NEVER have let him live it down, especially if he had won in the final ballot in a head-to-head race with a black man. The media also would have pushed the meme that Dawson is just another Lee Atwater-like dirty trickster, merely because Dawson came up through the South Carolina party while Atwater was still around. Again, that would not have been a fair assessment, but it would have been used repeatedly anyway. All of which would have made his election problematic. But I hope there are no hard feelings between him and Steele, and I hope Steele calls on him and engages him fully in his organizational and fundraising efforts. Dawson is quite a talent.
Third, a note on Ken Blackwell. I think it was obvious that I had come to favor him. I think his exit was incredibly classy, which is befitting a very classy man and a great public servant. I have admired Blackwell for a long time, and I hope and pray that his life in public office is not over. I want to see him in a leadership position, and I look for great things from him. I repeat, however, my utter disgust with the RNC for giving Blackwell so few votes. I consider it a deliberate affront to the conservative movement, considering how many movement leaders (or leaders of movement organizations) endorsed him. What the RNC said is that the conservative movement means nothing to it. The "establishment" still doesn't understand that the movement is the only source of strength the party has -- and I am furious at the establishment's attitude. It has been thus ever since the elder Bush took the reins of the party in 1988, and it stinks.
Fourth, a note on Saul Anuzis. What an engaging personality and energetic go-getter! May he Twitter his way to success in the future.
Fifth, as for Mike Duncan. He merits thanks for good, solid service and excellent fund-raising. We'll never know how well he would have done on his own as chairman (apart from the W. Bush White House), because it would have been suicide for the party to give him that chance. Through no fault of his own, but for plenty of good reasons, the grassroots would have been angry beyond belief if the RNC didn't change its leadership after the House and Senate also stayed the same at the top. The disgust for the GOP establishment among the grassroots is deep and palpable, and Duncan was a symbol of the establishment. All reports are that he is a truly fine gentleman, though, and he has provided valuable services.
Sixth, as to Chip Saltsman: I never gave him a chance. I figured that if you lie down with dogs, you get flees -- and he ran the campaign of Mike Huckabee, the unethical economic- and foreign-policy liberal. Such a shame. Saltsman probably was right to argue that the sins of the candidate should not be held against the campaign manager -- but those political sins made Saltsman un-viable from the start. But I've gotta admit: On the one conference call with him that I listened in on, he sounded like a good guy.
So where does the RNC go from here? One can only hope that it becomes a lean and effective engine for forward-looking conservative leadership melded with effective politics. If Steele hires good people and serves with energy, and refuses to be satisfied with just making some good TV appearances, the future can be bright. But it will be a hard, hard road.
View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/01/30/doubts-but-high-hopes
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Progressive Derangements
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Sebastian B. O. Buniontow V| 1.30.09 @ 6:17PM
Hope and change. Gee, where have I heard that crapola before.
Are we followers or leaders?
Gabe Samoza| 1.30.09 @ 7:01PM
You don't think that membership in a whites only country club, in this day and age, is de facto evidence of being a racist? Would you, or anyone you know, be friends with someone who belonged to such a group?
dlw| 1.30.09 @ 7:45PM
yes gabe, I would be friends with Dawson as compared to being friends with someone who went to J wright's "church" for 20 years - now that is a racist!
dlw| 1.30.09 @ 7:47PM
"Twitter his way to success" - Outstanding!
Gabe Samoza| 1.30.09 @ 7:59PM
Decency has nothing to do what another person may do. It has to do with your choices.
Again: decent people do not belong to discriminatory clubs, right?
Thomas| 1.30.09 @ 8:28PM
Sorry to break this to you Gabe, but every club is, by nature, discriminatory in one way or another. How many white members are part of the Congressional Black Caucus?
tony| 1.30.09 @ 11:51PM
Gabe:
While I understand what you're trying to say, I must disagree with the idea that membership in an all white club is de facto proof of racism. The question is whether the guy joined the club for the reason that it's all white. That would be racist.
There's no evidence at all to suggest that, so given the damage that such an accusation can do to a person's reputation, I think it is wise to investigate the circumstances of one's membership in such a club before we start the name calling.
What I would like to know Mr. Samoza is whether you have any problems with associations based upon ethnicity. For example, aside from the congressional black caucus, there is also a congressional hispanic caucus. By definition, anyone who is not of a certain race cannot join the former, while someone who is not of a certain ethnicity cannot join the latter. Do you take issue with either of these exclusionary organizations? If not, what are your reasons?
Red Phillips| 1.31.09 @ 12:28AM
"One can only hope that it becomes a lean and effective engine for forward-looking conservative leadership"
Mr. Hillyer, a "forward looking" conservatism is not ... well ... ummm ... err ... conservative. Conservatism inherently looks back. Liberalism looks forward. This is practically part of the definition of each word. I don't want to look forward. I want to look back. To 1776. To 1787. What does looking forward conserve?
Red Phillips| 1.31.09 @ 12:37AM
"and he ran the campaign of Mike Huckabee, the unethical economic- and foreign-policy liberal."
Huh? Foreign policy liberal? What on earth are you talking about? While Huckabee may not have been as gung-ho to bomb multiple Arab countries as Rudy and McCain, he toed the GOP "conservatives" line on the Iraq War and the War on Terror. What debates were you watching? What campaign documents were you reading?
Of course, the only authentically conservative foreign policy is non-interventionism. And if you call that liberal you haven't got a clue.
Interloper| 1.31.09 @ 7:10AM
It is not possible to be a member of a whites-only club and not be in complicity with its segregation. Claiming otherwise requires a willful denial of history, particularly when talking about a place as historically racist as South Carolina. Furthermore, Dawson has cited opposition to school integration as his reason for entering politics.
Dawson will either try to sabotage Steele or play a more active role in his state's reliably reactionary neo-Confederate movement.
Basil Plumley| 1.31.09 @ 9:23AM
@Red Phillips
Well at least you admit that Huckabee is an unethical economic liberal; a glib one at that.
If you had been watching the debates you would have noticed that on just about every question, the Huckster answers meandered into building roads as the solution. It seemed to be the only thing he ran on; a kind of Obama-lite.
I actually believe that Obama should have nominated the Huckster for Transportation instead of Lahood.
Basil Plumley| 1.31.09 @ 9:34AM
@Interloper
Your last sentence shows you are most capable of throwing bombs where innocents live.
You have no evidence of either premise but that does not deter your transcendence into anarchy.
I wonder what was the political affiliation of the folks who bombed the church in Birmingham or the Synagogue in Atlanta. It was probably the same as the person who turned the dogs and fire hoses loose on the Blacks in Birmingham.
Accusing others what they themselves are guilty of ...... hmmm, where have I heard that before?
Red Phillips| 1.31.09 @ 9:46AM
Basil, honestly I didn't know what unethical economic liberal meant, so I left it alone. I didn't know if he meant economic liberalism was inherently unethical, so unethical was an adjective modifying economic liberalism, or if he was saying Huck was unethical.
I think if someone supported Rudy, then that should taint them. But I don't think supporting Huck should taint someone beyond the fact that he didn't support Paul who was the OBVIOUS conservative choice.
In fact, when I was first learning about the candidates, I assumed Saltsman was probably one of the better choices because he was willing to buck the Establishment and back an outsider, and he likely was not phobic of social conservatives.
Red Phillips| 1.31.09 @ 9:49AM
Interloper, quit interloping. Doesn't the SPLC have a meeting on how to be a better thought slave you should be attending instead?
tony| 1.31.09 @ 11:17AM
Interloper:
I pose the same question to you that I posed to Gabe: Do you believe that the congressional black caucus and congressional hispanic caucus, 2 liberal democrat groups, are segregationist? If not, why?
Also, do you recall that Bill Clinton was a member of an all white country club? In your mind, did that make him a segregationist? Did you call for his to resign the presidency due to his involvement in such a club? In fact, Bill Clinton's mentor was William J. Fulbright, an avowed segregationist. Did that bother you?
tony| 1.31.09 @ 11:18AM
Correction: That's J. William Fulbright. Sorry. Now I know what it feels like to be the NY Times.
Interloper| 1.31.09 @ 4:09PM
The Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, (and also the NAACP, before you add it) have been open to all races since their inception. The key for the Congressional groups is that the legislator represent a substantially black or Hispanic district. They were formed to promote legislation helpful to minorities, who are disproportionately poor and lower-middle class.
Predominately non-white organizations were formed because segregation prevented non-whites from joining already existing organizations, such as the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association. Keeping people from joining an organization because of their race, religion or gender, as with Katon Dawson's country club, is a wholly indefensible practice. A Civil War was fought to guarantee the rights of all American and make us a united society. Yet, some people are so base they still argue for a 'right' not to do unto others as they would have done unto themselves. Many of them call themselves Christians.
I do not recall Bill Clinton being a member of an all-white country club. But, I do know that reactionaries often make such claims up, their favorite being 'the blacks are the real racists.'
Nearly all Southern leaders from after Reconstruction through the 1960s were segregationists. They, the Dixiecrats, decamped from the Democrats to the Republicans as part of the Southern Strategy. It bothers me that some people are such poor reasoners they think that by ignoring the shift of conservative Southern whites to the GOP, and focusing on the 1960s and earlier, they can fool the public into believing it is the Democrats who have a big problem with segregationist members. No knowledgeable person falls for a ruse that silly.
However, I will grant that the middle-aged and older segregationist, neo-Confederate, 'only white people count' demographic of the Republican Party is unlikely to change. Most likely, enough of their young will not accept their indoctrination and join the mainstream. That will finally end these despicable beliefs and behaviors.
Basil Plumley | 1.31.09 @ 9:54PM
@Interloper
Has the CBC really been open to all races? I seem to recall that Gary Franks was not readily accepted despite being Black. He was reluctantly accepted. JC Watts refused to join.
Lately, Joseph Cao, who defeated William Jefferson, wants to join the CBC. The CBC has NEVER accepted anyone who wasn't Black. There was another flare-up a couple of years ago when a white Democrat Congressman from TN tried to join and was told in no uncertain terms "NO!".
Does this mean that you are going to grab your pitchfork and head to the CBC HQ and demand that they allow Cao and white folks to join?
Perhaps, you can find the time when you put down that extraordinary broad brush you have been writing with. This has been a very poor effort on your part. You really need to try much, much harder.
Interloper| 2.1.09 @ 1:01AM
I know for a fact that the ethnic caucuses have had white members. Your lying does not encourage confidence in your opinions.
The C.B.C. has, wisely, not accepted conservatives who have tried to join as some kind of warped joke.
Anh Cao may or may not be accepted. That will turn on whether his objectives are in keeping with the C.B.C.'s. However, his tenure in Congress will likely be short-lived. He was elected as a fluke and will be ousted by someone more representative of that district.
Pingback| 2.1.09 @ 1:31AM
Pajamas Media » Can the RNC’s New Man of Steele Revive the Party? links to this page.
Red Phillips| 2.1.09 @ 8:17AM
Are we sure Interloper is not just playing a role? He is such a caricature of the play the race card and call everyone to your right a racist PC thought slave. Surely he is at least embellishing. He couldn’t really be that craven could he?
Basil Plumley| 2.1.09 @ 10:35AM
@Red Phillips
I am not sure if Interloper is being dishonest or disingenuous. He could look it up but that would collapse his argument that only the GOP/Conservatives are racists. I can only surmise that Interloper makes it up as he rants along.
It takes a very brave (read lack of integrity) to hide behind identity politics but that is person known as Interloper.
BTW, Interloper, nice shot across the bow at a minority Asian. You should be embarrassed but accusing folks for what you are guilty of is par for you.
David Ross| 2.1.09 @ 2:17PM
Ken "The Evolution Trap" Blackwell (search Townhall for that little gem) is an outspoken creationist. The American Spectator is, also, outspokenly creationist.
When TAS talks about "the conservative movement", remember that TAS considers creationism to be an organising principle in conservatism. Quin should have had the basic ethics to remind his visiting readers of this.
ruth| 2.2.09 @ 6:28PM
D. Ross, crapola. The American Spectator just isn't totally in the tank for Darwin's 'Theory'. Get over it.
sidnee| 12.12.09 @ 12:23PM
jack wills
ugg new arrivals