The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

The short history of RNC chairmanship debates (the first one was held in 2009) would seem to indicate that this afternoon's debate won't matter much; as JP Freire correctly recalls, Michael Steele didn't exactly set the room on fire in '09, and he won the race anyway. That said, my quick impressions:

Steele is a dead man walking; many in the room thought he exceeded expectations, but it isn't going to matter. Reince Priebus, the frontrunner in terms of endorsements, wasn't impressive at all; he hewed to talking points about keeping the GOP conservative (fairly irrelevant given that the RNC Chair plays almost no role in setting a policy agenda). Maria Cino did the best job of sticking to a set of talking points relevant to the race -- as Reid Wilson noted, she brought up the importance of state parties in nearly every answer, telegraphing her fealty to influential state party leaders -- but she stumbled when asked about her background as a lobbyist for Pfizer (she denied lobbying for Obamacare, but not all that convincingly). Ann Wagner was personable but seemed a little short on details about what she'd do at the RNC. Saul Anuzis was a little better on that score but not terribly exciting.

A Republican consultant I chatted with after the debate (not an RNC member) suggested the race is likely to come down to either Priebus vs. Wagner or Priebus vs. Anuzis. That seems like a fair prediction. But the stakes now seem much lower; Steele's gaffe-prone performance over the past two years has no doubt taught everyone who wants the job that the RNC does better with a low-key fundraiser who keeps his or her head down.