I finally watched the RNC candidate debate at:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-13924

Based on the debate alone, I think that Ken Blackwell might be the best pick.

The reason I say this is because Blackwell stands out. Each of those six candidates are qualified and at some point each of them said something I heartily agreed with. The problem is that 5 of them sounded like politicians that in many ways were just carbon copies of each other. In terms of presenting a leadership face to Republicans and all other Americans I think people will listen to Blackwell rather than writing him off as just another suit. Watch the debate, you’ll see what I mean.

Blackwell said a couple of things I think make him really stand out from his competition. I quoting from memory, so I might be a little off.

"I think that Bush spending opened the door to Obama’s big government."

I could not agree more, and I think Republicans are going to have to divorce themselves from Bush fiscal practices, not just to remain true to their principles, but also to clearly differentiate themselves from the democratic party.

"There is not one vote in one precinct that we shouldn’t be going after. Reagan was fond of saying that "status quo" is Latin for "the big mess we are in," and we are in a big mess."

I like Republicans who admit that we are completely messed up. There’s been too much sugar-coating

"The RNC can’t be a social club, it needs to be the premier Republican organization in America."

"We have got to stop saying one thing and then doing something else. Authenticity."

I’m a big fan of authenticity.

I’m going to have to take a good look at Blackwell.

The question is "what does it matter what I think, what does it matter what anyone thinks outside of the voting members of the RNC?"

That’s a hard question to answer. This is like many issues in life where you have no direct power but you can at least offer your opinion. The only thing that grassroots Republicans can do to have their voice heard is to phone, write, or e-mail RNC members and voice their opinion. There are three RNC members in each state, these being the state GOP Chairman and the RNC Committeeman and Committeewoman. They are most easily contacted through the website of the state GOP headquarters.

To the credit of all the RNC candidates, they seem in agreement that the party has a responsibility to oppose Republican candidates and legislation that go against Republican principles. That’s a new one to me, I’ll have to wait and see before I believe that.

Jim Greer is that guy...the one you’re not sure is running or not, and if he is, you’re not sure you want him to win or not.

To be honest, I believe the idea that Greer had a chance to be RNC Chair was born when it was felt that McCain might be President, and Crist Vice-President, and that by affiliation Greer would be top pick for the spot. Those things didn’t happen, but that doesn’t mean that Greer doesn’t still have a shot.

Greer has been one of many names floated for RNC chairman, but the fact is no one will know they actual nominees until the RNC meets. According to ""Fla GOP Chairman mulling bid for RNC chief" on from Media General News Service, Greer will decide whether or not to run for RNC chief until after it is determined whether or not he will be reelected as Florida GOP Chairman.

First, some of the things I like about Greer. One is that Florida Republicans more or less held their ground in the 2008 elections. Yes, Florida went to Obama and state Republicans lost a little ground, but for Republicans to only lose a little is good by 2008 standards.

Second, Greer can raise some money. According to campaignmoney.com, Greer raised $168,400 for his 2006 campaign for Florida Chairman. That’s more than Steele raised for all of GOPAC’s federal activities.

Third, Greer has a way with words. His printed statements are motivating, and I include some below.

"Putting the people back in politics"

Politico, 12/13/08

It was a perfect environment for Democrats in Florida. The nation wanted change. Florida Democrats were awash in cash and staff, with a never-before-seen-ground game. Yet the Florida Democrat Party defeated not one – not a single one – of our Republican incumbents in the Florida House and Senate. In Miami, an area Barack Obama carried, Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart both fended off credible, well-funded, DCCC-backed candidates. Republicans also picked up Congressional District 16 seat with Tom Rooney.

While Republicans have produced results for the people, we’ve also kept true to our pledge to reduce spending and return more tax dollars to the people, illustrated by the Cato Institute’s recent naming of Gov. Crist as the most fiscally conservative governor in the United States.

Our party’s future is bright, but we need a decisive vision. We need new energy, new ideas and an unwavering commitment to our party’s long-standing values and principles of less government, lower taxes and more freedom. We need leaders who aren’t afraid to stand up for what’s right with our Party and start a dialogue on what we can do to get it back to basics—back to the people.

We’ve done it right in Florida by putting the people back in politics, and that’s the only way we can re-energize the GOP on a national level. Ultimately, Americans don’t care if their leaders have an "R" or a "D" behind their name. Americans want more than a leader who represents conservative ideals…they want a leader who has something to show for it.

Now, some of the things I don’t like about Greer.

I have commented that outside of election time there is little effort by the Republican Party to engage Republican voters. I live in Florida and occasionally look at the Florida GOP website. Until I became interested in the RNC race I had no idea that he was considering running for Chairman; neither did I know that Greer was up for reelection in Florida, and neither did I know that there were two challengers for Florida Chairman. It’s almost like the Republican Party has nothing to do with Republicans.

My second concern is that if Greer is elected Chairman he might move the Republican Party in a more moderate direction. Crist is widely considered to be moderate, Greer is widely considered to be moderate, I will go with the crowd and call him a moderate.

Why do I believe Greer would lead the GOP in a moderate direction?

From the Palm Beach Post

"State GOP’s endorsement miffs locals"

George Bennet

In a party that extols the virtues of decentralized power, county GOP bosses aren't pleased by the involvement of Crist and his handpicked Florida GOP chairman, Jim Greer, in contested Republican primaries.

"The perception for the rank-and-file Republicans is that people are picking and choosing candidates and the grass-roots network will eventually erode because they feel they don't have a part in it," Martin County Republican Chairwoman Susan Auld said.

Palm Beach County Republican Chairman Sid Dinerstein said he's a "big fan" of Crist and Greer, but "clearly I'm more of a believer - when there's no incumbent involved - in letting it all play out in the primary

From a Greer Speech

I intend to create a bench building program whereby our party will identify quality Republican candidates on the local level who can successfully seek higher office when the time is right.

To me these indicate a man with an interest in promoting like-minded Republicans.

I don’t know Greer and can’t personally can’t say whether he really is moderate or not. The problem with using the internet to research people and issues is that the only things you can find out are those which people put on the internet. If you look at a candidate’s website you are only going to find the face that they want you to see. As for blogs and even newspapers, a lot of what you see are just opinions for or against.

Who is to say that one person is a moderate, and another a conservative? From what I have seen the vast majority of Republican candidates call themselves conservatives, and the few that admit their political ideology usually call themselves "traditional" or "mainstreet" Republicans rather than moderates. The fact is that Republicans will disagree on matters of policy, and what you will find is that some of the people who are called moderates are only moderate on one or two major issues but conservative on the majority of Republican issues.

The Republicans I have a problem with are the ideological moderates who want the entire Republican Party to be more centrist. Besides the ideological centrists, there are probably a lot of experts who think the GOP needs to more to the center and more away from social issues to appeal to a majority of voters. So, IF Greer is nominated and IF he is perceived as the moderate candidate for RNC chair, and IF a sizeable percentage RNC members want a moderate chairman, I think he could win it.

I’m not going to make any predictions for who will win RNC Chair, and at this point neither do I have a strong preference for any of them, but if you group the candidates you can see how some could split voting blocks. With one incumbent and so many challengers, Duncan might be reelected. If it comes down to purely a matter of race, Steele and Blackwell could split the votes of those who want a Black RNC Chairman, thus making it less likely that either would win. I can’t say which candidates are supposed to be conservatives, but two or more of them splitting the conservative vote would be at an overall disadvantage. If Greer is the only one perceived as a moderate, it is possible that he could win.

Really, I am surprised that there are no female candidates for RNC Chair, at least not yet. The Republican Party of every state and territory of the US sends three members to the RNC, these being the state Chairman, the state Committeeman, and the state Committeewoman. This being the case, over 1/3 of the RNC is female, you would think that one woman campaigning against 5 or 6 guys would have a huge advantage.

Michael Steele

Michael Steele is a contender for the RNC Chair. He has an extremely impressive resume and he is saying all the right things.

First, the resume. Steele is a lawyer in private life, specializing in business law. A former chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, Steele became Lt. Governor of Maryland in 2002. He made an unsuccessful run for US Senate in 2006, and in 2007 became the chairman of GOPAC. Other political activities include being a co-chair for the Republican Leadership Committee, and a senior advisor to GROWpac and a member of the RNC. He is also on the Administrative Board of the Maryland Catholic Conference.

When you look at Steele’s resume it is clear that he is definitely worthy of consideration for RNC chair. Business and law make up a large part of politics, he has the experience. He has the party experience, and he has worked with Republican PACS and been on the RNC, so he definitely has experience as far as promoting the Republican Party. He was a Lt. Governor and though he failed to gain a Senate seat he still had the experience of running, so he knows what goes into campaigning and governing.

All together you would say that Steele would be a good pick for RNC Chair. However, there is something that bother’s me about this guy.

I get the feeling that Steele is more about image than he is about substance. Don’t get me wrong, Steele obviously brings a great deal to the table, but I feel that in regards to his bid for RNC Chair Steele has crafted the image he thinks will gain him victory.

Why do I feel this way?

1)Steele’s GOPAC bio doesn’t mention his failed Senate campaign. Running for Senate is a big deal and something I feel is worthy of mention in a biography. I speculate that Steele thinks this defeat would be perceived as a negative, so he isn’t talking about it.

2)Steele’s bio fails to mention that he was a co-chair to the Republican Leadership Committee. The RLC is a PAC that promotes moderate Republicans. My belief is that Steele thinks his affiliation with the RLC would be perceived as a negative by conservatives, so he isn’t talking about it. I think this is a shame. Ideological conflicts between moderate and conservative Republicans need to be addressed for the overall good of the Republican Party.

3)In his bio on the GOPAC website, Steele is described as "An expert on political strategy, fund-raising, PACs, and election reform." While Steele might be considered an "expert" in that he is experienced, I’m not sure that in his PAC work he has really been exceptionally effective.

4)GROWPAC does not seem to exist anymore. I can’t find much information about this PAC, but it seems to have come into existence in 1998 and was originally called the "American Renewal Pac FKA-Black Congressional Fund. According to opensecrets.org it distributed $34,750 for House Republicans and $3000 for Senate Republicans in 2002, but by 2004 the organization had virtually no income or expenditures, and nothing at all by 2006. It’s receipts in 1998 were $320,000, in 2000 were $1, 037, 710, in 2002 were $847, 083, and 2004 were a measly $74.

I am going to assume that the purpose of this PAC was to support African American Republicans for Congress, that has not been a very successful effort. That this PAC no longer seems active also attests that while this PAC did very well for a while it was ultimately abandoned as unsuccessful.

I consider it to be a shame that GROWPAC failed. Steele is African-American, and I get the feeling that many people think that putting an African-American as head of the RNC would be a good move towards the GOP gaining more of the Black vote. They might be right. However, I think a better effort to win Black voters would be for their to be more Black Republican candidates overall, and making that happen seems to have been GROWPACs purpose. Putting one African-American in a high position would be seen as a token appointment, and I sincerely hope that people aren’t just supporting Steele because of his race. One appointment would be considered as token, but many Black candidates would be seen as the legitimate effort that it would be. The problem is that the RNC can’t support Black candidates over White candidates any more than it could get away with supporting White over Black. GROWPAC or something like it needs to be revived.

5)What exactly is GOPAC?

To be the Chairman of GOPAC sounds very prestigious, but that would depend upon what GOPAC is and what they do. Being in charge of GOPAC is only a big deal if GOPAC is a big deal.

Some raw information and opinion:

According to a wikipedia article, Steele said that regarding GOPAC, "it will soon be back as the powerful force it once was under Newt Gingrich."

GOPAC commissioned a post-election study from The Tarrance Group, a political consulting firm. The Tarrance Group also mentions GOPAC on the home page of their website.

Many of the Tarrance Group winning candidates were also endorsed candidates of the moderate Republican PAC, the Republican Leadership Committee.

Steele seems to be working with Gov. Tim Pawlenty. At the Republican Governors Association, Pawlenty made an effort to steal the spotlight from Gov. Palin, presumably to promote himself for a bid for the Republican nomination for President in 2012.

In a Nov. 7, 2008 piece by Jonathan Martin in the Politico, "GOPAC plans look back, look ahead," mentions that GOPAC commissioned the Tarrance Group to survey voters views of the GOP and release the findings to the media. The piece also mentions that the Tarrance Group worked for the campaigns of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.

In a Dec. 11, 2008 piece by Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal, "How the GOP should prepare for a comeback," says regarding GOPAC, "It needs to be revitalized, or it’s original mission taken up by a fresh group." It’s a pretty inciteful piece, I include the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122895587373896541.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

According to opensecrets.org, in 2008 GOPAC America had $151,375 in receipts and $126,678 in expenditures. I find these expenditures quite intriguing they are in part:

INFOCISION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION $40,696 These were for fundraising

phone calls. I don’t know what exactly they were raising funds for, but considering that this was GOPAC’s largest expense, I hope they took in more than they spent.

COMPLIANCE CONSULTING COMPANY OF VA LLC $11,231 This was for political consulting. The question is raised, if Steele is an expert, why the need for political consultants?

Not counting Steele, McCain, or Coleman, this is a record of 5 wins and 6 losses. That is nothing to brag about, and certainly nothing to base a campaign for RNC Chair. Also consider that in political terms the $151,375 is chicken feed, especially when it is spread out to different campaigns.

The very odd thing is that GOPAC isn’t supposed to focus on federal campaigns, it is supposed to focus on state and local campaigns, and on training Republican leaders. Looking at the GOPAC website, I’m not so sure that these efforts are going very well.

As far as candidates I see two candidates under "candidate spotlight," and 29 under "past candidate spotlight." I don’t care about past candidates, and 2 current candidates aren’t very many. As far as education, I don’t see anything the website that a candidate couldn’t get from their local Republican Party.

The data suggests some questions.

1)Steele and GOPAC have a great deal of interaction with political consultants, the experts who are paid to tell politicians what they should do to win votes. What if the "experts" are promoting Steele because he is the person they want rather than the right person for the job. Considering that the Tarrance Group also worked for McCain and Giuliani, can their expert opinion be considered to have much merit? Aside from GOPAC, the Tarrance Group has a very large number of Republican clients. How much influence do consultants have over the Republican Party as a whole, and considering that consulting is a business, can this influence be purchased?

2)Considering that Steele and Pawlenty seem to be in cahoots, and that Pawlenty seems to be a rival for Sarah Palin’s spotlight, and that the Tarrance Group seems to have many moderate Republican clients, it there an organized effort to exclude social/religious conservatives from influence in the Republican Party?

Now some speculation.

I think that GOPAC wasn’t a big deal before Steele took it over, and I don’t think it’s a big deal now.

I think that Steele took the Chairmanship of GOPAC primarily for self-promotion. It was once run by Newt Gingrich, that is a good name to be associated with.

I think that a lot of people know that GOPAC is no big deal, but they are giving Steele a pass and not objecting when he is continually referred to as the "Chairman of GOPAC."

I think that Steele has been getting so much exposure because he is the insider party pick to be RNC Chair. I think the decision has already been made and all we are waiting on is for the vote to make it official. I don’t know who made the decision, or why, or how they will be able to transform their desire into reality, but I feel like it’s coming.

I could be wrong. We’ll have to wait and see. Even if GOPAC is a minor PAC and Steele is being promoted by insiders, that does not mean that he wouldn’t be as good a Chairman as anyone else. The problem is that we just don’t know, and outside the 168 members of the RNC, Republican voters have no say in the process.

Mike Duncan is the current RNC Chair and is seeking reelection.

Duncan has an impressive resume: a former state university chairman, former President of the Kentucky Bankers Association and Director of the Cincinnati branch of the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank, Assistant Director of Public Liaison at the White House, Treasurer of the RNC, General Counsel of the RNC, delegate at several Republican National Conventions, at party positions in all levels of the Republican Party.

Duncan has the experience and certainly is worthy of consideration for reelection, but I don’t think it will happen. The 2008 general election was a disaster for Republicans, it’s time for "out for the old and in with the new."

To highlight the need for change, take a look at this article. My comments are in italics.

Thursday, December 04, 2008

In Case You Missed It: RNC Chair Discloses Comeback Plan

From Politico

By Robert M. "Mike" Duncan

Op-Ed

December 4, 2008

Before we go any further, consider the concept of the "comeback plan" in the title of this article. I challenge the reader to find anything below that looks like a comeback plan.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss' reelection this week was a tremendous victory for the people of Georgia. Voters went to the polls on Tuesday and selected a strong leader prepared to deal with both the domestic and the foreign challenges our nation faces in the months and years to come. Chambliss won his election because he represents the core values of Georgians and voters recognized the very real differences between the candidates.

Georgians refuted any notion that the ideology of the country has shifted to the left. They supported the candidate who believes that people should keep their hard-earned dollars; that every American resource should be leveraged to address our energy crisis; that the role of judges is to interpret the Constitution; and that America must be vigilant against the very real threats to our nation and its citizens.

Notably, Chambliss won in spite of strong support by President-elect Obama and Democrat organizations for Jim Martin. Georgian's clearly sent a message that any rhetoric about a liberal mandate is nothing but hot air. Georgians -- and all Americans -- will be watching Washington closely and expecting policies that make government work for them and not against small businesses and entrepreneurs.

"Strong support" by President-elect Obama? While I am sure that Martin did have a great deal of support from Democrat organizations, I don’t remember Obama making any real efforts in Georgia."

In the first contest since the presidential election and what many believe is the first race of the 2010 cycle, Republicans won because we coupled a strong, conservative candidate in Saxby Chambliss with a solid ground game that reached out to millions of Georgians and turned out the vote. Chambliss' reelection sends a message to all those who believe the Republican Party and its core principles are anything less than strong and competitive.

The ground game that reelected Sen. Chambliss focused on the nuts-and-bolts of campaigning, enhanced by investments in technology that the RNC has made over the past two years. The Chambliss team, the Georgia Republican Party, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the RNC were full partners in a Victory plan that executed the basics flawlessly. With dozens of RNC staff and hundreds of volunteers in 11 regional Victory offices across the state, our team contacted nearly a half-million Georgians in the last five days alone.

The RNC's investment in technology over the past two years allowed our Republican team to maximize every volunteer's time and every contributor's donation on behalf of Chambliss, creating a get-out-the-vote effort that overwhelmed Democrats in the state. Through sophisticated online advertising techniques we reached hundreds of thousands of Republicans who requested absentee ballots, voted early, and found their polling station. Our investment in technology enabled our Victory program to significantly increase the Republican share of advance voters in the runoff election. We also provided volunteers the tools to make phone calls from home to likely supporters and/or send numerous e-mails to their neighbors engaging them in the reelection effort.

Without a doubt it was of vital important to get voters to the polls for the run-off election. However, I don’t consider it to be an exercise in state of the art technology.

And while we overcame challenges in reelecting Chambliss in Georgia, we have another Republican leader seeking a conclusion to his race in Minnesota. We must not lose sight of the significance and absolute importance in ensuring Norm Coleman returns to Washington in the 111th Congress as Minnesota's senior senator.

As I write, Coleman leads his opponent. Coleman won the election on Nov. 4, he won after the canvassing of votes had occurred, and he will be the winner at the end of the recount. These results only lead to one conclusion: Coleman will be reelected as a U.S. senator from Minnesota.

Unfortunately, it’s looking like Franken will win.

At the RNC, we have spent the past two years investing in programs, technology, and training staff and volunteers on the basic fundamentals of winning elections. Chambliss' victory yesterday demonstrates the value of those investments and proves that Republicans still know to win elections.

We loss the Presidency and we took big losses in the House and Senate. Whatever you claim to have done in the last two years, it did not work.

As Republicans, we must continue to take stock of the 2008 elections -- first and foremost, strengthening ourselves by listening to the American people. But that also means learning from our mistakes and acknowledging our successes. Our success in Georgia is a strong sign that reports of the GOP's demise have been greatly exaggerated, and I look forward to future Republican successes in 2009 and 2010.

Yes, listen to the American people. Start this effort by re-engaging the Republican base and seeking popular participation in the selection of RNC Chair