An election in the wilderness
The GOP chooses a new national chairman
An election in the wilderness
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
The week concludes with a dose of drama in the Republican party. But it can hardly be called a festive occasion, given the bleak mood of the party regulars. Just the other day, conservative strategist and Reagan biographer Craig Shirley said that the GOP "is in serious danger of slipping into oblivion."
And yesterday, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who last November was forced to weather a long election night in Kentucky before he eking out his win, confessed to members of the Republican National Committee that the GOP has lost huge chunks of the electorate on its way into the wilderness: "We’re all concerned about the fact that the very wealthy and the very poor, the most and least educated, and a majority of minority voters, seem to have more or less stopped paying attention to us. And we should be concerned that, as a result of all this, the Republican Party seems to be slipping into a position of being more of a regional party than a national one. In politics there's a name for a regional party, it's called a minority party."
I't's on that cheerful note that the 168 voting members of the Republican National Committee will today elect a new national chairman, somebody who presumably can unite the troops and march them into a better future. (Late afternoon update: heading into the sixth ballot, the RNC members still haven't settled on a winner.)
The problem is, none of the candidates look like unifiers - which is why the contest today has already gone to multiple ballots. Some candidates are popular with the conservative base, but won't resonate with the broader electorate - namely, those voters who "seem to have more or less stopped paying attention." Others are moderates (at least by GOP standards) who don't resonate with the base.
If a majority of the 168 RNC members decide to give current chairman Mike Duncan a new term, they'll send a "status quo" message that the party is resistant to change, that it prefers to stick with the guy who presided over the '08 debacle after being handpicked for the job by George W. Bush. (Late afternoon update: It's not Duncan, he dropped out.)
If they choose former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, they'll definitely send a "change" message (particularly because Steele is African-American), but the conservative base won't be happy, because they consider Steele too moderate in his politics. Plus, he hails from deep-blue Maryland, where he sometimes trashed Bush during his unsuccessful '06 Senate race. (Late afternoon update: It might be Steele, he's leading after five ballots.)
If they choose former Ohio secretary of state Ken Blackwell (another African-American), they'll please the religious right, which loves the guy. There's a big religious-right contingent among the RNC members. But party moderates fear that, as a national spokesman, he'd be too conservative for the independent swing voters. (Update: He's out.)
If they choose Saul Anzius, the current Michigan GOP chairman, they might well benefit on the nuts-and-bolts front. Anzius is big on technology (he announced his bid on Twitter), and on the need for the GOP to close that gap with the Obama Democrats. He has a goatee and rides a Harley, which means he wouldn't look like the stereotypical GOP chairman. But he's probably a long shot, in part because many conservatives suspect he might be too different; besides, he hails from blue-state Michigan. (Update: He's out, too.)
If they choose Katon Dawson, the current South Carolina GOP chairman, they'd please many in the southern wing of the party - which, at the moment, is the only wing that's flapping. But he might well perpetuate the party's all-white regional image, given the fact that, until quite recently, he was a member in good standing of an all-white country club. That would be the headline if he wins. (Late afternoon update: Dawson is trailing Steele by a modest margin. Electing a southern white guy to lead the GOP...hey, that would be quite a stretch.)
And if they choose Chip Saltsman...no wait, Saltsman dropped out last night - a smart move, since he reportedly had lined up zero RNC votes. Apparently too many Republicans were embarrassed by his recent decision to circulate the song "Barack The Magic Negro" to friends and colleagues as a holiday gift.
We're expected to learn the identity of the lucky winner later. If the RNC members wind up deadlocked, short of the magic number of 85 votes, they can probably give the job to Rush Limbaugh and be done with it. Limbaugh has a bigger megaphone than any of those prospective chairmen. The radio sage has issued a call to arms, declaring that Americans should not "bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever," just because President Obama's "father was black."
On the other hand, maybe that's not the kind of message Republicans are looking for.
-------
These Obama White House players are quite clever. They're reportedly weighing the idea of asking New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg to join the Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. For Democrats, that would be quite a chess move:
Gregg is a long-serving Republican in a state rapidly going Democratic; he could face a tough re-election battle in 2010. That means raising lots of money and expending a whole lot of energy, perhaps in a futile cause. By contrast, the Commerce gig would be high-profile, with no electoral pressures, at a time when economic issues predominate. Already there are reports that he might be tempted. And if he leaves the Senate, the Democratic governor of New Hampshire might well get to name a Democratic replacement. That would give the Democrats 59 seats...and 60 when Al Franken presumably prevails over Norm Coleman in the latter's desperate legal appeal.
And 60 is the magic number that would bar the Senate Republicans from blocking Obama with procedural snarls.
That wilderness is sure looking dark at the moment.
-------
Quote of the week:
Cable TV interview transcripts arrive daily via email; typically, I scan and delete. But one remark this week bears repeating. In an interview on CNBC, John Thain, the now-disgraced former master of the universe who presided over the downfall of Merrill Lynch, was asked why in the world he spent $1 million to redecorate his office (complete with $1400 trash can), at a time when salaries were being cut and his workers were being axed.
Thain's response was that he didn't like his predecessor's taste. Here it is, verbatim: "Well (pause) his office was very different, than, the, the general décor of Merrill’s offices. It really would have been very difficult for me to use it in the form that it was in."
To rebut the likes of Thain, let's conclude for now with a dose of Franklin D. Roosevelt, from his first inaugural address, in 1933:
"(T)he rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence...Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision, the people perish...There must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live."
-------
I riffed on a number of other political topics earlier today on Philadelphia NPR's "Radio Times." The hour-long segment is archived here.
I agree with Feldstein that the relief package so far has too much politics and not enough analysis. However, the republican alternatives are just the same old idological boilerplate, so they have contributed nothing to the debate so far. Feldstein says that the focus should be on maximizing the jobs created. The problem with this is that no hard numbers of this sort can ever be computed. Moreover, all economists are confused and helpless in the current controversy (because all their theories have been flagrantly disproved), so there's no way to tell who is right about what should be done.— liberal- balbusterjen- Since Obama has been President he has appointed a tax cheat for Tresury Secretary, and a lobbyist as, deputy Defense Secretary, umemployment claims going through the roof, and more layoffs are announced daily. Now I know you will tell me it's all Republicans fault but tell me exactly when your party will be punching the time clock and reporting for duty? The whole country is run top to bottom by liberal democrats yet you want to complain about Republicans.
- Whenever a democratic legislator gets a free beer from a constituent, the conservatives on this blog get all righteous about how us liberals aren't shocked enough by this liberal government corruption. However, I have yet to hear any shock about $1400 Wall St wastebaskets by the defenders of the free market who post here. I'm only bringing it up to annoy you conservatives, because as a liberal I expect such behavior by the malefactors of great wealth and don't think it worthy of comment.— liberal
- Liberal- Tom from Wilmington posted this earlier. GDP in the 18months after Bush's tax cuts was up 4.7% vs only 1.7 % before the tax cuts. We are not in the pickle we are in right now because taxes are too low.
- swedesboromike - MmmHmm - 9 days out and this is what you've got? Keep it up, sir, you make me look better by the minute. balbusterjen- Since Obama has been President he has appointed a tax cheat for Tresury Secretary, and a lobbyist as, deputy Defense Secretary, umemployment claims going through the roof, and more layoffs are announced daily. Now I know you will tell me it's all Republicans fault but tell me exactly when your party will be punching the time clock and reporting for duty? The whole country is run top to bottom by liberal democrats yet you want to complain about Republicans.— BallBusterJen
- swede--you're absolutely right: the country is going to heck in a handbasket and if the Obama people don't do enough about this, they're gong to lose the next election. Now can we let this topic rest for a while?— liberal
- liberal- one question for ya. How do you know that people who work on wall street are conservatives? Bernie Madoff's political contributions went 85% to democrats. Seems to me that most of the super rich are democrats.
- balbusterjen- No problem Jen. Only 1450 more days to go. And you keep trying to live up to that screen name honey.
- Right on BallBusterJen. This new round of massive layoffs is Corporate America hunkering down waiting to see how much damage the new administration is going to cause.— jwad56
- Perhaps you guys are right that Polman shouldn't harp on the Republicans now that they are out of power. Just like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and those other guys on nitwit cable tv went easy on liberals and democrats after the 2000 "election."— liberal
- tom: " I realize the tax cuts had nothing at all to do with this in your world". Is this any more credible than your world, where tax cuts are entirely responsible for it? Why is there a "normal business cycle", or a "normal boom and bust" cycle when it suits your purposes, and none when it doesn't. Again, GDP rose after Clinton tax increases regardless. As for the stimulus bill, I agree there is way too much non-stimulus in it. I think you're disingenuous complaining about it adding to the debt, yet have no problem with tax cuts that will add to the debt. Finally, please explain to your like-minded compatriot SW Mike that employment is a lagging indicator, so current layoffs can't be laid at the feet of a week old administration.— still_independent
- mike, get off the tax cheat stuff -- not even the Republicans in Washington are giving it as much play as you are. And you know why? Because cheating on your taxes is not that big a deal. You make money on the interest when you have the money and then pay it back with a small penalty when you get caught. Big deal. I have done it. It just gets redundant when that is all you have to bring to the table; and, it isnt even that big a deal.— Master Dreamz
- Everybody I know who works on wall st is either a fervent republican or an apolitical opportunist. There are no liberals in that business. And you conservative guys should want to defend them since they are your role models and heroes in our robust free-market system. Yes, some super-rich people are liberals, since they are types that look at the big picture and realize that over time liberal policies are better for business (financial history bears this out amply)--and since they agree with me on this they must be right.— liberal
- Another reason why the insult "cheat" does not apply to Geithner: He reported all the income involved on his tax returns. His offense was not to compute the tax amount correctly. The IRS computers have no problem spotting this, and this is why he was "caught." This is the most minor kind of tax offense; it did not get the negligence penalty or the fraud penalty, much less a criminal charge. To cheat on your taxes you at least have to try to conceal your taxable income in some way, or report a fraudulent deduction. This is much harder for the IRS to spot. So good luck, all you tax cheats out there.— liberal
- Liberal- everyone's entitled to their opinion but the harping on Republicans is starting to look like scapegoating. Right now there is no power base that Republicans have in government. So to keep harping on Republicans is starting to look like the democrats are starting to realize that this whole being in charge thing isn't so easy and they are using Republican bashing to compensate for lack of solutions. You are only 10 days into have the presidency but eventually the expiration on blaming Bush will happen.
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
