June 18, 2009 6:20 PM

Who Will Lead The Republican Party?

By
Marc Ambinder
(CBS)  This column "On The Marc" is written by CBS News chief political consultant Marc Ambinder.


Sure, the economy is tough. But you've got to wonder why anyone would be fighting to get this particular job.

I'm referring to the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.

The RNC chair has two main duties over the next several years. He (all the candidates are men) has to harness the technological advances of the Obama campaign to increase the efficiency of Republican fundraising and outreach. And he will be in a position to shape the type of Republican who is nominated for president.

How can this be? It's simple, really. The RNC chairman can appoint a drafting committee to send him a proposal to adopt a calendar in 2012 that incentivizes certain states into holding caucuses or conferences, and not primaries.

Conservative candidates tend to win smaller contests because they're better able mobilize activists. The RNC chairman can therefore assure that the primary calendar tilts towards conservative candidates, just as, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Democratic calendar tilted against establishment favorites.

This power is significant. But the candidates are only talking about it in code.

One of the biggest public debates is whether former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is conservative enough - or, rather, whether he surrounds himself with conservatives.

Steele was a charter member of a centrist group called the Republican Leadership Council, a group that is very unpopular with the party's conservatives. If Steele were to win, the worry is not that he would broaden the party's tent too much. It's that his lieutenants would be beholden to centrists, who in turn would exercise influence over the nomination process.

In addition, certain candidates are perceived to be stalking-horses for certain candidates. Michigan's Saul Anuzis is cozy with consultants who helped Mitt Romney's presidential bid, although many Romney consultants are supporting other candidates.

Tennessean Chip Saltzman's bid was clipped early on when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee began to make calls on his behalf. As there is no frontrunner for the 2012 nomination - not even Sarah Palin merits that designation - the committee doesn't want to endorse a chairman who is beholden to a particular candidate.

Admittedly, this is a very parochial way of looking at a high-profile American political job. All the candidates pay lip service to the idea that the RNC needs to better communicate Republican ideals, but they know that, until there is a 2012 nominee, the RNC's public face will be fuzzy and inconsequential.

Very privately, a few of the candidates have expressed discomfort with the ideological ghetto the party finds itself in - way too beholden to southern Christian conservatives - but none dare make that argument publicly.

Instead, virtually all of the candidates say they want to increase outreach to blacks and Hispanics, though they have no real plans for this yet.

Their basic diagnosis of the problem facing Republicans is that Republicans have lost their ideals, that they arrived in Washington and turned into Washingtonians.

None believes that the party is too conservative, or that suburbanites and white college-educated voters have been turned off by the party's flashy Christian identity - even though this is what exit polls seem to suggest.

Where the RNC members do worry about public opinion is the question of race. There are two black Republicans running for the job - Steele, and Ken Blackwell, a former Ohio Secretary of State. Blackwell has the support of the committee's hard core social conservatives, and not many others.

One white candidate, South Carolina chairman Katon Dawson, has a history that makes Republicans nervous: he has spoken in code about segregation and, within the past few years, he was forced to resign from a country club that did not admit blacks.

The current chairman, Mike Duncan, is an inoffensive technocrat who gets along with everybody. But he's not "change." Duncan is perceived to be the frontrunner if only because of inertia, and because no other candidate has caught fire.
By Marc Ambinder

Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 293 Comments
by ouchie17 August 16, 2011 9:39 PM EDT
Hi,I find it hard to vote for this REP.canidates like GOV.Rick Perry, who was a mlittle over a week ago about the issue of gay marraige that took place in NewYork the i got it as long it doesn't happen in Texas he don't care so that means he don't care about Thus saids the LORD our GOD.So he will not get my vote and maybe neither side.May GOD have mercy on this nation.
Reply to this comment
by countslapula January 30, 2009 7:18 PM EST
Steele already won ...and where''s your story on it? ...everyone golfing this afternoon at CBSnews? The only reason Steele won is so that the RNC can appear progressive & open-minded. If Obama hadn''t trounced the morally-bankrupt GOP, there''s be some tired, immobile white guy in the spot. Congratulations on being the 2nd of two parties to dump an antiquated restriction... again.
Reply to this comment
by wardoglrs January 30, 2009 1:35 PM EST
They need someone thats:
never voted to raise taxes.
never voted for an unbalanced budget.
never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
never voted to raise congressional pay.
never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

Does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

Returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Voted against the Patriot Act.

Voted against the Iraq war.

Dr Ron Paul''s record:
The one that should of been President
Reply to this comment
by tincup356 January 30, 2009 9:51 AM EST

nRegarding the immediate above. I am a strong Democrat but I also favor a strong two party system which we do not have. Republicans have to live in the real world and know that they will never again win a national election until they can attract both the black and the hispanic voters. The GOP, to survive, must determine what is important to these groups and adapt. The Democrats did and they won.

God Bless All

Posted by ramos937 at 03:53 AM : Jan 30, 2009,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the democrats are doing the same thing Bush did in October the first part of the bailout....congress is not representing the people,,,they are committing treason.....they know the bottom is about to fall out that is why they are ALL on a money grab spree......the only place BOTH parties need to be led ....IS STRAIGHT TO JAIL on charges of HIGH TREASON.
Reply to this comment
by ramos937 January 30, 2009 6:53 AM EST
First, let''s have some respect for one another here. Unfortunately, I find myself wishing that CBSnews would censor this site.

----------------------------
Very privately, a few of the candidates have expressed discomfort with the ideological ghetto the party finds itself in - way too beholden to southern Christian conservatives - but none dare make that argument publicly.

Instead, virtually all of the candidates say they want to increase outreach to blacks and Hispanics, though they have no real plans for this yet.
-----------------------------------

Regarding the immediate above. I am a strong Democrat but I also favor a strong two party system which we do not have. Republicans have to live in the real world and know that they will never again win a national election until they can attract both the black and the hispanic voters. The GOP, to survive, must determine what is important to these groups and adapt. The Democrats did and they won.

God Bless All
Reply to this comment
by lf1952 January 30, 2009 5:08 AM EST
From the article:
"None believes that the party is too conservative, or that...voters have been turned off by the party''s flashy Christian identity".

This represents an incredible failure to understand and accept reality. The Republican Party seems determined to become a radical religious movement, desiring to force Americans to abide by THEIR values. Not only is this exactly what our founding fathers were running from and thus made unconstitutional, but it is even MORE against every value that the Republican Party is supposed to have. Lower taxes, LESS intrusive government, CLEAR separation between religious values - that''s what churches are for - and governmental regulation are(were) the values of the Republican Party.

This progression has weakened the Republican Party and will destroy it if not stopped.

Iran believes that their law must adhere to the Koran and that not being Muslim is a crime. Substitute "Christian" for Muslim, and worse, remove Christ''s teaching of love and caring from "Christianity", and you have the Republican Party.

I speak as a FORMER Republican - driven out of my own Party. Is there a leader of the Republican Party who wants me back? Apparently not.
Reply to this comment
by downtowner97 January 30, 2009 4:57 AM EST
Put Sarah Palin in charge of the Republicans. She embodies their intelligence and their hope for future elections.
Reply to this comment
by smirk22-2009 January 30, 2009 4:53 AM EST
truthmatter,

"McCain is the one that FIRST WARNED ABOUT THIS MESS"

Hilarious.

"The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
John McCain
Sept. 15, 2008
Reply to this comment
by flsunjnky January 30, 2009 4:36 AM EST
My my, what a circus, NO, truthMatter, you are the looser of the night bub.
Reply to this comment
by flsunjnky January 30, 2009 4:26 AM EST
Oh, is this your doing?

Posted by truthMatter

Ha ha, what a loser! Thanks, but I can''t take the credit for what you have brought upon yourself.

Look in the mirror, what do you see?
Reply to this comment
See all 293 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook