No Magic for Saltsman
It’s silly of the Politico to suggest that the “Magic Negro” brouhaha might actually help would-be RNC chairman Chip Saltsman. His candidacy is effectively over, and while some RNC mandarins might defend him — they need to buttress their standing with the conservative grassroots somehow — they won’t want him as the figurehead of their party. If this flap helps anyone, it helps Ken Blackwell: Republican committeemen who want to appear conservative while neutralizing Saltsman’s politically incorrect gaffe might well turn to the black candidate who has spoken up for Saltsman — Blackwell. “As a result of his position, a source close to the race said that at least 12 uncommitted committee members have contacted Blackwell to thank him for his support for Saltsman,” the Politico story notes.
Whatever benefit accrues to Blackwell might not be enough to see him through: I tend to credit reports that committeemen are leaning heavily toward picking one of their own as chairman. But perhaps the RNC will think that only a Blackwell or a Michael Steele can insulate the party against accusations of racism and allow Republicans to go after Obama with gusto. (Then again, who really believes the Republicans will get a pass just because they choose a black chairman?) In any case, the RNC battle serves as a test of the alternate strategies Sean Scallon mapped out in TAC: the GOP can reinforce its appeal to its traditional base (perhaps by choosing South Carolina’s Katon Dawson? Or by trying to win back Reagan Democrats with Michigan’s Saul Anuzis?) or it can try to rebrand itself a party both conservative and diverse (with Ken Blackwell). But the trouble for the GOP is that the former path may lead to extinction, while the latter runs aground on the reality that the GOP is neither diverse nor, especially after the Bush years, conservative.
Don’t Dawson, Anuzis and Steele all have a history of being hostile to Ron Paul and his supporters? Have they renounced those positions? Am I “mis-remembering?” I know I am not on Anuzis and Steele.
Which RNC candidate would be the best for non-interventionists, Constitutionalist, anti-Fed, etc. types?
I’d have to say none of the above — they’re all inflationists and interventionists. Steele and Anuzis did indeed want to bar Ron Paul from Republican debates, which is a shame, because from what I hear Anuzis is personally likable and responsive to the grassroots, and Steele was pretty good for a Maryland Republican. I don’t recall what beef Dawson might have had with RP. There’s a line of thought that says a Dawson victory would smooth the way for a Mark Sanford candidacy in 2012. Sanford is fairly serious about smaller government and some of my South Carolina friends think he’s probably a noninterventionist — but those would be slender reeds to hang support for Dawson upon.
Mark Sanford is unquestionably dedicated to smaller government and probably – although not definitely (too early to tell) – a non-interventionist, if only from a cost vs. benefit, fiscal conservative stance.
Regardless, Sanford’s certainly not a neocon. If Sanford has any fault, it might be his willingness to occasionally fall in line with Republican conventional wisdom, and the most disheartening example may have been during the presidential primaries when he was on the cusp of endorsing Guiliani (Rudy was polling high in SC).
A press release advertising an “announcement” by the governor was put out at that time – and then the “announcement” was canceled almost immediately.
Sanford’s refusal to play ball at that juncture, while under pressure to do so, is at least encouraging.
If Chris Buckley and others could endorse Obama merely for his temperament, I will allow myself the same leeway with Gov. Sanford, for the time being.
One of the Ron Paul events I went to was in Greenville, SC. Someone had made some negative comment about Ron Paul that prompted the event. But it could have been the local Greenville guy. They basically exploited the situation and turned it into a GOP fundraiser.
I’ll see if I can find the details.
Did Dawson stay neutral in the GOP Senate primary, Graham vs. Witherspoon? That would be a good indication?
I was thinking of Spartanburg GOP Chair, Rick Beltran. In trying to look it up I found that Dawson did have a negative comment about Ron Paul’s Columbia debate performance.
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20070704/NEWS/707040336/-1/LIFE
The RNC Chairmanship race will be an early test of how strong the diversity current is right now in the GOP. Two leading candidates are the Katon Dawson of the Scots-Irish wing and Kenneth Blackwell of the “diversity” wing. Blackwell would have the edge over Steele because Blackwell is considered to be more conservative. Since Saul Aunzis didn’t do a good job of keeping Reagan Democrats in the fold in Michigan, it’s doubtful the RNC will give him the reigns of the national party to do so either.
Usually the best party chairmen are technocrats who know how to strengthen the party on the ground, raise money and for whom all the factions can claim as their own. For the GOP think Ray Bliss, William Brock, Frank Fahrenkopf and Haley Barbour.
Chip Saltsman seemed to have those credentials. He got Mike Huckabee’s campaign off the ground, was part of the powerful Tennessee party and what’s more was a young face and technological neanderthal like a lot of Republicans. Sadly, Saltsman decided to put “act stupid” on his holiday list of things to do and cost any chance he would have had to be RNC Chief. Given Blackwell’s poltically timed statement, I would imagine he would pick up support from Saltsman supporters but I agree that the Dawson will have the edge being he’s someone most of those on the RNC knows and trusts.
But regardless of who wins, ask yourself has any of these candidates come up with credible plans to rebuild the party in the Midwest, the Pacific Coast, the mid-Atlantic and New England, build up the party’s internet and technological infrastructure and find better ways to appeal to younger voters? Chime in if you know because I haven’t heard anything other than the standard boilerplate about being “truer to principals, more conservative blah, blah, blah.”