RNC Update: Blackwell?

• Author: Ben Keeler
• Filed under: Ohio, Republicans '08
• Date: Nov 24,2008

RedState, in a post titled "Rumor of the Day":

I hear that Ken Blackwell, the former Secretary of State of Ohio, is seriously considering throwing his hat into the ring for RNC Chairman against Michael Steele.

Blackwell is active in the NRA, the National Taxpayers Union, and also is a big Club for Growth fan.

Some of the people I talked to this morning said that Blackwell, like Steele, is a fresh face for the GOP, but unlike Steele conservatives tell me they know where Blackwell stands on issues.

Now all we need is J.C. Watts to throw his hat in the ring if we're just out looking for an African-American to go up against Obama instead of looking for the most qualified guy. Republicans should not be engaged in this level of "me-too-ism" that most people find disingenuous anyway.

Hmmm. Hadn't heard that one. As one of the 36.65% percent of Ohioans who voted for Blackwell in 2006, my feelings are pretty clear. I like the guy and would vote for him again. It is true that people know where Blackwell stands. Steele people are a little less sure about.

Quite honestly, I really don't think either one is right for the job. Fact is that Blackwell got blown out in 2006. Yeah, it was a bad year in Ohio to be a Republican – especially to be running to replace Bob Taft. But it wasn't 36.65% bad. I don't see that as an image you want as your party chairman – someone who got blown out in his last election.

"She Didn't Have to Get Bloodied"

• Author: Ben Keeler
• Filed under: Republicans '08
• Date: Nov 21,2008

Still talking, that Mike Huckabee is.

WSJ: “What John McCain did for her was to give her the capacity to sort of leapfrog over the process and get right to the center stage,” he said at a breakfast with reporters this morning. “By naming her [his running mate] he was able to put her in a position where she did have to go through the bruising process of the primaries. Many of us had been out there for 15 months … she walks into the hot spotlight and she’s a blank slate nobody knows so Republicans are fired up……Huckabee’s comments on Palin, a possible rival for the 2012 Republican nomination, suggest some jealously. “She didn’t have to go through any the debates, she didn’t have to go through the primaries, she didn’t have to have people pick her or pick someone else against her.

Sarah Palin had it easy? What a jackass. Apparently he stopped paying attention to the campaign once his dead end efforts to draw things out and kneecap Mitt Romney were done.

Interesting that Huckabee found the time to go after Palin; I thought his spare time was reserved for hating on Romney and now Fred Thompson. Didn't Huckabee gain a TV show and national recognition after his long shot bid and winning Iowa? Why is he always complaining about some other candidate. Things worked out very well for him considering he came from virtually nowhere. I am starting to think he just wants attention so he gets higher ratings and land more attractive / lucrative speaking gigs. Hey, Huckster: Maybe if you had governed like a Republican you would gotten more primary votes.

Knowing what I know now, part of me wishes now that Huckabee would have been the nominee. That way he could have been the one to take the national beatdown and then he could have exited the stage. Well he wouldn't have gone away, but at least he wouldn't have ever been given serious consideration anymore. Actually, I don't wish that he was our nominee…..that would have been a one way ticket to an insane asylum for yours truly.

We as Republicans are all searching for answers now and for a way back. Personally, I am still unsure about what needs to be done, but I am certain about one person I don't want anywhere near the 2012 / 2016 / 2020 / 2024 / whenever ticket. Throwing these flames around like Huckabee likes to do isn't helping anyone, most of all him. He would be lucky to be picked by someone like Sarah Palin to be her VP. If Huckabee wants to really do something constructive for the party, taking on Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas for her Senate seat in 2010 would be a good start.

Wanted: RNC Chairman

• Author: Ben Keeler
• Filed under: National Landscape 2008, Republicans '08
• Date: Nov 12,2008

Raise your hand if you know who the current chairman of the Republican National Committee is.

Okay, I am guessing not most of you. I know it is Mike Duncan, but I literally have no idea what he looks like. Contrast that to 2004 where RNC Chair Ed Gillespie was everywhere and definitely a visible presence. Duncan reportedly wants to keep his job, but that will not happen. When you are the chairman of a party that takes a beating, you go, whether it was your fault or not. That is just how it works. Now that we our of power on both ends of the Hill, whoever ends up being the chairman will be the public leader of the party.

Three prominent names are floating around out there: Former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, and now Fred Thompson. There is even a site trying to draft the just defeated John Sununu into running for the post. Jim Nussle has also shown interest in addition to a few other less known names. All have their own positives and negatives.

On a personal level, I like Michael Steele. But would he will be seen as nothing but an attempt to imitate Lord Obama? The media and the left will do their best to Palin him, though that would probably happen to anyone just based on the fact they were heading the Republican Party. He is a great speaker and could be a valuable tool. He is also more of a moderate, and we have that whole party infighting / searching for answers thing going on right now. The person on the front lines is going to have to speak out against Obama, and Steele might not be the right guy for the job.

Thompson was one of the few Republicans who was relentless in going after Obama after he secured his nomination. This role may not be the best fit for him though; after all we saw his "lack of fire" during his brief presidential run. He might make a good second in command, someone tasked with coming up with ideas and the best way to get them out, i.e. "General Chairman." As far as Gingrich goes, everyone already knows about him and has an opinion. He says if enough people want him to run, he will.

Having a great speaker and a good face for the party is all nice. But the key will be organization. That is one reason Ed Gillespie was so successful. Whoever it ends up being, whether it is a name mentioned here or nor, they have a huge mess on their hands. It very well could be no one mentioned above, but those are the most prominent names out there. The next chairman will be decided by 168 RNC committeemen and women at the winter meeting in January.

Second Guessing: Part I

• Author: Ben Keeler
• Filed under: Republicans '08
• Date: Nov 7,2008

Part I of many. Too many.

Just like Democrats said John Kerry was their most electable candidate in 2004, many Republicans were going around saying the same about John McCain this time (myself included). For the record, not that it matters now, but Kerry was probably the most electable candidate the Democrats had in 2004. They didn't have many great choices, also similar to the dilemma the GOP faced in this primary season. I never backed McCain until he won the nomination, but I went along with the most "electable" stuff.

I thought it would be a good idea to see how the other major players in the Republican primary might have fared, given the same external events. No offense to Jim Gilmore (nice showing in your Senate race) or Tommy Thompson, but you don't count.

Mitt Romney: As you know, I backed Romney in the primaries and voted for him. He would have been destroyed. People always say, "well with Wall Street in crisis, people would have looked to him as a leader." Maybe. I don't buy it. The Democrats would have created this image of him as a greedy CEO who shared responsibility for the meltdown. Unfortunately, it would have likely worked. Plus, when you step back and consider that America elected an untested novice who wants to raise taxes in these times (Democrats, feel free now to admit the 95% thing is a lie – you won), Romney's past economic successes and turnarounds would have been for naught. Now, if the economy stays in shambles for the next couple years, we might have a different story. Romney stayed afloat by spending his own money at a rapid pace, and it still wasn't enough, even in a Republican primary. Hard to see how he could have competed in the 2008 general.

Rudy Giuliani: The early favorite. He was the perfect nominee to go up against Hillary – not Obama. Rudy was going to run on his post 9/11 successes, which were great, but people wanted to put that in the past. His strategy of going all in in Florida was clearly flawed. No argument can be made that he would have done better. If a lot of conservatives didn't vote for McCain when faced with the decision of him or a socialist radical, it is impossible to think Guiliani would have done any better. Obama against Rudy would have been a slaughter.

Fred Thompson: I don't think there is a case that can be made for Thompson. He showed flashes of brilliance as a candidate, but they were few and far between. Probably would have given a great convention speech and debate performances, but that might been about it.

Mike Huckabee: Actually, I think a plausible argument could be made that Huckabee would have done better than McCain, my personal disdain of him aside. When you look at the voting breakdown and see the number of conservatives that didn't vote for McCain…..maybe. The problem is that Huckabee had problems on different conservative issues. A lot of people really liked his personality, and as we just found, rhetoric and hope were two things people were really looking for in 2008. He couldn't have done better than Obama there, but he certainly could have improved around the margins.

That is not my argument. I am just saying it can be made for him. If Mike Huckabee really wants to help the Republican Party, he will run against Blanche Lincoln for her Senate seat in Arkansas in two years. But then again, if I had a job being a commentator for Fox News, I would keep it.

Conclusion: Nothing was settled. It would be still hard to argue with conviction that any of the above would have run significantly better than Senator McCain if at all. It just wasn't going to be our year when you look back on it now.

Next look back: VP picks.

The Bottom.

• Author: Ben Keeler
• Filed under: Republicans '08
• Date: Nov 6,2008

While I am still formulating a lot of the post election themes in my mind (and there are many), one thing sticks out right away.

Politics is cyclical. Four years ago, we reelected a shaky GOP incumbent president. We added a couple House seats. We had 55 Republican Senators. Gone, gone, and really gone. The Republican Party ran Washington and was on top of the world. It couldn't be more different as we sit here today.

Look back to the stunning pickups of 2002 that led to the retake over of the Senate. The key group that was the key and helped win back control and where they are now: Sununu in New Hampshire (lost Tuesday), Allard in Colorado (retired, seat lost), Dole in North Carolina (lost Tuesday), and Talent in Missouri (lost in the special election two years ago). Only Norm Coleman in Minnesota, the least probable winner of them all, still stands, and that is still in some question. And he only still hangs around because of who ran against him. We challenged Mary Landrieu hard in 2002 and she skated this time. Freshman Mark Pryor in Arkansas wasn't even challenged. When you look at the yearly breakdown of Senate classes, prospects for gains look dubious at best until 2012. The House is different; where a lot of the losses have occurred can be gained back quickly with the right message. A ray of light is that if you are a Republican House incumbent and you survived 2006 and 2008, you are not going to lose barring a self-inflicted wound. The weak seats have been flushed out.

One major problem the Republicans face (among many) is geography. In 2000, 2004, and 2008, they tried to thread the needle on the Electoral Map. It wasn't a choice, it was a necessity. In 2000 and 2004 they found a way. In 2008, not that it mattered, but it wouldn't have worked. The Southwest is slipping away, though Tuesday's margins make a bad situation look worse than it is. Conservatives are extinct in New England, save for Judd Gregg in New Hampshire. The Upper Midwest has been a dead zone. A hard push is going to have to made into these areas, specifically Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. We have won in these two regions previously and will have to figure out how to do so again. The same coalition can't be relied on forever. Democrats tried in 2004 and it didn't work. Republicans tried in 2008 with worse results. However, one stupid argument that needs debunking is that that Obama was so smart to have played in "red states" while McCain only was on defense for the most part. Of course that happened; if President-elect Government only tried to win "blue states" he couldn't have won the election. Conversely, yes, McCain was defending states that Bush won in 2004. It will be the opposite in 2012. Obama will be defending the places he won. Republicans must also take advantage of the reapportionment of electoral votes after the 2010 Census.

The point is exactly 16 years ago yesterday, Republicans found themselves in the exact same position they do today. November 5, 1992 George H.W. Bush lost and the GOP was completely out of power. How fast the comeback is depends on what the next steps are. If proper steps are taken, we will be back sooner rather than later. If not, it could be awhile. Nothing lasts forever. Both sides know that. Republicans lost this election fair and square and we need to look at ourselves as to the reasons why. There is nowhere to go but up. And the sooner the better.

Sensation.

• Author: Ben Keeler
• Filed under: McCain, Republicans '08
• Date: Sep 4,2008

"Hi, I am John McCain. I am running on the same ticket as Sarah Palin."

That might as well be how Senator McCain opens up Thursday Night.

Powerful, spectacular speech. Just the right note was hit. Attacked with a scalpel. Went right after Obama's biggest weakness – what has this guy done exactly to be elected President of the United States?

Tonight was a great sign she is ready to play at this level. There are more tests to come, but this one was met and exceeded. Even if there had been Obama level expectations tonight, she would have met them. Has a speech by a Vice Presidential nominee ever been so anticipated as Palin's? Not in my time or that of most of you. Kyle last week was fond of using the term "knocked it out of the park," in reference to Obama's speech. Building on that, Obama hit a solo shot in the 3rd inning to give his team an early lead. Palin hit a three run homer in the 8th inning to tie the game.

She had every right to come out and swing after the last few days. And swing at Obama she did. Just for good measure, she went after Biden and the media as well. It was her saying that she can take what the other side is going to dish out. She didn't sit there and play the victim. She won't run from this fight.

Negatives: Really looking for stuff here – She pointed too much at the beginning and was clearly nervous, but who wouldn't be. The conclusion seemed a bit disjointed and she stepped on applause lines a few times. A tad too much biography. I know the pre-speech video was cut because things were running long; that would have been nice to see. Nothing major.

The choice of her was a gamble, as I have said – though that is clearly obvious. It might work, it might not. But if McCain comes up short, it won't be because of September 3, 2008. I liked it, the base liked it, McCain had to like it (relieved and vindicated), the arena liked it, the talk shows will like it tomorrow. What matters in the end will be whether the swing voters embraced the speech. The response over the next week will be fascinating to watch. I don't see how anyone that isn't already 100% mind made up for Obama could say that she didn't do a superb job making a case for McCain and one against Obama.

Quickly on the others: Romney – all right. Wasn't his best, certainly not at CPAC levels. Huckabee – you know my feelings on him, but well done here. I loathe when I have to praise him, but tonight he is deserving. Giuliani – went on a tad too long, wasn't a real fan of some of his facial expressions, but got the points home. I almost wondered if he would upstage Palin. He did not.

Senator McCain has one tough act to follow. Here is betting he comes through. Big time as Dick Cheney would say.