Any kind of talk about who should lead the RNC should include what kinds of candidates the RNC should and should not be supporting.
Why?
America's problems stem not from an inability to elect Republicans into office; history shows America can do that. (Note: we just did with Steele in charge of the RNC...)
The real question is: can we get the *right* kind of Republicans in Congress?
Has anyone noticed that Ann Wagner’s agenda doesn’t mention what *kinds* of Republicans the RNC, under her leadership, would help elect and raise money for?
Is Ann’s goal to get the *right* kind of Republicans in?
Now, I suppose it's unfair to pick on Ann Wagner because she is probably no different than the other candidates, including Steele. However, Saul Anuzis from MI, who is also running, is endorsed by Tea Party nation (last point). But like Ann Wagner, his "Why Support Saul" page does not mention the kinds of candidates he would support. At the same time, Ann Wagner has a history of supporting candidates like Rep. Roy Blunt, who led the way for using taxpayer money to bailout the "too big to fail" via TARP while Saul Anuzis has connections to Reps like Rep. McCotter (MI-R), who was one of the few disenting Republicans who voted not once, but twice against the big bill authorizing lots of stuff including TARP.
Thus, maybe it's not politically savvy to mention that you want to support the outsiders who will do the right thing on your website. Maybe it's up to conservatives to connect the dots to know which candidate is more likely to support truly conservative candidates.
Even more, the entire purpose of the RNC should be in question but those who have spent time fighting to end out-of-control government spending. The best candidate to support is one that can articulate why supporting Republicans who can win is not a legitimate long-term strategy for saving our country.
The goal should be limiting government not electing Republicans (without definition). I call this “sticking fingers in the leaks of the dam” to hold off the inevitable. But maybe this is the best we can do. Yet something inside of me says “give me liberty or give me death”!!!!
Side note:
This post is already too long, but...
At an RNC meeting in Hawaii last January, conservative members united to try to pass a resolution prohibiting RNC funding for candidates who don't support eight of ten key conservative issues, a proposal that Steele opposed. A compromise resolution was passed that was similar, but didn't really affect the types of candidates that the RNC supported, as there are plenty of examples of the RNC supporting incumbents who voted for deficit spending and earmarks. You would think this would go against the Republican National Platform, but the platform really isn't that great; no where can one link to principles the TEA Parties have spent over 1.5 years articulating. But then, that's why people people are TEA Partying.
What should be obvious is that while the RNC chair will say he or she is neutral and should support all Republican candidates; this isn't true. The RNC supports incumbents first, and follows what it is typical of politics: financial support is linked to how likely it is that you will win and able to raise money for the RNC in the future. The RNC is about it's own survival--not yours.
