http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reince_Priebus



According to wikipedia he's a lawyer and former state GOP chair which seems like decent credentials.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/14/rnc-bounces-steele-taps-wisconsin-gop-leader-as-new-chairman/

Quote :

""I am here to earn the trust and support of each and every one of you," Priebus said, addressing the RNC following his win. "I am going to start working right now as your chairman. We all recognize that there is a steep hill here ahead of us, and the only way we will be able to move forward is if we're all together." Priebus said the RNC's top priority should be to ensure that the GOP's presidential nominee in 2012 "has the organization in place to beat Barack Obama.""

1/14/2011 10:37:11 PM

Well, he couldn't possibly be worse than Steele. If the GOP thinks it's gonna placate minorities with that classic "token" then they're even dumber than I think, and I'm not convinced they're smart enough to qualify as sentient.

Honestly, though, at this point I think the party is too far gone for any change in leadership to fix it.

1/15/2011 2:05:01 AM

Yeah, the election of Steele was very much a, "oh you've got a negro? LOOK! We've got one too!" moment.


That being said, I think you could view the GOP as either a) too far gone or b) at a critical moment of transformational instability and the right chairman could capitalize on it to rebrand the party.


Libertarians like myself have been clamoring for a third party for years, but the reality is that the GOP and Democratic parties aren't going anywhere for a while

1/15/2011 7:44:32 AM

I tried to not dislike him for as long as could. Made it nearly a day. I even refrained from making fun of his comments about executing Obama (when he meant Osama). But then I saw this:



Prompt: You've got 30 seconds to convince a libertarian who comes up to you as to why the GOP should support DOMA. Go!

Response: God is the reason for the law. And I helped pass a constitutional ban amendment in my own state.

His answer was a little longer than that, but religion as legal justification is where he started and came back to. Does he really think that is the best 30 second argument to convince a libertarian?

Then again, maybe I shouldn't judge him yet. Maybe he just has to say that to be a leader within the Republican party?

Although he did brag about pushing that amendment in his home state. But maybe he'll be too busy schmoozing money from the big donors to push that stance to make up for the debt he's inherited:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/113612359.html

Quote :

"Fund raising will be one major challenge for Priebus. "We're probably going to be looking at at least $20 million in debt. We have a lot of work to do. . . . I'm going to get to work on that tonight in reaching out to our major donors," said Priebus, who said the party will also need to raise about $400 million over the next two years."

[Edited on January 15, 2011 at 8:30 AM. Reason : .]

1/15/2011 8:29:32 AM

Quote :

"Response: God is the reason for the law."

:barf:

1/15/2011 9:02:29 AM

Quote :

"His answer was a little longer than that, but religion as legal justification is where he started and came back to. Does he really think that is the best 30 second argument to convince a libertarian?"

considering that most people who label themselves as libertarians are, in fact, not, but are really just far-right republicans

yeah, you invoke God and it will be just fine

[Edited on January 15, 2011 at 12:28 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2011 12:24:57 PM

He looks like he could be a closet homo, and maybe doth protest too much regarding gay marriage…

And I can’t have any respect for a politician that uses the term “activist judge” in a serious sense.

1/16/2011 1:10:47 AM

Yeah, he looks and sounds like a chode. The GOP is almost as bad as the Dems were in the late 80's, just full of clowns and assholes that you want to punch every time they open their mouths.

1/16/2011 3:55:53 PM

at first blush, this guy does seem quite chodal.

right about now the Repubs either don't get it, or don't care about anyone except the base -- which is fine if its in line with their conscience, but they're scaring the shit out of the moderates.

i'm going to go ahead and guess that "they don't get it". they went from a tokken to someone Palinesque as chariman. maybe he's just speaking to the base now, but will work to nominate someone more in the middle.

i could be wrong, but at this pace i definitely see a second term for Barrack coming.

1/17/2011 12:21:01 PM

There's a lot of speculating that could be done on why this guy was chosen, if he's actually as much of a clown as he seems, or if he represents the "mainstream GOP base." I have tried to be optimistic about the possibilities of an ideological shift within the GOP, but it's just not going to happen. This country has way too many dumb people.

1/17/2011 1:01:58 PM

He won't be legit until he starts sporting a red "Fire Obama" hat.

1/17/2011 1:20:28 PM

I think you'll continue to see this sort of leadership in the forseeable future, simply because the religious right, a large part of the GOP's base, simply would not tolerate a "moderate" leader (one who takes a more libertarian approach to social issues like this), while the few moderate/libertarian-leaning components of the party tend to simply ignore the religious influence and just accept it. In an effort to maintain a reliable voter base, they will continue to cater to the religious crowd, since it would get them nowhere to alienate that large of a demographic.

1/17/2011 2:46:25 PM

^ i don't know about that...

There are plenty of liberals who are more concerned with social progressive views, than supporting anti-poverty type economic programs, and if the more libertarian side of conservatives took the GOP, they could snare these people. The religious right won't be as motivated, but they still have to vote GOP by default.

[Edited on January 17, 2011 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ]

1/17/2011 2:49:31 PM

I see what you're saying and I'm inclined to agree, but in my experience the religious right tends to get much more vicious when it comes to homosexuality or other religiously "unapproved" things. While the GOP leadership taking a centrist stance on social issues may get some brownie points with "independent" moderates, that's about it from a political standpoint. They don't really stand to gain anything politically groundbreaking by going that direction, so it's going to be a non-seller until the party demographic genuinely drives a move toward the center. That time may come, but if the tea party representation is any indication of the average GOP voter, I don't think it will be soon

It's a gamble I don't think they're willing to take simply because they know they'll continue to do just fine pandering to the bible-thumper crowd and corporate interests. As long as it is politically beneficial, they will always play a nice, safe choice.

1/17/2011 3:24:19 PM

Quote :

"I think you'll continue to see this sort of leadership in the forseeable future, simply because the religious right, a large part of the GOP's base, simply would not tolerate a "moderate" leader (one who takes a more libertarian approach to social issues like this), while the few moderate/libertarian-leaning components of the party tend to simply ignore the religious influence and just accept it. In an effort to maintain a reliable voter base, they will continue to cater to the religious crowd, since it would get them nowhere to alienate that large of a demographic."

I mean, the problem with the religious right is not that they're religious, it's that they try to force their values on the rest of us. You can maintain whatever "moral foundation" you get from religion, but if the line is going to be that we want state's rights and Constitutional government, there's no room there for the federal government to be getting involved by legislating morality.

Quote :

"It's a gamble I don't think they're willing to take simply because they know they'll continue to do just fine pandering to the bible-thumper crowd and corporate interests. As long as it is politically beneficial, they will always play a nice, safe choice."

I think you hit the nail on the head here. These guys care about getting re-elected, and pretty much nothing else. For them, it isn't rational take a principled, "limited government" stance, because the good results from that kind of policy will not be evident for years to come, long after they've been thrown out of office because the economy still sucks. In short, we would need to get an entire wave of altruistic politicians, and that's an unrealistic expectation.

1/17/2011 4:55:18 PM

At the state level the GOP just this weekend elected a new chair here in NC as well. I was hoping the recent round of elections were pushing the GOP more towards their libertarian side than their socially conservative side, but it seems that wasn't the case at the state or national level unfortunately:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hayes

Quote :

"He then accused Obama of “inciting class warfare” and said that “liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.” [6][7] Hayes repeatedly denied that he had made the statement and accused reporters of "irresponsible journalism", until an audio recording attesting to the statement was released.[7]"

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/hayes_running_hard_to_become_state_gop_chairman

Quote :

"Hayes also runs a hosiery mill in Mt. Pleasant and is an heir to the Cannon textile fortune."

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/ncwire/hayes-wins-nc-republican-party-chairman-post-243617

Quote :

"the 65-yeard-old descendant of the Cannon textile family, hosiery mill owner and social conservative was described by his opponents as the establishment candidate"

1/17/2011 9:17:14 PM

^

Quote :

" until an audio recording attesting to the statement was released"

LOL

the sad part is that the statement will only strengthen him with his base.

1/17/2011 9:30:20 PM

The outgoing state GOP chair gave his farewell speech:

"Fetzer on idiot bloggers and mean politics"
http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/fetzer_on_idiot_bloggers_and_mean_politics

Quote :

"“When I ran for chairman I was not a political virgin,” Fetzer told the state Republican Executive committee meeting in Raleigh over the weekend. “I had worked in Jesse Helms' campaigns which tended to be knock-down, dragged out affairs. I had run for mayor of Raleigh in a city that had never elected a Republican. The campaign for chairman was the most miserable experience I've ever encountered. Things were said about me that I could not believe – vicious lies. I spent $20,000 defending my name in a lawsuit.” Fetzer said that while politics is important, people need to keep things in perspective. He said getting married and having a child has helped him personally get a better perspective on things. He also had some advice for the new chairman. “If I could give you one piece of advice, please ignore the idiot bloggers,” Fetzer said. “I don't know those these people are and why they have time to do this stuff. But they need to get a life.” That brought cheers from the members of the state GOP Executive Committee."

By spending $20,000 defending his name, he means suing a fellow conservative who called him gay. Good thing he had all that Jesse Helms campaign experience. I do think that his "ignore the bloggers" is a backwards looking bit of advice that doesn't well fit the future of politics, blogs, social media, and the internet's impact on campaigning.

1/19/2011 6:24:34 AM

quality thread. will read again.

1/19/2011 6:32:16 PM