From the "WTF Were They Thinking" Department....

...comes this brain cramp from the RNC.

A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebrandingDemocrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

Don't you people have anything more important to do? Something like say coming up with a coherent message???????

Or is putting up a useless resolution that is not going to be enforced the most pressing thing on the agenda this week...

When I asked if such a resolution would force RNC Chairman Michael Steele to use that label when talking about Democrats in all his speeches and press releases, the RNC member replied: “Who cares?”

Then again, maybe it is this is coming about because the RNC establishment, which is a vast part of the reason why the RNC has lost seats in the last 3 Congressional races, doesn't want to be forced to actually DO THEIR FREAKING JOBS which is to identify candidates for office and GET THEM ELECTED!!!!!

At least one person at the RNC has his head screwed on straight.....

Steele wrote a memo last month opposing the resolution. Steele said that while he believes Democrats “are indeed marching America toward European-style socialism,” he also said in a (rare) flash of insight that officially referring to them as the Democrat Socialist Party “will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans.”

The chairman is right, of course, but the RNC committeemen and women do not appear to share that same wisdom.

I understand that the RNC committeemen and women are opposed to the socialistic proposals coming out of the Democrats leadership, but rather than passing a meaningless resolution, why don't they actually take a stand to DEFEND their beliefs? This resolution that they are proposing does nothing but show how totally clueless the RNC committeemen and women are. Otherwise, why push this?

A Radical Thought!

My friend Gary Gross has a post up about the ongoing debate (within Republican circles) about what to do next to move the party forward. The debate has been about technology versus message and Gary's comment is essentially "why not both?" a comment that was echoed by Patrick Ruffini. I agree that it can not be an either/or and it should be all of the above discussion, but I also think I have a way to make the message issue just a little easier.

Indeed, while sorting out their errors and considering their options, conservatives of all stripes would be well advised to concentrate their attention on the constitutional order and the principles that undergird it, because maintaining them should be their paramount political priority.

A constitutional conservatism puts liberty first and teaches the indispensableness of moderation in securing, preserving and extending its blessings. The constitution it seeks to conserve carefully defines government's proper responsibilities while providing it with the incentives and tools to perform them effectively; draws legitimacy from democratic consent while protecting individual rights from invasion by popular majorities; assumes the primacy of self-interest but also the capacity on occasion to rise above it through the exercise of virtue; reflects, and at the same time refines, popular will through a complex scheme of representation; and disperses and blends power among three distinct branches of government as well as among federal and state governments the better to check and balance it. The Constitution and the nation that has prospered under it for 220 years demonstrate that conserving and enlarging freedom and democracy depends on weaving together rival interests and competing goods.

A message that focuses on the Constitutional base of this country would resonate with the many factions within the party. Fiscal and social conservatives, Ron Paul libertarians and Moral Majority conservatives can all find common ground within the confines of the Constitution. If the Republican Party can craft and STICK TO a message of Constitutional Conservatism, their years in the wilderness will be brief indeed.

The question is will the RNC listen?

Questions and Answers

RNC National Committeeman Morton Blackwell did what a lot of conservatives have been dying to do - he asked some rather pointed questions of the candidates running for RNC Chair this year. Matt Lewis of Townhall has the post that is a must read for every Republican grass roots activist out there!

Here are a couple of highlights from the post. In answer to question 1 (As RNC chairman, what would you do to make sure that Democrats do not have a comparable ground-game advantage in 2010?)...

Saul Anuzis: The challenges we faced in 2008 had less to do with infrastructure and more to do with a passion deficit that our party experienced throughout 2008. The articulation of good ideas breeds passion; Passion breeds excitement; excitement breeds volunteers, and volunteers are the life's blood of a political ground game. So our first task is to be the party that is effectively communicating conservative ideas, so that we can once again stir the passions of our nation....
Ken Blackwell: ...to have an exceptional ground game, our Party must first inspire thousands of people who can then be activated to work for our shared values during the election cycle. Lately, our party has become overly focused on mechanics while failing to articulate a clear, concise, positive and practical message. To inspire enough prospective Republican volunteers to be a part of a new "ground game," we must stand firm for our core beliefs: Limited government, traditional values and a strong national defense. If we become the "Obama-lite" party, we will not be able to recruit the substantial number of volunteers needed for such a massive effort.
Katon Dawson:... In 2008, the GOP's strategy of "winning 50 percent plus one" and sticking strictly to the electoral math cost us dearly. The result was Democrats making gains almost everywhere -- even in the reddest of states. Our message was lost and good candidates didn't have a chance due to the monetary and strategic advantages of the Obama campaign. Republicans can't wait until the next election season to improve our on-the-ground operation -- the rebuilding must start now.

In answer to question 2 (As RNC chairman, what would you do to make sure that the RNC, in a balanced way, speaks out for the social issues so important to a huge number of potential Republican voters and so clearly stated in the democratically written and unanimously adopted 2008 National Republican Platform?)...

John "Chip" Saltsman: Republicans are successful when they are faithful to conservative ideals - smaller government, lower taxes, family values. Unfortunately, in recent years, actions by our elected officials have diverged from the party's ideological pillars. So, I fully appreciate the problems that social conservatives and fiscal conservatives have had with our party. I know that we must effectively communicate with disheartened supporters and communities of voters who share our core principles. And I believe that it is imperative for the next RNC Chairman to make all members of our coalition feel at home in the Republican Party, while adding new supporters to the GOP family. (ed can I get an AMEN from the church?)

Michael Steele: Well, as Chairman I would begin by restating: We are the Conservative Party of this Great Nation. We value life, born and unborn; we value hard work and individual initiative; we value service to our nation and to our community; but most of all we value the rights of individuals to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. As a strong social and fiscal conservative, I will continue to embrace -- not take advantage of the conservatives of our Party.
I also recognize that good Republicans can disagree from time to time. But the answer to returning to a ruling majority is not to abandon our principles or abandon our National Republican Platform but to embrace all of it and articulate its message in such a manner that we inspire and move a nation towards once again embracing conservative Republican principals and policies.

There is much, much more that conservatives should really read.

All in all, I have to say that I was extremely impressed by the answers given by John "Chip" Salzman and Kanton Dawson to a majority of the questions. Many of their answers covered ground that none of the others had prior to this. The answers from Saul Anuzis, Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele were not surprises to anyone who has read their previous position papers on the issues or followed their campaigns (Steele and Blackwell) in any manner.

The man whose answers disappointed me the most was current chair Mike Duncan. He showed (in several of his answers) that he is close to getting it, but he is still not quite there yet - where the other candidates fully do get it. His tepid "hiding in the bull-rushes" approach to his answers and his tenure as the GOP chair has earned him the nickname "Mike WHO?"

Duncan has been the Invisible Chairman, installed in January 2007 by Karl Rove to be unobtrusive — a mission he has carried out brilliantly. Many, if not most, Republican leaders and activists don’t know who he is. For example, when Duncan was a guest recently on the "Hugh Hewitt Show," the radio host asked Duncan why this was the first time this RNC chairman had ever asked to come on the show and address millions of his fellow Republicans.

Duncan couldn’t give an answer other than he’d been busy for the past year. I suppose that’s one way to look at it. Another way is he hasn’t provided the kind of leadership the Republican National Committee needs in this day and age.

And that pretty much sums it all up. Mike Duncan seems to be a nice enough guy, but he appears to not understand what the Republican Party needs to do to move forward. The GOP needs a chair that understands how to get the volunteers and donors excited again. Being the "Invisible Man" is not going to do that.

Thinking Aloud

Last week RNC Chairman Mike Duncan decided that what the GOP needed to "fix" its problems was a new "think tank".

The Republican National Committee is building a new, in-house think tank aimed at reviving the party's policy heft.

The think tank will be called the Center for Republican Renewal, and it has been mentioned as part of RNC Chairman Mike Duncan's platform for reelection, but was begun shortly after the election as a new RNC office, separate from the campaign, a Republican official said.

Former Texas Congressman Tom DeLay thinks that idea is a horrible idea.

While I appreciate Chairman Duncan for thinking outside the box, we'd be better off paying more attention to what the Democrats have built over the last eight years and working off of a new model. This new political paradigm all comes down to campaign finance reform. What John McCain thought (hoped?) would be a shot in the arm to our campaigns turned out to be a shot in the foot to the Republican Party. Karl Rove and the Bush team were simply convinced that Republicans would rake in the dough when we doubled the individual contribution limits...but what they didn't realize was the incredible amount of soft money that would pour in to finance liberal political capital. Unions, foundations, and wealthy individuals all ponied up vast amounts of their resources to build an outside organization - a Shadow Party, as David Horowitz calls it. Couple that with a national candidate’s (without the last name Bush) unexpected hard dollar fundraising prowess and, well, here we are.

The good news is there are about twice as many conservative think tanks as liberal ones, yet the Republican National Committee - a party organization with the sole goal to elect Republicans to office, is potentially wasting scarce, overly-regulated, hard dollars on ten staffers to write talking points and develop a new website. They don't need a think tank to develop new ideas, we already have a party platform for that.

I do agree with the former Congressman that the idea of another conservative think tank is un-necessary and that the party should focus on electing Republicans. However I would qualify his statement saying that that GOP needs to focus on electing HONORABLE Republicans - people who are not going to get a) a raging case of D.C.itis or b) who do not think that inconveniences like campaign finance laws apply to them! Maybe if the GOP started doing that, the voters would start to trust them again!

Battle Lines

There is a battle going on today for the leadership of the GOP. At least two candidates for the GOP Chair have attempted to address what many activists feel is the biggest problem within the GOP - a lack of a clear coherent message and an effective means to get it out. First up is Michigan GOP Chair Saul Anuzis. He has been busily promoting his "Blueprint for A GOP Comeback" which I encourage all Republican activists to read. Two of the things that I find to be the most interesting and encouraging about Mr. Anuzis is his desire to listen to the activist base and his use of the internet. Mr. Anuzis has even signed on to the plan put together at "Rebuild the Party".

Second is former Lt. Governor Michael Steele of Maryland. Lt. Gov. Steele has spent the last 3 years quietly and not so quietly advancing conservative causes. He has quietly been going into minority communities to listen to their concerns and to share why conservative values match their values closest. He has not so quietly been trumpeting conservative causes as a political commentator on the Fox News Channel. He is starting to release (in chapters) his "Blueprint for Tomorrow" which I would also encourage you to read. In chapter 1, Lt. Gov. Steele echoes what many activists, voters and critics of the RNC (including Mr. Anuzis) have long said - the GOP brand is tarnished, our current strategy is NOT working, we are lagging in the use of new technologies AND we must have the integrity to stick to our principles! (Chapter 2 can be found here) Star Parker has a phenomenal column up at Townhall today on the RNC Chair race and in it she asks three very straight forward business questions.

The three most important management questions, according to famed management guru Peter Drucker, are: What is our business? Who is the customer? What does the customer consider value?

What is the business of the RNC? Some might say it is to get Republicans elected. I'd say that's inadequate. Clever marketing techniques can move product in the short run. But if customers are not happy, they don't come back.

I would say that the drop off in volunteers and fund-raising and voters has shown that the customers are "not happy".

Who is the customer? The RNC must genuinely view the full spectrum of the American electorate as its target market. What business can possibly grow by only focusing on customers who have already bought its product? Only going after low-hanging fruit is not a business plan that any venture capitalist would finance.

Republicans must get their message to the many diverse communities that make up our great country that they have ignored. Yes, I am certainly talking about black and Latino communities.

The base, while important (as John McCain), will not be enough to win elections. You have to talk to folks outside of the base and find out what is important TO THEM. I got a really great taste of that this past year when I did some door knocking for the old home district. We got the radical idea to ask voters what was important to them (as opposed to telling them what was important). As a result of that, the old home district knew long before the rest of the country did that the pending housing crisis was the most important issue to the voters and we were able to capitalize on it this year! This is common sense people - not rocket science! Which leads to....

What does the customer consider value? Customers buy products they believe will make them better off. Although some voters are motivated by ideology, most are seeking a secure, comfortable and safe life.

Bill Clinton had it 100% correct when he said "It's the economy stupid!" Like it or not, voters vote their pocketbooks above all. They value a government that works for them, not bailing out big business. They value a government that is concerned about moving the country and the economy forward. They value ideas and optimism and they certainly do not value conspiracy theories about whether the child of a 19 year old American citizen born in 1960 is eligible to be President of the United States - whether that child was born in Hawaii or in Kenya! If the customer does not value your product, no amount of pushing it at them will change their minds, in fact it will have the opposite effect! It will chase more and more of your customers away - is that really what the GOP and the few remaining followers that they have really want to do?

The race is going to boil down to ideas - who has them and who does not. Hopefully the elected National Committeemen and Committeewomen have the common sense to realize that the status quo is not working and the do something dramatic to fix it.

PS - I would love to have links for the other 7 candidates. I know that Mike Duncan has a website and I will be perusing that soon, but what about the other challengers. If you know of links to the other candidates plans send them to me at ll at the domain ladieslogic dot com.

Moving The RNC/MNGOP Forward

My good friend, Lt. Col. Joe Repya has a series of posts up on what the MNGOP can do to move forward after 4 years of leadership punctuated by back to back electoral losses, tepid fundraising and a volunteer base who simply told the party to "buzz off - you don't represent me any more!" While most of it is directed toward the MNGOP (he is after all running for the MNGOP chair again this year) there is much that every state and, most importantly, the national GOP can learn from this 6 part series of posts. There are a lot of good ideas in parts 1-5, but I want to focus on part 6 which is the conclusion of the series.

In my opinion, we took another beating this year because leadership was too busy dividing this party rather than uniting this party. Therefore, for the sins of few, the many suffered. Anyone who attended the GOP State Convention in Rochester knows of which I speak. We can no longer continue to divide this party by attacking individuals or groups that do not agree 100% with the party leadership. We must be capable of identifying those issues that we all agree with, compromise if possible on those we do not. Only teamwork and a united message will overcome the DFL and left wing liberalism.

What happened in Rochester is not limited to the MNGOP - for those that were not there the short story is if you were a Ron Paul delegate or anyone who dared to disagree with the direction of the state party and you made the mistake of vocalizing it, you were shut down cold by those who were running the convention (the state party chair and his allies). I know from talking to others in other states that this was the modus operandi in just about every state convention across the country this year and I know that this is what happened to the Paul campaign at the RNC Convention in St. Paul. However that is all in the past. IF we are ever to move forward into 2010 we need...

We need leaders with vision and the ability to motivate our grassroots. We need a leader who will sit down and be willing to open the “big tent” that once was this party. We need a party willing to discuss and embrace new ideas, new people, different issues, and opposing attitudes without alienating other individual and groups. We must articulate a message that the conservative wing, the social moderate wing and independents will rally around.

We also need candidates who will walk the walk.

Many Republicans have lost faith in this party because some of our so called “conservative elected office holders” have voted against our core principles for political expediency or to perpetuate their own political ambitions. We need leaders who will never abandon our core principles. We can always compromise on issues, methods, techniques and tactics, but we can never compromise our core principles.

Gee this seems to be a theme among the conservative base. I think I may have mentioned this a time or three myself.

Another thing I may have mentioned here a time or three is this...

In the past, the Republican Party had been the party of ideas. Somewhere we lost our voice and our message. We must be capable of developing new ideas and communicating our message across this state. We must develop a clear and concise message of smaller government, tax reform, corruption reform and spending cuts. We must demonstrate to our fellow Minnesotans how our message and principles will improve their quality of life. In this bad economy, we should start demanding an end to new spending within the State of Minnesota. Here is a novel idea: let’s hold all state department budgets to the 2008 level and shrink the size of our state governmental departments by 5%. There is plenty of government waste that can be eliminated in Saint Paul. Since we have a balanced budget requirement, we should insure that social programs, not public safety programs, are the first to be cut.

The only "idea" that today's Republican Party has EVER had has been the "we don't like the Democrats or their ideas" idea. The Contract With America has been the closest that we have ever seen to ideas out of this party. If the party ever wants to move forward we have to have a plan and (most importantly) are NOT AFRAID TO ARTICULATE AND DEFEND IT! Football teams can not win playing the "prevent defense" what makes the RNC think that we can win politically playing the prevent defense? The base is out here doing what we can, but when the party leadership won't even try to defend conservative ideas and ideals - why should the base bother?

What the Republican Party needs today are leaders who are willing to step out of the "way it's always been done" and try new things. We need leaders who are willing to listen to the grass roots and "even" Ron Paul supporters! We have to be willing to learn from others if we are ever going to move this party forward.

RNC Insanity

Yesterday I made passing reference to some remarks made this week by RNC Chair candidate Curly Haugland. I think that these remarks need greater scrutiny because it show exactly WHY the RNC is in big trouble.

Republicans, reeling from another election defeat, have taken to arguing over whether their national leader should come from the elected ranks of the Republican National Committee or be a political celebrity such as former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.

"For this association of members to choose to outsource its leadership would, I believe, be an abdication of our responsibility," Curly Haugland, an RNC member from North Dakota and the former North Dakota Republican Party chairman, wrote in an e-mail to Mr. Steele.

Mr. Haugland called on Mr. Steele to quit the contest for Republican national chairman because he is not an RNC member.

"In my estimation, 168 committed members of the Republican National Committee are a
powerful army of qualified advocates for Republican principles; certainly much more threatening to the Democrats than one celebrity spokesman," Mr. Haugland said.

The utter arrogance of Mr. Haugland's remarks are exactly why the RNC is in the dire straits it is in today. Right now the RNC is totally devoid of new ideas. It is firmly entrenched in the "consultancy class" mentality.

But the quote that says it all is...

"Your chosen path to leadership of the Republican National Committee exemplifies the problem we should immediately seek to resolve, that being the practice of allowing nonmembers to exert undue influence in the process of selecting our leaders" Mr. Haugland wrote Mr. Steele. "Getting the Republican Party back on the right 'track' is a job rightfully left to the Republicans who have been elected to run this railroad."

Excuse me Mr. Haugland - but YOU and the rest of the 168 elected National Committeemen and women are part of the problem. The same National Committee that you claim is the best answer for the ills of the RNC is the same one that elected the last two Chairmen - the ones that have worked their hardest to get DEMOCRATS elected. This is the same National Committee that only wants the grass roots voluteers time and money - but leave the ideas at home because we all know better than you. This is the same National Committee that

IF the Republican National Committee (of which Mr. Haugland is a member) is really concerned about the fate of the Republican Party and really wanted to make a few changes they really need to talk to the few Republicans who did manage to win this year....Republicans like Jason Chaffetz who beat out RNC endorsed candidate - incumbent Chris Cannon - in the primary this year. They might want to ask Rep. elect Chaffetz what he did that managed to win over voters in his district. They might want to ask Chaffetz volunteers what Rep-elect Chaffetz did to win their vote and their money and their time.

IF the RNC really cared about moving forward (as opposed to just stagnating in the present) they would actively COURT conservative elected officials and activists like former Lt. Gov. Steele and Governor Mark Stanford. They will come to those donors who have closed their wallets in the last two electoral cycles and ask "Why". They might come to the grass roots activists who stayed home this year and ask "Why?".

Right now, the "Republicans who have been elected to run this railroad" are the ones who have run us off of the rails. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result so WHY should we continue to entrust the direction of the Republican Party to people who are hell bent on pushing the Party toward political obscurity. THAT is the question of the year.

Racing For The Chair

Earlier this month I wrote about an excellent column by John Hawkins over at Townhall. He has another one up that picks up where the first left off.

After a GOP beating, there is always a debate between the people who want the party to become more principled and those who want to turn the GOP into a poll-driven pile of mush that they believe will be more appealing to centrists. The problem with this whole discussion is that the "we need to be more moderate" crowd tends to simply ignore a number of inconvenient facts that make their position completely untenable.

We've already gone the moderate route -- and lost. One of the most surreal aspects of the post-2008 campaign is listening to moderates pretend that the last eight years never happened.

You say that the GOP can't win as a small government party. Well, we've already tried being a big government party for the last 8 years and it failed. You think running a moderate, pro-amnesty candidate who eschews social issues is the key to winning elections? Well, that's who we ran in 2008 and he received even less votes than George Bush did in 2004.

Principled conservatives were screaming this from the rooftops after the 2006 election. Yet all we heard out of GOP leadership was "well ya know the war..." and "it was just a tough year to be a Republican...". Here's a radical thought...why don't you try being a CONSERVATIVE instead of a "Republican"....

A "moderate" GOP can't generate the volunteers or money needed to win. Yes, the GOP needs both moderate and conservative voters to win elections. Additionally, in certain districts and states, moderate Republicans are more electable than conservatives. That being said, the rightward leaning media, fundraising, and campaign workers are dominated by conservatives. So, if the right side of the party is depressed, there's not enough money or campaign workers to go around and there isn't a strong pushback against the lies put out by Democrats. Does this sound familiar GOP? Remind us again about your fundraising numbers this year? Do I really need to say more about how far removed from your base you really are? There can be no fiscal conservatism in D.C. without social conservatism. There are some people who think the GOP needs to kick social conservatives to the curb and focus entirely on fiscal conservatism in order to help our election prospects, but they're missing three very important points. #1) For the most part, fiscal conservatives are socially conservative and vice-versa. Yes, there are socially conservative Republicans who aren't fiscal conservatives (See George Bush for example), but they're not typical. #2) In Congress, although there are exceptions, the overwhelming majority of Republicans who aren't socially conservative, aren't fiscally conservative either. Show me a Republican in Congress who's pro-abortion at least 75% of the time, I will show you a Republican who's a big spender, too. #3) People who are most concerned about traditional values make up such a large block of voters that the GOP would be lucky to hold 100 seats in the House and 30 seats in the Senate without their help. So, if the social conservatives are sidelined, the fiscal conservatives will be sidelined by default, too, because they won't have the votes to get elected. The conservative coalition that President Reagan cobbled together was symbolized by a three legged stool. Remove ANY ONE of the three legs (fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and moderates) the stool is doomed to fail. It is simple physics! The GOP's drop amongst Hispanics hasn't been caused by opposition to illegal immigration. This myth, propagated by proponents of amnesty and open borders, doesn't bear up under scrutiny. In 2000, George Bush received 35% of the Hispanic vote. In 2004, although the exit polls showed that Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote, they were horribly flawed. Realistically, Bush probably pulled in 38%-39% of the Hispanic vote that year. In 2006, the GOP pulled 30% of the Hispanic vote and McCain captured about 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008. First off, the fact that McCain only pulled 31% of the Hispanic vote should prove once and for all that the amnesty issue doesn't move Hispanic votes over to the GOP. If it did, certainly McCain, who has been the biggest advocate of amnesty in the entire Republican Party would have been the candidate to do it. Hispanic immigrants who came here legally are upset with those who want to give the rule breakers a pass. While we more than empathize with where these folks are coming from (given that our families often came from similar circumstances), we are not going to get excited about a candidate that spits on the hard work of our families who came here the right way - it's just not likely to happen. The GOP cannot win without the conservative media. You may like talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity or you may not, but the reality is that the GOP absolutely cannot win elections when they're telling everyone who'll listen that the Republican Party is mediocre. There are two reasons for that. #1) Those radio hosts are popular in the first place largely because the conservatives who make up the GOP's base agree with them. If the talk show hosts are not happy with something, their listeners probably aren't happy with it either -- and making your core supporters happy is the first lesson of Politics 101. #2) Because the mainstream media is so heavily biased towards the Democratic Party, most independent voters take what they say about Republicans with a grain of salt. However, independents perceive conservative talk radio hosts and their listeners to be on the "GOP's side." So, if they hear criticism of the Republican Party from those people, they tend to think it must be true. So, Republicans can afford to have Keith Olbermann and Katie Couric telling people that they stink, but they can't win elections if conservative talk radio hosts, columnists, and bloggers are ripping them up one side and down the other.

The current Republican Party leadership has long taken their biggest ally - the alternative media - for granted. However, they need to learn the lesson that Howard Dean brought to the DNC 4 years ago. They need to make the alternative media welcome partners in the process. They must listen to and respect and respond to the concerns of the alternative meide if they are ever going to find their way out of the wilderness. This is a lesson that at least one of the candidates for RNC chair has claimed to have learned, but one has to wonder about the other candidates. At least one of them has shown himself to be as clueless (when it comes to the base) as the current chairman.

Conservatives across the country are watching this race to see if the RNC is ever going to come back to its roots or if it is going to insist on fading into insignificance. The election of this RNC chair is that important to the party. Hopefully the National Committeemen and women will listen (finally) to their base and not to the consultancy class in DC.