Poll: Who should be the chairman of the RNC?

posted at 7:34 pm on November 13, 2006 by Ian

Who should be the chairman of the RNC?
Mel Martinez
Michael Steele
View Results

If you chose other, feel free to explain who you would choose.

UPDATE: RedState is calling Martinez the “the Harriet Miers of RNC chairs“. Well put. Michael Steele was perfect for the position and I continue to support his nomination. What I don’t like about the Martinez pick, other than the fact he has only been a Senator for two years, he is not charismatic, he supports amnesty, is he will not only stay in the Senate during his tenure, but he will also share the chairmanship.

What is the Republican party thinking? We just lost the Senate, the House, and the majority of Republican Governors and now we’re supposed to support a chairman who will have two full time jobs?

Tom Blumer:

Dear GOP,

As a member of the base you appear to be abandoning, allow me to make two points:

– The current apparent pick is a sitting Senator, and no matter how worthy he may be as a person, putting someone who actually is voting on laws and resolutions is inappropriate bordering on irrational.
– Michael Steele ran such a stellar campaign to get as far as he did in the Maryland Senate race. He is a passionate and outstanding spokesperson that the party could rally around. Frankly, selecting anyone else would be foolish.

I am surely supported by millions of other Republicans BEGGING you to PLEASE select Michael Steele.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


I want Tom Delay as Chairman

Defector01 on November 13, 2006 at 7:36 PM

Dick Armey or Vin Weber, thoughtful guys who know how to win.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 13, 2006 at 7:46 PM

How about a monkey that’s learned it gets a banana every time it lowers taxes.

frankj on November 13, 2006 at 7:46 PM

Tom Tancredo.

Megan on November 13, 2006 at 7:46 PM

I know Paul Ryan (WI 1st, and my Congresscritter) is a bit too young, but he is a solid conservative, both on ths fiscal and the social side. Further, he’s got a touch of reformer in him (the earmark reform that made its way past the gatekeepers from both parties was his).

One more thing; in a year where Wisconsin made a hard turn to the left, including in portions of his district, Ryan carried his district with 63% of the vote.

steveegg on November 13, 2006 at 7:47 PM

Rush Limbaugh

enough said….

rocked on November 13, 2006 at 7:48 PM

I could be happy with Delay, Tancredo, Santorum or Allen, if it’s not Steele.
Almost any GOP except Martinez (and Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham or Bob Ney).
We don’t need another wimp loser at the head of the party, especially one who’s ready to put out the welcome mat for every Hispanic who’s even thought about coming to the Etados Unidos!

Jen the Neocon on November 13, 2006 at 7:50 PM

Maybe John Derbyshire or Heather Mac Donald.

Megan on November 13, 2006 at 7:51 PM

Well, Steele, obviously. What ever happened to picking a person based on that old-fashioned notion of “qualifications”!!

thedecider on November 13, 2006 at 7:53 PM

I’m thinking that a black chairman wouldn’t do any more good as a symbol than Condi or Colin did. A hispanic will be allowed to criticize minority policies freely without being labeled an “uncle Tom”. I’m just trying to figure out what the reasoning is here. Not sure that I buy it but I could see them buying it.

TBinSTL on November 13, 2006 at 7:57 PM


Gregor on November 13, 2006 at 8:00 PM

A hispanic will be allowed to criticize minority policies freely without being labeled an “uncle Tom”.

Maybe, but he won’t. He voted against preventing illegal aliens from getting SS benefits!

NTWR on November 13, 2006 at 8:01 PM

A hispanic will be allowed to criticize minority policies freely without being labeled an “uncle Tom”.

True, but only because our liberal betters tend to call us “coconuts”. Good thing I’m not a Senate candidate in MD. That’d be some hellafied post-concussion syndrome!

Kid from Brooklyn on November 13, 2006 at 8:06 PM

With that said, I nominate Michael Savage for RNC chair.

Kid from Brooklyn on November 13, 2006 at 8:08 PM


Gregor on November 13, 2006 at 8:00 PM

Newt for President Gegor…

rocked on November 13, 2006 at 8:13 PM

I would suggest Fred Thompson, ex-Senator from TN. No serving congressman should run the RNC. Steele seemed like a good choice.

John Kasich might be a good candidate too. Fred Thompson is probably having too much fun with his acting career.

Checkpoint Charlie on November 13, 2006 at 8:17 PM

Sean Hannity. Look how well Tony Snow has worked out as Press Secretary.

1) He’s a great American.
2) He’s a conservative.
3) He backs the same values that we do.

Go, Sean!

rmgraha on November 13, 2006 at 8:21 PM

J.D. Hayworth.

DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 8:30 PM

Troy Rasmussen for RNC Chari. . .chiar. . .ch…a…i…r, chair! I knew I’d get it eventually!!

Troy Rasmussen on November 13, 2006 at 8:39 PM


Someone that will push the Gov’t to do something about PRAVDA CNN.

I was disappointed, disgusted as Ann Coulter, last week, said nothing about CNN’s links to Terrorists/Terrorism – Rush Limbaugh impressed me. His monthly arrived today and the first thing he mentions is the CNN Terrorist Sniper SNuff Videos (10 total – 10 US gunners that died).

By the way, Michelle Malkin just said “Balls” on Foxnews… Monday 845pm


Don’t worry sweatheart – I like it… people like it… the 49% that care are as frustrated…

As well, keep up the good work at bashing Hillary health care… The masses need to learn of her health plan “Hillary’s DMV like Health Care”

Good job – by the way Michelle you looked amazing tonight, stunningly beautiful…

ar_basin on November 13, 2006 at 9:05 PM

How about somebody in the mold of either Theodore Roosevelt (the good cousin) or Barry Goldwater. Unfortunately, there are not too many people who can meet this criterion, but we can always hope.

DAT60A3 on November 13, 2006 at 9:11 PM

Zel Miller?
Joe Negron?

Anyone but Martinez!

SouthernGent on November 13, 2006 at 9:26 PM

I think Newt. He doesn’t have a chance in hell at getting the nod for President, but he is as good a political strategist as you are gonna find.

B Moe on November 13, 2006 at 9:29 PM

I’m thinking that a black chairman wouldn’t do any more good as a symbol than Condi or Colin did.

That’s where you’re wrong. Condi and Colin spoke for the Bush White House on matters of foreign policy. Steele will speak for the Republican Party on … everything. And because he will have been elected over the objections of The Rove Gang, he will have the grassroots support necessary to help fight the Rove-backed amnesty, and to get some real Republican candidates for 2008, instead of the handpicked RINOs preferred by Rove.

Ali-Bubba on November 13, 2006 at 9:44 PM

Newt. Find a more appropriate position to build and showcase Steele’s talents.

cool breeze on November 13, 2006 at 9:48 PM

What is with the calls for Newt for everything? He’s a nice enough guy, and has the right answer for most topics, but he’s not electable. His political days were over in the 90’s.

The problem with Martinez is that he is a brand new Senator, and has been a very bad one. Not only that, but he won’t give up his seat, so he’s making the RNC Chairman a part-time job. That is bad for everyone.

Steele has the qualifications to do the job better than Marintez. I don’t agree with Steele on everything, such as the death penalty, but he is a lot more right on most things than Martinez. It’s not about symbols towards Hispanics, or African-Americans. It’s about someone who can do the job 100% all of the time, than someone who can do the job 40% half of the time.

If there is someone else better than Steele, then pick them… I don’t care. We just do not need a part-time RNC Chairman with the 2008 elections coming up.

Enoxo on November 13, 2006 at 9:56 PM

How bout Michelle?

RobertCSampson on November 13, 2006 at 10:01 PM


That is why RNC chair is the perfect position for Newt. He doesn’t have to be elected, or even confirmed. He is experienced in doing what needs to be done and has a proven track record of success. You agree that he has “the right answer for most topics” and he is very good at articulating his positions.

If you are right that he is unelectable, that makes him the ideal candidate for chair, since none of the other candidates need to feel threatened by him (one reason why Dean is DNC chair).

cool breeze on November 13, 2006 at 10:10 PM

Cut it out guys.. Do you even know anything about Newt? The man was speaker of the house.. He is NOT going to be RNC chair.. Get a grip. Plus, he is the person we want running the country and I believe if he is the man delivering the conservative message all of your “unlectable” garbage will become moot.

RobertCSampson on November 13, 2006 at 10:17 PM

How bout Michelle?

Second that.

steveegg on November 13, 2006 at 10:22 PM

I misspelled “unelectable”. Dang it.. you got me all excited.

RobertCSampson on November 13, 2006 at 10:29 PM

Hmmm, as of now 12 of 614 voted for Martinez, that’s less than 2%, which is less than the general margin of error of these kinds of polls. That means that statistically speaking no one wants Martinez!

Are you listening, RNC?

infidel4life on November 13, 2006 at 10:49 PM

Allright. I e-mail my state GOP chairman and the RNC. Doubt it will help but I feel I have had my say. Maybe…just maybe…they’ll listen. Doubt it.

Psycotte on November 13, 2006 at 11:00 PM

Michael Steele
Tammy Bruce
Laura Ingraham

Imagine any sitting next to Dean-o – never mind – he won’t sit next to an RNC chairperson…jellyfish for a spine!

Entelechy on November 13, 2006 at 11:01 PM

Steele was, IIRC, the Chairman of the Maryland Republican Party or the State Committee, so he has experience in a semi-similar position that none of the others has.

Tom Blumer on November 13, 2006 at 11:31 PM

Joe Arpaio

NTWR on November 14, 2006 at 12:40 AM

Joe would be really good at keeping party dicipline, but I think RNC regulars might balk at meeting in tents and eating bologna sandwiches.

eeyore on November 14, 2006 at 1:07 AM

There are many possible better alternatives for RNC Chair. But I think that Pat Toomey has the experience and the interests in shaping a party that doesn’t screw good Republican candidates. Toomey, currently heading up The Club for Growth, an organization that puts the fear of God in the hearts of RINOs everywhere, was screwed by the RNC, Rick Santorum and Bush. He would have been an excellent replacement for the liberal Specter.

I think we should get behind him. Steele, as admirable as he is, will not take the tough leadership decisions necessary to reform the Party. The Party needs to be something more than just a machine for supporting anyone registered and running with an ‘R’ next to his name. It needs to set standards. It needs to lay down the law that says: This is what Republicans stand for and this is how Republicans behave and these are the consequences for transgression.

Pat Toomey will have what it takes to do that.

netherman79 on November 14, 2006 at 7:18 AM

Toomey would be good; in fact, very good. But unless I’m wrong, Steele got some form of indication that he would get the gig, and should not be short-ciruited by insiders, the same ones who helped engineer last week’s reversals.

Tom Blumer on November 14, 2006 at 9:01 AM

For six years we’ve loved what Rove has done to the Democrats. Well wrap your head around this: What if Rove IS a Democrat? And the previous six years have all been a crafty ruse.

Hoodlumman on November 14, 2006 at 9:33 AM

Mel Martinez being nominated is worse than the Harriet Meyers nomination,

What planet is GWB living on anyway?

ScottyDog on November 14, 2006 at 10:13 AM

W is trying to push through his own agenda, apparently. I dunno, I am losing faith in The Man. I know he can’t be all tough and stuff at first, lest the Dems cry cowboy. But come ON, Mr. President. Push back your sleeves and put your Reagan hat back on! America didn’t abandon you, they just got snookered. Your obligation to America doesn’t end with our stupidity in electing liberals.

So is there anything we little people can do to get Steele as our RNC chair? I guess if he isn’t even going to be offered this lesser position (which is such a “duh” move – as in, c’mon, RNC, do it!!! Rev up Republicans! For pity’s sake), then that rumor that Steele might be offered a position in Bush’s administration is just a pipe dream too, huh… :(

eucher on November 14, 2006 at 10:31 AM

Who should be the chairman of the RNC?

Mel Martinez
36 votes
Michael Steele
2470 votes
164 votes

mattma on November 14, 2006 at 10:49 AM

Great. Thanks Dread. I sent the email and I will honor that commitment to join if and when they have the sense to name Steele chair!

eucher on November 14, 2006 at 11:15 AM

I sent them a message promising to donate money if Pat Toomey is the Chair.

netherman79 on November 14, 2006 at 1:20 PM

Mel Martinez did a lousy job in Orange County, Florida, government, H.U.D., as Senator, etc. His largest deficiency is his inability of follow through. The Republican Party can’t take this. If President Bush and his ilk of Republicans are trying to staff all of Washington’s government positions with Democrats, they are on the right track.

What I hate worse, is that a very loud message was sent November 7th and the neo-conservatives seem to want to ignore it…and it’s only been a week.

RobSmithJr on November 14, 2006 at 1:25 PM

I’m all for Michael Steele being RNC chair. He fought an uphill battle in a very blue state, and it ended up close–and without having to get dirty doing it. He sells himself, and that’s what we need: someone who represents the best we have and can generate excitement.

To be fair, Martinez raised a hell of a lot of money for Bush in 2000. He’s NOT the worst. What the RNC chair needs to do more than anything is raise money, and Martinez has proven he CAN do it. I’m not so bitterly opposed to Martinez; I just think Steele would be better, and that Martinez being a figurehead while he serves in the Senate (leaving the real RNC work to a deputy) isn’t really the best way to do it.

Newt probably wouldn’t do it, although he’d be good at it; he’s busy living in fantasyland about running for President, or so it seems. (He is NOT electable, and the Dummocrats salivate at the chance to savage him all over again.)

Pat Toomey wouldn’t do it, because it’d be his JOB to raise money for all Republicans, including the Arlen Specter-types. Forget about it; he’s doing the job he does best.

Rush/Hannity/etc. — you’re kidding, right? Why on earth would either take that job and give up what they’ve got? Be serious.

What they need FIRST is someone who can raise money, not compete with Howard Dean for “most polarizing party chairman.” Look at past RNC chairs, and the ones who did the best were simply the ones who raised tons of money, not necessarily the most-recognizable public figures (although that doesn’t hurt). This one has to be “new media”-savvy, on top of all that.

bamapachyderm on November 14, 2006 at 5:49 PM