Leadership questions in the GOP

After the second straight losing cycle, Republicans want new leadership in the party — and they may well get it.  In 2007, the House Republicans replaced most of the leadership positions, with a promise to strengthen the party’s “branding”.  That didn’t work out well, and now Republicans understand that “branding” isn’t enough:

Younger, more conservative lawmakers moved yesterday to assert their influence in the House Republican caucus as the GOP began the traditional period of soul-searching that follows a major electoral defeat. Conservatives also began jockeying to fill the post of Republican National Committee chairman early next year.

Republican leaders, especially on Capitol Hill, said the GOP had strayed too far from its traditional principle of limited government and must reclaim its reputation as the party most committed to cutting spending and taxes. But some were also deeply concerned about the drubbing the party’s standard-bearer, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), absorbed among Hispanic and well-educated voters, as well as affluent suburbanites, and said that a more fundamental rethinking of the GOP message is in order.

On Capitol Hill, House GOP leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) appeared likely to hold onto his leadership post, but the No. 3 Republican, Adam H. Putnam of Florida, a major proponent of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan, resigned his post late yesterday.

The fate of the No. 2 Republican, Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), was uncertain, and one of the younger party mavericks, Virginia’s Eric Cantor, was poised to replace him amid widespread discontent among party rank-and-file with the Election Day performance.

Blunt resigned thsi morning from his position as Minority Whip, after the Post published this article.  That only leaves John Boehner, who has already said he will fight to retain his spot at Minority Leader.  That has some activists seeing red, such as Erick Erickson at Red State, who has a more pungent take on the question:

Here’s where I am on the House and Senate GOP leadership races.

The whole lot of them should be rounded up and hanged.  Slowly.

When you lose two elections in a row, you pull out the ginsu knife and go for seppuku. Honor demands it.

Real leaders know when to get out of the way.  People too comfortable to be effective do not.

Erick is, of course, speaking figuratively.  At least, I hope he’s speaking figuratively.

Obviously, changes have to be made, but as Erick himself notes, we need to make sure we have effective leaders to replace the current team.  It will take real efforts at change, and not just “rebranding”, in order to convince voters to trust Republicans with power again. But it will also take skilled leaders willing to deal with all of the frustrations of minority status to tangle with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for the next two years.

In looking back at the 110th Congress, both Boehner and Mitch McConnell did a pretty good job in derailing Pelosi, Reid, & Co from their efforts to lose the war and run wild with taxpayer money.  Part of that can be attributed to the threat of vetoes from George Bush, who finally figured out how to accomplish them.  In fairness, though, both Boehner and McConnell did their share in forcing Democrats out of the lane on left-tilting policies.

The question will be whether we have candidates ready for that task now.  In the meantime, though, let’s forget about “branding” and focus on a return to the principles that unite the Right: limited government, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise and property rights, and peace through strength.  We need leaders who can restore our credibility on these issues.

Addendum: Blunt resigned with characteristic class.  Below is his letter:

Dear Republican Colleague,

In January 2007, I wrote myself a letter and mailed it to my office.  The letter, unopened, sat on my desk until Wednesday.  Almost two years ago, I wrote that our ideas didn’t lose the mid-term election, we did.  I wrote that it was my intention to spend the next two years holding the Democrats accountable and defining the differences between our parties.  I also wrote that, were we not successful in recapturing the majority in 2008, it was my intention to serve only two years as Minority Whip.

With another election behind us, I still believe that conservative ideas define where the country wants to be and needs to be.  And I believe that together we held the Democrats accountable and that we began to define some of the differences between our parties.

Against the pundits’ best predictions, we stood against a flawed expansion of government run health care in the SCHIP bill.  When many were saying it was political suicide, we gave the surge a chance to work and today we are rapidly handing over control of Iraq to a stable government capable of securing the peace.  We stopped billions of dollars in frivolous spending.  We won an unprecedented number of motions to recommit, defining the differences between our parties and on a few occasions forcing the Democrats to pull their own bills from the floor.  And when an energy crisis threatened our families and our whole economy, we advanced common sense solutions that resonated with the American people.

Yet, in part due to circumstances beyond our control, we were not successful in 2008.  And I believe my instincts two years ago were correct, I can best contribute to our efforts to regain the majority and advance the interests of the American people in a different role in the 111^th Congress.  Therefore, I will not seek re-election as your Whip.

It has been one of my greatest honors to serve in the House Leadership.  I have been truly humbled by the trust you have placed in me and by the opportunity to serve our nation.

I am optimistic about our future.  I firmly believe that if we successfully define the Democrat agenda for what it is and present a compelling alternative we will be the majority in two short years.  I look forward to working beside you to build that majority.

Thank you for your friendship.

Blowback