Poll: Who leads the Republican Party?
posted at 1:40 pm on March 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
According to Rasmussen, most Republicans answer with a shrug. Over two-thirds of Republicans say “no one”, while only two percent agree with the Operation Rushbo attack operation out of the White House:
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republican voters say their party has no clear leader, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Another 17% are undecided.
Just five percent (5%) view either John McCain, the GOP’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential candidate, or new party chairman Michael Steele as the party’s leader.
Two percent (2%) see conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh in that role, and one percent (1%) name McCain’s running mate, Alaska Govenror Sarah Palin. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner are each seen as GOP leader by less than one-half of one percent.
Democrats don’t have any trouble identifying their party leader — two-thirds say Barack Obama, and no one else gets 5%. That’s traditional for parties that have the White House. The president is always at least the symbolic leader of the party. I’m actually curious as to why Obama only got 66%. Jon Stewart actually scores 1%.
So far, Operation Rushbo looks like a failure, even among Democrats. Only 7% of Democrats think of Rush as the party leader. Eighty-six percent perceive no national leader in the opposing party at all. Maybe the media is among the 7%.
All this shows thefallacy Rahm Emanuel has tried to employ in Operation Rushbo. Rush is a conservative commentator, not a Republican activist. He scorns Republicans as well as Democrats who do not hew to the conservative model. Maybe if the White House tried painting him as a conservative leader, they would get more traction as well as displaying some intellectual honesty — but that doesn’t win elections or make for successful smear campaigns, I guess.
Who would Hot Air readers say is the Republican Party leader? Take our poll to make your voice heard. I’ll talk about the results on tomorrow’s TEMS show with Mary Katharine Ham.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
New Bumper Sticker
MB4 on March 9, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Who leads the Democrat Party?
In other words, who will be the first shoved into the gallows when the American people find out what they’ve done to our country?
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Fred!
MadisonConservative on March 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Boo, I wanted to vote for Mitt.
chansen9 on March 9, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Same here. I want Mitt to run my party.
ctmom on March 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Shouldn’t that be:
Poll, who leads the GOP?
or
Who leads the GOP: Poll
or
Poll leads the GOP
BobH on March 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM
I can’t believe Michael Steele is getting so many votes. How can so many people have been living in a cave these past weeks?
Frivolous on March 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Why do we need ONE leader…im happy we have that long of a list….
ask again in 2011
and the real question is who the hell leads the Democratic Party…
Pelosi
Axelrod
Soros
we all know its NOT Barrack I only read from a TelePrompTer Obama
alexraye on March 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM
GOP totally sux. I am so disgusted by those already in office.
Very few stand out as those with enough ba!!$ to buck the system & go for what’s RIGHT.
In fact, leaders are not being produced & you can thank your public education system for that.
We need more ROTC etc type programs in public schools to produce leaders.
I took ROTC in HS & that’s what we were groomed for-to become good & effective leaders.
Badger40 on March 9, 2009 at 1:46 PM
His radio show is not that bad. Favorite part: Jeri.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on March 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM
No one leads the republican party right now. A more interesting question would be, who do you want to lead the Republican party?
I’d take John Bolton, simply for the Mustache of Righteous Judgment.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Why is it that we need some clear cut leader at this point?
Wouldn’t having one target for the media to expend all of their energy on be a stupid strategy?
Isn’t it better to have a whol bunch of people who are potential leaders?
myrenovations on March 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM
I’d have to say Amanda Carpenter, but only because I’m still hoping to score a date with her someday and perhaps my mindless fawning over her will convince her to say yes.
Bishop on March 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Sarah, baybeee!
Kent18 on March 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM
No one leads the Republican Party. I know because Rush just told me so.
;)
ornery_independent on March 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM
The problem is that *no one* is leading the party, as stated by most.
Steele is *supposed* to be leading the party, but is doing a dismal job of it.
Unless someone comes forward to articulate a strategy and pull it off, we may be in the wilderness for a while, even with the dunce-in-chief we have right now.
teke184 on March 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM
No Romney in the poll? Like him or not, he came in second in the GOP primary. That historically earns one the position of the next leader in waiting.
Vashta.Nerada on March 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM
LMAO
joey24007 on March 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM
I’ll clarify this… even with Obama being the dunce-in-chief that he is, we still need to have an articulated policy other than “We’re not Obama” because the moron is still popular, even though he’s horrible at his job.
teke184 on March 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM
…and why was Michelle “Balls” Malkin left off that list?
ornery_independent on March 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM
“Frivolous on March 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM”
he is the titular head at the moment by definition. what that means operationally is unclear, as evidenced by the poll. the larger question is — is it healthy for a political party to have a solitary “leader?” isn’t that one step away from, say, baathism? i would rather have a party with a relatively small functioning HQ group and a bunch of officeholders doing their JOB — which, as they have clearly forgot, is working towards the best interests of the citizens!
/heh — by that definition, mebbe rush is the leader!
Buckaroo on March 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Mitt’s the only one out there on the circuit who makes any sense. I’d like to see him parlay that into a 2012 nom.
-
Steele doesn’t have the brand that Mitt does.
-
Rush, bless his heart, is too bombastic to be taken seriously by centrist GOPers (of which I am not).
-
I like Sarah and Bobby, but they have a bigger task ahead: 2012 VP nom.
the_souse on March 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM
The GOP is rutterless, but I believe someone, and I have no guess who it will be, will (A) grab the bull by the horns and (B) be accepted by the base. This should reveal itself in 2010 (well it least it better).
WashJeff on March 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Do we have this poll from 2004?
tomas on March 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM
I know who isn’t running the RNC: Rush Limbaugh. If Rush were running things (as the libtards have been proclaiming for over a week) there would be a conservative in the White House right now and the House and Senate would be 65% to 75% Republican. Unfortunately last year John McCain was the head of the party, and we all remember how well that turned out.
Tommy_G on March 9, 2009 at 1:51 PM
AAAHAHHAAA LMAO
he does control Steele after all….
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-michael-steele/1056147/
alexraye on March 9, 2009 at 1:52 PM
jmo, but Ed propely didn’t put ANY ‘08 prez candidates in the poll – they are yesterday’s news and the faster we accept that the better off we’ll be …
Buckaroo on March 9, 2009 at 1:52 PM
You can grade Obama
flyfisher on March 9, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I like that the largest subsection (43%) gives him an ‘F’.
Vashta.Nerada on March 9, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Even as a Conservative Leader it would be dumb. Rush doesn’t hold any public or party office….how the hell can he be leader of anything?
Mitch McConnell should be seen as the leader but he doesn’t seem to have much interest in it, at least not the public side.
Rocks on March 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM
What Republican Party leadership? Right now there isn’t any. As pointed out above, Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal have potential, but now they’re doing what they should be doing–governing their states. And soon, they might have a presidential run to consider. I wouldn’t have any problems with Romney taking the leadership role away from the hapless Steele.
Matt Helm on March 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM
+ 100000000000000
If only we would have listened… His views, his warnings, his desire for America to look at personal responsibilities.
Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM
You forgot one:
All of us
Otherwise, it’s irrelevant.
beatcanvas on March 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Makes it even easier to make Rush the ersatz leader of the Republicans when Republicans don’t even admit to having one.
Never a good idea to be defined by your opponent.
Krydor on March 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM
“Rocks on March 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM”
i had really wanted mitch to take the bull by the horns in the sneate, but yeah, it appears he’s uninterested …
:-(
Buckaroo on March 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Who runs the democratic party? … That’s easy; Robespierre. After a few purges and a reign or terror or two, we’ll replace all holidays except MLK day with the Festival of the Supreme Being…obviously to be held in Chicago. Ultimately, heads will roll.
lm10001 on March 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Michael Steele is a lame duck. Was Bush 43 the “leader” of the Republican Party his last few months in office? He was the President, and I doubt many conservatives would say he was the leader.
Frivolous on March 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Vashta,
I know. And D’s and Fs equal a majority.
flyfisher on March 9, 2009 at 1:57 PM
When do we get to the 9th of Thermidor? I can’t wait.
Vashta.Nerada on March 9, 2009 at 1:57 PM
“Frivolous on March 9, 2009 at 1:56 PM”
not a mike fan, huh?
with cheney not choosing to run in ‘08, “leadership” post-W was always going to be an unclear thing — so my question stands — can that be a positive for the party as a whole?
Buckaroo on March 9, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Heh.
califcon on March 9, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Is this a prediction of the Obama deficit?
Tommy_G on March 9, 2009 at 1:59 PM
The US Constitution is the Leader of the Republican Party, or should be.
RBMN on March 9, 2009 at 1:59 PM
A better question is Do we even need a leader at this point?
I say no. Not even for 2010. Run on principles.
Let everybody have at it. We can coalesce around a leader in late 2011.
Rocks on March 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I agree. I don’t want to be a religion baiter, but I’m truly betting that’s why.
Did it. Question is: will MSM make a stink with it?
I doubt it.
Badger40 on March 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Steele is the head of the party and thus should be the leader. Can’t say he’s doing a bang up job of it though.
rbj on March 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Obviously it’s not & what a shame.
As good an idea as any yet.
Badger40 on March 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM
rush.
getalife on March 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM
No one leads the Republican Party, as it should be. It’s all good.
OmahaConservative on March 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM
The takeaway from this is:
When Obama goes down, the entire Democratic leadership and the old media will go down with him.
faraway on March 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM
You could be correct. However, I don’t trust secretive oligarchies. I really don’t know. I only know that Steele isn’t the leader.
Frivolous on March 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Is there something wrong with my computer?
Why is there no “Z” on this poll?
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Can we have a write in space for “The Oddball?”
Diogenes of Sinope on March 9, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Could someone explain who was the head of the Democratic Party when they didn’t control the WH? I never considered Dean the head of the Democratic Party – the head of the DNC yes but not the Party. Steele is the head of the machine for election but not necessarily the philosphical head of the Republican Party
Isn’t the sitting Pres normally considered his party’s leader? If a Party had only one “leader” why would we need primaries to decide who to run for office? Republicans don’t have the presidency we don’t really have one leader. We have leaders of the different segments and regional leaders and up and coming leaders.
I honestly don’t see what the big deal is – shouldn’t all of them be working together to develop the Party’s policies and plans?
katiejane on March 9, 2009 at 2:06 PM
The leader of the Republican Party is [drumroll]… Barack Obama – to the promised land, baby!
CK MacLeod on March 9, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Plenty of teeth-gnashing over this at Hillary’s.
whitetop on March 9, 2009 at 2:08 PM
as Rush said in his speech at CPAC… the leader of the republican party is normally the last sitting Republican President.
the true leader of the republican party is the Constitution of the United States of America.
and the leader that we will always have… that will never leave our hearts. Ronald Reagan… we are his bright shining city on the hill.
Kaptain Amerika on March 9, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Satan on a jackass.
Stupid and evil.
Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Have the given up trying to translate the stupid button they presented to the mongoloid Russians?
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 2:09 PM
George Soros…
Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Look, leader implies 1. There are dozens that in one way or another lead and I’d rather have a couple of dozen #2’s than one #1 if only for one reason: so the Dems can’t concentrate their fire.
Please quit playing their game by trying to pick one of our leaders to march in front of progressive’s firing squad. If we really have to pick then pick in a republican and not a democratic fashion and find 50 of them. Fifty of ours can kick 57 of theirs with one hand tied behind our backs.
Dusty on March 9, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Can I ask who was the Democrat leader in 2000 after Gore lost or 2004 after Kerry lost? The whole Presidential nomination process is rallying around a candidate (I know just bear with me) and that doesn’t leave any obvious second standing around after the defeat of that party in the election as my examples prove. This is not a current first time phenomenon.
I would like some feedback does anyone see that in the absense of Bush the MSM and Democrats want us to anoint a leader so they can go back to what they know and demonize a singular person? Are they not just wanting an Alinsky target that the simple name of the Republican Party doesn’t provide (especially in the minority).
If you ask me THEY are the ones flailing around trying to find a target for their rage and anger that feeds their politics. What else is the Rush thing about? They don’t govern they demonize. Plain and simple. What does everyone think about just letting Rush take the arrows since he will not be on the ballot and they will punch themselves out going after a private citizen and it is already being questioned as whether this is appropriate to a problem-solving dialogue.
Conan on March 9, 2009 at 2:14 PM
NO! A lot of the Republicans all ready in office and in positions of power in the RNC are the problem. Many of them are politicians first, republicans second and a watery form of conservative last. What the party needs is for new blood to step up.
The Primaries are where this battle should be fought. Just because someone calls himself a republican and is an incumbent, should in no way guarantee that person on spot on the ballot. It’s time for the young go-getters to defy the party proper and stand on their own and bring real change.
Tommy_G on March 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM
uuuhhhhh, would there have been a consensus for the leader of the Dem Party four years ago?
The Hildabeast would probably have had a bigger number than does Steele, but no over 50%.
Not likly.
Can’t help but wonder what the party-boy currently in the WH now would have received back then.
notagool on March 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I like it – he can take it, and he won’t be running.
Vashta.Nerada on March 9, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I’m not really sure politicians are good at cooperating. To become a politician of any sort, you have to be somewhat egotistical. Egotists don’t cooperate well. There is only so much attention and leadership quality to go around, and each pol naturally wants as much as possible.
Frivolous on March 9, 2009 at 2:16 PM
I agree with this.
However, I also think that can lead to ‘too many chefs, not enough soup’ where everyone is off doing their own thing and no one is crafting the overall message.
I suppose that it’s Michael Steele’s job as head of the national party to be in charge of weaving together that message and getting it out there, but I don’t know if that makes him the leader of the party. More like the head packager (a job which he hasn’t done very well at this point).
Does anyone know what the Republican Party’s bylaws say? Is the chairman the technical head of the party? Is there a committee that’s the head of the party? Who is responsible for crafting the GOP platform and deciding who gets party support and who doesn’t? I suppose, that person/committee would be the head of the party regardless of what the media seems to think.
JadeNYU on March 9, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Good point.
The only ones content to go along for the ride are the ones who have little to contribute in the first place and are just happy to be there for the parties and the title.
They don’t care about solving problems in Washington, they care about grabbing more power for themselves, that’s the only goal they work towards, especially Democrats.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Can I write in Jason Mattera???? Keep up the great work Jason!
ohiorebel on March 9, 2009 at 2:18 PM
A Republican who can deliver the message,of Conservativism,
who won’t stab a fellow Conservative in zee back,who loves
flag and Country first!
A Republican who goes on any Lefty talk show,and during the
discussion,knows,sense’s,and realizes that a sound-bite is
in the making,
and knows the line of questioning is leading him/or/her
down the path of being set-up!
A Republican,when on said Lefty talk show,gets asked a mor
onic,assine,and blatantly stupid question,that b#sterdizes,
besmirches,and makes false accusations of the Republican
Party,stops them dead in their tracks,defends and straightens out said Lefty talker done good,right then and
there before leaving said Lefty talk show!
Me thinks,for Republican Leader,that would be an asset!!
canopfor on March 9, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I agree. Who was there leader before 2008? No they just ran as Anti-Bush, anti-WH (sucessfully). I say run as anti-Obama, anti-congress. Plain fact is people are only barely familiar with whether they like what is going on or not. Make them fight many voices that oppose their policies like we had to. Without a central figure they seem lost to attack seperate people who speak for themselves. They are forced like we were to follow the President and be synonymous with everything he wants.
Conan on March 9, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I bet Kos could have pulled in a decent percentage himself prior to Obama’s election.
Heck, rewind 4 years ago and would Obama have been well known enough to have even been on the list?
JadeNYU on March 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM
The GOP does not have a leader until the 2012 nomination is decided or if the GOP take back Congress in 2010.
Contenders for that position is thus: Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell. (Sorry, I don’t think Romney or Huckabee has a snowball chance in hell to win the nomination in 2012).
The last time the GOP had a loosing presidential candidate and did not have control of congress was in 1993. Back then, you could also argue that the GOP was leaderless, until Newt Gingrich led the take-over of Congress in the fall of ‘94.
The RNC Chairman has never been considered the Leader of the GOP.
Norwegian on March 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Per Rush: Who is leading the Democrat party?
Kjeil on March 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM
There is never any real leader of the republicans, or conservatives. We are individualists and don’t generally work that way. Just look at the shamnesty and tell me who was the “leader” of the Republicans. No one. We all make our own minds up.
Democrats, and the left, on the other hand, always look to leaders, since their political ideology is emotionally-driven (i.e. not based on any logical principles that can be used to deduce correct positions for particular circumstances) and therefore they are always in need of a “leader” to tell them what the currently accepted emotions are.
The left are sheep. The idea that the right operates in any way like the left is hysterically funny – and pathetically stupid.
But, then, this is why totalitarians come out of the left – as collectivists are always apt to slide into totalitarianism, while individualists almost never.
progressoverpeace on March 9, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Satan riding a jackass holding the nation’s checkbook.
Like always.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Where is Mike Huckabee’s name??
sarc/
portlandon on March 9, 2009 at 2:21 PM
rush
getalife on Mar 9,2009 at 2:02PM.
getalife:Since you didn’t use a capitol’R',obviously
you don’t mean Rush Limbaugh!
Maybe you mean rush the band,that sings Tom
Sawyer,and the other tune ditty,’Fly by Night!
canopfor on March 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM
I almost completely agree with you, NoDonkey. My opinion differs in that I believe politicians really do want to solve problems, but only as a way of grabbing attention and power.
It is good and nice when they do this for real. The bad news is that it’s often easier to just make everyone believe they solved the problem.
Anyway, this poll may be pointless. Isn’t it an axiom of politics that the front-runner at the beginning seldom wins the race at the end?
Frivolous on March 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Can we vote for ‘Zo Rachel?
Tanya on March 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Right now, the GOP is absolutely leaderless.
Charismatic though he might be, Rush Limbaugh has been elected to nothing, so it is really hard to make the argument that he has any real followers.
Michael Steele has, since being elected chairman of the RNC, demonstrated the leadership skills of a lemming.
Boehner and McConnell are part of the same corrupt, ineffective, squishy-soft Congressional machine that has led us to our current predicament.
Pawlenty, Jindal and Palin may be fine governors. But Pawlenty has not demonstrated any desire to be a national leader. Palin demonstrated a glaring lack of knowledge of national policy issues, which leaves me unsure she has the intellectual heft to educate herself in time for 2012. Jindal is clearly sharp enough, but given the chance to speak to the nation, looked like he had been out on Bourbon Street a little too long for Mardi Gras celebrations.
Sadly, even the GOP leader I take my political marching orders from, Ron Paul, does not have the presence or charisma to carry the national party on his shoulders.
The true beauty of Reagan was not that he could fuse the social, fiscal and FP conservatives. It was that he had the intellect, charisma, and belief in his cause that were necessary to lead the GOP to victory.
JohnGalt23 on March 9, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Well in about a year we can try to regain the house. Maybe at that point if we had a Speaker of the House that would be the leader.
Micheal Steele runs the official party…we don’t really need a national leader right now. We need ideas to perculate and people to rise up and offer those ideas… I think we need to turn the party over to the fiscal conservative wing… Romney?
petunia on March 9, 2009 at 2:26 PM
And for all those asking who is leading the Democratic Party:
Like it or not, Barrack Hussein Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party. He led them, all the way to victory.
Exactly which stage of grief is denial, again?
JohnGalt23 on March 9, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Even if they do, the vast majority of them do not possess the skill sets to do so.
Look at our current House and Senate Majority Leaders. The only thing they’re good at is fund raising and forging a coalition to pass politically motivated legislation, geared to please their special interest donors.
The legislation that comes out of Congress is not written by Congress, as we’ve found, they don’t even read it.
It’s written by lobbyists and edited by staffers.
Look at the skill sets of most Congressman and they are not up to the challenges of today.
Lawyers, trophy wives/husbands, useless legacies (e.g. any Kennedy), and race baiting poverty pimps are not going to solve any of our problems. They have no earthly idea what to do, they are just pushing someone else’s idea, someone else who almost certainly does not have the interest of the American people in mind.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 2:30 PM
The republicans held the presidency from 1980 to 1993 and the leader of the party was obvious. And there was also a head of the RNC.
There was no leader in 1993, even though there was a head at the RNC.
Newt became the leader of the GOP in 1994 and stayed that way until, what, 1998. All during that time, there was a head of the RNC.
There didn’t seem to be a republican leader for 1998 to 2000 when the republicans took back the White House. But we did have a head at the RNC.
For the past eight years we had a clear republican leader and a head of the RNC, but two different people.
The head of the RNC has not, in recent history, been the head of the GOP. Why would that change now?
We had the ‘94 Revolution with a leader that emerged from the pack. A leader with clear ideas, of course.
We took back the White House in 2000 without a clear leader in 2000, as Bush was not the leader until he won the nomination.
I do not want a clearly named leader of the GOP at this point because we aren’t done fighting about which direction this party is going to go in.
myrenovations on March 9, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Heh. Maybe we should elect more plumbers and nurses to Congress, men and women who can actually do stuff with their hands and/or help people.
Unfortunately, those same people would not be able to get elected. Catch-22.
Frivolous on March 9, 2009 at 2:33 PM
The Republican Party is staggering around aimlessly, Obama is an incompetent fool and the congress is packed with narcissistic idiots. Is it any wonder that the stock market is going South at warp speed . . . and it’s only going to get worse, reduce all of you investments to cash and put it in you mattress.
rplat on March 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I am interested in this mattress fund you think of, do you have a pamphlet?
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM
There are 2 ways to look at this question. The first is to look at it as a pop quiz to who the ‘titular’ leader of the GOP and the second is to focus on the term ‘lead’ in the sense who is in the forefront of advancing the GOP cause, attacking the enemy, or making gains as a result of his/her ability to organize, motivate, and execute.
And in respect to the second interpretation of the question one can quite honestly differentiate between non-political leadership in the GOP and direct political leadership of the GOP.
So if the majority of people say nobody (53% so far) they would be correct, as Rush Limbaugh has noted it will be this way under a Presidential candidate is chosen in 3 years.
Now if one focuses on who is gaining the most avid following or
who is making the most impact on advancing the GOP/conservative cause presently it would be Rush Limbaugh.
If one is focused on who is in charge of planning for the next election cycle and organizing the party to do battle then one would name Michael Steele.
But if you are like me who believe that the question refers to those on the ground who are directly responsible to voters and to the American people then the current ‘leader’ of the GOP must be by definition an active politician.
Thus I chose Sarah Palin. Yes, she is not active presently in national affairs. But let’s get real. Team Sarah has 70,000 members, Sarah’s Facebook has 515,000 members, 2 weekly radio programs on the internet now are devoted to advancing Sarah’s cause, a web site conservatives4palin.com and other web sites are committed to advancing her cause, and lastly SarahPAC has become the last refuge for many conservatives recently who refuse to contribute any more money to the RNC because of Steele’s comments about Rush and the weak GOP leadership in Congress, that they will only donate to SarahPAC in the foreseeable future.
I firmly believe that the tip of the iceberg analogy is in operation here. You are now only seeing 10% of what Sarah is capable of. The other 90% will soon to be revealed in increments and in a timely, dynamic fashion.
technopeasant on March 9, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Michael Steele is matter-of-factly the leader of the Republican Party.
I think a lot of people are confusing the definition of “is”, just like The Stain famously did back during the Paula Jones hearing. “Want” and “is” aren’t synonymous. They are more like antonymous in this instance.
Buddahpundit on March 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM
If anyone is the leader of the Republican Party, it’s John McCain. He is our most recent presidential candidate. And he has been the most prominent Republican voice in Congress for some time now, but never more than over the last few months.
DarkKnight3565 on March 9, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Why do so many people not know that Michael Steele was elected chairman of the Republican party?
JohnJ on March 9, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Why not put that 14 y/o on the list?
Just A Grunt on March 9, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Im with you.
becki51758 on March 9, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Not a good idea until after the democrats pass voting rights for children.
myrenovations on March 9, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Frivolous on March 9, 2009 at 1:45 PM
technopeasant on March 9, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Agree. Me and my wife usally give $3,000 annually to the RNC; and quite a bit additionally to various local House/Senate candidates.
This year we have given our entire amount to SarahPAC.
Norwegian on March 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM
+ 1000
becki51758 on March 9, 2009 at 2:47 PM
The man has no vision, whatsoever, it can’t be him and if he is the leader, that’s the problem.
I voted for him and wanted him to win, given the alternative, of course.
But I never had any idea where it was he wanted us to go. To be a leader, you have to present a clear vision and I never really got that from him.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »