To paraphrase Pyrrhus, “Another such ‘victory’ and we are lost.” And if you think I’m exaggerating, read this.

Like HA alums Bryan Preston and the boss emeritus, I’m not sure what the point of today’s chair debate was. For one thing, it likely won’t matter much: Steele bombed at the last one and still won the race. Plus, as Bryan points out, the questions didn’t stick to the narrow parameters of the chairman’s job, namely, fundraising, organization, and messaging. (Here’s a stark example of how far afield they strayed. Steele somehow managed to botch that question too.) In fact, I’d quibble with Bryan that even messaging isn’t so important for the next RNC chief. After two years of gaffe-o-matic at the top, I think most Republicans would be happy never to see another interview with someone from the Committee. And to the extent that messaging is important at fundraisers in order to get donors to dig deep, it’s by far the easiest of the three skills mentioned above to master. Emphasize fiscal conservatism and national defense, praise the importance of “values” but temper it with vague rhetoric about the party being a “big tent,” etc etc etc. There are literally thousands of conservative operatives who could write serviceable speeches balancing the interests of the party’s various wings sufficiently well to raise money. Indeed, this is possibly the only leadership role within the GOP where I think grassroots conservatives might — might — tolerate a RINO for the position, provided that he/she was (a) a truly expert fundraiser/manager a la Haley Barbour and (b) committed to not intervening in primaries on behalf of Republican incumbents being challenged by tea partiers. As long as the chair vows to support whoever wins and otherwise focuses on raising a few hundred mil to bury The One in 2012, they’re doing their job. Messaging is easy, money is hard.

Matt Lewis was at the debate and flagged a few highlights. Exit question: Why didn’t Steele’s opponents hit him harder? Click the image to watch.