#1 Qualification for RNC Chair? Gun Ownership
What qualifies a Republican to lead the GOP as RNC Chair? Why the amount and type of guns he owns qualifies a guy (always a guy), doesn’t it? In a debate the candidates for RNC Chair counted their guns, and the party is even morally weaker as a result. Micheal Steele, with no guns to his name, likely bows out of the race.
It is not astuteness, wisdom or party loyalty the Republicans seek. It is not regional representation or an attempt to sway demographics. The Republicans are not looking for political power or someone with a history of success either, which would be difficult given the last two election cycles. It seems clear from a debate sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist’s group, that the GOP values gun ownership quite highly, and that it is at least one qualification for RNC Chairmanship, if not the #1 qualification. Here’s some reporting from that debate from the Gun Guys, who themselves quoted the National Journal’s Hotline blog:
When moderator Grover Norquist asked how many firearms the candidates own, the current RNC chairman, Mike Duncan, who despite presiding over his party’s 2008 electoral trouncing is reapplying for his job, noted proudly that he claims four handguns and two rifles.
Rival Katon Dawson, chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said that he has “too many to count.”
Former OH Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was willing to count. Seven, he said, adding: “And I’m good.”
MI GOP chairman Saul Anuzis said he has two guns, but in case the RNC’s 168 committee members, who will vote this month for the next party chairman, wanted to verify his stash, Anuzis said, perhaps only half jokingly, that he is not allowed to carry them in Washington.
Chip Saltsman, who managed Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign, offered up a list so long it was hard to track the pistol persuasion.
And GOPAC head Michael Steele, a one-term lieutenant governor of blue state MD, was the only man on the panel to say that he hasn’t a single firearm.
Hotline discusses why such gun talk is innappropriate, and I’d agree it is innappropriate, especially in a city like Washington DC where the citizens are trying mightily to control gun violence. But the real question here is why the question comes up at all, and what it has to do with a Republican’s qualifications for running his party.
As it stands, if gun ownership is a vitally important qualification for RNC Chair, then Michael Steele seems out of the running. Katon Dawson of SC and Chip Saltzman seem to be the front runners by this estimation. But the better questions might be about which of these candidates owns semi-automatic weapons. Or maybe someone should suggest they have a shootout. At a target range? Come on! A target range doesn’t show a true measure of a Republican’s devotion to guns. Maybe we could have a shootout among the candidates, or perhaps we could send them all on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney, and the survivor becomes RNC Chair. Hmm. I can just see Mike Duncan out there carrying a couple rifles and four handguns, a regular Pancho Villa or something.
This is as pitiful as. . . a Republican. ‘Nuff said.
lol. So I’m more qualified to be RNC chair than Michael Steele? That’s rich.
Oh and for the record I’d pay good money on pay per view to see the Republicans shoot it out to see who was the best.
I’d make popcorn.
Hmm! POPCORN! MMMM!
But the real question here is why the question comes up at all, and what it has to do with a Republican’s qualifications for running his party.
Wasn’t this the debate where the hosts put the questions out for people on the internet to vote on? The one that had Red State all atwitter because the Ron Paul activists were voting up the libertarian issue questions and Eric was sending out e-mail blasts trying to get people to vote up the “real” questions instead of the libertarian ones?
If so, I think you have your answer right there. First of all, a libertarian nutgroup was hosting the event (I know many fine libertarians who are not nutbags. Grover Norquist is not one of them.). And second of all they put the questions up to a vote of people on the Internet.
(And yeah, given the “base” that the Republicans have been growing for the last few decades, this is probably a question of VITAL IMPORTANCE. After all, if the guy doesn’t own any guns, he’s probably a RINO and not a “real” Republican at all. Of course, I wonder if Ken Blackwell’s pride in his gun skills won’t backfire on him - there’s still a portion of that GOP base that would probably find his skills threatening. On multiple levels, actually, given how many of them seem to think of firearms as a substitute penis…)
E in MD: Maybe Dick Cheney could referee the shootout. Hell, I’d go there to watch it live, except I’d be afraid of catching a stray bullet.
Dick Cheney would take part, Bitter. And we hope for that eventuality, don’t we?
@ NonyNony:
Some Libertarian ideas are good. Keeping the government out of my bedroom, my ass, my phones, my car and so forth.
Other ones are completely fucking retarded like that whole “free market” nonsense.
as far as Ron Paul, I might have voted for him if he’d run as an independent. Even though he’s not consistent in his application of his Libertarian ideas (He believes that the government shouldn’t be in your business - but he wants to outlaw abortion on religious grounds. Those are two contradictory ideas) and I don’t agree with some of his stances.
The Republican party doesn’t deserve the right to park cars let alone represent this country. The party needs to be destroyed, broken, humiliated, rendered irrelevant and where appropriate tried, convicted and put in prison for what they have done to this nation over the last eight years and the media needs to understand that they are not in place to be the puppet propagandists of any party. They need to serve as an example for all politicians that come after this era - the American people are not going to tolerate opportunist criminal traitors in positions of power any longer.