His career got off to a less than auspicious start when he eked out a half of a percentage point win in 1998. That race was so nasty that former President Clinton made point of it in the interviews he conducted with Taylor Branch that eventually became part of Branch’s book The Clinton Tapes. Things got even worse in 2004, when Bunning ran a miserable campaign that ended up with him winning by just 1% when President Bush was swamping Bunning’s Senate colleague John Kerry by 20 points. Some of the lowlights of the campaign included: Bunning admitting that he only watched Fox News (great red meat for conservatives but probably not a good thing to tell reporters who are crafting a narrative on your race), comparing his opponent Dan Mongirado’s appearance to that of one of Saddam Hussein’s sons, and appearing via sattelite for a debate in which he relied on a teleprompter.

Therefore, it was of little surprise when word got out that Mitch McConnell and others were trying to have the “You ever think about not running, Jim?” conversation with Bunning. Indeed, top Republican even started preparing for a primary challenge if Bunning didn’t want to go quietly. Rather than just go out with a whimper, however, he went out with a bang, accusing McConnell of being a control freak, saying that one of his potential primary competitiors owed him money, kept up his intense focus on steroids in baseball while the economy crashed, and predicted that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be dead within nine months.

With lackluster funding and his approval at 28%, Bunning eventually got out, leaving McConnell’s pick Secretary of State Trey Grayson as the heir apparent. However, a funny thing happened on the way to Washington. Supporters of Ron Paul, whose firebrand libertarian-oriented campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 raised tons of cash and drew headlines while making little headway (though acute observers will note that he did come close to winning some little noticed contests and straw polls), were attempting to get Paul’s son Rand into the race. Rand had become somewhat of a darling of that wing of the party while on the stump for his dad in 2008. After Bunning stepped aside, Paul made his candidacy official on August 5th.

Again, most Republican insiders paid little attention. However, what they weren’t paying attention to was the groundswell on the internet, both in terms of money and support via social networking sites like Facebook. He currently has over 17k fans to Grayson’s more modest 5k. This is probably more of a testament to the Paulistas national spotlight on Paul, but no strategist would cast a negative light on that many potential supporters who very well may cross state lines to help Paul on the way to a primary win. On May 23rd, before Paul was even officially in the race (though he hinted he would get in if Bunning stayed out on May 1st), supporters raised $25k. On August 20th, another moneybomb raised over $400k.

Still, Grayson appeared the favorite. Then another funny thing happened. Word got out that the NRSC would host a fundraising event in DC for Grayson. That’s when Paul’s supporters got PISSED. They held a counter money-bomb that raised $186k for the campaign. This pushed the campaign over the million mark and meant real media attention for the campaign. On November 2nd, a poll came out showing Paul leading in the primary by 3 points. On November 4th, embarrassed over conservative reaction to this and their backing of Charlie Crist, NRSC Chair John Cornyn announced that the group would sit out contested Republican primaries, a move that was hailed by grassroots conservatives as allowing the people to decide (all the rage in our current populist moment).

Now, there’s further sign that big national attention is being graced on Dr. Paul (yes, he followed in his father’s footsteps in more way than one). From the New York Times (subscription required):

Representative Ron Paul proved to be a surprising presence in the presidential race in 2008. Now his son, Dr. Rand Paul, has become an unexpected contender in the 2010 Senate race in Kentucky.

Dr. Paul — an ophthalmologist and a son of the congressman, a Texas Republican and former presidential candidate — has become a serious challenger in the race to succeed Senator Jim Bunning.

Capitalizing on a hearty distrust of government and an anti-Republican-establishment fervor among conservatives, he has used the Internet to raise more than $1.3 million since he began his campaign in August.

“This primary is really about the future of our party,” said Dr. Paul, 46, who has lived in Kentucky since 1993 and has never run for public office before.

“The Republican platform specifically says we don’t believe in bailing out private business, and yet we did,” Dr. Paul said in a break between cataract operations. “The Republican platform also specifically says we don’t believe in government ownership of private businesses, and yet a lot of Republicans voted for that.”

As I’ve noted before, we’re seeing a new alliance forming between fiscal conservatives and straight up libertarian conservatives, combined with the interesting factor that many social conservatives are drawn to the Paul’s pro-life credentials. Will this continue all the way back to governance? Hard to say–one President already helped disintegrate that already shaky alliance. But a new one is bringing them right back together.

Paul’s race will be one to watch, as the primary seems to have quickly become nationalized beyond the borders of the sleepy commonwealth of Kentucky. This will be a curious race to watch, since Grayson isn’t exactly a Meg Whitman or Charlie Crist in terms of his politics. Still, this race will be a harbinger of things to come in terms of what issues will bring the party back to power and just what sort of candidate activists are seeking out to be their standard-bearer in 2012.

Hold campaigns and local parties accountable. Patrick and Mindy give specific goals for Congressional and Senate races when it comes to raising money and recruiting online activists. Here’s what I would like to see. Ask every state and local party to give specific grassroots, electoral and fundraising goals. Publish those goals online. Reward parties that exceed expectations. Hold accountable those parties that fail to meet their goals. Shame works just as well as potential victory when it comes to incentivizing hard work and smart strategy.

Amen! While I am a bit skeptical that the RNC is going to be able or even want to reach all the way down to the county level, I think it is high time that someone hold county parties responsible, and at the VERY least provide clear directions and goals to the parties. My best idea at the moment: make it very clear to surrounding units what the goals are and publish whether or not those goals are being met. This will mean that not only internal but external pressure will be placed on chairs to shape up. Too often units become the equivalent of Republican Clubs in metro areas, and I bet you even many of them do more grassroots work than some units in the country. The excuse that committees are simply administrative bodies charged with holding a Lincoln Day Dinner and nominating candidates and that they should not be held accountable when goals are not met should be absolutely unacceptable in Steele’s RNC. 

I also wholeheartedly support the idea that the RNC should pursue a “vineyard” strategy to start at the very local level to produce not only good candidates but good ideas. Too often this is where troublesome politicians get their start. Take the case of Emmett Hanger, who started at the bottom and work his way up through the ranks based on his popularity and not on his ideas. We now have a Senator in that seat that is often extremely unresponsive to the ideas and suggestions of principled activists. However, we cannot expect the RNC to provide all the momentum here. I call upon all conservatives to PAY ATTENTION to local politics. These people will want to move up some day, but you need to be in the game to see if they are deserving of our support based on their principles, not just on their social network. Remember: Not everything that affects you and your family happens in Congress.

Conventional wisdom going into the vote was that former Ohio Secretary of State and social conservative activist Kenneth Blackwell would stand the most to gain from Duncan’s departure; however, by the fourth ballot it was clear the Blackwell was losing support, leading to his departure. Blackwell endorsed Steele on his way out (an important move, given that Steele was viewed with skepticism by conservatives from the beginning), giving Steele 79 votes on the fifth ballot, just short of the six votes needed to win. 

At this point, Michigan GOP Saul Anuzis was still in the game but way behind. Standing with twenty votes, he was in a position to be a kingmaker. Twitter updates indicated that both candidates conferred with Anuzis. In the end, though, Anuzis left the race but endorsed neither candidate. At that point, Dawson had sixty-nine votes, meaning he needed over 3/ths of Anuzis’ supporters to break his way. 

Didn’t happen. Steele picked up twelve votes and carried the day with ninety one votes. 

So we have a chair; now what?

Well, first, there’s alot to take away from the race. First and foremost, Twitter is a FANTASTIC tool for events like this. With Twitter, hardcore watchers of this race were able to follow the back and forth between the candidates, while people on the floor were able to dispatch votes and scenes from the vote. Great work and a heartfelt thanks to everyone who twittered the vote, committee member or note. 

Secondly, the grassroots were heard. Well, it seems, anyways. Steele, probably owing to his high media profile during the fall election, seemed to capture the hearts of bloggers and activists once it was realized that there would be no President McCain to handpick the next RNC chair. The other grassroots favorite seemed to be Saul Anuzis. Duncan and Dawson were always insider picks. But while the grassroots leader prevailed, it’s unclear that all those phone calls, emails and tweets led to this outcome. At the end of the day, we’re still a hierarchical party. 

Third, this party is one in conflict. However, the cleavages aren’t necessarily along conservative-moderate lines. In some corners, Steele’s victory will be viewed as one for moderates. By most accounts, however, Steele is largely a textbook conservative. The battle seemed in many ways to be one of tone: are we going to continue to tout socially conservative views and lead ourselves down a path of almost unreachable orthodoxy, or are we going to focus first and foremost on economic issues but allow some leeway on social issues? I’m not saying that I’m a fan on “moderates.” Hardly, because I don’t really see moderates as such. By and large, they tend to be ideologically inconsistent–supporting a nebulous right to privacy in abortion but denying the constitutional right to bear arms (this is one area Arlen Specter is good, but then he’s not that great on taxes and government growth). Instead, I believe that we should be a rallying point for all people that see the purpose of government as to protect the individual’s rights and freedoms. In essence, only to be involved in those areas that are absolutely essential. Now there may be some disagreement on what constitutes essential, mostly on social issues. But we must settle on that core principle, and in my view, its that government’s essential function is to secure our freedoms, liberties, and rights. That is also the position I see the party gravitating back to; at least one can only hope. 

There are two other battles I see brewing in the party, but they weren’t nearly as well covered, perhaps because they aren’t nearly as well defined. The first is the grassroots versus “them”–whether the ones you loathe the most are the consultants or the party leadership. I hesitate to comment on this particular battle because, frankly, I have my foot in both camps. I don’t currently make money off politics, but, yes candidates have signed the front of my check before. Still, the reason I got involved with politics back when I was just a young lad of 14 had nothing to do with dreams of grandeur or money–it had to do with making a difference. Namely, at the time, ousting a corrupted member of the Shenandoah County School Board. As I became further involved and as my values solidified themselves, my reasons to stay involved only grew–however, a natural off-shoot of that was the desire to move up and become more influential, and in turn, make money off the process. Is wanting to be able to make a living doing what you love, defending your beliefs, the worst thing in the world? Well, it depends on if you always maintain the balance.

Just as it is very difficult to maintain that balance, it is hard to see who was who yesterday. Saul Anuzis is a consummate political professional–yet he is also the son of Lithuanaian immigrants, someone who became involved with the party out of fealty to a specific set of ideals about what the party means. Michael Steele slowly evolved into a Republican and then a Republican activist over time and wasn’t on the Committee, leading many to see him as the outsider candidate–yet his campaign was managed by Blaize Hazelwood, a leading GOP consultant. 

It is even more difficult to find out who’s who in the game of the bigwigs versus the little guys. Always remember–we were all little guys once. It only becomes us versus them when they forget why they’re there–which happens far more often in elected officials, but it does happen to party officials. When party officials begin to feel entitled to their spots and have no sense of why they’re there, the little guys they represent–that’s when we have trouble. That’s why there’s a certain joy in seeing Steele win. And yet–it was only on the sixth ballot, after all the insiders were exhausted. Just how would this have turned out if there had been one less candidate in the race for the insiders to split on? 

The fourth takeaway is that there is an amazing diversity in this nation amongst African Americans and even those within the party. Some, such as Ken Blackwell, are most drawn in by socially conservative positions. Others, such as Michael Steele, are more attracted for reasons more related to the principles of individual liberty. At the end of the day, however, they do exist. Thee have already been many to make much of the fact that the RNC has elected its first black chairman. Indeed, this is a historic moment. However, to boil the moment down to just that is to overlook some other factors.

Race was indeed part of Steele’s appeal, but it wasn’t the basis for it. If the election of Michael Steele, a black man, as chair of the Republican National Committee had been a purely political move, would he 1) have faced another black man, 2) have taken til the sixth ballot to prevail, and 3) have faced two candidates with checkered pasts on the history of race. Let’s keep this in perspective: Steele only prevailed by 12 votes over someone who had admitted that he belonged to an all-white golf club just a little over a year ago. If this was all about race, he wouldn’t have gotten that close, and his support would have collapsed. Instead, he almost beat out “the black candidate.” 

So what now? Well, it’s clear that Steele has a great challenge ahead of him. There will be thousands upon thousands of blog posts suggesting what he should do first, and Twitter is already alive with suggestions of who he should keep on-board at the RNC. This blog will actually have its own suggestions. At this point, though, we should have no aspirations of Steele being the man who lead us out of this time of despair. Right now there is no one figure who has all the answers, nor should there be. We need some time to figure out who we are as a party, where we need to be, and how we are going to get there. What Steele will be, however, is a focused and smart leader at the RNC, working to set-up the sort of infrastructure that is sorely needed and , perhaps, start moving in the direction of a unified top to bottom effort. 

So what can you do? Well, read through Steele’s Blueprint for Victory, pledge your support, and do what you can to become involved in your local party and to re-dedicate yourself to politics in the new year. Just always remember: This is not an easy game. You will get hung-up on. You will have the door slammed in your face. Someone will swear at you. If you’re not willing to do that, if you’re not willing to make calls, if you’re not willing to step out of your comfort zone–step aside for the next generation. Just because this is a political party doesn’t mean its a literal one. 

So read, learn, and work. And Mr. Steele–you do the same.

However, the commission DID give its seal of approval to language that would assess a fee on gun show organizers for the cost of State Troopers to be at gun shows. This is the dream of anti-gun forces everywhere: to regulate private gun sales out of business, first by focusing on gun shows. I would wager that most of the people who come up with these ideas have never visited a gun show, and are not familiar with the fact that a) all federally licensed firearms dealers are required to run a background check for EVERY sale, even at gun shows and b) gun show organizers are extremely careful and aware of the risks that such an event carries.  And trust me: the ATF is VERY good at finding people who are unlawfully involved in bulk firearm sales. 

The goal here is to regulate private gun ownership our of existence in bits and pieces. By using scare tactics surrounding violent incidents (and don’t think for a second that this has nothing to do with the Tech tragedies), anti-gun activists know that they can get the public support to implement their piece-mill strategy to take guns out of private citizens hands, regardless of their needs for personal security and with no respect for the fundamental balance of power that underpins our American democracy. 

So just who recommended this atrocious language? Why, Ken Stolle…..a REPUBLICAN state senator from Virginia Beach. 

Thanks, Senator. Guess where we know your allegiances lie.