I remain undecided in the chairman’s race. Each of these candidates brings some benefit, and has some weaknesses. My problem with Mr. Anuzis is that he hasn’t managed to grow the party in his native Michigan. Now, more than ever, we need a chairman who can produce GOP votes. Mr. Anuzis may indeed be the best choice among the candidates for RNC chairman, but that says more about the state of the party than it does about him.

But let’s have some confidence in what we’re trying to do, here. We know how that stuff works, too, so we know it doesn’t really matter what the big cheese in the RNC chair thinks, so long as he buys into letting the electronic grass roots freely grow, and he throws some water on them now and again.

That sleazy hit-job sent out by a coward did raise some real concerns for me, though. Saul does seem like something of a political entrpreneur, using the process to make money for himself and his network. This is perhaps one of the biggest problems the GOP has today. So even if the portrait is unfair, we have to acknowledge it. Nobody, for example, thinks Saltsman is a racist. But we have to achnowledge he didn’t do as good a job as he could’ve in avoiding the perception.

Steele has managed GOPAC and a state party. He has the experience. He is clearly the best communicator of the bunch, which does matter. He is accused of being a moderate, too. But even if he is, what is wrong with the Chair being a bit on the moderate side? Shouldn’t someone at that level be a big tent type of guy? He’s got his social conservative ducks in a row. He just doesn’t let those issues be deal-breakers. This is, I think, a feature rather than a bug.

The only real criticism of Steele is he isn’t the best fundraiser. But if we’re going to continue to depend on a handful of large checks, we’re hosed anyway.

Thanks for making the case, though, for the second best candidate