In the Rules of the Republican Party, Rule No. 5, which concerns the “Officers of the Republican National Committee,” states:
(a) The officers of the Republican National Committee shall consist of:
(1) A chairman and a co-chairman of the opposite sex who shall be elected by the members of the Republican National Committee. [Emphasis added.]
If the RNC elects a male chair, then, it must elect a female co-chair — and vice versa. Currently, the RNC has a male chair, Michael Steele, and a female co-chair, Jan Larimer, the committeewoman from Wyoming. Both are running for reelection. So far, Larimer and Sharon Day, the committeewoman from Florida, are the only declared candidates for co-chair.
Larimer and Day should hope for a male victory in the chair’s race. Because the RNC elects the chair first, that race determines the co-chair’s gender. They’re fine if Saul Anuzis, Gentry Collins, Reince Priebus, or Steele wins. But if Ann Wagner or Maria Cino proves victorious, Larimer and Day’s electoral dreams will be dashed.
Joyce Terhes, the committeewoman from Maryland and a supporter of Steele, tells National Review Online, if Wagner or Cino were to win, “that would really create havoc with the co-chair.” Terhes surmises that one of the chaps can run for co-chair if he doesn’t win the top slot, but she thinks the current slate of candidates isn’t interested in a consolation prize.
typical way the deck is always stacked. thus insuring everyone wants to keep the cruddy guy at the head, in order to keep the better ones down the line.
the rnc needs a shakeup, doesn't matter the co-chairs were good.
plus, honestly what I've seen first hand is rarely does a co-chair not see the malfeasance of the chairman. they simply have political aspirations of their own.
where were they when the money stopped coming in? when money got spent in a strip club? where was their outrage???
new broom sweeps clean. that is what is needed at all levels of management in the republican party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy? The nominal conservative party needs a gender set aside? How come no black co-chair? Or hispanic? Or martian?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhoever made that rule, and whoever voted in favor of it should be drummed out of the party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm shocked. A policy designed to ensure "equality" of outcome might have unintended consequences.
Since a person's sex has been determined to be a primary [dis-?]qualification, where is the subsection of Rules that addresses transgendered candidates?
In for a penny, after all...
And just for the record, why not have both positions held by females? Why discriminate against the possibility? FWIW, I'd be enthusiastic about an asexual immigrant from Mars heading up the RNC if it righted the ship and cut out the nonsense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's an idea: Repeal this stupid law and then let elections be determined by popular vote, not by equality issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy does the RNC have such an asinine rule? Just elect the most qualified candidate -- if the whole damned RNC is female or the whole thing male, who gives a rip?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGender specs of one form or the other go back to at least the early 60s when the Dems were still a good ole boys club and the Repubs were trying to show they were up to date. It may be time to let them go.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMan, that's dumb.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObviously this means that Sarah Palin has to have one of the two positions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Whoever made that rule, and whoever voted in favor of it should be drummed out of the party."
Oh, I dunno. Large swaths of our party want to regulate what members of the military do with their members. Its not such a stretch then for the RNC to concern itself with how many members are present in its upper echelon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Right of Center RE: "Oh, I dunno. Large swaths of our party want to regulate what members of the military do with their members. Its not such a stretch then for the RNC to concern itself with how many members are present in its upper echelon."
Would you like an opportunity to rethink that - maybe "desnarkify" it some?
As it stands, it's a hanging curveball.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Oh, I dunno. Large swaths of our party want to regulate what members of the military do with their members. Its not such a stretch then for the RNC to concern itself with how many members are present in its upper echelon."
Yes, because gender quotas in political party leadership positions are totally the same thing as a policy that attempts to keep the influence of sexual attraction out of ground combat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Republican Party instituted the Chair/Co-Chair set-up in the '20s, a couple years after women got the vote, as a way of getting newly enfranchised women to vote Republican. It's a vestige of a time when such a move had important positive symbolic implications and maybe the ability to get some extra people to vote R as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse