Conservative blogging circles are abuzz with speculation about who will become the next Republican National Committee chair. The position represents one of the three highest-profile positions in the GOP, alongside the party leaders in the House and Senate. Those latter positions will be retained by Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell despite a supremely disappointing 2007-2008 cycle. Current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan is running for another term — and many race watchers think it’s possible that RNC members will give him another two years on the job — but if the GOP is looking for new blood and a fresh face among its leadership, it will have to happen at the RNC’s winter meeting on January 29.

As Republicans reflect on which candidate for the RNC chair can best lead the party for the next two years, though, clouded thinking runs rampant — much of it based on the misperception that winning a majority of the 165 votes needed to become chairman requires the same skill set as winning a general election. For the sake of clarity, let’s clear up some myths about what makes a good party chairman. Myth One: Ideology is paramount. Recently, 37 self-identified conservatives among the 168-member RNC formed a group to vet candidates for the party chair, purportedly to weed out the insufficiently conservative. Much of the early criticism of former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele, for instance, revolves around his relationship with a group of GOP moderates — the Republican Leadership Council. But this may mean less than it appears at first glance. This newly formed vetting committee includes two of the candidates for chair: Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis and South Carolina GOP Chair Katon Dawson. What are the odds that the vetting committee will determine either man is insufficiently conservative? By what standard will they look at any of the candidates and declare, “this person is not conservative enough”? The role of the national committee chair is such that, traditionally, the party has not engaged in a great deal of ideological screening. Ideology plays some role in fulfilling the responsibilities of candidate recruitment, of course — if you’re a social conservative, you might be less likely to recruit a libertarian-leaning candidate, and vice versa. But in the end, party chairman look for talented figures who can win races — and they rarely turn away a political hopeful who has a credible chance of knocking off a Democratic incumbent on the basis of ideology. Geography may end up playing a bigger role than ideology. “In all but a couple of cases, these guys don’t care about ideology,” says one race watcher with professional ties to one of the candidates. “For some of them, it will be personal connection; some will want a leader or a national figure; and in places like the Northeast, they’ll want somebody who doesn’t hurt them at the top of the ticket, so to speak.” If Steele is considered the liberal in the field, this is a pretty conservative group. The bottom line is: If you’ve been toiling in the GOP vineyard for years, you’ve fulfilled the first criteria of the RNC job — developing and promoting the Republican party’s ideas and candidates. Myth Two: The RNC candidates are stalking horses for presidential candidates. Chip Saltsman was Mike Huckabee’s campaign manager. Current chairman Mike Duncan was widely perceived to be a fan of Mitt Romney. Katon Dawson — depending on who you listen to — is either a stalking horse for South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, or he’s interested in making sure Sanford isn’t the 2012 nominee, as he’s touted Sarah Palin’s performance and defended her from critics. The “if X becomes the RNC chair, that helps Y become the nominee” game is fun to play, but it’s a nonfactor in the RNC committee members’ thinking. It’s not just that 2012 is a long way off and there is no clear frontrunner for the GOP nomination four years from now. No RNC chair candidate wants to alienate the allies of one potential candidate by playing up their ties to a potential rival, or vice versa. Not even the allies of the various candidates are making much of the ties; they know it’s not what will ultimately influence the RNC voters’ decision. Myth Three: The RNC chair has to be someone you’ve heard of. Right now, online discussions of the RNC race are dominated by Steele, well known for being a rare African-American Republican officeholder, for running a invigorating if ultimately unsuccessful Senate race in Maryland in 2006, for his frequent appearances on Fox News, and for two GOP-convention addresses — the latter of which debuted the slogan, “drill, baby, drill.” The other RNC hopefuls, while no strangers to cable news, simply haven’t had as much time on the national stage. Undoubtedly, Steele would bring considerable strengths to one aspect of the job — being a spokesman for the party and communicating the party’s ideas and values. Were the chair selected by a nationwide ballot instead of a meeting of 158 RNC members, his fame would prove valuable. But to those 165 members, a longtime relationship greatly outweighs the value of smooth delivery on Fox & Friends. Erick Erickson of RedState, a self-described Steele fan, lays out why the position requires a “workhorse, not a show horse,” and expresses doubts about whether Steele’s personality fits the bill.

Mississippi governor Haley Barbour was a relatively unknown in 1993 when he took the helm of a party that had just lost the White House — but he is widely credited as being one of the strongest party chairmen in recent memory. Florida senator Mel Martinez, by contrast, was a more widely recognized RNC chair, but he created arguably his greatest stir on the job by criticizing grassroots opponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants. A slew of figures, famous and not so famous, have served at the helm. The party gained seats under Marc Racicot, the former governor of sparsely populated Montana, and under former Bush advisor Ed Gillespie. Under big-state governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia, however, or former Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman, the party lost seats. The bottom line is: the success of RNC chairs has rarely correlated to the level of fame they brought with them to the job. Myth Four: There are dramatic differences between the candidates. Calling that a myth will undoubtedly bring objections from all the candidates. But in the end, you hear a lot of the same arguments from every entrant in the field:

‐The party has to make sure it seriously contests as many races as possible.

“Everybody has similar ideas,” admits a strategist for one candidate. What’s more, if any candidate does come up with a winning proposal, it’s not as if they can patent it. Katon Dawson wants to expand upon Howard Dean’s “Fifty State Strategy” by establishing active, staffed Republican parties in all 3,141 counties nationwide. If Dawson doesn’t win, some variation of that plan is likely to be enacted by the next RNC Chair. Myth Five: There is an objective measure of each candidate’s managerial skill. Ask some who watched Chip Saltsman manage the presidential campaign of Mike Huckabee, and they’ll say he demonstrated the ability to make the most of his opportunities: Huckabee was one of the few candidates in a crowded GOP field who walked into the contest an unknown and came out a star. But others look at the same experience and argue that the Huckabee campaign was an organizational disaster. Their successes, according to this view, were more attributable to the candidate’s unparalleled rapport with evangelical conservatives. Similarly, when the Tennessee Republican party knocked Al Gore out of the Senate and made gains in the state legislature under Saltsman’s leadership in 2006, contrarians argue that the wind was at the GOP’s back in the Volunteer State. Some point to Katon Dawson’s success in South Carolina at keeping the grassroots active and increasing turnout; in a state that received almost no attention from the national campaigns, 1,034,500 South Carolinians voted for John McCain in 2008, compared to 920,072 who voted for Bush in 2004. Others contend that leading the Republican Party to success in South Carolina is a challenge roughly on par with making cold cereal. The inverse of Saltsman and Dawson is Anuzis, a figure who most would agree has put vigorous effort into building the Republican Party in Michigan — but with meager results. He was elected state chair in 2005. In 2006, Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow and Governor Jennifer Granholm both crushed GOP challengers, despite the fact that Michigan was experiencing a “one-state recession.” (Meanwhile, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative banning racial preferences passed 58 to 42 percent.) In 2008, Sen. Carl Levin faced no serious challenger, two GOP incumbents lost House seats, and Michigan was the first swing state John McCain abandoned. John Kerry won the state by 4 percent in 2004; Obama carried the state by 16 percent this year. The state party continues to be beset by a Hatfield-McCoy feud between two factions represented by Anuzis and longtime party fixture Chuck Yob. Do these reflect flawed candidates, a tough environment, and circumstances beyond Anuzis’ control? Or flawed management of the state party? Few would say that Steele was a failure as Maryland’s lieutenant governor, but it’s also tough to isolate when, if at all, he demonstrated managerial excellence. The latest entrant into the race might have the most managerial experience — Ken Blackwell. But does the experience as mayor of Cincinnati and secretary of state of Ohio translate to running a party? Myth Six: The 2012 calendar is likely to change dramatically. One of the intriguing powers of the next RNC chairman will be the authority to appoint 11 of 15 members to a commission with broad authority to set the party rules for the 2012 presidential primary. Under current rules, the only two states that are permitted to hold a primary before the first Tuesday in March 2012 are New Hampshire and South Carolina. (The rule covers primaries, so the Iowa caucus can still go first under the current system.) While many RNC members are dissatisfied with the current primary calendar, there is no consensus on how best to reshuffle them — and any attempt to do so might, in the words of one race watcher, might “bring to mind the Democrats’ total clusterf*** this year.” The DNC attempted to punish Michigan and Florida for holding their primaries too early by refusing to seat any delegates from those states; they refused to recognize them when Sen. Hillary Clinton needed those delegates the most; and then reinstated them once it wouldn’t do her any good. “The question for most of the committee members is really going to be, ‘do you really want to open up this can of worms?’” observes an informal adviser to one of the RNC chair candidates. “Even if you strongly prefer one of the 2012 possibilities, do you really want to change it that much? If you’re a Romney guy, you’re happy that New Hampshire and Michigan are early. If you’re Huckabee, you want Iowa to remain first. If you’re Sanford, you want South Carolina first in the South.” As the race for RNC chair unfolds over the next seven weeks, let’s hope for a little less myth-making and spin-meistering, and a little more clear thinking. And may the best man win.

– Jim Geraghty wrote the Campaign Spot blog for NRO.