The Republican National Committee’s “Growth and Opportunity Project,” the widely commented-upon 100-page autopsy of GOP defeat released on Monday, is quite the technical feat, as the report itself is wont to boast: “52,000 contacts made,” “800+ conference calls,” “50+ focus groups,” “3,000+ group listening sessions” with project co-chairs, extensive polls of women and Hispanics, and so on. But for all the analytic exertion, has the document lighted on the source of the GOP’s recent electoral woes, or plausibly plotted a course correction? Unfortunately, the answer on both counts is, not really. 
 
 The report opens with a précis of the agglomerated conventional wisdom of the last several months: The Republican party is out of touch; people think it “doesn’t care”; it preaches to the choir instead of appealing to potential converts; it needs to reach out to minorities, women, and young people. There is truth in each of these, which is how they got to be platitudes. But the action items recommended to address these issues are heavy on committee formation (e.g., a “Growth and Opportunity Inclusion Council” with representatives from the African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic, Native American, and “other” communities) and tokenism (the report’s No. 1 recommendation for reaching out to minorities is to put minorities in charge of outreach). To implement this aspect of the document, RNC chairman Reince Priebus has promised to establish dialogues with groups such as LULAC, La Raza, and the NAACP, which strikes us as unhelpful and willfully blind to the fact that such groups are ideologically opposed to Republican principles. A truly conservative minority-outreach strategy would severely weaken these groups by challenging their claims to represent their respective ethnicities. 
 
 In reality, selling the Republican party’s appeal is more about the appeal than about the selling. And there are narrow limits on what organizational rejiggering can do to make the party more attractive. The heavy lifting is going to require imagination and an appetite for risk, and it is going to have to be done by strong candidates and policy entrepreneurs. 
 
 Where the report does get into policy — most notably on the issue of immigration reform — its analysis is shallow and its recommendations opportunistic. Much is pinned on the empirically dubious claim that George W. Bush won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, and a nexus is drawn between this factoid and the former president’s conciliatory rhetoric on immigration. But nowhere does the document offer a substantive argument in favor of the kind of comprehensive immigration reform on offer in Washington, or even come close to demonstrating that support for such a program would accrue Republicans more votes than it lost them, considering that Hispanics are often ideologically liberal for reasons beyond immigration. 
 
 Still, the party’s proposals for consolidating the primary calendar and erecting reasonable limits on the number and frequency of debates are worthy of close consideration. The 2012 primary was unwieldy — its sheer length exacerbated the Democrats’ incumbent advantage in fundraising and organization, and the debates produced diminishing returns. Moreover, the report’s extended look at campaign mechanics, data collection, and new opportunities for fundraising marks the start of a critical retooling process for the party. The good news about the fact that the size of the 2012 loss was significantly due to technological and organizational disadvantage is that this is correctable. And in the end, the most important contribution of the national party apparatus may be to correct it. 
 
 Whether it can do more than that is a much bigger question. But little in the report suggests it can. ||||| Try Again 
 
 The Republican National Committee’s attempt at self-criticism doesn’t genuinely tackle any of the party’s biggest problems, says Michael Tomasky. 
 
 I’m going to shock you, perhaps, by saying that I don’t think the Republican National Committee’s “Growth and Opportunity Project” document is a complete joke. Three or four decent ideas have been somehow smuggled into its 100 pages, and the party would be well advised to follow them. But what’s more interesting to me are the things that are not in there. The difficult topics are nearly all avoided. Now it could be that the GOP’s great minds are taking up these questions behind closed doors, and if so bully for them. But I somehow doubt it because to take these tougher questions on is to take on the party’s most rabid base, and who’s going to do that? The process of Republican change is going be what we might call a two-thirds Hobbes: nasty, brutish, and long. 
 
 But first let me be a sport and tip my cap to the good ideas. I think fewer primary-season debates is a grand idea, chiefly because that means fewer that I’ll have to watch. By about the 15th one last time, I was trying to relax by shoving bamboo shoots under my fingernails. 
 
 Of course, the document doesn’t mention the real reason for this suggestion. What the RNC obviously wants to do here is limit middle America’s exposure to the party’s koo-koo-for-cocoa-puffs base. Remember the cheering for the death penalty, the booing of the gay soldier, the catcalls about immigrants? The party and its people were huge losers from all those debates and the attendant publicity. The less America sees of those people, the RNC figures, the better. 
 
 It’s also not pointless to want to hire more women and people of color to send out into the field to recruit possible voters and spread the party’s message. Why this is occurring to them only in 2013 is a question. This occurred to Democrats in 1972. Obviously Republicans have been rather happy to be the white party up until now. 
 
 So those are some good things. But now let’s think about what’s not in this document. The Republicans have three big problems. The first is that, as they will soon see, they can’t paper over their problems with nonwhite voters with the hiring of a few organizers and other gestures. Embracing immigration won’t solve their problems with Hispanics. 
 
 In a few months, the GOP-appointed Supreme Court conservative majority is going to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Fairly soon after that, the same Court majority is going to consider, and probably do away with, the last laws that keep affirmative action on the books. In addition—this isn’t about pigmentation, but about diversity and inclusion nevertheless—that same quintet may well rule against a federal right to marriage for same-sexers. 
 
 These decisions will be handed down by the Court’s Republicans or conservatives. And what will the GOP do in response? Can you imagine Reince Priebus then denouncing Antonin Scalia and John Roberts for being out of touch with America? Can you imagine Republicans in Congress rushing in and working with Democrats to write a new Section 5? Didn’t think so. The vast majority of Republicans will hail these decisions. And people of color, and gay people, will notice. (Incidentally, gays are not mentioned at all in the report as a group to whom the GOP should attempt some outreach; it’s good at least to have that clarity.) 
 
 At CPAC 2013, Mitt Romney said the GOP had to learn from his mistakes to “take back the nation.” 
 
 Problem number two has to do with economics. Republicans seem not to have wrapped their heads around this, but a big reason they lost the last election was their extreme economic policies. It was the 47 percent business, but it wasn’t only that. Voters may not know many details, but they got the message that Republicans want more than anything else to make sure that rich people are paying less in taxes. That remains the GOP message. Well, actually, now that I think about it, the No. 1 message of this new Ryan budget may actually be hatred of poor people. In either case, it ain’t good. 
 
 To some extent, the party will be helped in 2016 by not nominating a filthy rich white man who behaves in that presumptuous rich-white-man way. But only to some extent. Someone from a humbler background selling essentially those same voodoo economics will do only marginally better. And if they think they can pull new voters without taking a very long and very frank look at their economic platform, they are in la-la land. 
 
 And finally, the biggest problem of all is the fury of the GOP’s white base. Nowhere does this report, even in the most euphemistic terms possible, discuss the rage problem. But it is key. Republicans in Congress are constantly playing to that rage, feeding it back to the voters. They have built themselves congressional districts where the only thing they have to worry about and respond to is that rage. Structurally, it’s hard to see how this changes. And emotionally, as long as Barack Obama is president, likely to be followed by a Clinton, are Republicans really going to start being civil? ||||| The Republican National Committee has released its 100 page autopsy of 2012, with 97 pages of fun filled reading. Reince Preibus, chairman of the RNC, ordered up the autopsy to try to find a way forward for the GOP without repeating many of the mistakes made in Campaign 2012. It’s authors were Henry Barbour, Ari Fleischer, Sally Bradshow, Zori Fonalledas, and Glenn McCall. 
 
 What the autopsy misses out of the gate is that some times there is nothing that can be done. Bad election years are bad election years. Candidates like Josh Mandel were model candidates for the GOP who ran great races, but still lost. Some times it just happens. 
 
 There are, however, some fundamental problems with the Republican Party and the autopsy does make some effort at examining those. 
 
 Data and technology are key aspects of failure in the Republican Party. The once heralded “voter vault” program eventually fell into outdated information and became an expense. 
 
 The Republican Party must again collect and wisely use data, cross referencing consumer data with voter data to find and persuade undecided voters to get out to vote. 
 
 One area the autopsy fails to really touch on that relates to data and technology is the consultant class. To be sure, there is language in the autopsy about teaching campaign managers to better corral and manage consultants, but the consultant class within the Republican Party remains far more incestuous than the Democratic Party. Likewise, it is far more interested in dollar generation than voter generation. The autopsy dances around this with language about expanding the pool of consultants used, but does not go far enough. 
 
 The presidential primaries get a lot of attention from the autopsy authors. They advocate getting rid of caucuses and conventions to select the nominee. The grassroots tend to bristle at these ideas, but many Republican voters are tired of the unrepresentative charade that is Iowa first, then New Hampshire, then everybody else. Regional primaries make sense. 
 
 The problem, and there is always a problem, is that for the last several years the Republican National Committee was heavily stacked with people sympathetic to Mitt Romney. Likewise, a shortened primary system without caucuses benefits the guy with the most money. Caucuses also serve a good purpose in testing actual strength with the grassroots who must be mobilized for the general election. There is too much distrust to be able to change the system so much so quickly. 
 
 Debates are another subject of the autopsy. Many Republicans wondered why the GOP would ever allow NBC to host a debate, let alone with the Politico, given the biases involved. 
 
 Additionally, there were too many debates. The debates were exhausting for viewers, let alone the candidates. They turned into instruments of gaffe that could later be used against the candidates. 
 
 Limiting them and letting the Republican National Committee assist in selecting moderators would be advantageous to a campaign system that, because of its mechanics, stretches the campaign season out too far. 
 
 For many campaigns, the problems with the autopsy will come from the mechanics. Smaller campaigns do not want all primaries because those benefit the monied interests. Outsiders distrust the insiders and want to limit control of the RNC. There is a great deal of distrust and, given the background of the authors, many will read into the report that it is aimed to help certain interest groups, whether that is right or not. 
 
 Ari Fleischer worked for George W. Bush. Sally Bradshaw is a confidante of Jeb Bush. Henry Barbour is related to Haley Barbour who is tied to American Crossroads, which is connected to Karl Rove, who with Crossroads is setting up a Super PAC many believe is designed to shut out conservative candidates. Zori Fonalledas is an RNC Committeewoman from Puerto Rico. Glenn McCall is a long time Republican from South Carolina. 
 
 People will read what they want into the connections and backgrounds of the authors, even though it seems clear they really tried to be as objective as possible. Therein lies the problem for the Republican grassroots. 
 
 The group was specifically designed to not be a policy committee and, in fact, hid behind that to make policy recommendations. For example, on page eight of the report, they write, “We are not a policy committee, but among the steps Republicans take in the Hispanic community and beyond, we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform.” Get it? They are not a policy committee, but here is a policy that must be supported. 
 
 Read the rest over at Fox News where I originally published it this morning: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/19/conservative-review-gop-autopsy/#ixzz2NzZNpZvu ||||| The Republican National Committee released a report Monday charting the party’s road to revival — only for RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to give its most important recommendations the Grand Old Punt. 
 
 Tucked into the 100-page document — mostly a compilation of prosaic suggestions such as “reinstitute field finance team structure” and “develop a surrogate list of women” — are a few crucial sentences about policies Republicans must embrace for the party to remain viable: a path to legal status for illegal immigrants and more acceptance of gay rights. 
 
 Dana Milbank writes about political theater in the nation’s capital. He joined the Post as a political reporter in 2000. View Archive 
 
 Republicans “must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform,” it concludes. “If we do not, our party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.” 
 
 Further, the report concludes, Republicans “need to make sure young people do not see the party as totally intolerant of alternative points of view. Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays — and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the party is a place they want to be.” 
 
 But in his 27-minute speech at the National Press Clubannouncing the report, the words “immigration” and “gay” didn’t cross Priebus’s lips. Questioned by the moderator about whether there is “a need to shift some basic positions on some of the issues,” he asserted that there is not. “No,” he said, “I think our policies are sound.” 
 
 1 of 171 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × Tom Toles draws Republicans View Photos A collection of cartoons about the GOP. Caption A collection of cartoons about the GOP. Tom Toles Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. 
 
 After the event, reporters surrounded Priebus to ask him about the report’s call for “comprehensive immigration reform” — shorthand in Washington for a policy that includes legalization. “To some people, that means securing the border; to some people, that means E-Verify,” he said, referring to workplace checks of immigration status. “To some people, that means a pathway.” 
 
 Politico’s Jonathan Martin pressed him on legalization, and the chairman bristled. 
 
 “You’re not going to bulldog me, buddy,” Priebus said. 
 
 Presumably, he meant “bulldoze,” but his response, a felicitous echo of “Don’t tase me, bro,” is an indication of how bullheaded the party remains on immigration reform. 
 
 The report’s authors had been assigned to diagnose mechanical problems in the party, not policy problems, but they recognized, correctly, that the hard line on social issues “will limit our ability to attract young people” and women, and that the hard line on immigration repels Latinos: “If Hispanics think that we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies.” 
 
 One of the report’s authors, Ari Fleischer, said before Priebus’s speech that the demographic gap “is a killer” for the party. “It’s going to be very hard for Republicans to win if Republicans don’t do better in many of these communities,” said Fleischer, a former spokesman for George W. Bush. 
 
 Priebus, giving the presentation on his 41st birthday, said that after November’s “wake-up call,” the Republicans were taking “a fresh start.” With commendable honesty, he acknowledged that “focus groups described our party as narrow-minded, out of touch and, quote, ‘stuffy old men.’ . . . The perception that we’re the party of the rich, unfortunately, continues to grow.” 
 
 Ann Telnaes animation: Sen. Ted Cruz delivers the CPAC keynote address. (Ann Telnaes/The Washington Post) 
 
 “We know that we have problems, we have identified them, and we’re implementing the solutions to fix them,” the chairman said. 
 
 But he dismissed the notion that these problems could be related to positions the GOP has taken. “To be clear, our principles are sound,” Priebus asserted, moving on to read a flurry of numbered recommendations: “Nine, work with state parties, sister committees. . . . Third, I want to hold hackathons in tech-savvy cities.” 
 
 Many of the ideas are good, such as the calls for fewer debates and primaries rather than caucuses. But Priebus, in the Q&A, took pains to avoid offending the conservative orthodoxy that is antagonizing segments of the electorate that Republicans need if they are to win. He embraced voter ID laws (an irritant to many minority voters) and was cautious about GOP Sen. Rob Portman’s acceptance last week of same-sex marriage (“It’s not a matter of whether I support his decision. I support him doing what he wants to do as an elected person and as an American.”). 
 
 The chairman also declined an invitation to distance the party from inflammatory commentators on racial matters such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. “I think our whole team is a blessing,” Priebus replied. “I welcome everyone into our party, no matter what spectrum in our party or wherever they’re at on the conservative, in that bandwidth, they’re welcome.” 
 
 All are welcome in the Republican Party — as long as they’re conservative. 
 
 Twitter: @milbank 
 
 Read more from Dana Milbank’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
– Republicans were pretty harsh on themselves in yesterday's much-discussed autopsy of the 2012 campaign, but did they actually get to the root of their electoral woes or propose decent solutions? "Unfortunately, the answer on both counts is, not really," the National Review laments. The report concludes that Republicans are out of touch with young people, preach to the choir, and need to reach out to minorities. "There is truth in each of these, which is how they got to be platitudes." The report's take on outreach is "heavy on committee formation … and tokenism," the Review complains; its top suggestion, for example, being that minorities take charge of minority outreach. "In reality, selling the Republican party's appeal is more about the appeal than about the selling. … The heavy lifting is going to require imagination and an appetite for risk." Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast agrees. "Back in the 1980s, the voters kept the Democrats out of power until they were persuaded that the party really had changed," he notes, and Democrats responded by "jettisoning some longtime shibboleths." Republicans need to do the same. Their problems with minorities run deep, and many voters believe their chief economic goal is to protect the rich. At the Washington Post, Dana Milbank notes that Reince Priebus' speech skipped right over the report's recommendations on gay rights and immigration. Priebus "took pains to avoid offending the conservative orthodoxy that is antagonizing segments of the electorate that Republicans need if they are to win." At one point he said, to use Milbank's paraphrase, that "All are welcome in the Republican Party—as long as they’re conservative." Erick Erickson at RedState complains that the report's recommendations to swap primaries in for caucuses and limit debates will benefit monied candidates like Mitt Romney. But the real problem with the report, he argues, is that it fails to realize that "sometimes there is nothing that can be done. Bad election years are bad election years."