A Closer Look at RPV Chairman Candidate Vince Haley
by Brian Schoeneman and Matt Colt Hall
This past Friday, Bearing Drift first broke the story that former Newt Gingrich staffer and State Senate candidate Vince Haley was announcing his run for Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia.
Haley’s first entrance into Virginia politics was his candidacy in the very hotly contested four-way primary battle for the 12th District Senate nomination, won by Siobhan Dunnavant, who would later win the seat in the general election. Prior to that, Haley was a Gingrich political aide, assisting the former U.S. House Speaker in his run for president and during Gingrich’s tenure at various D.C. think-tanks, as well as co-authoring many of Gingrich’s books.
Haley is the second candidate to announce for RPV Chairman. The first, incumbent Chairman John Whitbeck, announced his election bid in June 2015. Whitbeck was appointed by the State Central Committee to fill the unexpired term of retired Chairman Pat Mullins. This will be both Whitbeck’s and Haley’s first time running in a statewide convention for party office.
With Haley’s entrance into the race, it’s important to look closely at his rationale for running, his experience, his goals and any information we can find from his background that could indicate how he would intend to unify a fractured Virginia GOP.
So why does Mr. Haley want the job? Given his lack of party office experience, this is a key question to ask – more important than usual in a race like this. Given the nature of the job, it’s questionable why anybody sane would want it, especially someone with an apparently bright political future ahead of him. In his VPOD interview with Bearing Drift Editor-in-Chief Jim Hoeft, Haley speaks of his time in Washington working for Speaker Gingrich and his experience in the private sector, at the NRSC as well as with a number of D.C. think-tanks. Haley noted his family ties to Richmond, and that he, his wife and his three kids now reside there. He is also earned degrees from William and Mary and UVA, and is a native Virginian.
While it is seems clear that Haley has significant Washington political experience, that he understands policy and has worked in a variety of political roles, questions still surround his Virginia political experience. Beyond his run for State Senate, he does not appear to have been active in Virginia politics, whether at the unit level or higher. Given that lack of experience, it is hard to evaluate how well he understands the role of RPV Chairman, what his primary job is going to be, and what he intends to do. While Haley may be comfortable on a Fox News set or at the gun range, it is unclear how well he knows and understands the various factions and personalities that have fractured the Virginia GOP.
As for trying to unify a fractured party, a look at his Senate campaign raises as many questions as it answers. From a distance, it looks like Haley tried to duplicate the divisive yet victorious strategy Dave Brat used against Eric Cantor, even down to hiring Brat’s former campaign manager Zach Warrell to handle the run. He appears to have focused his primary campaign on working his D.C. relationships, garnering endorsements from Tea Party and talk radio luminaries, including names like Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Senator Ted Cruz, Congressman Trent Franks, and former Speaker Gingrich. His two major Virginia endorsements were Shak Hill & E.W. Jackson, although he also garnered a number of local ones as well. Neither Hill nor Jackson are known for their appeal outside their respective factions, however, which may give some potential supporters pause. Whatever his apparent strategy – whether it was leveraging big name conservatives and clinging to the Brat playbook, or just trying to run an anti-establishment outsider race – it didn’t work and he finished third, with 22% of the vote. In his favor, however, was the fact that he was running against three solid opponents, including former House of Delegates Majority Whip Bill Janis. That defeat is significantly more understandable than his opponent’s multiple defeats in similar low-turnout primaries and special elections.
Vince’s announcement focused heavily on the anger of grassroots conservatives against some Republican elected officials, a line of attack that is quickly becoming hackneyed:
“The Republican Party promised the grassroots of our Party that if they did the hard work to help elect Republicans, Republicans would defund executive amnesty, defund Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood, and curb deficit spending. Instead, after historic mid-term victories, these new Republican majorities passed budgets that did the opposite.”
As was discussed during our last VPOD podcast, it’s difficult to understand how the party could impact those issues, given that its primary role is to elect Republicans, not to promote a policy agenda, at least at the state and local levels. While there is a role for policy ideas at the national level, the Virginia GOP has rarely, if ever, delved into policy questions beyond the Republican Creed.
Haley continued:
I am proudly 100% pro-life, pro marriage, pro-2nd Amendment, anti-tax-and-spend. As RPV Chairman, I will fight for candidates who will stick to their guns and vote that way, and I’ll make sure national Republicans hear your voice loud and clear in Washington and in Richmond — not kowtow and compromise.
It’s unclear what Haley means by this. Given the anger that has occurred whenever an RPV Chairman has stepped into a primary fight – whether the current Chairman or former Chairmen – it seems odd to lead with a pledge to “fight for candidates” rather than fighting for Republican “nominees.” This may have simply been poor wording, but in context, it does not appear to be. If Haley means that he intends to be a more proactive Chairman in nomination fights than John Whitbeck, who was roundly criticized for stepping into certain races while loudly claiming he wouldn’t do so in others, that would be an interesting admission from a candidate who will need support from a variety of places within the party if he is to defeat the incumbent. Openly stating that he intends to put his thumb on the scale for candidates he finds ideologically appealing seems counterproductive to that effort.
While there may be two schools of thought on state party chairmen endorsing candidates in open seat nominations – one side approves if the Chairman chooses the most “Republican,” while the other demands Chairmen stay strictly neutral – both schools have their adherents and their critics. However, it is widely observed that neutrality is the least likely to cause rancor and division. If Haley means to reject neutrality, he should come out clearly and say so.
It’s also interesting to note the parallels between Haley’s announcement letter, and the most recent condemnation of John Whitbeck by famed guy-behind-the-guy Russ Moulton. Take a look at a few of these sentences and compare.
Moulton: “After all the recent disappointments with Republicans on the Hill for voting for more deficit spending, funding of executive amnesty, funding for ObamaCare, funding of planned parenthood, etc … — how many of you heard folks say, “I am no longer a Republican” or “I’ve left the Republican Party”?”
Haley: “The Republican Party promised the grassroots of our Party that if they did the hard work to help elect Republicans, Republicans would defund executive amnesty, defund Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood, and curb deficit spending. Instead, after historic mid-term victories, these new Republican majorities passed budgets that did the opposite.”
Moulton: “Even the Rev. Graham recently made such statements publicly.”
Haley: “Folks, if people like the Rev. Graham are leaving the Republican Party, maybe it’s time to ask if the Republican Party has left them.”
While these similarities may simply be coincidence, one is left with the impression that we will see a Russ Moulton or a Conservative Fellowship endorsement of Vince Haley in the near future.
It’s also not clear whether Haley would get involved in endorsements of primaries involving incumbents. If his statement about “fighting for candidates who vote” according to his personal philosophy truly reflects his intent to evaluate all candidates based on his own political ideology, it seems likely that he will run afoul of some elected officials who do not share those beliefs. Does that mean he will oppose them? Or bar them from use of RPV data and other benefits? Will he actively campaign against Republican incumbents with whom he disagrees or whom he views as “not standing on principle?” While there may be some wiggle room on endorsing candidates in races with no Republican incumbent, no RPV Chairman in the modern era has ever endorsed a challenger candidate against a sitting Republican elected official. Is Haley suggesting that under his leadership that may change?
Given the loud demands of grassroots activists from across the Commonwealth to have more say in who their nominees are, it seems unlikely that most grassroots activists are going to be pleased with an RPV Chairman candidate announcing in his opening campaign letter a desire to place his own personal ideology ahead of their own – which is what happens when someone who has a say in nominating processes, allocation of resources and the like has made statements that seem to indicate he will only support those he agrees with. If Haley did not mean what he appears to say, it is clear that he needs to explain himself. Take, for example, his claim to be “proudly pro-marriage.” That stance is at odds with 70% of millennial voters, and 61% of Republican millennials. Is he suggesting he’s willing to turn his back on whole swaths of the electorate that may disagree with him on certain issues? Elections are won by addition, not subtraction, and Party Chairmen are routinely expected to leave their personal ideologies aside and do what is best for the party. Is Haley willing to do that?
It’s also critical to note what wasn’t in Haley’s announcement. Nowhere was a discussion of the biggest issue that splits the party right now – the primary vs. convention debate. And while he made a jab at the loyalty-oath issue, he did not say he was opposed to it, nor did he call upon Whitbeck to pull it back. He also didn’t mention anything about other important issues like data collection, fundraising, and building coalitions within the party – all issues for which we at Bearing Drift have criticized John Whitbeck. Haley’s entire announcement seemed focused on throwing red meat to those in the party who are angry at the status quo. That may work with some in the party, but not all. Whether he likes it or not, the establishment in the GOP aren’t fans of Whitbeck either, but they aren’t ready to jump for an anybody-but-Whitbeck candidate who may be worse.
That’s the biggest issue right now for many of us looking at this race – it’s hard to tell the difference between Whitbeck and Haley. To be fair, however, it is still early, and Haley has not yet done anything other than file and announce his candidacy. Many of us, especially those who have crossed paths with John Whitbeck in the past and are open to new leadership, would like to hear more about what he wants to do. We hope that he will avail himself of the opportunity to address the questions we’ve asked here directly on Bearing Drift in the future.
As the campaign goes on, it will be important for Haley to explain his vision, focus more intently on the job itself, and draw a contrast between himself and John Whitbeck. He has not done that so far, but as noted it is still very early. His announcement, while well written and certainly appealing in a variety of ways, was thin on substance and thick on symbolism. What is the real difference between him and his opponent?
Hopefully, in time, we will learn.
