Last weekend, the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) had its biennial convention.  Among the functions of the convention are the debate on and passage of the platform, the election of the Committeemen and Committeewomen of the State Republican Executive Committee, and the election of a Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the RPT.

The contest for Chairman was a much-anticipated, hard-fought battle among three candidates:  Steve Munisteri, quasi-incumbent Cathie Adams, and Tom Mechler.

Ms. Adams was elevated to the position last fall after the abrupt resignation of then-Chairman Tina Benkiser, who left to take a position in the Rick Perry gubernatorial campaign; she previously held the spot of National Committeewoman, a representative of Texas to the Republican National Committee.  Adams is probably best described as an old-guard, establishment social conservative.  Her background was as an advocate, having led the Texas Eagle Forum.  The TEF is an affiliate of the national group of the same name (minus the "Texas" of course) that aims to support "pro-family men and women" in working towards "public and private virtue", among other things.  Her resume was one of decades of issue advocacy for "conservative" and "family values" concerns.

Challengers Munisteri and Mechler, on the other hand, both had business and management experience as well as advocacy and campaign experience.  A lawyer, Mr. Munisteri built and sold a large law firm and had various other business interests (including management of professional boxers and providing television commentary for boxing matches).  He also had extensive campaign and advocacy experience, having founded the Young Conservatives of Texas and serving at various levels in political campaigns over the years.  Mr. Mechler was active in oil and gas as well as serving in various governmental positions.

The race was a classic case of insurgents taking on the establishment; Ms. Adams ran the classic insider campaign — collecting establishment endorsements and touting her record of service in advocacy and long-held positions on issues.  As a candidate, she emphasized stands she had taken and, largely, what she was against rather than outlining a specific path forward.  She even criticized her opponents for their business and private sector experience, implicitly suggesting that while they were out making money in the private sector, she was there fighting against the liberals.  Her tone was strident and combative.

Mr. Mechler's campaign was less visible here in Houston.  I received a few mailings from him, but he seems to have spent much less money on mailing out literature and seemed to be less vigorously campaigning.  His campaign literature was more compare-contrast, outlining where he had experience and a record of accomplishment on particular issues versus questions about his opponents.  He also emphasized his private sector experience and its relevance, and he laid out a proposed path for the RPT.

The Munisteri campaign was visible, and seemed to spend a lot of money on literature through the mail and at the convention.  Like Mr. Mechler, Mr. Munisteri emphasized his private sector experience, highlighting his management skills both in business and in campaigns (illustrated by pictures of him with political heroes like Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan).  Like Mechler, he emphasized a specific plan, particularly with regards to fund raising, as the RPT is still hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt (a fact I find nearly unbelievable — the largest Republican-dominated state in the US should have a party flush with cash).  He emphasized unity, pointing toward the 2010 elections as pivotal (a point all three candidates made).

A key difference in strategy was apparent once the convention was underway.  One of the first actions is that the delegates caucus by Senate District.  Each SD elects officers to run the caucus, as well as representatives to the various committees — Platforms, Credentials, and Nominating Committee.  The Nominating Committee does the initial voting on the officers of the RPT, almost like an Electoral College (although their vote is non-binding — more on that below); thus, it is important for a candidate to have a supporter elected in each caucus.

In SD13, of which I am a member (as is Munisteri), there was no Adams candidate for the Nominating Committee.  That's not to say that she didn't have supporters in the district — nearly every caucus officer endorsed Ms. Adams, and she ended up getting roughly 1/3 of the caucus vote — but she was not prepared to even present a candidate.  On the other hand, Munisteri had a candidate prepared to run; he had resumes ready to distribute and a speech ready to give.  Now the SD Nominating Committee member is required to vote on the first ballot for whomever receives the majority of votes in the SD; however, following that ballot, he (or she) can vote for whomever he wishes.  Munisteri was prepared with candidates in every district, and even though Adams had establishment support — people with years of experience, who ostensibly understand the process thoroughly — there was no Adams candidate.

In the first round of Nominating Committee balloting, Munisteri had the most votes, but not the required majority.  After the first round, the committee members then have the option of voting their own wishes.  But there was another twist:  Munisteri and Mechler had reached out to one another and determined that if there was no majority, one would support the other.  In the second round, Munisteri won handily.  It was a win based on organization and preparedness... but it wasn't over yet.

The Nominating Committee presents its report to the convention at-large.  At that time, nominations can come from the floor, so long as they have the support of at least three Senate Districts.  A good vote-counter would know whether a floor fight would be worth the time and effort.  Ms. Adams and her team chose to initiate a floor fight, meaning that every delegate's vote would then be recorded.  At this point the candidates would get 10 minutes for a nominating speech and a speech by the candidate.  The candidates could choose anyone to give the nominating speech.

Ms. Adams chose her Vice-Chairman Robin Armstrong to give her introduction, then she spoke.  As in previous speeches, she again highlighted her years of advocacy and of the need to stop the "liberal agenda".  It was in this speech that she seemed to be criticizing Munisteri's private sector credentials.  It was a backward-looking speech that retained the combativeness of her earlier tomes, and it was well-received as "red meat" for her vocal supporters.

While Armstrong's introduction of Adams was expected — they had run as a team throughout — Munisteri's was a question.  He had chosen not to run with as a ticket with a Vice-Chair candidate.  But then the masterstroke:  out strolled the third candidate, Tom Mechler, to introduce Munisteri to the delegation.  It was a pretty powerful sight when Mechler removed his "Mechler for Chairman" sticker... and replaced it with "Stand with Steve"... and encouraged his supporters to do the same.  Munisteri's speech started with his own roots in advocacy, but then shifted to the importance of party unity moving forward — an ideal already established with the Mechler endorsement.

The final floor vote was not even close — 60% for Munisteri to 40% for Adams.  The fact that the vote wasn't emphasized further the importance of preparation and of deed over word:  a well-organized campaign would at least have a good idea of probable vote counts and whether or not a floor vote had a chance of success.  It appeared that Ms. Adams used her time gathering supporters, while Mr. Munisteri was evidently spending his reaching out to broaden his base among those that only hours earlier were in another candidate's corner.

In the end, the winning candidate was the one whom came with a more thorough understanding of the process, tailored his campaign to meet the environment, spent time building coalitions among competing factions, had the most diverse group of supporters, and knew how to count the votes.  That sounds like a pretty relevant skill set for a political party chairman.  The race was a case study in political campaign management and strategy.