The main event of the GOP's central committee meeting today in Tukwila was the election of a chairman, in which Chris Vance was reelected with 66 votes out of 112. However, that wasn't the only happening of import. Anyone interested in the details of the Chairman election, the potential political star that is the new vice-chairman, the GOP's plans regarding the top-two primary, or President Bush's thoughts on Dino Rossi's current situation is encouraged to read on.
Election of the Chairman
The election of chairman went smoothly. Rose Strong spoke first, detailing her experience and criticizing Vance for the way he handled the previous election, noting that Nethercutt was "steamrolled" by Patty Murray, which she called "an atrocity." Much of the rest of her speech was spent emphasizing the need for increased minority outreach, and the great things that it could bring to the party if it is successful. She's a very dynamic speaker, and the crowd erupted with applause after her speech. Diane Tobelius, who was acting as chairman during the election segment, noted afterwards, "you need to teach me how to do that!"
Mark Hulst spoke next, extolling the need for a unified party and a clear concise message to come from that party. He specifically noted that Republicans need to reach out to business associations such as the BIAW and realtor's associations, involving them more closely in the party's efforts--"they should be our labor unions," he suggested. He also argued for reaching out to tribal leaders, noting that while they have conservative values, they consistently vote Democrat--but that as they begin doing more and more business outside of the reservations, they are running into the same problems other businessmen are.
Vance spoke last, immediately tying himself to the revote effort. He noted that the party was in a better financial situation than it has been in many years and that it avoided divisive primary battles of the past. He noted that he was working with the national Senatorial Committee to recruit a top notch candidate to run against Cantwell, that they would continue various programs that he has started, and that they would continue to fight for a constitutional primary.
After Vance spoke, Tebelius related the story that, during the last chair election, they had to have a revote, because there were more ballots than voters. Sound familiar? In order to make sure the voting was fair and legal, she had all of us who were not voting leave the room. No one complained.
The vote was 66 for Vance, 24 for Hulst and 22 for Strong. It was a pretty solid win, but a far cry from his 81-25 win over Strong two years ago. If just 10 votes had changed, it would have gone to a runoff between the top two candidates.
Vice Chair Fredi Simpson
Rose Strong, though she lost, had definitely electrified the crowd, and was immediately nominated for Vice-Chair (who has to be of the opposite gender from the chairman). Despite the urging of many, she declined to run. "I've been involved in Republican politics for 33 years--I'm not going anywhere," she assured everyone, but said "I've got to do a lot of thinking."
This meant that the only candidate was Fredi Simpson, the chairman of the Chelan County Republicans. She is someone who might one day be an answer to Matt Rosenburg's call for strong Republican women candidates. The granddaughter of Mexican and Spanish migrant workers, Simpson described how she was driven to become a Republican by two factors--first, the difference she saw between her uncle, a Democratic big-shot in California who was born a citizen, and her mother, who was born in Cuba and had to work for her citizenship. Her uncle took his citizenship and the blessings that go with it for granted, while her mother never did. Second, when her mother wouldn't allow her to take government money for college that was offered simply because she was part Hispanic. Simpson helped with the organization of the Hispanic recruitment drive in 2004, bringing in more Republican Hispanic votes in Washington State history without using any money from the state party. She's not as dynamic a speaker as Strong, but she's very close, and is someone to keep an eye on, as she helps present a new face to the state Republican party.
UPDATE: I've corrected an earlier error which stated that Simpson headed up the Hispanic recruitment effort--in fact, it was run by a number of people, including Marta Guevera, Pedro Celis and others. I also added the remarkable fact that the entire recruitment drive operated without taking money from the state party.
Republican "Battleplan"
After the elections Vance outlined the "battleplan" for the state party. It's fairly straight forward: getting the court to order a revote, and then winning that revote; outreach to minority groups; voter ID and registration; candidate recruitment; and the training of PCO's and other grassroots leaders.
Revote update
There was not much information provided here that a blog reader would not already know, but there were a couple points of interest. First, it was stressed that the party was willing to spend what it takes to get the revote through the courts. Second, Tebelius brought up a possibility I had not heard before: after the judge makes his ruling regarding the Democrats' motion to dismiss, whoever loses will probably ask for an interlocutory hearing with the State Supreme Court. Like the proceedings on the 4th, this would be over a finding of law, not of fact. Third, Tebelius also mentioned that there is a possibility that some Canadian citizens may have voted in the election, which they are looking into (gee, I wonder who they voted for?). Last, Vance expressed confidence that, if the Democrats' request to dismiss is denied, the Republicans will win the whole case (at least at the superior court level).
Top-two primary update
Republican party rules written in 2000 state that, now that the voters have approved a top-two primary system, the Republican Party will nominate candidates by way of conventions, and will go to court to prevent anyone other than those who are nominated at a party convention from calling themselves Republicans on the ballot. They don't expect the state to agree to this, and it will probably end up in the courts.
These rules were going to be updated, but it was a very last minute thing, and the committee voted to instead delay any update until they can decide how exactly to go forward. The unanimous feeling of the committee was, however, to maintain the Republican party's right to nominate their own candidates. There may be a special central committee meeting to determine how exactly this will go forward, however. As it stands now, however, any candidates for county office that have elections this year will be determined by a convention--and expect a legal fight over other candidates attempting to call themselves Republicans (or, for that matter, Democrats, as both parties are in agreement over this issue).
The Bushes and the Revote effort
When Washington's three national committee members, Tebelius, Vance and Jeff Kent, were in Washington for the RNC meeting and inauguration, they had an opportunity to talk about the revote effort with the Bushes. During a picture taking session, when the delegation from each state came up and had their picture taken with the President, he stopped the Washington delegation to apologize to them.
The Bush campaign pulled out of Washington State three weeks before the election, and Bush said he was sorry they had done that because, if they had not, Dino would have won. Vance protested that there was a very good chance that Dino would still become governor, and that they had a very good case. President Bush was skeptical, but Laura perked up and said, "Is that because there are more votes than voters in King County?"
Think she's been surfing the Internet lately?
Cross-posted at The Flag of the World.
Posted by Timothy Goddard at January 29, 2005 06:03 PM | Email This
when honor and character no longer matter
in the leadership of the state gop.one has
to wonder whats next?I am very disapointed
in the rossi campaign for allowing this to
happen.
The rossi campaign had several opportunities
to do the right thing and sadly chose to look
the other way.Chris vance you may think that
you have pulled one over on all of us.but your
wrong.enough people now know what you really
are and you wont get away with it any longer.
we should all be proud of rose strong and mark
hulst for the class and integrity they showed
throughout this race.Today we all lost but the
battle is just beginning.
"66 votes out of 112"...hmmm. While I find Vance a bit, well, weird...(for whatever that is worth coming from me), none can deny that he is in charge yet again. I hope he does well for the party...
signed, milquetoast
(sorry to the person who has that handle, but it makes a good point, eh?)
Posted by: smegma on January 29, 2005 06:41 PMAt least we have Berendt back again for the ongoing battle of sharp-tongued, half-witted "poopheads." (sigh) I guess these are the cards that we've been dealt, and we'll have to play them as best we can.
"Stuff" as usual...
Posted by: Dan on January 29, 2005 07:48 PMMost legislators privately acknowledge what anyone with eyes and ears already knows. Vance has no leadership skills and consequently BIAW is the de facto Republican party.
Chris - after the revote, do the Republican Party a favor and resign.
Posted by: Tim Ford on January 29, 2005 08:13 PM this going hurt me as much as it does you.
with all do respect.If gutless gary cronce
had the spine to sign the letter backing
mark hulst.
In all likelihood it would have changed
the outcome of state chair race.Now the
Biaw will live with what they didn't do.
after what said vance about you guys
on mike siegel's show yesterday I really
feel sorry for you.
In fact, the Dem and Rep party establishments agree on this. They work together to maintain the duopoly they have in the political marketplace.
I vote for Reps, but the fact of collusion between the two major parties is something that I find very discouraging and not in the spirit of our founding.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 29, 2005 08:52 PMCould have fooled me. I worked the last several weekends in the Bush campaign office (not the WA Republican party office), as well as working from dawn to dusk on election day as a poll watcher gathering lists of who voted and then calling several hundred people to get out the vote right up to the last minute.
If the campaign had "pulled out", I couldn't tell.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on January 29, 2005 08:53 PM(see, I read the whole thing!)
Posted by: JeanneB on January 29, 2005 09:00 PMThe new primary system is totally unconstitutional, and it's a flat out horrible idea. It was the brainchild of a corrup governor in Lousiana to stay in power. 48 States are laughing at us.
Us 'progressive' Washington folk got use to being able to put our nose in other people's business for years with the blanket primary, and it finally caught up with us. It's a shame we hold so little stock in the idea of groups deciding for themselves who they want to represent them. It's a neat idea, our founders thought so anyway.
Posted by: Cliff on January 29, 2005 09:19 PMHey DeadManVoting, have you ever heard of Freedom of Association?
Please, exactly how does this apply to your freedom of association. Your party caucuses may nominate whomever they wish for the primary. They get to choose who gets the party money and support. That person gets to say, in the voter's pamphlet "endorsed by the Washington State Republican Party." Of course, if that person cannot at least come in second, they don't go on the general election ballot.
Don't you think that the Republican party can manage to come in at least second? Do you really think your party is so far outside the mainstream that we'll end up with two Democrats?
The new primary system is totally unconstitutional, and it's a flat out horrible idea. It was the brainchild of a corrup governor in Lousiana to stay in power. 48 States are laughing at us.
I thought this was one of the options that the Supreme Court pointed out when they struck down our old primary. I'd like to see an additional change that if one candidate gets more than fifty percent of the vote, they win, and that election is over. It's that "majority rule" thing. I'm funny that way.
I'm more than slightly annoyed with my party for opposing this too, and I'm making my annoyance known.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 29, 2005 10:09 PMDoug Parris and the reaganwing cronies really helped convince the undecideds towards Chris' way with their in-your-face obnoxious and relentless attack last night and this morning against Vance. Cris Vance should send him a check for services rendered. They acted as pathetically as Reed Davis' loonies during the State convention.
I'm very optimistic. Vance is just one person on the WSRP Executive Board. He has the gavel, but he can be managed. He has a new, more dynamic executive board that will be bringing innovative ideas to the party. They will push Vance to do the right thing or they'll put him in a box. His choice.
Posted by: Robert Knight on January 29, 2005 10:19 PM(2) I only met Fredi Simpson once, and that briefly, with a small group of fellow 12th District (R)s down at the ReVote Rally in Oly. But for whatever my short first impression is worth I am in full agreement with Timothy: I was favorably impressed.
(3) I'm with Cliff on the new primary:
>--> I don't think it will pass Constitutional muster.
>--> The (R) and (D) party machines did not have to coordinate at all to decide they don't like it.
>--> I am very familiar with a real-world example in Okanogan County a few years ago, where (D)s had no primary contest and crossed over in large numbers (large for Okanogan County, that is) to vote for the (R) they considered the "least worst" from the leftie point of view. Without those (D) cross-over votes the (R) winner in the primary and the subsequent general would almost certainly have been different. Preserving freedom of association should take priority here.
Methow Ken
Get rid of the worthless POS Vance
Posted by: Mike on January 29, 2005 11:43 PMProbably there was a lot of sympathy for not changing horses in the middle of the stream. And probably Doug Parris alienated at least a dozen members of the state committee with his extremist tactics into supporting Vance who would have otherwise voted to boot him.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 29, 2005 11:43 PMThe problem will come when the Republicans nominate someone at a convention, but then some other joker wants to run as a Republican on the ballot. That's not cool, and the Republicans (and Democrats) have every right to fight it.
I understand your point, but my counter-point is that the "other joker" will not be able to say "endorsed by the Washington State Republican Party" and will not be getting the backing of the party. That's a big hurdle to overcome.
It's possible that your party will pick someone so far out in the fringes that they are unelectable, and if they do, some independent Republican will probably step up to the plate.
The same thing goes for my party. If the party leadership, or even the convention picks the local PETA president as our candidate on a "meat is murder" party platform, outraged Democrats can field another candidate.
I've heard the argument that this will bring both parties closer to the middle, making the vocal fringes much less powerful. I've also been trying to figure out how this is a bad thing.
The difference seems to be in the concept of the purpose of the primary election. The parties seem to want to use it to pick their candidate. I, and apparently most Washingtonians, want to use it to winnow the field.
"Party faithful," meaning those folks that vote a straight party ticket regardless of the merits of the candidate, won't like this much. Nor will the "single issue" people that have been able to highjack both parties.
Those of us that pay less attention to the lable and more to the person think it's great.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 30, 2005 09:02 AMYou don't let any toothpaste call themselves Crest. Why would you let any candidate call themselves "Republican?" Let them run as independents, fine. But don't let them dilute the brand. That's the question: can they call themselves "Republican" or "Democrat" on the ballot.
Those aren't ideologies or philosophies, they are concrete organizations with rules and officers and members. Anyone who claims to be running as a Republican after someone else has been chosen by the rules of that party is committing fraud, pure and simple.
Posted by: Timothy on January 30, 2005 09:39 AM Let me explain why I'm disapointed with
the rossi campaign in regards to the state
chair race.After rossi had one the first 2
counts he said he would endorse vance.
A letter went out stating just that.
after the third count it was withdrawn.
about that point in time David ammons
interviewed vance.Vance states that rossi
asked him to run again.This story
runs in most of the local newspapers.
It was at this point dino was backed
into a corner and felt like he had no choice
but to back Vance. I believe what rossi's
campaign should have done was ask vance
not to run again. when vance went to the
media and basically told a whopper.that showed
alot of desparation and lack of character
on vance's part.
The second and more serious matter
that vance made rossi look bad took place
about 2 weeks ago. When vance sent out an
email to all voting state committee members
stating that rossi's campaign had asked
mark hulst to drop out of the race.
Not only did vance do that but he also had a
sit down with the political reporters at the
same time. Vance repeated the same story
about rossi's campaign asking mark hulst
to drop out.This story was a bald face lie.
At no time did rossi or anyone from his
campaign ask mark to drop out.
At that point in time I had it on good
authority that Rossi's camp was going to
ask Vance to drop out of the race.They
had been embarassed one to many times
by vance and had enough.
Again this shows alot of desparation
and a lack of character on vances part.
For whatever reason Rossi's camp back
away from doing this.So that's what disapoints
me so much.They had there chance to do the
right thing and Didn't.
One final note about all of this. Vance
makes a big deal about the 11th commandment
you know not attacking your opponent.
The last week of this campaign Vance unleashed
one of the most vicious attacks on mark
hulst that I have not seen in along time.
So I guess the 11th commandment applies to
everyone else but vance.
with that said I will end right there.
"You don't let any toothpaste call themselves Crest. Why would you let any candidate call themselves "Republican?" Let them run as independents, fine. But don't let them dilute the brand. That's the question: can they call themselves "Republican" or "Democrat" on the ballot."
I can run as a Democrat, as I am a member of the party. In the case where I was running against the designated Democratic candidate, I could mention (truthfully) that I am a Democrat, but could not run as the Democratic candididate. (I could also run as a Lion, as I am a member of that organization too.)
If I won the primary, the state party could either endorse my candidacy at that point, or not as it saw fit.
Of course, the parties could institute more formal membership requirements and add by-laws that forbid party members from running against the formal party candidate on penalty of expulsion. Heck, they could institute uniforms if they wanted to, and could get their members to go along.
Now, voters (both sides) that don't even bother to read their voter's pamphlets might have a difficult time. Folks that in the past, simply looked for the (R) or (D) and checked the block, might have a problem.
We have Democrats that do just that, and you've undoubtably got Republicans that do the same. Some of that could be solved by differing between "Republican (Declared)" and "Designated Republican Candidate."
It's not so much allowing another "toothpaste" to call itself "Crest" as saying that another store can sell "Crest" other than the "official Crest store."
Posted by: John Barelli on January 30, 2005 01:39 PMIf that's how Crest wanted it to be, then that's how it would be.
Yes, but to do that, Crest has to put in place restrictions that forbid anyone but official Crest suppliers from using the name.
Here in Washington, we self-declare our party affiliation. The Washington State Republican Party has the option, if it wishes, to require people to formally join, pay dues, carry a membership card with a serial number, and then declare that anyone not meeting those standards is not a Republican and cannot use the name.
If it does so, it can then make the claim "Those aren't ideologies or philosophies, they are concrete organizations with rules and officers and members." You can also do away with those pesky "Log Cabin Republicans", "Republicans for Choice" and anyone else that disagrees with the party platform.
Your party has (wisely, I believe) chosen not to do that. The "down side" to that choice is that if candidates wish to say they are "Republicans," then they are. Much like we Democrats had to put up with Lyndon LaRouche a few years back.
Still, if you want to institute more control over who becomes a Republican, then I, as a Democrat say "more power to you!" We'll be happy to find a place for all the folks you toss out. We won't even make them wear a uniform.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 30, 2005 03:51 PMFor the past several years, we have lobbied for a full vote on the Executive Board---which until McCain/Feinstein, many other states allowed. With the new 527 rules, auxallaries are relegated to an observatory role. Fredi's election as state vice chair is welcome news.
While I have been waylaid with the flu and missed the meeting, I would also like to commend Mark Hulst and Rose Strong. Rose is an FRW member and a great leader---she will not go away I can guarantee, and for that we are all appreciative. I have not yet Mark, but his reputation precedes him. I was happy to see that we had open and lively discussion in our Chairman's race.
Jennifer Holder, President
Washington Federation of Republican Women