Both today’s and last Thrusday’s WSJ Political Diary ($) contain entries discussing the 2006 Senate race in Washington State. The common sense prediction is that it will be a tight contest. Bad news for Senator Maria Cantwell.
Last week, John Fund discussed the possibility of a high-tech rematch between former Congressman Rick White and incumbent Sen. Cantwell. Fund cites a recent report in National Journal’s Technology Daily stating that White is stepping down as president of Silicon Vallye’s TechNet and will be returning to Washington State. Fund It was White who unseated Cantwell in a Congressional race in 1994.
Fund goes on to note the following:
Should Mr. White run next year, he will benefit from a Republican Party that is more united than it's been in decades, in part due to solidarity over what party activists see as the unfair recount that snatched victory away from Dino Rossi, last year's GOP candidate for governor.
Quite so. Republicans are more united than ever here, and White will not be troubled by the problem that beset him in his 1998 Congressional race; namely, a challenge from a far-right, radical third-party candidate who had virtually ZERO appeal to most Washington State voters.
In today’s Political Diary, Brendan Miniter writes that Sen. Cantwell will likely face THE toughest Senate race for incumbent Democrats from red states or states that barely went for Sen. Kerry last November. Says Miniter:
She'll be the first Democrat to face the voters after last year's bitter Washington State governor's race. The Democrats won the governorship, but only amid wide speculation of recount fraud. Look for her to find a way to reach across the aisle in hopes of diminishing Republican anger.
We’re still waiting for Sen Cantwell to reach across the aisle. Last week she followed lock-step with Teddy Kennedy in the Senate Democrats' failed attempt to block the confirmation of Judge Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. (A half-dozen Democrats supported Judge Gonzales.) Will she take a tough stance against voter fraud? Or will she make laughably hyperbolic statements with Baghdad Bob believability about the supposed model elections we just held? Will she come through and support the President on Social Security reform? Or will she deprive me and plenty of other under-30 voters the ability to choose how to invest some of our own hard-earned money for retirement, and let Big Government Bureaucracy decide how to run our lives?
As it now stands, Rick White has a great shot. We will be watching.
(Cross-blogged at Seth Cooper's personal blog.)
Posted by Seth Cooper at February 10, 2005 01:08 PM | Email ThisPolitics
Congressman: Democrat Leadership Threatening 'Retribution' for Dems Who Cooperate with White House
by Allan H. Ryskind
Posted Feb 10, 2005
Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) was asked at a CATO conference in Washington yesterday whether he had persuaded any Democrats to back his plan to rescue Social Security from its financial troubles. Under his legislation (HR 4851), no new taxes would be needed to pay for "transition costs," participation in the new system would be voluntary and individuals would be allowed to divert a portion of their payroll tax into a mutual fund.
A questioner from the audience, stressing his own Democratic credentials, said he believed Ryan's plan should attract members of his own party and wondered whether the Wisconsin lawmaker had secured any Democratic sponsors. Ryan said he had been working with friends on the "other side of the aisle" who were favorable toward his solution, but he faced an enormous problem: intense pressure on his colleagues from the minority leadership.
"We were in planning stages [with friendly Democrats]," said Ryan. But each essentially told him: "I like what you're doing. I like this bill. I think it's the right way to go. But my party leadership will break my back. The retribution that they are promising us is as great as I have ever seen. We can't do it."
Ryan said he believed the only thing that can assure passage is an outpouring from America's grassroots.
This is what her party looks like to the rest of the country. And her party here in Washington. This blog is the grassroots. This is the front line.
But I think she will be difficult to defeat. I don't see the general dislike of her the way people had about Gregoire and her sorority racist past or the 20+ million 'goof-up'. Dino played up what he would do for Washington while pointing out the multi-million dollar goof-up. A lot of left-leaning voters held that against her.
While I hugely disagree with Cantwell's socialist positions, I don't think most WA voters see her as damaged goods. Perhaps White could, among other things, play up her phoniness about 'paying for her race with her own money' when the real situation was more shady than that.
However, I'd be happy to be wrong in my predictions re this.
Posted by: Michele S on February 10, 2005 01:39 PMYes, no?
Posted by: jimg on February 10, 2005 01:41 PMHastert Launches a Partisan Policy
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2004; Page A01
In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.
Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.
Senators from both parties, leaders of the Sept. 11 commission and others have sharply criticized the policy. The long-debated intelligence bill would now be law, they say, if Hastert and his lieutenants had been humble enough to let a high-profile measure pass with most votes coming from the minority party.
That is what Democrats did in 1993, when most House Democrats opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Bill Clinton backed NAFTA, and leaders of the Democratic-controlled House allowed it to come to a vote. The trade pact passed because of heavy GOP support, with 102 Democrats voting for it and 156 voting against. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the House GOP leader at the time, declared: "This is a vote for history, larger than politics . . . larger than personal ego."
Such bipartisan spirit in the Capitol now seems a faint echo. Citing the increased marginalization of Democrats as House bills are drafted and brought to the floor, Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) said, "It's a set of rules and practices which the Republicans have taken to new extremes."
Read the entire article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15423-2004Nov26.html.
We can either continue to escalate the partisanship, or both sides can try to work together, and tone down the rhetoric.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 10, 2005 01:46 PMHastert Launches a Partisan PolicyBy Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 27, 2004; Page A01In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he, the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which Congress will pass bills only if most House Republicans back them, regardless of how many Democrats favor them.
Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats' influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if "the majority of the majority" supports them.
Senators from both parties, leaders of the Sept. 11 commission and others have sharply criticized the policy. The long-debated intelligence bill would now be law, they say, if Hastert and his lieutenants had been humble enough to let a high-profile measure pass with most votes coming from the minority party.
That is what Democrats did in 1993, when most House Democrats opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement. President Bill Clinton backed NAFTA, and leaders of the Democratic-controlled House allowed it to come to a vote. The trade pact passed because of heavy GOP support, with 102 Democrats voting for it and 156 voting against. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the House GOP leader at the time, declared: "This is a vote for history, larger than politics . . . larger than personal ego."
Such bipartisan spirit in the Capitol now seems a faint echo. Citing the increased marginalization of Democrats as House bills are drafted and brought to the floor, Rep. David E. Price (D-N.C.) said, "It's a set of rules and practices which the Republicans have taken to new extremes."
Read the entire article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15423-2004Nov26.html.
We can either continue to escalate the partisanship, or both sides can try to work together.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 10, 2005 01:48 PMNo one bothered asking her why it is ok for her and Patty to have them and not us. Hmmmm
I expect we shall see her around scaring old people soon.
You can't tell me that you Puget Sound folks have THAT short a memory -- is it not true that Rick boinked his campaign staffer, left his wife estranged, divorced, then married the staffer??
At least I KNOW when Maria's lying.
Posted by: Cryptometaphor on February 10, 2005 01:53 PMAnd your point is?
One one hand, we have a party (the Republicans) who say that they won't push legislation forward unles most of the majority favors it, regardless of how the minority party feels toward it. This sounds like majority-rules politics to me, which is also called 'the American way.'
On the other hand, we have a party (the Democrats) who will punish their people if they side with the majority.
I don't think these two situations are at all alike. And, I might remind you, the reason the Republicans are the majority party is that the majority of Americans voted for them.
Only going forward with what the majority feels is right does not equal retribution against those who would join the majority consensus.
Posted by: Larry on February 10, 2005 02:00 PMWell if that's the criteria then I think Maria beats White hands down!
Posted by: Daniel K on February 10, 2005 02:00 PMMy point was clearly state: we can either continue to escalate the partisanship, or both sides can try to work together, and tone down the rhetoric.
This sounds like majority-rules politics to me, which is also called 'the American way.'
Majority rules should apply to each vote: if a vote receives 50% of the vote plus 1 that's a majority. The Hastert policy means a potential vote of 317 in favor of a bill, at 73% of the House of Representatives, but less than 50% of Republicans, would not be allowed to come to the floor for passage. That is NOT 'the American way'.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 10, 2005 02:10 PM
When only 66 of the 113 state committee members
vote to relected chris vance it pretty much says
it all.It is a very divided party otherwise.
alot of things have to change for us to be united
and that is not going happen overnight.
We can either continue to escalate the partisanship, or both sides can try to work together. Posted by Daniel K at February 10, 2005 01:48 PM
I have to chuckle at Daniel K's comment. Whenever it suits the Ds, their rhetoric is as corrosive as it gets. But when they see the Rs starting to make some points, they get full of sweetness and light about the need for civil discourse. The real question is about the extent to which voters are beginning to perceive the hypocrisy. The lefties have a solution to that, too: a fraud-friendly election process.
Posted by: Boonie on February 10, 2005 02:23 PMHappy reading Conservative pals (Sorry Dems/Libs, read it and weep).
:-)
Posted by: Cheryl on February 10, 2005 02:28 PMIn a caption with your story "Why the Midterms Matter" [NATION, Oct. 19], you said of my ex-husband, Republican Congressman Rick White of Washington State's 1st District, that "he's had his own marital problems: his wife recently divorced him." You didn't do your homework. The statement should have read, "He recently divorced and left his wife and four young children." VIKKI KENNEDY WHITE Bainbridge Island, Wash.
Ouch! That's the kind of thing that haunts a politician, the fury of a woman scorned and all that. Maybe White's ex has mellowed since then, but if she hasn't, she could pretty much single-handedly torpedo his campaign by dredging up the hurt and pain he caused his family. And even if she intends to let bygones be bygones, I would bet that how he handled his divorce is will still crop up as an issue in his campaign.
Also, Cantwell may not be as vulnerable as Republicans like to believe. The state Dems released a poll today that showed pretty good numbers for her: her overall favorable-unfavorable ratio is better than that of Patty Murray (who dispatched Nethercutt with ease), and she polls well among independents in particular. On the negative side, she is behind the eight-ball in terms of fundraising (though if she had to, I imagine she could dump a few million dollars of her own money into the race, as she did against Gorton). And I suspect she will have a top-notch political team, who will not repeat some of the mistakes made by the Gregoire campaign. National Democrats, of course, are going to work like hell to keep that seat.
Plus, White has been out of action now for six years, which is a long time in politics. There are probably people who are just as well, if not better, known who might make tougher opponents for Cantwell. Rossi would make the best candidate, if he could be persuaded to run (and if, as is frankly likely, his election contest does not succeed), but there are others -- hint: look at some of those who turned down the governor's race -- who might be in a better position to give Cantwell a run for her money than White.
From "Maria's Monday Memo" dated February 7, 2005:
"...I believe strongly in our Social Security system, and want to make sure that the federal government keeps its promise to retirees across the nation. Unfortunately, I believe that the plan President Bush recently proposed could cost taxpayers two trillion dollars while letting part of the Social Security trust fund ride on the stock market..."
Floodgates of fear are opened.
Did you see the recent Bush-Blast-Photo-op? Patty Murray at the FDR statue with Reid, Schumer, Jeffords and Corzine on 2/3/2005? "We are here by FDR's statue because we believe that Social Security is the greatest government program of the 20th century," said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.). "We ought to keep it, not gut it."
In a message to Congress on January 17, 1935, FDR said the following:
"...“…In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."
Posted by: GMT on February 10, 2005 02:35 PMFunny how you picked up on part of my post, but chose not to comment on the other.
You still haven't commented on the retribution of the Democrats on those who would join the majority - which I believe is FAR more dangerous than passing bills according to the majority of the majority. Did Hastert imply there would be retribution against Republicans who backed Democratic-sponsored legislation?
And I agree with SnoCo Voter - the Democrats flexed their muscles as much, if not more, during the 60 or more years last century they were in power. And the politics of the 1800s were even more divisive.
Posted by: Larry on February 10, 2005 02:50 PMAre we forgetting Delay threatening to take away funding from an Ohio Congressman's son if he didn't change his vote on the medicare drug bill? And who was the sitting presiding officer of the House that kept the vote open until Delay could strong arm the republicans? That is right, new ethics committee member Doc Hasert.
And let's not even mention the Whitehouse using a ringer in the press corps (Jeff Gannon) or paying off pundits. Or, for that matter, spending over twice as much as the Clinton Whitehouse on Public Relations.
Posted by: JDB on February 10, 2005 03:08 PMLarry, we've all seen what party "disloyalty" in the Republican party, or dissent in the White House has resulted in.
As for commenting on the other part of your post, I don't like destructive partisan politics from either party, so if you want me to be an apologist for such actions from Democrats I won't be. Keep in mind Ryan is a Republican, so one has to take what he says Democrats are telling other Democrats with caution.
Posted by: Daniel K on February 10, 2005 03:09 PMInsane. Delusional. Ludacris.
This Party hierarchy is incompetent beyond adequate words to describe it. Depending on a Vance-led anything is an exercise in shear folly.
Just ask those who lost their seats in the House and Senate under his "able assistance." Just ask the President, where Vance's firm hand led to an even bigger defeat in this state than 2000.
With Michael Young "leading" the King County Republican Party, Cantwell is sure to start out 200,000 votes ahead in '06. She is, therefore (and unfortunately) a lock on re-election.... save a federal indictment of some sort.
Posted by: Nobody Special on February 10, 2005 03:17 PMI agree with the assessment, but I would go further: Politics in the two party system we have means the leadership will rule over the members they finance come (re-)election time. The problem is, either party will lay down the gauntlet on one or several supremely divisive issues.
You can rest assured that without Dem help, nothing will be done on SS reform. The question is, "How much 'help' from the Democrats would be beneficial to the final SS reformation package?"
As for Cantwell, I am still scratching my head trying to think of something positive to say about her. What has she done in the last four years? Besides whine?
Posted by: smegma on February 10, 2005 03:22 PMDo you even think for a minute Bush would have proposed the higher energy costs for us if we had a strong Senator or a Republican?
The practical reasons for a Republican are great.
Posted by: swatter on February 10, 2005 03:22 PMIf I remember correctly, it wasn't just his divorce, but wasn't part of the reason that Bruce Craswell got as much of the vote as he did was because White flip-flop on abortion and gun control?
I would even vote for a pro-choice, moderate gun-control Republican over Cantwell without all that much problem, but I WOULD have a problem voting for a previously pro-life, pro-gun control guy who is now pro-choice, anti-gun sorta guy.
It seems to me that there must be a better candidate out there. Diane Tebelius maybe. King County Councilwoman Jane Hague, State Sen. Luke Esser, or heck, maybe even good'ole Slade again! If Lautenberg can do it, why not Slade?
Posted by: Cliff Smith on February 10, 2005 03:43 PMI am tired of blue suit republicans being foisted on us. Nethercutt was a prime example. GW is becoming an example as well (note the lack of ANY substitive comments regarding illegal immigration).
No, if this fellow is a pro-life, pro-gun squish he'll not get my vote nor my support. This PCP will sit on his hands.
Sorry Chris Vance wing, but you put all your eggs in the Nethercutt basket, and they, well... broke.
Now the yoke will be on you.
I just don't see how (or who) Cantwell can be beat. It is going to take a few years to fix this state party.
Selah
Posted by: EastWaRepub on February 10, 2005 04:01 PMPaging Jennifer Dunn. Jennifer? Please...come out come out wherever you are...
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on February 10, 2005 04:13 PM"Larry, we've all seen what party "disloyalty" in the Republican party, or dissent in the White House has resulted in."
A landslide Presidential victory with gains in the House and Senate for several terms running? Go ahead and keep excusing the retribution, Daniel K. That sort of thing, along with judicial filibusters and stealing elections, will guarantee that the Democrats do not have enough power to do ANYTHING for several generations.
Posted by: Larry on February 10, 2005 04:24 PMWell, she brought the Enron tape transcriptions to light. The DOE sure wasn't going to do that... Better than a spouse cheater, and no, I didn't apologize for Clinton at the time either.
I've heard Diane Tebelius is testing the water for a senate run. She teased the crowd at Wednesday's Bainbridge Island Republican Women's luncheon with that suggestion.
Last September & October at two election fundraisers in Kitsap County, KTTH Radio personality Mike Seigel said he's thinking about tossing in his hat, too. This could be an interesting cycle.
Posted by: Robert from Kitsap on February 10, 2005 04:36 PMTo help solve this, Hillary Clinton held several parties with lobbyists to raise the money. No, it isn't PAC money. But it is special interest money.
So, she stuck to her letter of campaign promise, but not to the intent. When it came down to it, she thumbed her nose at Washington state voters, and bent over for the Wash DC establishment. Clinton has bought her 100%.
But no one in this state cares.
Posted by: Janet S on February 10, 2005 04:55 PMHe ran on family values and pictured himself with his wife and children when he ran against Cantwell.
Nice. Only problem is that he then divorced her after the election in a "messy" fashion. Go Rick.
------
Democrat Inslee bests incumbent White for Washington House seat
(AllPolitics, November 4) -- In a race that was too close to call for much of the night, Rep. Rick White (R-Washington) was defeated by his Democratic challenger, Jay Inslee.
Jay Inslee
White, a two-term representative of Washington's 1st congressional district, had been near the top of the Democratic target list for most of the election cycle.
While White portrayed himself as a moderate, Inslee painted the incumbent as much more conservative than that. White has departed from his conservative brethren on some issues, including opposing a constitutional ban on flag burning.
White's most recent problem involved his very public, rather messy divorce. After White used his wife and children in his campaign four years ago against an unmarried challenger, his family troubles undermined his appeal.
----
time to kick some radical liberals out of the senate. can't wait. a lousey liberal feminist who can't vote well.
Posted by: ray on February 10, 2005 06:48 PMYah, I am aware Tebelius is thinking about running, I know her personally, although not well, and I hope she does run. White wouldn't get much of the party structure support if she ran, and she'd be a better candidate IMHO.
Anyhow, I didn't actually support her in the primary in the 8th, but I've liked her better the more I've gotten to know her, and she's a great fundraiser, and the papers seem to like her.
I don't know much about the specifics of White's divorce, and it's entirely likely I misudnerstood his positions on some issues, but the fact that I did just proves that he's got image problems.
That said, I really don't have a problem with anybody if they demonstrate to me they can win. I just want to have a non-liberal nutcase Senator from Washington.
Posted by: Cliff Smith on February 10, 2005 06:55 PMDemocrat Inslee bests incumbent White for Washington House seat
(AllPolitics, November 4) -- In a race that was too close to call for much of the night, Rep. Rick White (R-Washington) was defeated by his Democratic challenger, Jay Inslee."
Where have we heard this before?????
How much history has been altered by KC elections procedures?????
Posted by: Mac on February 10, 2005 08:08 PM"White's most recent problem involved his very public, rather messy divorce."
I guess that's what happens when Republicans have unreconcilable marital difficulties - they actually split up!
Lord knows that any self-respecting, independent, self-sufficient woman whose husband had two dozen marital affairs and raped several women would divorce him immediately. However, I have no idea why Hillary Clinton is still with Bill. I think it may be because her chances of being elected to the Senate and the White House are better if she does not get a divorce. I guess she's staying in that bad relationship because of the power it bestows upon her. What do you think?
Posted by: Larry on February 10, 2005 08:19 PMIf Republicans really want to get her, they'd run a moderate woman who is pro-choice.
You can't always get everything you want, but you can get Cant-do-anything-well out if you're willing to compromise.
Remember too that Rossi has young children and a family that is pretty well established in his home area. Pulling up stakes and moving 3000 miles across the country can be very disruptive to family life. Either that or live separately, and that is even harder to do, as those of us with a good family life will attest.
Frankly, I don't think any Republican has a prayer against Cantwell. Cantwell is a much more attractive candidate statewide that Fraudoire. Fraudoire ran a lousy campaigm from what I've heard, and I don't think Cantwell will make that mistake. Democrats who were reluctant to support Fraudoire and were attracted to Rossi in the governor's race will likely have no second thoughts about pulling the lever for Cantwell. You have to try, because in politics that is all you can do, but whoever is recruited to take on Cant-Do-Well will likely be a sacrificial lamb, facing a long, difficult, uphill slog as an underdog. It has been done before, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking it's a slam dunk, for Rossi, or anybody else.
Posted by: Interested Observer on February 11, 2005 05:40 AMThe second reason is that Cantwell opened my eyes to the reality that Hitler himself could come back from the grave, put a big "D" next to his name, and win any statewide office due to the heavy partisan lean of the state's electorate. Cantwell had nothing to offer (still doesn't), and unseated a respected and powerful senior senator.
Third is that I don't believe that Maria has ever had an original thought. You could read to me the meat and bones of any piece of legislation on which she has voted in the last four years, and I could tell you how she voted with well over 99% accuracy. She typifies the career politician voting in lockstep with her party leadership, just to avoid angering that leadership and with an eye only to being reelected. She has engaged in party-line obstructionism for the last four years, without accomplishing much of anything of substance.
Despite all that, it will be tough for any repub to beat her. She hasn't done anything so horribly negative that she will lose the support of any of her base (i.e. the 56% or so of registered voters who blindly vote the straight- party demo ticket). I believe that the only chance is a moderate pro-choice female candidate who has some name recognition. I don't know of any on this side of the state, and I must profess to ignorance of any on the west side of the state other than Jennifer Dunn.
Maybe Maria will step in some during the next year or so, but I believe that she will soften some of her stances in the next few months in anticipation of a tougher-than-expected race in 2006.
Posted by: Spokane Repub on February 11, 2005 10:56 AMI'm a genuine conservative, which is why I don't favor Bush's solution for "saving" social security either, which only puts us further in debt and does nothing to resolve the impending shortfall in revenues. In fact, it only expedites it.
But I'm not totally opposed to providing an ownership aspect of social security. In fact, I think it's smart. But it can be done much cheaper. There's already a system in place in just about every public and private enterprise today in the form of 401k's and 403b's. Start by letting people divert a portion of their payroll taxes directly into those accounts and in turn get a dollar for dollar reduction in SS benefits. Transition costs for this solution are minimal and it would encourage every business to have a 401k plan if they do not already.
Then, remove the cap on SS wages BUT for every dollar over the current limit, say $0.25 goes into the existing private account. There goes your shortfall in revenues.
Posted by: Palouse on February 14, 2005 05:34 PM