Here's my cover story in today's Seattle Weekly, "Blue City Conservatives." The standard joke when anyone mentions Seattle Republicans is something along the lines of, "All two of them?" Or, "do they meet in a phone booth?" In fact, Seattle Republicans are somewhat more numerous, and coming out of the closet. My story, I hope, does not sugarcoat the harsh climate for Republicans in Seattle, but neither is it totally downbeat. Probably the most essential point comes at the end.
Read on.
In a much-noted essay published online in The American Thinker in March, conservative commentator Ed Lasky argued that with suburbs no longer strictly the province of Republicans, and with big-city Democratic mayors becoming more skilled at co-opting Republican big-business interests, " . . . now is precisely the time for Republicans to extend their dominance in areas heretofore considered terra incognita: the nation's cities. . . . This [current] capitulation is wrong. . . . It is based on an outmoded and distorted view of city residents. . . . The Democrats see major cities as cash cows to be milked for favored groups; we should see them as areas . . . that with the right type of Republican activism and resources could be painted red. We should no longer avert our eyes from the city, for we do so at our own peril."Put another way, as Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Issaquah continue to turn purple, Seattle must begin to do so as well. It's time to make Seattle a two-party town.
To regain some of the many seats Seattle Rs once held in the state legislature, the party must start recruiting stronger candidates for putatively "non-partisan" local offices. Here's an interesting fact that got cut from my Weekly piece due to space considerations. It turns out that in local elections here, turnout is anemic: liberals haven't captured any hearts and minds at all in city politics. Weary of the silliness and stridency, most people have simply tuned out.
A Seattle district elections proposal was last defeated in 2003, by seven percent (with voter turnout in that contest a scant 34.7 percent. Under the at-large elections system, even fewer voters cared about the “hot” council races that year, contests resulting in defeat of three damaged incumbents and the hair’s breadth victory of another. Each of the five ’03 council contests drew weak registered voter turnout ranging from 31 to 34 percent. But if, rather than just registered voters, the total pool of registered and eligible-to-register, 18-and-older Seattle residents were taken into account, all the ’03 council contests would have seen lower turnout still, by at least several percentage points.
When more than two-thirds of Seattle voters ignore city council elections, there is an opening for conservative candidates with the right background and message to get elected. The right background is business and community service; the right message is core city services, infrastructure, economic development and school choice - over pandering to liberal special interests.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at June 15, 2005 08:53 AM | Email ThisThey don't have the time or the luxury to play around with politics.
It's a shame because those that are *left* are the least capable of leading.
The problem with the GOP in cities, and in this and many other states (where, contrary to Mr. Amused's comments, there once were a great number of Republicans willing to spend time in public service up to the 1980s) is that the GOP has become captive to the far right, and driven out the moderate Republicans in the mode of Dan Evans that could win state wide (as opposed to loose by 15% points), and could reach consensus to move issues forward.
Now, moderates are turned on for not toeing the party line, and consensus is attacked (look at the anti-road repair initiative). As long as the far right in this state and other places demands all or nothing, they will have to be happy with a lot of nothing.
Posted by: JDB on June 15, 2005 09:18 AMIt was about some poor shmuck legislators whose district was blackmailed for their vote. If they didn't vote for it, the Ds in charge were going to cut off funding for projects already in the hopper. Hardly a recipe for your rant.
Posted by: swatter on June 15, 2005 09:27 AMAn example: Doug Sutherland our State Lands Commissioner. Talk to him, but the history as I recall it is that after setting up a very successful business in downtown Tacoma, he became interested in running for the legislature. So he filed and ran twice for 27th District (Tacoma/North Tacoma) House and lost. But he did the work, he doorbelled, he raised some money and he got involved. But no joy (military talk for not acquiring the target). He then ran for the non-partisan City Council and won because he had done the ground work during the partisan race. The rest is history...he was as city councilman, Mayor of Tacoma, then - finally - ran for and won the County Exec race twice - a partisan race. Then, of course, he ran statewide for Lands Commissioner and won twice. He is exactly what that post needs by the way, a business thinker in an agency whose job is business - growing and selling trees to provide money for school construction.
From a very Democrat district, a Republican can win if he or she is a bit patient, gets involved and lets the populace see that they are trustworthy leaderw not just what the media or the other party paints them as.
Deryl McCarty
Chair, Pierce County Republican Party
And thomas on lower Queen Anne: the 36th District Republicans meet the fourth Thursday of each month at the Magnolia United Church of Christ. They would love to see you and your wife there.
Posted by: Andy MacDonald on June 15, 2005 09:57 AMI have voted for plenty of Repulicans in my time, I have nothing against Republicans, but as Hoplophile's post above shows, the demand for absolute ideological purity is going to eventually destroy your party. Joel Prichard, Ralph Munro, Sam Reed, Dan Evans were all good men who care more about this state than being ideologically pure. Strangely enough, they are also the only Republicans that can win in Seattle and state wide.
If you like losing state wide by 20%, keep going the way you are going. But I miss having a choice in an election between two reasonable canidates who want to make this state better.
Posted by: JDB on June 15, 2005 11:21 AMWhat the election trial proved was that for Republicans to overcome JDB's 20% statewide margin, they need to get out more of the felon vote. Apparently, none of them voted for the Democrat.
-- Which party would Scoop Jackson belong to today?
Posted by: gonzagino on June 15, 2005 11:55 AMScoop would be a Democrat, no questions asked.
No, the way the GOP does better is nominate people that can reach out to both sides, which Rossi was able to do, which is why he did well. It will be much harder for him now that he has been tarred by the likes of Chris Vance and Dale Foreman. As I have posted many times on this BLog, Rossi (and to a lesser extent McKenna, although he had the great grace to have a good candidate (Sidran) knocked out by the right playing games in the primary) was not one of the far right idelogues that turns off 60% of the election (compare and contrast John Carlson or George Nethercut).
Of course, Rossi's ability to bring in all people would probably have had this blog tearing him apart like they do Sam Reed if he had been appointed Govenor.
If you are going to have a Republican elected in Seattle, or state wide in general, you need someone that will appeal to a state that leans strong blue. Not impossible, but not what the current leadership of the GOP wants. They would rather go down in flames than represent the best interest of the people of this state.
Posted by: JDB on June 15, 2005 12:17 PMAnother note. The Republican Party can do a lot more as far as grass-roots organization. If we had each self-identified republican connected with each other, training each other, and encouraging each other, we would be unstoppable.
Final note. One republican victory in Seattle would paint the entire state Red. The reason? The victory would inspire a whole lotta republicans who feel like they can't win in a blue state to work and earn a win.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on June 15, 2005 12:37 PMWe'll probably live half of our lives under the administration of a president we did not vote for. Democracy MEANS that your side will not win all of the time. Whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House - there will probably be the same amount of suffering and unsurmountable problems in the world. Why people spend so much emotional energy hating a politician, I'll never understand.
Posted by: April on June 15, 2005 12:52 PMI always considered myself sort of a liberal, and I always voted for Democrats.
Then something interesting happened: when I stopped identifying myself rigidly in that category, liberals (even my friends!) regarded me instantly as a right-winger. It didn't matter if I shared their beliefs on 90% of politics, I didn't consider myself one of them, so I was a right-winger.
Fortunately, this made me feel free to explore the dark side, and my politics changed further after that.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 15, 2005 01:03 PMyou wrote: "I have voted for plenty of Repulicans in my time."
Posted by: KS on June 15, 2005 04:38 PM
The article should have been titled 'Blue City RINO(s)'.
1) The KC GOP can't even keep their web site relevant, with a lame "redesign" notice to explain their inability to notify the public about why people should vote for Republicans - just after their County Convention and 6 weeks before candidate filing. That's brilliant marketing ...
http://www.kcgop.org
The GOP is DOA around the Seattle metroplex - the only effort they can muster is wasteful internecine battles that don't win policy majorities.
2) The Seattle R Yahoo group (all 7 of them) hasn't had a message since Feb 23, 2005
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seattlerepublicans/
I've seen rotting fish with more vigor.
3) The 60 members over at the Seattle R Meetup can't get any event together; can't even get an Organizer.
http://republican.meetup.com/235/
Terry Schiavo showed more signs of life.
If it looks and smells dead, bury it.
Posted by: FreeRangeAuthor on June 15, 2005 05:43 PMSpielmeister: What pray tell is conservative about being pro-abortion rights and pro homosexual marriage (civil unions are the same thing)? From my perspective, a conservative philosophy of limited government also means limiting the government's role in other people's underpants.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 15, 2005 07:51 PMI have been a lurker to this site for several months now- always observing, never participating. But I have to get something off my chest, something made crystal by two events that happened today.
I have lived in Western Washington most of my life, and in Seattle for most of that. Even when I was in the military, I transferred as quickly as I could back to Wash. I have always voted in every election since I first turned 18, and always went to the polling place to vote, except when I was active duty, which I voted absentee. And I always voted Democrat, as I felt that the Republicans had nothing that I liked to bring to my world. I always associated myself with liberal policies. That slowly started to change due in part to 9/11, both the attack itself and how both parties dealt with it. I started to feel my beloved party start to go in a direction I was really uncomfortable with, becoming more and more extreme in it's actions, foregoing common sense in favor of party ideaology. But for the most part, with the exception of REALLY disliking Ron Simms, I still tended to favor them.
Then came the 2004 election.
And i witnessed the party I always sided with, the one that I believed would act more inline with my ideals, become truly a foreign entity. I would listen to them cry out how terrible it was that all three branches of the federal government was the worst thing to ever happen, yet when I asked why that's bad yet all three branches controlled by one party in are state is good, I started to get my loyalities questioned. When they screamed about vote fraud in Florida and in Ohio, I asked them about what happened here, was it fraud as well? They riduculed me, claiming I could not see that these were just minor errors, voting is like making sausages, sometimes a bit sloppy. And when Dino lost the court case, I heard and saw leaders of the Democratic party do their level best to rip apart Dino and the Republican party, acting like children who only focused on part of what was said, rather than what was really said. I when I asked them about it, I was actually called a right wing reactionary. Me, a guy that anywhere else in America would be considered a Liberal. So I truly began to wonder why I couldn't follow the party line any more, what was the reason I can no longer associate myself with the party, at least state-wise. The answer finally came to me today from two different sources. The first was this artical, which I read while on break at work.
The second came from talk show I sometimes listen to while cleaning at my job. I was listening to Mike Webb on Kiro, and he had a guest on who claimed that the WTC Towers were collapsed not by airplanes, but by demolitions. and both Mike and his callers were agreeing with his work despite two VERY obvious pproblems with it:
1: The man was a politician with NO experience in demolitions. (He just believed that since Bush lied about WMDs, he MUST have lied about 9/11 as well.)
2: I watched LIVE the second plane hit the WTC.
It was then I had an epithany as too why I could no longer call myself a Democrat, or even a Liberal. The Left's utter hatred at George Bush, and nearly utter hatred at Republicans in general has made it that they are willing to concoct ANYTHING to paint Republicans and Conservatives badly. It wasn't terrorists that did all those attacks on 9/11, it was Dick Cheney and his black ops crew of C.E.O.s that did it. There was no fraud in the Washington election, because Democrats would NEVER be dishonest, for they are the party that is all light and goodness. It's not bad that Washington is controlled in all three branches by the Democratic party, because the Democrats are smarter, more sophisticated, and better in general than those Bible lovin', Gay-bashing, Women-hating, KKK controlled Neocons.
I know this post is a bit long, but I felt it was necessary to pour this out. While I am not willing to call myself by any party name anymore, I feel it should be known that because of the hypocracy I have witnessed by my former party, I am now no longer going to vote for Democratic nominees for any local and statewide elections. I can no longer stand the attitude I see from them. And you know something? I feel that because what has been exposed these last several months, there will be more like me, silent members tired of being taken for granted, who want common sense to return to the area.
One can hope.
Domo.
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on June 16, 2005 02:14 AMI've always said it a similar way. If the Homosexual lobby wants the government out of their bedroom, perhaps the homosexuals ought to keep their bedroom out of the government. And in thinking about it, keep their bedroom off the public streets during parades. Posted by: PC on June 16, 2005 08:41 AM
You can make that argument about abortion (and my criterion is different than yours, I measure by social mores and history rather than the more simplistic political formulas elitist-academia has forced on us--for example 'neo-cons' are not actually 'new conservatives' as the terminology implies, they are typically uber-social liberals who just like aircraft carrier diplomacy)... but you can't make it about gay marriage or civil unions.
Activist judges and loonies from the far left machinating in rabid hysteria--even after it's voted down overwhelmingly in 11 red and blue states they still won't shut up about it--to compel the rest of us to validate and affirm an alternative non-traditional lifestyle with a sanctity we would not otherwise afford, most certainly is NOT CONSERVATIVE.
Conservative is simply ignoring it like we do Rupaul.
That being said, I think they key point I drew out of this is that all these up and coming Seattle Repubs are only conservative on fiscal and military issues. On hot button social issues, they tend to be moderate to liberal.
The question I have is this. If the national Republican Party continues its trend of putting anti-abortion, gay and environmental platforms front and center, what will the "blue city conservatives" do?
Posted by: D.W. on June 16, 2005 11:47 AMcan't believe Seanet is still around lol. I had them as an ISP 11 years ago when I first got on the net. they have to be one of the oldest existing ISP's in the country.
Posted by: Jim on June 17, 2005 12:01 AMWhen people talk about "limited government", they seem to forget what government is supposed to be limited to...hint, read the Declaration of Independence. Though I can't blame you if you are a product of the public school system in the last 30 years. They probably didn't teach you that. Pick it up and read it some time and then let's have a conversation about limited government.
I'll bet you have no problem with the Federal Department of Education either.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on June 17, 2005 01:40 PM