As a Seattle Republican I'm glad to see U.S. Senate Republican candidate Mike McGavick, understands this, too. Joni Balter in today's Seattle Times: "Seattle bashing is so yesterday." Railing against Seattle liberals doesn't win the party any votes in the suburbs or the city, both of which are increasingly up for grabs, and vital to the GOP's hopes in Washington. Candidates who get elected in Central Puget Sound, like voters, have every right to disagree with the priorities of urban liberal Democrats. I disagree with many myself. Moreover, the documented moonbattery of Seattle's "activist community" can serve to foreclose discussion.
But the challenge is to put forth well-formulated policies on problems in regional transportation, public education, government mission creep, public safety, and more. At the federal level, the biggest pieces are maintaining support for energetic counter-terrorism; developing additional energy resources including alternative fuels; plus addressing unjustified spending, the budget deficit, and the looming insolvency of our nation's Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid systems.
I expect McGavick knows not only that Seattle-bashing doesn't sell, but that he'll need to get a whole lot more specific on the issues than Republican David Irons did in his unsuccesful challenge to King County Executive Ron Sims. Mike: methinks you'd benefit quite handsomely from a campaign blog.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 24, 2005 12:48 PM | Email ThisWhen combined with the increasing R malaise and state party incompetence... it's Cantwell in a yawner.
We'll never win by out democrating the democrats.
Posted by: Common-tater on November 24, 2005 01:07 PMThat's a great campaign plank, equate the vets with the homeless.
Posted by: CandrewB on November 24, 2005 02:43 PMEvery time I look at the exquisitely researched material on this blog about local Democrats supporting vote fraud, I wonder why Republican support of immigration fraud gets no attention.
Posted by: Boonie on November 24, 2005 02:44 PMYou need to make up your mind. You can either have the government developing additional energy resources including alternative fuels or deal with government mission creep.
We are in a market-driven, capitalist economy. The only policy government should have is to stay out of the way and keep a lid on anti-free-market forces (such as antitrust issues).
As for Seattle bashing, playing nice with people who hit below the belt, lie, twist facts, and cover up corruption in government is just dumb. Dino should have gone for the jugular on the democrats and called for federal investigations into King County Elections so the rest of us won't be robbed of our fair standing in the democratic process any longer.
We need to scrap the current model of regional planning and the rail fantasies that go with it, build an appropriate highway system, and give Olympia back to the people of this state (by taking it away from elitists in Seattle).
By the way, I moved out of Seattle after living there for over a decade. I moved because it really started to suck.
Posted by: JB on November 24, 2005 03:14 PM I agree McGavick needs to be a lot more
specific on the issues but he wont.He knows
if he does that he wont get the support of
the Gop base.All we know right now is that
McGavick is pro tax and pro choice.
The other thing that bothers me about Mike
McGavick is he keeps running his mouth about
raising over 800K.Well where is it?To date
according to the FEC website McGavick has
raised 28K all from insurance companies.
Not the over 1000 individual contributors
he would have us believe.
There are specific laws regarding the filing
of campaign disclosure reports.Since there
has been no reporting from McGavick's campaign
I have to believe this whole thing was bluff.
It was designed to get his opponents to drop
out of the race.It worked on Diane Tebelius
it wont work again.
I don't want to here:well McGavick has to
raised the money.If thats true it should have
been reported way before now.
Rossi struck this balance well. No one could accuse him of Seattle bashing, yet neither could he be accused of tolerating Seattle’s excesses. He was clearly conservative, but with a Reagan-esque style optimism that appealed to up-for-grabs voters in Snohomish County, east and south King County, and Pierce County.
That contrasts notably with the “if we just had more conservative candidates who spoke the truth about the issues Republicans would win” mantra that permeates many previous comments. We’ve been there in 1996, 1998, and 2000 in statewide races. Thanks, but no thanks, on a second offering of that bliss.
Phil -
I just looked at the FEC site and it shows him with over $720k raised, which should be through the last reporting period, with the remainder of the over $800k in question showing up in the next round of reports.
I don't know what it is your reading
But there are no individual contributions
listed for Mike McGavick.I just now looked
at the FEC website.The only thing listed are 28
thousand in donations from the insurance
companies.
Balter complaining about someone else's bashing? Does she work for the paper that can't write about politics without using the phrase "Right Wing?" Can't write about the suburbs without using the phrase "cookie cutter" or "Stepford?"
Politics are different today than 10 years ago. The suburbs are different, they are more liberal. It doesn't have anything to do with their commute, but the fact that many of them moved from Seattle. Many of them have moved to the area to work for companies like Microsoft, which means more likely than not they're liberal.
I'm not optimistic about the short term political prospects.
All Republican candidates insist that everyone obey our laws including immigration laws. Who are you saying doesn't? You pose a line of something but it isn't reasoning. How can it be instructive to conclude anything based on nothing especially that somehow Republicans support immigration fraud?
Here's what I did at the site:
Clicked on "Campaign Finance Reports & Data"
Clicked on "Search the Disclosure Database"
Clicked on "Candidate and PAC/Party Summaries"
Then I used these criteria for the search: 2005-2006, candidate campaigns, Washington, US Senate, and the rest "all".
It shows through the last reporting date, 9/30/2005 (I believe the next date is the end of the year), that McGavick has raised over $720k and spent a little over $60k as well. The detailed summary showed he has received just under $670k from individuals.
However, I suspect there's a problem with the FEC site, which I don't recall has ever been a gem, since at both the summary page and using the candidate search function to get more detailed information on McGavick's filings, the search results come up blank for listing the individuals who have contributed...as you noted.
That, however, doesn't give credence to your implied conspiracy that McGavick is just bluffing about having raised that much. If he hadn't, the overall numbers wouldn't show up like they are at the FEC site. If you're that concerned about it, call McGavick's campaign and ask for copies of his reports. Or better yet, call the FEC and ask for copies and alert them to problem accessing full information at their site.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 25, 2005 04:39 PMHe also needs to be a smart campaigner like Dino Rossi, to develop a thick skin and not to let muckraking hacks like Clownstein and seek out dirt and emulate Larry Flynt. Then he will have a legitimate shot, but it will be an uphill climb.
Posted by: KS on November 25, 2005 05:27 PMThank you for being so dismissive of other people's comments. It's nice to see that someone has learned from the liberal playbook.
Seattle is sucking the lifeblood out of our ecomony. While making it harder and more expensive to drive a car and park in Seattle, and therefore harder to do business, the political left in Seattle has driven businesses across the lake to the East side and to other areas (like Chicago). All the while they have been keeping a strangle-hold on transportation dollars preventing solutions to traffic problems around the Puget Sound and across the state. And that's only one of the problems. Care to talk about crime, education or political corruption?
So while 'squishy' Republicans pander to these liberals who call themselves moderates, the state is going down the proverbial toilet (have you visited Occidental Park on a hot summer afternoon?)
This state needs a Rush Limbaugh who will state the facts without fear or favor of man. Politicians won't speak out against the excesses or the pet projects in Seattle that are screwing the rest of the state out of the benefits of their tax dollars.
Posted by: JB on November 25, 2005 05:33 PMWho gives a horses a$$ ? Just you leftist clowns w/o a meaningful life...
Posted by: KS on November 25, 2005 05:36 PMBoth McGavick and the elusive cephalopod S.hutchinsonii are reason enough for me to withold my money and my time from the GOP, and to strongly encourage others to do likewise, until Vance and company become vertebrates and start fielding vertebrates.
As for Seattle? Love the view. Hate the city.
Posted by: ERNurse on November 25, 2005 06:34 PMUntil they realize this, don't expect much.
Personally, I believe the problem is at the top, but that's just my opinion.
Posted by: jaybo on November 26, 2005 08:17 AMER Nurse, ye be right about Vance the Varlet. Where is that knave anyway?
As for Balter the Harpy; she is yellowstream media malodor to be ignored by the virtuous.
Soviet Seattle's nomenklatura, and Sims, must not only be bashed but imprisoned for numerous state and federal cimes.
If government officials do nothing to stop such despotism, then it is the people's right and duty to overthrow such government and provide new guards for their future security.
Our election process is corrupt, therefore we do not have a democracy, we have despotism cloaked in liberalism.
It's a target-rich environment. Take no prisoners.
Posted by: The Pirate on November 26, 2005 12:49 PM
Thanks for cementing my point, because I'm not being dismissive. I’m happy to have a vigorous debate about it, but I think you're wrong. Your inability to distinguish between criticism of past Republican tactics versus being in bed with the left as you imply is part of the reason your line of thinking has a bad record of winning elections for Republicans in this state.
Also, I'm not sure how being an appointee in the Bush administration qualifies me as a "leftist clown" but if you want to try and make that argument be my guest.
And as a side note, it is laughable to argue that Seattle is "sucking the lifeblood" out of the state's economy. If you want to make the argument that elected officials from Seattle, particularly in the legislature, are harming the state's economy with anti-business friendly policies that's an excellent point. But your comments seem to imply that if Seattle as a whole is an economic drag on the rest of the state, which by any number of measures whether it be unemployment, jobs created, etc. is simply inaccurate. A healthy, albeit imperfect, Seattle is good for the state’s economy despite its leftist tint.
Lastly, we have had a Rush Limbaugh type candidate in this state. His name was John Carlson. He ran against an unimpressive incumbent. And he got rocked.
Distinguishing between left-leaning Seattle politicians and the people who continually elect them is a distinction without a difference. Add to that federal elections (Murray, Cantwell, etc.), Initiatives/Referendums (I-912) and legislation that cripples hardworking business and families who happen to live outside of Seattle (CAO, etc.) that are largely determined by Seattle and their election machine and I think it's safe to say they (people and politicians) are in fact and in deed sucking the lifeblood out of our economy. Can you say 'Boeing'? Do you know how long and how many jobs Microsoft has placed outside of Washington and King County that could have been done just as well here if it were cost effective?
As for John Carlson, he is no Rush Limbaugh. He's only conservative when it's to his advantage. And though he will never admit to being an anti-Christian yet pro-Catholic bigot, he will never endorse a Christian conservative (or the religious right as he so often refers to it) over any other Republican, especially a Seattle centric Republican, unless it would hurt his listenership to do so. I was a regular listener to his show for years and have had many heated exchanges of e-mails on that very topic.
And reportward, don't count your chickens...
Posted by: JB on November 26, 2005 05:32 PMBased on your comments, one would think that all we needed to do is nominate a wear-it-on-the-sleeve Evangelical who will run on immigration policy and anti-liberalism. I don't disagree with those positions, but don't think that's an agenda that wins elections in this state.
We've had too many examples of abrasive conservatives such Ellen Craswell, Linda Smith, and Don Benton. They don't win big elections and they give Republicans a horrid reputation with the independent voters needed to win an election in this state, even when Republican turnout is strong. In contrast, non-abrasive conservatives like Rossi, Jennifer Dunn, and Cathy McMorris hold much more promise for getting elected and actually implementing some of our ideals. Idealogical purity is nice, but in the end, the goal is to actually get some of your policies implemented.
Lastly, whatever individual policy disputes we both might have with Carlson, if we can't agree that he's a staunch conservative than I'm not sure if this discussion need continue. Because if we can't agree on that, I'm not sure where we can agree on anything.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 26, 2005 08:49 PM What because eric points one thing out
that means he kicked my butt?I will say
this again McGavick has no chance of
winning because his candidacy has already
divided the Gop in this state.They simply
will not rally around him.
Why you may ask won't they?because they know this
candidacy is being shoved down there throats by
Chris Vance and his establishment friends.
Quite simply they are sick and tired of this
mentality.
The most telling part of this is the scott
rassmussen poll done about 3 weeks ago.
remember rassmussen is the guy that came
closer than anyone else in polling the 2004
presdential election.Rasmussen had cantwell
over McGavick by 12 points.Vance keeps touting
the strategic vision polls that has Mcgavick
down by 9 points.Thats all well and good
but the polls have had it that way now for 7
months.
One other thing you will notice Vance never
mentioned the zogby wall street journal poll.
Why because in head to head battle McGavick
and Susan Hutchison are in a dead heat.As much
as McGavick has been out there around the state
conventional wisdom says it shouldn't even be
close.What it tells you is he doesnt excite
that many people.You better believe Vance
doesn't want anybody to know that.
BTW, I did not believe that Carlson was a very good candidate for Gov. and held my nose when Craswell was nominated. Sam Reed is a joke and am generally unimpressed with Chris Vance.
However, there have been some worthy candidates in WA in recent history with an R beside their names. Like the Republicans in US Congress (so to become) and for 40+ years for the Dems prior to 1994, any party that has been in control for over 12 years slides into corruption and the legislature and executive branch of State Government have been controlled by Demos for too long to not be corrupted by power - for that reason alone it is past time for a change.
Posted by: KS on November 27, 2005 12:28 AMThat's right! It's not the 'Evangelicals', the 'religious right' who are dividing the party, it's the anti-Evangelicals. It's the people like John Carlson and Chris Vance, and presumably yourself, though I know little about you, who continually undermine others in the party simply because of religious affiliation. Maybe you should drop the condescension long enough to look around. We lost a governor's race that we should have won. We lost the House and Senate under this 'get elected' strategy that isn't working.
When are you people going to climb down off of your high horses and realize that it's you elitists who are hurting the party, not the people who you're so afraid of that you'll stab them in the back and undermine them at every opportunity? You're playing right into the hands of the liberals who run Seattle by alienating the base of the Republican party.
You keep talking about this 'get elected' strategy like it's working. WAKE UP!!!
Posted by: JB on November 27, 2005 01:04 AMFirst, let's keep in mind that at this stage being roughly 10 points behind a Democrat incumbent in a Democrat leaning state, with a candidate that doesn't yet have good name ID, is a good position to be in. And that Zogby poll you're excited about does show McGavick with a statistically significant advantage over Hutchinson. Moreover, if he has $1 million by the end of the year, which seems likely, that makes him a credible candidate who can get the financial support of the national GOP. Without that critical mass, a candidate has no hope of having the financial resources needed to win a competitive US Senate race in this state. Obviously, Hutchinson is nowhere near that, and frankly you could have made the same argument about Rossi in late 2003 that you're making about McGavick now.
KS - Rossi, Sutherland, Nethercutt, and Reed (that of course being before his weak performance in the post-election mess...I doubt he'll get it again) in 2004. Before that I worked on Slade Gorton's campaign in 2000 after serving on his Senate staff. The last thing I support is the status quo since I believe the current makeup of the legislature and executive branch in this state is entirely unproductive. Moreover, I think Republicans had a chance in the 90's to make the state competitive for a long time to come, but squandered it with the kind of candidates and leadership I've criticized in these comments.
JB – Actually, I regularly attend a non-denominational, Evangelical church so the last thing I am is anti-Evangelical. And I don’t think the supposedly monolithic establishment you’re railing against is has any bias on the issue either – other than having a bias against candidates that do nothing but get themselves killed while giving the party a bad name with independent voters. Because despite claims to the contrary, this isn’t a state where you can win statewide, or in most Congressional districts for that matter, with just the conservative base, no matter how motivated it is. Like Rossi, conservatives can run on a conservative agenda without alienating non-hardcore Republican voters the way those high profile abrasive conservatives have done.
My fundamental point is the kind of thinking that you’re espousing is what got us in this whole mess with bad statewide candidates, and some pretty poor legislative candidates as well. We’re now trying to dig our way out and almost succeeded with Rossi (which is where I’m immensely sympathetic to your anti-Seattle animus). Yet, I don’t think reverting back to what got us in that hole in the first place is the right strategy.
First off I wouldn't call less than a
percentage point a statistical advantage.
I knew you would bring up the comparison
with Dino Rossi.Two things the man largely
given credit with turning Dino's campaign
around Afton Swift bailed on McGavick's
campaign back in the beginning of october.
Not a good sign especially when Afton
had nothing else lined up.More Importantly
I know Dino Rossi,Mike McGavick is no
Dino Rossi.Dino was able to unite the party
behind him.I guess this bares repeating
The Gop is already seriously divided
over McGavick's Campaign.The Majority
of the party members are sick and tired
of having the elitists lead by Vance trying
to shove who they think is best down
there throats.Bottom line McGavick will
not be able to unite the party.
This gives McGavick virtually no
chance of winning.
I think at a certain level there is discomfort with Vance and some other leaders in the party. But, I also think, based on your previous posts at this site, that you're overly fascinated with that. I don't think Hutchinson inspires much in anybody beyond the fact she's a woman with great name ID. If McGavick is the nominee, looks to be competitive, has a good agenda, and doesn't explicitly irritate the base he'll unite Republicans if there is the perception he can win.
And, since he has the money to be a serious, competitive candidate, I'd prefer him in a heartbeat over Hutchinson. Unless she gets serious (and starts playing catch up), she has no hope of being financially competitive, which is a critical tipping point to beat Cantwell.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 27, 2005 11:25 AMTHE PLAN ISN'T WORKING!!!
I never said anything about a 'monolithic establishment'. You communicate like a high-school debater. Don't put words in my mouth. If you want a description in my words I'd probably draw an analogy to a Herod-Pilate common purpose comradery. They're really only united in their disdain for conservative Christians. Other than that they're worlds apart. Carlson is conservative on most issues, except this one. Then there's the 'Mainstream Republicans' (a complete misnomer on both counts) who are as liberal as the average Dem supporter, making them left of the independents.
Carlson makes the same claim about not being 'anti-Evangelical', so some such similar language. Yet in practice, there's no other explanation. So how do we refine the terms to be more accurate? How about 'anti-conservative-Christian-in-politics'? We're all free to live our deceived little lives in our own homes and churches, just don't bring it into the polling place. Isn't that the message? Oh, why do I ask? You'll never admit to that kind of bigotry. You can't come right out and state the position because it will alienate those 'hardcore republicans' you're trying so hard to deceive.
As for 'a bias against candidates that do nothing but get themselves killed while giving the party a bad name with independent voters'. I don't think it's a bias, it a self-fulfilling prophecy, of sorts. Those candidates get killed because they don't have the support of the party, especially those Seattle-centric liberal who do more to harm the WA GOP than these candidates ever could.
This little anti-conservative-Christian plan isn't working, despite claims to the contrary. Again, NOBODY IS GETTING ELECTED! How can this message get past your bigoted droning? We lost the House and Senate that was won when the conservative base rallied behind Newt Gingrich in '94. Once again, Eric, it's gone! We lost the House and Senate! How many more races do we need to lose before you people wake up? How thick are you people?
Now that I'm really seeing how ingrained this bias is (not just from you), I'm getting the feeling that what this party needs is a little revolution. How else will we be heard?
Posted by: JB on November 27, 2005 02:43 PMUh, Eric...Carlson is only a staunch conservative in Seattle. Anywhere outside the city limits he's a moderate.
Posted by: South County on November 27, 2005 03:19 PM I am not overly fascinated with the party divide.
The fact of the matter is I keep bringing it
up because there are to many people who just want to
sweep it under the rug.As if that would make
everything ok.
Lets get one thing clear Susan's last name
is spelled Hutchison.As for whether or not
Susan inspires anyone well she does.I just
hope a lot more people get know her.If they
do they will see what I have.That Susan has
the ability to bring out the best in those
around her.If nothing else at least they
wont have made assumptions about her like
you have.
As far as McGavick is concerned right now all
we know is he is pro choice and pro tax.
That's two rather large strikes against
him already.At this point he won't tell
anybody where he stands on anything else.
If you really think that he will unite
the base you are sadly mistaken.They united
behind Dino Rossi because of his postions.
He is pro life and not for raising taxes.
Plus Dino didn't get pushed on them by vance.
In fact Dino was discouraged initally by Vance
and his friends from running.
One final thought : as soon as the democrats
start running there ads about McGavick and
his problems at Safeco.Make no mistake about
it they have the ads and they are going to
use them after the primary.Its all over but
the shouting.
And the CLOWNS in Seattle wonder why the rest of us question their transportation acumen.
HOW IN THE HE** CAN THIS HAPPEN???!
This are no bounds to the low-level of competence in Seattle....The Anal Canal of the Universe!!
The knuckleheads responsible for this mishap at sure to get promoted....with a raise!
GO MONORAIL!!!! YEE-HAAAAAAAAA!
Matt--
This is the reason why Seattle bashing will never end!
Bashing Seattle is so yesterday today and tomorrow, unless they (the ruling elite) do something constructive about it - As for McGavik, it might be more beneficial to live up to "if you can't say anything nice about something, don't say anything at all". However, there is a whole lot more to his campaign than this subissue.
Posted by: KS on November 27, 2005 09:48 PMJB – since I’m a self-professed Evangelical, your accusation that I’m an “anti-Conservative-Christian” and bigoted toward such candidates is, politely put, offensive and without merit. I don’t care what religion someone is when their running, I care about their agenda and their capacity to win. Example, I disagree with Mormonism strongly but currently like Mitt Romney in ’08.
The whole issue I’ve been railing against is candidates who don’t have the capacity to win statewide elections – like Craswell, Smith, and Carlson. These are candidates who should have inspired the base you claim is the sole key to victory. Moreover, you’ve misread the 1994 election. Republicans won that year because Democrats stayed home because their party was doing poorly and lacked an agenda, and Republicans were out in force because Clinton was stinking up the joint. It wasn’t a vote of support from independent voters for a stout Republican agenda. As Republicans attempted to implement that agenda in the state and nationally some of them got clobbered, and in the middle of that more abrasive candidates, like Don Benton, ran on themes that appealed to hardcore conservatives but no one else…thus creating that bias among independent voters about which we disagree.
You claim otherwise, but could you tell me how Craswell, Smith, Carlson, or Benton didn’t have the support of the Republican party? You’ve presented no evidence of that whatsoever, while there is ample evidence that candidates who found ways to appeal to non-Republican voters, like Rossi, McKenna, and Sutherland (the later two who I forgot to mention in my earlier comment), and Gorton, do measurably better at the polls. Slade for example, despite the drubbing he took in King County, did a notably exceptional job in drawing significant support from non-Republican voters outside of the Puget Sound area.
We fundamentally disagree about something. You believe all it takes is fired up Republicans going to the polls for pure conservative candidates. I believe in this state you need more than just motivated conservative voters to win. We’ve had a chance over the last decade to see both theories in action in a tough state for Republicans to win. Your theory has dug us a huge hole in the suburbs (part of those legislative defeats you actually bemoan – where conservative candidates and incumbents have steadily been tossed aside for being out of touch with their districts). My theory actually has some record of success, and hope for the future in this state.
Neither of us is going to budge so let’s just leave it at that. You’ve already pushed the bounds of decency in this discussion far enough.
I guess I’m a bit perplexed, for someone who seems to think Vance is weak and ineffective, you sure give him a lot of credit for being the kingmaker in getting McGavick into the race, and keeping Rossi out of the Governor’s race initially. I realize from your posts about such topics you’re fond of such assertions, but do you have evidence to back this up? Because your complaints about Vance are illogical when matched with the actions you ascribe to him.
Moreover, just because I disagree with you about Hutchison (and thanks for the sp correction) v. McGavick, I don’t think poorly of her. I simply think McGavick is a better candidate, and that she is terribly tardy in getting a campaign rolling – especially financially – if she has any hope of competing against Cantwell. I’ve heard her speak before, and she is actually an impressive speaker and from all appearances a fine person. But that doesn’t make her the best Republican candidate for the US Senate right now in Washington state.
In addition, how is McGavick pro-tax? Has he said anything about wanting to raise federal taxes? Because if you’re complaining about anything related to 912 that’s silly. Too many Republicans voted against it in the Puget Sound area to make that stick, and as a now decided state-level issue it will have little or no impact next year…especially when voters that care about such issues are comparing Cantwell’s record on taxes in the Senate v. what McGavick will inevitably say about the issue.
Related to that, Republicans can support a pro-choice candidate. Will some of them like it as much, no. But in the end I suspect there will still be significant differences between Cantwell and McGavick on the topic, for those that view it as a top-tier issue. And candidates such as Dunn, Gorton, and McKenna have shown you can win big races without being 100% pro-life.
Lastly, yes, insurance-related ads could be a painful punch during the race next year, and as you note fully expected. But at the rate McGavick’s going, he’ll have the money to respond, and the support of the national party to assist in fighting back. Hutchison is neither on track to have the money to wage such a vibrant campaign herself nor to have the outside support to truly make herself competitive.
I've known many people who on one hand claimed to be one thing while at the same time worked against it. The fact that you call yourself an Evangelical doesn't mean that you support conservative Christian causes and it also doesn't mean that you're not working against them. I'm sorry that you're offended, but your words of support for the liberal, anti-Christian agenda that these Mainstream Republicans, and others working with them, betray something other than support for those causes. What surprises me is that you're not offended by the actions of the people you're supporting.
You didn't ask for any evidence for my claim that those candidates weren't supported by the state party, so don't pretend that a lack of evidence in my post is proof that it didn't happen. That's a mixed bag and a complicated question to answer.
In the case of Carlson, he didn't energize the conservative base, probably because those who knew him knew that he was Seattle centric in his values. I'm told that people in Eastern WA saw through his 'conservative' shell and saw nothing they particularly wanted to support. Another comment summed it up well, outside of Seattle John Carlson is not a conservative. He only seems to be one when you're sitting in Seattle. But from their perspective you'd have to look to the right to even see a true centrist.
But the lack of support for the others is, again, a complex issue. Sometimes it's the lack of effort on the part of the state party leadership and staff. In other cases it's lack of funding for campaign ads, or simply that money showing up late or spread too thin. Candidates need all of the support they can get, and if it doesn't come in strongly from the leadership of the party it not only sends a message to voters (or fails to send a message) but it also hamstrings the candidates. Maybe you should be asking those candidates if they felt supported by the party leadership. I've already heard some of their statements. Pretending it didn't happen, or labeling it 'sour grapes' doesn't change the fact that the party leadership wasn't behind them.
The race in 1994 was different in every state. But central to the issue was the CONSERVATIVE agenda put forward by Newt Gingrich and those who backed the Contract with America. What that national effort met with in Washington was the old-guard, Seattle centric meme that 'you have to win Seattle to win in this state'. That message is yesterday's news. It's propped up by a bunch of losers (yes, losers, they're continually losing) who can't seem to wake up and see what's happening around them. Like you Eric, they won't see the facts when they're being slapped down by them.
So rather than let you attempt to put more words in my mouth, let me say this: What I think it takes to win in this state is for the left-of-center (and left of the GOP base) leadership in the WA GOP, particularly those centered in Seattle, to get out of the way and let base do what it does best, to be a foundation to build upon. You lefties are trying to build on a foundation that doesn't really exist, namely those fictitious independent voters who are just waiting for a chance to vote Republican. Give them a platform to vote for that isn't undermined by the ilk that is characterized by Chris Vance and they will vote with us. But if the message is continually undermined and watered down with a go-along-to-get-along message coming from the left of the GOP, which happens to control the party's purse strings, they'll never hear anything worth voting for.
Oh, and stop trying to blame the conservative Christian base of the Republican party for the failures of the liberal leadership in the party. The first step is admitting that you have a problem.
Posted by: JB on November 28, 2005 02:40 AMThe Monorail is operated by a private company.
The accident was caused by human error. The track aligned was changed to make way for Westlake Center and never were two trains to be on that curve at the same. It obviously worked for fifteen years until Saturday nght.
Expect big Dem gains in the state legislature too.
Posted by: thor on November 28, 2005 07:55 AMI don't think you're wildly off on part of that Carlson analysis, he did stink it up in Eastern WA, especially compared to Bush and Gorton in the same year. Though I think that was more a function of a campaign that didn't pay enough attention to the area and didn't attract any non-Republican votes. Take Spokane County for example, which Carlson lost by 30k votes, yet Bush won by 15k and Gorton by 20k. I'd love to hear some analysis of how so many people voted for Bush, Gorton, and Locke, but I doubt you can rationally claim it's because so many conservatives just couldn't stand Carlson that voted for Locke while casting a ballot for Bush & Gorton.
Also, you haven't addressed the other high profile cases I've noted, such as Craswell, Smith, and Benton. Yet, you imply I only want to see "squishy moderate candidates" when in fact I've explicitly supported the likes of Rossi, McKenna, and Gorton – undeniable conservatives with a track record of winning. I think McGavick fits in the same mold though only time will tell on that.
You on the other hand, seemed uncontent with them, and have yet to name a winning candidate to that fits your mold. They have to be out there somewhere. Can't you name even one legislative candidate that snuck through this powerful, establishment conspiracy holding down your preferred candidates?
Which leads me to another point. You claim 1994 was a true conservative revolution where conservatives got elected by the Republican base; a true statement in and of itself. Yet, why was this legislative majority, supported by a supposed conservative majority in the voting populace, eroded and eventually disappeared? Was the Eastern Washington-dominated, conservative leadership in the Legislature not conservative enough? Did those same conservative voters not support their legislators in future elections? Or, by chance, were some legislators who were more conservative than their districts, led by leadership out of touch with suburban concerns (even those of Republicans in the suburbs), gradually picked off by Democrats who did a better job of appealing to independent voters who didn’t make up a big chunk of the 1994 electorate? Because if what you say is true, if they weren’t conservative enough, one would expect they would have been replaced by conservatives, not by Democrats. And please, don’t try to claim the party thwarted the true conservatives from running, you and I both know that during the 90’s anyone who wanted to file under the party banner could, and pretty much still can.
Which leads me to your last point and mine. When, anywhere in this comment stream, did I lay any blame on the “conservative, Christian base” of the party? We disagree about the best candidates to win statewide elections in this state – and for that matter I presume for competitive legislative districts in this state. I’ve stated repeatedly that my views are founded on agenda and winnability. Yet you continue to erroneously equate my rationale with the incendiary charge of religious bigotry. This all despite the fact we are both conservatives, who happen to disagree on which points of emphasis make for better candidates and agendas in this state. Since I am a conservative, and a Christian (though evidently not in a combination you find personally acceptable), your charge is indeed offensive whether you accept that or not. And frankly, that in a nutshell is why your line of thinking lost so many elections in this state after 1994.
You hit the nail directly on the head!
If Washington State Republicans do not "get the picture" soon, the true "Reagan Conservatives" in this state may have to move together to reform the party leadership. If we could only offer a legitimate alternative, I truly believe that many republicans would be shocked at its success in this state.
Washington State is not as "liberal" as some would like us to think.
Posted by: jaybo on November 28, 2005 09:23 AMIn Washington State, I believe that we (yes I am one) should concentrate our efforts politically on the local level. This is where the issues that concern us affect us directly.
If the Seattle Public School system want to adopt the "liberal template", let them. A Christian Conservative can always find a better school system for their children if so inclined.
As far as judges are concerned, this is an area that Washington State Republicans should not get involved in. There are many conservative christian groups that already lobby for judicial change.
Washington State Republicans need to put together a sane fiscal package that will solve our transportation problems without wasting money. Bring forth a plan to spur economical growth in the state and secure our energy needs in a logical manner.
Posted by: jaybo on November 28, 2005 09:34 AM To answer your question about McGavick
being pro tax.About 4 months ago Grover
Norquist the president of Americans for tax
reform went to the 3 candidates for US
senate and gave them the opportunity to
sign the taxpayer protection pledge.
Meaning they wouldn't raise taxes.Out of
the 3 candidates only one signed it.
Susan Hutchison signed the pledge Mike
McGavick refused.Now I don't want to
here this crap about McGavick needs to
be able raise taxes if there is an
emergency.Its been proven over and over again
you don't need to raise taxes.
As far as Vance is concerned he has done
everything he can to discourage McGavick's
opponents from running.Vance claims the white
house only wants one candidate in the primary.
Yet when Ken Mehlman is asked about that
on a recent trip here.He said and I quote
that its a state party matter and we are
staying out of it.I know for a fact that
Vance has tried multiple times to get
McGavick's opponents to drop out of the
race.This is one of the reasons people see
Vance as weak.
As far as Susan Hutchison is concerned
You were the one that said she doesn't
inspire anyone.It is one thing to be able
to respond to a disgruntled insuree another
to be able to respond to state and federal
government investigations into your company.
You really have no idea who supports
Susan so don't make assertions otherwise.
All I will say right now is if you knew
who is supporting her you would not
have said what you did.
You're right, I don't know who supports Susan because she isn't running a visible campaign. Moreover, I've acknowledged that she is personally likeable and inspiring, but without a campaign, I hardly see how she can inspire Republican primary voters. That's a big difference.
As for Norquist, amen to McGavick. I dislike tax increases like the next Republican, but Norquist's "sign my pledge or else" tactics are tiresome year in and year out. Such pledges can serve a purpose depending on the issues of the day so to speak - but as an annual mantra it's excessive. Moreover, do you prefer to trust the candidate themself to stand on the issues and in the interest of his/her constituents, or do you prefer to rely on pledges to interest groups 3,000 miles away that care little about Washington state and a lot about their own agenda (regardless of the merit of that agenda)?
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 28, 2005 09:46 AMyou imply I only want to see "squishy moderate candidates" when in fact I've explicitly supported the likes of Rossi, McKenna, and Gorton – undeniable conservatives
Gorton? Conservative? Only by Seattle standards. He's as squishy as a squid. And he lost. Rossi and McKenna probably. And they won (technically speaking). Maybe they energized the base. And Rossi didn't have the support of Vance in the beginning and was discouraged from running. Vance probably felt backed into a corner and supported him. And Rossi may have done better if that, and other little things like it, hadn't happened.
other high profile cases I've noted, such as Craswell, Smith, and Benton
These are comments on someone else's blog, not on mine. I don't have room to go into detail. Maybe another reader can sum those up quickly. But Craswell, definate lack of support, or should I say merely feigned support by party leadership, which is never enough.
I think McGavick fits in the same mold though only time will tell on that
Yes, only time will, because he doesn't see to. You complaint about Susan Hutchison not defining herself applies to him too.
a winning candidate to that fits your mold
First of all, stop trying to redefine my 'mold'. And second, a winning candidate who is supported by Seattle's GOP elitists? They don't seem to exist. Maybe if they supported true conservatives they would win (like Rossi and McKenna).
Can't you name even one legislative candidate that snuck through this powerful, establishment conspiracy holding down your preferred candidates?
How about the Hammond / Dunn issue as a fairly recent example.
why was this legislative majority, supported by a supposed conservative majority in the voting populace, eroded and eventually disappeared?
You're completely missing my point. You really are thick headed. LACK OF SUPPORT FROM THE LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE GOP! Just think of '94 as a loss for them that they have been making up for since... by losing races.
When, anywhere in this comment stream, did I lay any blame on the “conservative, Christian base” of the party?
It's your entire philosophy that blames them. We and our ideals are dismissed in the same way that you're dismissing and reinventing my comments in this thread.
I’ve stated repeatedly that my views are founded on agenda and winnability.
Agenda? McGavick is pro-choice at a time when Senators may very well have to vote on abortion related issues. That undermines the conservative agenda. And winnability? You're floating losers. Wake up already.
the incendiary charge of religious bigotry. This all despite the fact we are both conservatives, who happen to disagree on which points of emphasis make for better candidates and agendas in this state. Since I am a conservative, and a Christian (though evidently not in a combination you find personally acceptable),
Hey, if you don't want to be labeled a religious bigot, then stop supporting religious bigots.
STOP THE MEME ALREADY! I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT A CANDIDATE ONLY HAS TO BE CONSERVATIVE TO WIN! THAT'S YOUR MISINTERPRETATION OF WHAT I'M SAYING! SO KNOCK IT OFF, YOU JACKASS!
Posted by: JB on November 28, 2005 12:54 PM You know I don't remember reading anywhere
that Grover Norquist put a gun to anybody's
head and made them sign.Americans for tax
reforms only agenda is lower taxes.I'm
sorry but I don't see what's wrong with
that.You can't find anywhere on there
website where they say anything about those
that don't sign.
Now its true they do make a big deal
about those that do sign.Which they
should.Not to mention the fact its
very difficult to trust anyone who won't say
where he stands on almost anything.
Posted by: phil spackman on November 28, 2005 03:17 PM
Like Susan Hutchison?
I'm glad you asked that question.What would
you like to know?Its perfectly fine to ask
now.Fire away.
Thanks for the new nickname by the way; I can’t bear to decline it after you first put it forward, especially since I find it much more multi-purpose than “religious bigot.” And I always enjoy it when we as self-professed Christians devolve into labeling, name-calling, and the like. Thank you.
On a related note, I do have several questions for you…and this is perhaps the last I’ll post on this thread responding to you at least because dealing with the baselessly inflammatory nature of some of your statements is becoming tiresome.
1) You claim you’re not saying candidates have to be conservative to win, but your whole premise is that liberal Republicans are suppressing conservative Christian candidates, and that if they didn’t do so the Republican masses would win. So which is it, what kind of candidate do you actually want?
2) Related to the previous question: could you please give some examples where such candidates you support have won (and by chance been re-elected as well)? I’ve repeatedly asked for examples of such winning candidates yet you have not provided them, a serious omission given that we arguing about the best way to win elections. What I have provided is examples of where candidates who do appear to fit your mold have lost, miserably. If you can’t provide us with the names of some winners, could you at least then clarify what mold you expect from these hidden champions of the conservative masses waiting to take over Washington state?
3) You accuse me of supporting religious bigots, a fascinating charge given that we simply disagree on the best tactics for Republicans to win statewide elections. Yet, you’ve turned that into some grassy-knoll conspiracy that involves me supporting a supposed class of religious bigots suppressing and undermining your preferred candidates. I know lots of Republicans, at all levels of the party, of many variations of the Christian faith, from moderate to arch-conservative…all of which would chuckle, or curse, at your theory’s lack of credibility. It’s a difference of political opinion and tactics; religion has nothing to do with it. In addition, I’ve clearly stated which candidates I supported in this comment stream. Which of them were/are religious bigots (and please do not accuse me of supporting Carlson in 2000)?
4) Could you explain to me why the logical extension of your stated theories is that whenever supposedly non-conservative Republicans lose it’s because they lose on the merits, but whenever your kind of Republican candidate loses its because of a conspiracy from the Puget Sound area GOP? Do you realize how obnoxiously silly that sounds?
5) Are you saying that conservative Legislators lost post-1994 because they as incumbents didn’t have the support of the state party? That the party had no interest in maintaining its legislative majorities to attempt to enact its agenda? That is the only logical extension of your rebuttal to my initial point on that issue, and if so, it is an unserious rebuttal at best.
Lastly, Gorton a squish? Now you’re being utterly unserious. I’m sure you can dig up and issue or two, or many perhaps, with which you disagreed with him about. But if you honestly believe that in the scheme of Republicans in the state or nationally that he’s not best labeled as a conservative then your political acumen leaves something to be desired. Moreover, despite losing in 2000, he was elected 6 times statewide. And even in 2000 he ran nearly 4 percentage points ahead of Bush and 9 percentage points ahead of Carlson, and if I recall correctly, ahead of all of the GOP Congressional candidates in their respective districts.
Thanks for the chance to have the discussion, yet I think it’s run its course. I do especially thank you for taking the tone you did in your last few posts to validate my point about your “mold,” regarding which we don’t seem to agree evidently. From my perspective, it doesn’t come down to religious affiliation, it doesn’t come down to beliefs on specific issues even. But it does comes down to how you want communicate with voters who can put your candidates in office. The candidates you support may share my faith and even positions on many issues (though as you might guess, not in the order I would emphasize them probably). But your candidates always lose statewide. Mine at least have some record of victory. Meanwhile, you’ve personally chosen a method of communication that is abrasive, offensive, and rude. Voters don’t like that. That’s why you keep losing.
I'm all for lower taxes. But as a rule I don't like altruistic pledges on non-moral issues before a person runs for office. The odds circumstances might change on any given issue, whether it be taxes, education, healthcare, etc. are too high.
Moreover, I really don't like pledges that result in incumbents getting beat up by ATR over taxes when the incumbent as a whole might deserve to stay in office, especially when they're the best bet for Republicans to retain the seat in question.
I hate one-trick ponies in politics, and ATR's current role in such debates is totally that.
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 28, 2005 09:01 PMNo, I'm not claiming that. But if you're dead-set on earning the title 'jackass', you're well on the way. Are you really this thick headed or are you just intent on twisting my words. I'm not going to say it again. Just go back and read it.
2. please give some examples where such candidates you support have won
Still missing the point, Eric. They don't win because they're not supported by the party. Are you actually reading anything I've written or are you just copying and pasting your usual diatribes?
you’ve turned that into some grassy-knoll conspiracy
Yes, it's me that has caused this conversation to deteriorate. I feel like I'm talking to a moonbat.
4.
Just read what I wrote and stop twisting it to fit your canned answers.
5.
ditto
Thanks for the chance to have the discussion, yet I think it’s run its course. I do especially thank you for taking the tone you did in your last few posts to validate my point about your “mold,” regarding which we don’t seem to agree evidently
You are the one who established the tone in this conversation. You didn't listen to anything I said and responded to things I didn't say. I'm not sure who you were talking to, but it obviously wasn't me. You were high-minded and condescending, but you didn't bother to condescend low enough, obviously, to actually see what I was saying.
This conversation was obviously over before it started. You had preconceived ideas that you simply harped on repeatedly, even though they had nothing to do with what I said. Your high-school debate tactics are annoying. I am therefore retracting my retraction. You are a jackass.
Posted by: JB on November 28, 2005 11:36 PM
I should also add that Mike McGavick has
offically announced he is running.Susan
Hutchison hasn't.Since that where it stands
right now Mike McGavick should be able to say
where he stands on the issues.Something he
has failed to do thus far.Susan has been for
the last couple months been giving a number
of speeches.She has made it very clear
where she stands on the issues when she
is asked at those events.
So its not as though she has been trying
keep it a secret as McGavick has.
SEATTLE [Jonah Goldberg]
These two emails sum it up nicely:
Email one:
Subject: Ciao, Jonah
Sorry you have such mixed feelings about Seattle. In-room movies - my, what an adventurous weekend you had! Maybe it's best you not visit here.
Anyway, we sure are glad you're gone, but you have a nice day.
Email two:
My husband and I lived in Seattle from August 2000 to August 2001 and could not believe how whiny the people out there are. They complain about everything and do absolutely nothing about it. Just one example: they constantly complain about traffic gridlock and how horrible it is out there. But for years and years the politicians have discussed putting in a light rail system and have gotten exactly nowhere with the proposal.
When we were out there, the Wall Street Journal actually ran an article calling Seattle the whiniest city in America. The WSJ argued that Seattle cultivated and encouraged a counter-culture attitude during the early 90s grunge era. Then, when they got exactly what they asked for, culminating in the 1999 WTO riots, they complained about how the degenerates were taking over the city. Hilarious stuff. It's probably one of the most beautiful cities in America. But I'd never willingly settle down there. The people would drive me nuts.