A Seattle Times editorial declared the race for the 48th Legislative District Senate seat "one to watch" after Rodney Tom switched parties in March and declared his candidacy against incumbent Senator Luke Esser. Time for a check-up.
As of today, the PDC's itemized contributions search option shows Esser having raised over $180,000, while Tom has pulled in approximately $88,000, including $10,000 in his own funds. Advantage: Esser.
I'm a bit surprised by the fundraising advantage Esser has accumulated, mostly because I thought the Democratic party would do a better job of supporting Tom since they've done well the last few cycles in picking off Republican seats in the Eastside suburbs. However, I'm even more impressed by Esser's work in capturing endorsements.
Esser is known as a strong conservative (he scored a perfect 100 from the Washington Conservative Union in 2004), but he has accumulated an impressive list of endorsements from organizations on both sides of the political spectrum. One would expect he would garner support from the Association of Washington Business, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs. One would not expect, however, that Esser would earn the endorsement of the Washington Conservation Voters, SEIU, or the Machinists' Union - particularly in a race supposedly targeted by the Democratic party. Here to, advantage: Esser.
Personally, I'm disdainful of Tom's poor choice to jump parties. As Stefan pointed out right after Tom's switch, his voting record is certainly more aligned with Republican interests than Democrats. Yet, I'm even more disdainful of his chances to beat Esser (Full disclosure: I've contributed to Esser's campaign). Putting aside Esser's early advantage in fundraising and endorsements, he has a formidable track-record in elections.
In 1998, he won a highly competitive Republican primary for State Representative by a narrow 121-vote margin. He then won the general election 59%-41%. In 2000, he won re-election to the State House by 59%-41% again. 2002 saw him move to the Senate seat from the 48th, without drawing a Democratic opponent, and cruising to victory with 77.5% of the vote.
Meanwhile Rodney Tom won his seat in the house with a less impressive 53% of the vote in 2002, followed by re-election over a mediocre opponent in 2004 by a 52%-48% margin.
I've met and worked with Rodney Tom in the past. He seems like a decent fellow, but I think he made a terrible choice switching parties, and is running right into the buzz-saw of an accomplished legislator and campaigner in Luke Esser. Thus, at this point likely earning Tom the electoral drubbing his party switch richly deserves.
Like I said, in the end they all do, it is just a matter of when, how, and what they will personally get out of it.
Well, when Rodney Tom loses this race perhaps he can become head of the Mainstream Republicans of Washington State.
Oh, I forgot, they already have a head of that organization. A member of the Lowry Adminstration who backstabbed a Republican to help Lowry get elected.
From what has been posted on Sound Politics, it is pretty clear that Rodney Tom has never been a decent person. It is just that before he switched parties, Republicans were forbidden to tell the truth about him.
It will be interesting when you finally backstab the Republicans, Eric. Like I said, you all do in the end.
Posted by: Steve on August 15, 2006 08:10 AMHow is John McCoy doing this year? Does the human dynamo- Kim Halvorson- have a chance?
Posted by: swatter on August 15, 2006 08:13 AMBut that is one of the major reasons why Conservatives constantly lose and Liberals win. Too much the ladies and gentlemen.
Please, politics is too important to be constrained by anything. Don't let expectations of social conduct stand in the way of stating the truth about Rodney Tom. He has an effect upon what happens in the State, so we need to know what you have to say. We don't need ladies and gentlement in conservative politics. What we need are FIGHTERS! It is way, way too important to be otherwise.
Unless you fear retribution for what you say. I guess I would understand that because liberals can be quite ruthless.
But conservatives need to learn to be ruthless too or we will never win.
Posted by: Steve on August 15, 2006 09:36 AMJust how important is the future of the state and county to you anyway?
How strongly do you believe that your conservative principles are important for the state and country to adopt.
The one thing you can say about liberals is that they believe Strongly in their agenda and will do anything to get it enacted.
So, I ask again, how strongly do you believe in what you believe? Just how important is the future of the state and county to you anyway?
Posted by: Steve on August 15, 2006 09:40 AMHence the reason why there are so many conservative voters looking for a candidate they can believe in and support. Look at what the GOP has gotten us into in Iraq. These "people" can not even figure out how to get along with each other. They are no better then small children on a playgrond with large guns. Islam is the most violent religion of peace ever seen.
Gas prices continue to rise while the GOP's bed buddies continue to see 60%+ profits.
Maybe I'll be voting "None of the above" or for another party this year. I can not stand liberals. Not sure I can support the GOP anymore either.
Posted by: Monroe Parents on August 15, 2006 09:53 AMAsk yourself, who are the speculators that bid against each other for oil futures? Why are they driving up the price of oil?
I like Luke Esser. I'm confident he'll win.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 15, 2006 10:17 AMIt says a lot about Eric.
Posted by: Steve on August 15, 2006 10:26 AMVistas reopened. The young women who worked with Ted were captivated by his handsome features, fastidious dress, and correct manners. He flirted with them. Ted was unfailingly polite to his superiors, and impressed some of the wizened veterans on the governor's staff with his dedication and ready grasp of hardball politics. Ralph Munro, one of Evans's top operatives and later Washington's secretary of state, knew Ted slightly from the 1968 campaign. "He was very friendly, very open," Munro recalled. "There were other people in the 1972 campaign that I probably knew better, but I remember him being there and being involved. I thought he was bright, sharp. He had good ideas."
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/witness/18.html
What does this have to do with Rodney Tom? Just that when Eric called Rodney Tom "Decent" I wondered what he would have called Ted Bundy whom if he was around back in 1972 he would have most likely worked with.
My friend, there is a big difference between a willingness to fight and the manner in which one does so. Ask anyone that knows me, for you obviously do not, and you'd know just how willing to fight and how deep my convictions run. When it's time to do so, I commit all. There is no such thing as restrained warfare, only total.
But there's no point in getting nasty, and/or ugly in public about it. The trick sir, is to learn to disagree without being overly disagreeable.
As you've already expended considerable energy and effort in numerous posts, I'd encourage you to direct that energy in more productive directions such as working a phone bank, putting our yard signs, etc.
Work to accomplish the goal. Don't rant at those already doing so.
Posted by: Jamie Walker on August 15, 2006 10:47 AMThere really isn't a candidate worthy of doing that for this year.
Except maybe Johnson's Supreme Court race.
Steve, you are really "blessed" with the gift of prolific typing. Why don't you start your own blog and let everyone know where to find you?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 15, 2006 10:58 AMMuch better for tactical reasons to remain anonymous so not to face retribution from them.
Posted by: Steve on August 15, 2006 11:03 AMSee the unprincipled (which all mainstreamers are) can't recognize evil even when they are standing right next to it.
Posted by: Steve on August 15, 2006 11:09 AMYou're entitled to your opinion, but filling various posts with a flurry of repetitive comments doesn't fit the purpose of Sound Politics. As noted by others here, if you want to do that, post at the public blog, or make your own. Keep your thoughts here, for what they're worth, concise and on topic or they won't be sticking around.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 15, 2006 12:18 PMThere's the tactics of the Mainstreamer right in front of you. Lies and Innuendo.
My only question to the Duke is did Rodney Tom stop beating his wife before he decided to swtich to the Democratic party or after?
Say hi to Sid for me at the next meeting.
Posted by: Steve on August 15, 2006 12:37 PMFor the last time, I understand the revolutionary concept that someone can be a decent human being regardless of however strongly you might disagree with their politics.
That's it, he's a personable guy. His politics don't make him akin to Ted Bundy as you'd like to claim. Not a difficult concept to understand, unless you're insane, as I explained to you at comment # 40 at this thread:
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006665.html
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 15, 2006 12:42 PMAnd regarding him being personable well so was Ted Bundy.
Posted by: Steve on August 15, 2006 12:59 PMYour obtuseness and useless comments have turned you into what you claim to detest - you show all the signs of being "anthing but a decent man"
Posted by: SouthernRoots on August 15, 2006 01:30 PMI am also saying that the Evanites are very poor judges of character. I believe it's because they themselves lack character.
In Rodney Tom's case, I am saying that many people on this blog have posted stuff about him that proves that he is anything but decent.
Posted by: Steve on August 15, 2006 02:08 PMSee this recent SP posting
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006678.html
Posted by: Steve on August 15, 2006 02:26 PMVoting records are very deceptive. Stefan leans too much on it, too. Nobody, Republican or Democrat, votes against his caucus very often, and that's what your basically seeing when you look at the ratings from groups such as AWB and the Labor Council. The legislature (particularly the House) is just not built that way. Look at the percentage of times Tom voted against the Republican caucus in relation to the percentage other Republicans did. And look at the kinds of issues on which he departed from the caucus's position. Those are what's what's really telling.
Posted by: stu on August 15, 2006 05:11 PMWhat are the issues where Tom voted against the caucus, since you already did the homework, I don't have to move my fingers to find out.
Posted by: the duke on August 15, 2006 06:13 PMBut I also think Luke may need more than money to win again.
He's a great guy, but he is dragged down by a caucus that is unfortunately to the right of the troglodites. And his leadership position made him look like a nutcase on a bunch of issues that put him beyond Steve conservative.
The caucus basically bought the strategy Steve has been suggesting on this blog. We'll see whether Steve's ways are winning ways for the state Senate GOP this cycle.
Odds are they'll lose two or three. But maybe not Luke.
Posted by: thor on August 15, 2006 08:30 PMWhat WILL BE liberal enough for these people?
I wish that liberals would just get involved with the Democrats and stop trying to destroy the Republican party as well.
But then again I know how much the country club types hate standing side by side with blue collar labor people.
Posted by: Steve on August 16, 2006 07:06 AMGo to hell with your lies.
The Republican party in this state is LIBERAL.
And you are either an idiot or a liar!
Some people just won't be happy until we are TOTALLY a socialist country.
Posted by: Steve on August 16, 2006 07:09 AMAnd as to Steve in #24 above, where do you get off trying to tie me to any group - or for that matter saying that I lie. I am truly concerned about Esser's lifestyle - if it walks like a duck, and quakes like a duck . . .
By the way, when you were still in diapers I was campaigning for the Goldwater ticket - now there was a true conservative!
Posted by: the duke on August 16, 2006 09:43 AMWhich is ironic because I thought that liberals were all for gays, and others who practice sexually immoral behavior.
So, your tactics of lies and innuendo is exactly what I have seen in the past from the Evanites...- if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . .
Posted by: Steve on August 16, 2006 10:47 AMIsn't him switching to an uber-liberal political party enough for you, Duke?
Well, you "forgave" Sid Morrison, even made him your leader, so I guess it isn't.
(I put forgave in quotes because you never condemned him for his Great Betrayal in the first place, in fact you voted for Lowry because of him).
Posted by: Steve on August 16, 2006 10:52 AMYou need to climb back into wherever/whatever you slid out of.
[1st sentence of this paragraph deleted as slander. Accusing people of serious crimes absent some degree of evidence in the public arena is crossing the line - Eric]. Second, how does my asking about voting patterns put me in league with the liberals. I asked a fairly straightforward question, what liberal votes did Tom take? I agree, switching to the Dems is pretty damning, I just havn't followed him enough to know why he would do this? Pretty drastic move for anyone to take.
Posted by: the duke on August 16, 2006 02:57 PMIt is just the type of tactic that I have seen in the past from members of the Mainstream Republicans of the State of Washington (the Evanites/RINOs)
http://www.washingtonmainstream.org
This is the third time I have seen it done. Each time in the past it turned out to be completely false but stupid conservatives (there are some who happen to be right on the issues but in other areas in their life quite stupid) got fooled by the tactic and unfortunately it hurt the candidate.
But with the blogs and stuff hopefully such lies and innuendo won't work.
Until you have proof - why don't you shut the Hell UP!
I on the otherhand KNOW FOR A FACT that an Evans Aide was a Mass Murderer. But, olde Ralphy Munroe said he had "great ideas"
Posted by: Steve on August 16, 2006 03:22 PM