REMINDER: Tonight's meeting of the Downtown Seattle Republican Club will feature a post-mortem panel discussion with two leading Republican state legislators on the outcome of this year's statehouse races. Join me this Monday at 5pm at the College Club when I moderate a discussion with Sen. Cheryl Pflug (Maple Valley) and Rep. Fred Jarrett (Mercer Island). We'll talk about message, issues, campaign tactics, what worked, what didn't and where the statehouse GOP goes from here.
The program will be recorded for cablecast by the Seattle Channel.
Your questions for the panel are invited. Join the live audience or post a comment below.
Discussion at 5pm, followed by no-host dinner at 6pm (< $20 all inclusive). College Club, 5th and Madison, directions and parking hints here. RSVP recommended: info AT seattlerepublicans DOT org.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 20, 2006 10:40 AM | Email Thisthanks
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 17, 2006 04:51 PMHopefully the Republicans will learn from this and try to find viable candidates in ALL districts.
Posted by: Joe Waldron on November 17, 2006 05:06 PMThe GOP didn't deserve to win because the party was more interested in protecting the status quo rather than exposing the corruption in Olympia.
Posted by: Don on November 17, 2006 05:50 PMA good example of why they lost was Beverly Woods in the 23rd. When she voted for the gas tax and then tried to explain if away by saying it created jobs, I knew she had to go. I voted for the Democrat because if there is to be wreckless tax rasing, t will be by Democrats and not Republicans.
The message is for Republicans to offer an alternative to wreckless liberal spending. We cannot be bought off by pork giveaways becuase unlike Democrats we realise that the money for those giveaways comes from taxpayers to begin with. When Republicans try to outspend liberals, they will always lose.
http://www.jimwcoleman.com/personal/2006/11/ron_boehme_r_vs_larry_seaquist.html
http://cascade.sierraclub.org/node/662
Do not be sure that the 5th is guaranteed forever. It voted Kerry, and is probably trending even more Democratic. It may be more Republican locally, but it is not immune. The same goes for several other "stronghold" GOP districts (less so Dem districts).
Although, at the moment, Democrats hold more districts than Kerry won (it was 30-19, and the new senate looks like 32-17). Even when you adjust for Bush's margin, the 32-17 remains the same.
Posted by: Alcon Nighthawk on November 17, 2006 08:18 PMBut the 5th is indeed not "solidly Republican" to the point of not voting Democratic when they are presented with what they see as a superior choice.
Posted by: Alcon Nighthawk on November 17, 2006 08:21 PMThe reality of WA state politics is that specific individuals can be elected in unfriendly districts. The 5th may have a Republican tradition, but it voted for Kerry - which, frankly, is enough to demonstrate to me that it is willing to vote for a liberal Democrat. I think the current representatives are pretty safe, but just because an area is "solidly safe" with certain popular legislative representatives does not make it solidly safe in an open seat contest.
Posted by: Alcon Nighthawk on November 17, 2006 09:34 PMRunning for local office is very difficult. People are recruited, encouraged, elected and often abandoned. Republicans in Washington are lazy and lack courage (cowardly lions). They expect to throw some dollars at a candidate, get him/her in and hope they do the right thing. Need to break that cycle. Many elected officials will tell you it's virtually impossible to get enough people involved in local campaigns and more importantly, the aftermath if they get elected. Heck, most R's are even afraid to write letters to the Editor complimenting their candidate. They are afraid to write letters supporting their positions.
Washington Republicans are quick to complain....and slow to get involved by stepping forward to face-off with the Left and protect their candidates.
Our best hope is to build local organizations and recruit candidates with campaign money, plans and platforms already in place. Easier said than done. Republicans would rather listen to Rush Limbaugh, John Carlson, Kirby Wilbur and rant & rave rather than do the time-consuming, sticking your neck out grunt work. I thought the Rossi debacle would mobilize folks for the long-run. Didn't happen. Dino has sat quietly on the sideline. That was a mistake. Gregoire has built some additional suport and will be running as an incumbent. It was a shame the ORANGE movement fizzled out so quickly.
People get the government they deserve.
I was talking about the national Republican Party. As far as the WS state goes, the Republicand don't have much of a voice, but I don't see that much greed, arrogance, and corruption at the state level.
Posted by: Libertarian on November 18, 2006 09:29 AM
"Here's my strategy on the Cold War:
We win, they lose."
- Ronald Reagan
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
- Ronald Reagan
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan
"Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong."
- Ronald Reagan
"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandment's would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress."
- Ronald Reagan
"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination."
- Ronald Reagan
"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."
- Ronald Reagan
-
"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
- Ronald Reagan
-
"I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting."
- Ronald Reagan
-
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."
- Ronald Reagan
-
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
- Ronald Reagan
-
"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book."
- Ronald Reagan
-
"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.
- Ronald Reagan
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan
local (lib/Dem) politicians are killing us with micromanaging laws and feel-good things like city diversity councils and rubber stamping every school, library or other bond/tax offered without a whimper. look at many districts--unopposed candidates.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 18, 2006 10:11 AMIs it such a political mistake to question these areas? I never heard anything on these topics. If corruption was the reasons Republicans lost on the National level could it not be used in Washington State. Taxpayers dont like money spent on feel good projects. Tax responsibility doing the right thing is that so hard?
Posted by: David Anfinrud on November 18, 2006 04:00 PMI am digsusted that RINOs like Bev Woods raises taxes with the Democrats. If she is going to roll over for them like a trained poodle THEN IS DOESN'T MAKE A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE WHICH LETTER IS BEHIND THE PERSON. EITHER WAY WE GET HIGH TAXES.
Frank Chopp had a supermajority before too becauase Bev Woods rolled over like a puppy for him. THAT is what's disgusting!
Posted by: pbj on November 18, 2006 06:45 PMHere is my sense of what should happen. The GOP needs candidates that will offer an alternative to the wreckless tax raisers in Olympia. When I hear a so called Republicans like Bev Woods tell me that raising taxes creates jobs, they just bought themselves a one way ticket to the unemployment line.
Now this doesn't mean I want a fire and brimstone, save my soul oh Lord candiddate like Ellen Craswell. I frankly could give a hoot about who sleeps with whom. It is my wallet I am most concerned with at the state and local level. What it means is that I want a representative that:
1) Questions every expenditure. Instead of blocking audits of government agencies, they should encourage it. The efficiency or lack thereof by government in spending our tax dollars should be open for all to see.
2) Doesn't try to buy themselves into office by seeing how much pork they can bring home for their district. Said representative realizes that when everyone gets superfluous goodies, taxes must be raised to pay for them. One doesn't buy a big screen TV when they are having trouble paying the heating bill. This type of common sense should apply to government.
3) Speaks up when the Democrats, be they majority or minority, are increasing the burden on tax payers frivolously to cover for government incompetence. They should demand accountability when government throws our money down the drain. Who was fired from DOT when they wasted millions on the bungled Port Angeles graving project?
4) When insanity reigns as Democrats are in the majority, my representative will dig his or her heels in a fight to the end to keep the Democrats from taxing us into the poor house. A representative with integrity stick to their principles and isn't bought off with pork to placate them and get their vote. It may look nice on a newsletter that your "accomplishment" was raising taxes, but at the end of the day when I look in my wallet, if it is lighter because of you, you'll be out on your ear.
5) When you blatantly ignore your constituents, as did Bev Woods, you deserve to be fired. She heard from me and many others for instance before the Gas tax vote. She said to hell with me on that one, so as they say, payback is a bitch ain't it Bev?
Posted by: pbj on November 18, 2006 07:03 PMAs far as the current rallying cry of "party unity" is concerned, I can only say that as long as the WSRP leadership and those who carry the banner of electability over integrity persist in disparaging, blaming and alienating conservatives, there will be no party unity. You are asking conservatives to abandon their principles for the sake of getting unqualified and unworthy candidates elected. We gave you guys the benefit of the doubt last time. It won't happen twice.
And about the whole "electability" thing: last time I looked, your game plan sucked.
Consider the possibility that people voted for a Democrat majority because they were certain that at least with the Democrat they knew what they were getting. I mean, the Democrat will punch you in the teeth and take your money. The Republican Party this time around stabbed us in the back, took all that political leverage we gave them, and gave it to the Democrats anyway.
You tell me: which is worse?
The way it stands now, the WSRP leadership will either get wise to the error of their ways and change accordingly, or the grassroots conservatives should simply shut off funds and resources and exert every effort to see to it that a RINO candidate gets hammered.
The message to the WSRP leadership is clear: Get squared away or get out.
Posted by: ERNurse on November 19, 2006 07:45 PMI think the State legislative races got drowned by the race for Senator and the 8th District. There were a few races that got mentioned by you, but by and large, any message the Republicans had got drowned.
Also, the decline of KVI can't be trivialized. The loss of Siegel didn't help either. Replacement at KVI with the 'commenters' and adding the 'raspy' Bryan Suits were a huge negative loss. And to Kirby's credit, he didn't have any 'hot button' issues he could get behind (see above).
There also was not a Republican in the legislature with stature. There was not a Republican spokesman. The old bulls are gone- Ballard, Foreman, McDonald, etc.
With transportation, I saw a mixed message from Repubicans- those in Seattle area wanting wasteful programs and more conservative Rs in the outlying areas who wanted to rein in the wasteful spending of Gregoire. Yes, you can point to specifics legislators and candidates to rebut my discussion but the overall message I got was 'no message'.
Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2006 07:16 AMNo that is exactly how we got the cronimals like Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramhoff, by voting like morons for anyone with an R next to their name. They became drunk with power knowing that no matter how bad they were, they would get reelected.
When the people that are supposed to be guarding your half of the loaf are giving it away to the other side, then why should anyone want those people representing them? The people I see protesting those of us who voted out corrupt tax raising Republicans sadden me. They show just how far the party has gone to being a fluffy unprincipled bunch of people only in it for the power grab. I would rather lose every time on principle than win simply to retain power and compromise my principles.
Fiscal conservatism is the core of the Republican party. When our local and stage legislators realize this and stick to it, they will be elected.
Posted by: pbj on November 20, 2006 11:11 AMI just don't see the arrogance of our locals that you see. Like Stefan says, don't equate the national party with the local party.
Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2006 12:12 PMI cannot speak for all statewide legislators. In my specific case, I can tell of Beverly Woods in the 23rd. Her defining moment came when she voted for the gas tax. Against the please of her constituents that contacted her, she voted for it anyway. I saw that as a defining moment for her. What was the final straw was when she tried to justify it by saying it will "create jobs". You don't build an economy by taxing people to "create jobs". Jobs are created by private enterprise, not government taxation. Several Republicans voted with Democrats for that Gas tax. And for our tax dollars, what have we gotten? They told us the viaduct would fall over immediately unless we passed the tax. We passed the tax and what has been done about the viaduct?
Now some will say, oh well it was just one vote. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. But this state has a history of wasting the taxpayers money whether it is Democrat Mike Lowry overruling the people and forcing Safeco on us, or Seattle and its $700,000 hi-tech toilets/crackhouses, millions for monorails that never get built or millions on bridge projects in Port Angeles that never get done because of bungling. There is never any accountability.
If we never take a stand, we will end up with even more wasted tax dollars. ERNurse said it best that I don't want to put electability over principle. The is the attitude in the current state party, and it permeates our leadership in Olympia is to go along to get along at all costs.
Ronald Reagan lost a few times too before things got so bad that even the most clueless amongst the populace could see he was right.
Yes, with Democrats in charge, things will go to hell in a handbasket. But would it be any better if they went that way with help from Republicans? Republicans need to stop being Democrat light and be Republicans. One principle is that we do not increase taxes to create jobs. When I hear those words out of a legislators mouth, I know they are Democrats at heart regardless of party moniker.
Poor Bev probably didn't even realize she was a Democrat at heart. She thought her impressive bag of pork giveaways would be enough to distract us into voting for her. Anyone who doesn't think for a microsecond that Democrat Rolfes will be the pork barrel queen of the 23rd doesn't understand much how the Democrat Party works. I know, I was one for 40 years.
When Democrats go on tax raising binges, the Republicans need to vote against it. Any time, every time. Government needs to show it can be fiscally responsible before it is given more of our money.
How many people here have seen their property taxes go up and up during the real estate boom? Raise you hands. And now that the boom is a bust and home prices are going down, how many actually think you property taxes will also go down? Raise your hands, I have a bridge to sell you.
Posted by: pbj on November 20, 2006 01:07 PMTwo simple questions:
What does the GOP (from a legislative perspective) consider it's core values/issues?
Which of those issues are they willing to compromise on?
Posted by: Hoplophile on November 20, 2006 01:28 PMI love it.
Posted by: sro on November 20, 2006 01:54 PMBev Woods squandered 7 years of leadership effort. She'll be remembered most as the stop light lady.
She started off trying to emulate her mentor Karen Schmitt, including doing everything in her power to wrangle a cushy appointment, like Karen. Her votes prove this statement. Didn't quite work out the way she wanted...so far.
She's so far off the reservation, I'm surprised it took the 23rd so long to bring her home. What about her consistent votes to end the supermajority provisions? Her affirmative votes to give illegals in-state tuition and drivers licenses are very conservative notions, right?
The gas tax issue is worse than mentioned previously. Her caucus tryed to hold together opposing the increases. That worked well and soon after fed Bruce Chandler to the hungry mongrels in the caucus.
Bev and Frank Chopp working together was able to peel two additional mainstreamers to abandon the caucus in favor of the gas tax providing Bill Eickmeyer,D-35th and rising star Derek Kilmer, D-26th the ability to vote no on the tax because their disrticts had enough of transportation deceptions...Narrows Bridge debacle. That caused the Republican Central Committee in Kitsap to take Woods to the woodshed at their October 2005 meeting. She never come back to a single KCRP meeting since.
She led the opposition in Kitsap against I-912, too.
And the final insult was her admonishment of the State Auditor for daring to conduct a performance audit of the WSDOT. That effort won her a "Schrammie" and cost her the election. She was polling ahead of her RAT opponent 6 weeks before the election. Her fortunes reversed.
Sh'e blaming the officers of the KCRP for her loss and is working hard to install a group of folks who are sympathetic to her ideals, including Jack Hamilton as candidate for Chair. Should be a winning combination, considering Hamilton lost his county commissioner race to a 25 year old unemployed RAT Berkeley general degree graduate who's never had a job in Kitsap County...NOT.
I hope the PCO's have more smarts than this, but I'm not holding my breath. It is going to be a long unproductive two years and beyond in the 23rd I'm afraid.
Posted by: Kitsap Voter on November 20, 2006 01:55 PMIt doesn't matter how good the Republican candidate is. The Democratic candidate will always have more money to spend campaigning - sometimes 5 or 10 times the money of the Republican candidate. These funds come from the WEA and all the other unions in the state, and a host of legal extracurricular inputs. The Republicans in this state simply can't raise enough money to compete year after year, race after race, election after election, and what meager funds they can raise they often allocate to poor candidates.
Look at Franz vs Sullivan in the 47th. Andrew Franz is a great person and a great candidate as is exactly the type of candidate that Washington Republicans need. And he also happened to be outspent 7-to-1 in his race. Sullivan's campaign war chest was in excess of $300K for this election - for a 2-year post that pays less than $35K per year!!
How do the Republicans end this vicious cycle? The Democrats are spending 5 times as much on the campaign as the candidate earns in those two years in office.
The Democrats say that they hate the arrogance and corruption that pervades the party continually in power - but only when it's Republicans on a national level. They love it when it's Democrats in Washington, King County, and Seattle.
Posted by: Larry on November 20, 2006 02:20 PMSince there's already civil unions in this state, I doubt it. However, they might try to legalize gay marriage and slap an emergency clause on it, because we all know what an emergency it is that gays marry.
Posted by: Palouse on November 20, 2006 02:45 PMSay what? Since when have same-sex couples been able to enter into a civil union in Washington State?
Sorry... that just is not so.
However, the State Supreme Court did suggest the legislature should get crackin' on that issue though.
Posted by: Splinter on November 20, 2006 02:48 PMThe Democrats, including both national and state organizations, have made winning local and state legislative offices a priority. They identify good candidates, put them in races they have a chance of winning, and give them the resources needed to win. They are developing a deep bench.
Republicans give the concept of winning local offices lip-service but have not organized to do it. Activities supported by the RNC at the state level are usually directed at Federal offices, often to the detriment of local and state legislative candidates. There is little coordination among the House and Senate Caucuses and the State Party. Candidate recruitment is haphazard, and when good candidates are found, they are left pretty much on their own to raise money, usually competing with another Republican for the same dime.
For example in SE King County, Republican State House candidates received 30+ percent more in donations from individual donors than did their opponents. Yet they were outspent by about 6 or 7 times because their opponents had more than $200K from their party and its affiliates. The Republicans had less than 10% of that from their Party. And that is before "independent expenditures" are added in.
Mike Young, of the King County GOP, is one of the few in a leadership position who understands the problem and is working to solve it. At this point in time he is the voice in the wilderness.
Election years like this one, when the Republicans stayed home, only compound the results.
Under the current system, Republicans discourage good candidates each year because those people are just not going to make the sacrifices necessary to run for office when there is no real support from the Party.
With every win, the Democrats have more resources and more money to fund other of their candidates. And they gain the votes to be in charge when redistricting is on the table or when felons or illegals can be added to the voters rolls. Eventually that give them a lock on Federal and state offices.
Don't expect big changes as long as the Democrats are playing major league politics and the Republicans are in the Saturday afternoon pick-up game.
Posted by: GRA on November 20, 2006 02:54 PMFranz is as far as I know a first-time candidate and probably would make a good legislator. But, it is his first time out of the blocks. Take the Snohomish County Charter Commission. You see a lot of the winners in their elections as previous candidates for office.
I hope Franz keeps at it. Unfortunately, one and done is the norm and not the exception. But, Halvorson tried it a second time and it was against a candidate who did not run a reelection campaign and see lost big time. Ergo, read my discussion this morning.
To put it simply, why should I have voted for Franz against a big name that has some good associated with it?
Baby steps first. I suggest a 10 year plan. First, have everyone run again for a couple of times to get name familiarity. Groom up and comers for a major push in six years or so. And get on MESSAGE!!!
Oh, and Sullivan just announced he was running for County Council just one week after winning an election to the legislature.
Posted by: swatter on November 20, 2006 03:31 PMWither the Washington GOP?
Posted by: Steven Donegal on November 20, 2006 04:34 PMI'm not certain if you proved MY point, but I'm certain you didn't prove yours:
"I don't know for sure the 47th is the Mukilteo area, but Brian Sullivan is a "runner". He is always running for this or that. His name is as synonymous with Mukilteo as Eyman."
"To put it simply, why should I have voted for Franz against a big name that has some good associated with it?"
Andrew Franz was running against PAT Sullivan in the 47th, not Brian Sullivan in the 21st.
I guess I'm glad Andrew was running against a Sullivan and not a Kennedy. Then you could've been talking about how his opponent founded the Peace Corps and was a former Attorney General, for all the insight you had into Sullivan's qualifications.
Posted by: Larry on November 20, 2006 05:55 PM1) Transparency for Taxpayers; A line by line accounting for all tax dollars spent, especailly in Transportation, that will be sent to all taxpayers every year. A simplified Income statement possibly?
2) Transportation; A fresh, new approach for CONGESTION relief. No more money spent on bike lanes and endless studies. Action will be promised for a new 520, 167, hwy 9, 405, possibly a new freeway that runs N & S on the eastside(ie the ill fated I-605) And new EXPRESS bus lines, that will make riding the bus easy for communters.
3) New Common Sense Controlled Growth Management Act. A REASONABLE adjustment to be made so homeowners are not stuck with unusable land but at the same time allows for zoning laws to be implemented without the fear of everyone suing the government.
4)Business Culture. Streamline business processes so it is easier to do business in this State. Do away with the bureaucracy that costs busineses so much time and money.
Obviously there are more but to keep it simple get everyone on the same page and run on the issues. Do not allow the other party to define us, we need to define us, let them run on nothing.
Just a thought
Posted by: CKL on November 20, 2006 08:13 PMHowever, the far-left nutroots/George Soros crowd is out to bring it back, in an attempt to do a better job, just as the Conservatives tried to do so with GW Bush and his cronies, so they are labeled neo-cons. Similarly the nutroots/Soros far-lefties should be labeled as neo-commies. I know that this is politically incorrect will probably get attacked from the both the right and left. Now, I know what O'Reilly feels like.
Posted by: KS on November 20, 2006 08:51 PMSee, that's why I want people like you and Jeff running the party.
Posted by: ivan on November 20, 2006 09:59 PMI call them neo-commies too.
Posted by: pbj on November 21, 2006 07:16 AMYour reasoning is flawed. Your warning against absolutism is itself an absolute by nature. To say "there are no absolutes" is a self-defeating argument. Try again.
God is an absolutist. He made a whole lot of "Thou shalt nots" and such. Does that make Him a loser?
There is a right path and a wrong path. You choose one way or another. If you choose to sit in the middle, you lose. There you go. No charge for that.
Posted by: NurseWilliam on November 23, 2006 07:09 AM