David Postman provided some coverage of my original post on 2006 state GOP fundraising below. His coverage includes a response from Diane Tebelius.
I disagree with one aspect of Postman's coverage, and Tebelius' response: they're both focused on the spending component the topic, not the more important issue of fundraising. I'm well enough familiar with the complexity of making spending decisions with finite resources either as an individual campaign or as a party organization. Moreover, it's easy to second-guess spending after the fact, especially when you lose. The bigger problem in my view isn't the spending; it's the lack of fundraising that made the pot of money available for candidate support so small.
The issue of spending per candidate appears to be merely a byproduct of anemic fundraising by the State Party. Neither the Exempt Account nor the Non-Exempt Account were well-funded in 2006. Indeed, PDC records show sub-par fundraising for both accounts when compared to recent years.
As I indicated in my original post, I'm open to the notion there may be some logical explanation for all this. The responsibility may not fall entirely on Tebelius, as she alludes to in her response to Postman. I don't know if that's the case or not, though I think most people familiar with how state parties operate know the Chair bears heavy responsibility for the Party's fundraising, whether money is raised by the Chair or by a Finance Committee the Chair has assembled. Accordingly, the Party's fundraising performance in 2006 raises questions.
All that being said, I am interested in how the debate between Esser and Tebelius plays out. Given the disenchantment one can see in the grassroots with the State Party in recent years, I'm curious what both candidates will bring to the table in terms of a vision and plan to improve the situation. Esser has a clear public record after serving for years in the Legislature that seems relatively well known. Tebelius is likewise well known, at least to many voting members of the State Committee, given her years of service to the Republican party in various capacities. I'd be interested in seeing some debate about the two in the comments here.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 15, 2007 07:22 PM | Email ThisSure the contribution numbers were higher in 2000, but remember that the state house was evenly divided between Ds and Rs at that point. And later the Rs held the state senate by a slim margin, right up until the 2005 session. With the Rs holding a small measure of control in our state government, it made sense to invest some money there.
But now? Was giving money to the Washington State Republican Party a smart investment? It's not like our party really has any say in the legislative agenda at this point. With the Democrats in total control of both houses and the Governor's mansion, we're in no position to exert any influence at all on behalf of any big business donors.
Sure it's easy to start bashing the fundraisers, and I will admit that the performance of Tebelius et al has been lackluster at best. But one needs to keep in mind the historical context here. I submit that big business donors aren't giving to the state GOP because there's really nothing we can do for them. When we're competitive again, the money will come back.
Posted by: Randy Mueller on January 15, 2007 07:55 PMHave you looked at the calendar lately? Seems a little late for your buddy Mark (Mark who?) to jump into the race!
Dream on...
Posted by: Matthew Lundh on January 15, 2007 08:44 PM Its not to late and there are more than enough
state committee members that would vote
for Mark Hulst should he decide to do run.
I stand by what I said earlier Mark will
run and he will win.
No Damn Thanks!
Heh folks, what are you doing about protecting this state....eh...................Hello in there!
Posted by: GS on January 15, 2007 10:44 PMFrom my own memory, it seems like Vance was quoted often in newstories about political developments in this state. During the last election cycle, I rarely saw a quote from anyone at the State Party--in fact, more often than not, the quotes were still coming from Vance.
Could it be that in addition to poor fundraising performance, the State Party was also running a sub-optimal media operation? It would sure be nice to have a more competitive GOP presence in Western Washington--and more specifically in the Puget Sound. It's one thing to have a strategy document, and a "contract with Washington", but if you can never act or deliver on it, what's the point?
Posted by: Patrick on January 15, 2007 11:30 PMHowever, there many things to be positive about.
1. Demographics ... pro-choice democrats don't have kids anymore. (Broad generalization, but basically true).
2. There will never be another Bush elected to anything outside of TX.
3. Conservative skeptism will lead to much better candidates. No more saying the right thing ... you've got to do it.
Now into the Sinai for 10 years
Posted by: John McDonald on January 16, 2007 02:20 AMI think lots of people have been on the the "Republican Reform Train" for some time now. It's just that most people don't share your view of the problem or the solution.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 16, 2007 06:52 AMThe Republicans need a chair to get some local talent running for County and City positions this year. And then, maybe for State office next year.
Tebelius reminds of the football coach who interviews for the Raider or Brown head coaching position and tells the owner the team is good and they have the right stuff to get the team to the Super Bowl. They get the job and after the season when they win only two games, they tell everyone they didn't have a good team but they did well under the circumstances.
After reading Eric's post, I take back my suggestion of a dual chairmanship and have decided Tebelius is part of the problem and not the solution.
Posted by: swatter on January 16, 2007 07:41 AMDepending on the interpretation and enforcement of the recently reintroduced "Fairness Doctrine" in Congress the local media could be completely shut down for lack of balance.
Posted by: Smokie on January 16, 2007 08:07 AMLet me tell Tebelius a thing or two. Postman is not your friend (just ask McGavick who learned his lesson) and will turn on you as fast as he can say, "hocus-pocus".
Posted by: swatter on January 16, 2007 09:09 AM You have made some pretty serious allegations
about Diane Tebelius. Just how do you know
that Dino Rossi can't stand her? Enlighten
us as to how she hurt the McGavick campaign?
If anything I think she was to focused on
that race at the expense of some others.
What exactly is it that makes you think
she is cancer on the State Gop?
For the record I like Diane a great deal as
a person.As leader she has some serious shortcomings
and its hard for me to trust her because of
some past events. But I certainly don't think
she is a cancer on the party.I have never heard
from anyone that Dino can't stand her.
Eric's 2 responses to him (at 12) are telling:
1. "...lots of people have been on the... 'Reform Train' for some time now." This, of course, is pure fiction. Neither Eric, nor any other SoundPolitics contributor has even fathomed the problem, much less fashioned any solution. Indeed, each has recommended the existing problematic philosophy (or subcomponents of it), the very modus operandi that has led to this sorry state, as if it were the solution!
The problem is extensive "Mainstream Republicans of Washington" liberal dry rot. The State Party Establishment has labored to keep it secret from the conservative base for twenty six years. Now the whole house is falling down.
The "Elephant in the room" is that Luke Esser is their choice for State Chair. He is carrying the banner of "Mainstream," tucked in his underwear. If you like having "Sam Reed"s in office (on the increasingly rare occasions when the dinosaurs actually win one) you'll like Luke.
2. "It's just that most people don't share your view of the problem or the solution." If, by "people" Eric means Republicans, this comment is more ludicrous than the first. It's clear that the SoundPolitics pro-abortion, gay rights, economic moderate bloggers don't share the Republican view of the problem or solution, but they are hardly "most people!" What polls are you quoting, Eric? They seem to keep coming up with the result that "most people" agree with Eric Earling.
The Democrats stand for Socialism and Sexual License. We stand for nothing but corporate greed, because we think money is the key to winning. Dry Rot.
It just worked its way to the center of the RNC more slowly than it did the WSRP.
When Esser or Tebelius talk about "inspiring" they mean chanting slogans:
"One Team, One Mission!" (But there is no political mission with any definition... All Diane means is "Elect Republicans no matter what they believe!")
"Limited Government!" (But limited by what, Luke? Obviously not the Constitution. He voted against it, and to eviscerate property rights opposing I-933. He supported Gregoire in her drive to directly control what products retailers had to stock!!!! That is a Democrat/fascist mindset. Luke's "Limited" means government limited by a candidate's ability to make campaign promises.)
Dry Rot. The house is collapsing. We need a builder who believes in the planks of the platform, not who apologizes and appeases. Until then, there is no hope.
You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Not Esser.
Not Tebelius.
Not Nohow!
The trick is harnessing all the viewpoints.
Posted by: swatter on January 17, 2007 07:29 AMFor God's sake, don't engage. Don't hash out our differences... just assume the moral superiority of the Mainstreamer, name call, and be done with it.
The issue of the Mainstreamers and their all-too-often lockstep with democrats and democrat front groups (Randy, for example, has given money to democrats and is a proud member of that democrat front group, the Washington Conservation Voters... a group that is easily bought and one that did a Cowlitz tribe/David Barnett paid-for hit piece against Rep. Richard Curtis during his first election in 04) may be one for another thread. But that question shouldn't be allowed to dilute the issue before us now... Esser? Or Tebelius?
Or will it matter?
Is there another choice?
Is this a matter of trying to find someone else... or are we at the point where the perception is that we're re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic no matter which one gets the job?
Posted by: Hinton on January 17, 2007 07:55 AMI've spent more time than any man rightly should debating Doug at this site. If I thought spending hours doing the same thing again would have any value I'd give it a whirl. I'm happy to chime in to a fresh debate involving lots of people with whom I might agree or disagree. But, as any reader familiar with my past tangles with Doug knows, there's no way any such debate with him is going to be productive.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 17, 2007 08:15 AM First of all I don't hate anyone. There are
those I have serious disagreements with but
I hate no one. I will say this one more time
The reason I was on Goldstein's show was because
he was the only one that took me up on my offer
to talk about what it is wrong with the State Gop.
That was the one and only time I have ever
been on his show.
Its apparent you really don't know Mark
Hulst. Nor do I think you want to.If you did
you wouldn't have said what you did about him.
Or maybe you do and that's what your worried
about.
Why don't you admit who you really are,instead
of hiding behind a phony name.Exactly what
ballot have you been on?Once again you put
words in mouth. I have never said everyone else
is wrong. Furthermore you don't know a
thing about me. I am far from perfect. I
don't deliberately seek anything.I have never
forced my will on anyone unlike some of your friends
in the King Gop who knowingly violate state law
in a disgusting attempt to try silence people
that don't agree with them.
Leave Susan out of this, its people like you
that convince me that the state republican
party doesn't deserve her anymore.You and
everyone else who continue to take shots
at Susan don't know her the way I do.
She is a kind hearted honorable person
who didn't do a thing to you. So Back
off.
I all I need to know about you is what you rant. I have run and won for public office, I have run and lost too. I still volunteer as well, can you say the same?
You day you don't seek anything? Then why to you and your buddies constantly complain about everything and everybody? For the sport of it? Have you ever built an organization that has been successful in actually moving people to support your positions? If after countless attempts to gain the power and influence within the political arena you still fail perhaps something needs to change, like your party affiliation. If you cannot find enough good things within the organization to warrant your support, then by all means pull out. Everybody wins.
Posted by: Huh? on January 18, 2007 06:15 AM Then have the guts to admit who you are.
Actually I am a Pco having been on the
ballot this past election cycle and voted
in by members of my precinct.Again you put
words in my mouth. I don't constantly complain
about everything. There have not been countless
attempts to gain power not by me anyway.
Explain to me what is actually good about the
King Gop? The fact that there winning
elections. Oh thats right they haven't won
much of anything in who knows how long.
Or maybe its how there a county party thats
actually open to listening to what other points
of view might be.yeah right when has that
ever happened without someone being threatened?
I don't think you understand that a lot of what
you talk about happens here because Michael
Young is always trying to circumvent the process
so he can have everything the way he wants it.
With this attempt at a bylaw change to try and
silence others he went to far.
How on earth you can say that everybody wins
considering they have won almost nothing is beyond
me.
And if you read carefully I said "If you cannot find enough good things within the organization to warrant your support, then by all means pull out. Everybody Wins." It's simple really, if you are as unhappy with the way things are run as your own writings make you out to be, perhaps you need to seek more fertile grounds for your ideas. Those who choose to associate themselves with the Republican Party will simply have to work things out without your support. Everybody wins.
Posted by: Huh? on January 18, 2007 04:27 PMAll you have to offer, in support of them is name-calling and ridicule.
You are of your Father.
Posted by: Doug Parris on January 18, 2007 08:15 PMIf you are the victims of such harsh treatment by the "powers that be" in the Republican Party, why not go over to the Democrats? I am certain they would welcome you with open arms, once again, EVERYBODY WINS.
Posted by: Huh? on January 18, 2007 09:29 PMWho are you?
Posted by: Doug Parris on January 20, 2007 10:26 PM