Well, you guys had quite a bit to say. Here's some more fodder:
1) Jarrett's description of himself places him squarely in the Dan Evans/Nelson Rockefeller wing of the party (which, by the way, isn't exactly growing). Beginning with Barry Goldwater in 1964 and culminating with Ronald Reagan in 1980, the GOP as a whole has moved beyond that big government approach to politics, which really came to fruition during the Progressive Era and was led by such figures as Teddy Roosevelt.
Folks like Jarrett leaving the GOP is not much different than the steady flight of conservative, southern Democrats out of that party in the 1980's and 1990's once they realized the degree to which they no longer meshed with the party's urban, liberal orthodoxy. In the end, not too many Democrats were sad to see the Trent Lott's of the world change parties; likewise here with the GOP and Jarrett.
Consequently, Jarrett made a decision that is to some degree understandable, though playing party turncoat inevitably leads to some rough rhetoric on the way out the door. If he truly is the pragmatist he claims then it's actually a pretty rational choice. He's much more likely to influence policy as a member of the now dominant Democratic majority than sitting in the shrinking Republican caucus. Others will say it's simply an ego play on Jarrett's part. I suspect few people know the man well enough to discuss that theory with any real standing, but it's out there.
2) Party switchers sometimes have their own issues, but the Washington State GOP has to embrace individual office holders who deviate from the platform at times. Fred Jarrett joins Rodney Tom in jumping parties and claiming one of the causes for their jump was that they were made to feel unwelcome in the Republican caucus. Maybe this is valid, maybe it's not. The Jarretts and Toms of this world have long been uncomfortable taking heat within their own party - as opposed to the Tim Sheldon's of the world who just keep winning. Some people can take embrace the friction of being a moderate, some can't.
That being said, one line of the coverage on Jarrett jumped out at me:
Jarrett said the tipping point may have come when a Republican senator told him that if he ran for the Senate and was endorsed by NARAL Pro-Choice Washington, "it'd be a problem in the caucus."
Obviously, that's just one side of the story, and Senate Republican leader Mike Hewitt made clear in the same article it wasn't an issue for him. But, such "it'd be a problem" comments, sometimes in much harsher words and backed by action, are not uncommon coming from some corners of the GOP base. Bluntly put, that's not going to work.
Take a look again at the map provided by the Seattle Times in their coverage linked above. If Republicans who might deviate from the mainstream of conservative thought on issues like abortion or the environment are not embraced then there is little hope of regaining the embarrassing swath of legislative seats that have moved from Republican to Democrat in the last decade and a half.
Moreover, candidates are going to have start talking about kitchen table issues like education, transportation, and healthcare outside of the stereotypical sound bites of vouchers and charters, roads not transit, and medical saving accounts for everyone. It is painfully obvious there needs to be more candidate agendas that speak to improving public schools, balanced transportation plans, and healthcare proposals that make insurance more affordable. There are ways to address those issues in a way voters can understand and that embrace conservative principles. In contrast, Republican business as usual isn't selling, as the map above so clearly illustrates.
Don't get me wrong. Some commenters will inevitably say, "hey Earling, you're saying Republicans should to try to out-Democrat the Democrats!" No. And if the kind of suburban candidates I'm saying the party needs to be willing embrace tried to change the party platform I'd advise them to find more useful endeavors for their energy. But in a representative democracy candidates actually need to speak to the issues voters care about in a way voters can respect and support. Does anyone think the GOP is doing a good job of that right now in suburban legislative races?
Thus, Republicans might not need to mourn the departure of Fred Jarrett. But they sure better be willing to embrace suburban candidates not too far away from him in the future if the phrase "super majority Democrats" isn't to become a mainstay in Olympia.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 15, 2007 02:51 PM | Email ThisBut, the overwhelming majority of citizens in WA have moved to the Democrat side of the aisle. And there is nothing the Republicans can do to change that fact. Demographic trends will indeed just push the Republicans even further into the minority.
Posted by: Hmmmmm on December 15, 2007 02:46 PMThat's a straw man, Eric. You might want to pay some attention at what Republican members are actually saying about education, transportation and health care, and the legislation they've introduced, rather than trading in stereotypes and cliches. It's lazy commentary, no different from what we can read on the P-I editorial page any day of the week.
Posted by: ram on December 15, 2007 04:30 PMI don't pretend to be an expert on what bills have and haven't been introduced in Olympia. Yet, what gets talked about in the State Capitol doesn't compare in importance to what candidates are talking about on the campaign trail. I have given close attention to what Republican candidates are and aren't saying on these issues in suburban races, especially in Snohomish County. Bluntly put, they don't have a strong message in the aggregate.
That's a big reason why Rossi outperformed the rest of the ticket in 2004. He spoke to issues voters cared about in ways that made sense to them (but which didn't sacrifice conservative principles). His ability to do so again right out of the gate in this election is also a big reason why his campaign looks to have a solid foundation.
Candidates looking to reclaim suburban legislative districts would do well emulate what Rossi is saying. In the meantime, I think you're smart enough to also grasp I'm making a characterization about candidates as a whole. Obviously some are better than others.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 15, 2007 04:55 PMIn other words, he's been a working Dem for quite awhile. This was just a formal acknowledgement, and now he can go to the caucus meetings.
The unfortunate thing I got from the evening session was that the dicussion of how to fix education gets so bogged down in policy wonk that it is no longer understandable. Fred is into the very tall grass on funding ratios and NERC percentages. But ask him if we should abolish WASL because it is a meaningless test of Math, and he just gives an enigmatic grin.
Posted by: janet s on December 15, 2007 05:10 PMI'm fully aware of the imperfection of the map for the very reason you note. However, it doesn't detract from the complete collapse of Republican legislative candidates in areas of Snohomish County, East King County, and Kitsap County that were reliably Republican into the mid-90's. Yes, some district boundaries have changed for the worse for Republicans (like the 21st). Some, however, are just as winnable or even more so than before redistricting(like the 44th), yet Republicans are still getting wiped out in the actual races.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 15, 2007 05:55 PMthat has to change...it's exactly what voters don't want...decisions being made for personal reasons instead of what's best for citizens...
Posted by: Jimmy on December 15, 2007 08:58 PMI am also hearing people say that the era of big government republicanism died starting with goldwater and ending with reagan.
These two points are far more connected than one might think. We as a party are far from shedding our big government clothing. Bush has increased the role of government and size of the governments budget more than any president since LBj if not FDR. The next crop of candidates for the most part do not look much better in this regards.
I see much the same on the state level. The republican candidates do not say, I hear them on the radio whining about how they promised voters to fix ferrys and then the mean old democrats did not do it. I hear them whining about how they could build roads for cheaper. I hear them whining about all these government programs they could run better.
If all we do is promise to run big government better, we will never win. We need to really return to our small government roots and argue against government programs alltogether. When gregoire says she will buy 3 new ferrys, we should respond back with, 'why is the state running a ferry business?' I know the arguement is going to be from the establishment republicans... "people will not vote for that here in liberal washington." Well look at Ron Pauls campaign here in WA. His campaign has taken off here and nationwide with an army of volunteers and even more campaign donations. People are hungry for politiciasns that promise less not more government. Unfortunately that does not describe our current leadership in the GOP. We can do better.
Posted by: Travis on December 15, 2007 11:49 PMBy the way, today is Ron Paul's big "money bomb" day. It is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, and so far, as of 4:45 PM Seattle time, he has raised over $4,500,000 in one day. He has already broken his one-day record of $4.35 million set last Nov. 5th. His total for the fourth quarter is over $16,000,000.
This really is hope for America!
Please donate today at ronpaul2008 dot com! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 16, 2007 04:11 PM"Paul's past
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5374328.html
A look at Ron Paul's controversial past (w/video)
By BENNETT ROTH
WASHINGTON Texas Rep. Ron Paul's fervent opposition to the Iraq war
and his denunciations of Big Government have made him the Internet
darling of the 2008 presidential campaign and have earned him more than
$10 million in contributions.
Less known to Paul's many Internet-driven supporters are earlier
writings and speeches by the Lake Jackson Republican in which he made
incendiary comments about African-Americans, immigration, AIDS patients
and alleged victims of sexual harassment.
"Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts?" Paul wrote
in a 1988 book, Freedom Under Siege.
In 1997, Paul took issue with the concept of global warming, arguing
"the temperatures are getting cooler, on the average."
Ten years earlier, in 1987, he wrote that the United States should not
have a national immigration policy and "should welcome everyone who
wants to come here and work."
While some supporters say Paul's controversial views would not affect
their support for his presidential run, some academics begged to
differ.
'Off-the-wall views'
Paul, a 10-term congressman who was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee
for president, has emerged from the rear of the 2008 presidential pack
to reach double digits in some polls in New Hampshire, the first state
to hold a presidential primary. The early front-runners have avoided
clashing with him because they did not see him as a threat to win the
nomination.
But if Paul continues to gain in the polls, "the more likely that some
of his off-the-wall views will get known," said Bruce Buchanan, a
University of Texas political science professor.
Paul's campaign spokesman, Jesse Benton, said in response to questions
that criticisms of the congressman's writings were recycled political
attacks.
Benton said Paul has changed his position on immigration over the past
two decades, now backing government action such as building a fence on
the border. Paul still opposes the Kyoto climate change protocol, but
now believes "temperatures are rising in some places and falling in
others, and that human activity plays a role," the spokesman said.
Paul outlined many of his ideas in his current weekly column, "Texas
Straight Talk." He also gave numerous speeches and wrote or co-wrote 11
books.
Many opinions
Among other provocative stands, Paul has advocated decriminalizing
drugs, returning to the gold standard and eliminating the Federal
Reserve, CIA, IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
More recently he slammed government bureaucrats for using the Sept. 11
attacks as "an excuse to seize police powers sought for decades." And
he labeled the neoconservatives who built the case for invading Iraq
"Trotskyites."
Earlier this year, Paul said the Civil War did not have to be fought,
arguing that there were better ways of ending slavery. "We could have
paid for the slaves and released them," he said on HBO's Real Time with
Bill Maher.
Some of Paul's most provocative stands are included in his book Freedom
Under Siege, published in 1988. In it, Paul took issue with people
seeking government redress based on their affiliation with certain
groups.
In one chapter, he questioned those employees who claim sexual
harassment is a violation of their rights.
"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees
into sexual activity," he wrote. "Why don't they quit once the
so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser
cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility
for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is
hardily acceptable."
The Paul campaign did not respond to questions about the passage.
AIDS stance explained
In the same chapter, Paul also singled out people with AIDS, saying
they "demand health care and scream AIDS 'discrimination' if insurance
companies claim they have a right to refuse to issue a policy to
someone already infected with the AIDS virus."
"The rights of the insurance company owners are not considered, while
legislation is passed forcing insurance companies to provide insurance
demanded by the victims," he wrote.
Campaign spokesman Benton said Paul, an obstetrician, believes
"government mandates on insurance companies always push up costs and
drive down quality."
An August 1992 edition of the Ron Paul report newsletter described
former Rep. Barbara Jordan, D-Houston, as "the archetypal half-educated
victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."
Benton said that even though the writings appeared under Paul's name,
the articles were written by others without Paul's approval. Benton
said Paul was "especially upset with the Barbara Jordan comments
because he respected her and liked her." Jordan died in 1996.
Libertarian at heart
A number of Paul's writings underscore his libertarian leanings.
While Paul does not talk about legalizing drugs on the campaign trail,
he wrote in 1988 during his bid for president on the Libertarian ticket
that "all drugs should be decriminalized."
In recent years Paul has criticized the war on drugs but largely
directed his ire at what he argues is the government's zeal in going
after physicians who prescribe drugs for pain management."
bennett.roth@chron.com
Brought to you by the HoustonChronicle.com
Travis Pahl
Posted by: GOP Leaders shun new activists on December 16, 2007 08:57 PM1. What is republican about:
a. "Ten years earlier, in 1987, he wrote that the United States should not
have a national immigration policy and "should welcome everyone who
wants to come here and work." I suppose that is W's immigration policy, right?
b. "alleged victims of sexual harassment.
"Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts?" Paul wrote
in a 1988 book, Freedom Under Siege."
I guess that impeachment thing with Bubba, never mind.
c. "An August 1992 edition of the Ron Paul report newsletter described
former Rep. Barbara Jordan, D-Houston, as "the archetypal half-educated
victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."
My research is that the late Congresswoman was admired by people of all races and pols of both parties. Is your research different?
d. "While Paul does not talk about legalizing drugs on the campaign trail,
he wrote in 1988 during his bid for president on the Libertarian ticket
that "all drugs should be decriminalized."
Gee, doesn't the republican ant-druggie policy start with the Reagans and "just say NO." Let's see, dude is an MD and can prescribe drugs, guess that explains the screwy statements, right?
e. "Among other provocative stands, Paul has advocated decriminalizing
drugs, returning to the gold standard and eliminating the Federal
Reserve, CIA, IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
These are republican positions, right?
Is anything in the Houston Chronicle wrong?
Your candidate is like a flea on an elephant. He is not a republican, but needs a national platform which is why he is in the race. Your team will never answer any questions about Paultard, but the blog machine keeps turning out happy face statements.
As soon as he loses the primaries he will form a third party and you and the rest of your team will be out trying to convince people that he is the messiah. Call him what you will, he is not a republican, merely an oportunist. The lame stream media is beginning to get it.
Posted by: WVH on December 16, 2007 10:22 PMOne would get the idea that Doug might prefer it if these guys never were elected, or in Sam's case get defeated.
To wich I respond:
Senator Cantwell
Governor Rosellini
Secretary of State Laura Ruderman
I hope a few more people realize just how fortunate we are to have enjoyed the principled leadership and sound governance of moderate Republicans. Without any doubt the alternative isn't someone Doug would support, it's a Democrat.
But I guess it's better to be a perpetual minority than vote for people who share your values 80%+ of the time.
But again, thanks. I'll do my best to deserve to be included in that list of great people.
Posted by: Alex Hays on December 16, 2007 10:56 PMI think those are the things Fred was refering to as he switched parties. The GOP has changed when it comes to mixing up church and state, basic civil rights and the environment. That's why it is the declining party in this state.
Posted by: redflag on December 17, 2007 06:03 AMAnd the request is more like begging.
Jack, I expect you to lead the effort to get articles posted. I think you can either start here or at your party headquarters.
It would be tremendous if you could organize a long-term letter writing campaign. It seems very easy to do. But first, you and the management need to see the value. With the advent of the computers and e-mail it should be a lot easier to creat e-mail trees rather and phone trees.
With the strategy, the party would direct their members to write even one letter a year and help them with subject and content.
But, it needs a leader. You said you were that leader for the Snohomish County party.
Posted by: swatter on December 17, 2007 08:39 AM