The road back from near super-minority status is not going to be an easy one for Republicans in the Legislature. Years of flawed candidates, poor messaging, and the drag of President Bush's unpopularity have combined to produce several disappointing election seasons. Now, there are a number of quality Republican candidates for the House with hope...if they receive adequate support.
That isn't happening to date in this election year. Fundraising by the legislative caucuses and the state parties shows that the political arms of the House Republicans are lagging gravely behind.
For perspective, each caucus committee has a hard dollar account from which contributions raised can be transferred to selected candidates (within established limits). Concurrently, each has a soft money account from which funds can be used for advocacy on behalf of candidates, but not in coordination with them.
With that construct in mind, here are some relevant cash on hand totals from PDC reports through the end of May. 1st, the hard dollar accounts, which can directly benefit caucus candidates:
House Democrats - $455,830
House Republicans - $49,938
Senate Democrats - $77,537
Senate Republicans - $105,207
2nd, the soft dollar accounts, for uncoordinated advocacy:
House Democrats - $270,092
House Republicans - $61,733
Senate Democrats - $272,816
Senate Republicans - $97,358
The disparity is ugly. The House Republicans are getting absolutely crushed. The Senate Republicans are at least competitive, especially in hard dollars.
This gap cannot be attributed simply to a poor environment for Republicans. The WSRP is also pulling its weight this election year.
One of the primary functions of the WSRP in this cycle, particularly after the 2004 Governor's race and given our probable lack of Presidential battleground status, is a strong get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operation. Such efforts have to be paid for out of a "federal hard dollar account" based on existing campaign finance rules - since state party GOTV efforts benefit federal candidates.
Even in these challenging times, the WSRP is doing well on this front. As of May it has $484,845 in cash-on-hand in that federal account, compared to the state Democrats' $103,707 in their equivalent fund.
In other state party funds through the end of May, the WSRP has $126,294 in their state soft dollar account, compared to the Democrats' $371,894. The WSRP has $27,160 in its hard dollar account to the Democrats' $181,297.
Add all the accounts up at the state level and one can see at least a competitive playing field in total cash (understanding that both state parties will further see major influxes, including from national entities, before Election Day give our race for Governor). The battle between the legislative caucuses clearly isn't so balanced.
That is an exceptional shame given some of the top quality candidates stepping up to the plate this year:
-Mercer Island City Councilman Steve Litzow is raising money hand over fist to fill the seat vacated by party switcher Fred Jarrett in the 41st District.
-Former legislator Toby Nixon is back in the game challenging Rep. Roger Goodman in the 45th.
-Kitsap County Commissioner Jan Angel is making a strong bid to capture retiring Representative Pat Lantz's (D) seat in the 26th.
-Kevin Parker looks like a great choice to challenge Rep. Don Barlow in the 6th District. He'll have to get past Mel Lindauer in August to move on to the General. Both have raised a lot of money, but Lindauer's contributors (like his endorsers) are heavy on his fellow optometrists. Parker's is heavy with Republicans and community leaders. Edge: Parker.
Meanwhile, two Representatives holding their seats by appointment, Norma Smith (10th Dist.) and Jaime Herrera(18th Dist.) need to be defended as well. Both quasi-incumbents, as with the other candidates listed above, all possess the talent needed to provide fresh ideas and leadership in Olympia (including within the House Republican Caucus).
Contrast that strength with the absolutely pathetic performance raising money for House Republican caucus funds in May: while House Democrats pulled in $46,820 into their hard dollar account and $50,000 into their soft dollar equivalent, House Republicans raised a meager $1,000 from one donor in hard dollars, and a mere $21.54 in soft (presumably interest income).
On one hand this is a tough year for Republicans. On the other, John McCain and Dino Rossi at the top of the ticket offer hope for Republican candidates running in an independent-friendly state like Washington. While great legislative candidates can run great campaigns, it doesn't help their cause at all if the other side's party efforts are swamping their own. Such disparities can often be the tipping point in close races.
That's the situation facing top tier House challengers in this cycle. It's not right. Something needs to change; and fast.
UPDATE: An unidentified soul at HROC responds with some recent numbers in comment #2, pointing out they have more cash-on-hand now than cited in the post above. No doubt that should be the case given that we're much of the way through June and the numbers I summarized are based on the latest PDC summary reports through the end of May. Those numbers are what they are. Even one decent month at the till is just a beginning in the process of attempting to close even a portion of the yawning fundraising gap House Republicans currently face.
I'd be happy to proved wrong in my critique above if the caucus could crank out several banner fundraising months in a row. In truth, however, the track record of the past few years doesn't inspire confidence that will actually happen.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 22, 2008 10:02 PM | Email ThisWe actually raised nearly $40,000 this week alone. Major donors are investing in our committees, both hard and soft dollars.
Our focus has been on candidate recruitment up to this point. Being in the minority doesn't make it easy to raise money. We have considerably more on hand than you indicate and are just getting going on fund raising.
Posted by: HROC on June 22, 2008 11:05 PMAnd the Rs are going to continue to have issues until the old people sit back, look what is happening around them with respect to fund-raising and message, develop a program and then act on it.
Posted by: swatter on June 23, 2008 07:48 AMThen you're way behind on that count, as well. If you're still doing candidate recruitment in Spring and Summer of an election year, you're going to get creamed.
Posted by: jimg on June 23, 2008 08:33 AMInstead, they try to find common ground with Democrats who are actively running WA in to the ground.
Vote them all out, no matter the party until we get some quality leadership addressing the real problems.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 23, 2008 10:07 AMMy rentor and I always laugh at the beginning top college football projections. It is always the same teams. It doesn't matter they are having down years. Huskies win the first two games over cupcakes and they are rated in the top 10.
As in football, it is a good thing the candidates have to strap 'em up and play. Otherwise, we already have the new President, according to the annointed one's chief minion, Daniel K.
Posted by: swatter on June 23, 2008 11:24 AMYour policies stink, your politics stink, and your candidates stink.
Not only that, but you're incompetent. Do you want to tell your friends at Sound Politics what happened with your candidate recruitment in the 28th District, or should I tell them?
Just in case you weren't sure.
And speaking of candidates that stink ... I don't know what candidates you're referring to, but did you know the Democrats gave $10K to a Senate candidate two weeks AFTER he pled guilty and was sentenced to a year in jail? There's a log in your eye ...
Walser's violated the public trust so badly that even many DEMOCRATS are vowing to vote for Val Stevens, one of the most left-hated legislators this side of the Rockies.
Congratulations. You have hit one of the most important untold stories in Washington State politics. I raised the same point in Crosscut last year. Our House candidates are being crushed under a mountain of money.
Posted by: Chris Vance on June 23, 2008 02:32 PM#!/usr/bin/perl
use warnings;
use strict;
use Pudge::PDC;
my @caucuses = (
# Republicans
'HOUSE REPUB ORG COMM',
'SPEAKERS ROUNDTABLE',
'REAGAN FUND',
'SENATE REPUB CAMP COMM',
'THE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL',
# Democrats
'HOUSE DEMO CAMP COMM',
'HARRY TRUMAN FUND',
'SENATE DEMO CAMP COMM',
'ROOSEVELT FUND'
);
for my $caucus (@caucuses) {
my $pdc = new Pudge::PDC name => $caucus, year => 2008;
my $cont = $pdc->contributions;
my $exp = $pdc->expenditures;
printf "$caucus: raised: %s, spent: %s, difference: %s\n",
formatnum($cont->{total}),
formatnum($exp->{total}),
formatnum($cont->{total} - $exp->{total}
);
}
sub formatnum {
(my $text = reverse(sprintf '%.02f', $_[0])) =~ s/(\d\d\d)(?=\d)(?!\d*\.)/$1,/g;
return '$' . reverse($text);
}
Results!
HOUSE REPUB ORG COMM: raised: $49,758.53, spent: $76,012.17, difference: $-26,253.64 SPEAKERS ROUNDTABLE: raised: $0.00, spent: $0.00, difference: $0.00 REAGAN FUND: raised: $45,716.54, spent: $40,330.36, difference: $5,386.18 SENATE REPUB CAMP COMM: raised: $47,740.00, spent: $55,162.43, difference: $-7,422.43 THE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL: raised: $131,425.00, spent: $95,545.38, difference: $35,879.62 HOUSE DEMO CAMP COMM: raised: $56,115.00, spent: $178,151.82, difference: $-122,036.82 HARRY TRUMAN FUND: raised: $137,000.00, spent: $134,198.87, difference: $2,801.13 SENATE DEMO CAMP COMM: raised: $85,584.22, spent: $169,624.42, difference: $-84,040.20 ROOSEVELT FUND: raised: $20,000.00, spent: $40,094.55, difference: $-20,094.55
Of course, this doesn't tell us cash on hand. But it's fun anyway.
I can't imagine the purpose of such a post, especially when you haven't spoken with anyone "in the know" about the facts. Seems like you're firing from the hip without doing your research, which is unlike you.
That said, if there is anyone out there who honestly believes that the GOP, while barely holding a superminority, is going to raise anywhere NEAR what the Democrats will raise, please raise your hand so the men in suits can take you away.
Money is bound to flow to those who have control of the power. All the PAC money, lobbyist money, special interest money...it's going to go to the Democrats. Even our own Republican donors, like the BIAW, are funding Democrats in higher and higher proportions. You can't blame them for this, they are just playing with the cards they are dealt. The cards they all have now are severely depleted Republican ranks due to a number of factors, not the least of which is a decade of Bush and drunken-sailor spending and corruption under the guise of a Republican Congress.
Your argument is like saying that Obama is clearly going to win because he has all the money. Or that McCain had no chance in the primary against Romney because of the money disparity.
What you aren't recognizing is the fact that the Democrats have twice as many seats, therefore twice as many fundraisers (people raising money for them) and twice as many legislators making promises in return for all that money.
I tell clients all this time: you don't need all the money, or even the most. You just need enough to get your message out. I can point to a half-dozen races I've won with exactly that much money...enough.
So the question isn't whether or not the GOP will have as much money as the Democrats. The question is, will they have "enough."
From the post above, it sounds like HROC is confident they will have what they planned for. If they meet their own fundraising goals, then they will have "enough."
Posted by: Chad Minnick on June 23, 2008 03:35 PMThat's fine. Unless it gets personal, such discussions will do more to make us better than worse, methinks ...
Posted by: pudge on June 23, 2008 04:17 PMBut then, that's just me.
Posted by: Hinton on June 23, 2008 06:04 PMThe GOP was looking for somebody to challenge Rep. Tami Green (D-28). Somebody called Sam Ross and asked him if he would file as the Republican challenger to Tami Green.
Sam thanked whoever called him and said he'd certainly consider it. The filing deadline came and went and Sam didn't file. Whoever had approached him reportedly called him and asked "what happened?"
Sam reportedly replied "Well, I didn't think this was a good time to change parties." Sam, you see, is a very active Democrat, and has been for years.
Now Tami Green, whom the GOP would love to defeat, but won't now, has a blank ballot because of Republican incompetence.
Eat your hearts out, Minnick and the rest of you. You're too damn dumb to govern this state, and there's a good chance that by January Ron Paul supporters will be running much of the GOP in Washington anyway.
And when the Demo's didn't fill a spot last time, Richard Pope jumped in..... How did that feel for ya!!!!
Posted by: Chris on June 23, 2008 07:19 PM
It felt just fine. Richard Pope is more welcome in the Democratic Party than Rodney Tom and Fred Jarrett were welcome in the GOP. Any bets on who'll desert you next?
That worked out pretty good for you Republicans, too. You got a County Councilwoman who lied about her resume and drove drunk. But oops, I forgot. Conservatives don't make bad choices.
Hm, apparently so, the Party gave her $34K in cash the year after she was found to have broken the law, plus another $39K in in-kind contributions. Over $73K total.
Now, the 28th LD has nothing to do with me. I could not field a candidate there because I never would have tried. It's not my LD, and it's not in my county. I really couldn't care less (and obviously neither could you, since you can't tell us who contacted Ross).
But I do know that she is employed by the Service Employees Union and that she tried to use her influence to directly financially benefit the union.
Unless you appreciate corruption, she is nothing to brag about: I would rather have NO one representing my party than to have HER represent my party, her positions on issues aside.
But the Democratic Party supports her, supports Walser, supports Simpson, supports McCoy ... is there any corrupt Democrat they do NOT support?
See, what your party SHOULD do is take advantage of the primary law change to disavow yourselves from these corrupt figures. But when your party skeep giving them money, there's no way they can disavow them ...
That is not what your party was squealing when he snuck in and became one of yours!!!!
So you are saying that a sober Democrat can be beat by a drunk republican?
My My MY, you people pick em well!!!
Posted by: Chris on June 23, 2008 07:52 PMJohn Bailo's approach to governance has brought us E.coli lettuce and salmonella tomatoes.
Feel free to have disagreement. Do not feel free to lie. John Bailo's approach brings us nothing of the sort. You are dishonestly engaging in a straw man fallacy.
The purpose of the post was to instigate a more thorough discussion of the issues Republicans need to address in order to be more competitive in legislative races.
I fear, however, you didn't read it very closely since a number of your criticisms are actually contained in the original post itself.
I conceded the difficult environment in which Republicans are raising money. Moreover, I explicitly noted that other state Republicans - the WSRP and Senate Republicans - are much, much more competitive, even with those same challenges.
Furthermore, I noted that it is the disparity of funds that can be a difference in a tight race, not that fundraising equals votes as you imply. I have often mentioned the importance of effective messaging at this blog and the efficient use of resources, not just fundraising and spending for their own sake. I agree with you money isn't everything. But in a tight race a financial disadvantage can often do much to tip the scales, especially if the other side spends that money well.
HROC's nearly 10 to 1 disparity in hard dollars and over 4 to 1 in soft dollars is not acceptable, even conceding the difficulty raising funds in current circumstances. Moreover, HROC's past performance does not indicate they will be able to rectify matters between now and November, thus leaving Democrats with a major financial advantage in races of their choosing.
In addition, you argue HROC is comfortable with affairs based on their comments above. Should we ask them why they're arguing with my numbers when I'm simply quoting from PDC reports that all committees filed to cover through the end of May, as I said in the post? Unless they have amended reports to file they're simply muddying the waters. Even with a great June they would still be terribly far behind House Democrats (who are having their own banner month for the Truman Fund as of the latest C3's).
I've had a number of conversations directly and indirectly related to these topics, with a number of senior, well-placed Republicans. None of those is a legislator or current candidate in response to your intemperate assertion. Those sources are however active and knowledgeable enough to confirm and add to my own observations on the matter.
That fundamentally comes down to our legislative results have been terrible in recent cycles, underperforming federal and statewide candidates in many cases. HROC has not been successful in raising money to support is candidates - or in spending if for that matter, if one wanted to evaluate the utter ineffectiveness of their repeated use of the sex offender issue.
As I said at the beginning, and as you allude to with your reference to Congress, Republicans have some work to do to get their own house in order. In this case, I believe that includes more serious consideration and discussion of our own legislative campaign efforts.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 23, 2008 08:04 PMThe Bush admininstration has slashed the food quality enforcement budget of the USDA, the drug safety enforcement budget of the FDA, and the enforcement budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Deny it if you can. Just what do you think that leads to?
You want to be an E.coli conservative? Be my guest. Tami Green is a Mormon and a straight arrow, and your pathetic labeling of her as "corrupt" is just p*ssing in the wind. Now she gets to skate to re-election and raise money for the rest of the caucus.
As for Geoff Simpson, you threw the worst smear campaign of the 2006 election cycle in this state at him, and what was the result? He turned a razor-thin victory margin from 2004 into a 59 percent rout in 2006.
You lot are incompetent, ineffective, and impotent, and the more you go on like this, the more tired the voters in this state become of you, because it is all you have. So please, just keep it up.
Enjoy your salmonella tomatoes. You have earned them. I'm outta here for now.
Your chickensheet, you won't answer my question...
Tuff time electing a Democrat when their is a drunk republican as an opponent....
Nice..... Real Nice............
Posted by: Chris on June 23, 2008 08:17 PMAgain, in my eternal struggle against revisionist history:
I was Chairman during the 2002 and 2004 cycles. Yes, we lost House seats. But in 2002 we won the majority in the State Senate, and in 2004 we won two open congressional seats, elected Rob McKenna and elected Dino, twice. I wouldn't call that abysmal.
As Eric points out, in regards to money, the State Party is primarily responsible for funding get out the vote activities. The caucus political committees actually fund the legislative candidates. For whatever reason, our House candidates are not competitive financially right now. That must change.
Posted by: Chris Vance on June 23, 2008 08:22 PMOr are they going to stand by again and watch the leftists make a mockery out of an election? 2004 was beyond shameful in terms of the Republican response, or more correctly lack of ANY response.
To let votes be added after a recount, to let ballots be altered and intermingled with legitimate ballots, is disgusting.
And we all think the left is limp-wristed...
Posted by: Independent Voter on June 23, 2008 08:25 PMI'm sorry, LACK OF ANY RESPONSE?!
In 2005 we spent $1 million contesting the election, then we helped the King County Party challenge hundreds of bogus voter registrations!
Amazing.
Posted by: Chris Vance on June 23, 2008 08:38 PMIf you want the votes, you gotta stand up and tell the voters WHY THEY SHOULD VOTE for a republican......
Silence doesn't work well with most people.....They want to hear what ya have to say.
Posted by: Chris on June 23, 2008 08:39 PMWith all due respect, the republican response even after the court happenings was less than lackluster......
I live in a totally republican county, and I can say that most were disappointed at the "outcry" of the King County Republicans..... Considering the shenanigans that played out months and months after the court case.....
In laymans terms, The republicans need to ball up and play the game......Your 20 points behind....Quit playing the "nice" guy and hit the opposition where it hurts.....
Posted by: Chris on June 23, 2008 08:45 PMBelieve me, I share your frustration, but what more could the State Party have done to help Dino during the election recount and contest? Please be specific.
Posted by: Chris Vance on June 23, 2008 08:55 PMAnd frankly, I think they did TOO MUCH. I sided with Bridges, and I think the effort was in some ways wasteful both in terms of goodwill and money. That said, it's probably better they did what they did, as we got a lot of attention on the flaws in the process (which was Dino's reason for going along with it).
Nothing you said had anything to do with John Bailo. Try again.
Tami Green is a Mormon and a straight arrow, and your pathetic labeling of her as "corrupt" is just p*ssing in the wind.
You are, of course, incorrect. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts. She used her office to try to financially benefit her employer. This is a fact.
And yes, I know she is a Mormon, though I am not sure how that means anything, except in the fact that she actually tried to USE her religion to bully the employer in question into giving the union what it wanted.
You see, the employer is also a Mormon, and she berated him for not giving into union demands, saying -- and this is an exact quote here -- "Because [you don't agree with me on the labor negotiations] I was surprised to learn that we share the same faith. The description of your actions toward the workers does not reflect the teachings of our faith. The 12th Article of Faith in particular states that we believe.....in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. The workers are aware of your faith and quite frankly are judging our faith by your actions."
Emphasis is mine: ironic that in her beratement of him for not following the law, she was violating the law herself, no? But even if it weren't illegal, which it was, in my book it's pretty low to bully someone with religion like that.
As for Geoff Simpson, you threw the worst smear campaign of the 2006 election cycle in this state at him
Again, you and your lies. I never had anything to do with Geoff Simpson.
You lot are incompetent, ineffective, and impotent
Yawn. Nothing you can say can wipe away the FACT that these people are corrupt. All Democrats should be angry with you, because you, a Democratic Party officer, are actually defending their corrupt acts. You're part of the problem, and you will rightfully be blamed when it comes time ... and it won't be long.
When there is a corrupt congress (both sides) who does not serve the people and an influx of illegals, it creates concerns, but do not totally agree with Scott, unless the following happens;
1) Obama wins and
2) The Dems win big in the Senate with more than 60 seats to create a vetoproof Senate.
If that 1) happens, there might be a small way out, but if 1 and 2 happens, we have socialism and corruption in the proportions this country has never seen before and we may not recover. It's your choice as to what you want to do, come November...
Nice spin regarding Tami Green, all bullsh*t. I know about the case to which you refer. The firm, Alan Ritchey, in Auburn, committed several unfair labor practices while UNsucessfully trying to bust Teamsters Local 117 AFTER the union had won an NLRB election for representation.
Tami Green rightly called the company on the carpet because the company had illegally fired two workers, for which it was eventually busted by the NLRB and ordered to reinstate them with full back pay and to cease and desist from further such activities. It's all there, and you can read it, and this is a decision from an administrative law judge assigned by the Bush NLRB.
The company was the bully, not Tami Green, and that's what the law says, in the .pdf cited in the link, in instance after instance.
You lot hate unions and hate working people, and think that employers can do no wrong, and that union members are "thugs" and "goons" and corrupt. You think that by repeating it over and over, year after year, that people will buy it. But they aren't, are they, because if they did, your party would be in control, wouldn't it?
Keep spinning, Pudge. Keep spinning your party and your old, tired, discredited conservative agenda right into the grave. The voters in this state are rejecting you right and left, and all you can do is attack and smear those who stand up for working people.
How many more seats in the Legislature do you want to lose this time?
Emails to the email address left with your comment bounced back. Your webform email allows messages of only tiny size. Thus, you can contact me if you wish at ericearling at gmail dot com.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 23, 2008 10:32 PMPlease do not lie. Everything I said about Tami Green is factually true, except for my subjective characterization that she was "bullying" him, which I think any impartial observer would agree is fair, given that she was -- in fact -- using her position as a state legislator to pressure the employer to make a profit for HER employer, in a CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL violation of the law.
It's a fact. No spin is necessary. It is not me saying it: it's Supreme Court Justice James Anderson, then-chair of the Ethics Committee.
I don't know why you are arguing with this fact, except for willfull blindness, I suppose.
Whether the employer did anything wrong or not is beside the point. I don't know and I don't care. We are talking about elected officials here: TAMI GREEN BROKE THE LAW, and she did so for the FINANCIAL GAIN OF HER EMPLOYER. If the employer she was bullying broke the law, fine, then they BOTH broke the law. That he was breaking the law does not justify her illegal tactics.
You lot hate unions and hate working people, and think that employers can do no wrong, and that union members are "thugs" and "goons" and corrupt.
You're a liar on all counts. None of that is remotely true, and none of it is worth responding to.
You think that by repeating it over and over, year after year, that people will buy it.
Shrug. You're the one who is denying unassailable fact: Tami Green broke the law by abusing her position to try to make financial gains for her employer.
I apologize for my "intemperate" assertion. I repeat, however, my pointed question. What possible good are you hoping to accomplish with such a post?
I can understand this kind of attack after an election, or even early in a cycle when there may be time to change leadership and go in a different direction. But filing is over and we are 56 days from the Primary Election.
Whatever your intent, the effect of our commentary is only to make others question the GOP's chances of success in November and wonder if the House Republican candidates are a good investment. I can't think of a single good thing that can come of your comments at this point in the year.
I, of all people, have a lot of credibility to say this because I have been an outspoken critic of our Republican "leadership" for a number of years. Vance will vouch for me on that number. We've had our shouting matches in the past, eh Chris? :)
I don't mind the critique at times, but you need to be aware of the impact of your comments. Public comments like yours only help to ensure a more difficult time fundraising, not foster greater success.
But let's address the meat of your comments.
First, the real issue here isn't how little HROC will spend on campaigns this year, but how much the House Democrats have. Using your numbers posted above, the House Democrats have beaten all the caucuses by large margins.
Senate Democrats out-raised by nearly 6-1.
Senate Republicans out-raised by 4.5-1.
Is anyone going to tell me that the Senate Republicans truthfully expect that $105K is going to be enough? Do we think the Senate Democrats expect that $77K is enough for them? Of course not. The fact is the vast majority of funds come in closer to an election, and the biggest source of funds is from member transferring campaign dollars after the Primary. Don't expect a whole lot of caucus fundraising or cash on hand until then from any of the caucuses.
But the House Democrats are the exception. Why is that?
I'm glad you asked. It goes to the culture of corruption I'm so ticked off about right now.
The House Democrats are doing so well in fundraising for two simple reasons.
1) Half of the state of Washington is a Democratic State Representative. Well, nearly. They have more than twice as many seats in the House as the Republicans, and fifty of them in relatively safe seats. The House Republicans have 30 members, with 20 or 25 in safe seats. That's a 2-1 ratio. They control everything, including whose bills get hearings and, most importantly, whose issues make it out of their Democrat-dominated legislature.
2) Chopp plays dirty. Really, really dirty. I remember hearing one story from a major donor (a really, really major donor) who was threatened directly by Chopp. He was told that if he didn't stop giving to the House GOP caucus that a bill would be run the next session that would basically put him out of business. Bold and brazen. The man couldn't do anything but comply. That happens over and over again, usually not directly because stories like that are told on the Hill and the story does the work of forcing money to comply.
That's the reason the House Democrats are doing so well fundraising.
And that's why the House Republicans simply need to outwork and out maneuver their opponents in a few key races. They can pick up some seats this year and be in an even stronger position in the next election.
Republicans don't need a ton of money to pick up seats in the House. They just need enough.
So, since your outlook is so bleak and mine seems to be rosier, how about we have a friendly wager?
Buy me a steak dinner at the Metropolitan Grill if we pick up seats in the House...my treat if we don't. How can you lose? Either way we both will be treated to red meat and each other's scintillating post-election analysis...seasoned by no less than five minutes of gloating on my part (I hope).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/172951_money12.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/173041_freezed.html
http://www.chadminnick.com/main/files/docs/hurst.jpg
Posted by: Chad Minnick on June 24, 2008 01:23 AMNot sure of what you're talking about with your Democrat buddy that was supposedly "recruited" to run against Green.
Senator Mike Carrell (R-Lakewood) pressured the HROC-recruited candidate (a Republican) to drop out and NOT file.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on June 24, 2008 01:34 AMWhat was your first clue? Mine was when he first said HROC did it, and then he said "HROC or someone." :-)
Posted by: pudge on June 24, 2008 07:34 AMUnfortunately, Lantz was smart in choosing a replacement for her to run against Jan. She recruited the Port Orchard mayor. This pits a female versus female race, so Lantz's seat will stay female. It also pits Port Orchard person against Port Orchard person. This is a key. Since both are known in their community, it may end up splitting the vote more than if a GH candidate ran against a Port Orchard Candidate. Jan has been a successful business women, but her business background and personal background hasn't been without baggage. There are questions about her past husband's death, and her managerial style, when she owned the hair salon in Port Orchard, wasn't necessary great. Her late husband did more of the day-to-day management and interaction with beauticans.
I know it is hindsight because at the time that Jan Angel announced, Lantz was still in the race, but I think it would have been better for the Republicans if GH-based Brenda Jensen was pitted against the Port Orchard mayor. Right now, you have two PO candidates going against each other for one seat and an incumbent Peninsula resident going against a solid GH business women in the other.
Posted by: tc on June 24, 2008 08:01 AMGreen is now free to campaign for Debi Srail in her campaign to oust the despicable Mike Carrell from his Senate seat. I admit that this will be tough to do, because Carrell does campaign hard, but we are going after him anyway.
Who are you saying is Tami Green's employer, and what does that have to do with the Alan Ritchey company? Tami Green does not work for the Teamsters.
Posted by: ivan on June 24, 2008 08:46 AM
No, the bottom line is that you simply do not care WHO represents you, even if they are unethical lawbreakers, as long as they have a D next to their name.
Can you actually answer the question? What crime would be so bad you would disavow a Democratic candidate over it? We know a clear violation of ethics law won't do it. As you have had plenty of opportunity to disavow either Walser or the Democratic Party's support of him, and have not done so, we know that lying to investigators and getting a yearlong jail sentence won't do it.
So what would it take? A jail sentence of one year plus one day?
I asked you about your claim that Tami Green had "bullied" an employer for the financial gain of *her* employer, and you changed the subject damn quick, because you can't substantiate it.
Who is Tami Green's employer? What does her employer have to do with the Alan Ritchey Company?
I don't think you know the answer to either of those questions. I think you're just making stuff up, which you're very good at.
Exactly. You won't denounce it. Pathetic.
Who is Tami Green's employer and what did that have to do with the Alan Ritchey Company?
Posted by: ivan on June 24, 2008 12:23 PMTami Green's employer was SEIU. She was paid as an "organizer." In other words, she was paid to go out and start labor unions in small businesses where they had no labor unions.
That's how she got in trouble.
Stop defending her, the State Ethics Board didn't. In fact, they denounced her...as a Democrat you should do the same.
Unless, of course, you are proving our point that the Democrats do not care about ethics and will look the other way when it is one of their own who are crooked.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on June 24, 2008 12:35 PMMy point from the beginning, which you are helping me prove with every post, is very simple: the Democratic Party is knowingly and willfully supporting corrupt politicians. Tami Green is an example, as we proved, for violating the law prohibiting her from using her influence for financial gain, and so is Fred Walser, for his crime.
You, a party official, actively support Green, and you do not appear to have any problem with your party supporting Fred Walser.
This is the state of the Democratic Party. Win at all costs. Damn ethics, damn the law, just win, so long as you have a D after your name.
The incident that resulted in the ethics complaint against Tami Green was related to her contact with the Alan Ritchey company, which subsequently was busted by the NLRB for violating federal labor laws.
The Alan Ritchey Company was not being organized by SEIU. It was being organized by the Teamsters. Therefore Pudge's stament, that Tami Green "bullied" a company that was already bullying its employees, is nonsense, and his statement that she did it to financially benefit her own employer is more preposterous yet.
Don't tell me who to denounce and who not to denounce. Quit pretending that all such violations are of equal weight, and that you lot are so pure.
You and Pudge are just grabbing at straws. Your party, your policies, and your politics are headed for a thorough butt-kicking in this state, and you will have earned it.
All you can do is smear, smear, smear. You haven't learned anything from the 2004 and 2006 elections. The voters are tuning you out.
Posted by: ivan on June 24, 2008 01:45 PMDon't tell me who to denounce and who not to denounce.
No one is. We are just noting the fact that you won't denounce lawbreakers.
Quit pretending that all such violations are of equal weight, and that you lot are so pure.
Quit pretending anyone did that.
You and Pudge are just grabbing at straws.
See, this just helps prove the point! You think legal and ethical violations are unimportant. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you today's Democratic Party!
All you can do is smear, smear, smear. You haven't learned anything from the 2004 and 2006 elections. The voters are tuning you out.
See, you think that factual statements about corruption are "smears." Most people call it "important news and information." Please continue to think you can get away with supporting criminals and other unethical lawbreakers. Continue to think the voters don't care. It makes our job SO much easier.
If I were a Democrat, I'd be calling for your head for supporting this garbage.
The reason I was willing to do the post now is that that somebody needs to raise the alarm. HROC leadership needs to get moving and caucus members need to be made visibly aware of the work that needs to be done to improve matters.
That said, I won't take your bet because I believe even with HROC's flaws, Herrera and Smith will likely hold their seats and R's will still pick up a couple more (Litzow and Parker being my best bets for that). BUT, I fear we'll end up leaving a number of seats we have a good shot at, with candidates I'd like to see in Olympia, on the table thanks to the degree to which the massive Democratic fundraising advantage can swamp our guys in targeted races.
I should also note that while I totally agree all the caucuses will receive substantial additional funds before the end of the year, relying on transfers from members hasn't proved terribly fruitful for HROC in past cycles...in part because a number of members aren't pulling their weight.
Yes, Frank Chopp plays hardball. That's a known fact. But looking back through the records, the HDCC had a $1 million advantage over HROC in 2006, following a $300,000 plus advantage in 2004. Likewise, the Truman Fund raised about $550,000 more than the Speakers Roundtable in 2006, following a $365,000 advantage in 2004. Even with Frank Chopp's tactics the disparities are a huge problem and have been ongoing for several cycles now.
I would argue at this point, based on HROC's track record and their activity thus far this year, that they do not even have "enough," especially given the caliber of candidates they have in some - though not enough - races.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 24, 2008 06:44 PMI'm not going to argue with the fact that HROC would like more money. But there are a lot of reasons why the House is in the shape it's in. Some of the factors include leadership fights and bad blood in years past. Two cycles in a row where we've had our butts handed to us as the result of national pressures that have nothing to do with the Washington State GOP. And, as you pointed out, many members of both the House and Senate GOP caucuses do not perform and don't pitch in like they should.
But that's not what your post said. Your headline reads, "House Republican Candidates Ill-served by Leadership."
The quality of the top-tier House candidates speaks volumes about the incredible recruiting job they've done in key districts. That didn't happen by accident.
What if we wager a steak dinner that the House picks up three seats? How about four? I'll agree with the two you mentioned, and two more of my clients to make a total of four pickups.
And don't forget about Nixon vs. Goodman in the 45th. He's ahead by double-digits.
What's the worst that can happen anyway? If you lose the wager, we all win because we picked up four seats and you get dinner with me!
Posted by: Chad Minnick on June 25, 2008 12:49 AMBut he'll probably make it Buzz Inn rather than the met so he saves $150. :)
Posted by: Chad Minnick on June 25, 2008 01:22 PMI still can't believe no one wants to buy me a steak.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on June 26, 2008 12:08 PM