1. I think the harvard thing was important but also important was Reicharts opposition to the bailout. That certainly impressed me. The rest of his record did not impress me though.

Posted by: Lysander on December 31, 2008 09:26 AM

2. The analysis omits the Harvard degree fumble smear executed by the local MSM fixed that for you.

Who fed them the idea of having Reichert contest Murray -- someone who wants Nethercutt to look good by comparison?

Posted by: tensor on December 31, 2008 11:03 AM

3. I like Dave but I hope he does not get talked into running against Sen Murray. Winning statewide office as a republican in WA is next to impossible under the best of circumstances, and running against the Sen Murray is not an ideal situation. Furthermore, if he ran for Senate, the Rs would lose his congressional seat.

Stay where your at Dave, you have a seat for life!

Posted by: jk on December 31, 2008 12:03 PM

4. I think pundits conflate the anti-Republican trend in most US suburban areas as being a rejection of the ideas Republicans, at least officially, advance. Voters in the 8th and pretty much everywhere in the State of Washington (except some central cities, university towns, and trust fund enclaves) have shown a willingness to vote for some Republicans even in a bad year like 2008. McKenna won in King County along with Reichert and the Prosecutor a year ago.

In Washington, Republicans gained seats in the legislature--one of only a few states outside of the south where that happened and the GOP now controls three of the five largest county legislative bodies with a surprise win in Clark County. The swing away from the GOP national ticket in Washington this year was less than the national average and the lowest in the West except for the home states of our nominees, Alaska and Arizona.

The seeds of a possible GOP comeback are here in the State. But we need to run on something besides the Democrats are worse because that's all we had pretty much in this decade.

As someone holding office in the State GOP, I understand that we get a lot of our votes just because we are not the Democrats--that's the case with me a lot of the time too. We have done poorly at advancing ideas since the Gingrich revolution petered out in the late 90's. Bush's so-called compassionate conservatisim I always thought was vague nonsense. We need new ideas and we need to remain true to our free-market principles because that is what unites us. We need to boot out all of our ethically-tainted officeholders as the Democrats struggle with theirs like Rangell and Blagovich. For all of Nancy Pelosi's "culture of corruption" talk, the Democrats will always have a bigger problem with corruption because they don't really have an underlying philosophy or at least one that they can openly talk about (the far left in the D Party has a philosophy that if the general public knew about would be an electoral disaster for them). But mostly their party is about getting power and rewarding their friends and dispensing goodies to stay in power.

Ours is about creating an environment where people are free to be successful, free from violence, and having continued respect for society's traditions.

We can win on that, even in Kirkland, Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond.

But we have gotten hung up with leaders who were in power too long and who let us down abandoning the principles that got them elected. We became too much a party concerned about holding power and dispensing goodies to our supporters.

Posted by: Brent Boger on December 31, 2008 12:14 PM

5. Only the truly delusional could equate a candidate publicly crowing about a degree she doesn't own into a local media 'smear'.

/walks away shaking his head at the sheer stupidity of some liberals

Posted by: jimg on December 31, 2008 01:51 PM

6. Lysander
Reicharts opposition to the bailout. That certainly impressed me.
________________________________

Well, I'll be damned. We agree on smoething. (-:

Posted by: Medic/Vet on December 31, 2008 02:11 PM

7. tensor - your spew will be more welcome over at Horse's Ass.

Posted by: Crusader on December 31, 2008 02:31 PM

8. Look, I understand your position. Once the MSM tells you something, you simply believe it, no questions asked. The attack on her degree was shopped by the Reichert campaign to the Tacoma News Tribune, which declined. The Bothell Times eagerly accepted, and ran with it as if it was their own invention. Having the Harvard academic who wrote the degree requirements explain that she was right convinced us who doubt the MSM; for those of you who always believe the MSM, you went with their gospel.

Meanwhile, count on Rep. Reichert to keep that chair at 98.6F for the next two years. It's the only thing he does well.

Posted by: tensor on December 31, 2008 04:07 PM

9. Brent:
I agree with alot of what you are saying. I am surprised by the GOP taking control of Clark Counties Council. I also remember that being one of Ron Pauls most successful counties. Considering Ron Paul emphasized a true republican path rather than 'not the democrats' I think that puts a lot of creedence in your theory that we need to go back to being something more than 'not democrats'.

What position do you now hold and what plans do have to being new energy to the GOP and steps do you plan to take to implement what you outline in #4?

Posted by: Lysander on December 31, 2008 05:51 PM

10. Doubt Reichert would have much of a go at Murray. He's at the shining apex of the Peter Principle: "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence."

Posted by: Nick "Elephant" Gunn on January 1, 2009 04:09 PM

11. The Peter Principle is what, almost 50 years old?

We need a stronger version of it today to explain how Patty Murray, with her degree in Recreation from WSU, and her belief that Osama bin Laden builds day care centers, rose to become a fairly powerful U.S. Senator.

Posted by: russell garrard on January 1, 2009 06:51 PM

12. @4: Brent:
I was with you until you went off into complete nonsense land and refused to look at reality.

It is true that republicans have been whipped badly in Washington state (let's see: Governor (D), 2 Senators (D) and only three republican rep's).

It is true that republicans often have run as not being a democrat and have not elaborated what they will do differently except to carp and complain without offering real alternatives.

It is true that fiscal conservatism still is important (although not as much in a depression). But Bush and the republicans have broken the bank (largest deficit in history), refused to stop earmarks, wasted billions in Iraq on no-bid corrupt contracts and had rampant (culture of)corruption (Abramoff and the K street project being on of the most salient).

How does being FOR less regulation go over when less regulation is the problem that led to the banking crisis and the economic mess we are in?

More regulation would have forced Detroit to make cars with better gas mileage - they didn't and are suffering.

I agree with fiscal restraint - excpet in a depression.

So: Republicans from Gonzalez to Abramoff are associated with corruption. Republicans have a record of huge budget deficits, lying about the Iraq and even the republican national treasurer embezzled money. How is that corruption issue going to work? Even here in Washington state Rossi and McKenna have been caught with illegal campaign contributions from the BIAW - how is that running on the "no corruption" platform?

As to republican ideals:
Fiscal conservatism is out the window due to Bush and his depression.

No one is buying the "free market" argument after what has happened in the banking industry and the government socialism for the rich bankers that has just happened due to Bush.

Posted by: correctnotright on January 1, 2009 11:31 PM

13. Correct not right:
Being for less regulations will go over well when you have politicians that truly beleive in it actualy explaining to people how it actually is regulations that got us in this mess. It sounds like you have not heard this yet so here is a quick run down of legislation that has put us here...

1. the federal reserve
2. the lack of a gold standard
3. artificially low interest rates
4. government sponsered entities with federal government backing like fannie and freddie
5. the community reinvestment act forcing banks to make more subprime lending

As for republican ideals... fiscal restraint is one of them. Do not confuse Bush with a republican ideal. He is a neocon ideal and it is appearing like neocons are on their way out.

Hopefully they will be replaced with libertarians.

Posted by: Lysander on January 3, 2009 07:53 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?