I am very pleased to report that Snohomish County Councilman John Koster is running for U.S. Congress in Washington's Second Congressional District against current representative Rick Larsen.
Koster's a conservative's conservative. He lost to Larsen in 2000 by a thin margin -- the only time he's ever lost a general election -- but this time, combining Larsen's many missteps with John's record and the voter mood, if Koster can get his message out, he will win.
Check out his web site, his Twitter feed, and his Facebook page.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 13, 2010 01:36 PM | Email ThisKoster won Larsen's vacated County Council seat after that, and recently won by 58-41.
Can he do it? YES HE CAN!!!
Posted by: The World on January 13, 2010 02:22 PMI didn't know that the RNC's plan to pay bloggers to pose as idiotic leftists would be so effective in turning public opinion against Obama so rapidly.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 13, 2010 04:52 PMKoster may have come close to winning when George Bush was un known and popular, but hardly now.
Larsen has proven himself to be a capable, pro-defense, practical democrat in the mold of Henry Jackson.
He'd probably draw a stronger challenge from the loopy left than the right wing Koster represents.
Why not put up Val Stevens?
Posted by: Thor on January 14, 2010 05:20 AMI doubt it.
Thor: The 2nd District would be crazy to replace Larsen with Koster
If the Second agreed with Larsen's far-left agenda, that might be true.
Koster may have come close to winning when George Bush was un known and popular, but hardly now.
Right ... now it won't be close, Koster will win by a lot more than he did in September 2000.
Larsen has proven himself to be a capable, pro-defense, practical democrat in the mold of Henry Jackson.
Riiiiiight. Pull the other one. TARP is practical? The health insurance monstrosity is practical? The stimulus is practical? An increase of the deficit from $160B (the last Republican Congress budget in FY2007) to almost ten times that -- nearly $1.5T -- now is ... practical?
Saying that defunding ACORN is a waste of time while sponsoring a bill reconizing the Pig War is ... practical?
You're joking, right?
He'd probably draw a stronger challenge from the loopy left than the right wing Koster represents.
I hope, for your sake, you don't really believe that. I am quite sure Larsen doesn't.
Why not put up Val Stevens?
Are you saying she'd be a stronger candidate against Larsen, or are you saying that Stevens and Koster are the same?
If the former, you're wrong (as much as I love Val Stevens). If the latter, you're still wrong, but worse, you're showing you're desperate: it's the common and typical liberal tactic to go after Republicans by comparing them to other Republicans, when the liberals have their backs against the wall.
I was watching the Bruins/Ducks game last night on NESN and Coakley had a commercial against Brown for the MA Senate race ... it was the most pathetic, desperate, thing I'd ever seen, showing pictures of Rush and Bush and Cheney, people Brown has nothing directly, and little indirectly, to do with, other than party affiliation. People want debates on ideas, not vain party-bashing. I hope Larsen is tone-deaf enough to follow suit; it'll make Koster's job easier.
I have been lied to too many times to put my trust into any politician regardless of his rhetoric.
It is going to take more than just words on his part. He is going to have to back the words with something more substantial.
But trust once lost is hard to be regained.
And the most important thing this year is to ensure that no RINOS get elected. We must be committed to be RINOBUSTERS.
Posted by: Alex on January 14, 2010 11:37 AMBecause he's been in a partisan elected office for the last 16 years, give or take, and he has a long, consistent, conservative, record.
He was a 39th LD rep. from 1994 until 2000 I think, and then 2001-present he's been on the Snohmish County Council.
I am not saying you shouldn't watch him carefully, and look into what he has done, and what he says he will do, and so on. I am just saying ... he has proven it as well as anyone could: he's been fighting for conservatism for a long time around here.
I do not realize this, no, because it's obviously untrue.
In the midst of this so called Democratic backlash, the D's are raking in gobs more money than the R's.
Also not true.
But it's intriguing to see the depths at which people will go to delude themselves.
FUNDRAISING AT A GLANCE
Committee November 2009 receipts; Year-to-date receipts; Cash available
Democratic National Committee $11.6 million $73.4 million $12.9 million
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $3.7 million $37.1 million $11.3 million
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $3.8 million $48.2 million $14.5 million
Republican National Committee $9.1 million $77.9 million $11.3 million
National Republican Senatorial Committee $4.1 million $33.8 million $5.9 million
National Republican Congressional Committee $3.4 million $30.6 million $4.2 million
Old data. Things have changed since then.
Posted by: KDS on January 14, 2010 01:45 PMNo, you don't. Or if you did, you haven't yet given us those facts.
You said the D's are raking in "gobs" more money. Your facts didn't back that up. You showed only that they have pulled in a little bit more (and in the case of the RNC, they actually raked in MORE than the DNC). The totals are $142.3m for GOP, which is about 90% of the $158.7m for Dems, through November.
That's not "gobs" more by any standard, and if Koster can get/spend 90% of what Larsen does, he'll be fine.
And, of course, you didn't provide any "facts" that the "RNC" will dump "all" their resources into the Baird race, which was your main claim.
So -- in fact -- nothing you cited backed up what you had previously said.
Who ran in 94? I don't remember who the R was in the race. Can you also define for me YOUR defintion of RINO? I hear that alot lately, but everyone has their own definition. I consider myself an old (very old) time conservative, in the mold of Barry G., but by some people's definition he would be considered a RINO today.
Posted by: The Duke on January 14, 2010 02:15 PMUse some common sense. No strong democratic candidate has emerged in Baird's district, which means the Republicans have a better chance of picking it up, except that will cost a large sum of $ to do so.
From a political party persepctive, why would you dilute your resources in a district in which the incumbent has won reelection with over %62 of the vote the past 3 cycles when Baird's seat is sitting there wide open?
I know you really want Koster to win, but the simple fact is that this time around isn't the same as facing Larsen in 2000. He spend $1.4 million then. You can bet it will be doubled this time around. Koster just won't be able to hang with the big boys.
Posted by: tim on January 14, 2010 02:30 PMOK, so you're changing your argument from how much they are "raking in" to how much they have "on hand." Next time tell me when you do that, so I can know what you're talking about.
In the House, the NRCC has $4.2 million, while the DNCC has $14.9 million.
You mean "had." You gave numbers that are a month-and-a-half old. And you also (again, changing your argument!) said the "RNC," not the "NRCC" as you now claim; you probably meant the "RNCC."
Regardless, no, cash on hand is not what matters: what matters is the ability to get more. If the RNCC had been only "raking" in a quarter of the DNCC's funds, then yeah, the GOP should be worried. But they've been right with the DNCC, they've just been actually using it more. They will continue to pull in funds comparable to the DNCC, and continue to spend it, on races like Koster's.
You want us to think that the RNCC (or RNC, or NRCC, or whatever you're changing it to now) won't continue to get a lot more funds as they have already, and that all of their funds nationally will go to ... WA-3. That's not how it works. They won't even think about dumping money into WA-3 until they have a candidate they think can win, and even then, they won't sacrifice every other congressional race to do it, obviously.
From a political party persepctive, why would you dilute your resources in a district in which the incumbent has won reelection with over %62 of the vote the past 3 cycles ...
Against mostly weak candidates (two of them VERY weak, and the other was during the big anti-GOP year in 2006, when even Koster, or any Republican, would have lost), at a time when Larsen was often voting to the right of the Democratic caucus because the Republicans were in control of the legislature and the Democrats were going to lose the bills anyway (like when Larsen voted for the immigration reform bill).
Larsen is now up against a much stronger candidate, in a much better year for Republicans, in a much worse year for Democrats and incumbents, when Larsen is going to have to seriously run away from his own high-profile record for the first time.
In fact, that Koster is running against a weak incumbent means that he has a better chance than an arbitrary Republican running for an open seat: the Democrat who gets the backing of the party in the Third District can run away from the Democratic Party record of the last few years, something Larsen cannot do. (And you can bet any Democrat that runs will do that ... and if they don't, then good, the Republican candidate won't need as much money to win.)
The bottom line is that your whole point here is based on your "belief" (I don't think you really believe it) that Koster won't be able to get enough money, but you base this on a completely and obviously flawed anaylsis of the facts at hand: ignoring that WA-3 has no candidate for the RNCC to evaluate; ignoring that even if it's a great candidate, that they won't sacrifice other races; ignoring that the RNCC continues to bring in lots of money; and so on.
Maybe you should just stop while you're behind.
Posted by: pudge on January 14, 2010 02:49 PMYou mentioned Larsen's voting record. Why don't you shed some light on his move from right to left? I'm sure you have at least a dozen or so issues you can rattle off that shows Larsen's shameless jump to socialism, right?
You can work yourself up all you want, but there are more House Republicans retiring than Democrats (14 R, 10 D), which means the NRCC will need to spend even more money to protect their current turf. Hence, less cash for Koster. Is that simple enough for you?
Posted by: Tim on January 14, 2010 03:15 PMYep, and they are a month-and-a-half old, according to you. I am just noting this fact, because you were acting like it represents the cash they have now, and it doesn't. It represents the cash they had on hand as of the end of November.
You mentioned Larsen's voting record. Why don't you shed some light on his move from right to left?
He was never on the right. He's always been on the left, and I never implied otherwise. I noted that he occasionally voted on the right on certain big issues so those votes couldn't be used against him in the campaigns.
I'm sure you have at least a dozen or so issues you can rattle off that shows Larsen's shameless jump to socialism, right?
Yes, of course, but frankly -- to the voters -- TARP, stimulus, and health insurance reform is enough.
the NRCC will need to spend even more money to protect their current turf
Ha. It sounds like you've convinced yourself the GOP won't pick up 20 or more seats this fall. How odd.
Koster's going to get money. You have not said anything to make any rational person think differently.
You can talk about TARP, stimulus, and health care from a deficit stand point (Of course you r's know a little something about massive spending too), but the only thing that will matter in November is the unemployment rate. With about 70% of stimulus dollars still to come, you can bet the unemployment rate will be on track just as the DOW is now (up 65% since Obama took office). In the meantime, enjoy rooting against this country.
Posted by: Tim on January 14, 2010 04:47 PMThen you completely undermine your argument about money being the key.
The odds of beating a strong incumbent ...
Larsen is weak. That's the point.
You can talk about TARP, stimulus, and health care from a deficit stand point ...
Yes ... that's a big part of why Larsen is weak.
(Of course you r's know a little something about massive spending too)
Yes, it's what we've been fighting against, and why we are angry at our own party, and why we want acual conservatives like Koster.
... but the only thing that will matter in November is the unemployment rate.
First, you're obviously wrong. You are completely blind to the massive anger about the increases in government control and spending. It's palpable. Get out of your bubble.
Second ... if that's true Larsen is dead meat.
With about 70% of stimulus dollars still to come, you can bet the unemployment rate will be on track
Not even Obama believes that. All projections, left and right, call for around 10 percent throughout the year. Maybe it will dip below before the election, maybe not, but it will still -- according to all projections -- remain high until the election. Which is why Obama is calling for ANOTHER round of stimulus, which ALSO won't work.
In the meantime, enjoy rooting against this country.
You're a liar. If you post again and do not retract -- or back up, with actual facts -- this lie, your posts will be deleted.
Oh, good. What will it be? So, what... with 30% spent we lost 4 million jobs, so the remaining 70% will get those 4 million jobs back? By November?
Posted by: Gary on January 15, 2010 06:25 AMYou don't actually believe that Cap-and-Trade will increase jobs, do you?
These tyrants in Washington are begging to lose both houses of Congress in November. Does Rick Larsen support this? Does he support punishing political enemies with taxes?
And Gary, we don't have to ask Larsen if he supports the tax on "Cadillac plans": we just need to see how he votes when it comes back to the House.
He'll vote as Nancy tells him to.
Posted by: Gary on January 15, 2010 08:01 AMSure he might have the rhetoric down but rhetoric is cheep. He has been in public office eight years or more and what has he DONE?
We must be careful this year not to elect any RINOS. Progressive Republicans just destroy from within. And we also shouldn't elect people who just go along with progressives and not fight them.
Oh, I see a lot of good sounding rhetoric from Koster's webpage but what has he DONE? He has been a politician for quite some time now and I would prefer someone coming in from the private sector.
Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2010 08:49 AMI don't give you a list, but hey, I am busy at work. Just Google him and his work on the County Council, or try to find the bills he sponsored when in the state legislature. Frankly, if you don't know of his conservative record, then you haven't really spent much time looking.
I guarantee you this: you will not find a single conservative who doubts that Koster is a strong conservative.
That said, I hope the campaign does put up a good number of links to things he's done. Yours is not an unreasonable request at all: I am just saying that conservatives who know John Koster LOVE John Koster.
He has been a politician for quite some time now and I would prefer someone coming in from the private sector.
He was in the private sector as a dairyman longer than he has been a politician. It seems odd to penalize someone for making the switch to politics, while at the same time you're saying someone should make the switch to politics ...
This guy has been in power for eight years so has most likely been co-opted by the current political system.
If the fruit in the barrel has been spoiled you should get your fruit from the tree.
We need NEW BLOOD to run this year. We don't need the tired ole politicians of the past.
His web page seems quite cynical and opportunistic.
Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2010 09:22 AMJust how long has this guy been a public official?
Since he has been around for so long, if he was really a fighter I should have heard of him before now. He should have made waves in the Washington State Republican party by fighting the progressive control of the state party.
Sorry, this guy sounds like a politician to me. Which is of course the last thing we need in politics if things are really going to change.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It is also electing the same kinds of politicians over and over again and expecting real change in a conservative direction once they get elected.
Oh, I remember 1994, but I also remember 1995. Oh we worked hard getting republicans elected who at the time sounded pretty conservative only to have them treat us once elected as we were strangers.
Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2010 09:31 AMMaybe you should actually do some research about the man before making such nonsensical statements.
Just how long has this guy been a public official?
Sixteen years, about. And he has been one of the best defenders of liberty in that time. Ron Paul has been in elected office almost as long.
Since he has been around for so long, if he was really a fighter I should have heard of him before now.
Oh come on. This says a lot more about YOU than about HIM. People who do follow politics in this region do know about him. Your ignorance is not evidence of anything, except that you need to learn more.
Oh we worked hard getting republicans elected who at the time sounded pretty conservative only to have them treat us once elected as we were strangers.
Koster was elected in 1994 and remained a staunch, hardworking, conservative the whole time.
Seriously. You need to stop talking and learn more.
I meant, in Congress. He was, of course, a state legislator even longer.
Sounds like a career politician to me.
That's the last thing we need right now.
Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2010 09:50 AMI might have heard his name in passing but not really in the context of him being a real fighter for the conservative cause or anything like that.
The whole of the Washington State Republican party is rotten to the core.
And if the fruit barrel is rotten you need to get the fruit from the tree.
Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2010 09:57 AMSomeone untainted by the current politics and is willing not only to fight progressivism but also determined to move things back to a constitutional government. Fighting the rise in progressivism isn't enough. Keeping the status quo isn't enough. We need to move things back in a conservative direction.
Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2010 10:06 AMThen you want John Koster.
Seriously, stop flaunting your ignorance and do some research.
Perhaps Koster should present more to us than cheap rhetoric.
His web page is so cynical.
Don't give us the rhetoric Koster. I have heard it all before from people who then get into office and do the exact opposite. Campaign Promises are famous for being broken.
Come on Koster. You have been in office quite some time now. Don't patronize us with rhetoric. Tell us what you HAVE DONE.
Better yet, step aside and give some new blood a chance.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It means that he is trying to hop on the Tea Party movement only to further his own political career.
Saw this all before in 1994 only for the politicians to stab us in the back in 1995.
Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2010 11:06 AMBut you're making that up.
It means that he is trying to hop on the Tea Party movement only to further his own political career.
And that.
Saw this all before in 1994 only for the politicians to stab us in the back in 1995.
Except that Koster was elected in 1994, and was one of the conservatives who remained true all the time since then.
Incessantly redundant comments are abusive.
Come up with some new material ... you can think about it as you are actually RESEARCHING BEFORE TALKING.
Not true for state legislative races though.
Posted by: Nathan on January 15, 2010 11:57 AMI know, I know!
Posted by: pudge on January 15, 2010 12:03 PMHis website does not have an issues section like 99% of other politicians websites but we are supposed to trust he is a true conservative.
When we ask why he is different you tell us it is because he has a 16 year history of being a true conservative but will not tell us what makes him a true conservative.
When we ask why we should vote for him, you say because all true conservatives say he is a true conservative.
Well excuse me for not trusting you or anyone you call a true conservative. You lost credibility a while ago in that regards and losing it at a faster rate now promoting a guy that you refuse to back up with even ONE piece of supporting evidence despite 16 years of experience.
Posted by: Lysander on January 15, 2010 10:00 PMHe looks to be a another all talk republican. Too bad really cause WA really needs some true small governent conservatives.
Posted by: Lysander on January 16, 2010 10:43 AMhttp://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Council/Districts/District_1/Fully_Contained_Communities.htm
Stop lying. I am breaking my policy of completely ignoring you in order to note the fact that you know very well I refuse to tell YOU anything.
You are a nonperson here, Travis. You get nothing from me.
Did we learn from what happened in 1994 (or perhaps I should say in 1995 when they got in power) that in the end there's really not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats? In the end after all the rhetoric dies down it really is "meet the new boss" "same as the old boss".
Someone who has been in politics longer than my teenager has been alive doesn't really seem like someone who will bring about change. He had a chance to make real change in 1995 when the Republicans were indeed in control of the state legislature but he didn't do much then when republicans had the power and when he got in power in the county he actually limited property rights. Betray us once same on you, betray us twice shame on US!
16 years, that's more than how old my son is going to be in March and he will soon be able to get a driver's permit (gosh), that's a political career. He is indeed a career politician.
Posted by: Steve on January 17, 2010 11:21 AMWhich people? Travis/Lysander doesn't count, because I do not recognize any questions he has. They do not exist to me. HE does not exist to me. He burned his bridges long ago.
I know of only one person other than that (he used a few different nicknames, but it's the same person), and as he was being belligerent and completely unwilling to do any research, I didn't feel the need to spend my valuable time helping him.
And what Lysander as much as you might hate him has presented has makes me doubt Koster's credibility.
As far as I am concerned, Travis has presented nothing at all. If YOU would like to present something for consideration, you can do so, but otherwise it doesn't exist.
Did we learn from what happened in 1994 (or perhaps I should say in 1995 when they got in power) that in the end there's really not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats?
No, we didn't, because we know it's not true. You're telling me there's no difference between Nancy Pelosi and Ron Paul? We're not that stupid.
Someone who has been in politics longer than my teenager has been alive doesn't really seem like someone who will bring about change.
So Ron Paul doesn't bring about change?
He had a chance to make real change in 1995 when the Republicans were indeed in control of the state legislature but he didn't do much then when republicans had the power ...
Not true at all.
... and when he got in power in the county he actually limited property rights.
Utterly false. Please stop making things up. Thanks.
He is indeed a career politician.
One who has spent that entire career defending liberty and rights.
Also, only at SP would Koster be compared to a RINO. Believe me when I say the lefties in his District think he is in the most right wing section of their brains. Koster himself has said he is probably more Libertarian than most Libertarian candidates.
Lysander, Koster is no Ron Paul. He tries to work with the other side. And yet, he is lately often the lone voice against a Council action.
You should also note his effectiveness that when outnumbers 2-3 (R v. D) Koster has been able to swing a District 2 Dem (there still are a lot of Jackson Democrats who won't wake up most of the time) to his side.
And yet, Koster runs a dull campaign probably due to his farming roots. He will have to do better this time around. The press release from Wednesday leaves a lot of excitement missing.
Posted by: swatter on January 18, 2010 08:17 AMShouldn't we first figure out why the last Republican Revolution failed before running headlong into the next one?
Winning elections are meaningless if the people elected are at the worst RINOS or at the best political opportunists with no desire to stand in the way of progressives. We saw that with our "win" in 1994 which only led us right to where we are now with Obama.
Forgive me for not wanting to repeat the last 16 years of US history.
As long as we keep on electing the same types of politicians we are going to get the same types of results. It seems what we can expect from the Republicans is that they are still the same and that's a shame that's all.
Posted by: Steve on January 18, 2010 09:07 AMOh, you mean a guy entrenched in the old ways of politics.
That saying that other guy made about a spoiled fruit barrel makes more and more sense all the time.
Indeed I am a strong proponent of term limits. Even for those who try hard, it is damn near impossible not to get infected by the corruptive effect of politics. The only guard against that is a continuous infusion of new people into the system.
Out with the old and in with the new. This year can not be about politics as usual. Those entrenched in the old politics on both sides must either yield the way or be pushed away otherwise this so called "revolution" will end up like the last so called "revolution".
No more RINOS. No more seat warmers (politicians who might not believe is progressivism but since they are just in to politics for their own selves reason aren't going to go out of their way to push forward conservatism or even to really stop progressivism either).
Perhaps Koster isn't a RINO (although that property rights thing he did seems pretty RINOish) but at best he is a seat warmer.
Posted by: Steves on January 18, 2010 09:21 AMBut words aren't enough any more. Because believe it or not, politicians LIE!
Conservatives need to stop acting like Charlie Brown when it comes to the GOP.
When someone has to resort to trying to demean one new candidate for office in a House of over 500, something tells me that the emperor has no clothes.
Mano v. mano, put Larsen up with Koster and you will get someone with a backbone vs. someone who will go party lines at all times. Koster will put up a fight for his constituents.
Koster won't go to a townhall at a stadium and tell people he has "strong" disagreements with the wording in the health care bill and then turn around and vote for it. Larsen did just that.
Posted by: swatter on January 18, 2010 10:02 AMWhy am I called a liberal just for wanting to know if his walk matches his talk?
Posted by: Steve on January 18, 2010 10:14 AMYou're not. You're called a liberal for your other postings on this site over time.