Diane Tebelius has led the Washington GOP to a singularly pathetic showing. She ditched traditional Republican candidates, stiffarming them in favor of spectacularly worthless candidates like Mike McGavick. Diane Tebelius must go, and the RINOs who have hijacked our Republican Party must go with her. Now. Without preamble or ceremony.
Traditional Republicans who are faithful to the foundational values of our Party must act now. Act with your checkbooks. Act with your voices. Act with your votes. But by all means- ACT!
Posted by ERNurse at November 11, 2006 01:54 AM | Email ThisDo you know why? Because the WSRP is not boosting and traditional Republicans. They're stiffarming them in favor of McCains wannabes. That's preceisely why I have not heard of any. What say you, O wise one?
Posted by: ERNurse on November 12, 2006 08:00 PMERNurse, you state in your original post, that Tebelius "ditched traditional Republican candidates" I ask a simple question and as I expected you can't name these people. I also think it's a fallacy that more conservative candidates would have stood a better chance of winning if that's your point here. I named several traditionally conservative candidates of recent memory of illustrate my point. See Brads post at #9 for further clarification.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 13, 2006 09:35 AMTraditional Republican means, fiscal conservative (don't have any of those around), allowing business to run unfettered, and staying the hell out of people's personal lives - that means being pro-choice (like Barry Goldwater) and pro stem cell research, like the Reagan family. When we find candidates like that, we will win. Not with this Neo-Republican crap we see from right wing nut jobs.
Posted by: the duke on November 13, 2006 10:58 AMReagan's family was not elected president--he was. And he would have been against embryonic stem-cell research because of his view of the unborn child. After all he said this:
I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives � the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.
It is OK to be conservative, but how about having a candidate with a personality - like Dino Rossi or Rob McKenna ? Diane Tebellius could also use a personality transplant. Phil Spackman would like to see Susan Hutchison as the head of the WSRP, which would be a substantial improvement - she has a personality.
Posted by: KS on November 13, 2006 10:06 PMDino Rossi and Rob McKenna are prime examples of the kind of (R) candidates we need more of, in order to have a realistic chance of winning State-wide.
One more thing: To call Mike McGavick a ''spectacularly worthless candidate'' is uncalled for, counter-productive, and most of all WRONG:
I had the privelege of talking to Mike several times in 2006, and I walked behind him in the Silverdale Whaling Days parade; where he got a great reception from a large crowd. The simple truth is that it was a big ''wave year'' for the (D)s; both nationally and in WA. Except perhaps for Dino, I doubt anyone could have done better against Cant-vote-Well this year. For sure someone like Linda Smith or Ellen Craswell would have done WORSE (don't kid yourself).
The fact that Burner just conceded to Dave Reichert puts an exclamation point on the perceptive point Brad made earlier:
''a 'traditional' republican would have lost in the 8th this year.''.
Brad also said:
''To say traditional conservatives would have done better in this state is untrue.''
For WA in 2006, I will add to last above:
CLEARLY untrue. That's reality. We have to deal with it, and do better next time.
Reichert is only winning by the skin of his teeth. Don't forget, he got a lot of help from the National Right to Life (wrongly directed IMO, but nonetheless, he did have more of their help than did any other congressional candidate in this state.)
Posted by: Michelle on November 14, 2006 10:21 AM
Again, I don't know who all these potential candidates are that meet your litmus test and it doesn't appear that you do either. So give poor Diane a break, this was an awfully tough year to elect Republicans.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 14, 2006 10:36 AMWhat we need are people who are fiscal, national security conservatives, who are pro-business and stay the hell out of people's personal lives!! Then you will see people get elected in landslides, dare I mention Rob Mckenna, Doug Southerland, Sam Reed, Ken Eikenberry, and Slade Gorton all R's who fit that bill and hummmm, oh yeah, GOT ELECTED. Keep the nut cases out of the R party!!
And nobody ever taught witch craft in a school in this state - what sort of demented mind thought of that - and I was there in 92, and there was talk of a UFO ammendment. I believe it was labeled the "kooky convention" and that was by people who attended.
Posted by: the duke on November 14, 2006 12:56 PM"What sort of demented mind came up with that?" Perhaps some of the parents of students in these schools. A lot of PC crap goes on in public schools! And the interest in witchcraft among young people has been on the rise for quite some time, if you hadn't noticed.
"Stay the hell out of people's personal lives"????
Is killing another human being somebody's personal life, just because that person happens to reside in a woman's body for the time being?
Most people in this state don't know the range of political positions of Doug Sutherland or Sam Reed. They figure someone with an R next to his name on environmental policy, for instance would do lesser harm than someone with a D next to his name. Similiar for Sam Reed, but that is quickly changing. Slade Gorton was defeated, you'll remember. And most conservatives (fiscal and social) assume Rob McKenna is one too (on all issues). He is talented at serving up the red meat at Republican events. However, his calling the immigration plank of our platform "against the constitution" will cost him the votes of those who will saw that or remember it when his re-election comes around.
"Talk of a UFO amendment" does not mean that it was in there. If one person in a crowd of 800 stands up and moves to make a "UFO amdendment" and it is widely defeated, how can you brand the whole convention "kooky" on that basis. The "people who attended it" who called it "kooky" are just as "kooky" as the guy who might have made the motion for saying so.
Posted by: Michelle on November 14, 2006 03:25 PMI'll bet your as sure of that as you are of the UFO stuff being in the platform.
Posted by: Michelle on November 14, 2006 03:28 PMI will answer your last line by asking you who are the current Republican elected officials statewide? Are they they as conservative as you would like? But jeez, they just keep on winning don't they? Please name for me the last state wide official (Republican) who was anti choice. Please, I'm waiting (sound of jepardy theme song playing in background).
Now, (and I am going to type this real slow so you get the whole thing) we need conservatives who can win, that means we may not get everything we want in them, but we should at least try for fiscal conservatives who are pro-business at the state level and at the federal level we should add in strong on military issues - which in my book means you at least served a day. When we go beyond these "traditional" Republican issues (and I am going back to Ike here) we run afoul of the voters and then we don't get anything.
Unfortunatly I have met too many neocons who would prefer to not have a Republican win if their candidate doesn't toe the line on their social agenda, which by the way was not in any national Republican platform until the 1980's.
As to your assumption that I don't know how politics works, let's see; 4 years at the RNC, 4 years at the WSRC, another 20 years managing campaigns, of which my pro-choice buddy Ken E was one, naw you are right I don't know anything about campaigns, by the by how many winning campaigns have you managed?
Posted by: the duke on November 14, 2006 05:50 PMSo you want to take us back to the pre-80's Republican Party? Ah, those Rockefeller days, yes. You know, the Democrats love big business too. They sure like the money they get from big business. And they're pro-choice too. Sounds like a great fit for you duke! The greedy, self-centered baby boomers that will soon baby bust themselves out of existence!
Posted by: Michelle on November 14, 2006 08:05 PMWe should scare the poop out of you, duke. We are your replacements.
How did your boy, McGavick do, duke? Joel Pritchard, indeed. You are the Republicans who were pro-choice on Slavery. You were the Republicans who were pro-choice on the Third Reich. You were the "voodoo" button wearers whose judgment having been trusted, would have led us deeper into CarterLand, 20% interest rates, double-digit inflation, and appeasement of the Soviets through left-wing diplomacy. You are the most destructive force in American politics, Liberals who [used to] get Republican votes by lies. But no more, Mr. Weicker. No more, Mr. Evans. The worm has turned. Watch Sam "call me Christine" Reed's next vote totals, duke. Watch how your beloved McCain fares even with every conceivable advantage from your liberal buddies in the Mainstream media. Winners? No more. Go join the party you agree with, duke. You have no part of the GOP. You are the men attempting to usher in National Socialism. You are anything but "pro-choice." you don't want the freedoms protected by the Constitution. You support the eradication of the billions of choices aptly represented by the bones of the humans you've murdered. Children who will never get the choice to play ball or run or play or see the sky. As an apologist for the biggest tax increasers in Congress (back in the years when they could still win) you are against all the choices U.S. citizens could be making if the government gave their money back. You are against all the free choices of the Central Americans your heroes tried to keep under Marxist rule in the '80s. You oppose the free choices to use their land by both rural and urban property owners of the entire state, delivered, by your illegal Growth Management Act, into the hands of government. You are against the choices of the parents who want their children to get an academic education, a public impossibility owing to your HB1209 Outcome Based Education debacle. I get weary tallying up the ravages of your legacy.
You want us to believe you ran winning campaigns? I can't remember anyone named "the duke" doing any of that. Grow a spine and use your real name if you want us to give any credence to your claimed accomplishments, particularly since you've already been caught in a blatant lie. While you're at it come up with the name of any Republican you've elected to a Statewide legislative office who is fiscally conservative. Just one.
What about the $20,000, duke? Put your dirty money where your mouth is.
The state party spent most of it's money on Reichert.
The big story is HROC in Olympia. It spent $230k on loser challengers and only $70k on protecting incumbants. We lost too many incumbants like Woods, Shabro, Buck and more this election. Now Frank Chopp is going to kick our butts.
Posted by: Follow the money on November 17, 2006 01:02 AMYou cant tell how much they spent on those candidates, it looks like they sent a lot through the state party and other PAC's to protect incumbents. You dont know what you are talking about. They sent over $100k to the party, over $100k to other PAC's. What did you do armchair quarterback?
Posted by: conservative activist on November 17, 2006 06:36 PMIs it a coincidence that the caucus members who have been critical of HROC's Director Kevin Carns and Richard DeBolt's leadership were betrayed?
I can't believe DeBolt was re-elected Minority Leader yesterday. He should have been dumped ... and all the HROC staff fired. I guess the right-wing whackos of the party never want to be in the majority.