One year and three months ago, I finished up what really was a wonderful time serving as Mike McGavick's New Media Director in spectacularly disappointing fashion. In the days and weeks that followed, I was inordinately frustrated with the terrible analyis of the nationwide 2006 debacle, but too drained by the whole experience to craft any response. I took a break from blogging and politics in general.
Then I got a great opportunity to go overseas, which extended this break longer than I had anticipated. (Finally getting overseas took more time than I had expected, too, but that's another story.) But now I'm rested, refreshed, and ready to enter the fray once more, to some extent (even if I am in Rio de Janeiro).
But I must say, I feel terrible. By not writing, I removed one of the very few pro-McCain voices from the Puget Sound blogosphere. And now here we are--it's a day before the Washington caucus, and McCain is the presumptive nominee (as I've been fully expecting even when his campaign was pronounced dead), and no one seems to have been ready for it. This is a sad example of when people who don't read blogs are much more prepared for reality than those who do.
We've seen it happen on the Democrat side often enough, and here it's happened on the Republican side as well. Sound Politics, Hugh Hewitt, NRO and countless others were happily preaching to the choir, while the congregation up and elected their pastor without them. It's called cocooning, and I blame myself entirely for absenting myself from the conversation. Sorry about that.
But here we are, as I said, the day before the caucus. And a lot of you are going to go out and refuse to vote for McCain. Either because you've been listening too closely to Don's adorable assertion that Huckabee has a chance, or because you just can't stand the guy, or because you've somehow convinced yourself he's a liberal, you're going to try to make sure McCain loses the first contest since his coronation.
You could do it, too. I know the people who go to caucuses--I'm one of them, and so are many dear friends. And so I know that the majority of them really, really don't like McCain. And McCain doesn't do well in caucuses in general--if he wins tomorrow, it will be his first such victory. Between evangelical Christians (note: I am one), local party activists (note: I am one) and talk radio listeners (note: I occasionally am one, but not while I'm in Brazil), Huckabee could very easily take the caucus. And a lot of you reading this plan to make that happen.
But I'm here to ask--please don't. And, going along with my pastoral metaphor three paragraphs previous, I've got a three-point sermon as to why (eat your heart out, Rev. Huckabee).
Point one--A McCain loss will waste resources
Losing Washington's caucuses will do nothing to change the basic math behind McCain's impending victory. What it will do, though, is force him to spend a bit more money to wrap things up. It will also send more money into Huckabee's coffers. Every dollar McCain spends or Huckabee raises in response to a McCan loss tomorrow is money that should be spent in defeating Hillary or Obama this fall. The same is true for the time and effort of the staff and volunteers in both campaigns, as well as the many other, less tangible resources that go into a nationwide campaign.
Point two--A McCain loss will embarass the Washington State Republican Party
Particularly when McCain coasts to an easy victory in the primary on the 19th. It will demonstrate that the local party activists and caucus-goers are woefully out of touch with the Washington State Republicans who actually supply the votes. Remember those? They're important. Now, it may be true that we activists are out of touch, and if it is, we need to figure out how we can rectify that situation. But personally, I'd rather it were not pointed out in such blatant fashion.
Because of the timing of our caucus and primary, and that of recent political events, we're a party uniquely positioned to embarrass itself. That's one opportunity I sincerely hope to avoid taking. Our party needs to gain influence over the voters of this state, both friendly and otherwise, and caucusing for Huckabee will diminish it, instead.
Point three--it will be good practice for November
For one brief, fleeting moment, let us face reality. If you want what's best for the party, state and nation, you are going to be voting for John McCain this November. If you currently believe otherwise, you are being unreasonable. Hopefully, this is a passing thing, and if so, I entirely understand. If recent events have made you momentarily too furious at your situation to be reasonable, please check back once it has passed. If it is a more permanent unreasonableness, then please do join the Democrats, and they are welcome to you.
Regardless of what category you fall into (reasonable, temporarily unreasonable, or permanently so), tomorrow will be a good opportunity to see what it feels like to vote for John McCain. If you can do it without breaking into a cold sweat, passing out, or breaking into uncontrollable shrieking, then you're doing well--otherwise, at least you got it out of your system. Perhaps your vote for him in the primary will only come with a little twitching and cursing. By November, you should be able pull the (sadly) metaphorical lever for McCain with only a nagging sense of ideological impurity at the back of your mind.
Alas, I can't vote in the caucus tomorrow (though I already voted in the primary. But you probably can, and so I ask you to do what I would do. For the sake of your party, your state, your nation, and your own psychological health, vote for John McCain tomorrow. You don't have to do it proudly (we'll work up to that), but as long as you do it, we'll be on our way to victory over whichever remarkably unqualified candidate the Dems decide to throw our way in November.
Cross posted at the long-dormant Flag of the World.
Posted by goddardtp at February 08, 2008 03:06 PM | Email ThisIsn't the Washington State Republican Party already embarassed? If you don't think that Huckabee did a great job as governor in Arkansas and would be a fine governor in this state, don't vote for him. I'm sure we'd be pleased if he was our governor, just because the blue state media darlings think of him as a hick, doesn't mean that he wasn't a great red-state governor.
Again it's the urban/rural divide. It is very pronounced in this state as well. Romney supporters in the cities and suburbs, Huckabee supporters in the rural areas, McCain supporters strewn about. It's the Hawvard type thinking, city and suburb folk know better, even the Republicans on this blog caught that disease. No, my guess is the people in the red states are the smartest people, the people in the rural areas have a bit more common sense.
Posted by: Doug on February 8, 2008 05:01 PMWe vote for delegates, perhaps in part based on their presidential preference, but that does not constitute a vote for the preference, per se (especially if your caucus has fewer delegate candidates for your preferred presidential candidate than available delegate/alternate positions, in which case you are forced to vote for someone preferring another presidential candidate, or not vote at all).
This is a sad example of when people who don't read blogs are much more prepared for reality than those who do.
No, it's not. It's not about "being prepared for reality" at all. It is about people who have well-informed opinions thinking for themselves.
We've seen it happen on the Democrat side often enough, and here it's happened on the Republican side as well. Sound Politics, Hugh Hewitt, NRO and countless others were happily preaching to the choir, while the congregation up and elected their pastor without them. It's called cocooning
No, it's not. It's called people having well-informed, and diverse, opinions.
and I blame myself entirely for absenting myself from the conversation. Sorry about that.
Yeah, if only you were here earlier, I could think about all this much more clearly. WHERE WERE YOU WHEN I NEEDED YOU?!? YOU DESERTED ME AT MY HOUR OF NEED! All this time I told myself I could evaluate the information, process it, and form my opinions perfectly well without you, but I was fooling myself!
And a lot of you are going to go out and refuse to vote for McCain. Either because you've been listening too closely to Don's adorable assertion that Huckabee has a chance, or because you just can't stand the guy, or because you've somehow convinced yourself he's a liberal
Or because I want to support someone I like better. I know, it's a novel concept in this "democracy" thing we have going. But I figure I'll give it a shot.
you're going to try to make sure McCain loses the first contest since his coronation.
Nope. I am simply going to do my duty to vote for the person I think would do the best job. I do not owe my vote to McCain, or to the party. I owe it to myself to use my vote to express my opinion.
Losing Washington's caucuses will do nothing to change the basic math behind McCain's impending victory. What it will do, though, is force him to spend a bit more money to wrap things up.
Oh drat. Well, since it is going to be inconvenient for some people, I guess I shouldn't voice my opinion.
Every dollar McCain spends or Huckabee raises in response to a McCan loss tomorrow is money that should be spent in defeating Hillary or Obama this fall.
Expressing my voice is far more important than that. I pity anyone who feels their voice does not have that much importance.
A McCain loss will embarass the Washington State Republican Party
Wow. I SO could not care less, even if it were true, which it isn't. The party is here to serve the interests of its members. Period. If the party is embarrassed because its members expressed an unpopular opinion ... who cares? And if the party will not serve the interests of its members, it should cease to exist.
It will demonstrate that the local party activists and caucus-goers are woefully out of touch with the Washington State Republicans who actually supply the votes. Remember those? They're important.
That could only possibly be true if we were voting for the person we thought would win the primary, and then we were embarrassed because we thought Romney would win and he didn't. That is what "out of touch" means. But we're not doing that, so, in fact, it is not POSSIBLE for a McCain loss in the caucus to demonstrate that the party is out of touch. It only demonstrates that the party has a different opinion.
Opinions. Remember those? They're important.
Voters for Reagan in '76 could have been called out of touch, too. The challenge to Ford "embarrassed" the party. Shrug.
Because of the timing of our caucus and primary, and that of recent political events, we're a party uniquely positioned to embarrass itself.
I have never once in my life been embarrassed to have, and express, an opinion different from the majority, and I see no reason to start now.
Tim: I am preferring Thompson tomorrow. I will vote for delegate candidates that support Thomson and Romney. I plan to switch my preference to Romney at the county convention (which I will reach by virtue of being a PCO and therefore an automatic delegate), and remain for Romney at state convention. But should McCain win the nomination, I will proudly support him and vote for him. This is how it usually works, and it's how it should work. I do not respect any call for me to subvert my opinion "for the good of the party," because that is totally backward.
Please let's not pretend that I am doing anything whatsoever wrong, illogical, unreasonable, or embarrassing. It's not true.
If you currently believe otherwise, you are being unreasonable.
No one's gonna raise a dime based on tomorrow's results. Washington State decides nothing; politically, we've always been background noise and nothing happening tomorrow will change that.
Unfortunately, the Washington State Republican Party has been an embarrassment for years... at least since Vance took over. Haven't you been paying attention?
Have we gained or lost more seats over the past 6 years? You of all people, given the abysmal result of your own campaign (McGavick) should be the most aware of the fact that for years now, the WSRP has done nothing to merit our money or our confidence.
"Embarrass the WSRP?" There's nothing we could do to embarrass them that they don't routinely do to themselves, yet another byproduct of the control over the party by the Bellevue Mafia.
Until our party gets its act together, I am dramatically unconcerned about "what's best" for them. Until they get serious about making the necessary changes, such as engaging in serious, year-round minority outreach, I could care less about the party that could care less about us.
I have worked my ass off for the GOP over the last 20 years... even serving as ED in Tukwila. But a party so bereft of a clue, so out of touch with what needs to be done; so dominated by people who are much more concerned about what THEY can PERSONALLY get out of this, what job or appointment in the Plumb Book, what position they can scam because of who they know; which federal judgeship they can shoot for... which reception they can look good at, what kind of power they can personally amass... instead of making their entire reason for existence nothing less than getting Republicans elected, an almost unheard of concept for the past several years... then I truly could care less if they were to disappear off the face of the earth.
For the first time in any of those 20 years, I will not be attending a caucus; I will not vote in the primary, which has, as it's main purpose, the identification of R's and D's at a $7 million taxpayer expense; and I will not be going to either the county or state conventions.
I see that as unfortunate... but I am no longer the believer that put in 16 to 22 hour days for months to get GWB elected.
And Senator McCain, who's military service I honor, has too frequently ignored what I want, what I need, and what it's going to take to get me excited about his candidacy.
Pudge is for more incisive and eloquent about my position than I am, which I believe is a position shared by 10's of thousands in this state, and millions across this country.
My catch-phrase has always been that we cannot "out-democrat the democrats." And McCain's positions on so many of the issues I hold dear attempt to do exactly that.
I'm just burned out. And McCain does nothing to fix that. But it is unrealistic to expect me to support a guy who has kicked me in the head for years, politically.
Sorry, but I'm sitting this one out. All the way out.
Posted by: Hinton on February 8, 2008 11:05 PMI can't tell how much offense you've actually taken at my various tongue-in-cheek statements, but I hope it is less than it appears.
A couple thoughts in response. A caucus is not just a forum for "expressing your voice". That's a blog, or an opinion poll. A caucus is designed to choose the next Republican nominee. That means that more practical considerations should be taken than simply who you like the best.
Romney already dispatched the '76 analogy--leaving aside the fact that Romney is not now and never has been a leader of an ideological movement along the lines of Reagan's.
It's interesting that you're going to be supporting delegates for Thompson, because Thompson just said something very similar to what I said.
You're wrong when you say "The party is here to serve the interests of its members." The party IS the members--both the activists, and those who simply consider themselves Republican--not to mention the office-holders and candidates. No one who pays a normal amount of attention to politics cares about the official organization that is WSRP. When I say "embarrass the party", I mean "make voters think less of Republicans in general."
In that vein, the party activists having a different opinion from the actual Republican voters is, in fact, the very definition of "out of touch". That's the problem.
And finally, if you don't like the idea of doing anything "for the good of the party," that's fine. But what about the other two-thirds of my statement--namely the "state and nation" part?
Hinton--
If you don't think Huckabee would raise money based on his first victory outside of the South since Iowa, you haven't been paying attention. And every delegate that Huckabee gets means the contested primary will go on for just that much longer, requiring McCain to spend more money.
And as I said above, when I reference the party, I don't mean the folks over in Bellevue. I mean ALL OF US, because no one who matters (ie, voters) draws a distinction between the two.
I can respect your frustration with McCain, and your decision to sit this one out (especially rather than try to make life more difficult for him at the caucus). I do hope, though, that you'll vote for him in November, when it really matters.
Doug--
You have some good points, but I'm less concerned with how the caucus makes McCain look, than how it makes us (grassroots Republicans) look. If we are seen actively disagreeing with the majority of our voters, it lowers our influence with those voters, and with independents.
Of course, it sounds like no one's switching from Romney to Huckabee anyway, so all this may be moot.
Posted by: Timothy on February 9, 2008 05:39 AM1. Cost McCain money
2. Embarrass the WSRP which is very hard to do, since they are a complete embarrassment already.
3. Not voting McCain is good practice in November when conservatives vote Hillary or Obama, leaving the left wing for McCain
No. That is your OPINION. It is not a fact. My opinion is that a caucus and primary works best for the party when everyone picks whom they like best. As I address below, the party is more than merely all its members, it is an organization, with rules and procedures and policies and platforms and leaders. The way the organization can best represent those members is for those members to express themselves at caucuses. That's where it all starts, and without it, the party as an organization cannot effectively represent its members.
Romney already dispatched the '76 analogy--leaving aside the fact that Romney is not now and never has been a leader of an ideological movement along the lines of Reagan's.
Irrelevant. The point is that a party is not brought down by having strong minority opinions ... unless those opinions are squelched by the majority, such as you are trying to do. Granted, Romney is no Reagan, and McCain is no Ford. But even if we lose in the next election (which seems unlikely to me; I think McCain will make a fantastic candidate in the general election), I believe that we will come back stronger than before, as we did with Reagan, not because we will find The Next Reagan but because we will more strongly coalesce around what it means to be a Republican.
It's interesting that you're going to be supporting delegates for Thompson, because Thompson just said something very similar to what I said.
No, that's not interesting at all. You will not find an example of me pledging fealty to Thompson; I simply think he is the best candidate of the past year to represent the party. That he is supporting McCain is his decision, which has no impact whatsoever on mine. I have no problem with him supporting McCain; good for him.
You're wrong when you say "The party is here to serve the interests of its members."
No, in fact, I am not wrong at all. The party is a private organization, and the organization exists for the sole purpose of serving the interests of its members.
The party IS the members--both the activists, and those who simply consider themselves Republican--not to mention the office-holders and candidates.
Shrug, then you are arguing against yourself. The context in which I made the remark was your claim "A McCain loss will embarass the Washington State Republican Party." I took that to mean the organization called "the Republican Party." Apparently you didn't: you meant the people who comprise the party, which makes even less sense, because the members expressing their own opinions cannot possibly embarass themselves.
When I say "embarrass the party", I mean "make voters think less of Republicans in general."
If my opinion makes someone think less of me, I couldn't care less about what that person thinks. Shrug.
In that vein, the party activists having a different opinion from the actual Republican voters is, in fact, the very definition of "out of touch".
No, in fact, it is not. You are using the phrase incorrectly. The very definition of "out of touch" is to have an incorrect view of something. If all you intend to say by "out of touch" is "to have disagreement," then I fail to see how it is bad to be "out of touch," as the phrase has a negative connotation.
If that's the case, fine, I am proud to be out of touch, because I have strong disagreements with most other people, and therefore WANT to have a different opinion, and therefore am proud to be "out of touch." It is the only reason why I am involved in politics at all. If most people agreed with me, I would have no need to spend my time fighting it out in the trenches.
And finally, if you don't like the idea of doing anything "for the good of the party," that's fine.
I didn't say that. I said I will not subvert my opinion "for the good of the party," because that is backward. I do many things for the good of the party, far more than you, and most people here (not that I am attacking you, or anyone else for that; each of us has his own priorities and situations in life). But subverting my opinion -- especially during intraparty decision-making -- is not one of them. I don't think that IS for the good of the party.
But what about the other two-thirds of my statement--namely the "state and nation" part?
I already did address it. I noted that my voice is far too important to subject it to some notion of whether it might hurt McCain's chances in the future, and I stated that I will proudly support and vote for McCain if he wins the nomination.
Using your own argument against you: if you cared about the good of the party and the state and the nation, why did you back a candidate that was so divisive within our own party? I don't have a problem that you did, but it seems YOU should have a problem with yourself that you did. According to your own argument.
I think we've come to the heart of our disagreement. When I described the caucus as a mechanism for choosing a candidate, that is clearly fact, not opinion. Our opinions diverge on the best way to do that.
You believe that caucuses/primaries work best when we vote based solely on our own opinion of who would do the job best, without regard for the practical consequences of that vote. That's fine, but it's not a belief I share. Nor is it a belief, I think, most people share. For example, comment #5, while spectacularly unreasonable, agrees, at least, that the practical consequences of a vote should be taken into account. You disagree, and that's fine. It's not a debate I want to have with you, though.
As for why I supported such a divisive candidate--leaving aside the fact that he strikes me as the best man for the job--I have three reasons.
1. He was going to win this race regardless. It was his turn, and that's the way the GOP works.
2. He is, as you say, a fantastic general election candidate. That was not true of any other R candidate.
3. Despite what you've been reading & hearing, he's actually the least divisive of the three Super Tuesday candidates.
Posted by: Timothy on February 9, 2008 12:54 PMAnd goddardpt: Michael Medved, is that you????
Posted by: Seabecker on February 10, 2008 09:16 PMThe difference is that I don't make assertions about what other people should do based on my opinion.
For example, comment #5, while spectacularly unreasonable, agrees, at least, that the practical consequences of a vote should be taken into account. You disagree, and that's fine.
False. I just have a broader range of practical considerations in mind.
As for why I supported such a divisive candidate--leaving aside the fact that he strikes me as the best man for the job--I have three reasons.
Fine. I don't care: I don't want you to defend your choice. Your choice is your choice. Mine is mine. I don't act like anyone has to defend their choice, or that they should agree with my choice. You're the one doing that.
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 10:54 PMSince when, can a candidate robo call states to announce that his competition had dropped out of the race? That was done by Romney over the 3 days preceding Super Tuesday. Here is fox news reporting on it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk6IJS3QN34
Since when does a republican chairman call the win when 87% have reported and the two candidates are a mere 200 votes a part?
WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR NATION!!!!!!!
WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF THOSE IN POWER TAKING OUR RIGHTS AWAY!!!!
WE WANT TO BE AMERICANS LIVING IN A FREE COUNTRY!
GO OUT AND VOTE FOR HUCKABEE, THE RICH AND POWERFUL ARE TRYING TO STOP HIM FROM GETTING TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
WE WILL NOT ACCEPT THEIR EFFORTS!!!!!!
Posted by: Dan Campbell on February 10, 2008 11:07 PMDan, no, in fact, that did not happen. Claiming it is a two-person race is NOT the same as claiming your opponent dropped out. It is a claim that your opponent is effectively out of the race, that he has no chance, not that he dropped out.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2008 12:27 AMDoug, you are getting played. All Huckabee wants to do is get enough delegates to beat Romney's total. His pride demands it. That is why he is such a defective candidate.
If it is McCain-Huckabee, I'll sit it out. If it is McCain-anyone, then I vote McCain, unless something else happens between here and there.
Posted by: swatter on February 11, 2008 09:08 AMI think what he's doing is still trying to make sure Romney can't win, that's my honest opinion. If he would have dropped out right after Romney suspended, like everyone wanted, the blogs and pundits would be shouting for weeks that he only was staying in to keep Romney from winning. Now Romney supporters are beginning to say, "His pride demands it." Mission accomplished.
I really think that if Huckabee stays in longer, then that will pretty much mean that Romney won't be a viable candidate in 2012 either (unless Romney can get a VP slot on this ticket) - which is fine by me, I want to see Jeb run for it.
Also, it seems, Huckabee is having the time of his life in this campaign. Most presidential campaigns wear down their participants, Huckabee seems to be that one in a hundred that just eats it up.
Clearly, though, there is as big of a urban/rural divide amongst the Republican Party as there is in general politics as well. The Republican party of the rural areas is different than those republicans that are out of power living in the suburban and urban areas. The question is cause and effect. Are the rural areas in this country that are clearly republican (and clearly elect state legislatures and congressmen who are republicans) different than the republicans living in the suburbs and urban areas (where clearly they can't get their candidates elected) different? If the suburban/urban republicans nominated more economic populous, socially conservative candidates would they have a better chance? Would a Rossi who vocally supported public schools, sweep the state both urban/suburban and rural areas?
Posted by: Doug on February 11, 2008 09:20 AMAlso, I don't want another Clinton and I don't want another Bush even though by all accounts, Jeb is the brightest of the batch of three.
Posted by: swatter on February 11, 2008 02:28 PMThe party apparatchiks tell us to grow up. Then they tell us to shut up. They declare McCain the winner though no one can really tell. When we question, they tell us to all go to hell.
Go along with us they moan. Don't dare think on your own! It's for party and state, they say as they berate.
Either way a liberal will win. But it'll be OUR liberal if John Boy gets in because at any costs, we must WIN, WIN, WIN.
Does it matter much if our confiscator is a D or an R? Will our load be lighter or the journey less far? They'll take all our land, they'll take our old car. They'll take every penny in our emergency fund jar.
While I still draw breath, I'll repeat the refrain. COme hell or highwater, I'll NOT vote MCCain!!!!
Posted by: pbj on February 11, 2008 04:56 PM