Even as we fight to contest the tainted gubernatorial election, another contest is looming that is of interest to many of our readers -- the contest for Chairman of the Washington State GOP.
Incumbent Chairman Chris Vance is running for re-election (at Dino Rossi's request, no less). Vance faces a number of challengers from within the party, some of whom might make worthy chairmen.
Chris Vance is supported not only by Dino Rossi, but also by the state's other leading Republican officeholders -- Attorney General-elect Rob McKenna, Congressmen Dave Reichert, Cathy McMorris and Doc Hastings, and Superintendent of Public Lands Doug Sutherland. These six leading Republicans have all signed a letter supporting Chris Vance to continue as state chairman for another term.
I'm not close to the state party machinery and I've never actually met Chairman Vance, but I'm comfortable following Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna and the others in supporting his reelection. Throughout this whole post-election game, I've been impressed with the fight that Chris Vance has been waging to defend our interests and our democracy. [See the WA GOP website for more info] There are powerful forces arrayed against us and we're fighting from a position of weakness in this state, and it's hard to draw comfort from what we read in the newspapers. But I also know that a lot is happening that isn't being reported and I'd be surprised at this point if Chris Vance doesn't both contest the election and prevail in the contest. When Dino Rossi is finally declared governor-elect (for the third and decisive time) and inaugurated a little later this year, we'll all owe a big thanks to Chris Vance.
It's legitimate to have a debate within the party about direction, leadership and strategy. Tim Goddard has already started posting interviews with the various contenders for state chairman. For my part, I'm keeping my eye on the ball to throw out this "total mess" of an election and to ensure that Dino Rossi is rightfully elected governor. I hope you'll join Dino Rossi and me in supporting Chris Vance to continue leading that fight.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 04, 2005 10:35 PM | Email ThisThat aside, new blood could help us net more credibility with "dinocrats".
Although Vance is a great leader, there could be a diamond in the rough amongst the candidates.
To conclude, at times I have thought Vance was somewhat overly aggressive. Afterall, temperance is in fact a virtue when dealing with liberals. Like Anne Coulter has advocated, if you give liberals enough rope they'll hang themselves, and you won't have to even bother.
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 4, 2005 10:44 PMI think I will wait until I see the Court case and get a clear understand of what Chris did and when. And what kind of leadership he provided. It certainly doesn't hurt to wait until you RECONCILE before CERTIFYING Chris, does it?
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on January 4, 2005 10:50 PMBut Vance has done an excellent job since around the time of the convention. Put together competitive campaigns, when the common wisdom was that we would get our tails kicked in the Governor and AG contests, and be lucky to send back Reed and Sutherland. And Vance has done a darned good job the last several weeks rallying the troops in the recount and revote efforts. Finally, you don't switch leaders during a war -- as they say, don't change horses in the middle of the stream.
And it is good to finally see Ralph Munro and Dan Evans enthusiastically backing Dino Rossi. Some of the Vance's challengers say that the state party isn't conservative enough. I say if we can't keep people like Munro and Evans in the party, we are going to get defeated statewide every single time.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 4, 2005 11:31 PMI'd love to see Slade get his seat back, but that's not going to happen.
Posted by: M on January 5, 2005 12:02 AMI haven't been extremely impressed with his handling of the governor race--he was almighty quick to jump in and try to play by the Democrats rules after the latest court ruling--a bad move! Rossi's call for a revote should have been first and foremost. Instead Vance undermined it by trying tactics which the media justifiably called "desperate, last minute" maneuvers.
There's got to be someone else who can keep a cool head and do a better job.
Posted by: Mark on January 5, 2005 12:15 AMVance has been the appropriate foil for Rossi --- he's doing exactly what he should, which is to let the 2X Governor elect stay relatively above the fray. He's shown backbone (there's too much Republican cartlidge in this State) and I think you can tell that he has had the right impact -- a perfect example is the PI issuing a shrill editorial imploring everyone to 'move on.' Here Vance is shouting that the emporer has no clothes --- and the paper wants us to 'get on with the people's business.'
But I digress -- Vance has earned another 4 years. Keep it up, Soundpolitics.com!
Posted by: seanod100 on January 5, 2005 12:17 AMAfter that - I started seeing him on the news with a new confidence! That confidence is what's causing such paranoia in the Dems camp....
Vance knows something...They know he knows...They are finally worried.....
I think Vance's appearances in the public and on the media are for a purpose........if only to watch the Dems squirm....
Posted by: Deborah on January 5, 2005 12:53 AMHe's been as much an embarassment to my many Republican friends as not.
Posted by: tom on January 5, 2005 06:16 AMChris Vance is our leader, and we are going in the 'right' direction!
Posted by: P Scott Cummins on January 5, 2005 07:32 AMAlso, from what I hear, the situation between Vance and Rossi is not nearly as clearcut as Vance makes it sound in the article you cite. Furthermore, Vance is being flat-out untruthful when he claims that most of his opponents are Reed Davis supporters. I have talked to lots and lots of people who oppose Vance, and I don't think any of them were Davis boosters.
Stefan, I wish you would not have so quickly thrown out your endorsement before taking a look at the other candidates. Obviously Republicans who got elected this cycle are going to support Vance--they owe him. But what about the many more Republicans who didn't?
Posted by: Timothy on January 5, 2005 07:56 AMVance did zero to support Jim Johnson for Supreme Court.
Posted by: Tim Ford on January 5, 2005 08:29 AMIf we are going to reward Vance for his incompetence, then we should be consistent and also praise King County Elections Department for its incompetence.
Posted by: Tim Ford on January 5, 2005 09:02 AM1. We did throw our full weight behing Rossi. We donated over $500,000 to his campaign. We did a comprehensive voter ID and GOTV effort that benefited all our candidates.
2. We did collect hundreds of signatures on provisional ballots, just like the Ds did.
Posted by: Chris Vance on January 5, 2005 09:22 AMI haven't been impressed with his post election efforts up to now. It was just plain wimpy to rollover on those hand-altered ballots (unconstitutional). It was a mascalculation not to go out and verify signatures the way the democrats did... statewide. Furthermore I would really like to have seen more involvement from the other Washington, we clearly need help. I don't have the information the Chairman does, but it really looks to me like the FBI needs to be involved here. Why aren't they?
For all this talk of Chairman Vance's 'aggressiveness', I have not seen it over the last eight weeks.
Posted by: Jim on January 5, 2005 09:42 AMBut when I speak of "weight," I'm not talking just about money. Obviously, the WSRP is going to give campaigns money. I'm talking about other aspects of the campaign--for example, all the scripts for phone banking & doorbelling that I ever used were written specifically about Bush, with tangential reference to "other Republican candidates." I added in my own pitch for Rossi, but most people didn't. I'd bet Rossi could have gotten at least, say, 129 more votes if those GOTV efforts had focused directly on Rossi, who had a shot, instead of Bush, who didn't.
I honestly don't know the full story, I just know what I saw. Like I said, I many questions about this past election cycle, and I'm not the only one. I'd like to have a chance to ask you the same ones I asked Mark Hulst.
Posted by: Timothy on January 5, 2005 09:43 AMGood Luck.
Posted by: Jim on January 5, 2005 09:53 AMOf course you supported Rossi, just like you supported Jim Johnson.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Ford on January 5, 2005 09:58 AMRossi succeeded in spite of Vance's "lightweight" contributions.
Posted by: Tim Ford on January 5, 2005 10:03 AM I hope everyone else reads this.
Stefan I love ya buddy you do great work.
on this one however your way off.
I want everyone to know I am wrting this
with a great deal of reluctance.The story
that was in the king county journal that
stefan refered to in his post. Isnt completly
accurate.
This business that vance alluded to about
reed davis simply is not true.this is only an
attempt by a desperate man who knows he's on verge
of losing his job trying to save it.
I would ask you why didn't nethercutt
and jennifer dunn sign that letter.
keep in mind this letter was sent out
on dec 28th. that was before they left
office.At this point vance is in trouble
and he knows it.He clearly does not
have enough votes to win again.
Gee why do think that is?
I will leave it at that.
Posted by: phil spackman on January 5, 2005 11:05 AMHe has made steady and strong progress since then and while there is more work to do, and while other candidates have some strengths, I don't think any come close to bringing what Vance brings to the table right now given where the party is at in its development.
In perspective, in an election cycle with a highly motivated Dem base in a blue state, the party held two statewide seats, picked up a 3rd, and deserves the Governorship...all while defending two competitive, open Congressional seats.
Legislative races were a disappointment, but the demographics of many key districts are trending against R's...not to mention the weak "farm team" of candidates which contributed to things like the Eastwood dilemma.
I would argue, however, local farm team work is primarily the role of county parties, with the support of the WSRP. Vance has been improving relations with the county parties but many of them need to improve as well...and overall candidate development certainly falls into the "work to be done" category.
The party has its warts, but Vance is taking it in the right direction and this kind of improvement - especially given where the party was at when Vance got the job - is an ongoing process.
Posted by: Eric on January 5, 2005 11:36 AMThis election business would be moot if we could have peeled off more of the 60,000+ votes WASTED on Ruth Bennett. Same is true with the Gorton/CantVOTEwell race.
The state GOP would only have to adopt 1 Libertarian issue, Washington's voter approved I-692. The medical marijuana issue. It is a popular and compassionate law that is supported by over 60% of Washington voters.
The Libertarian's also believe in less government, what the hell is different between that position and the Republican's?
Having said that, I will support Vance for re-election. He's head and shoulders better than his closest challenger. You can view the resume's of the other candidates at www.thereaganwing.com.
Vance is responsible for a GOP program that helped our County, (Kitsap), regain a Republican majority on the Board of Commissioners for the first time in 34 years in 2002. The program is called the Elephant Hunt. It pays counties for identifying and registering Republicans. With the money we were paid from this account we've been able to make inroads at the election booth.
Vance has earned another term, but Chris, you must start paying attention to the Libertarian's and start co-opting some of their ideas, so we won't have as many election problems.
Posted by: Robert Knight on January 5, 2005 12:51 PMAll I can say is that Vance had better take legal action now or there are going to be a lot of mad Republicans.
Earl
Maybe Vance should consider a career change and become a lawyer. He is putting more effort into the litigation than he did to turn out votes for Rossi.
Posted by: Tim Ford on January 5, 2005 04:17 PMIt would be in the Dems playbook to try to divide Republicans at this point of the voter investigation! Picking on Chris Vance (or any other major player in the party) at this crucial time, can only be taken as a purposeful attempt to distract and divide us before the evidence is presented.
Remember - this is a public blog on the internet! Anyone can post as *anyone* they want and there is no verification. Don't be quick to debate a point with someone who posts ONLY for the counter point....They will succeed in taking you off track and frustrating your efforts!
Deborah
Good advice! I will keep my eyes open for those psuedo-republicans.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Ford on January 5, 2005 04:24 PMI am a pretty laid back dude. Happy that my wife and I just had a baby girl on my 40th birthday (December 13th.) I am also a very strong supporter of the republican cause (check my $$ contributions on the PDC website), which is why I am irked by Vance's incompetence.
I understand Deborah's concern and promise to tone it down.
I am sure that Vance will probably win easily.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Ford on January 5, 2005 07:50 PM chris vance does not have the votes to win right
now.based on what I know I simply can't see that
changing.without getting into specifics
he has as alienated far to many people as of
late.
I don't know that Chris's job should depend upon the strategy or result of litigation which may or may not happen. I was pointing out to those so inclined that it's too early to make that call.
Posted by: South County on January 6, 2005 08:11 AMMark has just come off of his fourth consecutive term as the Chair of the Skagit County Republicans. During that time Mark compiled a rather notable record, pulling his party's factions together into a cohesive force that got the job done.
Mark's agenda for the next two years includes the following items --
1) Strengthening and Empowering the grassroots, primarily through working with the County Parties in identifying each counties' strengths and weaknesses, and supporting the counties in ways that will help them to maximize their potential.
2) Develop stronger, more positive relationships between the Party and our republican Elected Officials. Creating new opportunities to connect our electeds with our base. The stronger these bonds, the stonger our party.
3) Foster better relations with business. By networking more closely with this State's business community, our party can potentially open up new pools of manpower to rival anything that the Democrat/Labor alliance can put forth.
Simply put, Mark Hulst is the kind of leader with the experience and, more importantly, the vision to take this party to the level it should be operating at. I would advise you the reader to go to www.markhulst.com and read up on Mark. And if you support Mark, I would recommend that you contact your Chair, Committeeman, and Committeewoman and tell them to cast there vote for Mark Hulst at the State reorganization meeting on the 29th.
Posted by: Jeff Thorp on January 6, 2005 08:06 PMI am praying that you get full support of the Republican party. You have helped Democrats win big in our state with your ridiculous election fraud assertions. Keep it up BIG Boy.
I am ashamed of your party and their support of the blood thirsty Bush agenda.
History is being recorded and one day this sham of an administration will be taken to task for murdering thousands of innocent Iraqis for weapons of "mass-de-nothing."
Marko Polo
Posted by: Marko Polo on November 11, 2005 07:06 PM