....to run for statewide office as Republicans. Not to say Dino Rossi wasn't, I mean, isn't, a great statewide candidate. He certainly is. And he may well hold statewide office - sooner or later - in Washington.
But this article in the current issue of Newsweek about the success of liberal Democratic women in winning statewide office in the "other" Washington (both U.S. Senator slots, and now for the time being, governor) raises certain questions.
Like, who are Washington's statewide GOP women political stars of the future? Looking forward, what Republican women from Washington state can be viable candidates for U.S. Senate or Governor? They're needed. As Newsweek notes:
(Gov. Christine) Gregoire, (U.S. Sen. Patty) Murray and (U.S. Sen. Maria) Cantwell, all Democrats, are creatures of a political culture that has produced greater electoral gains for women per capita than any state in the country—ranging from school boards and city councils all the way up. National groups are studying the state's political farm system in hopes of replicating it elsewhere. "Washington has normalized the whole idea of women leading," says Marie Wilson, of the White House Project, an organization promoting women's political involvement.
It's in no way sexist to acknowledge that the success of Murray, Cantwell and Gregoire has had some connection to their gender, and their appeal to female voters. For example, George Nethercutt utterly bombed against Murray. (Next time, a credible woman GOP challenger - and yes, one from Puget Sound - would be an awfully good idea).
As well, consider Gregoire's disastrously vague, ineffectual and (barely) winning candidacy for Governor. It was the weakest showing by a D-Gov. candidate in WA in quite some time, yet she eked by and it may well hold, all lawyering and fervent hopes to the contrary aside. Conversely, can you imagine the result if the Democratic nominee had been a man with Gregoire's exact track record, and had run an identical campaign? Dino and his family would be fitting the Governor's mansion with new drapes about now.
Yet what sort of female, statewide GOP candidates in Washington leap to mind from the recent past? Unhinged ideologues like (U.S. Senate candidate) Linda Smith and (gubernatorial contender) Ellen Craswell, for starters.
Certainly, we can do better. When and how will that start?
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 23, 2005 09:40 PM | Email ThisMatt, you have a point there. It pained me greatly to vote for Gary Locke, but with Craswell on the other side, the GOP left me with no choice.
Women with a D by their name get treated as the darlings of the press. Women with an R get vilified.
Women who are attracted to the Republican party tend to be strong willed independent thinkers. Not the type of person swing Democrats would vote for. Without that vote a Republican doesn't stand a chance.
Frankly the only way you can get a Republican elected is to find an unknown. She will have to be moderately successful, but under the radar.
I hate to sound negative, but you are fighting a hive mindset. The Democrats are very much about towing the party line. Replubicans are a lot more liberal with allowing candidates that don't always vote party line. One of the reasons Republicans keep loosing.
Posted by: Vince Callaway on January 23, 2005 10:03 PMFunny, during the campaign I almost got the impression sometimes that some of her radio ads were trying to fool the voters into thinking that she was a man. What with calling her "Chris" all the way through and completely avoiding the use of any female pronouns. Did anyone else notice this? I thought something that John Carlson said a few weeks ago was amusing, it was something along the lines of "We've tried to get Chris, Christine, or whatever her publicist has decided her name is this week on our show..."
Personally I wonder how many men voted for Dino just because they didn't want to vote for a woman.
Posted by: Skor Grimm on January 23, 2005 10:16 PMJust as nice hair and fewer wrinkles helps the men trying to get into office (I've been told of some grannies that vote for the cutest boy), I definitely think the D next to a female works much better than an R, just as Vince said.
Actually, I believe that when your two choices are: John Smith (D) and Jane Doe (R), that Mr. John Smith is going to win over Miss Doe. Why? The trend is that some women will go for Democrats, regardless if the other candidate is female or not. They like the nice guy who will give them "free" stuff. Now for the men...Men will tend to gravitate toward the male candidate because they trust that as a man, the male has natural leadership qualities, AND is more emotionally stable than a woman. So, in the case of Smith versus Doe, Smith wins: He has half or more of the women on his side, and a good portion of the men.
I think that women in such a high office as Commander In Chief or even Governor is a risk at times. Women are infamously emotional...Next thing you know, the first of every month is National Chocolate Day!
Posted by: Cyd on January 23, 2005 10:17 PMNethercutt was fine. Linda Smith was fine. It's the Puget Sound area elitist snobs -from both parties- who look down their noses at people from Southern or Eastern Washington who are the problem. Even Tom Foley, at the height of his hey day, was smart enough to know that no matter how liberal he was and no matter how influential he came to be, the Seattle area Democrats couldn't be trusted to heartily support someone they perceived to be a Spokane rube. And that's why he never made a senate run. And the Republicans are no better, as you yourself unwittingly demonstrate. But the problem is that it's the rest of the state that are the backbone of the Republican Party in the state. Look down your nose at them at your peril.
Posted by: jay bird on January 23, 2005 10:21 PMWith friends like these, who needs enemies?
I happen to have voted for BOTH of these candidates. If you scare away those who are voting conservative in the first place in the hopes of gaining others... have you really gained anything at all?
Ugly people with convincing messages just FILL both houses of this State and in D.C., as well as many an executive chair. Beautiful candidates with no message follow John F. Kerry and John 'the Breck Girl' Edwards to the long line of coulda/woulda's.
Please don't go looking for something superficial to fix real problems, okay? Sheesh.
Posted by: Michael M on January 23, 2005 10:37 PMI think the above two statements are considered true by a majority of people, including quite a few men. Could someone list the reasons for the difference in perception? I'd like to see them.
Posted by: Boonie on January 23, 2005 10:51 PMJennifer Dunn would certainly have given Patty Murray a run for her money.
However, Nethercut never really had a chance. He looked like a mean spirited east sider who flopped on term limits. Murray was able to bring out his positions on abortion and being a right winger well.
I really think that the first woman president will be a republican. The right wing will vote for her because they share her views and some portions of the left will support the candidate because of her gender for the novelty of having a woman president.
The hilarious thing is that the first woman governor was a democrat (Dixey) who turned out to be the Queen of the nuclear industry and hated environmentalists.
Posted by: Erik on January 23, 2005 11:23 PMIt's not like Dixie was a stealth candidate...she had been the head of the US AEC, and a well known prof at the U. If she made any sort of mistake, it probably was in chosing to run as a Dem, when going as a Rep would have been nearer to the mark. I don't think she hated enviros as such. It would be more accurate to say that she did not suffer fools lightly.
Dunn really aspired to house leadership. Before that mess, she was moving steadily up and had powerful friends. Afterwards, she seemed to lose some of the fire.
Posted by: scott158 on January 23, 2005 11:50 PMI had to look up that acronym. It means Atomic Energy Commission. Yes, she loved the nukes like no one could understand today. I still remember in school she produced a documentary type film explaining how great nuclear power was. Before 3 mile Island I think.
Amazing really that someone like her could be the governor with her looks. But Lowry got it I guess (against Ikenberry).
She met a bad post mortem. There was a scandel in Pierce County where some funeral home folks took pictures of her corpse and handed them out.
Here's a wacky quote page of hers:
Posted by: Erik on January 24, 2005 12:17 AMOh my. Just a little information (but not enough) can be a dangerous thing.
Let us do a candid self-assessment:
We have a US Senator in tennis shoes, who annually wins the "Rocket Scientist" award.
We have another US Senator who has been honored with the "Least Effective Senator" award.
We have a US Congressman who prefers Saddam to Dubya, peddles illegal eavesdropping tapes, and wins in a landslide.
We have a primary system unlike any other, except for Louisiana's, and even the Louisianans tried to warn us.
We have five Supreme Court justices in our Constitution, but nine sitting on the bench.
We have one former governor under indictment for his role in a bribery scandal involving a strip club.
We have another former governor whose departure from public life was due to a sexual harassment scandal.
We have an influential state senator who answers the door with a parrot on her shoulder, and converses with the strangers on her doorstep in a parrot voice.
We have a recent candidate for statewide office who blew an easy endorsement by -- fitting with her reputation -- coming onto a member of the editorial board.
We have erected large and beautiful monuments to the concept of public bonds defaulting.
We have declared a state of emergency because our unpaid-for sports stadium was found to be ugly, and promptly blew it up.
We have built two new taxpayer-subsidized stadiums to fill the void left by blowing the first one up.
We have a mass transit project that has been held aloft by the feds as a beautiful example... of what not to do.
We have about the same number of lane-miles that we did before thirty years of significant population growth.
We have a Secretary of Transportation who says traffic will never get better, and asks why people care.
We have witnessed the departure of our two most successful companies, one visibly moving to Chicago, and the other quietly cashing its checks in Nevada.
We have an election mess that speaks for itself (or does it cry out to the heavens for justice?)
Given the tragically and comically dysfunctional way in which our state runs, who in their right mind would want to replicate *anything* that government does here? Were I a woman, trying to increase the number of women in elected offices, you would hear "Washington State" escape my lips almost as often as you hear Christine mentioning "appeal deadline," "public records," or "Precinct 1823."
Posted by: TB on January 24, 2005 12:42 AMARTICLE IV
THE JUDICIARY
SECTION 2 SUPREME COURT.
The supreme court shall consist of five judges, a majority of whom shall be necessary to form a quorum, and pronounce a decision. The said court shall always be open for the transaction of business except on nonjudicial days. In the determination of causes all decisions of the court shall be given in writing and the grounds of the decision shall be stated. [[The legislature may increase the number of judges of the supreme court from time to time]] and may provide for separate departments of said court.
RCW 2.04.070
Number of judges.
The supreme court, from and after February 26, 1909, shall consist of nine judges.
I'm not trying to detract from your point. But facts are facts.
Posted by: RG on January 24, 2005 01:05 AMSmith and Craswell are "ideologues," you say? Matt, you've apparently spent too much time reading Seattle's left-wing radical rags--the Times and the Post-Intelligencer.
Ronald Reagan was an ideologue, too, and he won the Cold War. Newt Gingrich was an ideologue, and he won both houses of Congress for Republicans.
If you call a Republican an ideologue in a pejorative sense, then you should really join the Libertarian Party, where you probably belong.
Posted by: FedUpWithThis on January 24, 2005 01:21 AMCertainly, we can do better. When and how will that start?
Craswell wasn't the only woman that ran that year. I would have LOVED seeing Gary Locke have to go toe to toe with Nona Brazier. But it was not meant to be. And why the regection of Linda Smith? What's the mater with some truth and honesty? The GOP needs that, now more than ever.
Posted by: Christian on January 24, 2005 06:40 AMBut I think the bigger issue is the GOP bench in general.
Posted by: gop_jeff on January 24, 2005 08:12 AMPerhaps there is a way around this obstacle in the road. Consider in the last election; if you took Seattle out of the mix, in King County the polling data indicated Kerry and Bush running pretty close to even (with Seattle something like 70/30).
It would seem that the GOP will have to field candidates, for state-wide office, that do well in the non-Seattle portions of KC.
Posted by: Shaun on January 24, 2005 09:09 AMHow about you Stefan?? Or others that support this blog???
Anyone who actually believes a Republican female will get a fair shot via the media needs a few more reality sessions with their therapist.
The Democrats get a whack job intellectual midget like Murray and an unethical, in my opinion, crook like Cantwell elected and you think the Republicans need to do better?
Define "Better"; if you mean knee jerk liberal reaction to “Social” issues, less intelligent behavior in general, and a record setting low standard of ethical behavior then maybe you should just join the party where those "virtues" are enshrined.
I for one don’t want a Republican "Murray" or "Cantwell" what would be the point?
Sorry but this really irritates me, this constant rant by fence sitters to move towards the "Center" is just another way of saying we need a one party system that observes, lectures, perhaps pontificates but who’s only action is to fiddle while Rome burns around them.
I'm no Democrat, but I'd vote for Locke over that ultraconservative nutjob again in a heartbeat. I think were it between Craswell and Skeletoire, I'd just write-in myself and subsequently move to Idaho.
What about Jennifer Dunn?
Posted by: Greg on January 24, 2005 12:10 PMCathy is definitely one of the rising stars in the State GOP. However, she'll have a difficult time were she to run for Senate (think Nethercutt). She really needs to make a name for herself in the west side of the state, and being from the 5th, I don't exactly know how she would do that. For her to run for a statewide office or Senate would require an enormous level of groundwork and preparation.
But when it comes down to it, I think we should stop thinking about gender politics this way. Why does gender even matter? All that should matter is who can do the best job, regardless of gender.
Posted by: Greg on January 24, 2005 12:18 PMSenator Craswell - Also known as Senator No (always voted against tax increases) because she didn't want anymore Moms to have to go to work to fund the growing socia1ism of Washington State.
And Linda Smith - Where is that ideologue now??? She is (and has been since she left office) rescuing girls from pedophile brothels in Southeast Asia. What is Dascle up too? Lobbying in D.C. How about Gorton? (That middle of the road-o ---- not!) Oh, he is also racking in the lobbying bucks in D.C. as well as our money sitting on that joke of a Sept. 11th Commission.
I will take ideologues like Smith and Craswell over milktoast rhinos and socia1ist anytime.
Posted by: Jericho on January 24, 2005 12:43 PMSpeaking of unconstitutional - did you hear that the Republicans are looking for a right wing judge to declare the U.S. 22nd Amendment unconstitutional.
Posted by: Jericho on January 24, 2005 12:49 PM"I think that women in such a high office as Commander In Chief or even Governor is a risk at times. Women are infamously emotional...Next thing you know, the first of every month is National Chocolate Day!"
Wow, you certainly are an enlightened guy there Cyd. I'm sure you're a hit with the ladies.
Cathy McMorris seems like the real deal to me, but I think it'd be pretty easy for the Democrats to use their stalking horses in the Seattle media to tar her as a baby Craswell or Linda Smith lite. I hate to say this to my "other Washington" friends, but the most electable women Republicans have to come from the Seattle suburbs -- a Diane Tibelius or Jennifer Dunn type. They can connect with the swing voters who decide elections in this state -- the Eastside and Snohomish County folks -- and the Dems would have a hell of time calling Tibelius another Linda Smith.
Problem is, I wonder how many partisan Republican suburban women there are in Western Washington who have what it takes to lead the party to statewide victory. I think they've all been mentioned here. Sad.
Posted by: D.J. on January 24, 2005 04:18 PMWe will be working with our national organization to bring in campaign teams to assist us with training, recruitment and management of women candidates.
If you are interested in learning more, contact us.
Jennifer Holder, President
Washington Federation of Republican Women