Congratulations to King County Councilman Steve Hammond, who won the GOP nomination in a well-fought competition against fellow Councilman Reagan Dunn that was decided at yesterday's convention.
This was a difficult contest because it pitted two popular and effective incumbents against each other. I like both Hammond and Dunn. I don't live in their district and I'm glad I didn't have to pick sides. I've praised both of them on this blog for their good works, and I've expressed disappointment only at the redistricting process which set up this contest by placing the newly appointed Dunn into the same district as the more senior (and elected) Hammond.
Dunn has a bright political future ahead of him. I hope he'll run in, say, 2006 to challenge one of the eastside Democrats in the state legislature. The Times article I linked above implies that Dunn will file to run in this year's Council race anyway. I hope this was misreported. Although Reagan Dunn has every right to run, Steve Hammond has been a terrific and effective Councilman and I can't think of any good reasons for the party to tear itself apart with a primary fight over this seat. There are so many other fights where we need to be united (most urgently: Irons v. Sims), that it would be a shame to waste the time, money and energy in a pissing match over a Council seat that's in good hands. Dunn and Hammond have similar positions on the issues, and the delegates from their district voted to support Councilman Hammond's re-election. If the vote had gone the other way, I'd today be expressing my full support for Reagan Dunn's re-election (and I stress he has my support, just not in this fall's race).
Steve Hammond is the man. He has my unqualified endorsement and my good wishes.
Other convention news: Veteran Councilman Peter von Reichbauer fended off the last minute challenge from former state Rep. Phil Fortunato. And contrary to Joni Balter's hilariously inept speculation, Dino Rossi is not running for King County Executive. He made a brief appearance at the convention to give a nominating speech for David Irons.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 12, 2005 03:10 PM | Email ThisThis is an embarrassment to the party and to the voters of the state. The party in their own caucuses has a track record as good as Ron Sims' banking credentials. It's not that hard to make a system that works, and set an example for competent and pristine electioning.
Posted by: mogura on June 12, 2005 03:41 PMIt wouldn't surprise me at all if Reagan Dunn runs for the King County Council seat anyway. It has been reported that way by both the Seattle Times and the King County Journal.
Maybe Dunn should run as a Democrat. That party hasn't had anyone file a PDC form, at least, for the 9th district seat.
GOP leaders are notorious for not only failing to back their nominees if the right person doesn't get nominated, but actually going so far as to endorse the Democrat running against the GOP nominee.
Kirby Wilbur, who the state and county GOP keep picking to run their official conventions (more often than not), is notorious for backing Democrats in the fall over GOP nominees -- even in the same year when he chaired the party convention earlier in May or June.
Wilbur has been picked to chair the King County GOP convention in 2000, 2004 and 2005, and the state GOP convention in 2000. (He has also served in similar positions in many of the other years.)
However, once Wilbur has the benefit of the mantra of GOP convention chair to boost his respect among conservatives and Republicans (and help boost his KVI listening audience), he then proceeds to endorse Democrats (or Libertarians) over the official GOP nominees in various state and county races.
Wilbur has endorsed Democrats over the GOP nominees for at least one statewide or countywide office in the general elections for 2000, 2003, and 2004. And in 2000, Wilbur also endorsed a Libertarian candidate over the GOP nominee for another statewide office.
Kirby Wilbur sets a fine example for party disloyalty by invariably betraying the very same party loyalists in the fall who made him convention chair in the spring. This betrayal also reflects poorly on the state and county GOP leaders who selected Wilbur to chair the convention.
Kirby Wilbur may or may not end up supporting the GOP's nominees from this recent nominating convention. Regardless, he sets a poor example for the party. Why should anyone respect the results of the nominating convention, when the chair of that convention doesn't even respect the GOP's official nominations to begin with?
With all this, it is no wonder that Reagan Dunn is flaunting the official GOP nomination and deciding to run anyway. The GOP nomination wasn't something that an official party leader like Wilbur respected when it was done by the voters in a primary under state law. Why should an aspiring candidate like Dunn give a damn about a party convention nomination that doesn't have the blessing of state law even?
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 12, 2005 04:12 PM"it is no wonder that Reagan Dunn is FLOUTING the official GOP nomination and deciding to run anyway"
FLAUNTING is what Kirby Wilbur does with the respect flowing from being GOP convention chair in the spring when he FLOUTS the party's official nominations in the fall and supports Democrats and other candidates.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 12, 2005 04:17 PM Its true reagan dunn does plan on running
in the primary.Everyone needs to understand
this was never about serving the citizens
of the ninth district or doing what's best
for the party.
Its about reagan dunn and wanting to
advance his political career.The man
is acting like spoiled 3 year old.
He says he's doing this because steve
hammond broke the 11th commandment.
First of all it never happend. Reagan
has some gall complaining about what
he thinks someone else did.Considering
what he and his supporters did to steve
hammond.He needs to take this loss like
man instead dividing this party.
By refusing to organize the caucus body with order and regularity, the undesirables (Hammond) were hung out to dry, while the backroom players attempted to orchestrate the chaos outside the "party" structure via the good-old-boys network. Under Ron Sims Rules, this should gaurantee a predictable outcome. The difference is that the Republicans are incompetent at playing dirty politics, so they bungled it ignoring the rural people. We got lucky this time, or more appropiately, as Elisha the Prophet said "They that be with us are more than they that be with them", but only by 24 votes out of 443.
Going back to the state convention last year. You're probably well aware of the SLATE and the attempt to slip the good old boys club in the back. Kudos especially to Ruth Gibbs for standing up and doing it right. When the slate got tossed out of the rules, the brass was in a total meltdown panic. Officially, it was going to "complicate" the convention process, and "delay" the voting for delegates, alternates, and electors. The problem was that they were about to be called on the carpet by their elites for bungling things, and that they weren't prepared to run the show properly anyway.
There was a debriefing session Friday evening after the State convention last year where there was desperate discussion of how to wriggle the slate candidates back on top in each district and avoid the new no-slate clause in the amended rules. There was little discussion if any about how to expediate the elections, only how to favor certain candidates.
For those of you not aware how the balloting was handled for the at large delegates at last year's state convention, each convention delegate under the direction of their legislative district chairs polled their ballots, which were then taken by tellers from the county party, or the leg district, up to the counting room. There they were roughly tabulated to aggregate the votes into candidates and counties. Those numbers were taken around the corner to the command room where they were entered one at a time by one person into a spreadsheet in Excel. This worked out to roughly a 160x40 spreadsheet, being tapped in one delegate at a time. This method was used because a borrowed chad ballot scanner was not working properly, and the thousands of delegates would have had to share a dozen punchers for a ballot with ~160 names on it.
Jumping back to yesterday, it's clear that the county and state parties still have not got it figured out how to run an election, how to organize the speeches and events to best utilize time, and to encourage participation and interest. Perhaps it would be of interest to petion to have a party director of elections who can take charge of these things, train and oversee the credentials committees, and make sure that a precedent is set to demand of the county and state.
Posted by: mogura on June 12, 2005 04:47 PMI would hope that Reagan Dunn calms himself and thinks about the conservative agenda here in Washington and whether his actions are going to reflect that conservatism or something quite less.
That said, I do think he has a wonderful political future ahead of himself as long as he doen't morph into another Jim Jeffords.
Posted by: Cheryl on June 12, 2005 04:52 PMI really hope that the courts uphold our new top-two initiative, this nominating convention business reeks of "smoke-filled rooms" and "good old boy" networks. Just because we're not big-D Democrats doesn't mean we should be against small-d democracy. Let the people choose!
RM
As Mimi put it succinctly in her post, efforts now should not be wasted in a squabble over a council nomination, but rather focus on getting David Irons elected as King County Executive. David made it very clear yesterday that his table will be open to all to end closed-session special deals and to implement creative solutions to problems that have divided the county. Defeating Ron Sims should be the 100% effort expended by us in the coming months.
Posted by: Elvis is the King County on June 12, 2005 05:22 PMI took the initiative, invited my Eastside neighbors to attend with me in my precinct and sad to report only 5 showed up because the caucus was an 'inconvenience'. The caucus event that I attended was for 2 precincts--the 2nd precinct had no PCO and nobody in attendance! This was my first and an eye-opener in many ways. How can we elect representatives for our area when nobody seems to care or wants to communicate to the candidates the needs or interests of individual communities? Please take the initiative to participate in the process before passing judgement on its effectiveness.
Posted by: Elvis is the King County on June 12, 2005 05:46 PMWhenever district lines are re-drawn (whether at the county, state, or Congressional district level), powerful forces attempt to draw the lines in a certain way, for various reasons. Not all of the reasons are logical or beneficial to a particular party or the public as a whole. In this situation, the lines were drawn to protect incumbents (which benefits Democrats, as they have the majority of council seats, and will continue to). What is most fascinating is that certain Republicans on the council were very much in favor of the lines being drawn this way (drawn in a way which benefits Democrats, but also benefits the Republican incumbents). Reducing the size of the council during the re-draw means eliminating certain districts (David Irons). It didn't have to be Irons' district. It could have been Hague's, or anyone else's. Ask yourselves why it was Irons' district. The answer lies with Jane Hague and Reagan Dunn, via large contributors who pushed for certain people to help draw the lines. If you look at the lines, you'll notice that one line makes an interesting swerve near I-90 and Reagan Dunn's residence. If I didn't know better, I would say that Dunn was purposely drawn into Hammond's district, and purposely drawn out of Hague's district. I would have liked to have seen Dunn in Hague's district... but Dunn knows that was never in the cards - he cut an ill-conceived deal far too early and with the wrong person (Hague et al). Cutting good deals is the trademark of a good legislator/council-member. Strike one.
The top-two primary (in my opinion, still illegal as violative against the First Amendment, but that argument is left for another day) compounds the ill-fated back-room deal that Dunn made with Hague and her $-backers. All back-room deals have to eventually be "rubber-stamped" either by the people (in a primary), or by the party (via caucus, money for the primary, etc.) or by both. Since the top-two primary is disfavored by the party (and by the Democratic party too, I might add), it forced a caucus. Caucus-voters are party members who have shown slightly more activity in party politics than the average voter. They can be influenced in a caucus by elected party members and elected officials who endorse one candidate or another. The wise move for any elected official is to remain neutral, and let the party members vote as they see fit - but apparently few had that luxury in this caucus. Ask yourselves why any elected Republicans not living in the Dunn-Hammond district were endorsing either candidate (they endorsed Dunn). I submit that it has to do with money (or the potential lack of future money from big-money contributors who helped orchestrate the above-mentioned re-districting).
Having an open primary woudln't have changed much, it just would have postponed this controversy until closer to election day.
To those Democrats who post here regarding the caucus vote-tally, three things: 1) The King County elections snafu in 2004 was done with full-time paid public employees, with tax money; 2) a general election for Governor versus a caucus for "nominee" are two very different things; and 3) Re-vote the governor's race, most likely a different outcome; re-vote the caucus, same outcome.
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on June 12, 2005 06:40 PMI do believe he reads this blog! He was quoted in the news as saying "We are in the middle of a War! I'm asking that you not take me off the battlefield"..
We ARE in the middle of a war. We need his kind on the front line!
I was shocked to read about Reagan Dunns outburst! But in his defense - I can say that we've all been through some pretty nerve wracking times in this state lately! Emotions run hot right now.....and we all need to chill.
It is in the Dems playbook to start rumours in an effort to divide and conquer. So be careful not to run with everything we read in the MSM.....(I thought we learned from the contest!)
We need every able-bodied Republican in this state to find themselves a race and run, find themselves a position in the elections process and work it or observe it, and to open their pocket books and contribute - now!
This is war!
Forgive me if I don't feel too badly for them.
Remember, the parties were perfectly happy with a primary, as long as non-members were not permitted to interfere in each party's primary. It is your precious People who decided to institute the idiotic top-two primary. So now, the parties have to choose their nominees through a less-inclusive process, because it's the only process left to them.
Incidentally, although the parties have the absolute right to choose their nominees, I don't see how they have the right to automatically get those nominees on the general election ballot. And if the parties haven't convinced me--and I hate the top-two primary--I doubt they'll be able to convince a judge.
So I think what will happen is that the new primary will be upheld, but that only the party nominees will be able to use the party label on either the primary or general election ballot, or in their post-convention advertising.
Posted by: ScottM on June 12, 2005 07:21 PMIs he just another Reichert, willing to sell his soul to liberal King County in order to get elected?
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 12, 2005 07:25 PMGiven that for the last week I have been reading on this board that we need the GOP to clean up King Co. elections, the fact that they can't even reconcile less than 500 votes in an election that is .063% the size of kind county is amazing. And their error rate is over 20x bigger. At that rate, we would be having a revote every election by the standards of this board.
But, yes, since it was GOP, why be consistent, we don't need any investigation of the obvious fraud of Mr. Hammond.
Of course, in the 1% chance that the powers that be at this board are not pure hypocrits, I look forward to the months of analysis of the Steve Hammond's fraud. Assuming he wins, will we all be calling him Councilman Fraudmond? I just want to make sure we are consistent.
Posted by: jdb on June 12, 2005 07:47 PM Steve Hammond did no such thing.This man
is a conservative through and through.
Unlike some people he didnt masquerade
as something he isnt.
Thats what bothered the county leadership
They couldnt stand that steves a conservative.
That said, Hammond is, without a doubt, the biggest 'woe is me' whiner I've ever heard hold political office. Every time I've heard him open his mouth he's complained about how unfair this whole situation is and how he's such a great political motivator blah blah blah. It was difficult to listen to. His arguements as to how he's going to win again in a Kerry district were so paper thin a Freshman PoliSci major could tare them apart. I also thought it was funny how he was bragging that he has no higher ambitions in office. In a place with as shallow of a bench as Washington, I would think that would be a bad thing. I can't figure out for the life of me why he has as many fanatacal supporters as he does. He doesn't have Dunn's cockiness, but he's at least as self-absorbed.
The system has been totally screwed. I totally disagree with the top two primary system, I think it's unconstitutional, and I think that the Republicans are right that they should be the ones to choose their standard barrer.
Yet at the same time, this sort of caucus system is clearly bogus too. There is no way in hell this is the way things should be. And it may screw us this time.
Make no mistake: The Democrats WILL run somebody, if Hammond is the person on the ballot, and I expect they will win. He will be easily painted as a right-wing nut. Even if he wins, the contest will hurt Irons. The only way this doesn't happen is if the CAO has even deeper ramifications then I already expect that dawarf everything else, which is possible but not probable IMHO.
That said, if Dunn runs anyway, he'll hurt his image with the party, and it can be used as a campaign issue against him, although I think he'd win easily anyway.
The situation, is f*%ked.
Posted by: KS on June 12, 2005 09:21 PM
The ones posting the negative comments about one Republican over another - have histories of taking jabs at specific Repubs throughout this election contest. They show little loyalty to the state's Republican party and I have questioned their intentions more than a few times over the months...
It's OK to criticize someone in the party - if it's constructive. But what I'm reading isn't helpful - and it certainly doesn't have solutions - just insults and innuendos!
It wouldn't be beneath Goldy to send his faithful few posters over here to post under the guise of fellow republicans to try to divide us.....
Posted by: Deborah on June 12, 2005 09:50 PMWhile Hammond has made some valiant stands against the Ds and asked some tough questions of Dean Logan, he hasn't really accomplished anything. He gets the least amount of $$ for his district, has not gotten any legislation passed, and barely beat the Ds before. It sucks to make all these points about $$, but that is unfortunately the system we have.
Hammond may appeal to the far right and portray himself as a Rocky Balboa feel-good story, but the fact of the matter is that he is an ineffective on the Council and is a lackluster fundraiser.
Hammond's win was the best thing that could ever have happened to the 9th District Ds. This once safe district is now in jeopardy. Way to go guys!!!
Posted by: Jay on June 12, 2005 10:10 PMWell Jay....
Obviously, it isn't always about the money!
Hammond will be breaking ground in the newly redefined 9th district. No one knows how much more support he will receive - however, one has to consider, he is taking over Rob McKenna and David Irons areas....So I'm thinking Mr. Hammond will do just fine!
In fact - Steve Hammond will be a perfect match for those areas and will enjoy huge support from the like-minded citizens in that district!
Posted by: Deborah on June 12, 2005 10:51 PMI'm not from King County, I'm from Clark County. We had our nominating convention on Saturday, I'm not a PCO so I couldn't vote...but I went anyhow. Incidentally, I do support the one person who was nominated as our candidate for County Commissioner and won unanimously. Go Tom! :-)
My point is that the 30 people we had voting can in NO WAY be construed to be representing the thousands of "rank and file" Republican voters in that district. They're the ones who should be voting on our nominee.
ScottM,
Personally, I liked the old primary. With that not being an option, I generally favor the system which will involve the most people in the process. Not every Republican is a crazed bible-thumper, nor is every Democrat a dope-smoking, flag-burning, tree-hugging hippie. If we want to include ALL the people who identify with our party, we should be more inclusive. The party with the big tent wins.
RM
Your failure to recognize the difference between full-time employees paid by tax-dollars, negligently messing up a general election, versus volunteers messing up a caucus is very telling. Next, the number of ballots in error in the caucus would not have overturned the result. The number of ballots in error (more than 129) very well could have overturned the vote.
The reason my name is YGCM$, is that your candidate really did cost millions:
Boys Ranch missed appeal ($18 million)
Blaming subordinate for the mistake ($4 million)
Wanting a 3rd count ($.7 million)
These are all tax dollars (Gregoire's whim, our expense). I admit to you, JDB, Democrats do very well here in statewide elections. There's a reason that Gregoire didn't do a clean-sweep like Murray did... and it doesn't entirely have to do with Rossi, it has to do with Gregoire.
YGCM$
Posted by: YourGovernorCostsMillion$ on June 12, 2005 11:08 PMI wonder what you base your erroneous "Hammond gets the least amount of money for his district." It simply isn't true, not that there are good comparisons. Many more dollars are expended and extracted in some districts depending upon the degree to which the county acts as a local service provider. The unincorporated areas tend to focus on land use and transportation concerns while the urban members, who perform no other meaningful service for their constituent, focus on siphoning off releatively small amounts so they can go home and make the kind of innane comments you made about "bringing home the bacon" Wow, 15,000 for the senior center -- big deal. In point of fact, many more dollars are expended in Hammond's district than most any other because King Co. is the local service provider there and must fund transportation and other projects.
Additionally, none of the Rs get anything but gesture bills when the Ds control -- which has been the state of affairs for several years. Hammond has appropriately used his political capital to put the Ds feet to the fire on important issues, particularly the CAO.
Regarding Cliff's comments about electibility. Hammond is a good fit for the district, which is more blue collar and social conservative than it is wine and brie. Cliff's comment appears to be based on nothing, except I suppose an erroneous belief that preppies make better candidates. A typical and widespread conceit that gets proven false so often in real life it hardly bears discussing.
Hammond easily kept pace with his challengers during the last election cycle and will do so again this time, particularly now that Reagan is out of the race and traditional R sources will feel free to give. Regardless, the Ds know how many Rs they crammed into this district and have no intention of running anybody as any first year polisci student should be able to grasp. That nonsense about Ds thinking they can take this seat was pure PR. If they wanted the seat they would'nt have given the Rs such a large majority. That argument flies about as good as the claim that the 5th is a swing district. I'm sure the Ds are really sweating that one.
Posted by: get serious on June 12, 2005 11:53 PMYou are missing the point, why should I trust the GOP to run a large, complex election when they can't even do one of under 500 votes right. How hard would it have been to have a recount?
Also, we know that there was a 2% overvoted, but until we go through months of investigation, we don't know how many illegal votes there were. Given the fact that we already know that there was massive fraud because of the overboat, imagine how much fraud will be proven once we investigate.
We should be petetioning the King County Prosecutor and the AG to investigate. Fraud is no better if done by a private organization versus the State. I am sure that Deborah has already notified the feds.
And isn't it amazing that the King County Republican Party doesn't have a party rule that demands a revote when you have a more ballots than voters?
Posted by: jdb on June 13, 2005 12:52 AMAnd as I said, the parties were perfectly happy with the new partisan primary, but the people took it away from them. The parties obviously can't afford to run their own private primary systems, so the caucus/convention system is the best they can do.
Any Republican is permitted to participate, and if the "crazed" Christians you hate so much win, it will be because they show up and vote in greater numbers than you and your candy-ass moderate friends. So they deserve to win, don't they?
The prospect of low turnout for the caucuses doesn't bother me so much, because I'm at least as concerned with quality of participation as with quantity. I fail to see why we should continually make it easier and easier for the stupid, ignorant, lazy, and apathetic to participate.
Posted by: ScottM on June 13, 2005 05:26 AMWhat we're taking about is changing the people in charge, and not just swapping Democrats for Republicans. Sam Reed, for example, has got to go. He is an establishment guy, and that's not what we need in the Secretary of State's office right now.
For County Auditors and Secretary of State, I'd much prefer left-liberal Democrats who understand the necessity for radical election reform to conservative Republicans who are too deeply embedded in the establishment to understand the depth of the problem, let alone craft a solution.
Posted by: ScottM on June 13, 2005 05:38 AMI heard somewhere that it was Sam Reed, of all people, suggesting that Rossi run for this local office of KC executive. Gee, it seems the very last person in the world Rossi should be taking political advice from is Sam Reed, after the way he stabbed Rossi in the back in the last election. If I were Rossi I'd tell that old codger to shove it.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 13, 2005 05:49 AMWhile I appreciated Reagan's enthusiasm and charisma, I KNOW that Mama Dunn will get him elected somewhere! She was fluttering around the edges of the nomination and Reagan had a photographer following him around everywhere he went. I think he felt entitled to this race. She certainly felt he was.
I live in the eastern part of the district and started feeling like the b*stard stepchild when Reagan had token people from my area do his nomination. It must be how the folks in Eastern WA feel. His nomination speech was lukewarm lacked enthusiasm, but Steve ripped it out.
I have no doubt that Reagan will be elected somewhere, I just want someone who actually LIVES in rural King County to represent me there!!!
Posted by: roughrider on June 13, 2005 08:55 AMLet go of your anger and relax. Deep breaths, in....and out....
Yes, it's true that at one point my old truck did have a Kerry sticker on it early last spring. But the most important point is that I took it off, spent 50 hours a week busting my ass at the GOP HQ for the next 6 months, and finally abandoned my "independent voter" status and declared myself a Republican last fall.
The Republican Party is my party too, as much as it is yours. I find it amusing that you can call me a RINO without knowing my viewpoints on any of the issues. If you like, I'd be happy to sit down and talk to you about these matters, in fact I will even buy your coffee.
ScottM,
I guess you and I will have to agree to differ, then. While the old system might have violated the rights of the parties in favor of the rights of the voter, I believe the advantage of increased participation was worth the miniscule chance of outsiders "throwing" an election.
And I don't hate "bible-thumpers", by the way. As an ordained minister, I love them!
(Perhaps these discussions are best carried out in private, as we are getting farther off topic from this thread with every post. Feel free to email me at any time.)
Randy
My opinion is based on the fact that Steve Hammond is a whiner, a poor speaker, and can't raise money. Dunn's raised over $100,000. Steve has raised less then 1/5th of that.
He's also widely seen as a bit of a nut a'la Pat Buchannan (not philosophy wise, but personality wise), and what I have seen has done nothing to prove that perception wrong.
Posted by: Cliff on June 13, 2005 09:51 AMEvery time nit-wits like this comment they demonstrate their simple minded onanistic obstinacy and Teddy the swimmer Kennedy comes clearly to mind. Some wise leader within their party might have pointed out to these people that while petty self gratification may be enjoyable, it is nothing to be proud of, and it is neither a line of reasoning nor a useful party standard – but no such leader exists.
So good job Scott, keep it up, you got those pesky Republicans on the run – that you know of.
You don't seem amused at all. I know that the losses, incompentancy and hypocracy of this board and the GOP over the last week is hard to take, even by someone as enlighten as you, but chip up, lets see that smile.
After all, I have copied my posting style from you.
Hey, to make you happy, maybe we can work together to find the source of the massive elections fraud that Kirby Wilbur allowed to happen at the King Co. GOP cacuses this weekend? What do you say? Does the fun of accusing everyone of being criminals and of committing fraud make your blood move again?
Posted by: JDB on June 13, 2005 12:04 PMWhat a sad little man you must be if you have to spend as much time on these boards as you do trying to pick fights with people.
You picked the right party to associate with. There seems to be a place in the democratic party for the helpless and the needy.
Posted by: SPP on June 13, 2005 12:28 PM With all do respect your a little off
base.I have heard steve Hammond speak
He has gotten better over time.In fact
his speech at the convention last saturday
Helped him win.I know this because alot
of people that voted said just that.
As to the aspect of raising money.Understand
one thing I would say about half of those
that gave money to reagan dunn.Gave money
to steve hammond previously.The other half
of dunn's money came from those that previously
donated to his mother's campaign's
So at this point I wouldn't call reagan
dunn a great fundraiser.As to the whinning
your talking about.You need to understand
that the king gop leadership threw everything
they had at him.They wanted him out and almost
succeeded.
So yeah he had every right to complain about it.The difference at the covention was the
people in the south side of king county
were energized to vote for him.They came
out in full force.
I have met and talked to steve hammond
I'm sorry I just dont see what you do.
He just a good man trying to right by
those he represents.Oh and for the record
I am not in the 9th district.So I have
nothing gain by saying what I have.
Steve Hammond is qualified and, more importantly, duly nominated. We should stop rehashing that event and put our effort where it is really needed: electing David Irons to County Executive. Sims is a mind-humbing disgrace and we need to blow him out of the water this fall. We can't stand another close election with mystery ballots and distorted counts. Irons needs to win BIG. Let Hammond run his race, Dunn figure out where he goes from here (hopefully inside the party, but whatever) and all the rest of us focus on what we can do to elect Irons.
Posted by: Jenny on June 13, 2005 02:08 PMSteve Hammond did no such thing.This man
is a conservative through and through.
Oh really? Wouldn't you say that Orin Hatch is a "conservative through and through." He is a sponser with Joseph Biden on the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
So, either "conservative" means you don't give a damn about men and fathers, or Constitutional rights for that matter, or Orin is not conservative.
Which is it?
While I agree orrin hatch is not totally
conservative what does he have to do with
steve hammond?
please don't equate one with the other.
believe me when I say steve is supported
by conservative groups.they wouldn't support
him if he wasn't conservative.
For the record I have met orrin hatch
while I great respect for him.That doesnt
mean I agree with him on everything.
iguana..
Try this..."conservative" means you give a damn about the "family" structure. It's the liberals who wish to break up the family unit. Families include Dad, Mom, children.
Conservatives do not, however, support abusive spouses of either gender. Liberals will exploit any isolated charges of abuse and use them to break up families.
Conservatives support families...Don't expect anyone to help you if you beat your spouse...But it will be the liberals who plaster your face on the news and make it appear that all family units are wrong somehow because one person beat their spouse...
It would be more like the conservatives to challenge a false report of spousal abuse. The liberals wouldn't even investigate.
First, just to get this out of the way:
Don't expect anyone to help you if you beat your spouse
This is the usual refrain when someone stands up and points out how anti-father our government has become. There is nobody that I associate with that believes that beating their spouse - man or woman - is OK. Nobody in the father's movement believes that either - SO THERE REALLY IS NO REASON FOR YOU TO MAKE THAT POINT.
Now, back on topic: If "conservatives" believe what you say they believe, maybe you should inform them that they aren't putting their mouth where their money is. Because they are jumping on the VAWA bandwagon in hoards.
VAWA funds "advocates" that have a life purpose destroying as many marriages as they can.
And, I can tell you, there aren't ANY conservatives out their challenging the huge number of false accusations out there.
Hammond hasn't earned his stripes.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on June 13, 2005 08:27 PMAs a delegate for Dunn I missed the convention. My Dr. said I was to contagious to be in public....alas Steve Hammond won. I commend Reagan for a great try. AND NOW PLEDGE TO SEE HAMMOND ELECTED.
Without R's on the eastside this county will be in a sorrowful state.
Republicans must unite to drive the Demos out!
Posted by: Jerry on June 13, 2005 09:37 PMNow for my two cents. I know it's a tough pill to swallow, but Dunn needs to do the right thing and accept the results like he said he'd do. We don't need any distractions from the Irons-Sims fight. I'm not entirely comfortable with this nominating scheme, but hopefully the lawsuit will mean we get the Montana primary back. It's the best system we've ever had.
Posted by: ed on June 14, 2005 10:23 AMKirby Wilbur backed Democrats in 2000 and 2004 as well (and some Libertarians in 2000 also). And not against hand-picked flakes such as Will Baker.
I don't think it was right for Kirby Wilbur to endorse Brian Sonntag over Will Baker either. Baker was the party's official nominee, handpicked by the blessed state party chair, Chris Vance. Nobody else filed, and Baker was officially filed by the GOP in the week after normal filing.
I certainly don't think Wilbur should have endorsed Will Baker either. No one should be forced to endorse candidates that they really don't like, even if they are party officials. Democrat party officials often don't endorse the Democrat nominee, if that person happens to be a bozo who was the only person filing.
But you NEVER see Democrat party leaders publicly endorsing the GOP nominee, simply because the only Democrat filed was a total bozo. They simply keep their mouth shut, and offer no support to the bozo claiming to be a Democrat.
The most notorious act of political betrayal by Kirby Wilbur was in 2000, when he endorsed Democrat Brian Sonntag over Republican Dick McEntee for State Auditor. Dick McEntee is a committed Republican activist, and every bit as conservative as Wilbur in his beliefs (and certainly unfailingly loyal to the GOP, unlike Wilbur). The state GOP contributed $12,575 to Dick McEntee's campaign and the King County GOP contributed another $2,000.
This was a fine act of party disloyalty by Kirby Wilbur, after being selected by both the King County GOP and the state GOP to chair their respective conventions in 2000. Not only to betray an official nominee of the Republican party, but lifelong active Republican (and well-qualified candidate) who was financially supported by both of the GOP organizations who had chosen Wilbur to chair their conventions.
Regrettably, the GOP keeps going back to a pompous a$$ like Wilbur to chair their conventions and host other official party functions. Many of the party rank and file actually notice this, and get turned off by this hypocrisy and stupidity.
And you certainly can't blame Reagan Dunn for showing his middle finger to the hypocritical and stupid King County GOP leadership, and deciding to ignore the party's official "nomination".
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 14, 2005 12:17 PMThanks for your comments. Seen by whom to be a bit of a nut? Most who know him describe him as somewhat soft spoken. He has strong feelings about a few issues, but anyone who's encountered him will tell you he's scrupulously polite. Did these same people believe Kent Pullen was a nut personally, or is it characterization that applies to all southend Rs? I'm not trying to chide you, but I'm curious whom these people are making these observations. It suggests more that there is something wrong with your sources than with Hammond.
Posted by: get serious on June 14, 2005 01:22 PMI NEVER said that the King County PCO's and delegates' choices should be thrown aside.
My problem with the recent "nominating" convention is that the King County GOP didn't pick a party loyalist to chair the meeting.
Instead, they picked Kirby Wilbur -- someone with a track record of endorsing Democrats over Republicans whenever it suits his fancy, even when he has been chair of the GOP county or state convention earlier in the same year.
If the GOP thinks it is okay for the chair of its nominating convention to endorse a Democrat over the GOP nominee in November, why should a disappointed GOP candidate refrain from running against the GOP nominee in September?
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 14, 2005 03:53 PMLet's leave Kirby out of this and keep the spotlight where it should be. On a former Republican...Reagan Dunn.
Posted by: Doofus on June 14, 2005 04:34 PMI will change the topic slightly. I don't see how a candidate becomes a "former Republican" by challenging the GOP nominee in the primary, when a party official doesn't become a "former Republican" by opposing the GOP nominee in the general.
The problem with "party loyalty" in the GOP is that it is nothing more than a one way street. Many of the other folks in the state GOP, including those with different ideological perspectives than the gentleman whose name I have mentioned frequently above, are just as disloyal to the GOP -- from positions of party leadership -- when it suits their fancy.
Mike McKay is probably an even more egregious example of party betrayal. McKay professes to be a Republican. The elder President Bush appointed him US Attorney for Western Washington from 1989 to 1993. McKay was made co-chair of the current President Bush's campaign in Washington for 2000 and 2004 (largely thanks to Slade Gorton and Jennifer Dunn).
However, McKay backed Democrats over Republicans while he was heading Bush's campaign, when it suited his purposes. In 2000, McKay gave money to Christine Gregoire's re-election as Attorney General. In 1999 and 2000, McKay gave money to Ron Sims' re-election as King County Executive. In 2004, McKay gave money to Mark Sidran's campaign for Attorney General.
McKay's donation to Gregoire in 2000 came on May 29, 2000, the day after McKay's law firm was given a $50,000 contract by Gregoire's office. This lucrative contract resulted in McKay's firm whitewashing Gregoire's role in the bungled $18 million DSHS judgment appeal and falsely blaming a subordinate who Gregoire forced to resign. Due to the bogus McKay Chadwell report, Washington taxpayers spent close to a million dollars defending and settling a lawsuit that the wrongly fired assistant AG succesfully brought against the State of Washington.
McKay was rewarded for this "loyalty" to the GOP by being named by President Bush (again due to the influence of Jennifer Dunn and Slade Gorton) to head the GOP patronage committee for this state. McKay's commitee basically selects the people that President Bush appoints to be federal judges, US attorney, and other patronage appointments in this state.
Incidentally, McKay's younger brother John McKay was named US Attorney for Western Washington by President Bush in 2001 and still serves in this position. Mike McKay "recused" himself from the patronage committee when they voted on this particular appointment.
By the way -- guess who hired Reagan Dunn as an assistant United States Attorney in 2001?
The sad fact is -- regardless of which faction in the state GOP you look at -- party loyalty is meaningless, and at best a one-way street. We don't need to have ideological purity, but we shouldn't be rewarding active disloyalty by party leaders either.
This lack of unity and disloyalty undoubtedly hurts the state GOP in close races. We would probably have elected Dino Rossi and re-elected Slade Gorton if so many people weren't disillusioned by all this self-serving hypocrisy.
Yes, I think Reagan Dunn should stand down and let Steve Hammond represent the GOP in the King County Council race. But for anyone in party leadership to criticize Dunn if he chooses to run anyway -- that would be like the pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 14, 2005 05:26 PMHis convictions and beliefs run deep, and they're fierce. Furthermore, he's not a party hack, as some in this "conversation" seem to think he should be. Is he a Republican? You bet, and to the "nth" degree. But before he's a Republican, he's a free man and an American. Just because a candidate somehow worms onto a ballot and has an "R" after his name doesn't automatically make that person worthy of support; that support has to be merited, and Kirby never supports any candidate unless that candidate MERITS support.
A distinct advantage of returning to the caucus and convention system is now the knowledgeable grass roots activists in the party will have the opportunity to weed out, how shall I say it? - The "weeds" who perennially spring up running for everything from dog catcher to, oh, attorney general.
Just because someone claims the Republican label doesn't make them ipso facto worthy of support. Remember David Duke? The Klansman? Who ran for U.S. Senate in Louisiana as a Republican? And got on the general election ballot? What? - should we support a piece of slime like that because somehow he got the party's nomination? Excuse me, but! Even George H.W. Bush campaigned against Duke. So there you have it!
Quit blaming Kirby for everything from Dino getting screwed to the Hindenburg disaster, and start taking responsibility for allowing inept and unqualified candidates to get on the ballot, which has more to do with people becoming disillusioned with the party than Mike McKay's political contributions.
Should Reagan Dunn step aside? Yes, and allow the mantle of "statesman" to be draped over his shoulder as it is now being draped over Dino Rossi's. And he should generously and enthusiastically stump for Steve Hammond, who earned the party's nomination on his MERIT (and, speaking as a veteran of the Tent City 4 wars since day one, he's got tons of it).
In the meantime, if anyone ever runs for office as a Republican, the support of someone like Kirby shouldn't be taken for granted. Before you're entitled to anyone's support, you have to earn it.
And the political parties? Who's in them? People? Or are they just a bunch of potted plants?
If you want a say as to who carries the party's banner, then get involved in the party. Become active. Give your time, effort, money, dedication, blood, sweat, and tears, because then you've earned the right to help pick the party's nominees.
Posted by: Scott St. Clair, The Mad Piper on June 15, 2005 01:44 AMIsn't honor and integrity worth anything anymore? C'mon! Let's hold these guys accountable. We have no right to complain about the politicians on the left if our guys act just like them.
I could understand supporting such an amoral candidate if we were forced to choose the worst of two evils. But Hammond is a great guy. Let's stop giving Dunn a free pass because we love his mamma.
BTW Richard, I referred to him as a "former Republican" because he said in the KC Journal that he would keep running (even though he lost the convention he said he would abide by) but maybe not as a Republican. Nice candidates we've got in our party if they will so easily cancel their affiliation.
Posted by: Doofus on June 15, 2005 04:00 AMHis money came mostly from outside sources. I saw the printout (public record) of where his donations came from. About $125,000 of it came from Washington, D.C. (The Dunns have lots of political friends from there). Some of the money came from Seattle and Bellevue - Kirkland. The people of the district did not donate heavily and did not come out and get involved in becoming PCOs for him and so he got fewer votes than Hammond.
Hammond has a passionate constituency. We are not rich people with a lot of money, but we are passionate and got involved in the process. Even at the convention, the clapping for Dunn was sedate, while the clapping for Hammond was loud and long.
Posted by: MAD, MAD, MAD on June 19, 2005 12:54 PM