A frequently stated desire of Washington State's Republicans in the past year of reflection has been to recreate 1994. The Republican sweep into Washington DC under the banner of the Contract with America was mirrored here by a sweep into Olympia with the Contract with Washington. Like its national counterpart, the Contract with Washington was a list of simple, concrete, popular objectives that were communicated clearly to the voters and clearly resonated. It has long been a goal of the state GOP to recapture the magic of that year.
Their latest--and to my mind, most promising--attempt is in the works, called "The Republican Commitment to Washington." Here's a draft of the 10 objectives:
1. Restore the voter-approved state expenditure limit.For my part, I'm less concerned about the specifics of the platform than simply the fact that it exists. Having a simple, clear plan like this makes things infinitely easier for everyone. Candidates, PCO's and water-cooler chatters will have an easy time explaining why you should vote Republican in November. The trick will be, as is often the case, getting the message--unfiltered by Democrat spin or Mainstream Media distortion--out to the voters.2. Pass “Jessica’s Law Plus” to protect our children from sex offenders.
3. Allow consumers—not government—to choose the health coverage that is most affordable and best for their families.
4. Protect property rights and prevent government from taking property without compensation.
5. Allow citizens and their elected representatives, not the courts, to decide the definition of marriage.
6. Make our neighborhoods safer through enhanced penalties for auto theft, identify theft and methamphetamine (AIM).
7. Eliminate the day use fee at state parks.
8. Eliminate D.O.E.’S “Use it or lose it” policy on water rights.
9. Repeal 2005 General Fund tax increases.
10. All Auditors must be elected.
As for the policy proposals themselves, I think they're good, if not perfect. I'd like to see some more specifics on #2, #4 and #8, in particular. I also feel conflicted over the clearly reactionary sections--#3 and #5 stand out to me as simply boiling down to keeping the status quo against the Democrats' advances. Now, I certainly support doing so, but I wonder if such items are appropriate for what is otherwise a forward-thinking and positively framed list. I'm not entirely convinced by #7--the only one I am conflicted on as a matter of policy--as user fees make good sense to me. On the other hand, $5 for a two hour picnic at a public park is pretty absurd.
Overall, I am pleased with this development. I look forward to seeing the final version, and to seeing its results in November--but before then, I'll have more thoughts on the specifics, and how to communicate them to the rest of the state.
Cross-posted at The Flag of the World.
Posted by Timothy Goddard at January 01, 2006 03:36 PM | Email ThisAt least a proposal is on the table gives R's something to run on. Running on a clear platform is always better than running against the other guy's.
Posted by: JCM on January 1, 2006 04:06 PM
These aren't bad ideas but they simply
aren't going to fix what's wrong with
the state republican party.Before you
can change what's going on in your state
you must fix what's wrong within your
own political party.
I will at this point reinterate a previous
post because it bares repeating.The state
party is in debt to the tune of 1.4 million
dollars.The leadership is out there spreading
this story that its actually Dino Rossi's
debt.This is not true and they know it.
What's worse is they have Dino out there
helping them to spread this story.
For the record I like Dino Rossi.So it
sad to see what he is doing.In addition
to this Vance and his crowd have been doing
everything they can to get Susan Hutchison
not to run.From intimidation to attempted
character assasination.Susan has not let
this bother her at all.Which is good.
There doing this because they are scared
to death of Susan.They know her numbers
are much better than McGavick's and they
dont like it at all.This kind of behavior
has gone on for to long and needs to stop.
to think they would do this kind of stuff to
one of there own is outrageous.Just so
McGavick can run unopposed in the primary.
The first state party meetings are next
month.Its time somebody stood up to this crowd
and said enough is enough.So I will be
there and confront both Vance and Simpson
and end this garbage once and for all.
Second, they don't want Hutchinson to run. Neither do I. She's waited too long to be able to win the primary. All she'll be able to do now is blow a hole in the McGavick candidacy before he has a chance to take down Cantwell.
But neither of these issues have *anything* to do with my post. Why can't you praise the positive steps that the party is taking instead of constantly sniping at the party's duly elected leaders?
Posted by: Timothy on January 1, 2006 04:26 PMWe will never see a similar list from the Democrats, because they have to hide their true colors to maintain even remote credibility with the average Joe or Jane.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 1, 2006 04:34 PMPhil, shut up about Susan already. She dug her own hole, and it's really disturbing to see you exert so much energy trying to exume a stillborn campaign. Enough already.
Not one freaking DIME until Republicans join the vertebrates.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 1, 2006 04:42 PMCome to think of it, there may be no single issue or handful of issues that the GOP can put forward as reasons to elect their candidates.
Posted by: Micajah on January 1, 2006 04:49 PM
Let me be clearer then.The wording is such
to make others believe that Dino will be
responsible for the debt when in fact its
ultimately the state parties debt.
This is wrong to be selling this kind story
to party members.Simply because Vance can't
retire the debt because he has almost no
support left in the party.
Now as to Susan Hutchison(this is how its spelled)Since you made know mention of what
Vance and his pals have tried to do to her.It
must be okay with you.The second thing is
it isn't to late.The excitement for McGavick
just is not there.I guess I need to say this
again.The state party is seriously divided
right now.Despite what anyone says he cannot
unite this party.They are sick and tired of
of Vance and his establishment friends shoving
Candidates down there throats.
Whether you believe it or not there is more
excitement in the party for Susan Hutchison
to run Than I have ever seen in the almost
12 years I have been involved in Washington
state politics.I can say without any hesitation
that most of party will rally behind Susan.
McGavick can't do that because he is part
of the problem.
Its a shame you can't get past one issue
that you disagree with Susan about.You
would rather put your faith in guy who
changes positions more than most of us
change tv channels.
If you could past all of that nonsense
you would see there is a lot more to Susan
than you know.Its dangerous when we either
back someone on the basis of one issue or we
don't on the basis of one issue.
Further more It should trouble you
and everyone else what Vance and his friends
have tried to do to Susan.I hope you or someone know
one you never tries to run for state office
here.Because if you do and the State doesn't want you
to they will do everything they can
to destroy you.
I don't think this is going to be enough. It's a shallow attempt to recreate something that they obviously don't understand. The image of having a stand isn't the same as having one. The weakness of this list shows it's shallow roots.
What about traffic? There's not a word about a policy shift toward congestion relief. And I agree with the other comment that real election reform should be included. In fact the lack of mention of election reform in this list is glaring. And I'm guessing that by election time there will also be a need to reinforce the audit reform initiative.
The others: 3) How about tort reform instead? 4) How about starting by returning the properties in Seattle taken for the monorail? 5) How about saying 'Marriage is between a man and a woman'? 7) How about some other 'fee' reforms, like starting by calling them a 'use tax' so everyone really understands what they are, a tax? 8) How about some practical reform of environmental management that includes proper water management, thinning of forests to help prevent the spread of fires, restoration of property rights, and management based on valid science rather than junk science or special interests?
This is more proof that the WSRP doesn't get it.
Posted by: Republican (by default) on January 1, 2006 06:03 PMHere here!!
Posted by: Daniel K on January 1, 2006 06:16 PMWhy the angst over day use fees at parks?
Posted by: Ingraham on January 1, 2006 07:59 PMIt's like being taxed $1,000 one year...and getting a $10.00 refund...
The people of this state are waiting for someone with gonads and conviction to lead us out of this communist corruption and oppression!
A propsal to save $5 bucks on state park parking and a suggestion to allow citizens to keep their property rights? ........
How about.....The dismantling of the CAO? An indepth Federal review of our state and county election laws? Backing a proposal for a new county - cut from King? A review of the new oppressive smoking law and it's impact on business, environment and civil rights? Proposing a review on Judges who release sexual predators, career criminals, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, etc....early...
We need someone who will place the wrongs of this state so brightly into the spotlight that everyone will see and listen and demand change!
Enough of this timid "peecee" crap.
Phil, politics in a democracy is at root the art of persuasion. You are in danger of becoming the message, which I dbelieve you do not want to do.
I'm excited at the thought of doing away with parking fees to the state parks. It's hard on working middle class families to find an extra $5 just for parking.
Posted by: Cynthia on January 1, 2006 09:36 PMEveryone agrees that the debt incurred was done FOR the Rossi campaign. Beside the legal fees (just shy of six figures of which gets kicked back to one or more WSRP officer's personal pockets), Rossi’s entire campaign staff went on the State Republican Party payroll until the funds ran out (which the WSRP simply could not afford - particularly after rewarding Vance’s massive election losses with a raise(!?!)). Why was the money spent? Everyone knew the suit would fail to begin with! From the www.TheReaganWing.com one year ago: http://www.thereaganwing.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&page_id=147
Here’s the reason the funds were squandered: Vance could not have been re-elected without the Rossi endorsement (He barely survived even with it). The massive financial commitment to Dino was quid pro quo, the cost to the rest of us of buying Vance’s re-election. Vance’s whole re-election campaign was at State Republican expense. We’re still in debt because of it.
The only winner was Vance.
Dino’s debt? Only morally - financially the Party is stuck with it and that is what Phil is saying. If Dino felt obligated in any way his book proceeds would be going to pay it.
Timothy’s claim that Hutchison “waited too long to be able to win the primary” is based on absolutely NOTHING. No data, no attempt to even make the case, just his seat-of-the-pants parroting of the liberal/elite party line. We heard the same thing about Harriet Miers. He made the omniscient pronouncement that Miers would be on the Court 25 years for us to find out what she stood for. He ridiculed the impotence of the Conservative wing of the Party when they objected to Miers, laughing at the impossibility of her withdrawal.
His assessment of Hutchison is just as accurate.
Worst of all, though, Goddard’s assertion that the Elite’s decision (to back one (more liberal) candidate over the interests of the Party) is self-justifying (“they don’t want Hutchinson(sic) to run”) shows his repeated propensity to endorse corruption as long as it looks like it might be successful.
Goddard is a moderate elite pragmatist first, a Republican second and a conservative - not at all.
Posted by: Doug Parris on January 1, 2006 10:04 PMI believe that the Republicans in WA state are weakened and need new leadership and to listen to grass roots people like Phil Spackman. Face it, their track record is mediocre at best. I'm sure that there are some better alternative plans out there - so keep at it, but don't give the other side anything to work with. Remember the Governor's contest trial - hopefully someone in the State Republican leadership learned from it, but am not really convinced yet that someone did so.
Posted by: KS on January 1, 2006 11:08 PMCome on, use some common sense, show some cajones and enough of this PC crap. Time to cut to the chase and stop excluding those who don't agree, because if you don't the results will be predictably disappointing. At this time, I won't hold my breath until I witness some changes of substance, which are absent at this time.
The commentators wanted to convince repubs that they only need to agree with 70%-80% with the party, no one will agree with anyone else 100%. Repubs have a terrible habit of sitting at home because the candidate doesn't agree with them on some particular issue. This part I completely agree with.
So, they come out with this list, and ask that all the candidates back all the ideas. Huh? And then expect the voters to do the same? Who is planning strategy here? If you diagnose a problem, the solution should seek to solve it, not just make it worse.
Notice how just putting this out there is already starting the disagreements? This was written by committee, not by a visionary leader like Gingrich. It is doomed to be picked to death.
Posted by: Janet S on January 1, 2006 11:36 PMmr Right: Vance would probably not be the head of the party right now if it weren't for the histrionics of the aforementioned fellow last January. There are some people you just don't want on your team. I agree about transportation, but that's a very complex issue that doesn't fit well into a list like this. It's also very controversial, and won't garner the same kind of support that this list does.
Janet: I don't think that Gingrich sat down and wrote the Contract With America by himself. I'd wager dollars to donuts that there was a sizable committee involved. And if you read the actual Contract, a lot of the things are similar. This is just a draft, too--they are still taking in input on it.
Meanwhile, Doug's comment above is classic Parris. He mispells "Elites," dresses questionable speculations up as knowledge, ignores the actual purpose of this thread, and swallows his own nonsense without even choking. In some ways, though, I'm even worse, in sinking to his level. But it's late at night and it entertains me, so I feel excused.
Posted by: Timothy on January 2, 2006 12:28 AMHow 'bout Sound Politics hosts a Brainstorm on what the conservative Contract With Washington should look like? Restricting -- at first -- to one/two word subjects? Like . . .
Traffic - congestion
Clean elections
Property Rights
etc.
Just nail down the subjects first, winnow them down to a manageable list, and hammer out the text statements later. (The contents of the text statements are pretty much self-evident.)
Looking at the examples above, there are solid positions to be taken there that would deeply resonate with the Reagan Democrats, and language should be craftable that even the more rational leftists would buy into -- or at least find difficult to argue against.
If the Repub Party leadership won't do it (or do it right), maybe it needs to get done for them.
Stefan, what say you to starting a thread on this?
- RGH
- Burlington
At the top of my list is a return to a priorities of government budgeting process. I'm tired of seeing the governor and the legislature spend our tax dollars on the latest cause du jour and then come whining to us for more when they don't have enough money to cover the important stuff.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on January 2, 2006 01:42 AMYou just added the next item on the list started in my post above yours:
Taxes - Spending - Prioritization
(OK, so that's three words . . .)
- RGH
- Burlington
#3 - Actually, few consumers choose their health insurance (most get it from employers or government, or don't have any), and those who do pay an inordinately high proportion for processing red tape, bureaucratic overhead, profit, and subsidies to the uninsured. The result is that Americans pay far more than people in other developed countries for poorer health outcomes. This is something to run on?
#4 and #8 - I think you mean "Prevent citizens and their elected representatives from implementing widely desired sound planning practices for the good of the community."
#5 - I think you mean "Allow government to prevent some citizens from marrying the partners whom they choose. Because we're afraid that a judge will say this is unconstitutional, change the constitution to specifically remove those citizens' rights."
#6 is like motherhood and apple pie. But what does it mean? Is the problem with penalties or the difficulty/cost of enforcement?
1. I have never kicked anyone out of the Republican Party, nor made any such attempt although following my exposure of truths others have, indeed, on occasion, without my consent or direction, called for the censure (or cancellation of airtime) of various RINOs and turncoats to the Republican cause. But those whom I have so exposed always respond with personal (and false) attacks on me. They are really objecting to the revelation of truth. They want silence on some things.
2. One of the constant charges (that Timothy repeats, here) is that my standard for Republicans is too strict. I admit I don’t work well with those that disagree with conservatism 100% of the time, and it is that group, the Republicans In Name Only, for whom current leadership frequently works. But I cut Timothy slack here, because he hasn’t been around the Party long enough to actually know this and, so, accepts their arguments at face value because they have power and money.
3. I am accused of misspelling “Elites.” But this charge is not only false it is careless. My use of the term “elite” occurred four times in my post, twice as an adjective (describing, respectively, the “party line” and Timothy himself), and twice as a noun, in both cases singular, the second of these being the case Goddard accuses me of misspelling. Timothy’s confusion likely arises because the word “elite,” much like the word “group” means more than one thing, but the word, itself, is singular. There can be different “groups” or “elites” or we can refer to one “group” or one “elite.” There is, doubtless a Columbian drug lord “elite” but I was not referring to all elites, Just the Washington State Republican one. When I said, “Elite’s decision” in my second-to-last sentence I was not referring to two or more “Elites,” just the same one I had earlier mentioned. The use of the apostrophe, followed by an “s” is the proper form to make a singular noun possessive. That’s what I was doing.
Had I used Timothy’s suggested “Elites” it would have made the term plural. That could be a proper usage had I meant to refer to more than one (which I didn’t), but it would no longer have been possessive, an obvious requirement of the context. It was a “decision” that belonged to the “Elite.”
So, in point of fact, Timothy’s suggested spelling was the one that was in error.
But look deeper. The point he was making was obvious nit-picking. Had I actually misspelled the word, as he hoped, his only point was finding a minor error. By contrast, the point I was making about his misspelling of Susan Hutchison’s last name was that he was pretending to have made some expert assessment of her and her chances without becoming familiar enough to even notice her name’s distinct spelling. Nor does he remember what she was like as an impact broadcast journalist because, then, the pronunciation would stick in his mind and dictate the spelling.
I think Timothy has not attempted to find out anything about our best potential candidate. He really doesn’t care. He simply repeats what he has been told by the moderate/left pragmatic establishment. More than anything else in his political life he wants to march in step with the Republican Establishment, and to be accepted. I do not begrudge him that. I would not mention it, but that in reckless pursuit of it he does so much damage.
To date there is not one supporter for joint custody/shared parenting in the GOP.
A workgroup appointed by Gregoire/legislature has just reviewed the child support guidelines; This is the income redistribution (aka family destruction) program intended to keep single moms off of welfare. Their only recommendation? Raise the income cap to 12k/month. NOT ONE THING ABOUT THOSE IN POVERTY OR THE IMPACT TO INTACT FAMILIES.
Shall we wait until 60% of kids come from broken homes or until 80% can't pass the WASL before we address the issue of family?
How about if we just let DSHS continue to use federal grant money for kickbacks?
Posted by: Andy on January 2, 2006 06:00 AMIf the voters in the Eighth Congressional District didn't think that Dave Ross qualified, what exactly makes anyone think that Hutchison is somehow a viable candidate?
Posted by: Ivan on January 2, 2006 08:18 AMDay use fees...pish posh!
#10 can take a small revision such as no more stolen elections meaning Sam Reed will only be running for PCO of McNeil Island. Like Sideshow Bob in Snohoco was really going to fix the small problem in the Sax race. That thing should be re-run and a special Feburary election...alas no law on that.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on January 2, 2006 08:33 AMI know a lot of people stayed home Nov. 3 because of the dirty tone elections in general have taken. And a lot of people are sick and tired of the blatant arrogance of politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Posted by: cc on January 2, 2006 08:40 AMWait, sorry, I forgot. Republican Legislators SUPPORTED that legislation.
Posted by: Luke on January 2, 2006 08:53 AMStaying home in 06.
Republican Legislators have betrayed conservatives just too many times for me to give them my support.
Posted by: Gene on January 2, 2006 08:56 AMJust some tv reporter right?
Hasn't done anything in the Real World.
What is the ultimate goal here? Win even if you elect a Republican in Name Only? How is that winning if it weakens the Republican party's resolve to support conservative issues?
I'd like to know what Mike James has ever accomplished in his career of reading news on TV that would make him qualified to sit in the U.S. Senate.
See how easy that is? But why let recent history get in the way of a dumb, partisan shot?
And Doug -
"Rossi’s entire campaign staff went on the State Republican Party payroll until the funds ran out ..." If you're talking post-election, either you're woefully misinformed or lying in order to make a point. In either case, this statement is false.
This is amazing you know nothing about
Susan Hutchison yet because she was in
the Tv news business you assume she is
a rino.Well you are wrong sir.Susan is
a conservative always has been.So before
you before make more assumptions about
Susan make sure you know what your talking
about.
I will agree however there is a rino
in this race and that's Mike McGavick.
Depending on who it is he's talking to
you get different answer on where he
stands on the issues.You don't believe
me.I will give you one example of which
there are many.
Not to along go McGavick told some of the
local news media that he is pro life
after all already stating publicly that
he wasn't.He then told Steve Hammond that
he is Pro choice.Want another ok Back at
the end of july Grover Norquist came
around with his pledge from the americans
for tax reform to not raise taxes. McGavick
turned him down flat.
Susan Hutchison was the only one who
signed it(even diane tebilus wouldnt)
When McGavick realized that this
issue could be used against him
in the race.He decided in I guess september
to sign the pledge.so you see we really
don't know where he stands on anything.
I would also add for the last three years
Susan has been the executive director of
the Charles Simonyi fund for the arts and
sciences.She hasn't worked for kiro in almost
four years.She is also on the board of
directors for numerous businesses and
organizations.Again before you make
assumptions about someone find out about
them first.
Timothy,
I would also say that it wasn't Doug Parris
that caused the state committee members
to reelect Vance.I guess I will have to explain
it one more time.Prior to the election
proceedings last january Vance had become
a source of embarrassment to the Rossi
campaign.He did things like tell the political
media that Dino had asked Mark Hulst to
drop out of the race.When Vance knew full well
that it never happened.Vance sent a letter
to all of the state committee members saying the
same thing.So the Rossi campaign had decided
to ask Vance to drop out of the race they
were going to back Mark Hulst.
When the Bellevue Mafia crowd got
wind of this.(Evans,Munro,Jay Vander Stoep)
they got Dino to change his mind and back
Vance.They had to protect there own interests
in the state party and over there dead
body would there ever be a conservative
state chairman.
So when Dino went to the election proceedings
and spoke to the crowd telling them to back
Vance thats why they did.I know this because
shortly after the proceedings Mark Hulst
was flooded with emails and phone calls
begging him to run again next time.Most
of them also said had it not been for dino
backing Vance they would have voted for mark.
So you see it had nothing to do with
doug parris.
What makes my question a dumb partisan shot, and when did you ever hear me say I thought Mike James, or Dave Ross, or John Carlson, or any other radio/tv talking head, who had never done anything *but* be a talking head, was qualified to sit in Congress or be a Governor of a state?
Posted by: Ivan on January 2, 2006 10:01 AMIvan...as if Patty Murray and Cantwell had any resume whatsoever.
Cantwell was an assistant staffer for the Jerry Springer campaign for God's Sake!!!! And that is what true leader's are made of?????
On the Republican Contract----
Transportation ought to be #1!!!!!!!!!!!
How are Republicans going to get more out of existing dollars and address the Seattle-KingCo congestion. If they figure that out...watch out.
Too much touchy-feely stuff that no one can be against. Fine.
But Put Transportation Fixes and more projects with existing dollars as #1!!!!!!!!!
Doug & Phil clearly think Susan is the best candidate, but there is a fundamental problem with that: neither of them has been able to articulate why it is she is better than McGavick, other than the fact both gentlemen loathe current party leadership who they claim is self-selecting McGavick. Meanwhile, Hutchison herself is running a virtually invisible campaign. Can anyone at Sound Politics articulate what she stands for, why she's running (if she is at all), and why she thinks she can win? Can Doug or Phil? I can read McGavick’s website and the press he’s garnered thus far and answer all those questions.
Let me be clear I think Susan is an admirable person, I've heard her speak before and found her impressive. But that doesn't make her an excellent Senate candidate by default, especially at this late stage.
Phil keeps trotting out the notion that Susan has demonstrably better numbers than McGavick. If so, where are they? Every poll I've seen shows the two at similar levels of support, or McGavick with a modest advantage. Given the name recognition she has in western WA that isn't a plus in her column.
More importantly, McGavick is actually raising money. Phil and Doug are both under the impression that the party will rally around Susan and carry her to victory. Maybe the grassroots would rally. But without any money to carry a message to non-Republican voters in this state she doesn't stand a chance in November.
While some people would like to believe one can enter a major statewide race in WA (against a well-funded incumbent) this late and win, without self-financing, then they haven't been paying attention to the financial history of campaigns in the state in the last decade. A reasonable estimate is a serious candidate will need to spend between $7-10 million to beat Cantwell, and that’s excluding independent expenditures. What is Susan’s plan to raise that, especially in a shortened timeframe? To continue to trot out the notion that it's not too late to enter the race from scratch is misleading and disingenuous at best.
While I admire their passion, Doug and Phil’s argument lacks substance at this point to be taken seriously until Hutchison demonstrates she is actually is running, and why her candidacy should be taken with the same seriousness McGavick’s effort has already earned.
Yes, Ivan. Your comment about a potential GOP candidate - while ignoring the exact same qualifications of a 1994 D Senate candidate - was completely above board, and without any partisan tint.
I don't know how I could have ever possibly miscontrued your keen insight and honorable intentions.
Posted by: jimg on January 2, 2006 10:55 AMAlso, how about taking a pro-active stance against wrong decisions made by the judiciary ? This state has some of the worst left-wing nut activist judges in the US, such as the State Supreme Court. They are trying to legislate from the bench far too often and need to be checked - but the leftist-Democrats will not act on this, because they want the power on their side, whether it is unconstitutional or not. These two items would give your plan more credibility, but don't flaunt it for at least a few more months and do your homework !!
Posted by: KS on January 2, 2006 11:20 AMRegarding Susan Hutchison...I must also ask.."Who's she?" Of course I live down here in lil ol Vancouver and not in the big city..(even tho our city looks to annexation of more area which would make it the #2 largest city in WA} Now we are familiar with Ken Hutcherson..He would be my choice for a candidate!
Posted by: Susu on January 2, 2006 11:40 AM
Let me answer first the part about claiming
that McGavick being the party leadership's
choice.first of all its not a claim I
know for a fact that Chris Vance has tried
multiple times to get Susan to drop out of
the race by any means possible.From Personally
calling her and asking, to intimidation and
finally by trying to ruin her reputation
by putting the word out that she would confirm
speaking to political organizations and then
no show.It was all a bald face a lie.
well you say Susan should have better numbers
than she does and that proves that McGavick
will win.Excuse me but its McGavick who's been
traveling around the state talking to people.
If any one should have substancially betters
it should be him.Instead Susan is in a dead
heat with him.I submit that's only because
the voters in eastern washington don't know her
yet.
you make no attempt to explain McGavick's
postions on the issues.Instead you say
McGavick's campaign has the earned the right
to be taken seriously.Well I don't see how
when he continues to change his postions
when it best suits his needs.
As far as raising money well all I can
say is you don't know Susan or you wouldnt
say what you did.For the past almost 4 years
Susan job entailed a great deal time of having to
raise money.What's more she enjoys doing it
and knows where to go to get it.
Once again you and everyone else seem to
think its ok for the state party to try
and destroy one of there own.What they
have tried to do to an honorable person
like Susan was wrong.It should not ever
happen in the republican party.
If you want to know about where Susan
stands on the issues just ask me.Everyone
else that says what you did I tell that to
and they never respond.Oh yes McGavick
has raised money but with rolodex he
has he should have raised alot more than
that by now
This is exactly what I mean that repubs in this state are self-destructive. If they don't get their way, they sit home.
Also, the repubs will stay the minority party here for a very long time if immigration and gay marriage are talked about. Advocating to send 10 million people out of the country is just stupid. And probably hypocritical. Had your house painted lately? Or your roof replaced? Who do you think was doing it? The vast majority of the illegal population is working, and providing the next generation of our country. Get your head out and recognize reality.
Please stop the diatribes about gay marriage. The more you rant, the more publicity the whole issue gets. I suspect that if we legalized gay marriage, the world would continue to turn and no one would remember what the fuss was about a year later.
Posted by: Janet S on January 2, 2006 12:56 PMToo many people out there have bad feelings about SAFECO.
Too many people out there mistrust Big Insurance.
Such feelings might not be deserved, but they are very much out there and too much for McGavick to overcome.
Posted by: Henry K. on January 2, 2006 01:22 PMAs for gay marriage, I don't see this rising to being a major issue either, although if this state voted on it, the results would be similar to Oregon's 57-43% against.
Posted by: KS on January 2, 2006 01:27 PMLet’s not get into the Vance issue at length. We’ve disagreed in the past on such issues and I doubt we’ll resolve that now. Let me say this about the state party though: if they make an early endorsement it will be because a candidate has earned support from a sufficient majority of the county chairs and 2 committee persons from each of the 39 counties. Having dealt with such folks, directly and indirectly, during past campaigns I can tell you they are definitely not of the “Bellevue mafia” crowd you’re railing against. So, if McGavick gets that endorsement, I suggest giving it due credit.
I’m also not getting into your allegations of the state party trying to destroy Hutchison. Is Vance working aggressively to have one strong candidate selected well before November? I’m sure he is. Is he engaged in character assassination to get there? I don’t know. I doubt it, but am not well versed on it enough to desire to get into a discussion of the gossip you continue to float around without attribution or sources.
Furthermore, I’m not in the business of explaining Mike’s positions because I’m not him, nor his paid spokesperson. But from his website and news coverage thus far, I can tell this: he’s running on the importance of effective public service, limited government, and family friendly government policies. Obviously his success in the business community is one of his strengths, as even the quintessential anti-Republican columnist Joel Connelly has acknowledged with complimentary words. McGavick seems clearly focused on policies supporting free enterprise, American strength overseas (such as in the war on terror and in free trade), and controlling government spending. Plus, one call already see in the press coverage that people encountering him are impressed with his combination of political and business skills, coupled with him being apparently articulate and personable.
All of that is 10 times more than I know about Susan Hutchison, even after hearing her speak years ago, and wading through your posts about her. And since you ask, I’d like to know her thoughts on free trade, national defense, government spending, education, and entitlement reform. I don’t know all of those from Mike yet, but what is available in the public realm is infinitely more voluminous than what Hutchison has provided, and gives me a much firmer foundation on which to judge him.
Also, my whole point about name ID right now is that while McGavick is running a good campaign at this point, visible to political junkies, the press, fundraisers, etc., it’s not a visible public campaign yet…nor should it be at this point, there is no reason for the press to give lengthy attention to the race yet. If McGavick had outstanding name ID right now I’d be surprised. Yet the fact he polls as well or better right now than Hutchison with a broader electoral survey doesn’t bode terribly well for her. Also, you said she has better numbers than him, and still haven’t given evidence of that.
Lastly, while I admire the fact Hutchison may have a strong record of private and non-profit fundraising in the past, we’ve seen nothing yet that she is good at it, or even attempting it, in the political sphere, which is a different cup of tea than the first two. You can rail all you want about McGavick’s fundraising thus far being unimpressive based on his “rolodex.” Maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not. Either way, he raised over $1 million in 2005 (a very good number for any challenger in a medium sized state the year before an election), enough to merit the attention of national fundraising sources. If the state party endorses him in January, the national party will view him as a credible, well-financed candidate worthy of national fundraising support (and independent expenditures from the RNC, NRSC, etc.). Meanwhile, from all appearances, Hutchison hasn’t raised a dime.
You’ve been beating the drum about Hutchison for months, while she appears to be doing very little. Meanwhile McGavick is actually running a campaign that is aggressive, visible, and at the outset, successful. Until that dichotomy changes, I don’t see the value in this discussion going much further.
You better believe I would stay at home rather than voting for a RINO. All RINOs do is weaken the resolve of the Republican party to support conservative issues.
Heck, I have been known to support liberal Democrats over Rinos. Liberal Democrats for all the Damage they can do, they can't destroy the resolve of the Republican Party.
That can only be done by the enemy within.
Before we take back the state we must take back the party from people like the so called Mainstream Republicans.
http://www.washingtonmainstream.org
Remember, Ted Bundy worked for Dan Evans. Ted Bundy was a Mainstreamer too.
Mainstream Republican = No Integrity... No Values... No Ethics.
Don't believe me? Our current Secretary of State was a leading force the the Mainstream Republicans of Washington State for Years.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 01:36 PMChris Vance: If Vance were the manager of a major league baseball team, he would probably have been fired two seasons ago. We've lost ground in the legislature, the governor's recount could have been handled a bit better and there hasn't been a GOP candidate field against the state's six democrat congressional seats who has gotten more than 45 percent of the vote.
How much of this is due to Vance's leadership can be debated. But if there is one thing that can unite the state GOP, and you can read above to see how balkanized it is, I feel it's the agreement between moderates, conservatives and far-righters in their lack of confidence with Vance's leadership.
The biggest problem here is finding someone qualified enough to take over the position which is probably why Vance is still there (along with the whole recount/courtcase deal).
Any takers? Who would it be? Diane Tebelius?
Micheal Young? I'd prefer to have Young continue as the KCGOP chair since he's doing a good enough job there.
How about Susan Hutchison since it doesn't look like she's running for Senate?
And speaking of Susan, it is getting rather old to have certain posters here continue to talk as if she is a candidate. You've been doing so since last September (and before). It is now January of 2006. The primary is nine months away and the general election is eleven. Be kind of nice to have an answer soon. Otherwise, quit tangling up the traces with bizarre conspiracy theories and get in front of the wagon and help pull.
Posted by: Reporterward on January 2, 2006 01:41 PMJeff, Gene, Phil, Doug and whomever I missed...
If you want to have this debate in the primaries and put forward qualified candidates to run against these liberal Republicans who are supposedly the "enemy within" than do so.
Get involved in the political process, convince more than ten percent of the base that your ideas are right. But once the primary is past, you guys need to hop behind the winning candidate and support that person.
So is a RINO better than Cantwell? Yes, of course. Cantwell will always vote as she is told by Reid. If we had a repub, even a liberal one, we would have at least a reasonable chance on that vote going toward repub causes. Even Reichert ended up voting for ANWR, after he voted against it. He could vote his constituency when it didn't matter, but when it did, he voted with the party. This is reality. Sit home if you want, but then don't complain.
KS - the public says they are against immigration. But, they also will hire the Guatamalan maid and Mexican gardener. What we need is a way to acknowledge that a bunch of people are here illegally. If they can prove they have been here for five years, have been paying taxes, and have not broken any other laws, let them pay a fine and give the guest status.
We also need to interfere a little bit in Mexican politics, and get the corruption out of there. As long as the place is dysfunctional, there will be a steady supply of labor across the border. Let's make a deal - they give us PEMEX, we open the border to Mexicans.
Posted by: Janet S on January 2, 2006 02:06 PMConnelly wasn't saying particularly nice things about him as a main point. His column was on a broader topic, and he was condeming the Dem. state party for coming out of the gate against McGavick's business record. Connelly's point was, hey, the guy saved a floundering local company, and kept hundreds of jobs in Seattle. Don't knock him for it.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/246537_joel31.html
I don't expect to hear much else nice from Connelly about McGavick from here on out.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 2, 2006 02:16 PMWhen a liberal Democrat gets in, at least it unites the Republican party against that person. Republicans of course feel free to criticize the votes of Liberal Democrats. But when a RINO votes the same way, a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" mentality takes over and conservatives are either forced to remain quiet or are forced out.
Does it really make you proud that our current Secretary of State is a Republican? The only difference I see is that since he is a Republican the Democrats can use his lack of ethics to tarnish all Republicans.
It would have been much better if our Secretary of State was a Democrat intstead of a RINO.
Remember Ted Bundy worked for Dan Evans. Ted Bundy was a Mainstreamer too. Should I have just voted for Ted Bundy because he had an R ?
Mainstream Republicans - no ethics - no honor - no integrity, but when they are revealed for what they are it tarnishes all Republicans. If I have to elect someone without ethics I rather that person be a Democrat for when they are revealed for what they are it doesn't tarnish the Republican Party.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 02:20 PMThat is just the reality of the situation and McGavick can't overcome it.
I for one have no problem with Insurance. I respect the industry. But most the people I know hate Insurance Companies with a passion. And of all the Insurance Companies they hate, they seem to especially hate SAFECO.
"Mainstreamers" love to talk about "electablity". Well, this guy is not electable. No matter how much money he throws into the campaign he will never be able to overcome the negative "Big Insurance" perception that is out there.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 02:28 PMI disdain political correctness, because it is phony and devisive and often caves into special interests. Finally, Republican leadership and candidates that are fielded need to learn to be more articulate and resonate with people, think outside of the box and above all develop a backbone !
Posted by: KS on January 2, 2006 02:31 PMRepublicans in this state voted in 2003 to give illegals in state tuition rates.
Do you really think the same Republicans would make it ok for law enforcement to request proof of citizenship?
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 02:42 PMValid point, though I think we can disagree about how much it can be overcome. Would there be ugly ads, mostly from outside the Cantwell campaign? Sure, just like they'll be rough ads against Cantwell from outside sources. But while such ads about his insurance background won't help McGavick, I don't think the charge will stick well because of his demeanor (doesn't fit the stereotype the ads will portray) and the fact it won't stick in much of the press. I don't think the press is a deciding factor, but the tone of press coverage does influnece independent voters in the final weeks of a close race.
More important than all of that, if the issue is electability, McGavick is why ahead of anyone else because he's the only credible candidate running a serious campaign, and an effective one at that to this point.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 2, 2006 03:10 PMThe Elite isn't always right. Actually I should say the Elite is rarely right.
And if they think McGavick is electable, they are very wrong.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 03:18 PMI don't understand your point. Few people or governments cooperate with the ACLU because they feel like it. They cooperate because they realize that the alternative is to lose in court because they are violating the constitution. If you think the federal or state constutition provides too many protections, then try to get it changed; don't blame to ACLU for insisiting that we honor it.
Posted by: Bruce on January 2, 2006 03:19 PMIf that isn't a definition of "unelectable" I don't know what is.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 03:21 PMWhat was the alternative to Nethercutt, Reed Davis? Nethercutt was flawed but Reed Davis was laughably unqualified to be a serious candidate for the Senate. He would have been lucky to crack 35% in a general election. John Carlson was formidable by comparison.
And we'll have to agree to disagree about the insurance angle. There's no way were going to come to any sort of mutally agreeable conclusion on that.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 2, 2006 03:36 PMFace it - this is a moderate state. If you want to remain on the fringe forever, then keep up the diatribe against RINO's. You will never be in power, and you will never have your ideas in any way enacted. I'm not willing to settle for that, I'm sad that so many in this state are.
Posted by: Janet S on January 2, 2006 03:36 PMSo what's the difference?
At least it's more fun seeing the Democrats screw up than seeing the RINOS screw up.
When the RINOS screw up even though it is due to their own liberalism, Democrats are often effective in tarnishing all Republicans with their failure.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 03:54 PMThey are without ethics or morals.
That is often what drives their success, because lots of naive conservatives really get bowled over by them.
I guess these conservatives can't understand how devious the "mainstreamers" are. They can't realize that there are actually people out there who will do what it takes to win. If that means lying, so be it. If that means betrayal, it doesn't bother the "mainstramers" (RINOS).
Conservatives better stop being niave about the intentions of others. There are people out there who do scheme and lie to people's faces and conservatives better become discerning about who these people are.
Susan Hutchison is the way to go. She is conservative: on immigration, on taxes, on life, on defense, on education, on federal spending, etc. and she is persuasive on these positions. I've heard her speak. She still has time to get in the race and we should all be begging her to do so if we 1)want to see Cantwell defeated and 2)want to see a senator who will vote like a Republican.
Tell your state committee members (you can find their contact information on www.wsrp.org) to vote NO on endorsing McGavick at the upcoming State Committee meeting. If they endorse him, this opens the gates to flood all of the RNC money to him and make it much tougher to get a conservative challenger to him. If you believe as many grassroots Republicans do--that we need to take back our party from the RINO's, do it today!
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 2, 2006 04:46 PMI may think a liberal is wrong, but I don't consider him immoral. That takes a whole lot of ego to decide that the world is all about you. At least now I know what context to put the rest of your opinions in.
As for who runs against Cantwell, this should be an open process, but McGavick's chances do not look good. That fact alone should have the leadership encourage someone else like a Susan Hutchison to enter this race. I would go along with Repub in exile - why endorse someone who they know in their heart of hearts won't win ? especially, if there is nothing earth-shaking about his campaign strategy. Wake up and smell the coffee !
Posted by: KS on January 2, 2006 05:21 PMThey wouldn't go around supporting people like Stalin and Castro if that wasn't the case.
Posted by: jeff on January 2, 2006 05:26 PMThe Republicans have a chance to gain majority in the legislature -only if they demonstrate that they will make a real difference or else they will fall short once again. They are not void from caving to special interests.
Posted by: KS on January 2, 2006 05:28 PMI've put this challenge before folks here last September when there were some unpleasantries bandied about over one of the King County council races. Some of the folks who've posted above never had the courage to answer.
Posted by: Reporterward on January 2, 2006 05:41 PM
I can answer that question for you.The state
party leadership and the bellevue mafia crowd
want McGavick.They think they have the right
to decide because in there warped way of
thinking they know better than you and I
For example a year from now in the next
state chair race J Vanderstoep already
thinks its his right to decide who the next
state chairperson will be.Again its because
he and his crowd think they know better than
we do.
So yeah your right they should have been asking
Susan to run. Instead they run one of the most
vicious seek and destroy missions against one
of there own.All because they want McGavick and
a primary free of any opponents.
Now as to everyone else's questions.The reason
I came on here to post is because I wanted
everyone to know what the state party was
trying to do to Susan Hutchison.Something I
believe should be troubling to most party
members.I didn't come on here to defend Susan
She is more than capable of defending herself.
So I will let her answer the questions when
she decides what she is going to do.
Instead what happens is some of you think
that I'm making this up.I didn't make anything
up.I can back up everything I have said.
whether you choose believe it or not is up
to you.
But Ok, here is the final vote.
The law that was passed was Chapter 95, 2003 Laws
The bill name that year was EHB 1079.
House vote on Final Passage
2/21/2003
Yeas: 75 Nays: 20 Absent: 0 Excused: 3
Voting Yea: Representatives Alexander, Bailey, Berkey, Blake, Buck, Cairnes, Carrell, Chandler, Chase, Clibborn, Cody, Conway, Cooper, Cox, Darneille, DeBolt, Delvin, Dickerson, Dunshee, Edwards, Eickmeyer, Ericksen, Flannigan, Fromhold, Gombosky, Grant, Haigh, Hankins, Hatfield, Hudgins, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kenney, Kessler, Kirby, Lantz, Linville, Lovick, Mastin, McCoy, McDermott, McIntire, McMorris, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Murray, Newhouse, Nixon, O'Brien, Pettigrew, Priest, Roach, Rockefeller, Romero, Ruderman, Santos, Schoesler, Schual-Berke, Sehlin, Shabro, Simpson, G., Skinner, Sommers, H., Sullivan, Talcott, Tom, Upthegrove, Veloria, Wood, Woods, and Mr. Speaker.
Voting Nay: Representatives Ahern, Anderson, Armstrong, Benson, Boldt, Bush, Campbell, Clements, Condotta, Crouse, Hinkle, Holmquist, Kristiansen, McDonald, McMahan, Orcutt, Pearson, Pflug, Schindler, and Wallace.
Absent:
Excused: Representatives Mielke, Quall, and Sump.
Senate vote on 3rd Reading & Final Passage as Amended by the Senate
4/8/2003
Yeas: 48 Nays: 0 Absent: 0 Excused: 1
Voting Yea: Senators Benton, Brandland, Brown, Carlson, Deccio, Doumit, Eide, Esser, Fairley, Finkbeiner, Franklin, Fraser, Hale, Hargrove, Haugen, Hewitt, Honeyford, Horn, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kastama, Keiser, Kline, Kohl-Welles, McAuliffe, McCaslin, Morton, Mulliken, Oke, Parlette, Poulsen, Prentice, Rasmussen, Reardon, Regala, Roach, Rossi, Schmidt, Sheahan, Sheldon, B., Sheldon, T., Shin, Spanel, Swecker, Thibaudeau, West, Winsley, and Zarelli.
Voting Nay:
Absent:
Excused: Senator Stevens.
Even some of the most "conservative" legislators voted for the Bill.
None of them can ever really be trusted.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 06:09 PMThey haven't been tossed out of the Republican party.
Second. I never claim to be a Republican. I am a conservative. I am an American. I will never sacrifice either to be a Republican.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 06:13 PMhttp://www.washingtonmainstream.org
Also, as a political organization they have to file with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, so you can look at a list of their donors there.
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/servlet/ContServlet
Every time you claim no one has asked you what Susan thinks, then they take you up on it, you don't answer. If you're not willing to answer, don't offer. And you still haven’t answered any of the substantive points put forward in this stream about why on God’s green earth Susan hasn’t made an effort to run a campaign yet. If she’s as impressive as Republican in Exile claims, you’d think she might want to think about running a campaign if she’s serious about the Senate race, because if she is serious she’s currently being blown out of the water.
Jeff -
You didn't answer Reporterward's question. When's the last time you voted for a Republican? Or for that matter, when was the last time you were excited about a Republican that shared your ideals? That information would be helpful in establishing your credibility on such issues.
And here’s a question for many readers:
To those I've disagreed with in these comments, and those who are generally bashing so called RINO's, did you consider Nethercutt to be a RINO? Also, who is the last Republican candidate (in the primary or the general) who ran for Governor or Senate that you strongly supported? I’m honestly curious about both questions.
Sorry, but that is one of the most idiotic things I've ever read. They may be wrong in their beliefs, but to call them evil and assume all liberals like Stalin is just plain stupid. I've met a lot of liberals who think Stalin and Castro are demon spawn. To call a little over one third of the state evil because they disagree with you politically is about one of the most juvenile, arrogant, and egotistical things you could do. How is that any different than the moonbats who think Bush = Hitler?
Posted by: Mike H on January 2, 2006 06:44 PMQuite honestly, I haven't been excited about a Republican in quite some time now. Not in this state.
Though I did vote for Rossi.
But my point, in case you missed it was that there are peope in the Republican party who have been in the past very vocal in their opposition to Republican Candidates (like in the newspapers) who you still see at Republican Functions.
Those people haven't been made to feel unwelcomed, but if a conservative doesn't support the Elite's Golden Child whomever he or she might be at the moment, they are treated like they have the plague.
I am sick of this double standard. Too me there were few people in Washington State more liberal than Mike Lowry was in 1992. For an recognized Republican to come out publicly to support him against an oppoinent who quite frankly didn't seem that conservative to me I saw as outrageous.
But the "republicans" who did that are still welcome in the Republican Party today. But if you are a conservative who support conservative candidates on principle they don't want you in the same room with them.
Well they can take that Party and Shove it. I am an American and a conservative FIRST.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 06:54 PMBut there are still quite a few around who like Castro. That will die out too I am sure someday after Castro has been dead 20-30 years or so and the evidence of his attrocities have been so well documented for even the liberals to deny.
But no doubt by then they will have found another American Hating tyrant to support.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 07:00 PMEven Republicans like Castro.
Well at least one Republican did.
He ran for Senate in 2004 in Washington State.
Posted by: jeff on January 2, 2006 07:02 PMCould you just name the Republican you're talking about who supported Lowry? And since the party doesn't actually have a dues-paying membership it's very hard to be "tossed out" of the party. Though having talked to a number of ardent Mainstream Republicans it's safe to say they don't feel welcome in many circles of the party anymore, that's why their organization exists.
Also, I don't think Nethercutt advocating for trade with Cuba for certain goods (of obvious benefit to wheat farmers in eastern WA) means he likes Castro. We as a nation don't like a lot of what the leadership in China does politically but we trade with them, in what is partially a strategy of loving communism to death by interacting with it on a market basis. If Cuba was of similar size I suspect we'd do the same thing. It's all means to an end, and just because you don't like the means (though we might agree on the end) doesn't mean the person or policy in question is evil, or even liberal.
Lastly, thanks for the info on Rossi. I can't fault you too much on the quality of candidates in this state, though I suspect we might disagree on the particulars. Who are the out of state candidates you identify with?
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 2, 2006 07:17 PMSeattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Oct 2, 1992. pg. b.2
Several Republican women, including staffers in Rep. Sid Morrison's failed bid for governor, have endorsed Mike Lowry, the Democratic candidate for governor.
Those backing Lowry include Kay Trepanier, former King County coordinator for Morrison, and Joyce Nord, former King County volunteer coordinator for Morrison. Former state legislator Delores Teutsch, a Republican, also endorsed Lowry.
GOP MODERATES CROSSING OVER GROUP THAT OPPOSED LOWRY SENATE BID ARE IMPRESSED WITH NEW IMAGE;
Scott Maier, P-I Reporter. Seattle Post - Intelligencer. Seattle, Wash.: Oct 19, 1992. pg. a.4
Such GOP stalwarts as C. Montgomery Johnson, chairman of the state Republican Party from 1965 to 1971; former state Reps. Delores Teutsch and Dick Smythe; and Kay Trepanier, who founded the King County Republican Club, are backing Lowry against Republican Ken Eikenberry.
Over the weekend, Ron Crowe, a Republican and former mayor of Puyallup, added his name to the list of Lowry backers.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 07:27 PMThanks for the info. However, those are a list of old-timers in the party, and not anyone today recognized as a party leader. Moreover, the Lowry campaign touting those is no different than the Rossi campaign or the Gorton campaign touting Democrats supporting them in their respective races in 2004 and 2000 (where I suspect those Democrats took similar heat from their own party faithful).
I understand your concern about the issue, but that was 1992 and this is 2005. I don't see the relevance.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 2, 2006 07:32 PMI don't know if that makes him a RINO, but as history proves it sure made him unelectable.
And, no, I didn't vote for him.
I voted for the libertarian.
But neither did I get in front of the newspapers and publicly supported Patty Murray over him like the "mainstreamers" did with Lowry (not that my name would have made any splash on the newspaper but the point is that you didn't see any prominent conservative do that).
In politics, Too much Loyality LOSES you power. I admit I have voted for Democrats in the past. Not because I supported them but because the RINO running was so bad.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 07:33 PMTHE POINT IS THAT THE REPUBLICANS LISTED DIDN'T TAKE ANY HEAT!!!
And no it isn't like the Democrats who supported Rossi and Gorton. Gorton was a RINO and I wouldn't call Rossi an extreme conservative.
Whereas Lowry was one of the most extremely liberal congressmen in DC. And Eikenberry was a milk toast moderate.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 07:38 PMThey aren't embarassed to show their face in a room full of Republicans.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 07:41 PMPerhaps no relevance, but it left a bitter taste in my mouth.
It also shows the lengths the "Mainstreamers" will go in betraying the party.
I haven't seen something this bad in years, though betrayals by these people are common and frequent, if not as extreme as this.
Also I guess the point I was making was how welcoming the Republican party were to these people after what they did compared to the cold shoulder they give to conservatives who don't automatically jump on the Elite's bandwagon for whatever "Golden Child" they want to pawn off on the public at the moment.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 07:48 PMreporterward,
We may NEVER know how many folks are voting for Republicans...as long as the corrupt Democrats "count" the votes in this state......
That is the sick "catch-22" of our current voting system....
It doesn't matter how many people vote conservative...it doesn't matter how many signatures we gather for an initiative...it doesn't matter how much campaign money we pour into a specific candidate....it doesn't matter how much evidence of fraud and corruption we uncover......The Liberal Democrats count the ballots and produce the outcome they desire. The Liberal Democrats validate the signatures and "invalidate" as many as needed
to lose an initiative...The Liberal Democrats slyly channel our tax dollars into their campaign kitties and receive contributions from people like Soros...The Liberal Democrats own the media and have woven a web into the Federal Government so they will not be investigated....
The problem is...the Republicans know ALL of this - yet say and do NOTHING! So - as far as I'm concerned, the Republicans are just as guilty as the Liberal Democrats. After a couple of years of watching this dance between the two parties - and seeing the citizens rights crumble and our taxes go through the roof in the midst of this frenzied dance.....it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see we are being skillfully manipulated by both parties....
I am a Republican. I vote Republican. I am actually a conservative - so the Republican party would seem to be a logical match...however, I am sensing that our Republican party's seemingly "inept" response to the Dems corruption in this state is more orchestrated than it is natural...
No party can be THAT ineffective unless it's on purpose.....Sorry.
Remember...We are all "layman" on this blog - yet WE have uncovered 90% of the fraud, errors and corruption gong on in King County! Doesn't that make anyone else go "Hmmmm"? None of us do this for a living - yet we have become quite proficient in our investigations over the past year....Why haven't our Republican leaders become adept enough to challenge illegal voters?.... Why aren't the Republicans helping Stefan with his document requests?.... Why aren't the Republicans screaming for the Feds to investigate?... Why AREN'T the Republican's doing ANYTHING? God knows - there is something to be done everywhere we look!
We can't blame the liberal media and the corrupt Dems for the Republican's inaction and silence...They could at least post something on their websites - but they don't.....
Posted by: Deborah on January 2, 2006 07:55 PM
Sometime back in October I made Susan
a promise that I would let her fight
her own battles.What I find amazing
is you guys are demanding of Susan
something you let McGavick get away
with and he is a declared candidate.
Let me just say this:Susan is a
conservative.The fact that Doug
Parris and myself support her
should tell you all you need to
know.
Jeff,
you make some good points,Let me just
add this:The leadership and the establishment
are of the mentality that conservatives
can't win in Washington state so there
not welcome to run.When in reality its
there candidates that can't win.
Reporterward:
Exactly what is it that Michael young has
done over the past year that makes
you think he has done good job.?Don't
use the Reagan Dunn victory as an example.
Because of the way Michael Young and the
rest of the King Gop leadership went about
helping Reagan Dunn win. they alienated
a pretty sizable voting block in district
5 and as long things stand the way do now
The King Gop will have a very difficult
time getting them to come back.
leadership
If your idea of a good leader is one who
uses threats and intimidation to try and
silence those that don't agree with you.
Then I guess your right.
I think your a little confused Young
is the King county gop chairman.Chris
is still the state chairman.Young by
the way has no chance of ever being
the state chairman.
On the remote chance that should occur
the republican party in this state as we
know it is finished.
I am a GOP financial supporter. I will not through good money after bad. I didn't support John Carlson's campaign and I won't support this gibberish either.
Catch a clue or continue to lose.
Posted by: GOP in need of vision on January 2, 2006 08:09 PMHe will lose by double digits to Can't Well which is a crime. She should be easy to defeat.
The GOP in WA is a joke. If they don't get their own hand picked power cronie, they are willing to lose the election. pathetic.
I don't know Huchinson. never met her. I can assure you I'd vote for her over Can't Well. I'd send her a check for her campaign too. I will not support McGavick. I'm only one vote.
Posted by: McGavick is a loser on January 2, 2006 08:19 PM
So the fact that Mark Hulst also supports
Susan Hutchison is a bad thing as well.
I know you think Mark is a good guy.I
guess you will need to think it over some
more.
The WA State GOP MUST guarantee that all the deck chairs will be arranged: Stripes on the left, solids on the right.
I think that will give the party just enough to seize a passionate following.
Posted by: Titanic suggestion on January 2, 2006 08:44 PMI don't think anyone has anything to think over anymore, though the potential comebacks to the fact that you and Doug support her are supposed evidence enough was rich with opportunity.
You seem to think there is a double standard when nothing of the sort exists. How can, as you claim, anyone be scared of Susan when she's not running a campaign. That doesn't make for a very intimidating candidate.
Moreover, while Mike hasn't given a detailed agenda yet (nor should he at this phase), he's given us a ton more than Susan's non-existent campaign. I'm not asking for anything more from Susan than what I've seen from Mike. It just happens that in this case he's done so much more than her, the gap is quite significant.
He's running a campaign, she's not. Yet, you continue to whine about the fact she's not being given a fair shot. If she's serious about this race, she should try giving it a shot in order to earn a fair one.
I remain convinced she's an admirable person, but your personal jihad in a tiresome exercise given that she's doing little to advance her own cause in this race in which you claim she’s the candidate to beat.
Even though McGavick has no shot at winning over Can't Well, He is running a campaign.
I will continue to believe that if Susan did put together a shot, even for a month, rather than listen to "pollsters" she'd gather a huge following in a hurry. So, I've got to ask, does Susan really want it?
It's all up to her.
Posted by: listen to Eric on January 2, 2006 09:14 PMOn the other hand, that "mainstream republican" ally group called the Log Cabin Republicans voted NOT to endorse George Bush in the 2004 election. Yet the WSRP includes on their link page both the Log Cabiners and the Mainstream Republicans who work against Republican principles and conservative candidates. And a group like The Reagan Wing who's working to restore the party to its principles is excluded from the site. This should tell you everything you need to know about who's running the state party.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 2, 2006 09:15 PM
Listen if the establishment and McGavick's
campaign aren't scared of Susan as you say.Why
go to the trouble of trying to malign her
character and make her look bad to the
voters.Believe me state party leadership
and McGavick's campaign have been try everything
to get Susan not to run.I have seen first
hand some of the attempts that have been
made.Your very naive if you think this crowd
plays fairly.They will do whatever they
have to get what they want.
If you knew Susan like I do you would say the
same things about her as I have.She is
just that good.Its unfortunate the State
party leadership is to stupid to realize that.
With that I am done with this.From this point
forward I will no longer talk about Susan
on this blog.
What Washington Republicans need is candidates who stand for republican principles and can be elected. Hutchison is both, McGavick is neither. I don’t expect anyone to just accept that about Hutchison because she has not begun a campaign. Those of us who were lucky enough to find out, found out. I expect everyone else (who cares about the principles) to wait and find out because of McGavick’s glaring weaknesses: fat-cat image, liberal views, and oppressive methods. A big campaign chest strong-armed out of the usual suspects is no recommendation at all unless you literally believe the Party ought to be for sale to the highest bidder as does Chris Vance. Vance is for sale to the highest bidder.
Eric Earling is an apologist for the Gorton/Evans/Pritchard/Munro/Sam Reed/Rockefeller wing of the Party because he is one of them. His contempt for, and slander of Dr. Reed Davis is an ample measure of his general contempt for conservatism. Goddard is an apologist out of pure ambition.
My problem is that I have watched what this crowd of Democrats in Elephant suits have done to us for more than 20 years with lies, liberalism and blatant cheating and I’m frequently tempted to outright fury. Forgive me when I get emotional. Not that I don’t have adequate cause, it’s just that it scares newcomers who don’t yet know why I’m steamed.
The most important outcome that conservatives could achieve in 2006 is the primary defeat of Mike McGavick. If that happens we have tangible hope.
May God mercifully save our nation and restore our Constitution, freedoms and respect for human life.
I hate having to waste time responding to you. But I guess I have to since you trotted out the old Michael Young "Threats and intimidation" routine. I know you and Doug Parris have gone to lengths trying to nurture that little acorn including putting the whole story on your little blogs.
Trouble for you fellas is that I was five feet away when it all happened and your little slurs are nothing but lies. I'm one of the imposing looking "toughs" wearing the "Elect Dave Reichert T-shirt" on the Reagan Wing's little website if you should choose to look.
For those not in the know, Spackman and I are referring to an incident last summer during the King County Republican picnic. Doug Parris went into hystrionics and was throwing a temper tantrum alongside the stage area where two dozen little kids were watching a magic show about 40 feet away.
He was escorted about two hundred feet away where he could stew in his own juices and not make a further fool of himself in front of children, parents, veterans and the rest of the crowd.
My apologies all. It is just tiring to see certain folks go around bad mouthing people while trying to tear everythingthing down without offering any alternative plan in return.
Posted by: Reporterward on January 2, 2006 09:52 PMAlways a pleasure to hear from you. I don’t have the time or energy to waste my time engaging you in a full-fledged debate, though your postings are always tempting in that regard. But let me clarify one thing, since you’ve repeated your oft-used habit of putting words in other people’s mouth.
My statement about Reed Davis as a potential Senate candidate says nothing about my view of conservatism. My point was based on his non-existent qualifications as a serious candidate. If you think an at best weak, and at worst horrific, record as a major county party chair qualifies someone to be a US Senate candidate in a competitive state then be my guest. I hear he’s a nice fellow, with strong conservative beliefs, but that doesn’t make him a good candidate. You can’t run for a major office and expect to win just because of your beliefs and your passion.
Just because I think that doesn’t have anything to do with being conservative or my supposed “contempt” for it.
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Timothy on January 2, 2006 10:37 PMI have a real easy way to settle the Mike vs Susan arguement... Mike is running, Susan is not. Saying Susan is basically the second coming of Christ is pointless... she hasn't declared. When and if she declares, fine. But given that it's 9 months to the primaries, and she hasn't said she's running, the constant bloviating that "Susan is better" is worthless and frankly pointless. Please shut up about how great she is and how she's the real conservative and blah blah blah. It's getting old and irritating. She hasn't declared yet, so it's pointless.
If she's so great tell her to freaking declare already so that we may decide that for ourselves. Has she even done an exploratory committee or anything along those lines? It's time to put up or shut up. No offense, but it's getting darn close to the primaries, so she either needs to get serious and declare or you guys need to quite gas-bagging and get behind whatever "RINO" is running.
[/rant mode]
Posted by: Mike H on January 2, 2006 11:10 PMAnd how did my naming the Republicans I voted for prove your point that you "wonder if these people even vote Republican"?
Eric,
The only thing a candidate for US Senate needs to be able to do is vote. If we truly want a conservative, we need someone who will vote conservative. Reed Davis would have done that. If he is a lousy fundraiser or organizer, he can hire others to do those things. The problem with Reed was, Chris Vance wanted to prevent his candidacy at all costs. Denying party resources killed his chances.
Lucky for Susan Hutchison, she doesn't need the party resources. That's why they're scared of her.
Timothy, you guys can keep laughing at Phil and Doug all you want. More and more people are catching on that they're right.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 2, 2006 11:26 PM“Reporterward’s” comments, above, about me are both false and libelous. I was assaulted by weightlifer/attorney/KCGOP officer John Wootress at the KCGOP picnic without any of the provocation “Reporterward” has invented. The disputed event is covered fully, explicitly and accurately, HERE (if my html works) or here: http://www.thereaganwing.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&page_id=273 . The events were widely witnessed and top members of the King County Republican Administration apologized to me for Mr. Wootress’ conduct. I was not, however, Mr. Wootress first victim. He has used violence for political intimidation numerous times dating back at least to an incident reported to the Belevue Police (as County Party records show) in 2004.
“Reporterward” is King County Moderate/Left GOP groupie Donald Ward, with whom I began to correspond after he made false claims about the Reagan Wing in September, 2005 on Sound Politics. I asked him, at that time, to back up his false (and ridiculous) claims that the Reagan Wing “doesn’t vote for Republicans” by asking him ELEVEN pertinent questions about those false charges. Mr. Ward was incapable of replying to even one of them despite repeated requests. Almost everything I’ve ever read by Donald is a lie. I can back up my claims, he doesn’t even try.
Nevertheless, regarding this more recent libel, I am interested in making it possible for Mr. Ward to respond in the form of a convenient deposition if he would simply give me any address where he might reasonably be found by a process server. I hope he is not one of those reputed residents of the King County Department of Elections.
Even the people who are giving him money knows that. They just have to give him money anyway because he is so influential.
But it doesn't matter how much money he has. People in general hate Big Insurance Companies. It just takes one commercial of how some mean old insurance company wouldn't pay for some cute kid's life saving operation and McGavick is through.
But what do I know. I didn't think Nethercutt had a chance in hell either.
Posted by: Frank on January 2, 2006 11:38 PMSO how dare you Reporterward condemn Conservatives for either staying home, voting for third party candidates, or even voting against RINOS!
That is as hypocritical as one can get!
I for one am an American and a Conservative FIRST. I will not sacrifice that for the Republican party. And, NO, my Vote will not be taken for granted! I have voted many times against RINOS in General Elections!
And I am glad that Osama Mama won considering who she was running against. Yeah, what she said about Osama funding school construction was stupid and offensive, but to the best of my knowledge she never had dinner with bin Laden. Nethercutt on the otherhand has been the personal dinner guest of Castro.
Almost any Republican could have beat Murray in 2004. It was quite an achievement of the state Republicans to find one of the few candidates who couldn't.
Posted by: Jeff on January 2, 2006 11:55 PMParris –
“Me, too.”
Comparitive choices:
.............................Goddard..........Parris
Supreme Court........Miers.............Alito
President ’08..........John McCain....George Allen
Senate ’06..............McGavick.........Hutchison
And, the topic which we were discussing back in September is actually rather germane to this one now. I asked whether or not you were supporting Reagan Dunn after the September primary. You never did have the guts to answer that yes or no. I'm hoping you were able to put aside your minor differences and vote for Reagan in November.
Just like I'm hoping that these people who are bashing McGavick now will put aside their differences and vote for him in the General election should he be the Republican candidate.
As for conservatives, being one myself (rare in my profession), I'm not bashing conservatives. Who I am bashing are those marginal elements of the party, left and extreme right, who go about embarassing the party, poison the dialogue, tattle to the press thus giving us a bad image, scare away undecided voters with their bizarre rhetoric and who in the end don't vote anyway.
You people betray the party on a whim.
You won't get unconditional loyality from us.
Posted by: Jeff on January 3, 2006 06:37 AMThough I really don't have to go back that far. The so called "log cabin" Republicans made a point in 2004 in front of the press to NOT endorse Bush.
After all of that I will not allow you to just take our votes for granted. You can expect the same kind of "loyality" towards your candidates that you have shown towards ours!
Posted by: Jeff on January 3, 2006 06:44 AMYou're right; all they have to do is vote. But to vote, they have to get elected.
If Reed's record as county party chair was any indicator, he wouldn't have been able to raise the money to hire a fundraiser to raise more money so he could pay a staff to organize for him. And if Reed was such a convincing candidate, how did the mere support of the state party wipe out Reed' chances?
Shouldn't he have been able to rally the grassroots, as some posters have asserted is the key to victory? That doesn't require money to pull off, just a good message, right?
So what explains his pathetic 7% of the vote in the Republican primary? Is that all the support you, Doug, and co. could muster?
If you want to continue to believe that you just needed a conservative with no other credentials or skills to beat an entrenched, well-funded incumbent then be my guest. Exile might not be such a bad place for you.
Jeff –
who do you think had a good shot to beat Murray? I’m curious.
Doug –
No offense, but if you're serious about the libel charge then you should stop posting at this site or running your own. Your handiwork at both locations would earn you a steady stream of visitors to your door to serve you papers if one applies the same definition of libel to your histrionics that you ascribe to reporterward's post.
McGavik: unelectable Safeco boy with mush for views: LOSER
Hutchison: undeclared, TV chatterbox, unknown: LOSER
Unnamed Puget Sound fiscal conservative: Sure WINNER.......
Summary: 2 losers, suprise draft pick to be named later...
Posted by: THS on January 3, 2006 08:08 AMYou guys keep using the same tired arguments, even though they've all been addressed in this thread. And not just by Doug, Phil and me. I see no point in continuing this. It's about to get barried at the bottom of the page or in the archives when Stefan posts two or three new topics. We'll just have to see who was right when we see how this all pans out, like we did with Harriet Miers. Right Tim?
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 3, 2006 10:55 AMThe WA GOP does stink......right up till you take a whiff of the WA dems. Then the GOP smells like spring flowers ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 3, 2006 11:56 AMWhen pressed for any evidence of his false (and obviously fabricated) claims that the Reagan Wing "doesn't vote for Republicans" last year, Donald responded, instead, by questioning whether I would vote for Reagan Dunn. I responded that I did not live in Dunn's district and, hence, would not. He pressed (still dodging responsibility for his earlier false charge) whether the Reagan Wing would support Reagan Dunn (I assume that he meant some kind of endorsement). We did not. Mr. Dunn (as I demonstrated in great detail to Mr. Ward) did not meet the minimum requirements for endorsement. Dunn is neither conservative nor honest. Further, he ran specifically to remove a conservative Republican from office because he was "too conservative." We find that treacherous to the goals of the Republican Party, whose rules Dunn openly defied.
Eric
I have never libeled anyone. Donald libeled me because he wrote defamatory lies. I have made numerous harsh criticisms. Mine are always factually true.
One of the factors uncovered the last time I locked horns with you, Eric, was the difference in epistemology. You liberals don't actually believe in objective truth. So you see a moral equivalence between any negative claims. I tell negative truth, Ward tells negative lies, but it's all the same to you: "negative campaigning." It's why liberal John McCain went postal on the Swift Boat Vets. He didn't take into account whether or not their claims were true, just that they were "terrible." Terrible truths need to be told. Terrible lies need to be refuted and their promulgators censured. Politicians who admit no difference between the two need to be Democrats.
Donald
What paper do you work for?
Posted by: Doug Parris on January 3, 2006 12:19 PMPresident ’08..........John McCain....George Allen
------------------------------------------
Please give me one damn good reason to vote for Mc Cain. He changes direction like a flag in a storm.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 3, 2006 01:53 PMhttp://markhumphrys.com/modern.left.html
Look at who they have supported over the years!
And of course in Washington State Ted Bundy worked for Dan Evans. Ted Bundy was a Mainstream (liberal) Republican (RINO).
Posted by: Jeff on January 3, 2006 04:04 PM Actually Vance is a he.But thats ok its
honest mistake.So who do I think would
be a good choice for State Chair?
At this point there is really only one person who
can right this ship and make it something
we can be proud of again.
Its Mark Hulst because the man is a
leader and a uniter.Something we have
lacked in the State party for a while
now.Mark also has the ability to bring
others into the party that been ignored
for a long time(ie the Indians,libertarins
among others).Because Mark is a conservative
they feel welcome again in the party.
The biggest he wont try and those that
may disagree with him.Now will he run
I dont know.But I hope that he does.
As for taking out Chrissy's cronies, I'd like to see that too. So far, I'm not hearing any strong campaign to do so. But it's early yet. A good start would be to strenthen these "Republican Committments" into something that meant something. Some excellent suggestions were made by a few people on this thread. Then we could rally some candidates who take a stand.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on January 3, 2006 06:35 PMJanet, with respect- I don't hire Guatemalan maids and pay Mexican gardners. I want secure borders, and I want illegals immediately deported, their home country fined for the ticket, reoffenders imprisoned, and their home countries billed for the expense. I want a thirty-foot-deep vertical-grade grease-lined ditch dug the entire length of our southern and northern borders, and I want a 20-foot-high cement wall topped with razor tape on the near side of that ditch. I want border crossings to be few and heavily covered with serious firepower. I want every freakin' truck thrown open and gone through, and the driver of a truck found to have illegals inside will no longer have a truck to drive, forever and ever amen.
And I want anyone who dares to hire an illegal immigrant- be the offender Democrat or Republican, private citizen or elected official- to be punished with mandatory ten years working harvesting the crops, building roads, or busting big rocks into little rocks with a tack hammer in the Federal Pen.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 3, 2006 08:48 PMThat isn't leadership, Phil. Hell, that isn't even diplomacy. That's moral cowardice. And that, me bucko, is exactly the character of the Washington State Republican Party. And with only two very marginal exceptions, I would not waste my vote on a single damned one of them.
A leader does not cave to the agenda of the opposition. A leader does not run on a conservative platform, only to betray the people who voted for him or her based on that platform.
Voting for someone just because they are Republican is just plain stupid. Is having a Republican legislative majority so important that you'd be willing to vote for anyone with an R behind their names, regardless of their records, to do it? Are you willing to sell conservative values down the river for the sake of getting that sacred majority?
I got news for you, buddy. We had a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, and what did that accomplish? SQUAT. Do you still think that having one in Washington State will do any better, considering the pack of cowards who have found refuge therein? Insanity is defined as following the same procedure over and over again while expecting a different result. If you are that naive, you go have your fun. I'm going to make my vote count- which in this state means nothing, no thanks to the pathetic legal contest foisted upon us by the WSRP and the Illustrious King Weenie Chris Vance.
The Republican Party clearly seems hellbent for mediocrity. If they sink into oblivion, it isn't for lack of trying. And anyone who piddles their votes away on a bunch of losers deserves to go down the drain with them.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 3, 2006 08:49 PMput this up for a topic and discuss it if you have the nerve. None of your other petty little battles matter.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
Posted by: Silly little Republicans on January 4, 2006 11:48 AMWhen you can pull your partisan head out of your ass long enough to take a clear look at the world around you, come on back and we'll talk.
Posted by: ERNurse on January 5, 2006 01:17 PM