Dino Rossi has sent the attached letter to the Republican State Committee endorsing Vice-Chairwoman Fredi Simpson [scroll down] to succeed Chris Vance.
Also signing the letter are Attorney General Rob McKenna, Congressmen Dave Reichert and Doc Hastings and former state Chairman Dale Foreman
We are writing to let you know that we are endorsing Fredi Simpson for the position of State Republican Party Chair to fill the unexpired term of Chairman Vance. Fredi is a strong, capable leader who has all the right qualities to lead our party.
For those of you who don’t know Fredi well, we can tell you from first-hand experience that you won’t find anyone more hard-working or more dedicated to the party and getting Republicans elected statewide. In her current position of State Party Vice Chair, she has worked tirelessly at the grassroots level with Republican candidates and elected officials. She has made it a point to travel the state and meet county Republican activists.
In addition, Fredi has capably served as Chelan County Republican Party Chair since 2003. Fredi knows how the party works, and she knows what it takes to win campaigns.
As we prepare for the 2006 elections, we need a State Party Chair who is proactive, positive and can work with Republicans across the state. Fredi fits the bill perfectly. We would enthusiastically work with Fredi to ensure that the party is in a strong financial position for the coming elections and the future.
We are proud to support Fredi as our next State Party Chair, and we hope you will too.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 09, 2006 04:20 PM | Email ThisBest of luck to you, Fredi.
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 9, 2006 04:23 PMTimothy, keep up the blogging. It is good to see you get your blood flowing. You, Eric, Watchdog and a few of the other folks need to ruffle a few feathers in order to get recognized.
As you say, you shouldn't have to with a successful party, but we don't have one here. Ruffle them feathers and get this state to two parties. And I don't mean the East party and the West party like we have today.
Posted by: swatter on January 9, 2006 05:06 PMOn a serious note, I look forward to Tim’s comments later tonight as he’s indicated.
This is a coronation. I am sorely disappointed in Rossi for this kind of political dirty trick. To come up with an endorsement before the race has begun is an obvious indication of insider games.
Will the other players please step up and show their true colors? John Carlson? Mainstream Republicans (a misnomer on both counts)? Log Cabin Republicans?
This tells me all I need to know about Fredi. I'm sure she's a wonderful person but to be that close to the top of a losing organization, and the favored candidate of the insiders in a losing organization is a clear indication that she will be status quo: MORE LOSING!
And McGavick shouldn't have any say whatsoever in this. The elected chair has to be ready to endorse whoever is chosen in the Primary, not to railroad the parties money and efforts into the 'selected' candidate. We need a chair who will support the grassroots of the party, not one who will coerce the grassroots to vote for the insiders' selected candidate (like Vance did).
Posted by: Republican (by default) on January 9, 2006 05:16 PM"The Republican Party is failing because it has nothing to offer except to huge corporations and the uber rich".
They really are failing
They won the Gov seat in this state twice
The President, House, Senate and now the Supreme Court (for the next half century will be solidly Conservative)
We have really lost the battle ...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Thank you! Wink and a big grin! :D
Posted by: dcat on January 9, 2006 06:24 PMReichert is a slime job and cares about as much about families in King County as, say, Maureen Dowd. Don't be fooled by the Marlboro Man appearance of that weasel.
Posted by: BananaLand on January 9, 2006 06:55 PMThough I did volunteer work on Reichert's campaign - I have since stopped my support for him...(He is the epitomy of RINO..) McGavick is the idiot who expressed disdain for our initiative process....(you know....that last weapon of the people - against liberal legislative robbery and railroading?) Gee, thanks Mike! This leaves Dino Rossi's support for Simpson....I just don't know....Maybe the Repub's are going to try to woo the state's large hispanic population?
I'm not thrilled about this endorsement.
Posted by: Deborah on January 9, 2006 07:10 PMLast time I checked, He doesn't get to coronate anyone. The State Committee votes for the state party chair. The State Committee is elected by the PCOs. If you the PCOs decided to elect a bunch of sheople who will do what ever Rep. Reichert, AG McKenna, Sen. Rossi and others say, then that is on them, not the people who give the endorsement.
I have met Fredi Simpson and John Koster. I think either would do a great job, but we are probably over due for a party chair from E. Washington. As disenfranchised as E. WA feel from the state, many (if not most) loyal republicans from the otherside of the Cascades feel disconnected from the GOP leadership.
With Sen. Hewitt taking over the senate caucus and Fredi as the chair, the GOP might finally be able to get some legit blue-collar credibility amongst conservative democrats.
But why actually try to solve any problems when you can keep martyring yourself at the hands of the GOP state party?
Posted by: T.J. on January 9, 2006 07:12 PMAlso, with AG McKenna winning a huge victory in '04 and Dino causing atleast 160,000 folks who voted for John Kerry to not vote for Christine Gregoire, I am willing the bet they might have some clue what is best for the party. Just possibly...
Both those two have a vested interest to make sure the state party is in good hands going into the next few years. I am guessing they aren't looking to sabotage the grassroots organization.
Good luck, Fredi!!!
Posted by: T.J. on January 9, 2006 07:16 PMNot only did she do that she has tried
unsuccessfully to spread false stories
about Susan Hutchison's character.I'm sorry
but I just don't think this is what we
want in our next state chairperson.
Oh by the way Susan Hutchison will be speaking
at the upcoming state gop meetings at the end
of the month.I for one am really looking forward
to these meetimgs.
For the record, I never came out for Fredi...rather I was eagerly anticipating your post on recent developments given your much-stated love for the supposed Bellevue mafia which you claim is behind seemingly every party turn of events your doesn't support.
Your recent post has candidly left me wanting. Perhaps you'll disapoint less after the 28th. Better yet, perhaps Doug Parris could host another debate for the candidates for party chair AND for an endorsement in the Senate race. All I ask is that someone videotape it.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 9, 2006 08:45 PMThis fella established himself very quickly to the rest of the group as the obnoxious Texan. When they came to an active volcano, another man on the tour turned to this man and challenged him with, "do you have anything like this back in Texas?" The fella replied with, "No...but we got a fire department in Houston that can put it out!"
The tour group had had enough of this guy, so several men got him drunk that night and dumped the Texan into a freshly dug grave at a nearby cemetary in hopes of scaring the s*** out of him. When the fella finally came to at dawn, the men observed him (while stifling chuckles) from behind tombstones. The fella stood up, peered out from the grave, climbed out and started raising a ruckus..."Well I'll be! It's Judgement Day and the Texans are the first ones up!!"
(Thank you all for bearing with me...it sets up a question.)
Is it just me, or do you (Phil Spackman) have a striking resemblance to the obnoxious Texan? I mean, really. If everyone else here knows who/what the hell you are, then fine. But you are only marginally better than the trolls around here. (exasperation done)
Posted by: Danny on January 9, 2006 08:57 PMDon't worry about Phil. He likes the attention. Just think of this like literature class and you're reading Shakespeare. We all need to have a Richard III, Falstaff and Iago type of character to add excitement to our reading.
Phil is kind of the same way...and is very Shakespearean in a way. You can always tell by the odd format of his posts that he is plotting or saying something low.
As an example.
A curse upon these RINO dogs
Who feign the values the right
Wherefore they mock and prat o'er yon
'Gainst fair and lovely Susan Hutchison
Verily do I vow every day
To vent my spleen at Sound Politics blog.
(In case folks didn't know, usually when you read Shakespeare, whenever the format of the text changes, it means something foul is afoot or their is a vulgar joke being told).
Posted by: Reporterward on January 9, 2006 09:33 PMAside from the fact that virtually nothing you have said is true, have you noticed that we're talking about politics at the *state* level?
Just askin'...
Posted by: Timothy on January 9, 2006 09:58 PMLove to watch Wingnuts infight.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 9, 2006 10:08 PMReally?........snicker...
How is the "Paul Berendt replacement search" going for you Leftnuts anyway?
You want to talk about infighting? heh....At least our debates are civil...
Liberal's eat their own!
I was so horrified. It haunts me to this day. (chills up my spine)
Posted by: Dan on January 9, 2006 10:32 PMTo the Sound Politics People forgive me but I am tiring of Winston's Wisdom. He should be over at HA where his twisted views would be cherished, but he seems to be wanting to spew here, so I thought the least I could do is to give him Facts on his last threat!
Fact: It takes 2/3's of the house (You got a long long ways to go here) to impeach a supreme court justice.
Fact: The only one (that's one finger up Winston, the middle one would be fine) impeachment in the history of this great nation was unsuccessful. In 1805, the Jeffersonian majority in the House of Representatives, intent upon subduing the federal judiciary (which was then dominated by judges of Federalist persuasion), impeached Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. In accordance with the Constitution, the matter then proceeded to trial before the Senate, where the Jeffersonians had a 25-9 majority, more than the two-thirds required to remove an impeached official. However, enough Jeffersonians voted for Chase that he was acquitted. No other justice of the Supreme Court has ever been impeached, and the Chase controversy stands as evidence that judicial independence is more important than partisan advantage.
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2005/May/04-397154.html
Now go on over to HA with your buds who Hate Rossi, Hate Bush, Hate Republicans, Lack of real facts, and you will find your rambling Nirvana!
We try to be a little more studious here!
Sorry Sound Politics! Back to the topic at hand
Posted by: GS on January 9, 2006 10:36 PMRossi lost. Get over it. So did Irons.
Posted by: Winston Smith on January 9, 2006 11:15 PM"Googling some BS to support some presupposition that you have is not being studious. It's Monday Morning Quarterbacking".
Our Team won the Superbowl friend, you have no championship ring on your finger, you have no supreme court legislating from the bench your feeble ideals that you can't get through the legislative branch, you have no playing field that any of your party even agrees on. We're already drinking the good champagne!
Posted by: GS on January 9, 2006 11:34 PM
You don't know a thing about me.Yet you make
assumptions anyway.First of all I am not
doing any of this for the attention.There
are real problems in this state party.All
I have ever wanted to do was bring them
out in the open.So that the party members
would know that the leadership wasn't
and isn't there for them.
I have never been plotting anything.As far
as Susan is concerned.I simply was pointing
out what the state leadership was trying to
do to her.In my way of thinking they shouldn't
be doing these kind of things to one of there
own. I felt it should be troubling to most of
you that they would.
You better believe Fredi Simpson was up to
her eyeballs in this garbage.It is wrong
for a Vice chairwoman to be doing these kinds
of things.Eric I don't care who she strongly
supports. This was wrong.And thats whats wrong
with the party leadership today.It needs to
stop.So know Fredi is not the solution she
is part of the problem.
BRAVO!!!
HERE HERE!!!
Posted by: Cliff on January 10, 2006 01:57 AMHmm, I didn't know she was in the running.
I don't think anybody can run sucessfully against Rossi, McKenna and Reichert, for good reason too IMHO, but I hope she'll take Freddi's place when she moves up.
Posted by: Cliff Smith on January 10, 2006 02:03 AM
I'd be interested in hearing why they support Simpson for state chair. Presumably there's more involved than seniority.
That is the most amusing explanation of Phil I've heard...and more printable than the words that come to my mind. He is consistent...he doesn't like the chair we have, and he doesn't like the chair proposed. He seems to be shocked...SHOCKED!!!...to find politics going on here.
Glad to know my observations aren't completely unique.
Posted by: Danny on January 10, 2006 07:21 AMWinston, shut up.
And "you 're domination of the House"
It's 'your' you effin simp. Your. Not you are.
I'd argue your observations are the silent majority at this site. And your analogy about the Texan was excellent.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 10, 2006 08:41 AMReally? I seem to remember that Rossi won the first two counts, and barely lost the third count after King County's botched handling of the election... which would have made him the first Republican governer in this state for as long as I can remember. One year later, he's still a lot more popular than Gregoire.
Seems it's the other way around. The Democrats are about to lose their domination of the executive branch in this state.
Posted by: Mike H on January 10, 2006 08:55 AMYou'll forgive me for wanting to forget the Benton era.
Posted by: jimg on January 10, 2006 09:09 AMHere's a puzzler: if the race comes down to Simpson vs. Tebelius, which one of them gets dismissed as the "Bellevue Mafia?"
Posted by: Timothy on January 10, 2006 09:43 AM1) An Eastern Washington Republican would be great to have in the State Chair position, if they were well qualified and adequately represented an agenda for moving Washington forward. (i.e. anti-tax isn't going to sell anymore)
2) Whomever is chosen to fill the rest of Vance's term needs to get a bucket and start bailing out the State Party. Although Rossi's book sales have helped get the Party out of debt, I'm willing to bet were still up to our chins in red ink.
3) True, John Koster has a job, and he really can't leave right after his re-election, or can he? Plus there's the argument that he's more valuable on the SnoCo Council, given the recent shift in its makeup (Sax is out).
So, who's going to be the next State Chairperson? Besides Koster and Simpson, who else is out there that would resonate with the grassroots, be accepted by the elites, and have a message that would finally sell with the MSM?
Posted by: Patrick E. Bell on January 10, 2006 09:54 AMIt's an effort in futility attempting to teach proper English to Trolls. Besides, Winston (Lucy?) is probably having his (her, its?) nap after recess and can't respond right now.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 10, 2006 11:24 AMb) Honestly, I'm not sure which it is this time. I've heard them both called "Bellevue Mafia" in the past.
Posted by: Timothy on January 10, 2006 02:23 PM2 often not capitalized : a group of people likened to the Mafia; especially : a group of people of similar interests or backgrounds prominent in a particular field or enterprise : CLIQUE
The "Bellevue Mafia" is simply a referal to a group with the above definition who's central power happens to be in Bellevue via prominent figures there.
Where is the "attached letter" of Dino's endorsement of Fredi that you site? I did not find it in your post. Only the bio of her on the WSRP site. Perhaps you forgot to attach it.
Posted by: Republican in Exile on January 10, 2006 03:57 PMThe letter consists of everything after the first two paragraphs, or, on the main page, everything after "continue reading."
Posted by: Timothy on January 10, 2006 04:09 PMdis·par·age
Pronunciation: di-'spar-ij
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -aged; -ag·ing
Etymology: Middle English, to degrade by marriage below one's class, disparage, from Middle French desparagier to marry below one's class, from Old French, from des- dis- + parage extraction, lineage, from per peer
1 : to lower in rank or reputation : DEGRADE
as·per·sion
Pronunciation: &-'sp&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
1 : a sprinkling with water especially in religious ceremonies
2 a : the act of calumniating b : a calumnious expression
ca·lum·ni·ate
Pronunciation: k&-'l&m-nE-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
1 : to utter maliciously false statements, charges, or imputations about
Since applying the name "Bellevue Mafia" to the group in question is neither "desparaging"-lowering them in rank or reputation from what they actually are, nor is it sprinkling them with water, nor is it calumniating-uttering a maliciously false statement--it's the truth--it doesn't qualify as a slur-(see definition above).
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 10, 2006 04:29 PMdis·par·age (d-sprj)
tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es
1. To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle.
as·per·sion (-spûrzhn, -shn)
n.
1. a. An unfavorable or damaging remark; slander: Don't cast aspersions on my honesty.
b. The act of defaming or slandering.
But perhaps the American Heritage Dictionary is in on the conspiracy!
Posted by: Timothy on January 10, 2006 04:41 PMBut if we're likening them to Goodfellas, Scarface or the Godfather III then I would call the term a vile insult.
Posted by: Reporterward on January 10, 2006 04:48 PM*Just kidding. (Though I do believe Websters is better at demonstrating the roots of the word and it's truest and full meaning.) But in all seriousness, no matter which definition you accept, the appropriateness of applying the term "slur" hinges on whether or not the remark is false.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 10, 2006 05:08 PMThe only part of the definition that is true is "disrespectful"--I'll give you that, I don't have any respect for them, nor should I.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 10, 2006 06:42 PM
Rose Strong is who you speak of.Rose and
Mark Hulst for that natter have decided not to run.
Neither want to deal with the mess that
Vance left behind.Also in rose's case she
felt betrayed by dino the last time
around. rose believed that after all she
did for dino he should not have backed
Vance.
They are both also of the opinion that
whoever ends up being chairperson will
get blamed for the mess vance left.