Democrat Debi Golden has bowed out of the race for the 48th district Senate seat, allowing erstwhile Republican Rodney Tom to pose as a Democrat so he can challenge incumbent Republican Sen. Luke Esser. It's rather telling that while the Democrats claim to be gaining in the Eastside suburbs, the only way they believe they can actually pick up this seat is to convince the genuine Democrat to sit out the race so they can nominate an until recently reliable Republican.
I like Sen. Esser and he has my endorsement for re-election. I like Rodney Tom too, although I liked him more before his implausible "conversion" to Democrat. While I now question his sincerity (and stability), I can still admire most of his voting record which, apart from the notable exceptions of support for gay preferences and the gas tax, has been largely conservative. (At least his voting record has been mostly conservative, who knows what it would be in the future). But his sudden reinvention as a Democrat is so unconvincing as to be laughable.
In the (unlikely, I think) event that Tom is elected to the Senate as a Democrat, one of two things would inevitabely happen --
Either (a) he would continue voting with the Republicans most of the time. This would simultaneously infuriate his new bosses in the public sector unions and leave his constituents wondering why he chose to join the Democrats who are actively working against most of the things he believes in, or (b) he would flip-flop and start voting with the Democrats most of the time, leaving his constituents to wonder why he didn't stand for any of the things he used to stand for. Either way, he would end up alienating just about everybody, especially his constituents.
Take, for example, the issue of school choice. I first encountered Rodney Tom two years ago when he was one of the leaders in the House movement to pass a charter school bill. In fact, his aide e-mailed me this thank you note for all my blogging in support of charter schools. He was one of the first legislators to acknowldege me and I thought that was very cool. Rodney Tom was right to push hard for charter schools over the objections of the school employee unions. And he was right to express no-confidence in the union-choked government school monopoly when the Spokesman-Review quoted him after the charter bill passed
"If we have anything to fear, it's our current system," said Rep. Rodney Tom, R-Medina.Indeed. The charter bill, as such, is dead. But not the larger principle of parental choice. Where does Tom stand now? Would he pander to the WEA and sell out his constituents who want school choice? Or would he continue to advocate for choice over union objections? Even if the latter, how could he seriously continue to fight for schoolchildren and their parents while at the same time trying to expand the majority of Democratic caucus which is constitutionally opposed to parental choice?
Rodney Tom has an awful lot of explaining to do.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 31, 2006 04:59 PM | Email ThisI rememeber one Republican on this blog group say that had he remained a Republican there would be no opposition to him in the primary for him in retaining his house seat. For the Republicans protect their incumbents from conservative opposition no matter how liberal their incumbents are.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on March 31, 2006 05:24 PMI do not wish him ill, but I certainly do not wish him success!
I don't know that much about Esser, but will endeavor to learn more. Already I know that, by comparison, his is the infinitely better position.
Posted by: alphabet soup on March 31, 2006 08:04 PMI think that's the question both Democrats and Republicans will be asking.
However, Tom is clearly a social liberal and a fiscal conservative judging by his voting record, and given the direction the Republican caucus has been leaning (and literally leaning on Rodney Tom during votes) it is not surprising that Tom felt the Democratic party was a better fit for him political persuasion.
I think Tom is very likely to beat Esser come November and not having to fight a primary battle against Golden, who also would have been a strong candidate, will certainly save the campaign money for when it matters most.
Posted by: Daniel K on March 31, 2006 10:58 PMNot a chance. A squishy Republican/Democrat/I don't know what I am against a seasoned campaigner, with a consistent conservative voting record? In a traditionally conservative (albeit leaning more liberal lately) district? Not a chance.
I've stated it here before and I'll state it again, Esser wins going away.
Posted by: jimg on April 1, 2006 10:27 AMMaybe Rodney recognizes that when descending into a pit of snakes, it is valuable to appear to be one of them.
Rodney this . . . or Rodney that . . . fuels the fires of those who say both sides are the same. The asylum has been run by the inmates for so long that sometimes it is hard to tell the difference. Maybe if Rodney invades it he will infect it with something of a cognizable strain of reason. Otherwise he might soon be babbling, drooling and handing out plastic suckers like the rest of them.
If he has actually gone over to the berzerko-liberal side it will be his undoing and no great loss for the conservative cause. In reality, he can ONLY do conservatism some good by ameliorating the effect of the insanity currently reigning supreme there, or more clearly defining the differences between the parties. Actions speak louder than words and if elected his will be clear soon enough. Either way, in the end, it will most likely all add up to nothing more than theatre.
Besides, I like the rats seeing Rodney as a Republican Manchurian candidate.
They need their paranoia piqued as often as practicable, because
making them think is like poking at them with a stick.
It probably won't accomplish much, but it is
amusing to watch them squirm.
Sure, Rodney Tom himself is gone. He actually did us a favor. But there are so many politicians like him within the GOP that even if Republicans win public office, it will still be impossible for a conservative agenda to get through.
It is really telling that Rodney Tom had a safe seat in the House where he could safely expect that NO primary opposition could come up against him. It is virtually impossible for a conservative to beat a liberal RINO incumbent in a primary.
First the incumbent RINO has the advantage that all incumbents have, thousands and thousands of dollars from outside the district special interests. Few grassroots campaigns can overcome such a disadvantage.
Second, though you have the internal workings of the Republican party that on the district, county and state level discourages Republicans from even criticizing the liberal voting patterns of many of their incumbents. After all, for many of them their jobs depend only upon victory. The incumbent can be a Marxist for all they care.
And then you have conservatives, yes conservatives, who I honestly believe have conservative beliefs who are either too lazy to look at voting records, who out of some misguided sense of party loyality won't make waves, or for some other social reason WILL NOT come out against an incumbent no matter how liberal that incumbent might be. Sure they might talk against them behind their back in private, but that is the extent of it.
I must ask is it ALL about winning elections for you guys? Sure you must ultimately win elections, but will you really consider it a "victory" if the Republicans take control but the same liberal policies continue to be enacted?
The real truth of it is that Rodney Tom could have stayed a Republican representive for the next 20 years or more. And that is why I condemn all you republicans. That is why I consider myself a republican no more.
And that is why, if I do vote this year, It will be AGAINST my RINO incumbent.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on April 1, 2006 12:10 PMPlease explain.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 1, 2006 12:54 PMExplain that I don't like being boiled in water like a frog?
Explain that even if Republicans win the governorship and both houses in Olympia BUT liberal policies STILL come from Olympia, I wouldn't consider that a victory but a crushing defeat?
Explain that there really isn't too much difference between the two parties beyond the superficial stuff except the Democrats are more honest about what they are than the Republicans are?
Please, please tell me what you want me to explain.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republicans on April 1, 2006 01:04 PMWe are facing a problem in the Washington state GOP (guess what - the dems are, too!). It will take commitment and dedication and ideas. But losers like Not Conservative, Not Republican have decided that, if everyone won't play the way he/she/it wants, he/she/it is gonna take his ball and go home.
I say, don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 1, 2006 02:23 PMRepubs - this is your opportunity to lay out a strong platform in advancce of the November election. Well, what are youse guys waiting for ??
Posted by: KS on April 1, 2006 04:33 PM
Since you don't like being boiled in water like a frog, don't.
If you wouldn't consider it a victory but a crushing defeat for Republicans to win the governorship and both houses in Olympia BUT liberal policies STILL come from Olympia, don't consider it.
If it hurts when you insist that there really isn't too much difference between the two parties beyond the superficial stuff except you believe that the Democrats are more honest about what they are than the Republicans are, stop insisting.
Or . . . don't.
I told the doc, "doc, it hurts when I do this" and the Doc said . . . well don't do that.
Who cares? Go back on your meds . . . or since it makes your liberal heart feeeel good to feeeel bad, do some more of that splainin'.
Thanks
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 1, 2006 05:29 PMJust a Little Less, At Least for Now
As in almost as much liberalism as from the Democrats, well, just a little less, at least for right now.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on April 1, 2006 05:39 PMJust like the Republicans are doing on the Federal Level.
By the way Dave Reichert got a C- from the National Taxpayers Union.
http://www.ntu.org/misc_items/rating/VS_2005.pdf
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on April 1, 2006 05:49 PMShould be interesting to see since the Republicans have been in control of the House and the Senate and the Presidency when all these most recent budgets have been voted on.
http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9752
Wednesday 9AM our time I know I will be looking forward to reading it.
Posted by: Conservative, Not Republican on April 1, 2006 05:59 PM Pretty soon we will be spending tax money faster and making the government bigger than ever, and doing things just like the Democrats.
And just like the Republicans are doing on the Federal Level, we can all vote for John Kerry, and Al Gore, because Democrats are just like us cept more honester.
And then we can all go to the zoo.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 1, 2006 06:16 PMhttp://www.washtimes.com/national/20060331-121827-7630r.htm
"They will remember in November," Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, said of voters nationwide. "And many of those who have stood with our Republican majority in the last decade are not only angry, many of them plan to be absent from the polls" this year when the entire House and one-third of the Senate is up for re-election.
---
You are right Mr. Hayworth. We are staying home in 2006.
Imagine, Dave Reichert getting a C minus for spending issues. Please tell me one issue that the so called Mainstreamers have held firm with the Republicans on?
True Republicans have nothing in common with them. They are the ENEMY of the conservatives. Remember this group. Remember them well. We must defeat them before even thinking of defeating the Democrats.
http://www.washingtonmainstream.org
Oh, yeah, we are staying home in 2006. If the Mainstreamers are lucking. I for one am seriously considering going to the polls so I can VOTE OUT my RINO Incumbent!
Just like "Conservative, Not Republican, Repubibot, bobblehead" says, all of those RINO Incumbents, are durn rascals and durned little less liberal than the gosh darn Democrats, BUT just give them time, soon they will be spending your tax money faster and making the government bigger and bigger and BIGGER THAN EVER EVER AND EVER by golly ya betcha.
Listen closely to Conservative, Not Republican, Repubibot, bobblehead, he's tuned into the reel deel there bubbalouie.
What a crack up!
Hey, Conservative, Not Republican, Repubibot, bobblehead,, kiss my Governors a$$.
Nice try.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 1, 2006 10:15 PMHe's a friggin' liberal full of liberal bull$hit.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on April 2, 2006 09:54 AM