It has been brought to my attention that some in the right-of-center universe are troubled by one component of the post below. The concern is that I somehow implied that conservatives and pragmatists are distinctly different. That being a pragmatist separates oneself from being a conservative.
Such an illogical assertion was not my point.
Using Dino Rossi as an example I said that he is a conservative and "at the same time, he's a pragmatist as well." [emphasis added] The duality is important to note since not all conservatives are pragmatists - some being fiercely proud of that fact. Likewise, many a pragmatist is by no means a conservative.
Here is where all this conjoins into the main theme of my post: many independent voters in Washington state have reached a default position of presuming that conservative/Republican candidates do not have pragmatic solutions on the issues they care about. Transportation is a perfect example. For years Republicans have been known simply for giving a lusty "NO!" to new taxes. What they haven't been known for is having a serious plan.
Some will say that's not fair, they have had plans and ideas. True, but such policy proposals haven't received serious public discussion from opinion leaders nor have they been communicated well to the voting public. The cumulative effect of this phenomenon, on transportation and other issues, has been voters losing faith in Republican candidates and giving them the legislative minority to prove it.
It has reached the point where Republican candidates have to prove their problem solving bona fides on the issues voters care about in order be given a serious look. Dino Rossi accomplished this with exceptional skill in 2004. Rob McKenna did likewise in a lower-profile but still significant race for Attorney General that same year.
Thus, I believe Knute Berger's piece to which I originally linked touched on a critical element of Rossi's electoral appeal. Dino Rossi is a conservative. He's also a problem solver. The electorate hasn't been consistently equating those two notions together in recent years. It's simply nice to see a high profile Republican accomplish that feat with skill.
UPDATE: At comment #4 below, regular reader hinton inadvertently explains part of the reason the current state Senate Republican Caucus is perilously close to being able to holding its meetings in a Starbucks.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 19, 2008 10:16 AM | Email ThisWhat we've seen instead is the whole planning process hijacked by a bunch of loons who feel that it is morally wrong for individuals to drive automobiles. I believe this is a fringe position even in this left-leaning state, but there you have it. It needs to stop.
The problems is, they're well represented throughout the city, county, regional and state transportation entities and planning groups.
You can see evidence of this at all levels. From designing permanent bottlenecks into I5, through the viaduct discussions, all the way down to the way crosswalks and parking are used on arterials.
Posted by: Al on April 19, 2008 12:32 PMIn the final analysis politcal campaigns are (or at least should be) not just about ''making a statement'', ideological purity, or even just winning the election; but rather about effective and efficent GOVERNING. From my perspective there are indeed some who distain pragmatism, who seem to consider a political campaign as an end onto itself, rather than as a means to actual implementation and management of good government.
In any case: The fact that Dino Rossi is widely respected as an effective and experienced real-world problem-solver is I believe a fundamental part of his appeal across a large part of the political spectrum (leaving aside the moonbats, of course).
Posted by: Methow Ken on April 19, 2008 12:56 PMThe fraud of the recent gas tax increase immediately comes to mind, for example. Some people here rabidly supported that bizarre position.
I knew we were gonna get screwed. I totally opposed it. And I was right... given the immediate cut of the project list by a paltry 31%, AFTER the election.
The difference here is that *I* AM a conservative. Those of the faux variety, such as Eric, expect us to just go along with the program. "For years Republicans have been known simply for giving a lusty "NO!" to new taxes. What they haven't been known for is having a serious plan." The criminal aspect of the gas tax increase comes to mind for the "lustiness" behind our continuing desire to say no when our government routinely lies to us, and fails to end even the most obvious wastes of money where hundreds of millions are shifted from transportation to the general fund via the completely bogus sales tax application to construction materials. Another example is UnSound Transit... which promised 21 miles of loot rail at $2.2 Billion was it? While now they, so far, intend to deliver 14 miles at a somewhat more inflated cost of over $4 billion... all perfectly legal, you understand.
So you see, Eric... what we give a "lusty 'NO'" to these tax increases, isn't the issue of paying taxes for these projects, or even increasing taxes for other projects.
We give a "lusty 'NO!'" to a government that routinely lies to us with impunity. We give a "lusty 'NO!'" to the waste, the fraud, and the abuse of those of us paying the bills.
Conservatives, by definition, know that. That you're ignorant of that aspect of your little drama... well, that tends to speak for itself, doesn't it?
Many Republicans have had plans. Many of those plans have not required tax increases. And those that didn't were immediately hammered by the democrats and killed in the media. (Just one example has been Benton's efforts to open HOV lanes to all traffic when not used for peak traffic... and how that took years to implement locally... and how it STILL isn't the standard across the state.)
As a conservative, I'll start voting for taxes when I am convinced they go to a genuine need. I'll start voting for taxes when I'm convinced my government isn't lying to me, or paying off union thugs, or wasting it on projects that we don't need, like the $90 million plus wasted on a study with a pre-ordained outcome for a $4 to $6 BILLION dollars wasted I-5 Bridge replacement down here in Clark County when what we clearly need is ADDITIONAL bridges, not a new one in the same place.
So, I find that I am pragmatic as well. Unfortunately, Rossi's "pragmatism" went out the door when he moronically suggested that he would support taxpayer subsidies for the Sonics.
We don't need faux democrats when we already have the real thing sitting in office.
Posted by: hinton on April 19, 2008 01:34 PMA pragmatist is someone who goes to work for the federal department of education.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on April 20, 2008 09:08 PM