The Flag of the World

You’ve read the posts, now visit the website–Operation: Red Washington is now a blog, hosted by yours truly and Nathan Azinger of Pajama Jihad. We’re kicking off the site with a bang–specifically, with a podcast interview with Dino Rossi. More is coming, so come back early and often.

It looks like the race for Republican State Party Chair has firmed up, and it’s between Vice-Chair Fredi Simpson and National Committeewoman Diane Tebelius. While I’ve noted my preference for an outsider, what I’ve seen of both of these women tells me either would be a major upgrade over Chris Vance in what I consider to be the most important job of a State Party Chair, and that is to serve as the “face of the party.” (This is unfortunate–if the party could afford a full-time PR person, allowing the ‘CEO of the party’ to just be that, it would be much better.)

This is what I’m hearing from a member of the Central Committee whose mind is not made up yet:

[Diane Tebelius is] National Committeewoman, attorney, articulate, campaigner, fundraiser, well connected, can compromise and can be tough when she needs to…a person of substance, definitely qualified. She lives here, not in Wenatchee. She would be there full time - not here only three days a week. Although, in Fredi’s defense, with today’s technology, availablity it more of an attitude than a physical presence as long as someone is not overloaded.

Diane would want to be paid of course - but she should be able to raise money for the Rossi trial debt retirement - that needs to happen by March. Fredi’s strength is not fundraising, she would need a good fundraising committee…

Fredi is very popular with the grassroots and is working with legislators on the Commitment… and has the heart of a county chairman. Diane is politically savvy with lots of hands on experience campaigning and well connected in the state and in DC. I think we have two very good candidates. Both with different strengths. This is no easy choice.

For thoughts from the candidates themselves, I’ve obtained copies of the letters each woman sent to the Central Committee requesting their support. Tebelius’ is here, Simpson’s is here.

For those interested in endorsements, here’s a rundown of what I know for sure:

Simpson has been endorsed by Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Dave Reichert, Doc Hastings, former State Chair Dale Foreman, the Pacific County Republican Party*, John Carlson of KVI, Jerry Miller of Republican Radio and Pedro Celis, Chairman of the National Republican Hispanic Assembly. (Updated)

Tebelius has been endorsed by the King County Republican Party, the Pierce County Republican Party, Jennifer Dunn, State Senator and former Party Chair Don Benton, State Committeeman Jeff Kent, Snohomish County Councilman John Koster, last year’s runner-up and former Skagit County chair Mark Hulst, and Rose Strong, last year’s other candidate. (Updated)

I’m sure that’s not the full list for either candidate. Anyone who knows of other important endorsements, please let me know by email or in the comments.

UPDATE: I’m hearing rumors that former party chair Don Benton may enter the race. If he does, I feel confident in guessing he won’t be getting much support from Matt Rosenberg.

UPDATE 2: Nathan Azinger reports that Don Benton will not be running, and has, as noted above, endorsed Tebelius.

*UPDATE 3: It should be noted that it was the the three voting members from the Pacific County GOP who have endorsed Simpson, whereas I have heard nothing specific from the voting members from the other counties listed, King and Pierce. As far as I know, only the central commitees of those parties have endorsed Tebelius.

UPDATE 4: I’ve just learned that, despite Washington Law generally requiring that the chair and vice chair be of opposite genders, because Simpson still has a year to go on her term, she will serve out that term if Tebelius is elected. If Simpson is elected, there will be a new election for a (male) vice-chair. If she is not, she will continue to be vice-chair, but a new national committeewoman will be elected.

Chris Vance, who someone once naively said would “have the easiest job over the next four years,” has resigned. Some are surprised by this, but I’m not. Vance has said that he didn’t plan to run for reelection last year, and only did so because he didn’t feel it was helpful to leave during Rossi’s court fight. I disagreed with him then (and still do, for that matter) but understand the reasoning. A successor will be elected at the central committee meeting on the 28th.

I’m glad Vance is done. He’s done, I think, as well as he knew how, and was hampered by more than a few personal traits–some flaws, some merely unhelpful. I hope he ends up overseeing the GOP’s nationwide Voter Vault, a program started here in Washington State to work around the lack of partisan registrations, and one of the biggest accomplishments on Vance’s watch.

Who’s next? The heir-apparent is current Vice-Chair Fredi Simpson, endorsed already by quite a few movers & shakers in the party, including Dino Rossi. There’s still a chance we will see National Committeewoman Diane Tebelius make a run at it, and former Skagit County Chair Mark Hulst, last year’s runner-up, has told me he is considering a run. Rose Strong, a remarkable woman and another candidate last year, could also.

I’m undecided. While I respect the opinion of Rossi, McKenna and the others who have endorsed Simpson, I do still like my endorsement from last year, of some combination of Mark Hulst and Rose Strong. They’re both fresh blood and their qualifications complement each other remarkably well.

While I understand the logic of putting in someone who has been around a while and understands the workings of the party at the top, I think the need for fresh blood and a fresh face outweighs that need. On the other hand, for most people, Fredi Simpson is a fresh face–and having a Hispanic woman at the head of the WAGOP would make a few people look twice.

On the other other hand, I am not a fan of the “heir apparent” strategy in a party that has been losing elections. On a national level, the quick coronation of Ken Mehlman last year made sense, because things were going well. When things aren’t going well, like say, here and now, it doesn’t make as much sense.

If Simpson does indeed take the seat, I should certainly hope that an outsider–possibly Hulst–would take the vice slot. If the vice-chairmanship also goes to a member of the “old guard” I will be quite disappointed.

UPDATE: After talking with a couple of the people involved in the early endorsement, it’s become clear to me that this was in no way meant to be a ‘coronation’ by those involved. In fact, there were originally only a couple people planning to endorse until the last minute, when a great many people signed on because they honestly believe that Simpson is the best choice for chair. It is unfortunate that it took on the appearance of an edict from on high, but Simpson should not be criticized for her popularity.

If there are criticicisms to be made, they will be. As the Seattle Times reports, Diane Tebelius is also in the race. Between the two, I lean towards Simpson, as she is the ‘fresher face,’ but I look forward to hearing what they each have to say. I hope to procure an interview with each the candidates, as I did last year.

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.

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.

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.

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 Sound Politics.

2006, like all even numbered years, is a fairly important federal election. But here in Washington state, it has the potential to be watershed, as the first legislative election since the debacle of 2004. That election didn’t go particularly well for the GOP here, but it has set us up for some remarkable gains in the next cycle–in large part by setting us up with some very useful Political Shorthand.

There are two pretty obvious individuals who Republican legislative candidates can easily tie themselves to in the upcoming campaign–Rob McKenna and Dino Rossi. Conveniently, these two men also define the two best parts of the Republican party.

On one hand, we have McKenna, and those who we’ll call Rob McKenna Republicans. McKenna is a moderate on social issues, but a fiscal and regulatory conservative committed to good, honest, transparent government, and common sense. I wouldn’t call myself a McKenna Republican, but they make up a large portion of the party, and as long as they are–like Rob McKenna–committed Republicans eager to work with those to their right. McKenna pulled in a larger percent of the vote than any other Republican in the state in 2004, more than either incumbent. He’s certainly the most popular elected Republican in the state, and those who portray themselves as McKenna Republicans in 2006 could do much worse.

Of course, the most popular Washington state Republican is Dino Rossi. Rossi is solidly conservative, but moderate in temperment, able to work with people on both sides and focuses on majority issues–but most importantly, sincerely cares about Washington state and wants to see it prosper. Rossi provides the most obvious wagon for Republicans to hitch themselves to–and through his new Forward Washington foundation, hopefully, he’ll provide some very concrete ways to do that.

Rossi & McKenna provide Republicans of various stripes with role models, and an opportunity to easily and honestly portray themselves to the voters in a way the voters will respond to, and to establish a positive image for themselves and the party. Sounds like a win-win situation for me.

More on Political Shorthand: Republicans, Democrats

As noted by Stefan Sharkansky, King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng is cracking down on car theives. His plan sounds like the epitome of good governance, as he’s tackling a problem with available resources before going to the legislature to ask for more.

Actually, he’s doing even better than that–when he goes to the legislature, it won’t be to ask for more money. Instead, it will be to ask for the same thing he’s already asked for–to change the sentencing guidelines for car thieves. Currently, it takes an entire seven offenses before a car thief can be put away for a year or more. This is pretty clearly absurd, and even the PI Editorial Board agrees. The question is, why hasn’t the legislature bothered to change the sentencing guidelines?

Actually, that’s not the question–the answer is obvious enough (it rhymes with ‘remorats’). What matters is that this provides us an excellent opportunity to turn this state red. If Republican legislative candidates make car thefts a major issue in the ‘06 elections, the Democrats will either have to wheel right to appear tough on crime (unlikely–but ultimately, welcome), or lose a not-insignificant number of seats. This is the essence of Pragmatism–finding a clearly Republican issue that appeals to the vast majority of voters.

Christine Gregoire gave us election reform. Norm Maleng has given us car theft. These are the beginnings of a popular, pragmatic campaign to turn Washington Red in 2006.

Well, it was certainly a disappointing day. It would be easy to dwell on the disappointment, but fruitless. Instead, I’d much rather look ahead at what comes next. And what does come next? Well that, largely, is up to those of us who call ourselves “Republicans.” Looking ahead, there are three specific ways we can turn the tragedy of the 2004 gubernatorial election into positive things for the party–and more importantly, the state.

Repeal the Gas Tax: At this point, it doesn’t matter much whether you agree with the new gas tax or not. It is the central symbol of business as usual in Olympia, of the consequences of the stolen election, and of the arrogance of the liberal establishment. Likewise, Initiative 912 is the symbol of the pure grassroots fury at the same. If angry Republicans can funnel that anger into the (very difficult) task of getting the Gas Tax initiative on the ballot, it will be a direct slap in the face to everything Christine Gregoire stands for. A little payback, if you will. I’m told it’s good for the soul.

Elect David Irons: The man most at fault for King County’s ruinous behavior–and thus, Christine Gregoire’s election–is clearly Ron Sims. What sweet, sweet redemption it would be to boot him out of office, and put a Republican at the helm of the largest and most Democrat county in the state. I’ve met and talked with Irons–he’s a great candidate and will make a great executive. If the rest of the state wants the ability to legally elect their statewide officials, then everyone needs to pitch in in this campaign to clean up King County. Best of all, Irons has a very real and legitimate shot at a victory–King County is tired of the incompetence in its government.

Let a thousand Rossi’s bloom in 2006: Chris Vance himself has admitted that the main problem in the 2004 legislative elections was that the GOP candidates did not sufficiently tie themselves to Rossi. We can’t make that same mistake twice. Whether Rossi runs for Senate or waits until 2008 for another run at the Governor’s Mansion, we need to run “Dino Rossi Republicans” in every legislative district that went for Rossi, and while we’re at it, every one that didn’t. Rossi has earned huge amounts of political capital the hard way, and hopefully he’ll be willing to spend some of it to get GOP control of the State House and Senate. But even if he doesn’t go out and campaign the way we’d all like him to, the candidates themselves need to identify themselves with his character, integrity, common sense and vision for Washington State, and Republicans at the grassroots level need to encourage them to do so–and to do the same themselves.

Yeah, today’s events flat out suck. But tomorrow is another day, and we can take the troubles of today and turn them into the victories of tomorrow.

Consider, if you will, the following two articles regarding environmental policy. The first, by Samuel Thernstrom from the American Enterprise Institute entitled “Green Opportunities for the GOP,” and the second by Tim Worstall entitled “Extra, Extra! The UN Embraces Free Markets!” These two otherwise unrelated articles come together to demonstrate a great opportunity for Republicans across the country–and for one Republican, in particular, here in Washington State.

First, from Thernstrom’s piece:

The death of the environmental movement is being mourned–and fiercely debated–from cyberspace to the New York Times. Certainly, the movement has seen healthier days. Its focus in 2004 was not passage of a new Clean Air Act, or improvements to any of the major environmental laws; its main goal was defeating President George W. Bush. Fifteen million dollars were spent on that effort in vain. Not only was the President reelected, environmental issues were largely invisible in the campaign.

Republicans might be forgiven for thinking that this issue is best ignored. We should think twice. With the national electorate closely divided, no party can afford to ignore a chance to seize the high ground on a major issue–and the opportunities for environmental leadership today are enormous. The broad outlines of a new approach to environmental regulation are obvious, but the loudest voices on these issues are firmly committed to the old “command-and-control” (and litigate, litigate, litigate) approach…

To make progress on this issue, Republicans will have to overcome a national press corps that considers conservative conservationists oxymoronic. That can be done with a strong agenda and real commitment. Too often, the loudest Republican voices on the environment are hardliners who mock “tree huggers” and dismiss the EPA as an American Gestapo. This ignores the real opportunities here: With environmentalists and Democrats moving steadily to the left, the common sense center is up for grabs.

Thernstrom goes on to make one very specific suggestion regarding how to take that common sense center:

The success of the 1990 Clean Air Act’s marked-based “cap-and-trade” program to control sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions is uncontested. Even skeptics admit that the program has produced far greater reductions in pollution, far faster, at much less cost than anyone had imagined possible. This approach has two strengths: It gives companies an economic incentive to excel, and it is 100 percent effective. No lawsuits, no army of permit-processing civil servants, and no excuses. It offers perfect compliance at a minimal cost.

Extending this approach to other pollutants, and perhaps other industrial sectors, is the obvious next step. For three years now, President Bush has proposed doing just that, with no success. This year, once again, he called on Congress to establish a national trading program for SO2, nitrogen oxides, and mercury.

The President’s proposal would cut power plant emissions of these pollutants by more than 70 percent–to levels 90 percent lower than they were when the Clean Air Act was first enacted in 1970. Environmentalists concerned about acid rain in the Adirondacks could hardly believe their ears when the President announced this initiative in 2002–it was all they had dreamed of–but they were even more surprised when the national environmental groups geared up to block the bill in Congress.

Next, consider these words from the Worstall article regarding the UN’s “Millennium Ecosystem Assessment”:

There are four alternative routes to a solution offered, one of them described thusly:

More specifically, in Global Orchestration trade barriers are eliminated, distorting subsidies are removed, and a major emphasis is placed on eliminating poverty and hunger.

That is, that environmental degradation would be best reduced by more trade, more economic growth and less taxation and interference by Governments. It’s almost as if these people have been reading Iain Murray of these pages or something, actually agreeing with the point that free market environmentalism actually works, indeed, works better than the alternatives.

A few more almost random quotes to show they way they are thinking:

….[a]wide range of opportunities exists to influence human behavior to address this challenge in the form of economic and financial instruments. Some of them establish markets; others work through the monetary and financial interests of the targeted social actors; still others affect relative prices.

Elimination of subsidies that promote excessive use of ecosystem services

Greater use of economic instruments and market-based approaches in the management of ecosystem services

Payment for ecosystem services

Mechanisms to enable consumer preferences to be expressed through marketsNow that’s what I call shocking and almost unbelievable, that 1,300 scientists from 95 countries, working under the auspices of the United Nations, seem to have drunk the free market Kool-Aid. The end result of this years-long investigation is that us free market tree hugger and greenie types are actually correct in our contention that it is not the presence of markets, or the failure of markets, that leads to the devastation, it is the absence of markets. Just as we have had to, in centuries gone by, work out a system of laws that allows markets to flourish, thereby leading to the most efficient usage of resources, so now the task is to do the same for those areas of life where there are no markets. In water, pollution, fishing quotas, tropical forestry, in, in fact, all those sectors where we face the Tragedy of the Commons.

With the environmental movement heading off a cliff somewhere to the left of the rest of us, and the UN coming around to free market solutions, there is a huge opportunity for Republicans. Orrin Judd suggests the environmental cause could be taken up on a national level by a Presidential candidate willing to face the wrath of the less environmentally friendly members of his own party. Here in Washington, though, we have an opportunity coming up much more quickly, and one that will involve very little intra-party bickering.

In 2006, whoever runs against Maria Cantwell should take on the environment as a signature issue, with very specific plans, such as the “cap and trade” system for pollutants that Thernstrom describes. The candidate should take on people such as Thernstrom and Worstall as advisors, and develop a clear agenda that they can take to the Senate and push for.

The environment is a more important issue here in Washington than it is most places (mainly because we’ve got the best part of it). While, as Thernstrom notes, environmental issues are unlikely to change very many votes, a Republican who positions himself as “the Environmental Republican” will have a great advantage in the 2006 Senate race here. Cantwell is an uninteresting, unaccomplished Senator who almost no one feels very attached to, and the independent-minded Washington electorate is unused to having two senators from the same party–especially from the minority party. Lots of otherwise reliable Democrat votes will be looking for an excuse to vote for the Republican next year, and a strong stand on the environment will give them that excuse.

Last night I attended a town hall meeting with state chairman Chris Vance which went very well. I was much more impressed with Vance than I have been in previous settings, and was even more pleased to hear him do more than defend his record. He admitted mistakes, and accepted good ideas when they were given to him.

That’s not to say he didn’t defend his record a bit. One thing he pointed out that I did not realize is that George Nethercutt, despite the fact that he was beaten like a bongo drum, recieved a higher percentage of votes than any other Republican running against and incumbent Democrat in a state John Kerry won. (Vance also admitted that the Nethercutt campaign had serious problems–among them, running on the Iraq War in an extremely anti-war state.)

More interesting was what Vance called the biggest mistake made by the state party, a point I heartily agree with him on–the State Party did not push legislative candidates to hitch themselves to Dino’s wagon. If more legislative candidates had run not as Republicans, but as “Dino Rossi Republicans,” I don’t think we would have lost the Senate, and, in fact, I’d guess we would have picked up seats in both houses. Hindsight is, of course, 20/20, but the lack of unity was something I was frustrated with through the entire campaign. That said, the post-recount unity of the Republican party pretty well assures us that this will probably not happen in the 2006 election. Additionally, Vance has charged vice-chair Fredi Simpson to head up a committee to craft a new “Contract with Washington” that will help the party speak with a more unified voice this time.

Another good thing came out of the meeting last night. Sparked by a comment from the audience, Vance pledged to put together a list of the innovative things that county parties are doing to build the party that don’t cost the party any money, and then send that list to every county in the state, strongly encouraging them to implement some or all of them. Examples mentioned in the meeting were Republican Roundtable and Republican Radio in Snohomish County, and the newly created SPARK groups in King County.

While I was less than pleased that Vance was reelected for a third term, it may yet work out for the best. He’s certainly a better party chair now than he was when he began, and hopefully his experience will begin to pay some dividends (Vance noted that, having only begun his third two-year term, he’s already the 9th most experienced State Chair in the nation).

Whatever the case, it’s time to unite behind the party and channel the great amount of frustrated Republican energy into a powerful campaign to make Operation: Red Washington a reality.

After thinking long and hard, considering not making an endorsement, doing some research, and hearing from each of the four candidates for Republican Party State Chair, I’ve decided who to endorse for that position. This obviously isn’t going to shift the course of the election on Saturday, but I firmly believe that the grassroots (i.e., those of us Republicans who don’t get a vote in this thing) should be more involved in the debate over who should be running the state party.

My endorsement is of both Mark Hulst of Mount Vernon and Rose Strong of Newcastle. I suggest that the two of them team up, pooling the votes that have been committed to each of them, with whoever has the most votes becoming Chairman, and the other becoming Vice-Chair. (I believe that, at the moment, that would make Hulst the Chair, but obviously cannot be certain.) The two of them strike a remarkably good balance that would be very healthy for the party: he’s a man, she’s a woman; he’s white, she’s black; he’s rural, she’s urban; he has a great deal of experience in local politics, she has a great deal of experience in national politics. But for all those differences, their beliefs about what the party need to do are remarkably similar.

If you go back and read the interviews I did with each of them (linked at the beginning of the last paragraph), you will see that many of their answers were very similar. In particular, their thoughts on the role of the party chairman, the strengths of the party, the divisions within the party, and the immediate steps the party must take are nearly identical. Conveniently, I heartily agree with them on those issues as well.

Mark Hulst, in particular, has impressed me. Part of this is the fact that he’s the only one of the candidates that I’ve actually met–but the only reason I’ve actually met him is that he has made a concerted effort to reach out to the grassroots of the party. When I met him, at a legislative district meeting last month, he told a story that gave me a good sense of his goals and abilities. When he first became the head of the Skagit County Republicans eight years ago, he attended meetings of the Mainstream Republicans and the Christian Coalition, and sketched his vision for the party there. Immediately afterwards, each group broke up and merged with the county party as a whole. That sort of thing–bringing Outsiders into the Core–is what is happening to the Republican Party at the national level, and what needs to happen at the state level.

Sharon Bumala’s inability to respond to my questions–unlike every other candidate–obviously did not impress me. It implies that she doesn’t have a good understanding of or respect for blogs, which have emerged as a very important player in state politics. But beyond that, her campaign doesn’t strike me as terribly convincing. Her tag line is “experience really does matter.” And it certainly does, and she’s got plenty (though mostly not with winning campaigns). But if experience were the most important thing, then we’d just keep Chris Vance around. Her candidacy seems like mainly a plea to the state party to pay attention to southern Washington–which I certainly hope it does.

Speaking of Chris Vance, he put forth a good defense of his tenure–but I just don’t think it’s enough to overcome the truly lousy tenure that it’s been (more details here and here). Vance has refused to own up to these failures, and even insists that he has “never seen our Party more united.” In regards to Dino Rossi, that’s certainly true–but it’s not at all true on a broader level. If it were, Vance wouldn’t have three opponents and have a serious chance of losing his job. We need someone with a clean slate to come in and harness the temporary unity brought through the current crisis.

Additionally, Vance’s demeanor is ill-suited to reintroduce Republicans to Washington. He’s a loud, bombastic and very blunt man, which is fine as far as it goes. But it does not endear him to the majority of Washingtonians, and more importantly, it does nothing to fight the “angry white man” stereotypes imposed on us. We need a better diplomat at the helm.

Last, Vance has been overly forceful as a chairman, most significantly in the realm of policy, cutting off candidates from running on important aspects of the Republican platform. Consider this statement from 2002:

“We’re going to cajole and pester candidates to have the right kind of message,” he said. “None of this means they have to say things they don’t believe in.”

So far, so good–I’ve advocated similar things in the past. But Vance goes on:

“But if they want to run for the Legislature and their top three issues are property rights, excess regulation of the business community and abortion, I ain’t helping them because they are going to lose. They better be talking about quality-of-life issues.”

Excuse me? Abortion, I understand–to a point; this is a diverse state, and running on abortion is perfectly legitimate for a Republican in a conservative part–but cutting out property rights and deregulation would be (and has been) suicide. I had been wondering why Republicans didn’t immediately jump all over the radical left-wing Critical Areas Ordinance passed by King County just before the election, as suggested by some.

If you read the entire Seattle Times article from 2002 (archived, so free registration is required), you’ll note that Vance never outlines what Republican issues Republicans should talk about. That lack of message most noticably doomed George Nethercutt, but also the many other Republicans across the state who didn’t have the good fortune to be either popular incumbent moderates or running against someone incompetent. I haven’t heard Vance admit he was wrong about this (or for that matter, ever, about anything–in the interview, he claimed the Republican Party didn’t make “any big mistakes” this election cycle, which certainly doesn’t bode well for the future if we ever do make a mistake) and unless he does, there’s no way I can support his reelection.

Vance’s argument that we shouldn’t change leaders in the middle of the fight for a revote doesn’t hold water. The election contest is going to be decided in the courts–whether or not we have the same chairman is not going to affect the judges’ decisions. Rehiring Vance solely because of the revote fight is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. In six months, the Rossi-Gregoire thing will be decided for good or ill. But we’ll still have the same chairman. We can’t afford to think short-term.

I want to see some fresh blood running the party, and I think Mark Hulst and Rose Strong can provide it. I hope they take this idea under consideration, because, by pooling their talents (and learning from Vance’s mistakes), the two of them might just be able to make a Red Washington a reality.

Unlike Chris Vance, Mark Hulst and Rose Strong, candidate for State Party Chair Sharon Bumala was unable to find the time to answer my 10 questions. She did, however, send me a little information about herself, and she has written an an introductory essay available here. I will attempt to synthesize her candidacy, hopefully being fair and evenhanded.

Bumala’s slogan for her candidacy is “experience really does matter,” and she’s running on her 26 years of work as a Republican activist, fundraiser and consultant. Hailing from Battheground–near Vancouver–she’s served as a manager or director in many campaigns, from Steve Forbe’s presidential campaign to all of Linda Smith’s campaigns, with many smaller ones here and there. She’s been on dozens of committees, both Republican and otherwise, and has run for State Senate.

Her goals fall largely into three categories: elections, party organization, candidate management and geography. As far as elections go, she wants to move the Primary election, purge the voter rolls of illegal voters and train Republican poll watchers and workers how to best “protect the sanctity of the polls.” At the party level, she wants to make sure that every legislative and congressional district has a committee, that every Republican ad hoc organization is trained on all aspects of campaigns. At the candidate level, she wants to groomcandidates for all levels of government, and to throw more fundraising and Party support behind legislative candidates. Geographically, she is naturally concerned that the party be active in all 39 counties, and particularly that the party communicates with Oregon media that broadcast to the counties that border that state.

This is the third Operation: Red Washington interview with candidates for State Party Chairman. Answering the questions this time is Rose Strong of Newcastle. Previous interviews were with former Skagit Party Chair Mark Hulst and current State Chair Chris Vance.

Rose Strong is a party activist from the Seattle area with a lengthy list of accomplishments. She served in the first Bush administration, has served as a delegate to two different Republican conventions, chaired the African-American Coalition for Bush in Washington State and is currently a political strategist for Black Republican Women International. She ran against Chris Vance for the chairmanship in 2003. Incidentally, she is also the mother of Mack Strong, a fullback for the Seattle Seahawks. Her campaign can be reached at teschsmith@earthlink.net.

1. What do you see as the main task(s) of the state party chair?
The main tasks of the State Party Chairman in my opinion are:

• Fundraising – should include membership, corporate and private donations. We should set up endowments in the name of distinguished Republicans living and deceased who have made outstanding contributions to the Party;
• Candidate recruitment – we should recruit those persons interested in running for office on every level of elective office, to include non-partisan positions. A Candidate Recruitment Chair should be appointed by each of the 39 counties to coordinate and vet each candidate;
• Voter Registration –‑ a Voter Registration Chair should be appointed by each of the 39 counties to do grass-root level voter registration. Registration of Republicans in Washington State ranked in the basement when compared with other states nationally in this election cycle. State House candidates should carry voter registration forms to register eligible residents as they canvass neighborhoods, malls, business establishments, etc. They should also keep their own personal accounts of the number of people they registered. The same should be done by others seeking office;

Atmosphere of Unity ‑ The State Party Chair must provide an atmosphere of unity among Republicans and set the tone for this to be accomplished. We cannot afford to throw people out of the Party. Eventually, we will not have anyone left because we will never have 100% agreement among all of us;

• The Chairman should, along with leaders of the House and Senate, do “fly-around” media events across the State to promote and galvanize support for positions taken by Republicans in the Legislature (done in all media markets);
• The Chairman should provide an atmosphere of transparency and openness of State Party books and doors;
• The Chairman should set goals and timetables with measurable results and goals.

2. One of the de facto roles of the state party chair is to be the “face of the party.” How do you think the public perceives you, as that face?
May main goal is to establish credibility as the Chair of the Party by “saying what I mean” and “meaning what I say.” I will conduct myself in a professional and knowledgeable manner. Additionally, my experience as an elected official taught me how important it is to establish relationships with the communications media (written, TV and radio) which allowed me to articulate the Party’s position on issues based upon whether or not they perceived me as a credible spokesperson. Relationships are important, and media people are no different.

3. What do you see as the current primary strengths and weaknesses of the Party as a whole?
Strengths: I believe that Washington Republicans adopted a Platform that can be lived with by Party members as well as attract others to the Party.
Weaknesses: The Party’s seeming inability to take what it believes in to the level where not only those within the party can unify behind the Platform, but invite others to join us as well. If the Republican Party is to become a majority in this state, it has to reach out to people from diverse backgrounds and welcome them. Traditionally, small business people are an integral part of our Party. Our natural constituencies such as these individuals, plus outreach to various minorities, labor unions and educators must increase.

4. What do you see as the most significant division within the Republican Party?
The most significant division within the Party as I see it is “all of the different kinds of Republicans”. We should all be Republicans who agree 80% on core values about what we believe in; and disagree 20% of time over other differences. The present atmosphere of “turning on each” on some issues (publicly at that) is counterproductive. An atmosphere, led by the Chairman, must be creative and worked on to make all Republicans feel wanted, needed and at “home” regardless of some differences. The late Lee Atwater, whom I knew, and others in my former state of Georgia worked diligently to transform the South into what is presently called a “red state,” and they believed in the “big tent” philosophy. That is the only way we will make Washington “red”.

5. In 2004, the State Republican Party failed to unseat a single incumbent in legislative or statewide races. Why do you think that happened?
Quite simply, we were “outsmarted” by the Democrats. To have had attractive Presidential, gubernatorial and Attorney General candidates, along with other incumbents, and not only lose the Senate but lose additional seats in the House is nothing short of a “tsunami and earthquake”. The State Party Chairman must have a close working relationship with House and Senate members and work along with them in communicating our Party’s message to voters. The message must be clear and concise.

I know the importance of working with leaders who mentor candidates running for the House. Congressman John Linder of Georgia (who was at that time a State Representative) mentored me and many other candidates in 1978. Though I did not win my race, many other Republicans across the State of Georgia did. He and others from the Local Elections Division of the Republican National Committee trained us. Additionally, the RNC helped those of us who proved that we were “serious” candidates by meeting fundraising and organizational goals. 1978 was the year Republicans began to slowly turn the tide in Georgia’s General Assembly and to become the majority party it is today.

The Washington State Party Chairman has to work with Legislative leaders and provide the same kind of leadership and mentoring that Congressman Linder provided to help our Georgia candidates win. Fundraising goes right along with organization when running. Coordination of a Republican message is extremely necessary so that legislators, the State Party Chairman and candidates are singing off the same sheet of music. It should have been articulated right down to the “grassroots” level that to build a solid foundation for taking over the State House demanded attention, especially to those running at that level. It was and is the responsibility of the State Party Chairman to provide fundraising and organizational advice and assistance to candidates.

6. In a very general sense, without going into specifics, what is the best way for a generally conservative party to compete in a generally liberal state without selling out its principles?

The bottom line among Republicans is that we believe our core issues are less taxes, less government interference, family values, strong defense, personal responsibility and accountability, and an educational system which provides an opportunity for all of our children to receive a good education. Having said that, those values are held by a majority of the residents of Washington State.

What has happened is that Republicans have allowed Democrats to define us. Further, we have not provided the outreach in traditional Democrat-voting areas to counteract perceptions broadcast by the Democrat Party and the media. A Republican presence in these areas is noticeably absent. Consequently, they/we view the task of overcoming these perceptions as insurmountable and we have basically ceased to provide alternative images. But, it is not an impossible task. Many of King and Pierce County’s Democrat-voting areas broke ranks and voted for Dino Rossi in the governor’s race through the efforts made by the Minority Outreach Project that I co-chaired in King County. I worked with Dr. Charles Horne, President of the Pacific Northwest Black Chamber of Commerce in Tacoma, and Pastor Aaron Haskins of the City Church (my church), who also serves as Executive Director of The Coalition for Community Development and Renewal in Seattle.

7. What do you think was the most costly mistake made by the State Republican Party in the 2004 cycle?
In addition to a lack of support for State House candidates, there should have been anticipation that if the vote for governor was close Democrats would use their “old courthouse politics” tactic to win the election.

I know that the Southern states had to figure out ways to clean up voter registration lists to ensure, as much as is possible, that dead people and others not eligible to vote did not participate. I was appointed to work in minority communities to aggressively help clean up illegal activities, especially as they related to poll managers and absentee ballots. The problems usually occurred in poor minority communities, and Democrats were very adept at “creative” balloting. I even threatened to bring in federal troops in some of the precincts for which I was responsible. Regardless of the attractiveness of candidates and messages, if the Chairman of the Party does not understand the “war” Republicans are in on election day in a state like this, we will continue to lose.

8. What do you think is the most important thing for the Republicans to do in the short term to be competitive statewide?
Good candidate recruitment, which should begin immediately and not wait until 2006, lots of fundraisers, unify the Party, and aggressive voter registration that must commence immediately.

9.What do you think is the most important thing for the Republicans to do in the long term to be competitive statewide?
Raise money for State House candidates and develop an understanding of how important it is to establish coalitions with non-traditional voters who usually vote for Democrat candidates.

10. Briefly, what accomplishment of yours shows best why you should be State Chair?
Just since the beginning of 2003, I have:

• helped Republican clubs and many county party organizations to raise money;
• formed coalitions with organizations and individuals in strategic Democratic voting areas, which resulted in siphoning off Democrat votes for our candidates;
• coordinated voter registration with churches, which produced hundreds of new voters whom I know voted for Republicans;
• chaired Bush/Cheney for African Americans in Washington State and had endorsements for the ticket from African American pastors and NFL players with the Seahawks;
• emceed and raised thousands of dollars for Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Conrad Lee for Congress, Walter Neary for City Council in Lakewood, and many other candidates;
• facilitated the inclusion of NFL players in the endorsement of Bush/Cheney’s Athletes For Bush;
• was elected as an At-Large Delegate to the Republican National Convention; and
• participated in get-out-the-vote on Election Day.

If you would like to learn more about Rose Strong, she has written an opinion piece here. I am hoping to recieve answers to these questions from who I think is the final candidate, Sharon Bumala of Battleground, within the week. The race will likely not be an open-and-shut case as some may believe, as three elected officials have announced their endorsement of Mark Hulst. If a particular candidate has particularly impressed you, please contact your county party to determine who represents you on the executive board, and contact them with a request that they support your candidate.