The Flag of the World

The debate tonight was not exactly a well-oiled machine. Though it had not been noted in any of the media I saw or heard about it, the debate was put on by the Reagan Wing, a very conservative group that is actively hostile to Chris Vance (and, in the intrests of full disclosure, isn’t crazy about yours truly). This made for some very interesting occurences. The event was a unique picture of the condition of the Washington State Republican Party behind the scenes, though how accurately the debate itself actually portrayed the party as a whole remains to be seen.

The debate didn’t coalesce quite the way it was expected to. The evening itself was not originally planned as a debate, and some people were unaware that a debate was happening at all. The original plan was for it to be a reception, a time for members of the executive committee to meet each other and the candidates. As such, the debate itself started very slowly. Rose Strong and Vance were each hosting their own event, and Sharon Bumala had dropped outof the race yesterday, endorsing Mark Hulst.

Vance was never, I think, terribly excited about attending a debate that was hosted by an organization that loathes him and has specifically called for him to not be reelected, and moderated by Doug Parris, the head of that organization and someone who sincerely and deeply dislikes Vance. Once Vance did appear, it became clear that such hesitation was very logical. Once Vance entered the room, Parris immediately devolved the debate into a rehashing of old grudges, and that was, unfortunately, the MO for much of the “debate.” At one point, over half the room, furious, threatened to walk out unless Parris would sit down and allow the candidates to speak. Good discussion of what the party needs to do to win elections did happen, but such discussion was continually giving way to people airing their complaints (some valid, some not) about various things Vance had done, from things he had said to the press, to the way funds are dispersed to legislative candidates.

The real interaction, though, should not get lost in the mess. The first real question asked each candidate for specific things they would do to grow the party. Vance’s answer boiled down to winning the revote, finding a good senatorial candidate, and finding good candidates for Congress and the legislature. Hulst’s main answer, and his message throughout the night was that Republicans need to have a “clear, concise message,” referencing the “Contract with Washington” from 1994 as a good example. He also described the need to recruit a good farm team at the lowest levels that can be eventually brought up to the higher levels. Strong’s points were candidate recruitment–specifically, institing a candidate recruitment chair in each county–voter registration–noting that Republicans in Washington had a very low level of new registrations–expanding the party–specifically into minority groups and neighborhoods–and forming a clear Republican message. She also pointed out that we will need more “black faces in King County” if we are going to be able to clean up the voter rolls there.

A question that was continually asked, mainly by members of the Reagan Wing, was about the “11th Commandment,” an agreement that has to be signed by Republican candidates to recieve party support, pledging to play nice with the other candidates. This has been a bone of contention mainly in the Reed Davis fiasco last year, but also in several other local races. Eventually, some good thoughts came out of it, when members of the Reagan Wing stopped accusing Vance of being a dictator. Vance admitted that there were problems with the rule, but said that the executive board could not agree on something to replace it. Strong took the opportunity to endorse the idea of contested Republican primaries (something Republicans here have been deeply afraid of since the Ellen Craswell fiasco eight years ago) arguing that they provide an opportunity to grow the party, as multiple candidates reach out to communities they have relationships with, and then ask those communities to support whatever candidate wins. Hulst said that anything in the public record should be on the table, and that the State party should keep its nose out of county races.

Vance eventually left to go back the the reception he was hosting, leaving Strong and Hulst to describe what they think should be done in consistently Democrat areas. They all pointed out that there needs to be a balance between spending money on candidates that can win, and preventing Democrats from walking away with any areas, sending money to competitive races. Hulst emphasized that the best way to win in heavily Democrat areas is to build a “farm team,” by having Republicans run for low level and nonpartisan offices, earning the trust of the electorate, before running for higher office. Strong said that the best way to win in heavily blue areas is to build relationships with community groups, and to run candidates from within those communities, and throwing full support behind them, demonstrating that the Republican Party truly does care about groups we are purported not to care about.

There might have been more good things to come out of the debate, except that it was designed by the Reagan Wing to be a “get Chris Vance” event. They did not appear to have planned much beyond that, and it is a shame. Hopefully, in the future a mechanism can be developed by the Party itselfso that when there is a certain level of undecided voters, these debates can happen in a more structured and neutral setting.

The debate solidified my support for the Hulst-Strong pairing I suggested earlier in the week. Strong is a very good orator, and Hulst understands the need for a unified, clear message. Their ideas are very similar, and where they differ they are not contradictory, but complementary. We’ll see tommorow if that pairing is possible.

One thing that is clear is that Vance’s assertion that the Republican Party has never been this unified is either untrue or worthless. There was a great deal of frustration and dissention in that room tonight, and while Vance isn’t the devil some would make him out to be, he does bear much of the blame for the disunity there. Whoever is elected tommorow, all Republicans–moderates, conservatives and “other”–will need to rally around them for this next election cycle. As Jim Geraghty points out, the state party here has an incredible opportunity–but if evey Republican even turns into the resentment-fest that occured tonight, we’ll be unable to take advantage of it.

Posted by Timothy Goddard at 11:04 pm 1/28/2005 | Northwest Politics

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. To comment, please register. No profanity, please. Non-family-friendly words will be changed to amusing euphemisms as suits the author.