by Carl, 02/19/2013, 8:01 AM

I don’t know why I didn’t get this fundraising appeal from the state party.

On the eve of Washington State Democrats’ annual crab feed in Olympia, the Dems have set out to feed State Sen. Rodney Tom, D-Medina, to the wolves.

Tom is Senate majority leader, head of a coalition of 23 Republicans and two dissident Democrats (including himself) that has taken tenuous control of the Legislature’s upper chamber and started to move a conservative agenda of GOP-backed bills.

“We’ve shown State Senator Rodney Tom the door. Now, it’s time to send him packing,” Democratic State Chairman Dwight Pelz said in a fundraising letter sent out Friday. It asks Democrats across the state to give $5 (or more) to a “Rodney Tom Retirement Project.”

Feed to the wolves is a pretty harsh of a way to describe fundraising to help recruit someone who will caucus with the Democrats. I mean compared to the people who will probably be kicked off social services in Tom’s budget, having to retire to his Medina home with more chances to make money doesn’t seem too bad.

But more to the point, it sounds like a good use of money for the Dems. If you’d like to contribute to the Rodney Tom Retirement Project, you can. It’s a Democratic seat, it ought to be held by a Democrat.

28 Responses to “Rodney Tom Retirement Project”

1. Serial conservative spews:

Dems showed him the door?

That’s like a jilted wife filing for divorce after she was left for another woman, then claiming she was the one who initiated the breakup.

2. rhp6033 spews:

I’d love to see some polling in Rodney Tom’s district. Medina is a bit of a puzzle, both sides go there for their fundraising.

3. Serial conservative spews:

@ 2

As the people in his district grow more wealthy between now and the next election, and the state holds the line on expenditures, the impetus to bounce him from office will be…

What, exactly?

4. Angelus Novus spews:

“…the impetus to bounce him from office will be…

What, exactly?”

I’m sure that a politician who is this much of a deceitful, open-faced liar and who is, in addition, a self made real-estate millionaire, doesn’t have enough icing on the cake to completely cover the flaws and corruption.

Stay tuned….

5. Ten Years After spews:

The important thing we all need to know is where, when wnd how much is the Democrats’ crab feed. Let’s not let politics interfere with a good crab feast!

6. Roger Rabbit spews:

@4 Tom “made” his money in real estate? That, by itself, defines him as a bankster.

7. Roger Rabbit spews:

@1 No, that’s like a guy befriending you, and then turning out to be a KGB spy.

8. Serial conservative spews:

@ 7

Wouldn’t it be like a guy from the espionage division of the CIA befriending you, and then it turns out he’s a double agent?

It’s not like the guy was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, and yet he was elected by his constituents. He probably still got a fair number of GOP votes.

9. rhp6033 spews:

# 8: More speculation. I’d like to see some actual polling.

Prior voting patterns aren’t always good predictors when a politician changes parties. Usually party-switching is done when there is a significant swing in party loyalties with a district – either because of tidal swings in party political fortunes (Reagan 1980, Obama 2008), or due to re-districting, or vulnerability to a primary challenge. A politican who changes parties in such circumstances has usually done lots of polling in advance of the announcement.

But someone who easily changes parties might seem to be without a moral anchor, someone who easily shifts too and from with the wind – or just downright opportunistic and deceitful. A politician who changes parties quickly to take advantage of an opportunity (bribe?) offered by the other side may not have had time to do much polling, and may think that they know their district well enough to be able to make the switch. If it turns out the politician doesn’t know his district as well as he thought he did, he might find himself out of office at the next election.

10. rhp6033 spews:

Of course, the state Democratic Party needs to mount a full-court challenge to Tom’s re-election campaign, regardless of whether Tom might win anyway. They need to send a message that there are consequences to politicians who run as Democrats and then switch sides. Tom may well have to work harder at keeping his seat than he ever did before.

11. Serial conservative spews:

@ 9

But someone who easily changes parties might seem to be without a moral anchor…

And then there are those, like Reagan, who switched in search of that anchor.

Perhaps ask yourself why Tom wasn’t rejected by WA Dems when he switched from the GOP if his switch was a sign of moral inadequacy. Why did the Dems want that type of inadequacy in their party, rhp?

12. Ekim spews:

@11

Especially when the GOP clearly loves and embraces moral inadequacy.

Just like John McCain.

13. Serial conservative spews:

@ 12

That would be one tortured explanation for McCain’s vote on Hagel. Another would be that he did it to help his good friend Lindsey Graham.

14. rhp6033 spews:

# 11: A politician who switches sides once is explainable. But one who does it more often than that seems like he’s in a revolving door.

And yes, the Democrats have learned from that mistake, and probably won’t be repeating it any time soon.

15. Roger Rabbit spews:

@8 He ran as a Democrat, was elected as a Democrat, then stabbed the Democratic voters of his district in the back. People like that are called “traitors,” my friend, and that’s how we’re going to treat him because that’s what he is. He’s like a guy who gives computer encryption codes to the Chinese.

16. Roger Rabbit spews:

@13 McCain is a Republican and we expect him to vote like one. And Republicans are habitually more interested in playing politics than what’s good for the country. No surprises there.

17. Moderate Man spews:

Who would be the logical contenders to replace him on the Democratic side? Are there any viable Republican candidates to fear?

18. ArtFart spews:

Am I incorrect in thinking the party somehow got blindsided on this one? Seems a little like an inversion of their not taking Richard Pope’s pre-election party switch seriously and blowing a chance to replace Jean Hague on the King County Council.

19. ArtFart spews:

@16 McCain seems to be falling into a pattern of trying to have it both ways, initially mounting a token defense of those from across the aisle who he personally likes and then folding under pressure and stabbing them in the back to satisfy his own party leadership. That’s a good way to wind up with half the people you know thinking you’re an asshole and the rest thinking you a fool.

20. MikeBoyScout spews:

@3 Serial Reneger,

Would you care to wager with me again on an election outcome?

You don’t meet the obligation if you lose, so what’s your risk?

I’ll give you 3:1 that Rodney Tom is defeated.

21. Serial conservative spews:

@ 14, 16

Check out what Massachusetts’ state legislature has done, I think three times now, to either permit or prevent the appointment of an individual to vacant office by a governor, depending on the party of the governor at the time the vacancy occurred.

Then talk to me about consistency and decision-making for political purposes.

22. Serial conservative spews:

@ 20

You’re kidding, right?

I paid off on our last bet, you’ve been a jerk about it for six weeks and counting claiming I didn’t, and you want me to go again?

3:1 is seriously tempting.

23. MikeBoyScout spews:

@20 Serial Reneger,


I paid off on our last bet

With whom did you wager? Was it me?
Did you write a check in the amount of $1,000 made payable to Northwest Harvest and mail it to Darryl?


you’ve been a jerk about it for six weeks and counting claiming I didn’t,

The last election was considerably more than 6 weeks ago. I believe the election was called on Tuesday November 6. How many weeks have gone by?

I’m not “claiming” you have not met your obligation for the wager you lost, LOSER.

I asked you and you replied on 02/15/2013 at 12:17 pm

“No, I did not.”

24. MikeBoyScout spews:

@20 Serial Reneger,

You’re kidding, right?

No, I’m not kidding.
$1,000 of your grifted dough to my $3,000 that Rodney Tom is not re-elected.
Terms are to write a check in the amount owed made payable to Northwest Harvest and mail it to Darryl.

Got the sack? Or you just going to continue to blow foul wind?

25. Angelus Novus spews:

re 8: “It’s not like the guy was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, and yet he was elected by his constituents. He probably still got a fair number of GOP votes.”

Maybe. But when Tom put his finger in the political wind, it seemed as if the wind was blowing in a Democratic direction, as indeed it was. I doubt if Rodney Tom will be getting any Democratic votes next time around when he is forced to run under the true colors of his anal retentive Republican banner.

So, with additional pressure from the statewide Dems, there is little political future for Rodney Tom in WA state. Maybe he should run as the second member of the Joe Lieberman party in Connecticut.

26. MikeBoyScout spews:

@25 Angelus Novus,
Not only will his vote total from Democrats be low, MANY Democrats will be opening their wallets and burning thru shoe leather to defeat this HorsesAss.

27. Steve spews:

@26 Sheldon will find a new climate out here as well. He deceived every Democrat who voted for him. Sheldon is Sheldon, of course. The intolerable deceit is in how this time our votes for Sheldon ended up giving right-wing extremists the senate. He no doubt did some math, but the double-dipper likely miscalculated the depth and breadth of the negative response of the people who once voted for him.

28. Roger Rabbit spews:

@21 I don’t know what the Massachusetts legislature did and I don’t care. I hope they screwed Republicans good. It’s high time Democrats behaved like Republicans. We should do to them what they do to us.