Earlier this morning Lee asked why Palin-backed tea partier Clint Didier couldn’t even come close to achieving in Washington state the same sort of stunning primary election upset as even nuttier Christine O’Donnell won last night in Delaware, and perhaps the short answer is: been there, done that.
One of the consequences of the Republican wave of 1994 is that it swept far-right-wing Evangelical Christians into control of the party in many regions of the state, a movement that prompted far-right-wing, Evangelical Christian Ellen Craswell to seek the GOP gubernatorial nomination in 1996. Riding this renewed surge of right-wing energy, and employing a grassroots strategy reminiscent of today’s Tea Party, Craswell edged out the relatively moderate, Republican establishment candidate Dale Forman in the primary, only to move on to a crushing 16-point defeat against Gary Locke in the general.
I guess blunt campaign rhetoric like describing gay rights as “special rights for sodomites” didn’t go over too well with Washington’s more moderate electorate.
During the next few years Washington’s Christian right continued to fight for control of state and local Republican Party organizations, leading to the whittling away of GOP majorities, and culminating in 2000’s disastrous gubernatorial nomination of ultra-conservative John Carlson, and his near 20-point blowout loss to Gov. Locke despite a less than impressive first term. This ultimately led to the hollowing out of the state party over the past decade, despite the efforts of former chairman Chris Vance to impose party discipline and nominate more mainstream-ish candidates.
Indeed, the once solidly red suburban districts swung blue, not because the electorate became dramatically more liberal, but because the former “Dan Evans Republicans” were now running as Democrats.
The point is, while there were many factors that led to a string of Democratic victories in statewide elections and an almost unbroken series of legislative pickups over the past seven cycles, the roots of the Democrats’ recent resurgence can be traced back to their devastating defeat in 1994, and the seeds of self-destruction planted by the overconfident far-right-wing of their Republican rivals.
The Ellen Craswellization of the WSRP proved a total bust, and the party has been paying the price ever since. That’s a lesson Delaware Republicans are about to learn, but which even many of the more radical elements of our own GOP seem to now pragmatically, if reluctantly acknowledge. Indeed, perhaps the only thing worse in the long term for national Republicans than failing to gain control of Congress due to Tea Party hubris, might be for them to win, and be forced, like Washington state Republicans before them, to learn this lesson the hard way.
Just sayin…;-)
http://horsesass.org/?p=29704#comment-1022668
Yup! Plus, the demographics have shifted in WA to support more moderate candidates.
The Dems learned from their mistakes and lost a spine in the process..
Now it’s up to Republicans like Bill Gates Sr. to do some of what needs to be done. And not nearly enough.
Oh well progressive change comes slowly. Too slowly.
western wa voters like pro-choice permanent war policies of the dems too much to take a chance on white supremacists.
3 – I correct my previous statement.
The Dems learned from their defeat in 1994 and went on to make new mistakes.
Oh well I suppose being in the majority makes it all worth it – to them anyway.
You need to go back two more years. The craziness started in Washington in 1992, when the Pat Robertson forces took over the precinct caucuses, then the county conventions and ultimately the State Convention. It was a total fiasco; the platform ended up with everything from Aliens (outer space, not Mexican) to the gold standard.
Believe it or not, Kirby Wilber was the “moderate” trying to keep these people in line. I was there, and it was there that I said adios to the Republican Party. Still a conservative, still want a smaller government, but not at that cost. To put it in Goldyease: “Those people were fucking nuts!”
@6
Great post!
I’m, very much, not a conservative. But, I do think that classical conservatives, that actually talk the talk AND walk the walk are good folks and have a lot of cool stuff to bring to our communities.
I also tend to be fiscally and socially conservative, in the grand scheme of things.
But just about every time I get upset with the Democrats and consider moving toward the Republican party, the Republicans get back in office and I’m reminded why I can’t – ever – call myself a Republican.
You neglected to mention the other factor in Craswell’s being nominated for the gov race: WA voters still had the ability to vote in either party’s primary race and I can tell you a WAD of progressives voted for Craswell in it, myself included.
Ah, the good old days when you could set up the general election candidates in such a way that your candidate had a great chance of winning when you got the most extreme opponent possible thru the primary for them to easily knock down. heh heh
Well Goldy gotta call ya on this one. How about we go back about thirty years? That is when a bunch of people on the religious side of things decided to get involved and start running for school boards nationally. Yup looks like a lot of strange stuff happenin’ these days but the seeds were planted long ago.
Any scientist will tell you that you learn more from experiments which don’t work, than you learn from the ones that do. But each time the Republicans get booted out of office, they seem to think that their mistake was in not moving even further to the right. At the rate they are going, Attila the Hun is going to look like a liberal to them.
@10
Exactly!
It all started when Reagan let the crazies in and used them to get elected. Even though he was much more moderate on social issues than they were.
Unfortunately, they were unleashed upon our society and we can’t get rid of them yet.
If we had a closed primary system like most states, Didier would have had a chance against Rossi. At the very least, Rossi would have had to campaign and debate Didier.
#13 is right. Its all about the process. The top 2 system made it virtually impossible for an unknown to compete against someone with substantial statewide name ID. In addition, Dino is not viewed as a “RINO” by the base. He is popular with the conservative base.
“Tea Party hubris, might be for them to win, and be forced, like Washington state Republicans before them, to learn this lesson the hard way.”
If I’ve learned anything over the years as a moderate R trying to stay engaged with the party….it’s that the far-right folks like Craswell, the increasing number of myopic Ron-ulans at precinct and committee meetings, and ADD maverick Palinites NEVER learn the lesson. They sputter a bit after a failure, pray real hard, but then try the same thing again the next time.
The Republican party won’t implode because of the extreme cases will just cluster together in a smaller and smaller nucleus. It’s only when the moderates and fed-up of the party…and maybe some centrist D’s get together and decide that both the Nanny Democrat Moonbats and Fundie Republican Wingnuts ARE the problem and purge them from the parties…or make a new party.
Matty @15:
It worked in the 1820s and 1830s (Democratic-Republicans dropped the second half, Whigs basically replaced Federalists), and again in the 1850s (bye bye Whigs, hello Republicans), but that’s pretty much the extent of it.
That doesn’t preclude such a reorganization, of course, but we’ve been operating as D and R for more than a century and a half. That’s well over 2/3 of the entire existence of the nation. Seems to me that the labels can be (and often have been) redefined in terms of the values and policies they represent, but after all these years it’s going to be really tough to toss either of them aside for a new national party.
“after all these years it’s going to be really tough to toss either of them aside for a new national party.”
I agree, but wanted to include the option to contrast it with the easier and more pragmatic option of tossing, alienating, and/or generally ignoring the whackos from existing parties. I like people who cross aisles where party is second to nation, state, or community.
Moderates can usually identify each other and band together when a loony is waving their hands wildly and a casual eye roll indicates a caucus for the next vote. wink-wink ;)
Wow Goldy, I doubt that the term “moderate” (even modified by “relatively”) has EVER been applied to Dale Foreman. I think it would have been more accurate to say “the comparatively moderate Dale Foreman.” Even that makes me cringe because there was nothing at all moderate, or even very pleasant, about Dale Foreman.
Flawed historical analogy. The 1996 GOP primary was fractured due to eight candidates running. Dale Foreman and Norm Maleng split the “moderate” vote with 13 and 9 percent respectively. Craswell only won the Republican primary with 15 percent of the vote. This was in large part due to a widely publicized dirty tricks campaign by Democrats who were encouraged to vote for Craswell in our open primary. The thought was it didn’t matter whether Gary Locke, Norm Rice or Jay Inslee was the Democrat nominee.
The other flaw in your argument is that Craswell ran on social issues. The Tea Party movement (whether you like it or not) is focused primarily on fiscal issues and reducing the size and spending of the federal government.
1992, @6? 1988 …
@6 The Duke
Great to hear from somebody from that particular point of view and an insider’s take on it. Just out of curiosity what would be your prognostication for the future of the republican party and traditional conservatives? How does it play out ultimately?
Per Delaware I think O’Donnell’s win is an example/consequence of the atrophy of the republican party in that state. With a strong incumbent Senator Joe Biden in there for so many years so I don’t think the republicans ever really had a reason to seriously challenge the incumbent. I think the same can be said for Democratic senate candidates in Arizona (vs. McCain). And to an extent our own state’s republicans vs Patty Murray. The power of incumbency it worth a lot. It has implications for funding from the national committee and overall voter enthusiasm.
If people think you can’t win then they don’t want to vote for you. An often repeated self fulfilling prophecy in electoral politics.
@19
That is how I remember it too. Not sure about dirty tricks. But I remember that the primary was so fractured that Craswell squeaked in with a sufficient plurality but by no means a mandate or meaningful voting block. I always thought Ellen Craswell was a gift that gave us a mediocre governor Locke.
@21 Gordon
I really don’t know where our traditional party goes. I am disheartened that supposed moderates are supporting Dino (and Hans for that matter). The Republican party and our state wide elected Republicans are usually in two very different camps. Joel Pritchard once told me that he was never within 200 miles Party convention when they wrote a platform. He would usually show up, get booed, then go home (and get elected).
The last time anybody seriously shook up the Republican party was in 1965 when Dan Evans threw the John Birch Society out of the party. Everybody said it was going to ruin the party, that we had disenfranchised our base and that we would never win again. In short order we elected the AG, Sect. of State, Insurance Commissioner, and almost won the Lt. Governor’s race. Pretty heady time to be a moderate Republican. Of course none of the people I mentioned above would ever be elected in today’s climate. They are too liberal, too intellectual, and too nice.
Will this happen again? Don’t know, don’t see the Savior on the horizon. Waiting. . .
@15 Some current developments that reinforce my point the righties will never learn their lesson…and blame the slightly-less-righties for it. They just won’t ever get it.
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/.....e8e1dcaa54