While GOPolitburo Chair Chris Vance was anointing Mike McGavick’s brow with oil, the party faithful were not necessarily celebrating his unchallenged ascension to thrown of presumptive nominee. Indeed, according to an article in The Hill, there’s not much rank-and-file consensus over the “consensus candidate” to challenge US Senator Maria Cantwell. [GOP grassroots say they’re getting mowed down in Washington state]
Conservative activists in Washington state say GOP leaders in the nation’s capital and at state party headquarters are trying to anoint a candidate, sidelining the poll workers, phone-bank volunteers and precinct canvassers who form the backbone of the Republican Party
It remains to be seen if McGavick can technically avoid a primary fight, though Vance and his apparatchiks are doing their best to convince, cajole and threaten any substantive challengers into submission.
Sounds kind of like what Paul Berandt did to Alben when he annointed Dave Ross.
And I continue to wonder if McGavick, a man with a long record as an insurance industry lobbyist and executive is really the right person to run in WA state against Cantwell, a successful executive herself?
Ha ha! Thanks Goldy. Your concern about the Republicans is really touching.
“Cantwell, as successful executive herself”
Rolling on the floor laughing out loud. A disliked by peers, overpaid, under”saved” (squandered her payola money) yuppie.
Spare us
I don’t care who the senators from Washington are, just so long as they’re not Democrats.
pbj, you are so full of shit.
I don’t know why I bother to respond to such inane and counterfactual drooling, but…
Does a three-cornered primary election in which the winner receives fewer votes than the other two candidates combined look like an “anointment” to you? Granted, Berendt inserted Ross in the race very late in the game, a move that many Democrats didn’t appreciate, but Ross still had to battle and defeat a couple of highly credible candidates.
Compare that to the Republican US Senate primary, where Reed Davis wasn’t even permitted to address the GOP endorsement meeting.
Sounds kind of like what Paul Berandt did to Alben when he annointed Dave Ross.
Wrong. People don’t give him credit for it, but Berendt didn’t give Ross anything that Alben and Behrens-Benedict didn’t get.
N in Seattle,
I don’t know why I bother to respond to such inane and counterfactual drooling, but…
Uh probably because you know it is true and want to try to spin it.
Alben got pissed on pure and simple. He was in the reace from the beginning, not just some media darling with a talk show. Getting to speak at a party function is no consolation when you just got dumped on. In fact, it is more humiliation than anything else.
The Democrats are all atwitter over the public mention of the humiliating treatment Alben got when the party apparatchik kingmakers annointed little lord Dave Ross to be the candidate.
Alben probably had a better chance against Riechert, but he wasn;t the annointed one, so in order to shut him up they threw him the bine of speaking at a gathering. What a swell bunch of folks!
And undoubtedly, if Berendt *hadn’t* recruited Ross into the race, you’d be complaining about Democrats “annointed” *Alben* in the 8th CD…
pbj, why don’t you name one thing that Berendt gave to Ross that he didn’t give Alben and Behrens-Benedict?
I think Richard Pope should run for Senate.
pbj, you idiot…
I already noted that I thought Berendt was heavy-handed in putting Ross into the race. I know full well that Alben had been in the race for a long time, and I also know that Heidi Behrens-Benedict had run twice against Dunn without a shred of help from Berendt or the DNC. That’s not the point here.
The point is that it was still a solid three-way race, and that no one in the WA Dems tried to remove or silence the other candidates, as Chris Vance did to Reed Davis. Berendt’s “anointment” carries some weight, no doubt, but it’s likely that simple name recognition was the deciding factor in a low-visibility (compared to president, Senate, and governor) race.
That you can’t (I really mean won’t) acknowledge these most obvious of facts speaks volumes.
Alben had all the support but since he wasn’t a “chosen one” he was sidestepped.
I second DJ’s nomination… Richard Pope should challenge McGavick for the nomination. I’d vote for you Richard. In the primary.
Goldy,
I too am touched.
We have a Republican Party in this state where the grassroots are run by six-fingered idiots from Yakima. They nominate people like Nethercutt, Carlson, and Craswell who charge the base like crack cocaine and 220V current mixed together, and then lose the state by double-digit margins because most Washington voters are centerists!.
They then go on to blame Seattle Liberals for their defeat.
This seems to happen over and over again. Chris Vance went on record in The Economist acknowledging that Washington isn’t much like the heartland where elections can be won with God, guns, flags, and fags. The voters here are more libertarian, less pious, and less outwardly patriotic.
But the base of the party that stuffs the envelopes, makes the phone calls, raises the money, and attends the primaries to actually make nominations happen didn’t read that article.
Please Goldy, we have the best Republican Party a liberal could hope for. Don’t point out anything about that. Cheer them on! They’re doing fine right now.
Give me a break. Paul Berendt most certainly does help out his annointed candidates. Some examples?
During the Governor’s race Primary, the party sent a fundraising autocall about how important it was to get Christine Gregoire elected.
In the same race, Phil Talmadge said he couldn’t get lists the party promised.
When Alex Alben’s wife was named in a shareholder lawsuit at Infospace during the WA-8 primary, Berendt offered a nice quote about how her business was a legit campaign issue, and how one would assume they “talked shop” at home. When Berendt recruited Ross, and told the papers “I thought we needed someone with more heft”.
Or his quote after the Carolyn Edmonds/Bob Ferguson nominating convention:
Democratic Party Chairman Paul Berendt said, “I think Carolyn should bow out gracefully and support the nominee of the party.” He added, “It’s no great surprise to me that Bob won. He’s smarter, he’s harder working and Carolyn has made a lot of people angry.
That’s only a few examples off the top of my head. I don’t think it’s the chair’s job to pick our candidates for us, but far worse is the chair of the Party trashing Democratic candidates in a primary. If he wants to support someone, that’s one thing, but taking cheap shots at the other candidate is counterproductive. What if his non-preferred candidate wins? The Republican’s mail is practically written for them.
Reply@10,
pbj, why don’t you name one thing that Berendt gave to Ross that he didn’t give Alben and Behrens-Benedict?
His behind the scenes support and access to the war chest. Party bigwigs work behind the scenes so as to appear publicly to be giving equal treatment.
There was no doubt that Berendt wanting the high profile Ross and that was who he got. Too bad there is no Democracy in the Democrat party.
people fighting the idiot RW troll are going about it wrong.
Its the classic response to this kind of thing… “the dems do it too!” nevermind the fact that what the Reps are doing is faaaar worse (Its better to be allowed to speak than to not be allowed to speak, right?)
Once again, they come up with tricks over facts or arguments…
The Republican Party has always been a top-down organization. The party leadership is uncomfortable with real, grassroots democracy because, by God, what would happen if the rabble actually took over? Even in their private lives, Republicans tend to favor a patriarchal, “Father knows best” approach to family matters. They favor a strong executive decisionmaker rather than decision by consensus. For show and votes, Republicans pander to the grassroots with their social values crap, but the party’s power has always resided in corporate boardrooms. If Karl Rove ever succeeds in his quest to deprive the Democrats of any power, a return to a monarchical form of government would surely follow.
jsa@15,
Right now we have a Democrat party that is so far left of mainstream they are only good for jokes on Jay Leno. Please make sure you give Howard Dean a more high profile so the people can get to know the ‘real’ Democrat party!
IF you folks keep on going on like you are doing, there won’t be a Democrat president for another 40 years!
proud @ 19
“Even in their private lives, Republicans tend to favor a patriarchal, “Father knows best” approach to family matters. They favor a strong executive decisionmaker rather than decision by consensus.”
What a bogus overgeneralization and utter tripe. Do you have some actual evidence to back this up?
pbj @ 20
Do you get paid more for blogging on national issues?
Aye, Pope should run for Senate!
Then McGavick can run for Pope.
And then Chris Vance can run … hmm … oh … nevermind.
ConservativeFirst @ 21
My prior post is just my opinion, which is based on years of observing and studying American politics. I can’t cite you to evidence per se to back up the opinion; there is plenty of supporting anecdotal evidence, though. For instance, the Republican powers-that-be went down to Crawford, Texas in 1999 and determined that GW was their boy. He was then anointed the party’s standard-bearer. The party-crasher, John McCain, then was subjected to the special brand of character assassination at which Republicans excel. Obviously, there are exceptions within the Republican party to the party’s antidemocratic structure, McCain being one. But, in general, I think my characterization of the party fits.
“My prior post is just my opinion, which is based on years of observing and studying American politics.”
I wasn’t commenting on your statements about the Republican Party structure. What I disagree with is your characterizaiont how Republicans run their families. You’ve made such a sweeping generalization. Do you really believe this to be fact?
Reply@24,
I can’t cite you to evidence per se
When leftists have no evidence, they somehow think that clever rhetorical devices will help distract the reader from this fact.
Reply@18,
Its the classic response to this kind of thing… “the dems do it too!” nevermind the fact that what the Reps are doing is faaaar worse (Its better to be allowed to speak than to not be allowed to speak, right?)
Once again, they come up with tricks over facts or arguments…
Well, when you ever come up with a fact or argument, by all means let us know!
DJ @ 11
Interesting thought. I always wondered what my percentage would have been in a Cantwell-Pope matchup public opinion poll. (Remember the one the state GOP paid for, which showed Rossi beating Cantwell, Vance doing poorest and losing in a landslide, and McGavick doing a little better than Vance?) People knew Vance’s name well and lots of folks really hated him, and didn’t really know McGavick’s name at all. Probably people know my name a little bit, there aren’t many who really hate me, but not a lot who really like me either.
In any event, last couple of times I have run in King County (2001 and 2003), I got 37% of the vote, which is a big defeat, but still three or four points higher than what Bush and Nethercutt got last fall. And I did all of this without really campaigning, certainly without spending any money (well there is this thing called a “filing fee”), and with Kirby Wilbur telling his loyal followers to vote for my opponents.
I attribute this mainly to not being hated as much. I tend to get ten points or so better than normal in the heavily Democratic precincts in Seattle, and several points less than normal in the Republican leaning precincts on the Eastside. Since there are a lot more Democrat leaning precincts than Republican leaning precincts, a less polarizing candidate can do a few points better than a Bush or a Nethercutt, even if the party leadership really doesn’t like the candidate very much and the candidate doesn’t really do very much.
Realistically, I wouldn’t stand a prayer in a primary against someone like McGavick. It’s one thing to be in a general election without much party support. But winning a contested primary against the party establishment would be nearly impossible. But thanks for the thoughts.
Come on Richard… for the good of the party. Diane says competition is good for the candidates.
And you already have my endorsement.
Goldy @ 29
And it looks like Diane is going to provide that competition. And Diane can raise money — she raised $484,452 for the 8th district Congress race — $45,581 of it from her own pocket. Receiving 16,468 votes — almost $30 a vote (just for a primary!).
That’s just too pricey for me. I have never spent even a dime per vote, and once got by with spending less than half a cent per vote (both primary and general).
Anyway, Diane doesn’t live that far from me. Granted, the property values on the shores of Lake Sammamish are much higher than my modest rambler in Robinswood, but nowhere near what a palatial estate for an eight-figure executive costs in The Highlands. Every now and then, I see Diane and/or her husband jogging down my street. If that other fellow goes out jogging or walking, he can do so in the privacy of a guarded, gated and exclusive community.
I didn’t like Diane till I saw her during the Logangate fiasco; she seemed super sharp, and I’d vote for her.
Of course I’m a republican and a smart conservative woman always gets my vote.
Goldy, what do you expect from that gang of top-down assholes? Party workers, donors, would-be candidates, supporters — all are treated like children — they’re supposed to be seen but not heard.
Richard Pope @ 30
I understand your concerns. I think it is unfortunate that running in a primary is so daunting.
It is a shame that modern politicians must be full-time fund-raisers, leaving thinking to a part-time activity, in order to be successful.
I have frequently been impressed with your ability to research thoroughly, analyze carefully and think rationally about things. If I were to be represented by a Republican senator, I would rather it be you than some party ideologue chosen in D.C.
roger; you mean like anti abortion Dems who get silenced at conventions?
righton @ 34
“you mean like anti abortion Dems who get silenced at conventions?”
I heard that the Dems “out” their spouses who work for the CIA. . . .
I find it interesting how all of these “experts” think that no primary is a good thing.
Let’s review recent history:
– Gary Locke upset Norm Rice and beat Jay Inslee in a heavily contested primary in 1996, and then went on to win.
– Patty Murray beat former Congressman Don Bonker in a primary in 1988 and went on to win.
– Maria Cantwell beat Deborah Senn in a primary in 2000 and went on to win, beating an incumbent U.S. Senator.
– Chris Gregoire beat Ron Sims, who was the party’s US Senate nominee in 1994, and went on to win. (Please, for a minute, spare the “no she didnt” posts and just debate my point here, thank you).
So the last four big-time elected officials here all had contested primaries, and went on to win.
Personally, as a recovering political consultant, I think that primaries are a good thing. Bring them on.
Even in their private lives, Republicans tend to favor a patriarchal, “Father knows best” approach to family matters. They favor a strong executive decisionmaker rather than decision by consensus. For show and votes, Republicans pander to the grassroots with their social values crap, but the party’s power has always resided in corporate boardrooms.
Yeah– you repubs and your “father knows best” philosphy isnt fooling anybody. Judges know best!!! Long live activist Judges.
DJ @ 33
It is actually somewhat tempting. *IF* I managed the miracle of winning the primary, I would probably be reasonably competitive. But the first past would be a tremendous longshot.
Next, what is the rationale for replacing Maria Cantwell? A very important part of the thought process in replacing any incumbent. A very sad thing nowadays is that so much of the political campaigning (by all sides) is negative and paid for by outside special interests. I would have to convince myself that I could do something better for the state and country in her position — and especially need to convince myself in a positive manner, as opposed to a negative manner.
Is Diane Tebelius going to be able to raise a warchest from the big players to run against an apparently annointed candidate? Somehow I doubt it, but I do expect her to try. Her not-so-vigorous primary showing last September won’t help her make the case of either winning a nomination or a general election. On the other hand, Diane is sincere and you know where she stands and she also connects with and relates to the more ordinary people pretty well.
Would the GOP establishment come up with some sort of nonsense rule to keep me off the primary ballot altogether? The GOP has party rules (similar to the Dems rules) which require either 25% delegate support at a state convention or signatures on a petition of 5% of the Republican voting strength statewide (about 70,000 people signing a petition saying they are Republicans and want me on the ballot). This is just to get on the Montana style primary ballot to compete in the primary.
If the Dems and GOP press the issue before Judge Zilly, they will likely get a ruling that they can enforce these rules as part of the Montana style primary. Same freedom of association issues as the Top Two primary, and Judge Zilly has already ruled that political parties have the right to exclude a candidate for any reason from filing in their primaries.
What the GOP really needs in this state is a John McCain type appeal. But John McCain types generally aren’t that popular among the party’s hard-core activists. And the Chris Vance style leadership freezes out the activists at the same type they manage to hog all the Bush-Rove style of patronage and support.
Here is a part of the article that Goldy left out:
“Some in the GOP, sounding themes heard across the country at Republican and Democratic fundraisers, coffee klatches and pancake breakfasts, bemoan what they see as a process conducted from on high.”
Selective editing Goldy?
pbj @39,
Uh… unless I paste in the entire article of course it’s selective quoting. Duh-uh. That’s why I provide links… so you can read the source material and make up your mind for yourself. (I hope you always do that before commenting.) Indeed, sometimes I just selectively quote a few lines as a teaser, just to entice people to read a particular article in it’s entirety.
Looks like the problem of party chairs picking people for races that the grassroots are unhappy with is something that, here in Washington State at least, is a bipartisan gripe. As Goldy says: While GOPolitburo Chair Chris Vance was anointing…
“pbj, why don?t you name one thing that Berendt gave to Ross that he didn?t give Alben and Behrens-Benedict?”
The WA Dems ran the field polls that convinced Ross that he had enough name recognition and popularity to have a chance in the race. They actively recruited him, and that doesn’t happen without the chair’s blessing. Read some of Ross’ interviews from the primary, it isn’t like he hid the fact that he was essentially drafted.
righton – It’s a lie that anti-abortion Dems are silenced, and the individual case all you folks keep citing happened because the person in question wouldn’t endorse the nominee. We’ve got Harry Reid as the Senate Minority Leader, for Pete’s sake.
But if you really wanted to look at who gins up the convention speaking list, note that at the last Republican convention the best prime time slots were given to Reps like Schwarzenegger, Pataki and Guiliani who are all pro-choice. But considering that 60% of the public supports letting women make that decision anyway, is anyone surprised that they at least wanted to look like they tracked with mainstream opinion?
THe party also polled on Alben in the same poll and gave him a copy of it.
Natasha @ 42
Interestingly enough, the state GOP in Washington doesn’t have any requirement that speakers at its conventions support the party’s nominees. This requirement doesn’t even apply to the convention officers, including the convention chair.
For example, Kirby Wilbur is regularly selected to chair GOP conventions (King County in 2000, 2004, 2005 and State 2000). But when it comes towards November, Kirby Wilbur will get on his talk show on KVI 570 and proudly endorse a couple of Democrats (or Libertarians) for various offices (instead of the GOP nominees), including statewide offices — evidently in an attempt to appear “fair and balanced”.
The only “party loyalty” requirement that the state GOP has is something they call the “11th Commandment”. It only prohibits GOP candidates from speaking ill of their primary opponents (if any) prior to the nomination being determined. No one, even party leadership, is ever prohibited from talking or working against a GOP nominee in the general election.
The Democrats certainly have the right to insist that their convention speakers and officers support the party’s nominees. The state GOP might well be wise to implement such a requirement as well.
Mike McGavick will lose because he will be rightly tagged as an opportunist fronting for an increasingly right wing GOP in a progressive state. The GOP doesn’t like hard fought primaries because that’s how most people get exposure to the fact that the party is dominated by increasingly shrill right wing fundementalists.
I don’t get how he can have no position on Initiative 912 as a candidate when he has already made his views known. He has opposed it as a SAFECO executive. Big time.
Loser.
how can you do this? http://www.yahoo.com
http://www.slashdot.org