The GOP’s Lean Slate (Wash. st.)

Republicans plan to field just one strong candidate each for governor and Senate.

Chris Vance is running out of time. The chair of the Washington State Republican Party has an ambitious work plan—the transformation of the state GOP into, as he puts it, "a Northwest version of George W. Bush." Vance knows how to get it done: attract candidates for the 2004 U.S. Senate race and governor's contest who are "conservative enough to unite our base" yet at the same time "able to reach out to suburban voters, especially suburban women." It goes without saying that these same candidates need to be able to raise at least $10 million for the Senate race against powerful incumbent Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and a minimum of $4 million against another popular Democrat in the gubernatorial matchup, probably Gov. Gary Locke. He also wants no more than one candidate in each race. In the past, the GOP has been famous for primaries so bruising that its standard-bearer limps into the general election. Vance wants these candidates in place by July. His biggest problem is that his list keeps getting shorter. With just a couple of months to go before his self-imposed deadline, can Vance pull it off? "The Washington State Republican Party is in transition," admits the frank, voluble Vance. He is trying to distance the party from the image created in the 1990s, when Christian conservatives reigned supreme in the state GOP. In particular, the candidacies of religious rightists Ellen Craswell for governor in 1996 and Linda Smith for the Senate in 1998 left the impression that the Republicans were too extreme to win statewide. "What won't sell is harsh, in-your-face conservatism," says Vance. Yet, "It's not as simple as moving the party to the center. If I was trying to drive the pro-lifers out of the party, that would be divisive. Our [party] slogan is 'Working for All of Us.'" There is hunger among Republicans, who have been frozen out of major offices: There hasn't been a Republican governor since 1986; Murray's seat has been held by Democrats since 1987; and former Republican Sen. Slade Gorton was defeated in 2000 by Democrat Maria Cantwell. All this, Vance says, helps Republicans put aside their differences to focus on victory.

Vance believes Democrats are vulnerable for a number of reasons. First, there's the "George Bush juggernaut. . . . The political atmosphere is favoring the Republicans right now." Second, the state of the state is poor—high unemployment, transportation problems, a crisis in K-12 schools and higher education, and a terrible budget deficit. Vance characterizes Murray as "a political accident" who is out of her league as the state's senior senator. Locke's "act has worn thin." Since the recession began, the public has recognized Locke as the "ineffectual governor" that he is, Vance declares.

Paul Berendt, chair of the Washington State Democrats, gives a quick summation of Vance's analysis. "It's b.s.," he quips. "Sometimes you just have to wish your way into viability." Berendt believes the White House has written off Washington, where the Bush family has lost three times. He says Murray is the "most popular official in the state," and Locke's moderate and measured approach is "governing the way people want." Most tellingly, Berendt points out, Vance doesn't have any candidates stepping forward to challenge the Democrats. "They have had a real tough time finding credible candidates," he notes.

"My urgency increases every week," admits Vance. Things look brightest in the governor's race. King County Sheriff Dave Reichert is out working the state, and Western Wireless chairman and CEO John Stanton is on everyone's radar.

EVERY REPUBLICAN activist who has watched Reichert, 52, interact with audiences drools over his charisma. He is movie-star handsome and has a heroic life story that he tells with humility—from his early days as a beat cop successfully disarming crazed criminals to his relentless pursuit of the Green River killer, who he believes is now in custody.

There are a couple of big questions about him, however. First, is he a Republican? And second, is he cut out to be a politician?

His answer to both questions shows why he will be a formidable candidate if he chooses to run. Reichert confirms that if he seeks higher office, it will be as a Republican. But he never says, "I am a Republican." Instead, he says with great sincerity, "I've never seen myself as a Republican or a Democrat. Nothing is a Democratic or a Republican problem."

He also says, "I am not a politician. I don't play the game. I say what I think. The world of a cop is a world of right and wrong. People don't trust their government officials. I can change that. I like to take risks, and I like to make decisions."

The GOP couldn't ask for better opening themes delivered by a better candidate. Talking with Reichert, one comes away with the sense that he is ready to run but is determined to avoid a contested primary. It seems like the only thing holding him back is a decision from Western Wireless' Stanton.

Reichert follows Vance's message carefully in the electioneering arena. Reichert says he will decide by July, he has met with Stanton, and he gives the strong impression that the two will strike a gentleman's agreement not to run against one another.

ON PAPER, John Stanton, 47, would also make a great GOP candidate for governor. (Everyone says he has ruled out running for the Senate next year.) He is a loyal, active Republican. He was a major player in two successful telecommunications firms—Voicestream Wireless, now known as T-Mobile USA, and McCaw Cellular Communications, now AT&T Wireless. And Stanton continues to direct Western Wireless. He is wealthy enough to eliminate any fund-raising concerns—Forbes estimated his worth at $780 million in 2001. He is a strong leader in a state that has been lacking a dynamic executive. He is a moderate, pragmatic Republican, not an ideologue.

The problem is, as Vance puts it, Stanton "is trying to decide if he wants to be a politician." (Stanton did not respond to requests for an interview.) As founder and chief of a company that is struggling in the cutthroat wireless business, he undoubtedly feels a sense of responsibility toward his employees and shareholders. His family obligations are also a consideration, many people say, evidenced by the fact that he coaches two Little League teams, one for each son.

Bob Ratliffe, a friend and business associate of Stanton's, doubts the executive will make the run. "He's got his hands full with Western Wireless," Ratliffe says. Still, Stanton has met with Vance three times, as well as with other important GOP figures, like Secretary of State Sam Reed and King County Council member Rob McKenna. And Stanton "has promised me an answer by July," says the party chair.

THINGS SEEM less bright on the Senate side. Last month, U.S. Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Bellevue, the GOP's first choice for the Senate race, said she would seek re-election to her House seat rather than challenge Murray. Higher powers than Vance had been courting Dunn—President George W. Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, had encouraged her to run for Senate—but to no avail. Democrats crowed that all the inducements in the world couldn't blind the savvy Dunn to the fact that Murray was too tough to beat. In an interview, Dunn deflected questions away from herself and toward the next candidate on the GOP's wish list—U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Spokane.

Nethercutt, 58, is an affable, low-key politician in his eighth year as a congressman. He is best known as the man who came out of nowhere to defeat the sitting speaker of the House, former U.S. Rep. Tom Foley, the Spokane Democrat, and who then, six years later, broke his pledge to limit his term.

AS NETHERCUTT LOOKS at the race, he raises an interesting set of issues: "transportation, our tax structure, and our business friendliness." It sounds more like a to-do list for a governor than a U.S. senator. He concedes as much but says, "I don't know that Patty Murray has been a strong person in advising our governor. Her vision is not as sharp as it should be, and her record of accomplishment is questionable."

As for his own record, he touts his successful effort to open agricultural trade with Cuba and his leadership on diabetes research—hardly the stuff that fires a Senate campaign.

Nethercutt says family concerns are an important factor. "The personal sacrifice is a big part of this decision that weighs on my mind." In addition, he is actively pursuing a "cardinal's" post—one of the most powerful roles in Congress as the chair of an Appropriations subcommittee.

Will Nethercutt run against Murray? Dunn says it's a "50-50 chance." Nethercutt says her odds are correct. Publicly, Nethercutt isn't giving Vance much reason for hope. The best news he offered was to announce a meeting with the White House late last week to discuss the Senate run and pledging to make a final decision by July.

Vance concedes nothing. "The main reason we have been losing is we have not done our job. The party has not found one great candidate with everybody united behind them." He pledges, "By this summer, you will know the Republican candidates for governor and senator."

Well, I'm not impressed by the state party leader. ""What won't sell is harsh, in-your-face conservatism," says Vance. Yet, "It's not as simple as moving the party to the center. If I was trying to drive the pro-lifers out of the party, that would be divisive. Our [party] slogan is 'Working for All of Us.'"

I agree that harshness is foolish in a politician. It's better to be soft-spoken like Bush than loud and offensive like Newt Gingrich. (Yes, I agree with much of what Gingrich accomplished, but not with his self-destructive way of always shouting about it at the top of his voice.)

But is it harsh to be pro-life? I would have thought it was harsh to kill babies. We don't need more RINOs in congress, who will vote against tax cuts and in favor of tax-funded abortions.

That's what Vance said. "It's not as simple as moving the party toward the center." Basically he's advocating happy-face conservatism (or compassionate conservatism, or Bushatism, or whatever). He didn't say it was harsh to be pro-life, he said it was bad to be harsh and he wasn't going to drive out pro-lifers.

I would guess that they'd like pro-lifers to be generally less Bible-thumping, to make a pragmatic argument on the areas of widest agreement, and libertarian anti-taxers to make pragmatic arguments against the worst of the spending excesses instead of saying they'll repeal all taxes and services. Might as well play to your opponent's weakness rather than your own, even if you "weakness" is right and only "weak" 'cause it's controversial.

"I don't know that Patty Murray has been a strong person in advising our governor. Her vision is not as sharp as it should be, and her record of accomplishment is questionable."

This certainly takes the understatement of the year award! Sadly, there are few Republicans who worked at Microsoft and made fortunes that would let them buy an office.

But is it harsh to be pro-life?

In Washington, it is. The state is strongly pro-choice. In 1998, there was an initiative on the ballot to ban partial birth abortions, and it lost by 2 to 1. It even lost in conservative eastern Washington.

Linda Smith could have ousted Murray if Mitch McConnell hadn't yanked financial support in the last month of the campaign.

You're the second poster at FR who has made this statement, and it's becoming something of an urban legend in Washington politics. Unfortunately, it isn't true.

The key issue in 1998 was whether Clinton should be impeached for something that was "only sex." Smith could not make the argument. When confronted with the statement, "You can't legislate morality," Smith's retort was, "You can if you have the votes." This didn't sit well with Washington's extremely secular voting base.

John Keister on KING-TV's "Almost Live" managed to define the race in one simple quip. "Patty Murray isn't the brightest star in the sky. Linda Smith's star is bright, but it has a very erratic orbit."

Smith, like Ellen Craswell, was too far to the right to win a statewide office in Washington.

The only kind of Republican who can win these statewide offices is what is known as a "Dan Evans" Republican, i.e. conservative on economic issues but liberal on social and environmental issues. Here at FR, we call these people RINO's.

You have to realize that this is WA State. Politically, it's a mess. The Dems totally control the city of Seattle and of late, have controlled the suburbs. If you have a candidate who is considered too conservative, you'll lose the suburbs and therefore the state. The east side is solidly conservative but the population is over there. When I say "too conservative" I don't mean one can't be pro-life. They can be pro-life but they cannot support the overturning of Roe V. Wade. Any candidate who suggests that and runs on it, is doomed.

The article is probably right about Patty Murray in that she is popular - over on the West side. But it is way wrong about Gary Locke. His approval ratings aren't much better than Gray Davis's in California and people are sick of his talk, talk, talk and never any action. His rebuttal to Bush's State of the Union address in January was embarrassing and I think most WA voters saw it that way.

I think winning the Governorship is possible but getting that senate seat is going to be tough. Dunn could have done it but she declined. Nethercutt is my congressman and he's great and well respected and supported here in Eastern Washington. Whether he can cut it in Western Washington is THE QUESTION. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer.

Locke hasn't said one way or the other and he does have a democratic challenger whose name escapes me at this point. Talmadge or something like that who is running because of Locke's "abysmal lack of leadership."

So, I don't know what Locke will do. If he doesn't run, I'm not sure where he will end up. Perhaps he's thinking he'll land a VP slot - there was talk of him in 2000 with Gore - or a cabinet position should the dems win the White House.

Former state supreme court justice Phil Talmadge is preparing to run against Locke from the left in the primary. When Locke betrayed his base in WEA (the teacher's union), he signed his political death warrant.

Talmadge is a far leftist. A "Dan Evans" Republican could isolate him on the left by eliding conservative positions and running from the center.

"We don't need more RINOs in congress, who will vote against tax cuts and in favor of tax-funded abortions."

2 years ago Vance hired a so-called moderate polling outfit, (actually democRAT operatives), to figure out the voters minds in the Seattle Crescent. Several of the items the "R's" were told to stop, was being too "strident" and lose the "property rights fanaticism" at the expense of salmon restoration attempts. It sounds as if he's still following the playbook designed by liberals.

We're doomed at the state and federal level in '04. The only hope I see for the R's right now, is local races. This is where the leaders for '08 will come from. I don't see it turning around until then. We have some more pain coming our way before the dummies in the Seattle megaopolis wake up and help us vote these thieves out.

Murray can be beaten if someone isolates her to the left -- which is where she generally hangs out -- and runs against her from the center. Jennifer Dunn could have done it, but she has a brand new marriage and wants to retire in two or four years.

But there is hope.

State Rep. Fred Jarrett from Mercer Island would be a fine candidate because he is brilliant (IQ off the charts), photogenic and would make Patty look like a dufus. He is a "Dan Evans" Republican.
State Rep. Doug Ericksen from Bellingham has promise, even though he's still very young. He can wait until 2008 if necessary.
State Sen. Linda Evans Parlette from Wenatchee is also a "Dan Evans" Republican and is very photogenic. (She and I both started out in the Goldwater campaign 40 years ago.)
State Sen. Dan Swecker from Chehalis is an evangelical, but he is strong on environmental issues -- he is a salmon farmer when not in Olympia -- and he is an innovator on transportation issues. His avuncular demeanor hides one of the sharpest minds in Olympia.

We may have to go for a dark horse, but we have talent in the legislature.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.