An Anti-Left opinion from WA: BIG GOP WIN, YET FEELING UNEASY
November 04, 2010
Warren Peterson - Sound Politics
I got out of bed the day after the Republican sweep expecting a feeling exhilaration, the joy of victory. Instead, while happy for the wins, apprehension was in the air. The wave, that sweep over 60 more Republicans into the House, maybe 6 in the Senate and a 23 to 9 Republican advantage in governor's races from Pennsylvania to New Mexico, barely made a GOP ripple on the Left Coast. That Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and most likely Patty Murray could survive after the Democrat's record of fiscal irresponsibly and in-your-face partisanship clouds the significant gains across the nation; and the political resurrection of Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown as Governor of California, well that should lead one to despair for the Golden State.
The failures in the far West were not due to a lack of money. Republican candidates, especially in California, had plenty of cash. Except perhaps for Senate in Nevada, the GOP candidates were strong and clearly qualified. Indeed, Washington gained at least one congressional seat and made strong gains in state legislative races. But in the financial train wreck State of California, Democrats swept the statewide offices and lost maybe one seat in Congress. To the south, Oregon kept the Governor's chair in Democrat hands.
This election was advertised as the prelimary to 2012 when Republicans plan to replace Obama and take control of the Senate where Democrats must defend 21 seats plus 2 liberal independents versus 10 for the Republicans. The GOP's hopes are far from guaranteed. An unexpected robust economic recovery, potential House Republican missteps and a host of unknowns may lie in the path to Republican dreamland.
To win, Republicans must layout a reasonable conservative agenda and spend the next two years selling it to the public.
Also, starting now, they need to find, develop and support good candidates. Sorry but Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell don't make the cut. Some of their statements and past positions not only caused them to lose but also provided fodder for the Left and their friends in the media to ridicule Republican candidates nationwide. Washington's Maria Cantwell is up in 2012. If Clint Didier or someone of his ilk makes it in the top two, she will waltz to an easy win. Worse, the Senate race could drag down Rob McKenna in his run for Governor against the likely Democrat, Jay Inslee. There are conservatives in the Republican stable who would make excellent Senate candidates. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers and State Senator Joe Zarelli come to mind.
I just want to wake up November 7, 2012 with the Obama nightmare over, the House and Senate firmly in conservative hands and a Republican governor in Olympia. Pure joy!
Cross Posted on: Clear Fog Blog
Posted by warrenpeterson at November 04, 2010 11:04 AM |
[KLP Note: There are some interesting comments to Warren Peterson's piece below:}
Comments
1. We may be able to get rid of Obama nationally, but the D's are here to stay in WA. The only R with even a remote chance to win a significant statewide office is Rob McKenna, which is depressing since I guarantee conservatives will wind up being sorely disappointed with him.
Unless the western half of King County falls into Puget Sound, we shall remain a wholly owned subsidiary of the public employee unions.
Posted by: Kato on November 4, 2010 11:40 AM
2. Warren:
Funny because I felt exactly the same on Wednesday morning. I felt this way in part because of the undecided Washington Senate race, but mostly because I was shocked at the I-1100 results. I really wanted to deliver a blow to the states monopoly on the sale of a private legal product. This was very disappointing.
Also, as I wrote in my blog on Wednesday, I am dumbfounded by the contradictory voting habits of Washington voters. How can they be so anti-tax when it comes to initiatives, but so pro-tax when it comes to candidates?
Posted by: Mike (thelastasylum.com) on November 4, 2010 11:42
AM
3. People in WA are typically passive-aggressive and to a similar extent in OR. California is worse. They are also oblivious to understanding that liberalism created the spending problem - ah yes, but life is pretty good/so much to do, so little time - blah blah blah - love that status quo. Seattle and Portland have the limosene liberals and progressive/neo-coms that vote predictably left, that have a big influence on the outcome of elections - to the chagrin of many who live elsewhere in OR and WA.
There are enough independents in the urban areas to vote for a compelling candidate with an R in front of their name, but the bar is raised high, as is the case in OR and CA. There may be more cynicism here, driven from both the left and right because of failed policies that keep being tried over and over by the ruling class of the left. Problem is that Rossi was not compelling enough - Rob McKenna is. Same in Oregon - Chris Dudley was not quite compelling enough to be elected governor, so they went back and elected a mediocre recycled governor who said Oregon was ungovernable. Go figure.
If we look away from the Pacific Coast, other states accepted change readily that contributed to the Hurricane that swept out much of the trash in House of Representatives.
Posted by: KDS on November 4, 2010 12:02 PM
4. Perhaps CA and WA would have done better with a candidate like Didier that was actually for cutting things rather than just being Democrat lite.
Posted by: Lysander on November 4, 2010 12:14 PM
5. KDS @ 3: I do think Rob McKenna is electable as Governor. He has very high name recognition and he also is very well liked. He may not be ideal but he is probably the best that we can get. He scored some major points with me by fighting the new health care laws.
Posted by: Mike (thelastasylum.com) on November 4, 2010 12:35 PM
6. Warren,
I feel uneasy also, but not for the same reasons. My reason is I believe we are in for two full years of gridlock in DC, given McConnell's position.
In regards to what you wrote, you stated "Democrat's record of fiscal irresponsibly and in-your-face partisanship." The blaim is on both sides here. The deficits didn' magically appear in the last two years. The deep economic recession started before Obama and the stimulus actually saved it from being a lot worse. The bank bailout happened before Obama took office and we have recouped most all of the funds (on the same track with the auto industry). As far as partisanships, I sure didn't see much from the Republicans as far as solutions, mainly "No" to everything. McConnell especially has been good at playing the partisanship card and keeping his coalition in line. Let's hope the new blood will actually shake things up with him (people like Rand Paul). McConnell needs to wake up and realize the people want solutions and not stalemate. It will not take both sides. You can't just leave it up to the President. I will laugh when the Republican House actually comes up with good "central" solutions with the White House only to have McConnell bury them in the senate. I just hope the American public will see who is trying to make an effort and who is playing partisan politics. McConnell wake up.
Posted by: tc on November 4, 2010 12:55 PM
7. An unexpected robust economic recovery....may lie in the path to Republican dreamland.
So it would be a good thing if the economy doesn't recover?
Posted by: john on November 4, 2010 12:59 PM
8. One additional point regarding the West Coast. Republicans won't fix their West Coast problem without addressing the Immigration issue in a way that can sway Hispanic voters back into their fold. This was a big factor in California, Nevada, and probably Colorado.
Posted by: tc on November 4, 2010 01:36 PM
9. I live in Southern California and I woke on Wednesday morning feeling like the kid who, on Christmas morning sees all of his friends got both a Buzz Lightyear AND a Woody action figure, while all he got was a Chia Pet.
Posted by: Al Pipkin on November 4, 2010 01:45 PM
10. Good old tc. Always dependable and always foolish.
I didn't read "Bush" in his post but he was close to it.
I'm feeling great. Rs have their great foil Reid back in the game and they have the House. Nothing can get done without the House approval. The Senate, for all practical purposes is R, but since the Ds are in power they will get the blame when, thankfully, we do have gridlock.
I'm also hoping the Rs do a great job of explaining their NO votes- anyone read Rubio into this?
tc, when the Rs say they will compromise, it means we go back to Jan. 2009 and start from scratch. If you are expecting the Rs to start compromising starting today without changing the Obamination's first two years, my friend, you have misread the election.
This is a good time for the USA.
Posted by: swatter on November 4, 2010 01:51 PM
11. The deficits didn't magically appear in the last two years.
No, but they averaged around 3% of GDP during the Bush years. They have ballooned to 10% of GDP each of the past two years.
The bank bailout happened before Obama took office and we have recouped most all of the funds
Correct, and nothing else was needed after that. The financial system was stabilized after TARP, no need for trillions in stimulus and a bloated healthcare bill.
on the same track with the auto industry
Let me know when we actually recover the $47 BILLION we "invested" in auto company stock. News flash - the answer is never.
the stimulus actually saved it from being a lot worse.
The "it would have been worse unless he did X" is a bogus argument. It's unprovable, just like the bogus jobs "saved" argument. The stimulus was a giveaway to favored constituencies that did nothing to actually create jobs. Nobody but hardcore Democrats think it worked.
I will laugh when the Republican House actually comes up with good "central" solutions with the White House only to have McConnell bury them in the senate.
This makes no sense. Why would McConnell bury Republican House bills? Unless of course Reid guts them and pushes through Senate versions that have nothing in common.
Posted by: Palouse on November 4, 2010 01:56 PM
12. Re: CA
Meg Whitman was hardly a qualified or strong Republican candidate. She was a cipher that didn't connect with Republicans, let alone the 55% of the state voters that lean Left.
Fiorina was a better candidate, but campaigned to the Right of Arnold. That's not gonna do it in CA.
Finally, the GOP should consider it a blessing they got 1 seat in CA, considering that the state's House and State Assembly seats are gerrymandered to lock in a 60-40 Dem-Repub split. Out of 120-odd House and Assembly seats up for re-election, just two incumbents lost.
Lucky for the terminally weak CA state GOP, voters re-approved plans to undo these gerrymandered districts starting next year.
Posted by: Alex on November 4, 2010 02:04 PM
13. David Boze talked about this very same feeling, which I also have. I think mine is because many can't understand why half the state looked at both senate candidates here and actually picked Murray. It's nearly unfathomable. And wimp Harry Reid (sorry, but that's how he comes off) surviving is strange. He's not that liked in Nevada, but Angle was better than the not-qualified Christine O'Donnell. I'm glad Reid's son got rejected for governor in NV. DE's Castle may have some flaws, but I think he should run again in Delaware for US Senate next go-aroud.
And Maine gives one hope---if a state like that can flip completely to republican in Governorship, House & State Senate as it did this year, then anything seems possible.
Murray must be freaking out slightly that her margin of victory is pretty thin, prior races considered.
Posted by: Michele on November 4, 2010 02:54 PM
14. I am uneasy, too. With the naive idealism espoused by both sides of the aisle and the fact that both are ridiculously recalcitrant, nothing good will happen. This is a crumbling empire and instead of taking a bigger picture pragmatic approach both sides resort to an utterly stupid, shocking idealism that ignores the future of the country and the real threats it faces. "Conservatives" on this site will gloat about its pyrrhic victories (trust me -- this tide won't last forever) and "Liberals" on other sites will despair about "Fascism" (don't worry -- you'll get an upswing again within the next 8 years -- the American electorate is very reactionary, and I don't mean this in a "conservative" sense).
You all are so unbelievably stupid.
Posted by: Sau on November 4, 2010 03:48 PM
15. Swatter @10
"when the Rs say they will compromise, it means we go back to Jan. 2009 and start from scratch"
It isn't important what the R's mean by compromise, it is what the voters want, RIGHT? What the R's want (per McConnell) is to make sure Obama is a one term president (Country be damned, figuratively).
Palouse @11
RE: Deficits - Your figures are meaningless due to the recession (e.g., GDP went down), plus what did Revenues doe (%-wise)? Additionally, the Deficit when Bush took office was what? Further, the first year's budget under Obama, was put together by Bush. Finally, I would need to double check your numbers, but on the surface they don't sound right (mathematically).
RE: TARP -- No one is proposing another TARP (at least from the WH), but R's keep bringing it up (in their ads leading up to the election)
RE: Stimulus -- The stimulus was independent of TARP and was not directed at the banks. It included Tax Cuts (which the R's fail to mention), Tax incentives, and "Public Works" projects. The first two where bipartisan, it was only the last bit that was of controversy when the bill was first debated. It is demonstrable, however, that without this spending unemployment would have been a lot worse and most likely revenues would have taken even a bigger hit. The issue of tax cuts versus "public works" is one that is also provable that "public works" have a greater multiplier effect.
Additionally, this isn't ongoing government spending. It is one time spending (vice Medicare Part D -- the R's proposal that was unfunded and is a major contributor to the deficit).
RE: Auto Bailout
Yes, there is a payback schedule, so there is a possibility that if the companies do go under, it won't be paid back, but they have met the programs guidelines and are on track to paying it back.
Re: McConnell burying
This isn't laughable, you just have to read what Boehner and McConnell have stated. Boehner is at least demonstrating that he will meet to discuss common ground. McConnell is basically saying "screw you" to the President. He wants to keep on playing the stall game for two more years. Therefore, for example, let's say there is a compromise on Energy Policy that is worked out between the House and WH, McConnell is saying he doesn't care. (McConnell) If the bill helps to benefit the WH in anyway, he will tie it up. Further, he will tie up all other business by submitting and resubmitting bogus bills (repeal of Health Care) that he know won't pass. I may be reading too much into McConnell's statements, but it sure looks like the McConnell of the past two years that has done nothing. I give Boehner credit. He is at least listening to the voters and is willing to get the country moving again. McConnell wants to play the stall game for two more years.
Posted by: tc on November 4, 2010 04:24 PM
16. Also, it's not good enough to say that they want to block Obamacare. There needs to be a plan put into effect to deal with some of the issues driving health costs, like tort reform. There has to be a way to provide health care coverage for those in need and make it easier to maintain coverage when changing jobs.
We did get a repub replacing a dem in my neck of the woods. Jaime Herrera took over Brian Baird's seat. It's not as nice as having a Rossi win, but good just the same.
Posted by: Teri Pittman on November 4, 2010 06:29 PM
17. Also, it's not good enough to say that they want to block Obamacare. There needs to be a plan put into effect to deal with some of the issues driving health costs, like tort reform. There has to be a way to provide health care coverage for those in need and make it easier to maintain coverage when changing jobs.
We did get a repub replacing a dem in my neck of the woods. Jaime Herrera took over Brian Baird's seat. It's not as nice as having a Rossi win, but good just the same.
Posted by: Teri Pittman on November 4, 2010 06:30 PM
18. Your figures are meaningless due to the recession (e.g., GDP went down)
No, they are not meaningless. Percent of GDP is the ONLY relevant measure of deficits. GDP only went down in one year, from 2008 to 2009, and by less than $200 billion. The 10% deficit was due to uncontrolled spending by Obama. None of the stimulus and emergency funds and the bailouts were part of Bush's budgets.
It is demonstrable, however, that without this spending unemployment would have been a lot worse
False. This is unprovable. You don't know what would have happened without it. No one does.
Auto Bailout
Yes, there is a payback schedule
Considering GM and Chrysler have both filed for bankruptcy since the bailout, the chances that we ever get that $45 billion equity portion back are slim to none, and slim just left the building. Until they pay that back, stop repeating the lie that they are on track to pay us back. They aren't. What they've paid back is a drop in the bucket of what we gave them.
Re: McConnell. Believe whatever you want, but he's not going to block Republican legislation out of the House, as long as Reid doesn't make a Senate version that increases taxes and/or spending on top of it.
Posted by: Palouse on November 4, 2010 09:05 PM
19. I would feel uneasy, I mean Rand Paul? What ya gonna do with the crazy uncle who is gonna talk about 9/11 truth and Aqua Buddah?
Posted by: Johnny Sombrerro on November 4, 2010 09:19 PM
20. Excellent thread start by Warren; Find myself in considerable agreement with his comments.
I add a couple footnotes to what he said:
1.. Sue Lowden would have beaten Harry Reid. N
ot a landslide, but a solid win (even the pervasive ''anybody but Harry Reid'' feeling in NV couldn't stretch all the way to Angle).
2.. At least Angle had served in the NV Legislature. But IIRC both Angle and O'Donnell won their primaries with only 4 or 5 percent of the total registered voters in each state. And any time a candidate for U.S. Senate has to run a major TV ad denying that she's a witch, you KNOW it's gonna end badly.
3.. Normally I skip over what Lysander writes, but this one is so astoundingly far out in political deep-space that comment is called for. He said:
''Perhaps CA and WA would have done better with a candidate like Didier.''
ZERO chance; Murray would have won by a huge margin. It's beyond a stretch to think that anyone could actually believe that; in any case, as Warren noted:
If Rs were foolish enough to nominate a Didier-clone to run against Cantwell in 2012 (not likely, but just as a what-if), Cantwell would win WA by a HUGE margin; not just squeak by like Beltway Patty did against Dino (who was a terrific candidate and had a great message; our loss that a big majority of King County voters are politically deaf and clueless).
And don't underestimate the opposition:
Whatever U can say about Cantwell (a lot), she is no dummy; she was executive at Real Networks; unlike her Senate seat-mate she can actually think and talk coherently on her feet.
SIDEBAR: After Didier clearly and unequivocally went on the record saying that he would support whoever the R nominee 4 Senate was; and work just as hard for someone else as for himself; and then totally went back on his on-the-record pledge:
He's done. Toast. History.
4.. Yup: CMR or Zarelli would be good.
Posted by: Methow Ken on November 4, 2010 10:25 PM
21. Count me in as feeling mildly disappointed. I am not a Campaign for Liberty person or a Tea Partier, just a Republican. I am disappointed by field of candidates that lost senate races we should have won-Connecticut, Delaware, Colorado, West Virginia and Washington. They were ideological pure but bad campaigners. We should be at 50 seats, not 46.
Our state system of mail in ballots and the top two really stink. Both parties here need closed primaries, if you don't declare, you do not vote until the general election.
Posted by: Church Mouse Republican on November 4, 2010 11:06 PM
22. Warren et al:
Don't you think Zarelli would be vulnerable on the "unemployment" issue?
community.seattletimes.nwsource.com
Back in 2002, when he collected $12,000 in "unemployment" benefits for 25 weeks, even though he was getting a $32,801 annual salary as a STATE SENATOR? And then failed to report the wrongly obtained unemployment benefits to the PDC on his financial disclosure form?
Zarelli was running for Congress that year 2002 in the 3rd CD. When this news came out, his support plummeted, and Brian Baird beat him 62% to 38%.
Zarelli has since been re-elected twice to the state senate. His LD is the reddest one in all of western Washington, and clearly enough hometown voters have forgiven him.
But it takes a miracle for a Republican to be elected statewide, especially to such a policy-sensitive position as the national legislature. I don't see any possible way for Zarelli to win statewide, with this scandal, and he probably couldn't even win the 3rd CD.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 5, 2010 12:59 AM
23. On the other hand, Cathy McMorris Rodgers would be a very strong candidate for U.S. Senate or other statewide office. Especially against Maria Cantwell.
Posted by: Richard Pope on November 5, 2010 01:09 AM
24. It's so sad to see how much so many of you hate America. You spit on our democracy. Disgusting.
Posted by: John Galt on November 5, 2010 01:28 AM
soundpolitics.com |
