Convention Impressions II: What and Who Can Win in Washington State in 2010

At the recent convention, candidates and speakers broke into three groups -- unity people (Sam Reed, Doc Hastings), jobs people (Rossi, Romney) and rights people (Malkin, Didier). What issues will work in Washington in 2010?

We all like jobs and we all like rights. I'd like to order a jobs and rights sandwich. But it's worth thinking about what sort of rhetoric is likely to lead the party out of the cold electoral penalty box in which it resides.

Washington State
One fact worth noting up front: if we get the votes of 100% of the Republicans in the State of Washington, and no one else, then we get our heads handed to us on a platter. And that's a lot worse than winning. In this respect, our highly educated blue state is most similar to California, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

In light of that, it is also worth learning from the fact that Scott Brown, who recently won the kind of victory we want here in the Senate, was a pretty middle of the road conservative. He was not, for example, adamantly pro-life. He was strong on fiscal issues, he was practical, he endorsed conservative values. But he did not campaign with red-faced speeches about "reversing the slide to tyranny." He was not an angry candidate. Chris Christie, who beat Corzine in New Jersey by four points to win in that Democratic state, also did not run as pro-life. He was strong on fiscal issues, otherwise pretty middle of the road and appealed to centrist voters who wanted to get the budget under control. Carly Fiorina beat Chuck Devore in her California primary with a middle of the road campaign that was long on fiscal issues and pro-business.

Now, I support Rubio over Christ (not Jesus, but Charlie). I am a Reagan conservative. And, like Reagan, I like to win. Here's my analysis from the point of view of succeeding with the Washington electorate as a whole (and remember firing up 1,000 die hard Republican delegates is not similar to firing up the electorate as a whole).

Bad and Good Issues in Washington
Bad issues and tendencies --

1. True anger is unpopular. Angry candidates always, always lose. Be positive. It can work to be offended or to get steely or to get your back up, but if you are a political candidate and you come off as white knuckle angry, you're going to be making speeches to your family in the kitchen for the next couple of years and not on C-SPAN. Americans tend to elect people who appear to be in control of themselves and who have a positive view of fellow Americans and our shared future. They don't elect people who grip the podium and yell "when I get to DC, there's going to be HELL TO PAY!!!"

2. As an issue in blue states, Abortion is a vote loser. Sorry but it's true. Neither Scott Brown nor Chris Christie ran pro-life campaigns. As a practical matter, Roe v. Wade is just not going to be overturned. Let's not sacrifice our whole national future for this will o' the wisp. The thing about dying on your political sword is that at the end of it, you're dead. If you want to run like Jim DeMint or Sam Brownback, you are going to have to move to South Carolina or Kansas.

3. Hyperbole is bad. If you say "we're here in defiance of tyranny" the average voter doesn't know what you are talking about. This is simply not China, it's not the Soviet Union and no one in the middle 80% of the electorate thinks it is. So if you say it is then you come off as crazy or as a manipulator. Candidates can and should argue for liberty and criticize Democrats for paying insufficient attention to liberty and for being utilitarians, but keep it realistic. Point out specifically where liberty is being violated, and do so in a realistic way. Oh and by the way, the word "defiance" sounds a lot like the word "defence" if you speak quickly (if you have a tendency to speed up in your delivery when making speeches), consider another word. Or better yet, skip it entirely and go for one of the winner issues (below).

4. Small point but something to watch out for -- it appears to be popular to discuss how you or your parents achieved financial success. This can cut both ways in a stump speech. What it can sound like is that you have made your bundle and now you want to keep it, and that is why you want low taxes. That is, it can appear that you are opposed to high taxes for selfish reasons. The better approach is to favor low taxes because they create opportunity and they create jobs. Like, for other people! The most successful wealthy candidates have been Democrats (Roosevelt, Kennedy, etc.).

5. Fringe issues are losers. Don't talk about auditing the Federal Reserve. You sound like you want to go back to the days of Andrew Jackson. And no one wants to go there with you or really knows what you're talking about.

Good issues and tendencies --

1. The economy -- jobs, low taxes, bailouts and health care -- is a great issue. This is a strong point for GOP candidates, as usual. The Dems will say they are just trying to clean up Bush's mess but I think that's wearing thin. However, I would warn that Bush is not totally forgotten and many candidates are leaving open a hole in their argument by following the traditional playbook. They are saying they want lower taxes and a lower deficit but they aren't saying how they want to cut spending. Reagan was able to get away with that by saying he was going to cut waste. But after Reagan, Bush and Bush II all dramatically increased deficits, I think the electorate has caught on here and...it certainly blew up in the face of John McCain. His tax-cutting rhetoric simply didn't sell to a public made skeptical by the Bush formula of tax cuts and huge deficits. GOP candidates have to start owning up to what spending they want to cut if they want to "cut taxes and reduce the deficit." Mark Ryan has some good thoughts here. Also, candidates who speak against bank bailouts should be prepared to say whether they would have allowed the banks to go under. Still, this is a good issue.

2. This year, candidates should hammer corrupt public sector unions and their connections to Democrat politicians, including the card check issue. In general, there appears to be a growing recognition that the benefits enjoyed by state employees are out of whack, and that the system of having unions elect politicians who then make deals with the unions simply does not work. I personally think that SEIU and ACORN overstepped and that the public is starting to really resent them. I would campaign against SEIU all day long.

3. Very closely related issue: School choice and merit pay for teachers could work well. Teachers are certainly tarred by the government union brush now.
4. Homeland Security should be strong for GOPers this year. Obama and his Antiterroist chief John Brennan are weak on this issue. They insist on pretending, for PC reasons, that Islam has nothing to do with it. They will never mention Islam even in the Hassan case. It's insane and the public knows it's insane (see a good run down of the issue by Joe Lieberman here). We have to recognize that Islam is at the heart of the global terrorism problem today, even as we remain open and fair to moderate Muslims.
Wildcard issues --

1. Immigration. I think we need to get tough on this, but it can be a difficult issue depending on the district. Anyway, no one spent a lot of time on this.

CANDIDATES

SENATE

CLINT DIDIER had a strong personal appeal. He is just a charismatic guy. And he certainly seems like he's giving it to you straight from the heart. However, he is deeply embracing Bad traits 1 (anger) and 3 (hyperbole). If anyone could scare Washington into re-electing Patty Murray, it would be Clint Didier. Not to mention the fact that, for better or worse, being from East of the Cascades is a real weakness in a state wide race. My hope is that Clint can mature his rhetoric a bit and play an important role in state or national politics one day because he is very likable, like a Reagan. But for now this is one of the angriest guys I've ever seen. I thought he was going to burst like Bruce Banner turning into the Incredible Hulk. That's fun, but it doesn't win political races, certainly not in Washington. Against Patty Murray I would say he is a twelve point loser.

PAUL AKERS doesn't fit into the above rubric very well because he spends 60% of his speech talking about lean manufacturing. I'm sorry, are we electing a VP of Operations here? It's bizarre he's still in the race. Drop out Paul. You're not a natural politician. Try to get appointed to something.

DINO ROSSI came off well and had a lot of fans in the audience. A reporter at the Seattle Times said he thought most people supported Didier. I didn't see that. I thought the majority supported Rossi. But it was probably within ten points. Dino talked about the economy, earning good points for going to Good issue #1. Unfortunately, he had to spend some time talking to the audience about why he didn't get into the race earlier. I would drop that part of the speech. Maybe he didnt' get in earlier because the race is not until November. Why bother? Anyway, Dino was effective on the economy and healthcare and communicated a passion for running for Senate. He effectively went after Patty Murray for being weak on the budget and for indulging in too many earmarks. I think if he goes against Patty Murray, he will win by at least 4 points. I expect Dino will win the nomination but Clint will run Dino down a bit before he does.

House of Representatives --

I'm not going to cover every race, but I will comment on the 3rd because it seems most interesting. There the major candidates appear to be Jamie Herrera, David Castillo and David Hedrick. Herrera had a lot of support around the convention (or a lot of stickers anyway), and she's attractive. I take it she is the frontrunner. However, In this blogger's view she didn't deliver a strong performance. Her delivery seemed young as if she was a candidate for student body president. Her policies seemed pretty mainstream but with a tinge of Bad trait #3 (hyperbole) when she talks about our nation being on the precipice (I believe it was that our "freedoms are imperiled" but she said it a few different ways). Finally, the whole thing just seemed a bit canned. Some candidates come off as having a great deal of intellectual depth that informs their speeches. She does not. She sounds like someone you would hire into a very junior position. Not congress. I'll tell you, those arguments sounded a lot more sincere coming from Clint Didier. I thought he was going to kill the next person who taxed him.

David Castillo came off fairly well but no slam dunk. Scored some solid points on economics, then veered off to tell us about how he made money (risky point, see Bad #4) and a bunch of details about his sympathetic family life (that stuff never works well on me, I always find it manipulative). He then talked about his government experience assuming we had heard of him and knew what it was. He should work on that. But he came off as passionate without being angry and he hit the economics points (Good #1). So he did pretty well.

Davdi Hedrick was just a wild card libertarian. He violated Bad rules #3 (hyperbole) and 5 (fringe) by focusing on the Federal Reserve. That said, he was funny, seemed smart and seemed to believe in what he was saying. He was not angry. He said "I have heard democracy described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." Good one. That may have been the best line not uttered by Mitt Romney. He was a very engaging and passionate speaker. I think he has a future even though I suspect Castillo will win this primary in a squeaker.

Other Quick Impressions --

James Watkins -- Watkins came off as a very promising newcomer.  Level headed but passionate, strong on Good issues and making an efective case for residents of the 1st district.  Inslee has taken 66%+ the last few elections, so it will be tough but maybe this is the year.
Doc Hastings -- Very good. I had never heard him speak but he was a unity speaker. He compared 2010 favorably to 1994 for the Republicans. He was very specific with detailed facts. That was much more compelling than some of the high level speeches most people were giving. If you bring some statistics and details to a speech it will be much more compelling. Doc Hastings knows that and it showed.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers -- Her speech seemed very polished and strong. Glad we have her.
Doug Cloud in the 9th came off as angry. He used too many violent images in his speech (grabbing taxes by the back of their heads and smashing their faces into concrete? Holy cow...).

I wish all the candidates success and hope the party enjoys another 1994!

2010 Washington State Republican Convention: First Impressions

I was hoping that this weekend’s Republican State Convention would be a good opportunity to meet other Republicans and get fired up for the upcoming election season.  It was.  Luke Esser and team did a great job accommodating 1,179 delegates (a 100% increase in attendance over the previous non-presidential convention), which reflects the enthusiasm of Republicans across the state in 2010.  There were many first time delegates and there was a legion of great candidates; everyone thinks we can win in 2010.   

In forthcoming notes I want to discuss the rhetoric of the candidates and the candidates themselves.  For now, let me briefly recap the events and comment on just one issue, which is the schedule of the convention and what it tells us about the purpose of the convention.  This sounds dry but it became an important issue for many. 

In terms of their ideas of what the convention was about, delegates seemed to break into two groups.  One group essentially saw the convention as an opportunity to see candidates firsthand, network with other grassroots Republicans, and plan for the upcoming year.  I’ll call these people the Conventioneers.  The other group hoped the convention would be more like a constitutional convention or a debating society where a platform would be drafted and negotiated in detail.  I’ll call these people the Debaters.

If you’ve been to political conventions before, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that the Debaters were somewhat disappointed by the amount of actual debating that occurred.    

Here’s how the whole thing worked, which is fairly representative of these things generally.  On the first day, there were classes -- how to use new media, how to manage a political campaign, etc.  This is learning time and social time. That night, there was a dinner.  Dino Rossi was there and Michelle Malkin set the audience on fire.  After dinner, prominent candidates hosted open gatherings in hotel rooms.  As a friend of mine said, “this is where the fun begins.”  Well, truth be told it doesn’t get very crazy but prominent elected officials are around and they were all very friendly and approachable.  Rob McKenna had a room and was very friendly to everyone.  Dino Rossi had a big room and, with his wife Terri, was very social and tirelessly posed for photos with delegates and guests.  Clint Didier had a “tailgate party” to which he wore his two (three?) superbowl rings (which look huge even on his huge hand).  Cathy McMorris Rodgers was there.  Don Benton was there.  I’m sure there were a hundred important people I didn’t even recognize.  People took this time to meet each other, share ideas and compare notes from different parts of the state.

The next day, Saturday, is/was the big meeting where candidates give speeches, the keynote speaker speaks (Mitt Romney was great; his speech is accurately recounted here http://wp.me/pjvHX-Te) and the platform is passed.  Then everyone goes home.  The platform part starts in earnest around 2.  Then the whole thing ends at 5 sharp.  So there isn’t much time to debate the platform.  Thus the disappointment among the Debaters. 

In fact, precious little real debate occurred at all since mostly we debated the rules that would govern the debating and then we debated which issues we should probably set aside to debate later and then after that we basically ran out of time.  Oops! 

Trust me, I don’t want to hear again about Robert’s Rules of Order for quite a while. 

Here is my perspective, though.  My perspective is that the Debaters are not being realistic about the schedule or about the true importance and purpose of conventions.  To debate the platform from the ground up, including every amendment, would require weeks.  Even a single proposition could take hours to debate among over a thousand participants. We could have spent a summer in Vancouver and, while Southwestern Washington is a nice place, we’ve all got other plans this summer.  

Some argued that debating the platform was “the people’s business that we were sent here to do.”  I would disagree.  Everyone knew that there was a platform committee.  They took months to draft a platform.   Everyone knows that it is unrealistic to draft a new platform on the spot in open debate.  Our actual responsibility is to elect sensible people to the platform committee and then to accept their work unless they have clearly failed to represent the party well.  Really there is no other way to do it.  I think 90% of the delegates thought that the document was representative of the state of the party today and that relitigating all the various issues that were no doubt debated in the platform process would be pointless.  The fact that large groups are bad at crafting documents is, after all, why the convention has a platform committee (and is why legislative bodies generally have committees).   

So I think the Debaters were being unrealistic about the schedule and about our role.  But also I would argue that the Debaters have an unrealistic understanding of the real purpose and true potential of conventions in general.  The reality is that state platforms are not read by normal human beings (the kind of voters who actually wind up swinging elections in the real world).  Therefore, platforms do not generally have a major impact on elections in the United States.  That’s the fact. 

What does have a major impact?  The energy and message of the grassroots party organizers and influencers  These are the people who are going to have and distribute yard signs, donate money, doorbell, speak with their neighbors, write blogs, organize events, tweet and in a thousand ways help the party actually win. 

What matters coming out of a convention is that those influencers are fired up, informed, have plans, and perhaps have made a few new contacts in the party with whom they can coordinate.  That is the important thing about a convention.  The platform, assuming it does an adequate job representing the party, is not.

So my conclusion is that the Debaters both had an unrealistic idea of what can be accomplished at a convention and a very weak sense of the real life relative importance of the things that happen at a convention.  The Debaters might think the social part of the convention was annoying or irrelevant (compared to the “substantive issues” of the platform) but they’re missing the point.  The mingling may be “where the fun begins,” but it may be the most impactful part of the event, too. 

That said, I do think the platform process can be improved.  It might be better to make drafts of the platform public on WSRP.org at various stages.  Feedback could be solicited from the community.  Conceivably a system could be set up to track delegates, systematically tally their feedback to early drafts and expand the circle in some formal way.  I would be all for that. I would also support moving from a system with one representative per Washington county, which is absurdly antidemocratic, but I’ll talk about that in my next post.  Finally, I think the rules should just call for an up or down vote on the platform.  We should be straight about whether we want extensive debate or not.  If it’s just not on the table, then the Debaters shouldn’t be teased by rules suggesting that the broader community can reopen and debate every issue. 

Thanks for reading, pals, and, as Secretary of State Sam Reed said at the convention, “stay united!”

McGinn lame ducks himself

Honestly, I voted for Mike McGinn.  I did so because he seemed much smarter, frankly, than his opponent.  Having a dumb mayor certainly seems bad.  But smarty pants has unfortunately decided that being an outsider is what he wants to be, and that he would like to go back to being a gadfly instead of being mayor.

He laid the groundwork by alienating the city council on the seawall issue and coming off as a guy who doesn't play well with others.

He finished the job on April 22 by vetoing Tim Burgess's anti-aggressive panhandling measure, which said that people, in the words of the PI, "can't block someone, use threatening or aggressive gestures or profane language, solicit someone using an ATM or repeatedly solicit someone who has already said 'no.'" 

Seems pretty reasonable and inoffensive, no?

McGinn then brought together all the ACLU and other apparatchiks, who represent about 5% of the vote, to celebrate his veto.  This is going to go down very poorly in the next election.  You can't completely abandon the regular person.  And the regular person wants to be able to walk around downtown without being accosted. 

The rest of McGinn's term will be a lame duck waiting game trying to figure out who the next mayor will be.  Perhaps Tim Burgess?

Exposed: Democrat Dirty Tricks in Olympia

The Seattle Times reports today that the Public Disclosure Commission has reported that there is "no evidence" that in 2008 Dino Rossi in any way coordinated his campaign with the election spending of the Building Industry Association of Washington and that the claims against him and their timing were, clearly, politically motivated.

The Times: "when either party abuses the public trust it should be called out. This was a case of the Democrats abusing the legal and regulatory process, not once, but several times."

I couldn't have said it better myself.  I only wish the paper could have dug a little more to determine who was behind the strategically timed dirty trick.  Presumably King County Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas was in on it, at least implicitly, since with no evidence at all she approved the Rossi deposition to be scheduled days before the election.  Kallas certainly should not be re-elected, but how much further does this go?

Well at the very least it's fair to presume that the claimants (Washington legal insiders Robert Utter and Faith Ireland) and their attorney, ambulance chaser Mike Withey were in on it.  But they're essentially tools, apparatchiks with little to lose. 

Wouldn't it be surprising if Christine Gregoire and her 2008 campaign manager Kelly Evans knew nothing about this?

The Mom Rule of Constitutional Interpretation

Today the Seattle Times came out defending Attorney General Rob McKenna joining Florida's lawsuit over the healthcare bill.  They pointed out that Florida is footing the bill and that if you take a step back for a second it does seem kind of crazy that the healthcare bill is an expression of Congress's power to "regulate commerce."  Kudos to them for being fair. 

I would suggest here a principle of constitutional hermeneutics.  If you interpret a clause in such a way that you could not with a straight face explain your interpretation to your mother or your 4th grade English teacher, then you have gone too far.

Do you want to tell your mom that you believe that the right to "regulate Commerce...among the several States" includes the right to force every citizen to buy insurance?  I don't, brother.

Fantasy is easier to sell than truth -- in the short term

To the Liberal Democrat, history is always in the midst of an incomplete progression toward a utopian end.  History is a story with a happy ending and we are all always making progress through that story.  In the fullness of time, with occasional and minor setbacks caused by ignorance, we will achieve, in the Liberal view, a society where all needs are met equally for everyone, where there is no lack and no unfairness.  In the end our long struggle will bring into existence the kind of perfect society humans have been fighting for and dreaming of forever. 

To the conservative, there is no perfect society but the United States of American pretty much is about as close as we’re going to get to the society humans have been fighting for and dreaming of forever.  The culture and economic success of the United States of America are precious and unique achievements that must be protected from destruction by those who do not understand what makes them precious and unique.  Two of the most important characteristics of this culture are individual freedom and opportunity.  To the extent we can use new tools and theories to better secure these or to improve our lives in other ways, we should, but above all else we should safeguard this unique American life. 

To accomplish Liberal goals it is important to keep expanding, in George Will's phrase, "the network of dependency" (on government) and essentially keep voting new gifts to people while taking a larger and larger share of money away from the people who, in an above average way, contribute to and earn money from the economy.

To accomplish Conservative goals we need to above all prevent anyone with bad ideas from messing up the system.  And secondly, we need to make things even better where we can without messing up the underlying goodness.

It is harder to get people to vote for a Conservative platform because it is, obviously, not as full of goodies.

Now, that said, Conservatism does have certain advantages.  The main advantage of Conservative policies is that they work.  The qualities of individual opportunity and liberty are so psychologically important to humans that when you remove them from a society, things tend to go quite poorly but when you design an economy and political system taking them into account, things can go quite well. 

I hope we can make this case well enough that we don't need to learn the lessons of Liberalism and of the late 1970s again the hard way.

Obama in 2012: Either an Idiot or a Genius

By getting his bill passed, Obama has avoided the debilitating fate of being perceived as an inexperienced incompetent who wasted America's time.  He should be delighted that it passed, and he is. 

Many clever ruses were employed not only to get the bill passed but also to optimize the bill’s impact on his and his party’s electoral success, not least of which is pushing much of the tax pain until after the next presidential election.  I have to say, that was brilliant.  You have to give David Plouffe some credit.  I wish he was on our side, except that I wouldn’t want anyone that dishonest on our side.

Here is the major ramification: the 2012 election, one way or another, will now not be particularly close: Obama will be, by then, either an idiot or a genius.  If the economy keeps going despite Obama’s massive new deficits, then Obama will win easily.  It will not be close.  The objection to a massive new entitlement or a massive stimulus bill is that it is too expensive and will therefore hurt the economy.  So if the economy goes sour the Dems will pay the price.  But if the economy does not and it turns out that the system can, in the end, support more spending and larger deficits, then Obama wins. 

The Democrats complained about Reagan’s deficits.  Kennedy, Carter, Mondale, Lester Thurow, Pat Schroeder and Howard Metzenbaum predicted that Reagan would ruin the economy.  The Reagan administration set the economy on a course for multiple decades of prosperity and now Reagan is a genius, no one has heard of Howard Metzenbaum and Lester Thurow is a nobody. 

In theory, the government can only borrow so much.  If it borrows too much, then there is nothing left over for corporations to borrow so the economy goes bad.  Or if that doesn't shut things down global financial markets may lose faith in the ability of the government to repay its borrowings, which will drive up interest rates and depress the economy.  If the government tries to avoid its debts by devaluing its currency, it will lead to inflation.  By whatever theory you like, there is a point at which you have borrowed too much.  Just ask Greece.  The trouble is that no one knows where that point is.  Paul Krugman doesn’t know.  Paul Volcker doesn’t know.   Alan Greenspan doesn’t know.   

Similarly, there is some point at which taxes are too high and people lose incentives to work and invest.  So the economy goes bad.  We’re not sure when that happens either or how to measure its exact effects, though there is a general notion that we probably reached that point under Jimmy Carter and that the UK definitely reached that point pre-Margaret Thatcher.

But the bottom line is that no one can exactly predict the economy's tolerance for high taxes or high deficits.  Chloride is a caustic chemical that can be used to make poison gas.  But if you put it together with Sodium to make salt, then in reasonable quantities it makes our food taste great.    At this point with respect to major economic phenomena, no one knows what "reasonable quantities" are but we are making some major, and some would say (count me among them), unnecessary bets as to what they are not. 

The key is that everyone is on the record.  Obama and Krugman are on one side saying that the proposed deficits and necessary taxes (which have not been fully specified) can and will be fully compatible with a successful economy.  The Republican Party says they are incompatible.  We will find out soon enough.  If things go well it will not be a defense to say that whether it went well or not it was an unnecessary risk at a bad time to take an economic risk.  If everything works out, no one will care about that. Obama and Krugman will be geniuses.

But if things do not go well and this blows up in our collective face then Obama is Carter 2.0.