The Chair's Pierce County Musing

2007-06-16T06:44:00.000-07:00

Privacy risked at the Party Headquarters...

If you saw Thursday night's (June 14) KING 5 news report you probably saw that the Pierce County Republican Party had put "100s if not 1000s of donors and party members' privacy at risk for identity theft". If you did not see the report, or just want the straight information, here is what happened and what we have done about it. (Check out <www.king5.com/> for a link to their report.)

On Wednesday afternoon, (June 13) Lucy, our office manager, put out the recycle bin for the first time since December. (It has taken that long to fill up.) Accidentally three folders which were not intended to be recycled were put into the recycle bin and taken to the curb for the normal Thursday morning pickup. During that Wednesday afternoon or early evening, a passerby noticed the recycle bin and noticed that some of the papers included privacy information that should have been protected. That passerby took the files and contacted KING 5 news to describe what he had. KING 5 news' Eric Wilkinson came down on Thursday, interviewed the passerby and called me to get my reaction. I had not heard of the incident and said so. I also said that the most important thing was to protect the records he now had in his possession so that we could quickly notify anyone whose privacy information was at risk to be extra vigilant in protecting their identity.

I drove to KING Broadcasting in Seattle last night, retrieved the documents intact and locked them up in the office.

How the records got into the recycle bin we are not sure. But today (June 15) Lucy and I personally reviewed each and every scrap of paper and discovered that the vast majority were meeting minutes, agenda and the like. Many were non-privacy Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) records of names, addresses, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers of PCOs or donors - though these are the same records that are on-line and available for all to see at the PDC or at the Auditor's websites. Eleven records, however, were copies of personal services contracts from some of the folks who operated one of our phone banks in 2006 for a fee. Those contracts included their Social Security Account Number (SSAN). We wrote a certified letter today to each of the 11 whose SSAN was left in the recycle bin to warn them of the breach and to be extra cautious. We are confident that the numbers were not compromised, however, since we got all the records back.

That does not excuse the lapse. What could have happened would not have been acceptable. So in addition to having Lucy or me "dumpster dive" all of the trash or recycle containers before we put them out for pick-up to make sure that no personal or privacy data is included, we will shred every piece of paper we print or any other that has names, addresses, etc, even though the exact same information may be available on line. We also determined that the shredder we did have was more of a "home" variety and could not either handle the volume or do an adequate job of denying the data to anyone with a child's glue gun and Scotch Tape. We purchased an industrial variety shredder that also cross-cuts so that it is just too difficult to put the data back together. In fact, all of the data we recovered from this incident is either returned to the 11 individuals whose SSAN was available on the paper, or is totally (cross cut) shredded.

Additionally, we looked around and discovered a ton of old (some back to the early 90's) records
stored throughout the headquarters. To review and perhaps destroy those records, I will call a work party together in the next several weeks and review all of the old stuff and shred all that is not of historical value (or required to be maintained for the IRS for five years.) We do not want what is junk to us to be treasure to an identity thief.

I grant that our party is doing the public's business and must be very open and above board. I also grant that we are a group of volunteers, but none-the-less we must be vigilant in protecting party members and donors from unscrupulous activity - there is enough of that in politics and campaigns.

If you have any suggestions for improving our new protections let me or Lucy know right away.

I sincerely apologize for any concerns this may cause you, but I am absolutely confident that what was left in the recycle bin on Wednesday did not leak out.

I had already told the state party headquarters about this incident even as it was unfolding. Now, however, I am going to ask them to use us as an example of things that could happen to other county parties. Perhaps in that way they can find ways to resolve issues before the same thing happens to them that happened to us.

Deryl McCarty
Chairman,
Pierce County Republican Party

2007-06-06T14:49:00.000-07:00

There’s something about IRV…

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), now called Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), was one of the changes made to the county charter by the voters last November.

The Auditor formed a 10 person Blue Ribbon Review Panel to help give her ideas on how to implement RCV in Pierce County for the 2008 General Election.

While RCV “only” applies to the County Executive, County Council, Auditor, Sheriff (for now) and Assessor-Treasurer offices – it is no small undertaking. Besides, RCV is used in only one other voting area our size – the City and County of San Francisco. Uh-oh. And they use it only on NON-partisan races - we will use it in only partisan races. Double uh-oh.

As a member of that Blue Ribbon Review Panel we discussed some major RCV challenges over the past two months. Strangely, most panel members have agreed with each other as we’ve come up with ideas to help implement this new-fangled voting idea. (Even stranger, the rather likable and thoughtful Democratic Party Chair has agreed with me on almost every single issue.)

Here are some of the issues.

The “new” Charter says: “The County central committee of each major political party may determine which candidates may use their party label for each County level office.” Actually this sounds just like I’d want it to say, but how do we implement the concept? And more importantly, does the Auditor say “no” to someone who wants to file as a Republican, for example, and they are not endorsed by the Party? And how does she know? And do the parties specify who can carry their label before or after a candidate files for a particular office. (Remember, the smallest filing fee for partisan county office is over $900.)

Frankly, this was pretty easy to figure out. We agreed that the parties would specify in writing about 1 March that we would opt to exercise our Charter rights. And before you ask, it is entirely possible that one party (the Democrats this year) or both would choose NOT to exercise their right to specify to the Auditor who could file using the Party’s label.

We also agreed that by April 15th we would also notify the Auditor which candidates (and for which office) could run under the Republican banner. Any other folks who try to file using our name would be refused. This is way before filing week which is the first week in June.

The April 15th date gives plenty of time for those who choose not to run under a Republican banner (or who fail to get a Republican endorsement at the County Convention) to file as an independent or under a minor party label.

The only question remaining is what party rules will we use to determine who can use our name. That is NOT the Auditor’s business and will likely be different for each party. Currently our rules are that anyone who gets 25% of his caucus vote can run as a Republican. In theory up to four folks could be a “Republican”. Remember, though, an incumbent Republican can have no Republican opposition unless 67% of the caucus votes for another candidate.

Things could get even more interesting if the Washington State Republican Party Central Committee changes the rules to, say, require a candidate get 33% or even 45% of the caucus vote to be able to use the Republican name.

Another big subject for the Auditor is “how to vote”.

Ranked Choice Voting sounds pretty simple. If you see ten candidates on the ballot for a specific office you rank order them from 1 to 10 – with 1 being your first choice and 10 your last. On certification day, a computer program that adds all the votes, drops the candidates with the fewest votes, adds their second (third, fourth, etc) place ballots to the remaining candidates and when you are down to two candidates, the one with the most votes wins.

But…

Unless you want to spend millions of dollars that we don’t have on new voting equipment, the equipment we do have will only let you rank order your top three candidates. You can still have ten candidates, you just can’t rank order them below three.

The problem: this was not what the voters voted for. If the Auditor cannot or will not spend the money to buy new machines, then is the County open to law suits based on a different definition of RCV than the voters intended? So does this mean we are going to spend either $$millions on new voting machines or law suits? And spending money is NOT what the voters intended. What a sticky wicket! I can just see the lawyers in a tax feeding frenzy. Sigh.

Another question we faced started out to me as a “no brainer”. The question: how and when does the Auditor report voting data after the polls close and until the time the votes are certified two weeks later?

Here is why this is a problem. When the votes are counted everyday AND the formula (insiders call it an algorithm) is applied so that the 2nd and 3rd place votes are redistributed to the candidates with the higher vote counts there could be wild swings in the winner category depending on whose votes at the bottom of the heap are being “redistributed”. We were told by our voting machine company that the San Francisco elections officer got so much flack when he released the full information everyday that the next election he released almost no information until the last day.

We cannot let our Auditor hide information. It may cause confusion if the voters see wild swings in the winner’s circle; but voters will be angry if they think an elected official is hiding something or that an elected official thinks the voters are too stupid to understand.

But here is some truth from the ages: a confused voter is enlightened with full disclosure. An angry voter is only happy when you are thrown out of office on your ear! (Especially after the 2004 Governor’s race debacle in King County.)

Our advice is that all the data be released at the end of every ballot counting day. But maybe we don’t need to run the formula everyday – besides we were told that San Francisco has to stop counting ballots and spend 3+ hours every day just to run the formula and put the information into a format that the voters and the media can understand. I think that if everyday we were told how many 1s, 2s, and 3s each candidate got, then voters, political junkies and the media could probably figure out “who’s on first” without having to delay all of the other counting that has to be done. Another way to solve the problem could be to publish all the data everyday but only run the formula twice a week until the last day. Either way works for me, but hiding data because it’s inconvenient does not.

Another question from the Auditor: RCV is going to mean second piece of paper in the ballot envelope which will increase the poll worker confusion factor, so do we need to go to an all mail in ballot system like 37 of the 39 counties in Washington. (Only King and Pierce will have polls in 2008). The Auditor even suggested a compromise to keep some polls by implementing a “Vote Center” concept, which is a high tech polling location in only 5-7 places across the county instead of the 50+ polling stations we have now. A vote center would have every kind of machine and anyone from any part of the county could vote – you would not be tied to a particular polling location. It would be the place to ask questions since only the real “experts” would man the vote center. I personally like having both vote-by-mail AND polling places. It minimizes confusion because if voters have questions, they have a close-by place to go to get answers. I also really like the “Drop Off” locations scattered around the county - it saves me a lot of money.

This issue is really a question of $$$$$$$$$$$$$ !!

Certainly polling places and vote centers cost money, but so does a mail in system. We talked about the extra money a few years ago when the vote by mail program was proposed and rejected by the County Council. Then the costs were a “wash”. But that has now changed.

The new postal rates and the method they are determined will really affect your wallet. Until now, it cost 11 cents for the Auditor to mail your ballot to you (it was presorted by zip code which is a cheaper rate) and it cost you 39 cents to mail it back (unless you used the “drop off” locations.) Now, it will cost the auditor over 20 cents each to mail you your ballot, and cost you somewhere between 92 cents and $1.11 for you to mail your ballot back because it is now two pieces of paper and not only weighs more it is thicker and both things are now how the Post Office calculates postage. Yikes!

Some suggested, including the Auditor, that the county pay the return postage, kind of like a business reply envelope. To me it makes no difference. We taxpayers pay either way. But if we use a business reply type envelope, we won’t have to buy a bunch of weird denomination stamps.

We’d better start figuring out how to vote by e-mail securely, because then it will cost us less than a penny to vote.

Our advice was to keep things as they are with a mix of drop off, poll and mail in voter systems. Just make sure that each of the 58 polling places can also accept drop off mail ballots so that voters can avoid a $1.11 postal charge if they choose.

I guess our point was that we just don’t need another change to our voting processes. Let’s get this first RCV election under our belt and then see what glitches need to be corrected; then lets’ get with the County Council to see if we need all mail in voting and what we can afford.

The final question the Auditor posed to us was this: how do we educate the voter and how much do we spend to do it? How do we reach the voter and tell him or her about how RCV works and how to mark their ballot. The Auditor suggested three general approaches measured by how many times the voter is contacted. If you measure by voter contact then a 1-2 contact per voter program was projected to cost $175,000, three contacts about $350,000 and five contacts about half a million. But the costs were pretty high and the actual contact is hard to determine. The voter can be contacted though snail mail (41 cents each), post card (23 cents each), TNT ads ($1000’s to get, but pennies per contact), cable (??); TV (lots and lots of $$$$ but why do we need to reach the voters in King, Kitsap, Snohomish and Thurston), website (a few pennies), door-to-door (cheap if you use college and high school kids), or e-mail (also cheap). The San Francisco election chief was on hand for that discussion and he said that what they concentrated on was just how to mark the ballot not to get cute and tell people how the formula works or why this was adopted. If you just let the media handle that part as a news story and concentrate on how the voter is to mark the new ballot, it did not cost so quite much and you can use the internet, citizen to citizen contact at Kiwanis, Rotary Clubs and PTA meeting to present a DVD for additional contact. You can also use bus bill boards to quickly tell or show people how to mark their ballots.

The Auditor will be meeting with the County Council soon to help iron out details. The Council may have to put some more Charter language updates on the ballot this November to clear up some of the unclear language that the Charter Review Commission left us with.

A number of citizens who attended the Blue Ribbon Review Panel meetings testified that they thought that the Charter Review Commission had not done their job well. Sloppy is the word used by several. I am not so sure they were sloppy, but some items were not clearly spelled out. And some of the language was not fully thought through.

In the final analysis, though, this is not a question of whether we like or want RCV – I don’t and didn’t and neither did the Republican Party - nor the Democratic Party for that matter. But this is a question of governance. The voters approved RCV. The county is now obligated to “faithfully execute” the voters’ choice at the least possible cost. Besides, it is never wise to poke the voters’ in the eye by not executing the law as they gave it.

Unfortunately, the terms “faithfully execute” and “least cost” are mutually exclusive terms unless you watch county officials like a hawk!

2007-05-03T13:36:00.000-07:00

Too Far…

Last weekend the Washington State Democrat Party went too far. In their effort to draw a distinction between Republican and Democrat policy ideals, the Democrats decided to promote a traitor as a “policy ideal”. This is beyond just their normal Bush bashing or race baiting, what they did was anti-American.

What happened?

By an overwhelming vote, the Washington State Democrat Central Committee voted to support Lieutenant (for now) Ehren Watada’s refusal to go to Iraq to fight the war on terror. Certainly we civilians can argue about whether fighting terrorists in Iraq and building an infrastructure to help Iraqis form a more just and a more open society – one not inclined to treat women as third class chattel or murder and maim men and innocent villagers with abandon – is a good thing or a bad thing. We civilians can argue whether the “methodology” or “location” or “how much” (in both treasure and blood) is worth the effort. Those are political and policy questions to be discussed and decided by political parties, Congress, citizens, news media, talk show hosts and presidents. These are NOT policy questions to be decided by an active duty military officer who is scared, inconvenienced, doesn’t want to get his parade uniforms dirty or whose family doesn’t like the commander-in-chief’s politics.

Like it or not ours is a volunteer military and Watada is a willing participant who volunteered in time of a congressionally authorized and appropriated conflict (HJR 114 in 2002) – hence fully legal. Watada was ordered to participate in that fully legal conflict but refused to go. He is therefore guilty of “missing a movement” a court martial (felony) offense with a maximum penalty of two years in prison, a dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.

But wait there’s more…

Watada “refused to go” in order to make a political statement designed to embarrass the President thereby weakening US resolve. That means his actions gave aid and comfort to the enemy in time of conflict – a classic definition of “aiding the enemy” or treason. And “aiding the enemy” my friends, is the highest court martial offense. The penalty: “…shall suffer death or other such punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.” (UCMJ Article 104)

It is sad that the Democrat Party fell victim to supporting a traitor like Watada. It is sad that a once noble party has succumbed to and is now lead by its virulent and hate-filled radical left wing.

It’s no secret that our political success as a nation results from having two “big tent” parties that historically govern from slightly to the left or slightly to the right of center depending on the party in power. The main stream media and the campaign staffs don’t always like to highlight these historically narrow differences, because it doesn’t make good headlines. But if you look closely at state and county government the vast majority of laws are enacted by overwhelming majorities of both Republican and Democrat legislators. The contentious bills we all hear about (and argue over) are often only 5-10% of the total bills that are seriously considered.

In the final analysis, the once noble Democrat Party chose a corrosive path to convince voters that they are should be governing Washington. If we are not vigilant, we will see more and more Democrat candidates who will govern from far into the radical left field.

We Republicans must also be vigilant by offering Republican candidates who are measured, thoughtful and don’t spend money like drunken sailors (apologies to sailors – you are doing a great job under extreme circumstances.) We Republicans must support - both materially and morally – the 99.99999% of military members who are answering America’s call with distinct honor. We must never support traitors who would see American’s enemies comforted just to make a domestic political point.

Deryl McCarty

Chairman, Pierce County Republican Party

2006-06-30T17:06:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, Rep Dan Roach (R-31) called and asked if I had read this week’s Bonney Lake Courier Herald. I had not. I called the paper and got a copy and read. One article in particular got me pretty miffed (this is a family friendly blog). I called the paper back and asked if I could respond. They said yes, if I could get a rebuttal back to them by this morning at 10 AM. Now, I usually don’t work well at 3 AM, but below is my response. It is way too long so the paper will likely cut it down. Did I miss anything? (After my response, you can read what the Democrats wrote.)

Here’s what I wrote on the Party’s behalf:

In an editorial last week, you were treated to a somewhat inflammatory class warfare editorial on why you should vote against your locally elected Republicans. The article suggested that because oil companies were getting record profits (much of which comes back to us as dividends to retirement trusts, 401k’s, and mutual fund distributions, etc) we should vote against the one group of people who are trying to make sure that the profits are directed to research, dividends (well, not me, I chose high tech stocks and am getting lambasted), new wells and refining capacity. The article aims at the wrong target. The profit per gallon of gas is far less that the taxes we are paying per gallon (and we are paying three more cents per gallon starting this week). It’s big government that needs reining in. In fact, during this last legislature, our Democrat majority and our Democrat governor approved the single largest spending increase in state history – 17%. Yikes! The Democrat majority, faced with an unexpected increase in revenue because the state’s economy finally started to climb out of its anti-business doldrums, couldn’t spend the money fast enough. Yet we have a state retirement account under-funded by billions and no where near the 5% emergency fund we should have.

If “all politics is local” (apologies to Speaker Tip O’Neil) then we need to elect local politicians who are more skeptical of big government spending than our local democrats appear to be. Around here, that means re-electing Senator Pam Roach and Representatives Jan Shabro and Dan Roach. I have worked for Pam and Jan (and worked with Dan on his campaigns) and I can tell you first hand, they are the most trustworthy, dedicated, hard-working folks you will ever meet. And they get part-time wages working for you full-time. In fact, I got more money working as a Legislative Assistant ($36k) than they did as YOUR elected representative ($34k) – and I went home at 5PM and they stayed on for hours going to committee meetings, constituent meetings and town hall meetings. Yet they are willing to stay on and fight for you. They listen and translate that listening into law or defeating bills that interfere with your daily lives. In fact, each of your Republican legislators spends far more time stopping intrusive, land-grabbing, “I know what’s best for you” legislation submitted by the majority than almost any other job.

I was a little offended by the comment that “Pam Roach has received the maximum amount of donations allowed from big oil companies.” And “…Pam Roach voted against the Energy Independence Bill…” Well, in her last campaign she took $1,350 from Chevron and $600 from BP - $1,950 out of a total of $169,321.15: 1.2%. It makes absolutely no sense to then suggest that Pam would sell her vote to oppose legislation that requires nothing more than what the governor had already mandated for state vehicles – the use of some ethanol in gasoline and 2% bio-diesel. And yet, not enough ethanol stocks existed to do more than what did happen: force a per gallon gasoline price increase this summer. Even worse, bio-diesel quality forced the only other state to have such a requirement (Minnesota) to temporarily suspend its bio-diesel requirement and the Washington State Ferries requested exemption from the Governor’s Executive Order after experimentation with bio-diesel clogged fuel filters. This law was not ready for prime time and Pam said so. That’s her job.

At the national level, we in the 8th Congressional District have one of the most effective freshman legislators America has ever had. He is the most respected elected authority on Homeland Security in the nation; he has direct access to the President; and, after only one year of his first two year term of office was selected as a Subcommittee Chair – only the sixth time in US history that Congress has selected a freshman for such responsibility. And where did he convene one of the crucial First Responder hearings in the field? Washington, DC? Nope. New York City? Nope. Seattle? Nope. Bellevue? Nope. Orting. Right here in our neck of the woods. Why? Because Congressman (and Chairman) Dave Reichert felt that we here in the rural and suburban areas have just as much at stake in Homeland Security as the big city boys and a lot fewer resources to do it with. Besides, I have a real problem when someone slams a guy whose integrity and dedication is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Dave Reichert is a real hero, whose 35 years of public service in the Air Force Reserve and the King County Sheriff’s Department exceed his opponents total life experience. Here is a guy who maintains a positive attitude, unbeatable work ethic, phenomenal energy and absolute dogged determination to get the job done. The proof: Dave Reichert literally gets his throat slit defending a woman whose husband was beating her. And still he comes back to doggedly chase down and jail the worst serial killer in US history – the Green River killer – and was the law enforcement officer who chased WTO vandals who were destroying Seattle businesses. Most of all, when you meet Dave you know that here is a real gentleman, a gentle giant of a leader who listens to you and then gets the job done. This guy is made of Presidential timber. For us in the 8th District it should be a no-brainer to return Dave Reichert to Congress this November

Where Washington has less effective representation is in the US Senate. Why? Mostly because that august, ponderous debating society too often degenerates into a rancorous, uncivil, squabbling mess. We need Senators who talk about facts, keep a civil tongue and treat colleagues with respect. Alas, we hear nothing but sound bites and biting sounds. That’s why Republican Mike McGavick is doing so well against incumbent freshman Democrat Maria Cantwell. Mike brings a fresh sense of civility. He is a quiet, thoughtful guy who bases decisions on facts, human need and common sense. He has served in Washington, DC and knows the territory. He was called up on to captain one of Washington’s premier companies – SAFECO. And at the time SAFECO was on its proverbial butt, it was bleeding millions of dollars. We were going to lose the company. But Mike saved it and then turned it around from big-time loser to profitable. Mike’s opponents will say that he fired a bunch of employees in order to save the company. But if a company only has one real cost, its employees, and if the company’s sail has to be trimmed in order to save it, you have no other choice but to trim some of the fat. Oh did it hurt! Yet we have talked to some of those same “fired” (downsized) employees who swear by Mike and believe that he did exactly the right thing for the company, for its thousands of policy holders, and for Washington. (Besides, I have finally gotten used to calling it SAFECO Field. You “gotta love those guys” when a winning company is sponsoring a winning team.)

Where I do agree with last week’s article is that YOU determine which way our state and federal policies go through the ballot box. You send the message and they write the law. Please hear out the candidates of both parties. Listen to them with your heart and head. Ask yourself if their ideas and vision are about what yours are. Don’t expect to agree with anyone 100%, but at 70-80% agreement, they are probably your best bet. Then look them in the eye and let your heart decide if you can trust them. It’s your money not theirs. I recommend to you our Republican candidates. In the words of the Car Pro guys, “You’re going to like what you see.”

This is what our Democrat brethren and sisteren (?) wrote:

Last month, Congress, with President Bush¹s blessing, passed a Republican-sponsored tax plan that allows the big oil companies to continue receiving tax breaks. Why now, when big oil companies are raking in record-breaking windfall profits while the little guy is getting gouged at the pumps?
U.S. Congressman Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) supported this skewed plan by voting, as usual, his party¹s line. U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) voted against it, noting, ³The oil and gas industry does not need more giveaways, and they certainly shouldn¹t come at the expense of tax cuts like the sales tax deductionŠ² In this tax-break plan that assures big oil companies even bigger profits, the Republicans eliminated a sales tax deduction that would have afforded much-needed tax relief for many Washington citizens. Earlier this year Cantwell championed that same sales tax exemption and the Senate approved it.
Since her election in 2000, Pam Roach, Republican state senator from the 31st District, has accepted the maximum amount of donations allowed from big oil companies. These maximum donations were from Chevron, Texaco, Tesoro and the BP Corporation. Also, in 2005 Sen. Roach received a donation from the Washington Oil Marketers Association. Does the ³Pay to Play² behavior so prevalent in Washington, D.C., have the same effect in Washington state?
During the 2006 legislative session, Pam Roach voted against the Energy Independence Bill (ESSB 6508) designed to decrease our reliance on foreign oil a bill that was vehemently opposed by big oil interests. Does the ³Pay to Play² behavior so prevalent in too many Washington, D.C. politicians possibly have the same effect on Sen. Roach and other career politicians in Washington state?
What is fair or ethical? While you and I continue to be robbed at the pumps, the five largest oil and gas companies pulled in gross profits of
$287 billion in 2005. Recently retired Exxon Mobil chairman Lee Raymond received an astoundingly lucrative retirement package. Even a U.S. House committee looking into Raymond¹s package of nearly $400 million called it an ³exorbitant payout.² Yet this unbelievable tax plan designed to benefit big oil companies passed that same Republican-controlled House.
The Republicans¹ response to the consumer¹s plight, instead of promoting energy independence, they proposed a one-time payment of $100 per consumer.
Most realized this ploy did little to address price gouging; for many, it played out like a bad joke. Entrenched Republicans can¹t seem to break from the ³pay to play² philosophy.
How do these facts set with you? Each time you gasp at the cost of filling your gas tank, remember that by voting you can initiate change. Washington state voters have viable choices in District 31, the 8th Congressional, and the U.S. Senate elections. It is your job as a voter to send a message.
Yvonne Ward, a community lawyer who has a long track record of helping local citizens and neighborhoods, believes in energy independence and renewable fuels. She is running for the 31st District Senate Seat against Pam Roach.
Karen Willard, a new, fresh, independent voice, is running for the 31st House Seat, position 1, currently held by Dan Roach. Former State Rep. Chris Hurst has left retirement to reclaim House seat No. 2, currently held by Jan Shabro. Democrats Ward, Willard, and Hurst have long histories with, and a depth of understanding of, the 31st District; they are independent of big business influence; and they will champion what is best for all Washington
citizens.
Finally, send a message to the folks in Washington, D.C. that we in the other Washington demand change. Democrat Darci Burner has strong ideas to make Congress more responsive to citizens rather than special interests.
Burner is challenging Dave Reichert for our 8th Congressional District Seat.
And our community benefits from Maria Cantwell¹s strong, tireless efforts to help our nation become energy-independent.
We need to free ourselves from big oil gauging and corporate misconduct; the key is at the voting box.
Sandra Loveland works for the Democratic Party.

Ok, now it’s off my chest.

2006-06-18T23:11:00.000-07:00

Friday was one of those highlights of a lifetime.

I stood in a line with only nine other people and on your behalf welcomed the President of the United States to western Washington. “W” was in fine form. Tanned, relaxed and in good humor, he evinced every mannerism the press whines about but that are endearing to Americans: the impish grin when he is amused, looking you (and only you) in the eye when he talks with you, and saying things in ways that put you at ease.

The President was here to help Congressman Dave Reichert as Dave seeks to defend his seat for the first time (which conventional wisdom says is the most difficult.) I don’t see Dave losing, but we have to work to get the job done. At the state convention, I noted that Dave had really grown in the job and because of his looks, history, and heroism, he has real star power – a sure winner.

But, truth be told: compared to the President of the United States coming down the stairs from Air Force One silhouetted against the Great Seal of the United States, no one has star power. No one!

After leaving Boeing Field, the President; Dave and his campaign staff; and the Washington State Republican Party (our own Andrea Innes playing a prominent role) put on a world class event in Medina that netted somewhere north of $750,000 – shared about equally between the State Party and the Reichert Campaign. They all put themselves on the map with that event. They did us proud.

I suspect that the President will return before the 2006 campaign season is over because there was one person missing from last Friday’s event: Mike McGavick. Our next US Senator was attending his son’s college graduation, which is one of the few reasons one could miss a presidential event. In fact, if I had been on his staff I would have counseled him to do exactly as he did. Fatherhood is a series of once in a lifetime events that you cannot miss. The important thing is that Mike has what it takes to win and better than that, he has the guts, class and smarts to be a great Senator. And right now Washington is sorely under-represented in the United States Senate.

I read that our students are having trouble with the math portion of the WASL. Well it’s no wonder. The Democrats are trying to tell us that when we add up our two partly good Senators we get a great one. But addition is not what it’s all about. It’s multiplication. And however you cut it, two times zero will always be zero.

C’mon back Mr. President.

2006-01-30T00:26:00.000-08:00

What’s Past is Prologue, Part II

What’s Prologue…

“May you be condemned to live in interesting times” is, according to urban myth, an old Chinese epithet that is both haunting and thoughtful. Unfortunately 2006 is looking to be an interesting time.

The year starts with lots of moving parts. In general; we have four elections in 2006: a US Senate race, US House races, the legislative races and county partisan races. So, what’s shakin’ with the races so far?

1. The US Senate race to remove Can’tdowell is actually looking pretty good. At first it looked like we’d have four pretty credible candidates who would fight right down to the primary wire. This, of course, guaranteed that no money would come into our senate race and Maria would win in a walk (even without Dean Logan’s professional
vote counters.) (You remember Maria, don’t you? She’s the I-will-never-take-PAC-money-but-I-am-in-$2.5-million-debt-so-I-have-to-take-PAC-money lady. But it's not her fault. She is a victim of McCain-Feingold. But, I digress.)

We have actually have a bit of good news. One of the early contenders, state Senator Linda Evans Parlette (R-Wenatchee) chose not to run. Not to put a too fine a point on it, but it is really hard to get an Easterner elected in a Washington-wide race.

Then Diane Tebelius, our new party Chair and a pretty darn sharp US Attorney-type bowed out. (I don’t think we have seen the last of her. She has a very strong resume and I see her as our primary bench for a statewide or judicial run.)

Susan Hutchison, the former KIRO-7 anchor, was still considering running for the Senate until last week or so. But she since has indicated to the press that she is no longer actively seeking the nomination. She spoke well at the State Central Committee meeting this weekend and underscored her credentials as a moderate speaking, but conservative Republican. And, my goodness, someone has done a really good job teaching her how to talk, walk, dress and speak. She is prime time (pun intended) for a King County or Seattle City run, then on to statewide or
federal job.

That brings us to the front runner – Mike McGavick. The life and times of Mike will be the subject of much media interest, but it’s all good – if not great.

Besides his political work as Slade’s campaign manager and subsequently Slade’s Chief of Staff for four years, Mike took on a failing Washington company – SAFECO – and turned it around, big time! But be prepared to look at the stuff you don’t easily see, though. Along with SAFECO comes boards, commissions and non-profit foundations that let Mike see a side of the Washington community that is full of possibility. When you hear him talk, what you hear is unusual, non-government approaches to the usual problems. What you hear is a thoughtful Republican
who is Catholic, conservative and cogent. (Think about why I said Catholic, then read on.)

In any case, Mike will be a great top of the ticket in Washington. His name ID , especially in Seattle, will eat into Maria’s numbers; and even if it is just a little, that is enough. Remember she only “won” by 2,200 votes in a Dean Logan like election contest – with new ballots discovered, accidentally, every day. The conventional wisdom is that if a Republican can get 42% of King County and a normal showing elsewhere, he or she wins.

At any rate, the State Central Committee overwhelmingly endorsed Mike yesterday, which should trigger a national flow of campaign contributions to match Maria’s (and her friend Hillary’s) money raising efforts.

Mike’s well-organized, so far well-executed and soon to be well-financed campaign should produce some long coattails for our west side Congressional and legislative races – as well as producing an new US Senator. (Mike: 52-48)

2. Of the three Congressional seats up this year in Pierce County only two are contested. Obviously the incumbent in the 8th, Dave Reichert, a Republican and personal hero of mine and yours, is running hard. But the conventional wisdom is that a legislator, state or national, is most vulnerable during the first defense of his or her seat. So the Democrats are coming after Dave Reichert with a vengeance. And even now, we are subject to the anti-Dave telephone, radio, blog and TV crap from moveon.org, and its costing them a ton of money.

The bad news for the Democrats is they have no credible candidate. There is no one out there with the stature and name ID to take Dave. It will not be Dave Ross nor will it likely be Ron Sims. Who then? Twice failed Laura Ruderman? Or the perennial Heidi Behrens-Benedict? No, Dave is probably not going to have the challenging race many Democrats would hope for. But it is not going to be easy despite the fact that Congressional Republicans will make sure Dave has plenty of money. Dave and we in the 8th Congressional District have to work at it, and
that means he will campaign in Pierce County just like he has been doing. Pierce County gave him 73% of his winning margin in 2004, and he has not forgotten it. (Of course, we won’t let him forget.) (Dave: 60-40)

The other contested Congressional race is in the 9th District against Adam Smith. Running against Adam is our own Steve Cofchin. Steve is an eminently likeable, smart, tireless Republican who is running for the first time. Unfortunately, the latter factor makes the race very difficult unless we get out and help him (and we get the Congressional Republican Caucus to spend some of their money on Steve.) The other problem is that listening to Adam as he campaigns you would absolutely swear that he is a Republican and a fairly conservative one at that. I freely admit, that, in fact, the only liberal thing about Adam is his voting record.

In the 6th Congressional District there is no one who has yet to seriously consider running against Norm Dicks. Lane Judson (Crystal Brame’s dad) did think about it for a while, but he is now being very successful in getting the Crystal Clear laws enacted in Congress and throughout the states, so he may not have the time.
I have heard of no one else in Pierce County (or any of the other counties) who is even looking.

3. The are four partisan County races this year: Auditor and Councilmembers in Districts 1, 5 and 7.

The Auditor race could be interesting, but we have no candidate – and it may now be a bit too late for a serious challenger. The current Auditor, Pat McCarthy, has been pretty cordial to us and we have seen nothing that would indicate she is otherwise a straight arrow vote counter (unlike King County.) Yes, I had a real problem with her decision to allow a candidate to handle primary ballots, but we watched him closely (thanks to Eddie Hamilton and our Observer Corps) and she did honor her commitment not to allow that same candidate to handle the ballots in
the general election. I am pretty sure of her standing in the Democrat Party, she is/was a Democrat PCO, but as an Auditor she is closer to Technocrat than Democrat which is probably why we can’t find a good candidate to run against her. On the other hand, I fully expect to see someone like Dale Washam (who has filed and run as a D, an I and an R in the past) or Will Baker (F=felon) file for Auditor at the last minute – as Republicans. But in neither case do I see either of them getting the requisite 25% of the vote at our Republican Convention (April 15, Steilacoom HS) in order that they may use our Republican name. And because of this, I can easily see us being the center of a law suit that asks a judge to declare them Republican even if we do not. That’ll frost my butt!

In Council District 1 (Sumner, Edgewood, Bonney Lake, Orting – basically eastern Pierce county) the incumbent, Shawn Bunney is running for a second term and enjoys wide popularity in a very Republican district. The fact that as a brand new Councilmember he was elected Chairman of the Council, and still is, is a tribute to his administrative and political skills. I don’t expect to even see much of a Democrat challenge – but it could happen. And if it does, better for us. I see Shawn winning as County Executive in 2008 and a hotly contested
2006 council race that he wins handily will set that up. (Shawn: 63-37)

At the other end of the county in Council District 7, Terry Lee should also have a less challenging race than he did the first time. Terry – much like his friend Shawn - is very popular in a Republican district. His long experience in county land use issues, especially on the Planning Commission and on the Peninsula Advisory
Commission, will continue to keep him in good stead with his voters. (Terry: 58-42)

The third council race, District 5 (south Tacoma, Spanaway, Parkland) pits long time county elected official Barbara Gelman against…? Again, we can’t find anyone to run. Perhaps it is because the district is soooo Democrat. Or perhaps it’s because Barbara is somewhat centrist and pro-business. Or perhaps it’s because she is
so set against the loony left wing of her own county party. Whatever the reason, we have no one who will run against her. The only one I could think of to run is Grace Bennett. She and Barbara are matched. Both are leaders, able to speak well and are distinctly heard. They have long resumes in leadership positions in Pierce County. And Grace has infinitely more business experience that Barbara. Infinitely. But I am just not sure that Grace’s hip surgery will allow her to campaign anytime soon and I think Grace lives a few blocks south of the borderline for the 5th District.

4. The Legislative races are at the heart of this year’s recruiting efforts and fund raising activities.

In the Senate there are three races in Pierce County and, strangely, they match up with the county council races in location and party – the 31st (eastern Pierce County – Bonney Lake, Sumner, Buckley, Edgewood); the 29th (south Tacoma, pieces of Lakewood, Parkland, part of Spanaway); and the 26th (Kitsap and Key Peninsulas.)

In the 31st we have long time Senator Pam Roach against Yvonne Kinoshita-Ward, who ran a real mud-slinger last time against Pam – fruitlessly. I suspect the same match up will occur this time, except it will be more expensive (Yvonne may spend up to $400-500,000), she’ll sling more mud, but in the final analysis be more
fruitless than last time. Some say that former Democrat Representative Chris Hurst will run against Pam. I don’t see it. He can’t afford the 3% advantage that a woman has in that district, he can’t afford to run against such an adept campaigner, and he certainly can’t afford to run against someone so anti-crime even though he is a police officer. In fact, there may be no one in this state with a better anti-crime record than Pam and the only one her equal is also our Senator, Mike Carrell (R-Lakewood).

The bottom line is that Pam has been doing things very right. She is in constant contact with her district and is the most instinctively accurate political leader
in the state. She can hear about an issue for the first time and can accurately judge whether it is important in her district and then act on that issue in the space of minutes. She is uncanny. The Democrats in the district have no equal. Besides which, Pam will work her buns off. (Pam: 56-44)

In the 29th we can find no one to run against Senator Rosa Franklin – even if she weren’t running again. The district is sooo Democrat and she is sooo likeable. On the other hand, I would love to see someone like Christine Cronk in the race. Here is a former district leader with tons of charisma, a large dollop of common
sense and likeability to boot. But it would be Christine’s first race, so perhaps against one of the Democrat House members would be a better start.

In the 26th District, the Senate race is a tough call. Senator Bob Oke, who won a cliff hanger last time, is facing life threatening health challenges. However, things seem to be in remission, but for how long. The legislative session he is in now is a bit contentious, which may extract a toll. But he sure looked good last
week on the floor. If he chooses not to run again, it looks like former Representative Lois McMahan is in the saddle to run. She is an indefatigable campaigner who has won a House seat twice in the district. But she stays
in constant contact with Republicans on both sides of the county lines on the Kitsap Peninsula which is to her credit. She actually lives in Kitsap, Olalla, but she is always at our events and meetings, and is always ready to lend a hand to help a Pierce County Republican - so we seemed to have adopted her. The problem Lois seems to have is what year she runs. It’s weird. She runs and wins her district during off year (non-presidential) elections. At those times, the Pierce County portion of the district (which comprises only 45% of the voting population) generally votes at a higher percentage than those in Kitsap County. Hence, we generate 2,000 more
votes than Kitsap and we tend to vote Republican. In the Presidential election years, Kitsap votes about the same percentage as Pierce, but that percentage generates about 2,000 more votes from Kitsap than we generate and
they tend to vote Democrat. The good part of the 26th Senate race is that it is always in the non presidential years. The bad news is who the Democrats may field against Lois. It may be Representative Derek Kilmer who has visions of replacing Norm Dicks when he retires. If so, his pro-business stances will make this race nip and tuck.

In the state House races, Pierce County has become ground zero in the struggle to take back the House. Of the top tier races in the state, two or two and a half are in here in the county. But lets start at the top.

In the 2nd District, long time Rep Tom Campbell is not facing much of a challenge. As before, his anti-crime and pro-veteran stances hold him in good stead with most of the voters in this conservative district that includes South Hill, Orting, Eatonville, Graham, Spanaway, and the Mountain. (It includes about 10,000 voters in Thurston County as well.) While he has had run-ins with the Republican Caucus, he is probably one of the most knowledgeable health care legislators we have. He is a Chiropractor after all. (Tom: 56-44)

Jim McCune, a Republican first-termer in the 2nd, should be facing a challenge, but isn’t. The Democrat bench is pretty light in the 2nd. They could put up Cindy Poysnick who is a strong campaigner, but she just lost a squeaker school board election and may want to regain strength. Jim is another indefatigable campaigner. He and his sons doorbelled over 20,000 homes in 2004, and he will likely repeat the effort. While his success rate in getting bills passed is not high, (some say that is a good thing), the ones he did get are awesome. In fact,
he and Tom Campbell worked hard and sometimes alone last year to get a meth precursor bill passed and they got it. Since the 2nd District is a meth center, their successful work to get ephedrines/pseudoephedrines off the shelves and behind the counter was a huge gift to district voters. (Jim: 57-43)

In the 25th, Joyce McDonald is running again. Joyce is in perfect tune with the district and is well liked by all. She is anti-crime, pro-business and pro-police – well, duh, she is married to a cop. Her steady and effective legislation is exactly what the doctor ordered. (Joyce: 57-43). (Which may set her up for a Senate
or County Council run in 2008.)

The other seat in the district is held by Dawn Morrell, a liberal Democrat nurse with some major pro-military leanings. The problem for her is that the military is not a responsibility of the state – except for the National Guard. Wally Nash, a voluble, conservative Brit immigrant is taking Dawn on. He ran in 2004, but lost
in the primary to Michele Smith. His name ID is higher now and he has been getting deeper into issues and community groups. He is a salesman by trade and inclination, so selling himself on the stump is just his cup of tea. Jim Downs, the 25th District leader is helping Wally out and Jim is a great guy to make sure the campaign
details get done and the signs are out. If the House Republican Caucus (often called HROC) gives Wally some resources, he has a fighting chance.

In the 26th District, we are starting to get over-blessed with House candidates. Against venerable and vulnerable Democrat Pat Lantz, we have a bright new star, Beckie Kranz. Beckie is a former District Leader, a lawyer by training (but not practice) and business owner. She is extremely well versed in legislative matters,
because her unique business is monitoring all states' legislative workings and sharing them among other legislative bodies. She is well organized and deeply committed. With the promised resources from HROC she has a great winning opportunity. Remember, Pat won by only 200+ against newcomer Matt Rice last time and when the Kitsap side delivered 2,000 more votes than they will this time. This is probably the top race in the state for picking up a seat. (Beckie: 53-47)

Also in the 26th, Trent England a 27 year old, brand new law school graduate and Heritage Foundation writer and researcher is squaring off against Derek Kilmer (unless Derek is running for the Senate). Trent is one smart guy and his kids cuter than bugs in a rug, but though he is Gig Harbor born and bred, he has not been back home for a few years. Ed Meese, Trent’s Heritage Foundation boss may also campaign for Trent, which could put a real national spin on the race.

A second Republican is also nosing around and may declare: Ron Boehme. Ron is a
local pastor whose obvious public speaking skills and ready-made campaign workforce may be a big factor if he enters the race. On the other hand, he is less familiar with the whole range of issues legislators face than is Trent, even though there is a 20 year spread between them. Also if Derek chooses a Senate run, Matt Rice may
rethink his staying out of this year’s races. If Matt enters the race and Derek is out then it's Matt in a 50-30-20 primary run and Matt 55-45 in the general against a now unknown Democrat – Betty Ringlee?

The 27th District races in north and Downtown Tacoma features only one Republican – but what a Republican! The two Democrats there are difficult to dislodge since the district is very Democrat. But Dennis Schroader is loaded with fire, energy and enthusiasm. He is walking the district and the Democrats are not. Feeling a bit
overconfident are we? Dennis is exactly the kind of candidate we dream of, but would rather have in a swing or Republican district. Dennis is in business with his dad and is a veteran. There is a chance to win for Dennis, because the 27th is just like his 30th District neighbor to the north. They are virtually identical. The 30th is 43% Democrat and 28% Republican, yet Republican Skip Priest is elected by 5%. Why? Because Skip spent a few terms as the successful Federal Way mayor. So I see Dennis using the same strategy. It's called the Sutherland strategy. You run for a partisan office a few times, get your name out there, then switch to a non-partisan City Council race, win, then Mayor THEN to a partisan race on the County Council or a County-wide race.

The 28th District is also a ground zero for holding and maybe picking up another seat in the House. Long time Representative Gigi Talcott is retiring and Don Anderson, an Eisenhower-Carlson partner is running to replace her. Haven’t seen any Democrat wanting to file against Don, but it will happen. HROC will make sure he
is well funded, and since he is well versed in the issues, he should do well if he ramps up his campaigning and door to door activities. (Don: 53-47)

Democrat Tami Green is the prime target in the state for a Republican pickup. Tami is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but has been given a lot of high visibility Democrat bills and allowed to vote against some taxes to keep her in sync with the conservative 28th. Bob Lawrence is running for the seat he lost by 200+ in 2004. He
has the campaign skills, the organization and the discipline to win. He has to overcome the perception that he did not campaign well in 2004 (cause he got married and decided to do the honeymoon thing then rather than wait), even though he knocked on some 10,000 doors. If he builds on that, he’ll do just fine. Joining the Republican team and also wanting to challenge Tami Green is defense attorney and local activist Jim Oliver. Jim is another of those irrepressible guys who will be a great candidate and legislator (or something). He still needs to get a wider exposure to the community with activism in the local Kiwanis, Rotary, and such. But then again, a primary run for the House will give him additional exposure. Also seen nosing around is Ken Witkoe, a 1992 candidate for the House. He is a financial/insurance guy who is also a Lakewood reserve cop – a great combination in a
district plagued by Pierce County’s fastest growing cottage industry: Storing other county’s level 3 sex offenders. Ain’t that just peachy keen? In a three way primary race, I see Bob winning 45-35-20. And in the general winning 52-48.

In the 29th district, as in the Senate race and that of the 5th Council District, we just have no bench to choose from. This district is probably the most Democrat in the County, and one of the top two or three in the state. Sigh.

In the 31st we have a strongly Republican district with Pam Roach and Dave Reichert at the top of the ticket. But the two House seats are also held by strong Republican House leaders who campaign well and are well financed.

Jan Shabro now in her second term and is the Republican Caucus Chair, is looking for a third term And she has yet to face a challenger. That may end this term since she has been told that in fact Chris Hurst will run against her, not Pam. While she may hold the seat that Chris held 4-5 years ago, it is not Chris’ best bet to
run against a strong woman – Pam or Jan. In the final analysis, I see Jan drawing a weak unknown or no opponent. It is Jan who is the prime sponsor for Jessica’s Law this term and it has a 92% approval among the electorate and lots of press. (Jan: 60-40 or 100-0)

I actually see Dan Roach drawing Chris Hurst as a challenger this time. The problem for Chris is that Dan is well-liked, well financed and has lots of upside potential in the state. Dan gets lots of help from the family name and from the top of the ticket in the area: Dave Reichert. (Dan: 57-43).

There you got it. Now lets see what kind of guesser I am.

2006-01-21T19:32:00.000-08:00

A week from today, I have to vote for a new Republican Party Chair. The Pierce County Central Committee strongly advised me to vote for Diane after she gave a quite good speech at the committee meeting last weekend. Still, I am torn. Why? A Joni Balter editorial piece (Seattle Times, January 19, 2006) that made me think. Joni, (whom I usually ignore because she is neck and neck with Karl Marx in a race to extreme left), said:

"Political parties are shaped in part by the individual who leads them. The party leader becomes the personality of a party, one who sets the tone for candidates and elections."

I agree, with one minor change. It's not an individual who leads the party it's individuals - and in our case two. There is the "statesman leader" (at the national level the President, at the state level the governor) and the "executive leader" (the Party Chair.) For the foreseeable future we fortunately have an active, popular, engaged and engaging statesman leader, the twice elected governor: Dino.

Our opponents have the unpopular, sworn-in Lawyer-Governor: Christine.

So who is Christine supporting for the new Democrat Party Chair (strangely, both parties are picking new executive leaders on the same day)? Well, Joni’s words are helpful:

"Democrats are most likely to pick former King County Councilman Dwight Pelz, who would be the Democratic equivalent of Vance. Pelz is strident and flies off the handle as a matter of routine. Outbursts are part of his shtick. He is comfortable alienating friends and colleagues with ridiculous tirades about off-beat issues like Cuba."

Peas in a pod. Passionless and poisonous.

Ok, what about Dino’s inclination for Party Chair? Again, back to Joni's words:

"Republican Party leaders are backing Fredi Simpson, a young, grass-roots leader from Chelan County. She is Hispanic and has been a small-business woman, which provides a different public face for the GOP. Party leaders favor her over the often-unpleasant Diane Tebelius, whose name pops up frequently for political jobs."

Now Diane has never been unpleasant to me, though I obviously don’t know about her relationship with the press. But the Republican Party is not a courtroom, it is people who are passionate about issues, about candidates and about the American dream.

Dino is passionate about Washington and American dream. He is not cold, nor does he denigrate his opponents. He uses self-deprecating humor to disarm them. We need someone with just his style to be the executive leader of the party and set the tone for issues and candidates. Someone with an undying smile, self-deprecating humor and passion. Someone, like Dino, who is respectfully received in our cities' colorful central districts and hilltops, the rural Granges, corporate boardrooms and union halls.

Knowing both candidates, Fredi is the one closest to the Dino style. She is passionate, joyful, steel backboned, effective and all with a smile. She is equally and respectfully received in the barrios, the boardrooms, the orchards and the Boeing factory floor.

So, Dino and Fredi. Peas in a pod. Passionate and poisonless.

2005-11-22T12:52:00.000-08:00

What's past is prologue.

Part 1 - What's past...

The 2005 non partisan elections in Pierce County were a study in what to do and what not to do and a portent of things to come.

If you put out signs, waved signs, did a little door-to-door, had a reasonable picture and write-up in the voters' pamphlet and spoke at community events with an eye towards the positive not the negative your chances of winning were good. Unless, of course, your opponent did the same thing and he or she was the incumbent. I guess I could say the same thing after every election. But there were stark reminders this campaign season.

Tim Corliss is a case in point. He is a good guy, a staunch conservative (in a conservative district), has access to some money, has high name ID where he ran, and received good campaign advice. He lost both races in which he chose to run...Charter Review Commission and Fire Commissioner. Why?

Well, he put up good signs and lots of them and they were red and white and easy to read. But, he put a rough-hewn, homemade picture in the Voters' Pamphlet and did not submit a voter pamphlet statement. For the many voters who read the Voter's Pamphlet and choose a candidate based on what the candidate submitted, Tim's failure to submit said: "I am not interested." So neither were the voters. Yet, he only lost 57-43% against Barbara Skinner, a long time Mayor of Sumner and former County Councilmember. If Tim had submitted a professional picture, written a cogent piece for the Voters' Pamphlet and been prepared at public debates to talk about why he wanted to be on the Charter Review Commission, he could have won. Given the First Council District's decisively conservative leanings, the race was Tim's to lose, not Barbara's to win.

Dave Morell (note spelling - one R and two L's) was the opposite (well, except he is also a nice guy and a staunch conservative in a mostly conservative district). Dave has high name ID in the Third Council District, he is a former (and future) legislator, he has nice signs and put out lots of them, he submitted a professional picture and a good write up in the Voter's Pamphlet and he was positive and thoughtful at public forums. To the voters he just seemed genuinely interested in doing a good job of Charter Review. He was elected by a 70-20% margin.

1+1=2

A genuinely interesting race developed for the Puyallup School board: Greg Heath versus Cindy Poysnick. Greg Heath is a shy, moderate Republican, a one term incumbent, a small engineering business owner and a great board member when it comes to overseeing Puyallup's $200+ million school construction budget in the county's second largest school district and one that is growing a mile a minute (only Bethel is growing faster.) Cindy is a voluble, engaging and genuinely likeable socially liberal and fiscally conservative Democrat, who believes that we must stop growth in the South Hill portion of the district by using the School District to force the County Council to stop issuing building permits until schools (and roads) can catch up with the population. (In other words, a moratorium on building the homes that produce the taxes to build the roads and schools.)

Both candidates did what they were supposed to do. They put out signs; she did some door knocking he did not; they spoke well and positively at public forums; they submitted good pictures and well written articles for the Voters' Pamphlet; and, they both came across as well-prepared for and genuinely interested in the Puyallup School Board. But they each brought a different view of the same issue to the voters. One said we needed to efficiently and smartly bond ourselves to the build schools for our growing population and the other said we needed to stop the population growth so that the schools we have (or are being built) are not overcrowded.

This is exactly what the American political process is all about. Two equally capable, interested and interesting candidates arguing a community issue from two perspectives and with two solutions. And the voters decided - well not quite. The race is too close to call (though Greg is now ahead by 67 votes out of 24,500.) There will likely be a mandatory recount.

In my opinion, moratoriums don't work. They actually reduce the money that is available to build infrastructure AND reduce the good wage construction jobs now held by carpenters, fitters, plumbers and such, who in turn buy homes and pay taxes. Nevertheless, politically, we voters got a choice and the system worked as specified. And since Dean Logan is not counting the votes, I will likely trust the result.

That brings us to the Lakewood City Council races.

Here is a set of four races, two of which feature strong Republican incumbents in a Republican city. And the race for the open council seat featured two strong Republican candidates without a Democrat in opposition. This is the stuff of Republican dreams. Unfortunately, the word snake-bit is the only word that comes to mind.

One race pitted Democrat incumbent city councilwoman Helen McGovern a well-respected and well-liked businesswoman with widespread name ID against Republican newcomer Lisa Ikeda. Lisa had OK signs (they need more work on drive-by readability) which were well placed and appeared more numerous than Helen's. Lisa is an engaging, bright and competent young talent who will certainly run again. The voters liked her and she liked them - a marriage that is usually reserved for heaven. Alas, they saw Helen as a stabilizing force in an otherwise tumultuous city council. Democrat McGovern wins 55-45 in a Republican area perhaps setting her up for another partisan race. While I don't see her doing well against any current Republican office holders, it would be a tough race for us if she chooses to wait for an open seat on the county council or in the legislature.

The other stabilizing force the voters saw on the city council was Republican incumbent (and Mayor) Doug Richardson. Doug is the dream candidate and a great council member. He is smart but self effacing and he listens - what a concept for a member of the legislative branch of his city's government. Most of all, he never loses his cool. Then again, I would not expect him to. Among his many other accomplishments, he is an Army Reservist who last year was promoted to Brigadier General. As a 30 year Air Force veteran, I can tell you that the cut to make General is exceedingly fine. Of 1000 officers who enter active duty in the United States, 50 may make full Colonel but only one will be a general. There are probably five traits that make a General. (Competence and brilliance are just gravy.)

One: Never lie (lives depend on telling it like it is up and down the chain of command.)
Two: Never lose your cool (you can make a stressful battle situation into a death laden rout.)
Three: Listen (even the least ranking soldier or staff member can have a great idea that will save lives or resources if you just listen to them.)
Four: Be decisive (obvious, perhaps, but in a peacetime, bureaucratic military – the Clinton years for example - very difficult to train for.)
Five: Loyalty (to America, to your boss and, more importantly, to your troops.)

Doug has all of those traits - in spades.

The sad part is that Doug was forced to run against another Republican. Why? Because someone was miffed that Doug, in an effort to reduce her County Council aspirations, voted for Democrat Helen McGovern for Deputy Mayor when there was Republican Councilman, Pad Finnegan, also running for the job. (Recall that Lakewood is on the weak mayor system, so that Deputy Mayor is even less than ceremonial). So a retired Marine, J. Paul Wagemann, was dragooned to run against Doug Richardson. Now Paul is a likable guy with a wide steak of competence but is a lackluster campaigner. His signs were so-so, not very numerous and not well placed. Even worse, he took his political cues too obviously from others on the council and from Lakewood CARES. It seemed that he was not always his own person. Those are high hurdles to overcome.

All in all, the voters re-elected Doug Richardson with a 64-36% margin.

Then comes the Pad Finnegan race. With that name, with his impeccable Republican credentials and with his City Council incumbency, there is no way Pad can lose - but early on he tried. Pad is an energetic, no nonsense, straight arrow conservative Republican who knows Lakewood and is our 2005 County door-belling king. There is no better way to learn your area, get the feel of voters' interests and gain more good will than to doorbell. And Pad did it better than anyone else this year. But he started the campaign on a negative. Too much time was spent in talking about why some Republican City Council and County Council members were not Republican enough and not enough time was spent in telling voters why he should be re-elected. The result is that Pad only garnered 45% in a thee-way Primary. That means that 55% of the voters voted for change. That cannot bode well for an incumbent. But he seemed to "get it" after the Primary. He quieted his negative approach and doorbelled his butt off.

Sadly, he too was forced to run against a Republican. Perhaps in response the negative cast of his early campaigning or in response to Paul Wagemann being asked to run against Doug Richardson, Republican Jason Whalen was asked to run against Pad. Now Jason is a Republican super star in the making. He is a top notch attorney, a Republican PCO, he knows and is liked by virtually every business organization in the county, has access to money, and is smarter than the law allows. He also speaks well, approaches problems positively and understands city and county issues at their very depths. So what's the problem? Well, besides only ho-hum signs, time. Jason has a full plate at work and his wife gave birth during the campaign. Jason just could not match Pad's doorbelling. Additionally, Jason was also running for the Charter Review Commission. While these offices are mutually compatible, it takes time to run for both and do well.

In the final analysis, Pad Finnegan's name, energetic doorbelling, retreat from his earlier negativity and his incumbency were insurmountable. Pad won 55-45%. On the other hand, look to Jason for future high end political office based on his 62% Charter Review Commission win.

That brings us to the race for former Mayor Bill Harrison's City Council seat. Now Bill is one of my heroes with a compassion and personal discipline unmatched on this earth. His are tough shoes to fill. To their credit, Ron Kronk and Bruce Banfield ran to fill them.

Ron is a conservative Republican and Lakewood CARES activist who is well versed in Lakewood politics. (His wife, Christine, is a former Republican District Leader and a future, great Republican candidate in her own right. But that is a story for a different day.) He is absolutely passionate about Lakewood. But his passion has sharp edges which too often come across as strident.

Facing Ron is newcomer Bruce Banfield. Bruce's is from a conservative old-line Tacoma family (in fact, his mother was on the Tacoma City Council in the 70's desperately trying to clean up the corruption that later surfaced to Tacoma's national shame and embarrassment.) Bruce is a successful businessman and family man whose conservatism is somewhat hidden behind a shy demeanor.

Both Ron Kronk and Bruce Banfield were genuinely interested in service to Lakewood and both had good pictures and write-ups in the Voters' Pamphlet. Both speak well and are familiar with the issues. The differences were that while Bruce had better, more and better-placed yard signs (Ron's were bland and hard to read at 30 mph); Ron had use of a Lakewood CARES based e-mail system that assisted Ron, Pad and Paul Wagemann and forged a united message for those candidates. Sadly, Bruce also had to contend with the passing of his mother during the campaign. And if there is anything that will take the wind out of your sails, it is the death of parent or spouse. You have our deepest sympathies, Bruce.

At any rate what many thought would be a close race was indeed an extremely close race. At this writing, 62 votes out of 12,100+ separate Ron and Bruce with Ron in the driver's seat. This may result in a mandatory recount (anything less than 0.5% separation); but because Dean Logan is not counting the ballots, it looks like Ron Kronk is the winner.

A final note for Part 1. The series of Lakewood CARES e-mails in support of Ron, Pad and Paul was both a blessing and a curse. It was a blessing because it got a detailed message to the voters on what Lakewood CARES candidates stand for and who they are. The e-mails, written by Lakewood CARES founder and Lakewood City Councilmember John Arbeeny, were extremely well written if not too long (I should talk, this is already six pages long). We have got to find some one like John in each Legislative District so that we can write solid, local and frequent e-mails on the issues that face the voters in that district and how our candidates stand on them. John's e-mails were effective because they were local and passionate and everyone knew it. The curse is that the passion became strident and cutting, dividing Lakewood Republicans over a longer time than just one election cycle. Worse for the County Party, we get much of our volunteer support from the 28th District (most of Lakewood) and this division is reducing the volunteers we may have for the partisan races next year.

We have to remember that the internet is a powerful tool. Let's make sure we use it as a tool to elect Republicans not join in the politics of personal destruction as democrat supporters so frequently use at the state and nation levels.

The Rule must be: Attack the policy not the person. It is infinitely better to say: "Policy A, supported by Joe Blow, candidate for xxxx, will not work for us because: a, b and c"; versus "Jane Blow, candidate for xxxx, who enjoys pulling the wings off flies and is working for the Communists, screwed us again by proposing Policy A".

We can do better than our Democrat friends.

Part 2 – "What is Prologue" will be for the next blog. Happy Thanksgiving.

2005-09-22T00:54:00.000-07:00

Something at the Pierce County Election Center doesn’t smell right.

Here’s what's stirring up my olfactory: a candidate is opening and counting his own race’s ballots (among others). Is he cheating or pulling a "Logan"? Probably not, because Republican observers are watching him like a hawk. Does it give the appearance of impropriety? Yes. And, given last year's King County election fiasco, does it make us feel all warm and fuzzy about our elections system? Hell no!

What the heck is going on?

Dave Stipek, husband of former County Auditor Cathy Pearsall-Stipek, is running for one of the 21 positions on the Charter Review Commission, an every ten year review and change of the Pierce County Charter. It is a non-partisan election and, because there are three folks vying for the position, Dave's race is on the primary ballot. The top two contenders will go forward to November’s General Election. Because there is no specific law that prevents anyone being hired to help with the election, Dave Stipek was hired and has been working at the elections center for years, originally by his wife - the former Auditor.

Ok, it gets a bit more interesting. Even though his wife is no longer the Auditor, his wife is running for another position on the Charter Review Commission. (And an "urban myth" has it that a son-in-law is running for the Commission as well.) At any rate whether there are one, two or three Stipek’s running for office, none should be counting their own ballots.

When we found out that this was happening, the lead Republican Observer reported the fact and talked to the Auditor about replacing Dave. As long as he was in the race he should not be counting ballots. No go. Pat McCarthy, a Democrat Auditor with ambitions for County Executive in 2008, let the Lead Republican Observer know that she would not replace Dave since, among other things, he was a long time election worker and was one of but a few who could operate the envelope slicing and opening machine. So I called the Auditor and in a very friendly conversation she let me know that she just could not replace Dave, but that if he did make it through the primary to the general election, she would not let him count ballots or slice envelopes at the November session.

After my conversation with Pat McCarthy, I asked myself two questions. First: "what facts would have to be present for her to make the argument she was making"? Second: Are those facts present? (These are great questions to ask if you are in the autocratic organization and the boss is making counterintuitive decisions.) Ok, I reasoned, if she had a skill and staffing problem that she could not correct on short notice she would argue as she did. And she did say that Dave was uniquely able to run the envelope opening machine. So maybe she does have a staff problem. But wait a minute, shouldn’t a good manager have a backup plan. What happens when someone calls in sick?

Still feeling that something wasn't right, I e-mailed Sam Reed, the Secretary of State. Here’s what I said:

Sam,

In Pierce County, Pat McCarthy is using a current contested primary candidate as an election worker to handle and count our ballots. While I don’t think that Dave Stipek, a long time, trusted elections worker, would do anything to cheat; the public perception, in light of last year's King County fiasco, may be another story.

I talked with Pat and our conversation, as always, was friendly. She is, in fact, a pretty fair Auditor and an unwavering straight arrow. But she is unwilling to relieve Dave of his current election responsibilities or move him to, for example, an observer role. He does have skills she needs and I suspect she may not be able to replace them on short notice. She did agree that if Dave wins his primary race as a Charter Review Commissioner he would not be an elections worker in the General Election. I did agree to this compromise, because I am not sure she has enough skilled manpower for any other options. But I am still alarmed with the effect it could have on the public perception of Pierce County election integrity.

I am not a lawyer, but I haven't found any statute that prevents hiring an individual to perform ballot handling or counting duties who also happens to be a candidate on the same ballot. On the other hand, it would seem we have a moral obligation, trebled since the last election, to be vigilant in protecting the perception that our process is safe and secure. That puts you in a bind. If there is no law for you to enforce, you have only the bully pulpit of your office to provide moral suasion to the Pierce County Auditor to not use a current candidate as an election worker.

I would ask that you use that bully pulpit to convince Pat to rethink her position. If manpower or expertise is the underlying problem, perhaps you could offer expert help from your staff or from another Auditor (minus King County).

Your thoughts?

Deryl

What I got back was as wishy as it was washy:

Dear Mr. McCarty:

Secretary Reed asked that I respond to your request.

You are correct that there is nothing in state law that prevents a candidate from serving as a poll worker. In fact there are no requirements other than each major political party is to give the County Auditor a list of nominees to work the polls. If the parties do not give the County Auditor a complete list, she has the authority to hire others to fill the positions.

The hiring of poll workers falls completely within the authority of the County Auditor and no law has been violated. The Secretary of State does not have authority to change the Pierce County policy.

Your concerns appear to be adequately addressed by Ms. McCarthy by agreeing to make a change in the General if Mr. Stipek is nominated.

If you find that a law has been violated, we would definitely want to know and we would address the issue with Ms. McCarthy. In this case, the law has not been violated, so we cannot take any action.

Sincerely,

Sheryl Moss
Office of the Secretary of State.

So I should be a detective and discover broken laws myself. Isn’t that being a vigilante? Besides, I didn’t ask the Secretary of State about poll workers (those that man the polls and are nominated by the parties.) I asked about election workers (those that man the Election Centers and count the ballots and are hired by the Auditor).

Whatever!!

Ok, I sighed, I’ll ask another Auditor what they do. Whoa, did I get an earful – and it made me proud to be a Republican.

Kim Wyman, the Republican Thurston County Auditor, and Sam’s successor, told me that yes there were no laws that she was aware of that precluded hiring a candidate to count ballots. On there other hand, it was stupid to do so. It left the Auditor open to criticism and the election process open to question. So her office policy, written in blood, is that neither a candidate nor anyone related to a candidate or a campaign can touch a ballot. That’s pretty absolute (and welcome). So I asked Kim what about people with special skills, like, for example, the guy who can operate the envelop opener. What happens if the one guy or gal who can do that work decides to run for office? Her answer was most gratifying. First, the job of running that machine is not that difficult and is easily learned. Second, every job and skill in her office is backed up and more. She said she has to be able to count ballots with absolute certainty, no matter what. And her worst case scenario is: Deryl, what if one or more of my election workers win the Lotto on the way into work on election night. I have to have a backup for all of them – including myself.

After I finished talking with Kim Wyman, I got the distinct impression that maybe I had just had a conversation with an ideal Secretary of State.

Ok, the bottom line is the future, not the past. I hate asking the Legislature to pass laws to fix very specific problems that common sense office policies can fix. But what choice do we have? We should write a law that says:

1. No one who touches a ballot in a county Election Center can be a candidate or related to a candidate (within two levels i.e. second cousin or closer). This includes PCO candidates as well as candidates for partisan and non-partisan positions.

2. No one associated with a partisan or non-partisan campaign may touch a ballot. That does not mean you can’t support whomever you will, it means you can't be part of their campaign organization.

3. Candidates, their relatives and campaign workers are encouraged to act as election observers along side party workers to assure themselves and the public that the ballot counting process is on the up and up.

4. No one related to the Auditor or Auditor’s Election supervisor(s) may be hired to count ballots.

The latter issue stems from the fact that Dave Stipek was hired by his wife to help count ballots. I suspect that Pat McCarthy would not be caught dead with a charge of nepotism. It didn’t seem to bother the former Auditor much.

Well, so much for helping the election process. Passing a law feels good, but unless someone the public can trust to make the hard choices fairly is elected to run the Auditor’s office, all will come to naught. At best you get appearance and perception problems like Dave Stipek. At worst you get Dean Logan.

Deryl

2005-07-15T13:40:00.000-07:00

"Strategery" -- think war not battle

On the Pajama Jihad blog, Nathan Azinger, a young, bright and engaging Pierce County Republican (which is why I read his stuff), suggested that - contrary to conventional wisdom - of the two Democrat 26th District State Representatives, Pat Lantz, the (very) senior of the two is actually the more vulnerable. That freshman State Representative Derek Kilmer (D - Gig Harbor), in Nathan's eyes, is less vulnerable is because Derek voted very close to his district beliefs during some key votes during his first session. And, according to Nathan's experience, Derek answers his mail better than 26th District Senator Bob Oke (R - Port Orchard). While the latter is comparing apples to oranges, Bob Oke is doing yeoman's work in the Senate - his perceived mail responsiveness notwithstanding. He devotes lots of floor time (and votes) while in pain from chemotherapy. That is public service way beyond the call of duty.

I agree with Nathan that Pat Lantz is actually the more vulnerable in 2006. She is carrying around too much ultra-liberal baggage from her years in the House and from this year's votes especially. More importantly, she is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and is the PRIME reason we have not taken even a single step in getting real lawsuit abuse reform in this state. (Well, she is a trial lawyer and gets a lot of Trial Lawyers' Association campaign money, but I am sure that it is merely coincidence.) More pertinent, she won her seat against newcomer Republican Matt Rice in 2004 by only 361 votes (0.5%) mostly from Kitsap. And the Libertarian candidate got 1,792 votes. Where would those votes have gone had there been no Libertarian? And in a Presidential year, the Kitsap side of the 26th District produces 2000 more votes than the Pierce side...and Kitsap votes more Democrat and Pierce more Republican. In the off year elections like 2006, the reverse is true. So if we work at it, Pat Lantz' House seat will be a Republican pick up in 2006. Bye-bye law suit abuse.

What about Derek? Derek is an attractive, likable, bright young legislator that the Democrats were lucky to recruit. His fiscal instincts are much more conservative that the Democrat party generally, but his social agenda is more liberal than the district. As much as Republicans may agree with his NO vote on the 9.5 cent gas tax and on overturning I-601 spending limits, it is the first vote of the session that makes the difference. That vote? Who will be Speaker of the House. Recall from your high school civics class: the Speaker is the linchpin of the House. It is the Speaker who chooses the Committee Chairs and it is the Committee Chairs who determine, alone, what bills are heard and which are allowed to be voted on. And even when a bill passes out of a committee, it is the Speaker alone who determines what bills will reach the floor for a vote and in what order. (No, you say. It is the Rules Committee who decides. Well, yes and no. Yes, they do choose what bills are "pulled" to the floor, but, no, it is the Speaker alone who decides what bills they can even look at to "pull").

Just as important, Democrat Legislators are given a "pass" (allowed to vote the district not the party line) if there are otherwise enough Democrat votes to get a piece of legislation passed. This year, for example, Derek, Dawn Morrell (D-25, Puyallup), and Tami Green (D-28, Lakewood) were allowed to vote against the gas tax and dumping I-601 because there were enough votes in the Democrat caucus to pass those two bills and the Democrat leadership knew that if any of those legislators voted against their district they would be in trouble. But this only works when the Democrats have a large majority. We need to replace Derek, however nice a guy he is, because his first vote, for Speaker, is VERY Seattle liberal and way out of step with the 26th District.

Now is the time to think about the war, to think about an overall game plan to gain the majority in the Washington State House of Representatives - and who we have to do it. Now is not the time to worry about the tactics of the battle like where to put signs and what bills we need to support. We need to find great candidates to face Derek and Pat (Beckie Kranz and Matt Rice come to mind).

Are there any other credible candidates out there?

My $00.02 offered with perfect 20/20 hindsight.

Deryl

2005-07-10T11:05:00.000-07:00

It seems that some of our local elected Republicans have stepped over Republican Party lines and are getting a lot of hate and discontent from the party faithful. I decided to look deeper. Here are the issues:

Item A: Councilmember Dick Muri is calling for the county to go to all mail-in balloting, and,

Item B: The Republican majority on the County Council is restricting free speech during County Council meetings.

Item A: Some facts and Research. Dick proposed that the county go to all "mail-in" balloting because conventional wisdom says it costs less -- a lot less. Now that sounds pretty Republican to me. Anything that means paying less taxes and getting the same service is a Republican value. Besides, for last 4-5 years over 75% of the Pierce County ballots have been mail-in anyway, so it's not a great leap of faith to add the last little bit. Unfortunately, voter trust of the election system is at an all time low. Going to an all mail-in system without clear oversight of who is counting the ballots sounds ominous and without a clear rationale to change, Dick is risking the wrath of the party faithful AND the voters in general. So what to do? Actually, Dick and the Council did what they should do. They appointed a free (a nice Republican word) Citizens Advisory Panel to research the issue and give advice. They did and found that the conventional wisdom is bogus. Mail-in balloting cost about the same as all-poll voting or a mixture of systems. So with Dick's rationale out the window and the political problem of voter trust at an all time low, the Citizens Advisory Panel advised "no change".

Item A: Political Analysis. Dick was right to bring up the subject, but his political timing was incredibly clumsy. On the other hand, how was he to know about King County's cheatin' heart? How was he to know that the idiots up north, sorry, the ethically-challenged, "professional" card counters working for Ron Sim's election department, could create votes and ignore others with impunity? Does this remind you of Stalin's "It is not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes". Dick's good intentions (the road to hell are paved with such) are played against the resulting Republican fury and Dick came out second. Does Dick deserve hate and discontent? Does he deserve to be called RINO? Nope. He asked the right question for the right reason at the wrong time. He deserves a "tsk tsk" for a politically inept move. Dick got the answer he needed. So let's back off and move on.

Item B: Some facts and Research. The Pierce County Council broadcasts its weekly meeting live on a county-wide cable channel. The broadcast is stem to stern without interruption unless the council goes into recess. The agenda is full of ordinances, resolutions and County Executive appointments confirmations. And after the council and staff have asked questions and discussed an agenda item, all interested citizens are invited to speak on camera for up to three minutes to convince the council that the ordinance or resolution in question is brilliance or folly. That includes our being able to comment on camera on every amendment or change as it is being proposed. More pertinent, at the end of every meeting the public is invited to speak on any county issue past, present or future for up to three minutes. It's all pretty cool, if not boring. A little over a year ago, the then County Council Chair, a likeable but soon to retire Democrat named Harold Moss, and the Democrat majority got tired of the personal attacks they were getting especially during the meeting's final three minutes public session -- mostly from the same folks every week. So the Democrats voted to turn off the camera during these three minute closing speeches. Both the Republican Party and the TNT noted this free speech restriction, but also noted the free speech versus civil discourse dilemma. There are some restrictions on free speech: you can't give aid and comfort to an enemy (hear that Jane Fonda?), you can't swear in public, you can't libel, and you can't yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Republicans vowed to change this restriction if they were able to get into the majority. And majority they got with the 2004 election of State Representative Roger Bush to the council. So a few weeks ago the council took up the issue and the majority Republicans decided to turn the cameras back on during the final meeting segment and let the free speech chips fall where they may -- with one exception. The said that speakers could not swear nor use their on-camera time to personally attack a council member. At first blush that sounds pretty reasonable. But now the ACLU and the TNT (and lots of Republicans -- see Marsha Richard's 8 July blog in Sound Politics) are after the Republican majority for restricting a citizen's right to question and point out rotten politicians. In their argument, free speech is an unrestricted right without responsibility and civil discourse is not mentioned. So what to do?

Item B: Political Analysis. When the majority Republicans voted to restart the camera, but added the personal attack restriction the Democrats on the council didn't participate. So the Republicans look like the bad guys for adding a restriction. We got trapped. No one ever said our opponents (not enemies) were stupid. The ACLU and TNT do not mention that this whole issue is Republicans correcting a Democrat overstep. But, my surprise level is low. I would not expect the TNT or ACLU to come after a Democrat majority for their restrictions. My advice now is to back off the issue. A Republican majority member should "move to reconsider" the previous resolution and then all should vote to turn the camera back on WITHOUT RESTRICTION. (Now usually a motion to "reconsider" takes a two thirds majority. So it will take a few Democrat votes to get it passed and remove restrictions. If the "D"s don't give us the votes, then the tables are reversed and they are the bad guys.) The council will just have to endure the occasional overzealous and passionate citizen. Welcome to democracy in action for which they get $80,000+ per year. Do these Republican Council members deserve our hate and discontent? Are they RINO's? No. But they sure got flummoxed by a shrewd Democrat maneuver which was aided and abetted by the ACLU and TNT. Get smarter guys -- fix it and let's move on. We have roads to build, criminals to jail and taxes to reduce,... and miles to go before we sleep and miles to go before we sleep. (Apologies to Robert Frost).

My $00.02 offered with perfect 20/20 hindsight.

Deryl

2005-06-27T21:35:00.000-07:00

At the Pierce County Central Committee meeting a couple of weeks ago, the County Party unanimously resolved to have me write a letter to Dino and encourage him to stay in the fight for governor - in 2008. So I wrote the letter. But what an interesting confluence of events. As we are writing to Dino to say "Run, dammit, run!", a friendly letter from Dino arrives at many of our homes. The letter was short, sweet, and cordial. One paragraph in particular said:

"At some point in the future, I may call on you once again to help me rally support for the values we share. But that discussion should be saved for another time, another place, and possibly, another letter."

Sounds tantalizing. Like maybe Dino is thinking about another run for Governor. And for that I am one happy camper. But there is no certainty in the tone. So we wrote our letter to him to add some certainty. Here is what we sent to him (which now becomes an open letter from the Pierce County Republican Party to our next governor):

Dear Dino,

Personally and on behalf of a unanimous Pierce County Central Committee, I want to underscore how proud we are of your 2004 gubernatorial candidacy. You campaigned on issues and dreams in a manner that showed a depth of character, honestly and integrity unmatched in recent political history. We are proud that you are a Republican, proud that you are a Washingtonian and proud to call you an American.

We certainly empathize with the trials and tribulations the 2004 campaign brought to you and your family. It was no easy task to retain your equanimity during the mudslinging, innuendo and legal wrangling that flowed from a flawed King County “election” process. And we heartily agree with your stance that the election contest not proceed to the Supreme Court. It was a gutsy call that further highlighted a classy campaign.

That brings us to the future.

You’ve shown unrivalled political skill, character and vision. We don’t want that lost to Washington State. We fervently hope you will take up the mantle again in three years – or for another position in the interim. We will be happy – no, ecstatic -- to support your candidacy for governor in 2008 with our time, talent and treasure.

In the meantime, please feel free to visit us in Pierce County and let us know your hopes, dreams and plans so that we might help you achieve them. Because when you achieve them, Washington becomes a better place to live, work and raise a family

Once again, thank you for a stellar run for Governor in 2004. We are proud to call you one of our own.

Sincerely,

Deryl McCarty, Chairman

Now comes the cool part. I was not paying attention when I read Dino's letter to me. I read it for what was and wasn't said, what innuendo I could glean and what inference I could draw. And there it was plain as day at the bottom of the letter.

"Paid for by Rossi for Governor 2008. 15100 SE 38th Street #715, Bellevue, WA 98006-1765 Republican"

Happy day!

Deryl

2005-06-18T08:58:00.000-07:00

This is work!

Blogging is not an easy task, nor should it be! If I should choose to blog, it is like a syndicated column...you have to research, verify and write everyday. You must employ the three cardinal rules of writing: edit, edit, edit. All of which takes time and effort.

Can I do this? Will it establish a precedent for successor party chairs? Can I keep up the quality, currency and readability of the postings? Time will tell. I suppose that blogs, like small business startups, have a high failure rate. But Republican dreams rarely die - just sometimes their political manifestations don't always come to fruitition.

Can I blame that on the Democrat majority in the legislature?

Deryl McCarty