Frenemies

If you were following Washington State politics during the last election cycle, you may remember Chris Vance. He’s the former Washington State Republican Party Chairman who ran against Patty Murray for U.S. Senate. Despite a condescending video he recorded to open his campaign (which seems to have been scrubbed from the internet) in which he insulted the traditional GOP base, I voted for him based on the assumption that no one could be worse than Patty Murray.

I may have been wrong. Okay, maybe not, but I have questioned my vote in recent weeks.

While I share many positions with Vance on a variety of issues, mostly concerning national defense and the national debt, I’ve come to believe that he’s among the worst of politicians…the moderate Republican who’s still trying oh, so hard to be accepted by the cool kids where all the cool kids in the cafeteria are liberals. To put it another way, I once read that the difference between a pop star and a rock star is that the pop star wants to be beloved by fans and a rock star doesn’t give a damn. Vance is a pop star and the fans he’s courting aren’t conservative Republicans.

Vance’s post-election twitter feed is all Republican bashing all the time. I’m not exaggerating! Even when he offered a weak admonishment to the Democrats to confirm the Neil Gorsuch appointment to the Supreme Court, he included Republicans to soften the blow. As if there were anything the GOP could do to cause Democrats to be less obstructionist.

And if he’s not bashing Republicans, he’s attacking one of the foundations of the republic, the electoral college. He’d like to be able to vote to abolish it and he’s so passionate about it that he mentioned it twice on public radio in the space of a month.

Vance has also, predictably and very publicly, come out in opposition to President Trump’s immigration executive order. He’s so opposed, in fact, that he joined the protest in Seattle.

Which is fine, of course. It’s his prerogative to spend his time and exercise his right to free speech in any way he wants. Which includes, I guess, joining the ACLU, also in response to the immigration order.

Also his prerogative. I guess he doesn’t mind if they’ll use his membership fees to advance their leftist anti-voter ID, pro-affirmative action, anti-law enforcement agenda if it makes him feel good about his position on Trump’s executive order.

It doesn’t end with his Twitter account, either. He’s started a blog, “Wide Awake.” In his second post, he makes the assertion that the major threat to freedom today comes from the right. He cites the rise of Putin in Russia. I agree; Putin is a threat. Putin is a fascist, he says. Okay, sure, maybe he is. (I don’t agree that fascism is a right wing ideology, but that’s an argument for another day.)

But then he goes on to tie this back to U.S. politics. He implies that Trump and those who voted for him have fascist tendencies. (I disagree again; I believe that Trump, at least, is a populist, not a fascist.)

He brings up racism and Islamophobia and the demonization of immigrants. These are predictable straw men used against conservatives, but commonly by Democrat politicians and progressive activists (but I repeat myself), not by Republicans eating their own.

By now it’s probably obvious that Chris Vance isn’t my favorite Republican and you may be wondering why I’ve gone on this extended rant rather than just ignoring him. Let me ask you this. Would you choose to let cancer eat away at you from within if there were anything you could do to stop it?

Chris Vance is a cancer eating away at the Washington State Republican Party. His favorite pastime is bashing other Republicans, and he does so at a variety of left-leaning places who keep him around like a pet they can trot out when it suits their agenda. He undermines and weakens the GOP at a time when we should be working to unite the party in Washington. He may think his anti-republican position will curry favor with local voters, but I have to point out that Patty Murray posted the largest margin of victory of her political career over Vance.

Like his successor at the WSRP, Luke Esser, who now lobbies for the SEIU and makes contributions to Democrat politicians, Vance seems to be leaning ever closer to the dark side.

Which brings me to my final point.

 

So, Chris, if this is the only thing holding you back, get over it and go. Please. You’re not helping the WSRP and your disdain of the conservative Republican base is palpable. Frankly, I’d be embarrassed if you claimed to be speaking for all Republicans and I cringe over your willingness to chastise. So just go already. The last thing we need is a frenemy like you.

Moxie Media’s Deceitful, Allegedly Illegal Attack Ads Against Local GOP Candidates

Guest blogger, Janis Richter

My 19 year old son is diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Imagine the outrage I felt when I opened my mailbox to discover a political attack ad against my husband (Dennis Richter, candidate for Washington State Representative in Legislative District 1, Position 1) which was addressed to my son, stating that “If you’re concerned about the risk of Autism…Then you should be concerned about the risk of politician Dennis Richter.” It is despicable that any false claim be made against my husband, but this one is particularly offensive! Dennis cares deeply about children affected by Autism, one of them being his own step son!

There is no way for Dennis to have been misconstrued. His position is very clearly stated on his website. In response to the deceptive claims made against him, he states on his campaign website:

Our political opposition is trying to deceive voters by misstating our positions on important issues. For example, one recent mailer said I am against screening for autism and breast cancer. This is a blatant lie, twisting what I believe about health care mandates. Put simply, I do not believe it is the function of state government to tell private industry what they have to sell to consumers. Any insurance company should be allowed to sell policies that provide a wide range of coverage. That will keep our health care costs as low as possible. We believe that voters will see through this type of strategy by our opposition and will side with the common sense solutions our campaign offers.”

By the way, my 19-year-old stepson, Jared, was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome (“high-functioning autism”) at an early age. It is a particularly low blow for my political opponents to deceitfully attack me over such a personal issue.

From the article A Mind-Bogglingly Complex Scheme Funnels $2.7 Million for Labor and its Allies in Washington-State Races – Berkey Case is Just the Beginning, published in Washington State Wire, we learn that Moxie Media, the company that funded the hit pieces against Dennis, “shuffles Campaign Cash Through 40 Political Action Committees”. Basically, it is a front group that deliberately and fraudulently conceals from the voters who is paying for the ads. The article states that “this year labor organizations and their allies have funneled as much as $2.7 million to independent campaigns for and against legislative candidates in this state. The Public Disclosure Commission has referred a case against the company to Attorney General Rob McKenna. He has filed suit against them.

Numerous candidates across our state are being vilified by attack ads put out by Moxie Media. Washington State Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser has called for the “Democratic candidates who have benefited from these sleazy shadow groups to “publicly renounce their activities and condemn the outrageous behavior of Moxie Media… If these Democrats remain silent they will be complicit with the politics of sleaze and cynicism. Those Democrats who won’t condemn the Moxie Media shadow groups are merely hoping that all the tangled webs of deception won’t be unwound by the media and the PDC until after Election Day. The voters deserve better than that.” I agree with that, and would add that these candidates who have been maliciously attacked deserve better too.

Editor’s Note: Heidi Munson has also been a victim numerous malicious ads. She is running for LD-1, Position 2.

In Defense of Matthew Manweller

I had the opportunity to speak to Washington State Republican Party Chairman, Luke Esser, today. Among other things, he offered this defense of Dr. Manweller:

Dr. Mathew Manweller is a strong, committed conservative who has worked hard to improve the Republican Party, our state and nation. He has displayed tremendous courage by openly and proudly proclaiming his conservative beliefs in a hostile academic world of liberal activism. Last week Dr. Manweller proposed a strategy for the 2010 elections whereby Republicans nationally would “target their challenges to representatives who are disproportionately liberal in comparison to their districts.” While I don’t agree with his proposed strategy (I favor going on offense against the Democrats in every district where Republicans have a reasonable chance of victory), it’s ridiculous for anyone to question Dr. Manweller’s motives. We certainly could use more thoughtful debate about how best to defeat Democrats and advance our shared conservative principles. Ad hominem attacks on Dr. Manweller do nothing to accomplish either of those goals.

I don’t know Dr. Manweller, but Esser does and I’m willing to take his word on the matter. His statement is, I believe, more in response to this post at RedState than mine, as I was merely commenting on Manweller’s stunningly incomprehensible position about how the GOP should approach the next election cycle.  Definitely not this one at Horse’s Ass…Jon DeVore seems fairly certain that Dr. Manweller is conservative.

Considering some of Manwellers embarrassing right wing antics, like the time he called supporters of the minimum wage “dumber than a post,” it’s pretty darn funny that there’s a little internecine warfare going on at the WSRP.

Why do I think it’s internecine conflict? Because the attacks against Manweller are being cheered by fellow WSRP executive board member Nansen Malin of Pacific County, who at last sighting was relentlessly attacking Brian Baird because he wouldn’t have a town hall in her living room.

Here’s a bit of advice for Mr. DeVore. If you’re going to follow someone on Twitter – and especially if you’re going to write about it on your blog – you should click through and actually read their links. Ms. Malin wasn’t tweeting links to the RedState post, but she did tweet a link to this blog. There is no internecine warfare going on at the WSRP. So sorry to disappoint.

(Note: Martin Knight’s post at RedState makes excellent points about the inadvisability of Dr. Manweller’s plan, whether or not you agree that he’s a Democrat sleeper.)

Planning To Fail

You’ve surely heard the old adage, “when you fail to make a plan, you plan to fail.” Like most old sayings, this is largely true; operating by the seat of your pants isn’t the best route to success; however, people do occasionally manage it anyway – due to sheer luck or brute force – but what about those times when a plan is so misguided that the plan itself dooms you to failure?

Matthew Manweller, an associate professor of Political Science at Central Washington State University and member of the Washington State Republican Party Executive Committee proposes just such a plan in an op-ed appearing today in the Seattle Times.

There is a tendency for national political parties, especially minority parties, to go after the most vulnerable incumbents. This means focusing on swing districts or districts where the presidential partisan vote differed widely from the congressional partisan vote. The national GOP will be making a serious mistake if they follow this strategy across the board. A more nuanced approach is necessary if the GOP wants to win back majority status, but more importantly, the trust of the American people.

God save me from a nuanced approach. Nuance is the mantle intellectuals like to don when they espouse ideas that slap common sense in the face. It allows them to maintain their self-righteous sense of superiority without having to actually justify what they’re saying because, after all, you would understand it if only you were smart enough to appreciate their nuanced approach.

Manweller continues:

GOP Chairman Michael Steele should not go after the “Blue Dog Democrats” in 2010. This small group of representatives has shown themselves to value practicality over ideology. They have been willing to compromise, change their minds and even oppose their own party when necessary, characteristics that should be valued regardless of one’s own political affiliation. More will be lost than gained if the GOP attacks this coalition.

I am not sure how Manweller defines “Blue Dog,” so we’ll just let them define themselves. Cross-referencing the list of House Blue Dog Caucus members with the American Conservative Union’s lifetime ratings, we can see that, of the 46 members who are rated, just four of them support the conservative position at least half the time, whereas 27 of them support it less than one third of the time.

Astonishingly, 18 of them support the conservative position less than one quarter of the time, with ratings ranging from 24.5 all the way down to 2! It’s a sign of just how far left the Democrats have swung that anyone who votes against the conservative position 98% of the time would even want to be part of a supposedly moderate caucus, much less be allowed to join. Tell me why, by all that’s holy, would you not challenge a so-called Blue Dog who votes with you less than 25% or even 50% of the time? Even if you elect a moderate Republican who supports the conservative position 51% of the time, that’s a gain in my book.

Now put on your thinking cap, because here comes the  nuanced part:

What message does it send to conservative Democrats if the GOP assails the very people who were willing to work with them? Republican challenges will simply drive Blue Dogs to seek cover in the liberal wing of their party and make them question why they should ever cross the aisle again.

Breaking news, Professor Manweller! Not all the Blue Dogs are conservatives! Or even moderate! But you must know that, being, as you are, a professor of Political Science. And to tell the truth, I really don’t care if their feelings get hurt. Furthermore, when your party is in the majority, it doesn’t matter if the guys on the other side of the aisle are willing to cross over and work with you. Unless you want to pursue policies that really aren’t going to turn out to be all that popular, or even work as advertised, and you want to spread the blame. (Ask the Democrats how this is working out for them.)

More importantly, what message does it send to the American voter if the GOP seeks to overthrow the very group of people who are actually looking (and thinking) before they leap? If Republicans win a majority on the backs of Blue Dogs, they will look cynical in victory and send a message that the desire for power trumps a commitment to rational discourse and the politics of cooperation.

Such a victory would not be good for America. After having lost the trust of the American people in 2006, the GOP needs to show that they can put country above partisan gain. Driving out conservative Democrats doesn’t send that message. In truth, such a move would further polarize an already polarized America. For decades, Democrats have been targeting Rockefeller Republicans and Republicans have been targeting soft Democrats. The result has been an ever widening chasm between the Left and the Right. That can be good for fundraising, but not for public policy.

Does that mean the GOP should sit on the sidelines during the 2010 elections? Absolutely not. But they should target their challenges to representatives who are disproportionately liberal in comparison to their districts. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a perfect example — uncompromisingly liberal but representing the relatively conservative state of Nevada. From a pure political perspective, replacing a conservative Tennessee Democrat with a Tennessee Republican consumes scarce political resources but does nothing to increase the number of votes to block Obama’s legislation.

Did you say Blue Dog?

When the GOP mounts a strong challenge in a Blue Dog district, the average voter won’t interpret that as a cynical grab for power because – here’s another news flash for the Professor – the average American voter doesn’t know a Blue Dog Democrat from a hole in the ground. Joe and Jane Voter are far more likely to think that the failure to mount an effective challenge is a sign of GOP indifference, incompetence or inability and nobody likes to back a loser.

Manweller states, “Such a victory would not be good for America.” Why not? If you believe that conservative principles are best for this country and that that the Republican party best represents those principles, how is it “not good for America” if you do all within your power to promote them? Manweller should be encouraging Michael Steele to embrace a strategy of moving forward with strong challenges in every district that can possibly be snatched back from the Democrats and even stronger challenges in tough districts, rather than limiting the potential for success. He talks about scarce political resources without recognizing that people are motivated and motivated people can achieve great things.

To say that we should hand the Blue Dogs a pass is like saying that you should throw the game because  your opponent just said your mother was ugly, rather than calling her…something worse. Perhaps Manweller finds it repugnant to think of the political process in terms of winners and losers, yet there undoubtedly are winners and losers. Failure to acknowledge this when the stakes are so high is irresponsible; the Democrats, even the Blue Dogs, understand this.

As a Washington conservative, I can only hope the other members of the WSRP Executive Committee don’t embrace Manweller’s ill-advised plan because it would be nice to hope for the possibility of some conservative representation in Olympia for the 1st District. For an ostensible expert on American politics, the Professor seems alarmingly naive. Perhaps he needs to get out and mingle with the riff-raff more often.