Soon it will be Christmas Eve, that one night of the year when politicos young and old lay their heads down to dream of the treasure that may await in stockings hung with care. But some on the American political scene have been a little nicer than others and Santa Claus has been making notes all year before deciding how to best distribute the wealth. Here’s a peek at some of the decisions he has made on his 2010 Naughty and Nice list.

Of course, if you have any of your own ideas about Santa’s list, be sure to make suggestions in the comments below. Ol’ Saint Nick is always listening.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)

As the brightest member among Leader Boehner’s handpicked appointments to the President’s Deficit Commission, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and a minority conservative voice on the gateway House committees of Budget and Ways & Means, Ryan has pulled more than his fair share. Ryan’s work in envisioning an economic course for the government that sets the country on a course toward greater freedom and stability. Perhaps most notable, in Washington, D.C., where the primary economic industry seems to be the production of heated oxygen, Ryan created an actual plan. For actually doing the work his constituents deserve to have done on their behalf, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin tops the nice list for 2010.

House Minority Leader and Speaker-elect John Boehner

“Hell, no!” doesn’t seem like the sort of exclamation that should get positive recognition on the holiest of birthdays, but Rep. John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) emotionally-charged desperate howl on Christmas Eve 2009 continued to resonate through 2010. Just the prospect of replacing Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Boehner became a lucrative fundraising slogan for Republicans. His continued vocal opposition to the sweeping Democratic agenda will continue to serve as a critical aid for ideological navigation in the tumultuous months ahead.

GOP Old Guard Appropriators

In the case of GOP dinosaurs – Sens. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Thad Cochrane (R-Miss.), Kit Bond (R-Mo.) being leaders of the pack – handing them a bag of coal is an elegant act of regifting what they have already dumped in the laps of the American taxpayer. Despite serious warnings from all corners of the political sphere that spiraling debt represents a threat to national security, this dedicated block of tax-and-spend Republicans earned their lumps this year by helping to increase the peril.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

Attorney General Eric Holder has earned his lumps in 2010 more than perhaps any other Washington insider except for Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano. From his indecision and clumsy defense of the administration’s flawed policy to try cases against dangerous terrorists in civilian courts, to stonewalling the U.S. Civil Rights Commission’s requests pertaining to the controversial dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party, to aggressively challenging Arizona’s SB1070 despite admitting to never having read the law, Holder is certainly among the naughtiest in the Obama administration.

Gaia’ s Over-Protective Big Brother, Al Gore

Behavioral psychologist B.F. Skinner is quoted as saying, “The way positive reinforcement is carried out is more important than the amount.” One candy cane for former veep Al Gore, and here’s why.

Gore’s relative silence in 2010 has more to do with a spate of personal difficulties including a separation from wife Tipper and a sexual assault charge involving a Portland, Oreg. masseuse that was eventually dismissed. Or it could be the calming of global warming hysteria, noted by a significant mellowing in acceptance of Gore’s belief in an approaching environmental catastrophe is based in sound science. Whatever the causes of Gore’s silence, one candy cane is a good training tool. Stay on the path, Al, and next year’s reward could be larger.

The Republican National Committee

While Republican candidates were hitting the campaign trail to connect with voter angst about fiscal excesses and irresponsibility, the RNC treasury was being treated as a cash machine for the over-privileged consultant class. Only weeks after a damaging revelation that the RNC reimbursed expenses for a leather-and-chains junket to an L.A. bondage club, Chairman Michael Steele’s own credibility was weakened by the disclosure of a flurry of questionable spending and allegations that he had suggested purchasing a private jet to use for his own travel.

Julian Assange ( x 10¹⁰⁰)

That’s right – a googolplex of coal lumps for the man whose aim is to singlehandedly bring down an entire nation, and that may not even be enough. The Wikileaks founder has yet to face charges relating to the release of diplomatic and military secrets of the U.S. government during the past year, document dumps for which the extent of damage may never be fully known. Let’s just hope that yours truly [Santa] can still find this megamaniac now that the British court has seen fit to grant him bail.

###

[Cross-posted by author from Pundit League.]

Seattle once set a gleaming example of how all-politics talk radio could be successful on AM radio. In the span of just one year Washington state’s largest media market has seen the format’s potential to affect state and local politics made impotent, leaving conservative communicators to wonder where the new pathways will develop to balance a crowd of moderate and liberal voices discussing state, local and national politics from a local perspective.

KVI 570AM – a trailblazer in its industry – last month abandoned right-wing talk in favor of oldies programming, but in hindsight the dismantling of a broadcast giant could be seen approaching for some time. When parent company Fisher Broadcasting released long-time host Kirby Wilbur, and John Carlson began shuttling back and forth between KVI and sister station KOMO 1000AM (with Carlson finally leaving KVI taking up residence in the morning slot on KOMO doing a far less political show than his listeners may be accustomed to), the tracks were being laid.

With KVI’s resignation from its role as a conduit for conservative opinion and analysis in a town in which the range of media alternatives spans from the center to extreme left, only rival right-wing talk broadcaster KTTH 770AM remained to provide a critical counterpoint. Nestled among KTTH’s heavy-hitting lineup of nationally syndicated hosts, homegrown talent David Boze stood out in recent weeks as the lone voice speaking about Seattle and Washington State politics for three hours every afternoon. Now, even that last bastion of right-wing commentary and analysis is being squeezed toward extinction.

The announcement that David Boze’s show would be reduced to just a single hour came last week. KTTH ostensibly made the programming change in order to make space for Sean Hannity’s syndicated show. Some may speculate whether loading the schedule with outsourced programming resembles the modus operandi of a station intending to enact a full-scale format change at some point in the near future. Only time will tell.

These changes to Seattle’s right-side media are more likely to be a reaction to economic realities, not a statement on the politics of the region. Will new media alternatives – based on lighter business models in cost terms – emerge to pick up the slack? Even a lean organization needs capital, and there appears to be no sugar daddy willing to boost a conservative digital resource into existence on the basis of public service. Even progressive and centrist sites like Crosscut.com and Publicola.net – both of which provide solid reporting on developments in state and local politics – struggle to exist, by all accounts, despite maintaining efficient operations.

The problem is a critical one for Republicans who need a medium through which to reach beyond its grassroots network and interact with voters, but the implications for the partisan interests pale when considered against what happens in the absence of any balancing voice in the debate on major state and local issues. It is unrealistic to consider center and left media outlets to dutifully, routinely and faithfully construct devil’s advocate arguments against massive spending on light rail, “progressive” land use policy, and other Democratic pet projects.

Perhaps we are just in a down moment in terms of the Puget Sound’s media diversity, and just as the extreme imbalance in the 1990s created conservative talk radio, a new drought for conservatives will produce a thirst to be quenched by a new generation of entrepreneurs.

###

[Cross-posted by author from Red County.]

Is a compromise on extending the tax cuts enacted under Pres. Bush in the offing? After a weekend of politicking, it seems that Democrats are willing to deal and Republicans are in the driver seat.

Buzz has been overheard that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) may be pulling strings for a procedural vote early during this coming week, perhaps on a compromise amendment yet to be defined. If true, it could be a development that sets the tone for how the upper house will handle business in the next Congress.

At issue in any compromise is just how big of a tax sanctuary Democrats and Republicans can agree on in terms of extending current rates. Two procedural votes taken Saturday on amendments failed passage – both coming seven votes short of the 60 required to move legislation forward – but provided Republican negotiators with a path to providing stability for more than 99 percent of Americans.

The initial amendment would have altered the basic plan to reinstitute higher rates on all Americans earning more than $250,000, replacing it with an extension of current rates to all income under $250,000. Income earned above that mark would be taxed at the higher rates. In the second of the two Democrat-sponsored amendments, the level of tax amnesty increased to $1 million.

What stands out in the two votes was the consistent level of Democratic support for both amendments. Although the proposals evolved to include ever more wealthy Americans, Democrats held solid with 53 votes. Some of the individual votes changed, but the size of the bloc remained the same. All in all, it may indicate a willingness for Democrats to sustain lower taxes for high income earners, a group that has routinely been an easy target of opportunity.

The message to McConnell and Senate Republicans should be clear: Keep probing for the trigger point.

###

[Cross-posted by author from Red County.]

While Wikileaks founder Julian Assange continues to simultaneously evade the law enforcement agencies of Sweden and common sense, the justifications for his actions still pour forth each day.

The latest communication from his anarchist clearinghouse of secret material came via the Wikileaks Twitter account: “Kennedy on why WikiLeaks matters (Youtube) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces.”

Assange is  no longer only communicating with snitches and traitors in the realm of the living, he now reaches into the afterlife to speak to dead U.S. presidents.

The implication of the YouTube video found via the link, is that Pres. John F. Kennedy would support Wikileaks activities as an exercise of the free press. Of course, this latest tactic is total bull scat.

Pres. Kennedy’s suppression of press access to crucial military and intelligence secrets is well documented and has substantial justification.

The use of Kennedy’s remarks in support of a free press is simply an attempt to further extend the illusion that Assange’s organization is a member of the Fourth Estate. Rest assured, Assange could not provide evidence upon oral examination that he has any knowledge of either journalistic ethics or the laws regarding public disclosure of classified information.

Although JFK would certainly have supported the right of the press to criticize our leaders and engage in vigorous debate about the direction of the country, he recognized that secrets have their purpose.

Assange has the moral standing of a murderer who claims innocence on the basis that the tool of his violence once belonged to someone else, but screams loudly for conviction of the weapon’s original owner.

The Kennedy family has not yet released a statement regarding the use of Pres. Kennedy’s words by Wikileaks.

###

[Cross-posted by author from Red County.]

In geological terms, the West Coast of the United States is something like a jigsaw puzzle, a stressed arrangement of smaller pieces under constant tension, a crisscrossing complex of fractures that has lethal potential for millions. For civic leaders, it offers a decision of elegant simplicity: prepare or perish.

The Left Coast’s political landscape is just as treacherous as the terrestrial one, particularly (as this year’s poor performances will attest) for Republicans trying to solve its complex puzzle of eclectic voters. Gains made by the GOP in other parts of the country in this year’s midterms may lead some to believe that the road to the White House runs across solid ground, but the path to victory still passes through the West where coalitions are broken and Republicans hopes are too often dashed.

Although ample ideological affinity exists between Republicans and West Coast independents on a wide range of fiscal, security and social issues (the results on ballot measures for drug legalization and increased taxation were a clear affirmation of conservative values), liberal Democrats continue winning elections.

Yet, Republicans on the West Coast had the same factors going for them as their colleagues running successful campaigns in East Coast states as reliably blue as Pennsylvania.

National issues impacting congressional races – as contained in the nightly dose of white noise from the chatterati on cable news that strongly influences swing voters – remained fixed on the economy, the economic ramifications of policy, and national security, areas in which Republicans represented well.

Hot button social issues may have been front and center in individual congressional and senatorial races, but failed to erupt into a larger conversation thus giving Republicans a break from fighting the traditional three-front battle against media spin, socially liberal special interest groups and their own tendency toward internecine disintegration.

If one can ever say any given election has been tailored for building broad coalitions, 2010 was that kind of year. The lack of nationalized wedge issues was complemented by the calendar. In a midterm election, the most reliable engine for creating controversy – the media circus that is a presidential race – was missing.

Without a dogfight for the Oval Office to act as a lightning rod for every special interest group’s social agenda, a resolute federation of Tea Party independents, establishment Republicans, and conservatives – both fiscal and social – could exist in something sort of like harmony, if harmony were actually a state of mutual agreement to remain silent and get along.

Nevertheless, Republicans went down in droves.

Why did the GOP wave stall before reaching the Pacific Coast? The answer may lie within a stigmatized Republican brand, or stigmatized at least in how it is perceived among independent voters who largely decide elections.

Like a one-legged man trying to participate in a game of Twister®, it is the punishment candidates know they will receive for pivoting on key issues of conscience that may be an invisible factor in these Republican defeats. This issue most responsible for the GOP’s West Coast disconnect could be same-sex marriage, a question on which social conservatives rule the roost, and a scarecrow of sorts warding off otherwise conservative and moderate swing voters.

Swing voters don’t buy political territory, they lease, and always on a short-term contract. In the West, when independents shop for a piece of partisan property, the perception of Republican attitudes toward gays and lesbians hangs like a condemnation notice nailed to the door, particularly in critical West Coast states where polls continue to show majority support for permitting same-sex couples to legally marry or where the practice has already been legalized.

Even within the GOP, a passive attitude of tolerance toward legalizing same-sex marriage remains distinct from continuing to oppose a more radical homosexual agenda. Attempts to normalize or promote the lifestyle among school-age children and the creation of “special” rights are not part of the bargain for those Republicans who have a moderated view of same-sex couples. These shades of grey tend to be ignored against a looming image of the Republican Party as a group that has an irrational, dehumanizing hatred for gays and lesbians. As a result, the broad-brushing of Republicans persists as a highly potent wedge used by Democrats to peel away independent voters.

West Coast Republicans do not have to resign themselves to a lifetime living in tax-and-spend purgatory with representation that truly represents no one. Just as the West Coast has learned to build homes and cities to withstand the tremendous seismic forces lurking in its collective future, so must the Republican Party adapt to survive enormous stress. Political strategists must bridge the same challenge surmounted by structural engineers, to force themselves to unchain from dogma, to ignore what knowledge they regarded as best in order to search for that which was better.

Smart minds in engineering detached from canonical inflexibility and revolted against doctrine that held that rigidity equaled strength, replacing it with an understanding that designed flexibility allows buildings to absorb complex and unpredictable stresses, averting all-out collapse. It is a concept that applies well to social and political institutions. In order for the Republican Party to achieve its full potential in a changing society, it must evolve while still remaining rooted in solid principled ground, and not simply for the sake of political convenience.

Allowing minor political experimentation might not only be a strategic boon to West Coast Republican congressional candidates, it has the potential to unlock the electoral votes from the region, one-quarter of those needed for a presidential victory. A West Coast strategy could be an ace in the hole desperately needed.

There is significant philosophical breathing space on the issue of same-sex marriage, and it should be the goal of the Republican Party to actively protect that space for candidates who wish to survey it. In doing so, the GOP may also restore for subsequent generation the critical (but fading) distinction that exists between a godless society, a society whose laws are formed by the intersection of core religious and secular values, and a society whose laws originate in religious texts.

(In an age when the greatest threat to Western free society comes from Islam, a religion which ascribes to itself political power over all social relationships and public affairs, acknowledging the unique freedom that exists only when government remains secular may become even more important than preventing two men from being recognized as a wedded couple.)

The justification made for legislating or adjudicating a moral position against same-sex marriage might seem to make sense. It is argued that the values of a society should be reflected in its laws, and as the vast majority of Americans come from a Judeo-Christian tradition thus should our laws be formed. The simple logic camouflages problematic thinking on several levels.

On the religious basis for opposing same-sex marriage, any reconciliation of how biblical interpreters assign priority to different scorned relationships or behaviors is awkward. If the Bible condemns homosexuals, rendering them invalid to enter marriage, then why does homosexuality not appear in the Ten Commandments? Certainly the Top Ten should take priority if we adhere first to Judeo-Christian traditions, yet there is only a fringe minority who advocate re-criminalizing adultery, and even fewer who would enact laws to punish children for dishonoring their parents – just two of the clearly-worded edicts handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai.

America, however, was founded as a secular republic, not a religious democracy. The Founding Fathers went through extreme contortions to strike a balance between religious belief and morality in our law. They recognized a difference between morality that is imposed on oneself and morality that is imposed on others, and believed that only the most universal moral codes (and those that infringed the least on individual liberty) should be imposed on the whole of society by its government.

But even more chilling than sidestepping the philosophical safeguards preserved within the Constitution are the ramifications for a democratic society. If America was to allow its laws to originate solely from religious sources, without any external philosophical argument for their necessity, adding the rationale that the views represented a majority of Americans, the unintended consequences could be extreme.

Social conservatives who are acutely aware of the danger to the Western democracy posed by Sharia law may still fail to recognize that inventing a tradition of making the religious beliefs of a majority the sole basis for creating American law is negligent in the extreme. Can we guarantee demographic and cultural conditions in the future, changes that may occur beyond the horizon of what we can predict? If religion is given an unchecked pathway into the law so long as it is carried along by a majority, the last defense against any aggressive subversion of our Western values is too barbaric to contemplate.

###

[Cross-posted by author from Red County.]

For the second year in a row, social conservatives are riling over the inclusion of gay conservatives at the highly visible Conservative Political Action Conference scheduled to be held this coming February in the nation’s capital.

As reported Tuesday afternoon on Ben Smith’s blog at Politico.com, The American Principles Project uninvited itself this morning from the paramount annual gathering of conservatives, and cited irreconcilable differences with CPAC as their reason. The letter sent to CPAC chairman David Keene by APP president Frank Cannon is void of subtlety; the inclusion of GOProud – an organization for gay conservatives – for the second year is described in hyperbolic language as an intolerable act.

“Last year, of course, the American Principles Project participated in CPAC despite the presence of GOProud. That was a mistake, just as it was, in our opinion, a mistake for CPAC to countenance GOProud’s participation. Having now examined closely GOProud’s mission and its behavior since its inception, we can only conclude that the organization’s purposes are fundamentally incompatible with a movement that has long embraced the ideals of family and faith in a thriving civil society. Needless to say, we are deeply persuaded that a thriving civil society is an indispensable bulwark against the relentless expansion of government, a phenomenon that has gripped much of the Western world and helped to fuel the present fiscal and economic crisis.”

In the lengthy correspondence, Cannon conflated William F. Buckley, Jr.’s dissociation from the ultra-right wing John Birch Society with an expulsion of GOProud, suggesting that the Birch Society’s belief in wild conspiracy theories is tantamount to GOProud’s contention that Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) views on culture are “bizarre.”

This evening, CPAC director Lisa De Pasquale sent a statement in response to APP’s withdrawal.

“Our role at CPAC is to bring conservative groups together on the core issues. We ask that those interested in being participating organizations agree with the ACU statement of principles. To date, we have over 80 groups involved with CPAC. We are pleased that we will continue adding groups over the next several weeks leading up to CPAC. CPAC has the unique opportunity of hosting more than 10,000 conservatives from across the nation and abroad and provides a forum for them to organize and interact on the issues that are important to them. We certainly respect that many conservatives will have to weigh the costs and benefits to joining CPAC as a participating organization. We respect the decision groups come to when deciding whether to participate in CPAC. If they are not able to be at CPAC 2011, we hope they will be at a future conference and will continue to invite them to do so.”

This is not the first time that GOProud’s presence at CPAC has caused a stir. The APP and American Family Association voiced strong disapproval of the gay conservative group’s sponsorship of CPAC 2010, the Liberty University Law School withdrew from the event, and calls for boycotts circulated among social conservatives. The pressure led CPAC to a compromise under which GOProud could attend, but only on the condition that their members would not speak from the podium or debate on issues important to the gay community, such as same-sex marriage or the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

The CPAC kerfuffle comes on the heels of an open letter sent Monday by GOProud and a group of tea party leaders to Republican leaders in Congress urging them to “resist the urge to run down any social issue rabbit holes in order to appease the special interests.”

The APP is the most recent in a long line of groups claiming to possess a unique license to narrowly define conservatism, a circumscription that only serves to dissect conservatives into smaller, less powerful factions. It will almost certainly not be the last, and – since the meaning of conservative still appears to be an open source project – I will offer more thoughts on this issue tomorrow.

###

Recent developments have set the fires of speculation about Washington State’s 2012 gubernatorial race ablaze. Although not official, current governor Chris Gregoire’s rumored choice not to run for a third term has focused attention to Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-1) as the likely Democratic contender for the open seat. A decision by Inslee to vie for the governor’s office would leave a comfortable Democratic district vulnerable to a Republican challenger, but one Washington Democratic politician could be adopting the Bret Favre approach to retirement in order to help his party protect a key House seat.

When Congresswoman-elect Jaime Herrera (R, WA-3) is sworn into the 112th Congress this January she will fill the seat left open by outgoing Rep. Brian Baird’s decision not to run for re-election. In the meantime, Baird will affect a change in his own scenery. Yesterday, the Tacoma News Tribune reported that Baird will be moving to a new home deep in the heart of Inslee’s First Congressional District:

Baird is moving to Edmonds, in the 1st Congressional District north and east of Lake Washington currently represented by Democratic Rep. Jay Inslee. If Inslee were to run for governor in 2012, as many expect, the congressional seat would be open.

The move makes good sense for Baird, good sense for Democrats, and should stimulate talk among Republicans who may have already hung a bull’s-eye on the First. Without a strong Democratic candidate to replace Inslee should he run for governor, Democrats will effectively be going all-in, risking not only a loss by Inslee to Washington’s current attorney general and presumptive Republican candidate Rob McKenna, but also the loss of the First District in the shuffle. Baird’s move mitigates some of the risk by establishing a resident pseudo-incumbent as a scarecrow to give the GOP a moment’s pause, but it is likely a move planned well in advance based on inside knowledge about Democratic weakness in the district should it be abandoned by the incumbent.

While the GOP “wave” in Washington State failed to unseat any Democratic congressmen (yes, all of supposedly progressive Washington’s Democratic House delegation are male), the Third District race may have given us a peek at the quantitative advantage of incumbency. The average dip in vote share among the state’s Democrats – save for Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-7) – was 10 points since highs in the 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections, but Denny Heck’s losing effort to keep the Third finished 17 points below the baseline set by Baird in 2008.

It’s math of the most unscientific and fuzzy sort, for sure, but if the benefit of incumbency for Democrats in Washington State does amount to something in the vicinity of seven points on Election Day the implications of Inslee running for governor are clear. After all, Inslee gained re-election this year by a margin of just over seven points. In a dream “what if” scenario for Republicans, if Inslee had chosen to vacate his seat this term to run for governor unburdened by any responsibilities to his constituents, perhaps the GOP would be swearing in two new members from the Evergreen State.

Theoretical physics aside, short of a breakthrough in human cloning, in 2012 Democrats will need the next best thing to incumbency, a carpetbagger with a significant political resume and an unblemished win-loss record. Baird certainly fits the bill and will ease into the First as a potential candidate with decent name recognition, sizable political resources, and a campaign fund of nearly $450,000.

###

[Cross-posted by author from Red County.]

As Republicans in Washington State assess the fallout from last Tuesday’s elections, upturning the state party hierarchy is becoming an outlet for a very real sense that opportunities for GOP gains were missed because of a lack of a ground game.

By telephone this morning, Kirby Wilbur informed me that he would be running for chair of the State Republican Party, and that he had made an earlier call to Luke Esser to let him know of the decision.  Wilbur cited the lack of a ground effort to reach voters as a critical failure in last week’s election, and said that his decision to challenge Esser was a difficult one that he nevertheless felt compelled to make.

Wilbur is a longtime talk radio host and currently heads up the Washington chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative education and advocacy group. His announcement was also confirmed by email to The Everett Herald.

By voicemail message, Luke Esser confirmed that he will be running for re-election and that he looks forward to building on gains made in recent years.

Changes may also be afoot on the spot that some define as the scene of the crime, the Democratic stronghold of King County. Current KCGOP vice chairs Walter Liang and Jill Fagan will not be seeking re-re-election and two suitors have quickly stood up to run for their slots.

Jennifer Burke announced on her Facebook page this morning her intent to run for the open vice chair positions. Burke gained exposure during her husband Matthew Burke’s primary campaign in the First Congressional District. Her experience in the field of education could be seen as a valuable asset to a party that has struggled to make inroads into the Democrats’ most popular affinity constituency.

Matthew Lundh also confirmed by email that he will seek the other vice chair spot. Lundh has worked on communications and campaign strategy for the Republican Party both here in Washington State and in D.C.

An email was sent to current KCGOP chair Lori Sotelo shortly before the publication of this post to ask whether she intends to run to keep her position at the helm. Although it is assumed that she would like to continue in the position, there have been no public statements confirming.

UPDATE: Lori Sotelo confirmed last night that she will run for re-election to the KCGOP chair. Sotelo has set up a Facebook page to channel support for her effort.

###

[Cross-posted by author from Red County.]

If last Tuesday’s election was a key moment in American history, a surge of political evolution, Washington State – frequently credited as a citadel of innovation – now has the distinction of being a throwback. Of the groups responsible for empowering Washington voters to continue clinging to their buggy whips, the Washington State Republican Party and chairman Luke Esser must accept a large share of the blame for missing a 100-year opportunity.

On the federal level, with only a handful of races yet to be called, Republican gains stand at six seats in the Senate and 60 in the House, with an additional three races leaning red. In contrast, Washington’s congressional delegation of 11 (two senators and nine representatives) is now poised to grow by… one.

The GOP’s weak performance in Washington looks even less impressive when the results of state legislative races are considered. Although voters across the state enthusiastically rejected a state income tax, and reinstated the two-thirds majority requirement for tax increases (a voter-approved condition that was pushed aside by Democrats in Olympia), Republicans could only achieve small gains in either legislative body. Although ballots are still being counted, the Democrats will likely continue to have an advantage of three seats in the State Senate and a 16 seats in the House.

It is no surprise that since the ballot counting began to reveal disappointing results as early as the day after election night, damage control seems to have been the order of the day for Washington’s Republican establishment. Although polling before the election clearly predicted close finishes in key races – Dino Rossi’s campaign to remove Sen. Patty Murray and John Koster’s campaign to unseat Rep. Rick Larsen in the Second Congressional District – the call to GOP volunteers to help with ballot rehabilitation was laced with desperation, causing some to wonder if the urgency stemmed from a failure to have the rehab effort operating from sunrise on November 3rd.

Exacerbating the reality that dreams of a Red Washington were of the pie-in-the-sky variety, with Democratic margins in all contested races continuing to widen through Friday, the response from the Republican leadership was… silence.

On Friday morning, Esser broke the calm and spoke with radio talk show host Bryan Suits on KVI 570 AM. His explanation to Suits for why Washington had not followed the national trends for Republican gains: Washington State’s economy was just not quite as bad as the rest of the country. According to Esser, a serious but comparatively mild recession in the Northwest was to blame for dashed Republican hopes. Esser’s rationalization was as hopeless, demoralizing and misplaced as if Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll had blamed the team’s monumental loss this past Sunday on better-than-average weather.

The same day, Esser repeated the analysis to David Boze on KTTH 770 AM, confirming amazingly low expectations for the Republican message and implying that GOP wins in Washington can only come against Democrats who have been handicapped by desperately poor economic conditions.

In Washington, for a variety of reasons, the Republican Party seems to have abandoned its role in this regard to friendly media in the form of talk radio and right-wing blogs, but it must make greater efforts to reach out to the public through these channels.

Despite Esser’s belief in the values of the free market, individualism, and smaller government, a malaise of sorts has persisted within the party during his tenure, one that lives by a self-sustaining doctrine of non-confrontation. Having predicted failure – as Esser implies by defining such narrow conditions for GOP victories – it is not only permissible but rational to avoid risks, play defense, and celebrate holding ground as if one were gaining it.

The new message of weakness brought out by Esser in the wake of the election brings into clearer perspective why the WSRP committed attention and resources to races that polling showed would probably not be nail biters – Rep. Dave Reichert’s Eight District re-election bid and Jaime Herrera’s run for Rep. Brian Baird’s vacated seat in the Third – while neglecting contest that needed TLC in the First, Second and Ninth.

Republican strategists had known since the August primary that John Koster was mounting a serious challenge to knock an incumbent Democrat off his perch. Instead, energy flowed into the efforts to protect Rep. Dave Reichert in the Eighth and boost Jaime Herrera in her Third District run, despite the polling in both races that showed the Republicans as likely first-place finishers. In the First District challenge to überliberal Rep. Jay Inslee, James Watkins worked hard to overcome a virtual media blackout and starvation for resources and won more of the vote than Larry Ishmael did in the previous two elections.

This should not be read as a snub of Reichert or Herrera. As Washington’s second congresswoman (both female House representatives are Republicans), Herrera will make a stellar addition to the state delegation, and Reichert’s return to Congress cements a foothold for Republicans in the heart of blue territory. Nevertheless, losing races in which more should have been done is a difficult pill to swallow.

Even more important in elections than dollars and communications support, however, is the ability of the political parties to inspire and motivate its base and persuade converters into the fold. The process of persuasion transcends pragmatic decisions about candidate viability and media buys, it is the subtle conversation about ideology. It leverages intersections of events and political philosophy to describe the advantage of a particular point of view, and it has the power to change minds.

Esser is an admirable speaker who capably communicates Republican ideals, but what the lackluster results in this last election may force party insiders to admit is that he may lack the critical element for achieving substantial gains in 2012 and beyond. If Esser lacks the vision to conceive of Washington as a red state, that failure could affect more than the political fortunes of Republican office-seekers.

Washington cannot ignore the consequences of years of runaway spending. Furthermore, an increasingly business-averse economic and regulatory climate, creeping efforts to institute oppressive environmental policies, and an incestuous and costly relationship between public employee unions and their government paymasters are on-the-horizon issues that only Republicans can be expected to oppose. On these issues, there must be a leader to prime the conversation, and Washington is fortunate to have a deep bench of passionate and experienced political operatives who might be able to fill that role. Luke Esser should give serious consideration to stepping aside and making room for a fresh voice.

###

[Cross-posted by author from Red County.]

Dino Rossi has conceded the Washington U.S. Senate race to opponent and incumbent Sen. Patty Murray (D).

Although Rossi continued to pick up votes from many counties from today’s results, those gains were obliterated by a net gain for Murray of more than 25,000 votes in the Democratic stronghold of King County. Those votes also broke harder for Murray than in previous days’ counts, a trend that virtually put a roadblock across Rossi’s path to victory.

As of 6:39 p.m. Pacific, the race stood at 51.26 percent for Murray, 48.74 percent for Rossi, a deficit of 45,661 votes for the Republican with Democrat-saturated King County still holding the vast majority of remaining ballots.

The race was called for Murray by AP shortly after 6:00 p.m. Pacific; Rossi issued his written concession statement from Bellevue, Wash. shortly thereafter. Although congratulatory toward his opponent, he had stern words for the President and Democrats in the Senate.

“This evening, I called Senator Murray to offer my congratulations on her re-election to the U.S. Senate.

“I ran for the Senate because I believe we need a basic course correction from where Washington, D.C. has been taking us and to make sure this country is as free, as strong and as prosperous in the future as it has been in the past to preserve the best of America for future generations.

“That was a message that found a very receptive audience all across this state, though not quite receptive enough.

“We’re sending at least one new person, maybe two, to Congress to represent Washington State.  We elected a host of new people to the state legislature — all on the message of controlling spending and helping the private sector grow, saying no to government overreach and confronting some very difficult challenges in front of us.

“You’ve heard me say during this campaign that the problems we face are too big for one political party.  They are, and I can say that with absolute certainty.

“It is my hope that the new House and Senate will address them seriously, responsibly, and in a bipartisan way.  I hope the President and Senate Democrats will join the new House majority to face these problems head on rather than leaving them for the next Congress or the next generation.

“My hope going forward is that our representatives in Washington, D.C. will be thinking about how an issue affects Bellevue, Bellingham or Bingen, not the D.C. Beltway.

“I hope they will be thinking about the small business owners struggling to stay open and the people that work there who are trying to pay their mortgage and feed their kids.  I hope the things that are done in D.C. make it easier for these folks, not harder.

“The lesson I leave you with is one we learned as kids: we’re all in this together.  If Washington, D.C. doesn’t act to help the economy grow and solve this massive spending and debt, it’s going to hurt us all.  It won’t distinguish by political party.

“Let me close with one more heartfelt thank you to the people of our state.  Thank you for letting me have an honest, straightforward discussion with you about our future.

“God bless you, our country, and this wonderful state we call home.”

###