Observations at a Tea Party, Olympia, WA

by Johnny Walker

@KingstonJW on Twitter

It was a comparatively small assembly organized by the Pierce County Tea Party, perhaps under attended due to the competition of customary campaign activity so late in the political season, but for those few hundred who showed up in Olympia yesterday it was as if there were thousands. They were passionate about their beliefs, some calling it “principled”, proud to be there, and eager to hear guest speakers talk about the dangers of a big government that has gotten out of control. And so, for a few hours in the middle of a clear but cool northwest day, it was all grass roots politics on the Capitol steps.

Off to the side near a cluster of small booths, I saw the 6^th Congressional District challenger Doug Cloud (R) and his team welcoming everyone within reach, working hard to get out his conservative message of fiscal responsibility, accountability, the economy and jobs. No sign of incumbent Norm Dicks (D), who has apparently earned a reputation along side so many other Democrat incumbents this year to avoid their challengers. The Campaign for Liberty folks were present, as were some from the Freedom Advocates and Constitution Party of Washington, all with their unique windows to the definition of American liberty. It seemed at the moment that Democrats didn’t like tea very much…

Present among the regional celebrity talent was Keli Carender, nationally known for organizing the first 2009 tax protest in Seattle that later became know as the Tea Party movement. She buoyed the crowd with a morale boosting speech that focused on the values of self-government. She introduced her ideas about how “self governing solves most of the problems.” “Government will steal your life, liberty and property,” said Carender. “If we have no money left because taxes are too high, how do we teach our children to be good neighbors?” Big government “breaks the bonds of civil society…” leading to reliance on government and not each other. “We will be generous, we will be charitable, but we will do it in our own way!” Don’t be surprised to increasingly hear Carender speak and refine her views as time goes on. 2010 is the matter at hand but 2012 is just around the corner.

Across the drive and away from the crowd, I introduced myself to Thomas, a 40-year-old Spanaway man who with a friend was watching and taking photographs from a distance. An African-American, I wanted his thoughts on Tea Party “extremism.” I found Thomas to be an articulate, educated, and self-described historian. Slowly warming up to the unwanted attention, he acknowledged that he didn’t really know if Tea Party activists were extremists or not but was there to check it out. Waving his hand broadly across the crowd, he remarked, “There is nothing there.” That bothered him. “There aren’t any people of color.” In further discussion it seemed as if Thomas wanted to get involved but was constrained by skepticism and what he didn’t know. Describing the U.S. Constitution as a “brilliant” document, he observed it was essentially the same today as it was in 1857 when the United States Supreme Court decided in Dred Scott v. Sanford that no person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States (simplified). What Thomas didn’t explicitly say was clear to me in context; neither he nor his companion could yet tell if the overwhelmingly white Tea Party activists were of same mind with the 1857 court, or not. He only knew they were advocating the same Constitution.

Later, I spoke with Nilda, a 45-year-old Olympia resident and Philippine-American (of color?), who was with her family. “They are full of baloney,” she said about people who accuse the Tea Party of extremism. Neither she nor her husband, Jimmy, could recount any extremism during several Tea Party events.

I asked 57-year-old Michelle from Lacey a more direct question; “Why do you think there aren’t more people of color here?” She didn’t know but told me a story about how she invited an African-American friend to be with her at the rally but had declined. Michelle said her friend “thought she would be tarred and feathered” had she shown up. I trusted the sentiment of her remark more than the letter. Michelle went on to wonder whether or not people were so indoctrinated to focus on color that it was hard to overcome to just be an American.

I sought enlightenment once more leaving the rally, asking Rosemary from Lacey about her background. “I’m an American,” she said. Sweet.

I still find myself thinking, “What does all of this mean?” Does a lack of racial diversity in Tea Party organizations somehow mean they are inherently racist? No, I don’t think that is the case at all. But I do think that the lesson of Thomas and Michelle suggest there could be greater outreach and education that Tea Party values equally apply to all flavors of Americans. While I don’t subscribe to any conclusion that a failure to have leaders and speakers “of color” make Tea Parties racist or extreme, it is probably true that greater inclusion of diversity communicates they aren’t. That might be something worth chewing on.

Know the issues and the candidates before you vote. November is coming.

Photos: top center, family sits together with flags at on the Capitol building steps; Left side descending; author Johnny Walker; Keli Carender aka Liberty Belle speaking to the crowd; Olympia resident, Nilda; Lacey resident, Michelle.

The Failure of Conventional Wisdom

by Johnny Walker

KingstonJW on twitter

The Republican tantrum after Christine O’Donnell’s victory over nine term favorite Michael Castle in the Delaware primary helps clarify some important realities of the 2010 political landscape. Republican candidates surviving for the general election should be taking note.

1. No, Tea Party activists are not a wing of the Republican Party. They are independents that may be just as angry at Republican failures in principled leadership as they are with liberal ideologues.
2. Yes, the several decentralized Tea Parties are a viable and sustainable influence – more of a “we the people” campaign than Astroturf. The more the establishment ridicules or ignores them, the more powerful they will probably get.
3. And yes, Generals and master strategists of the Republican Party have been just as naïve about Tea Party activism as the Democrats. They need to get over it, and quickly.

"Generals are notorious for their tendency to fight the last war… Sadly enough, fighting the last war, is often a losing proposition. Conditions change. Objectives change. Strategies change. And you must change. If you don’t, you lose." - Drs. Terry Madonna and Michael Young, Franklin & Marshall College, 2002 - (full article here)

In many ways, we can forgive stalwarts like Karl Rove and Charles Krouthammer for reacting poorly when their conventional wisdom was overwhelmed by the new dynamic. They are, after all, among the best of the field from the last war. Tea Party activists are decentralized and not constrained by conventional rules. They exist because conventional rules have failed them and so the play by their own. They demand to be heard, not talked down to, and have different objectives that are less about sustaining a hierarchical Party establishment for a country run by the beltway, and much more about their elected honoring principles representing them, their States, and the Constitution.

The conditions of American politics have changed. There remains a stubbornly high unemployment rate in spite of trillions in borrowed new spending, financial bailouts, and lost dreams. President Obama’s administration promised hope and change but delivered increased division through far left ideology, out of control spending, tax increases, and an abandonment of the center. Buyer’s remorse has taken hold and is growing. Republicans are not untainted but continuing to blame others is old news.

Political objectives have tightened up. It’s the economy, jobs and protecting constitutional values. It is not about transforming America with unsustainable and divisive social programs.

Strategy has changed. It is not all about compromise and being managed by backroom deals and promises of the political class. Passing bills that haven’t been read is wildly unpopular. It is no longer about hope of change; it is about actual change through the common sense of principled leadership. It is clear that Tea Party voters will sacrifice experience because experience without honoring principles is what failed them.

If Republicans want to lead the political agenda in 2011, they are going to have to do a lot more than just watch the Tea Party annoy progressives. There are no guarantees and I don’t think Tea Party activists really care whether or not you are a Republican or a Democrat. What they care about is whether or not you are paying attention to “we the people” and their priorities. Right now, it seems true that Republicans are the most likely alignment but Michael Castle will tell you there isn’t a rule that guarantees success.

If winning in November is important, the Roves and Krauthammer’s of this world should consider becoming more trusted advisors that help the inexperienced win instead of naysayers predicting doom. It might be wiser to get on the bus than get run over by it.

November is coming. Know your candidates and vote.

Watkins and Burke Remain Positive on WA-01 Primary - analysis

With some irony, the weather cooled in the Puget Sound this morning after yesterday’s hotly contested primary. Winning teams are cautiously buoyant, and those who didn’t are contemplative. Pundits are running amok in their search to find a new story in their analysis of what was mostly a predictable result. This is my shot.

The results for Washington’s Congressional District 1 were strategically anticipated but the details were not. The reaction is interesting. With more than 75% of ballots on hand counted, incumbent Jay Inslee commands a whopping 57% this afternoon, checking James Watkins’ 27%, humbling Matthew Burke at 12%, and barely acknowledges the surprise of David Schirle’s 4%. In other words, the conservative message, even with all its newfound activism, barely dented Jay Inslee’s armor, taking only 11% off his 2008 general election win of 68%. Jay probably slept well last night.

Because the spread between James Watkins and Matthew Burke was closer than I expected, I called up Matthew to get his thoughts. He was surprisingly upbeat considering his loss. Though disappointed he didn’t do better and contemplative about next steps, he thought his numbers against James Watkins were pretty good considering the relative investment. Burke accounts his success to strong independent voters who want performance over talk, and those who believe in firm constitutional principles. This should be a clear signal to James Watkins, who not only needs to recover those votes but quickly turn the voters into active evangelists. Overcoming the incumbent will take a well-energized wave, not a ripple, and precise messaging on key issues will help him get there.

On a personal note, Matthew said that he learned a lot as a candidate and met many great people along the way. He and his wife, Jennifer, will continue to remain active in politics through their involvement with Tea Party groups. I think we can look forward to seeing more of them again soon.

In my conversation with Donald Rasmussen at the Watkins campaign, he readily acknowledged that the numbers weren’t what they hoped for at either end of the spectrum. On the right, Rasmussen sees the differences between Watkins and Burke primarily as a matter of personal style and framing of the message. He notes that while the tension between campaigns had recently become strained; both Watkins and Burke came out of the Tea Party movement and have a great deal in common. With the primary over, Rasmussen believes the campaign will be able to reach out and reconcile with Burke supporters in the near term. Picking up numbers on the left will be more challenging and rely on a different set of strategies, but will certainly involve balancing social issues with financial conservatism in a way that reflect the needs of a very diverse district. Rasmussen characterized Watkins as a kind of post-partisan candidate, keeping focus on jobs and less spending.

So the question is this: Will James Watkins be able to differentiate himself enough from Jay Inslee to woo moderate independents and Democrats without being labeled a RINO and lose conservative support? The Watkins campaign is optimistic they can. If I had the answer to that I could probably get a job on Fox News, but the simple no-brainer analysis is that retiring Jay Inslee is not going to be a walk in the park. Things that could be on the to-do list?

1. Reach out quickly and decisively to Burke supporters. This group could account anywhere from 10-20% and they need to be on board early not just as recovered votes but as active evangelists. This is a force multiplier.
2. Undecided conservatives and independents will need to be more pragmatic in their expectations and think about what is most important to them in the long game. With a Congressional District this diverse, narrow litmus tests may not get them what they want.
3. More work on policy points and tactics without prevarication. Independents and moderate Democrats will want to see the difference between Watkins and Inslee. Tea Party conservatives will want to see firm commitments to financial conservatism and constitutional principles.

November is coming.

Photos: Left to right James Watkins and Matthew Burke speaking at Kitsap Patriots Tea Party event in Silverdale, WA, August 13, 2010

Rasmussen: 93% of Self-Identified Tea Party Members Say They Support Rossi

I'm not sure how I missed this before, but in its latest poll, Rasmussen found even stronger Tea Party support for Washington U.S. Senate candidate Dino Rossi than SurveyUSA:

Twenty percent (20%) of Washington voters consider themselves members of the Tea Party movement, compared to 16% nationally. Sixty-two percent (62%) say they are not members, and another 18% are not sure.

Self-identified Tea Party members overwhelmingly favor the Republicans, with Rossi again running strongest with 93% support. Murray gets two-thirds of the votes of those who say they are not members of that movement.

Forty-three percent (43%) of the state’s voters view the Tea Party movement as good for the country, slightly below voter sentiments nationally, while 32% say it’s bad for America. Twenty percent (20%) say it’s neither.

Can we now end the whole "Tea Party vs. Establishment" narrative in the Washington state U.S. Senate race?

Where Does Didier Stand on Defense?

Nothing better illustrates the paradoxical dilemma of Washington Republican U.S. Senate candidate Clint Didier than Sarah Palin's speech at last Sunday's Freedom Fest in Norfolk, VA:

Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny,” she said. “We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great! That is a price we cannot afford to pay.”

Palin has endorsed Dider, calling him a "patriot."  However, Didier also enjoys wide support from members of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty (which cannot officially endorse any candidate.)  Didier even urges visitors to his campaign website to sign a declaration of support for the Campaign for Liberty.

The Campaign for Liberty states: