Sunday, April 2, 2006 at 12:37 pm by Darryl
Dino Who?
To non-residents of Washington State, the name Dino invokes images of the pet dinosaur from The Flintstones. But, for Washingtonians in 2006, the name can still evoke images of Dino Rossi, the man who narrowly lost to Christine Gregoire.
The King County Journal asks an interesting question
Will anyone remember Rossi if he runs again?
Dino Rossi isn’t a loaf of bread or a can of beef stew, but here’s the question: What’s his shelf life?
The charismatic and smooth conservative came within a whisker of winning the governor’s mansion in 2004 and is widely expected to seek a rematch with Democrat Chris Gregoire in 2008. Will it be “Dino Who?” by then?
In politics, it is said that a year is an eternity. So what does that make Rossi’s four-year hiatus with no political office or bully pulpit while Gregoire relentlessly dominates news cycles week after week?
Pollster Stuart Elway points out that
“People got very emotionally involved in his campaign and it will be a glowing ember until it’s all resolved in the next election,†Elway says. “But for most voters, it’s hard to speculate.â€
“’We wuz robbed’ won’t be a strong campaign theme, and Dino will have to present a credible challenge to an incumbent this time. It won’t be like he’s a challenger coming from out of nowhere, but my question is how he stays on the radar screen when he doesn’t hold any office.â€
Given how tough it has been for some of the wingnuts posting on blogs ‘round here to get past the 2004 election, I expect there will be something of a, “we wuz robbed!†undertone to the next election.
Rossi and analysts in both parties say a rematch wouldn’t be just a rerun of ‘04. Gregoire will have a record to defend—or boast—and will have the power of incumbency.
….
The centerpiece of Rossi’s 2004 campaign, keyed off of the recession, was his legislative success story of partnering with Democrats to write a state budget that bridged a $1.8 billion gap without raising taxes. Today, the state has full employment and a big budget surplus, so his references would be dated.Transportation, education and other Rossi issues also look different now, too, so he’d have to do an extreme makeover to offer a fresh agenda.
So Rossi will need a makeover, huh? In that case, while I can still remember I though I would document some of “the old Rossi†from back in to good old days when he had a fair amount of public support.
A lingering image I have of Rossi is that he presented himself as a moderate. The “moderate Dino,” however, is inconsistent with a strongly conservative voting record while a state lawmaker. A Wikipedia article points out that…
Rossi had worked against Roe v. Wade, attacked opponents for supporting gay rights, and proclaimed that creationism should be taught in public schools. Although Rossi campaigned on being pro-life and in favor of state and federal Constitutional Amendments that would ban all benefits and legal contracts for gay couples, he downplayed his long history of fundamentalist “rhetoric” and claimed he was a “fiscal moderate with a social conscience.” Rossi also would not publicly state his opinion over stem cell research.
Hmm…those positions, taken together, do not seem very moderate to me. In fact, Rossi’s positions and voting record scream out “classic wingnut.â€
Of course, Rossi also refused to state his opinion on I-912, the failed initiative that would have repealed the gas tax and cut billions from transportation funding. (Most annoyingly, he ignored my advice on the topic.) The initiative was seen by moderate Republicans as anti-business. Hell…even the BIAW wouldn’t support I-912.
Rossi sticks in my mind for how often he is naively wrong about things.
Take, for instance, his association with Melvin G. Heide. As a young person entering the field of real estate, Rossi went to work at Capretto, the same firm as Heide. Within a year, Capretto went bankrupt, in part, because of Heide’s shady real estate financing schemes that ultimately defrauded investors of millions. Even so, after the bankrupcy Rossi, moved with Heide to a new employer and stuck with him for five years. Heide was eventually sent to prison.
While Rossi has never been accused of wrong-doing in the case, one must question Rossi’s instincts for good business practice. He didn’t have a clue about what was going on?
In an interview, Rossi offered sometimes-conflicting explanations for his decision to continue working for Heide. He said he was ignorant of harm done to people, he thought everyone was going to be repaid, and that he naively trusted a man who had treated him fairly.
“Yeah, OK, I’ll admit to being gullible,” Rossi said. “And that is true. But it’s one of those lessons in life that I’ve learned, and that’s to have your eyes a little wider open than what I did at that point.”
Yet, hundreds of investors were hurt to the tune of millions of dollars. “The people who got hurt were little old ladies; schoolteachers who put in their life savings,” explains a former vice president and controller of Capretto.
I guess some people have good business instincts, others don’t!
As a real estate professional, Rossi was remarkably naïve in putting together his resume and campaign materials. Until one month before the 2004 election, Rossi was putting out material touting his experience as a real estate broker. He wasn’t a broker, he was a licensed real estate salesman.
Brokers oversee real estate salespeople, who are required to work under their supervision. Brokers must meet more stringent state licensing requirements, including specific tests and additional training and experience thresholds. The state forbids real estate salespeople from referring to themselves as a brokers.
Rossi, a former state senator from Sammamish, said yesterday that he has never referred to himself as a broker. He said other people wrote his legislative biography and campaign finance reports to the state that mistakenly described him that way.
Asked why he didn’t correct the record earlier, Rossi said, “If I saw it, it didn’t register.”
Rossi, who has been in commercial real estate for about two decades, said the distinction was not a big deal. “It has no bearing on anything,” said Rossi, adding that his work was very similar to a broker’s — minus the paperwork and the liability.
Uh huh. I think he meant—except for the license, the paperwork, and the liability.
Even in the heat of the gubernatorial campaign, Rossi was wrong in identifying the root cause of the State’s economic hard times. Remember Rossi blaming the State’s economic problems on 20 years of Democratic rule? Of course, the reality was that all states were experiencing economic hard times in 2004. That Washington State’s economy is now, in 2006, well into recovery—under total Democratic leadership—empirically demonstrates that Rossi was wrong.
I’ll also remember wrong-way Rossi for his “humble and elegant†concession speech—some six months after the election—in which he declined to appeal his lost election-challenge lawsuit because, “With today’s decision, and because of the political makeup of the Washington state Supreme Court, which makes it almost impossible to overturn this ruling, I am ending the election contest.”
Is Rossi really this naïve about the judicial branch of the government? Does he really believe that the Washington state Supreme Court is a corrupt partisan body? Or, was his slam to the Supreme Court just an un-statesmanlike display of sour grapes? Either way, Rossi was wrong, and too naïve to deal with the situation gracefully.
Wrong, wrong, wrong Rossi. That’s how I’ll remember Dino in 2008—if I am forced to remember him at all.
Sunday, April 2nd, 2006 at 10:00 pm
[Trackback...] Darryl asks “Dino Who?,” Mollie asks “What God?,” and Goldy asks “Is that really Mollie’s father?” [...]
Sunday, April 2nd, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Excellent piece, Darryl…how long is his shelf-life? especially if he’s if out of the decisio-making fray is a great question. Also: can the R’s find more candidates who don’t scare the horses? will the less moderate Tebelius be able to rein in the wacky base? (maybe more important- will she want to?) Will the new primaries pull the motivated woodwork wingnuts out to nominate more of the fun lulus we’ve come to enjoy from the hapless R’s? Hootie Hoo! it’s gonna be a great year!
Monday, April 3rd, 2006 at 12:03 am
Rossi is also such a powerful-NOT! force in the Washington GOP … even in a closed-door backroom meeting, he couldn’t even get his special friend Fredi elected to replace Chris Vance as their state chair.
I apologize for the link to (u)SP. Here’s another report, from a closer-to-reputable source.
Monday, April 3rd, 2006 at 5:02 am
If you believe in polls, this one tells us that Dino is still around.
Monday, April 3rd, 2006 at 8:47 am
Underestimating Rossi’s drive and the effectiveness of what he is doing to position himself well for a rematch is a HUGE MISTAKE! Fred Flinstones pink dog (Dino) is going all over the state speaking to Chambers of commerce, service clubs, republican groups/fundraisers and church organizations all as part of a plan to quietly hit the ground running with an energized base in tact in mid 07. When he lost to Kathleen Drew in 92 he did the same kind of work though on a smaller scale. He recruited loyal PCO’s got in the spotlight at his church (his son was baby Jesus at xmas mass for instance) and redefined himself from being “the only true conservative in the race” (in the 92 primary) to being “the only true moderate in the race” (in 96 suggesting that Kathleen Drew, a moderate, was too liberal for the 5th). So all he is lacking is a few popular themes to use as a basis for his rematch with Gregoire and the risk is that more solid majorities in the state house and senate will provide him these tools. The following look at recent history is a patch from a few of my posts on this subject on other sites. I hope this helps explain my point.
Some have pondered on how hard it is to fathom how we lost majorities in 94 and by inference how we might face the same fate after the projected gains of this election year. So I went to work and have tried to be true to history though the observations are only my opinions. Others would say that the elections of 94 and 96 were going to be bad anyway as a result of the national scene and that view is not without truth. But the actions of a state government with one party firmly in control do have consequences and we should, I think, learn all we can from those days as we decide what to do with the new power this election will produce.
In 92 voter turnout was at a record high in our state caused by displeasure with Bush one and enthusiasm for Clinton and the rest of the ticket including Lowry, Gregoire, Murray, Senn and so on. It was “the year of the woman” with record numbers of women filing for office in the house and senate. The election brought a wave of democratic victories for democrats nationally and across this state. We took back the majority in the senate (28 to 21) and gained seats in the house where we already had a majority.
Between election day and the start of session in January Boeing announced its plan to make huge cuts in its in state work force. This produced a huge drop in the states economic forecast and presented the legislature with an enormous deficit.
In January of that year the legislature hit the ground running, passing health care reform and education reform while slashing the state budget and raising taxes to fill the remaining shortfall in the projected budget. When the tax vote was taken several of the freshman Senators talked quietly about how the vote would likely be their undoing but took the vote out of duty and the firm belief that further program cuts would harm the people of the state.
When the 94 elections rolled around and in 96, the vote was “the largest tax increase in the history of our state.” In 94 it was a mid term election and a tough year for democrats who we now know tried to do too much too fast, and we lost the majority in the house and a few seats in the senate leaving a slim majority there. 601 had passed in the fall of 93 and the Boeing job reductions never came to pass so all those program saving taxes were not needed in the end. This all played out like a dream for the Republicans who went to work “giving the people back their money” but not really as they gave the peoples money to the business community. To the voters though it looked like the republicans kept their promise with the voters. This was the Newt Gingrich era with the contract for Am and the fed lever and the contract for Wa state here. We called it the contract on Wa state. Led by the R majority in the house and Phil Dyer from the 5th, health care reform was virtually erased. Also in 1995 the legislature went into special session, in October after the Mariner stadium measure narrowly failed in September and passed a revised package to build the new stadium.
Then in 96 though not as bad a year as 94, the swing district state senators elected in 92 were up for reelection and it was a mid term election following Lowry’s downfall and the brewing Clinton scandals at the federal level. The house which had already seen its post 92 adjustment gained a few seats and ended in a tie. In the Senate we lost a net of one seat giving the R’s a one-vote majority. In the 5th Senator Drew lost to Dino Rossi whom she had beat in 92.
The result of the voter backlash was that the legislature and state government were largely paralyzed in so far as addressing the challenges of the following years. Tim Eyman put up measure after measure and the legislature and state government sent many issues to the voters. “let the voters decide” was the rule of the day. My opinion is that the legislature did go too far in 92-93 and passed legislation all of which I agreed with fully and that this coupled with Boeing’s pulling of budgetary strings caused the pendulum to swing back with a vengeance.
So if you fast forward to the present day, what lessons should we take into the next session, assuming that we have a great year and have the kind of majorities that can essentially do anything?
Well, I would say that we, our legislators, must use restraint. That making gradual changes and more slowly implementing those things we as democrats would like to see, will be more lasting if the pendulum does not throw us (including the governor) out in 2008. It will be harder than you can imagine. And what can save us? Well, a really great presidential candidate and more great leadership from the governors office. I know the leadership in the House and Senate as well as our party chair all get this stuff cuz they were there in the 90’s, but the risk of overreaching still looms.
Monday, April 3rd, 2006 at 9:02 am
Underestimating Rossi’s drive and the effectiveness of what he is doing to position himself well for a rematch is a HUGE MISTAKE! Fred Flinstones pink dog (Dino) is going all over the state speaking to Chambers of commerce, service clubs, republican groups/fundraisers and church organizations all as part of a plan to quietly hit the ground running with an energized base in tact in mid 07. When he lost to Kathleen Drew in 92 he did the same kind of work though on a smaller scale. He recruited loyal PCO’s got in the spotlight at his church (his son was baby Jesus at xmas mass for instance) and redefined himself from being “the only true conservative in the race” (in the 92 primary) to being “the only true moderate in the race” (in 96 suggesting that Kathleen Drew, a moderate, was too liberal for the 5th). So all he is lacking is a few popular themes to use as a basis for his rematch with Gregoire and the risk is that more solid majorities in the state house and senate will provide him these tools. The following look at recent history is a patch from a few of my posts on this subject on other sites. I hope this helps explain my point.
Some have pondered on how hard it is to fathom how we lost majorities in 94 and by inference how we might face the same fate after the projected gains of this election year. So I went to work and have tried to be true to history though the observations are only my opinions. Others would say that the elections of 94 and 96 were going to be bad anyway as a result of the national scene and that view is not without truth. But the actions of a state government with one party firmly in control do have consequences and we should, I think, learn all we can from those days as we decide what to do with the new power this election will produce.
In 92 voter turnout was at a record high in our state caused by displeasure with Bush one and enthusiasm for Clinton and the rest of the ticket including Lowry, Gregoire, Murray, Senn and so on. It was “the year of the woman” with record numbers of women filing for office in the house and senate. The election brought a wave of democratic victories for democrats nationally and across this state. We took back the majority in the senate (28 to 21) and gained seats in the house where we already had a majority.
Between election day and the start of session in January Boeing announced its plan to make huge cuts in its in state work force. This produced a huge drop in the states economic forecast and presented the legislature with an enormous deficit.
In January of that year the legislature hit the ground running, passing health care reform and education reform while slashing the state budget and raising taxes to fill the remaining shortfall in the projected budget. When the tax vote was taken several of the freshman Senators talked quietly about how the vote would likely be their undoing but took the vote out of duty and the firm belief that further program cuts would harm the people of the state.
When the 94 elections rolled around and in 96, the vote was “the largest tax increase in the history of our state.” In 94 it was a mid term election and a tough year for democrats who we now know tried to do too much too fast, and we lost the majority in the house and a few seats in the senate leaving a slim majority there. 601 had passed in the fall of 93 and the Boeing job reductions never came to pass so all those program saving taxes were not needed in the end. This all played out like a dream for the Republicans who went to work “giving the people back their money” but not really as they gave the peoples money to the business community. To the voters though it looked like the republicans kept their promise with the voters. This was the Newt Gingrich era with the contract for Am and the fed lever and the contract for Wa state here. We called it the contract on Wa state. Led by the R majority in the house and Phil Dyer from the 5th, health care reform was virtually erased. Also in 1995 the legislature went into special session, in October after the Mariner stadium measure narrowly failed in September and passed a revised package to build the new stadium.
Then in 96 though not as bad a year as 94, the swing district state senators elected in 92 were up for reelection and it was a mid term election following Lowry’s downfall and the brewing Clinton scandals at the federal level. The house which had already seen its post 92 adjustment gained a few seats and ended in a tie. In the Senate we lost a net of one seat giving the R’s a one-vote majority. In the 5th Senator Drew lost to Dino Rossi whom she had beat in 92.
The result of the voter backlash was that the legislature and state government were largely paralyzed in so far as addressing the challenges of the following years. Tim Eyman put up measure after measure and the legislature and state government sent many issues to the voters. “let the voters decide” was the rule of the day. My opinion is that the legislature did go too far in 92-93 and passed legislation all of which I agreed with fully and that this coupled with Boeing’s pulling of budgetary strings caused the pendulum to swing back with a vengeance.
So if you fast forward to the present day, what lessons should we take into the next session, assuming that we have a great year and have the kind of majorities that can essentially do anything?
Well, I would say that we, our legislators, must use restraint. That making gradual changes and more slowly implementing those things we as democrats would like to see, will be more lasting if the pendulum does not throw us (including the governor) out in 2008. It will be harder than you can imagine. And what can save us? Well, a really great presidential candidate and more great leadership from the governors office. I know the leadership in the House and Senate as well as our party chair all get this stuff cuz they were there in the 90’s, but the risk of overreaching still looms.
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Sorry for the three copies. I was responded to with an error and thought the post did not go.