I’ll Tell You Exactly What Rob McKenna was Thinking

You make some good points, but the analysis of the final outcome is a bit shaky. There was no bluer state than Massachusetts, but there was no weaker candidate than Coakley, either.

MA was a loss because Democrats didn't bother to campaign and took the seat for granted. I doubt Jay Inslee (or whoever else ends up running) will make the same mistake. Fool me once, uh, won't get fooled again, right?

I think you have it, Josh. This is all about winning a Republican primary, but the question remains: which one? I'm not so sure this is about the Governor's office. My guess is that D.C. is Rob's real fancy, not Olympia.

Whoa. Good one tvguide. The problem w my theory was that the governor's race is still two year's off, and who can predict the mood then. So yes, riding the wave in 2010 is certainly a play …

Gold star!

Hard to say, though, as Goldy posted Rossi was in DC today to visit NRSC and Cornyn.

The next election will be about alot more than just health care. Remember that thing that we all hate but in the end it pays the bills – you know it's called jobs. Unless the employment situation improves in this state and nationally for that matter, republicans will have all the ammo they need. Couple a continuing unemployment rate of 9% or 10% along with the increased cost of health care and democrats will also join the ranks of the unemployed. Meanwhile, back at the ranch Olympia democrats can't even get a budget passed. Health care has become a distraction for democrats with the hope that voters forget they are unemployed.

Rob won't win anything state-level, and he's basically consigned himself to the political toilet. HCR is too big, too much of a hot potato, and the Republican base is way, way too divided already. The Tea Party, it's starting to be seen, is just the bottom feeders of the Republican party.

They're the equivalent of Nader to the Democrats. Loud, but only of any value in limited cycles. They're already flaming out, as evidenced by the fact the mainstream media is already ignoring them. Fox is still slathering all over them, but that's Fox, and Fox is irrelevant more and more each year on the real national stage.

That leaves the GOP moderates and the independents. Do you think if Rob runs for a national seat there's any chance that everyone from the WA Dems to the DNC to MoveOn to Creedo to who knows who else won't basically perform the equivalent of a prison rape scene to him with advertisements, for the fact that he went after HCR in court? Yeah, he'll win the Tea Party, and a portion of the GOP.

He's lost everyone else by pulling this completely idiot move.

Too early to tell. Yeah I like your analysis, but like everybody has said, 2012 is a long way off.

Who knows how HCR will be viewed then, and who knows how the employment numbers will add up? All and all it's irrelevant anyway, because(I feel) the reality of our countries position and the politics of same rarely walk together. Look at HCR.

What I'm most interested in seeing is how much corporate money makes a difference in this November as well as in 2012.

It'd be fun to have Rossi and McKenna duking it out in a primary to take on Murray. Patty could use that to her advantage, no?

So keeping people unemployed seems to play right into the Republican playbook. No wonder they're so unwilling to help.

I don't get it. McKenna has been beloved by King County suburbanites who don't usually vote for Republicans, which is why he was so dangerous. Now those people are suddenly wary of him. I don't think he ever had a Cris problem — Washington has gone too long without a GOP governor, and I think the base would be satisfied with him no matter what. If things are terrible for the Ds in 2012, McKenna wins regardless, this move is unnecessary. If, however, 2012 is a decent D year, the McKenna of three days ago might still have won, but the McKenna of today has significantly hurt his chances.

What I can't grasp is who is the right-wing/teabagger who might credibly challenge McKenna for whatever higher office he seeks? Is there a name out there that I've missed? The only scenario I could imagine is a newcomer who catches fire with the teabagger crowd. Possible I suppose, but unlikely to grow beyond the fanatics (Washington ain't Florida).

The GOP bench is so bereft of talent, of whatever persuasion, that it's just hard to imagine someone challenging him from the right.

The Repubicans have less ideas how to increase jobs or improve the economy than your dog does. They are n alternative, unless by alternative we mean make things far, far worse. If the public votes for them now, the public is off their rocker. Polls depend on questions. One saw last year how the opposition searched for a way. They found it with illogical and crazy gun toting whack jobs (take your choice whether frothing-at-the-mouth racists, or crazier-than-thou Republican Congressmen).

They once chose an alternative to the Weimer Republic. BAd choice, they made, no?

Heck, if Gregoire runs again and acts on the campaign trail like she did at her press conference her opponents better watch out. She might actually be able to get that third term she wants.

As for Murray she's a very tough campaigner, she's got boatloads of money, and people love their “Grandmother in tennis shoes”.

Furthermore there is the problem that Republicans don't generally do well in statewide elections here, the moderates are the only ones with much of a chance. Aligning with the crazies in the party may help get through the primary but it is a sure road to a 10 point or worse defeat in November.

Josh, surely you aren't suggesting that McKenna did this for less than high-minded reasons, like “protecting the Constitutional rights of Washington citizens.” How very cynical you are.

Quite honestly, I don't even see the political calculus for a Senate run. While I do think he would be a more dangerous candidate against Sen. Murray than Rossi, Reichert or the Hutch, he would be more dangerous due to his moderation.

While it is true that the GOP in Washington is controlled at its base by some right wing nutjobs, people who actually vote in GOP primaries tend to be less…well, less tea bag. Dino Rossi was, by all accounts, a relatively moderate Republican. Sam Reed is a moderate, McKenna pretends to be a moderate, and Sutherland was more or less a moderate.

The GOP has right wingers in more local elections because the moderate Republicans of West Snohomish, West Pierce and King Counties don't get a say in elections that aren't statewide.

Washington cannot be compared to Florida or Massachusetts (it took me a good five attempts to spell that right). Florida has a much more conservative electorate and, IMO, a lazier electorate that won't do necessary research of how extreme a candidate is.

Massachusetts sent a message not so much against healthcare, but against being taken advantage of. Additionally, Sen. Brown is much more of a moderate than the tea party understood, and fits the mold of old Mitt Romney, Jodi Rell and Don Carcieri.

A separate thought that I read somewhere – McKenna is just going to use this to bring in out of state money. I think this is the most likely scenario. For whatever he chooses to run for, I imagine he keeps the moderate rhetoric, and uses this in fundraising calls to out of state donors. He knows that he's going to need all the money he can get for his first real competitive race (because, let's face it, Senn had no chance, and Laudenberg was a terrible campaigner).

I only see three possibilities:

(1) There is a good chance that Dino Rossi will run for governor in 2012, and Gregoire will not. Rossi isn't so dumb/vain that he'd try a third time against Gregoire, but he might be dumb/vain enough to try against a different Democrat. BIAW has been all over McKenna lately, and threatening a primary challenge. Problem is, there's literally nobody out there. There's not really any non-crazies who like BIAW more than they like McKenna. There's not really anybody willing to sacrifice their political future by challenging McKenna. And there's really nobody who has a chance to knock off McKenna even with BIAW's unlimited backing in the primary. Rossi is the only person who might be able to pull this off. He and McKenna used to be close, but a rift emerged in 2004 when both wanted to run for Dunn's seat. I bet Rossi would care more about what BIAW thinks than what McKenna thinks. And Rossi's political career is pretty much done if he doesn't run. So running and losing to the next governor isn't any worse for his political future than not running in the first place. And lastly, it wouldn't be that unfathomable for Rossi to beat McKenna. Some eastern Washington legislator might care more about BIAW, and might be willing to risk their political future, but it would take too much money to beat McKenna in a primary. It would be much more financially plausible for Rossi to beat McKenna. So assuming Gregoire isn't running for a third term (seems like a reasonable assumption, given how she's been treating the budget), then perhaps Rossi is looking for another run, especially since he knows BIAW will sell their souls to back him over McKenna in a primary. McKenna recognizes this, and is making a bold move now to make sure Rossi doesn't try to out-flank him from the right.

(2) Rob has seen some polling, or something like that, which has led him to believe this is a winning play. Yeah, we think it's a losing political move, but I don't think any of us have seen a Washington-specific poll on how folks feel about HC.

(3) There is a legitimate chance that this challenge succeeds, at least in the district or circuit court. The case is being filed in the Northern District of Florida, which I'm assuming has a few fairly conservative judges. It would be appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. I'm assuming the case could draw a pretty conservative panel here too. There's no way SCOTUS will hear this case before the 2012 elections, but a district court or circuit court might issue an opinion by then. If McKenna has a victory on the books, tossing out an unconstitutional law, then this move might not look so political.

A lot of people aren't really making much sense when they try to explain McKenna's reasoning.

Seriously, who could make legitimate challenge to McKenna in a primary, even if they had unlimited money? McKenna will also have a lot of money, and there's just no way he loses to some political novice or uber-conservative legislator. McKenna is so popular with Republicans, even if he had stayed quiet on HC, that only Rossi would be able to beat him in a primary. So if there's no chance Rossi is running, then I don't see McKenna doing this as a way to ensure a primary a victory.

Everything McKenna has done up to this point has been pure genius. Even Goldy had a post a few months back admitting McKenna would probably be the next governor. It takes a lot of skill to come out of the Eastside Republican Establishment, run 5 campaigns as a Republican, and not have made a single mis-step. He had literally done nothing that would have crimped his chances of becoming governor. Now, if we are all correct that this is a loser legal argument, and loser political strategy, then Rob McKenna has just made a huge blunder. So that's why I don't buy what a lot of people are saying. Even his opponents realize he has a great political and legal mind, so I just don't believe that he'd do this if he didn't somehow know his bases were covered.

Did anyone consider that McKenna might actually be correct in his claim that the Feds have no authority to force us to buy anything from the private sector? McKenna is not fighting against any other aspect of this bill and he is fully aware that most parts of the bill will be enacted. I believe he is correct in his claim and he is representing the citizens of his state as an Attorney General is expected to do. Gregoire needs to let him do his job and she needs to stay clear. There is absolutely no upside to her getting involved at this point. It just makes her look partisan.

nope. just you.

@notafiree So you're okay with Congress forcing us to buy from the very companies that are funding their campaigns? Smells a bit fishy to me.

FrD, read some of the US Supreme Court decisions that interpret the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution — and see how broadly they interpret that power of the Congress.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't have the cites handy, but I'm sure with a little googling you can find a few.

If the mandate is unconstitutional then so is the mortgage interest deduction.

It no longer amazes me at how blue this region of the state has become. Could it possibly be that the Dem's outraged is purely politically motivated in this case, and that McKenna is taking the moral high ground? He is after all putting the nail in his own coffin regarding his electability in the Puget Sound by this action, is he not? Are folks around here so blinded by their partisan liberal convictions, that it's no longer conceivable that somebody might actually be trying to do his duty by pursuing something based on constitutional law? Something which our forefathers would have collectively seen as the greatest threat to our freedom on our own soil in more than two centuries.

Thomas Jefferson virtually called for a second American revolution over far less than this.

Wow. This really is how it all ends. This country is now officially in decline. I wonder if Edwin Griffin were alive, what he would title his new book. Perhaps, “The Decline and Fall of the American Empire: A fish rots from the head down.”

Good analysis Pete.

The fact that McKenna hasn't made a major political mis-step during his entire career is what I think has so many people scratching their head.

After all the reason so many thought he was dangerous and likely to beat whomever ran on the Democratic side was due to his moderate image. This meant he was likely to get enough votes in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties to win statewide. With this action he destroys most of that moderate credibility. My instincts tell me he's lost more general election votes than he's gained by this action.

Being worried about Rossi is the explanation that makes the most sense. However there is the possibility that an internal poll shows Murray as vulnerable and he's planning a senate run (which would also tie into the Rossi explanation).

Republican primary??? No such animal.

Thanks to the inanity of Sam Reed (and, to be sure, the Washington electorate), there's only a “primary”, whether it's for the US Senate in 2010 or Governor in 2012. Is McKenna so uncertain of his political juice that he doesn't believe he'd finish at least 2nd in whichever of those he runs for?

The only way he might fail to get through to November would be if Dino ran for the same office in the same year, irrespective of which office and which year.

Hello CS, the mortgage interest deduction is a motivator for citizens to purchase homes in order to stimulate the housing market. The Tax Code is used to motivate us to behave in certain ways. If we perform as Congress desires then we are rewarded with tax breaks. The Code does not require us to purchase a home, however. It merely rewards us if we do so. So in this context, the government could essentially use the same approach and allow us a tax credit against our personal health insurance. In this way they are motivating us to follow their wishes; rather than penalizing us if we do not.

Edward Gibbon, not Edwin Griffin.

And that's the least of the ways in which you're wrong.

Hello Kunnasm, At this point alot of people are viewing any affront to this bill as a plot to kill it entirely. I agree with you that McKenna is doing the right thing in challenging this part of the bill. Requireing us to purchase anything from the private sector at the National level sets a TERRIBLE precedence, particularly since the industry we're required to purchase from is exempted from the anti-trust laws.

I am concerned however that you take it to the extreme and incite the revolution word. During GW's tenure we were oppressed with our rights taken away from us and we were spied on vigorously. And you're just now seeing that the country is in decline? Were you sleeping during GW's time in office; or did you think it was okay as long as it was a Republican making the calls?

Just pointing out that Rell is a far moderate in Connecticut, like Rowland before her, because the extremist crap that flies in upstate NY just across the border would get you tanked ridiculously fast in Connecticut. I'm a CT native, and let me assure you: only small patches of Western Connecticut are particularly Red, especially on the coast from Greenwich and parts of Stamford east to about the middle of Fairfield, and then due north of there up to about 20-40 miles at most.

The rest of it's pretty damn blue overall.

Whatever it smells like to you, it's still perfectly legal per the 10th. If it wasn't they would have filed ANY case law to or arguments to support their claim beyond “It's against the 10th”. Their argument is basically that the government can't compel you to spend your money versus taxation, which is patently false as they have no problem with things like flood insurance, or car insurance as a condition of registering your vehicle in some states.

Not only is it something that they have every right to do (look at over 100 years of precedent on the broad scope of the commerce clause), but it is actually a Republican idea that was used to try to woo GOP members, and keep more conservative Democrats. Personal responsibility, and all (lest we forget, the House Dems wanted an employer mandate, and a Public Option, which would have been much better).

Better to have an individual mandate than no mandate at all.

Interesting that there's been so much reporting on why McKenna is actually doing the job he was elected to – making sure that federal mandates on WAtonians are constititional. Where is the reporting on why Gov. Gregoire is so against checking into the constitutionality. I understand she has travelled to DC nearly every month over the last 15 months. Is she looking for a job in the Obama admin so is trying to prove her bona fides? And what about Lisa Brown's threats to defund, even after she talked about how much she believes in making sure everything is constitutional as a cover for overturning I-960? Is she trying to take down McKenna now because she is planning to run against him in 2012? Does she believe that if this constitutional challenge wins that he will become more popular? How about some balanced reporting?

That's what it basically is – everyone income taxes went up but you get a credit for the amount if you have health insurance or if you're exempt for some reason.

So your conspiracy theory is that all these people have no idea whether the legislation is constitutional and they're busily trying NOT to find out?

Aside from the fact that the President was a constitutional law professor and probably wouldn't want to sign something that could be proven to be unconstitutional…

But this indeed looks like a conspiracy. Definitely.

I'm going to my 47th District Republican meeting where I figure they'll drum me out for my contrary views on the Health Care plan (I support it, mainly because I like the addition of an Asset Tax on interest and dividend income for Medicare).

I tend towards the Spartacus/Lincoln branch of the Tea Party Republicans…the ones who are interested in extending opportunity and getting rid of all the high rents, fees and landings on Broadway that take our money without giving us value.

Ordinarily I wouldn't trust Obamacare, but in review, having low cost assured health care benefits small business, startups, independents, employees who may face job loss…just about 97 percent of the population. And it moves a lot of capital into Health Care services, information systems, software, technology — all the things that I like to work on…so, Republicans, take a second look.

“Are folks around here so blinded by their partisan liberal convictions, that it's no longer conceivable that somebody might actually be trying to do his duty by pursuing something based on constitutional law?”

the short answer is “yes”

Help what? The Democrats, both here and in DC, don't need the Republicans to do diddly squat. They're holding all the cards, and will be blamed 110% if the economy doesn't improve.

Is it possible he's doing it because he believes its the right thing to do?

Since their inception the Teaparty crowd (not a movement since they do have the numbers or clout) have been “haters not debaters”. In my opinion this is what the small portions of the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. They are good at “Follow the Leader” of their dullard leaders, they listen to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? The world is complicated and most republicans (Hamiliton, Lincoln, Roosevelt) believe that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now its about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. Although some republicans are trying to distant themselves from this fringe most of them are just going along and fanning the flames.

Wrong, wrong, wrong…
Firstly, auto insurance is a state mandate..not a federal one.
Secondly, driving is a choice and a privilege…unlike living, which is a right. “Right to life, liberty, yada, yada…” Therefore if you CHOOSE to drive, you must buy liability insurance (which only covers other people anyway) according to state law.
Thirdly, just because the IRS is growing by 16,000 employees to enforce this doesn't a tax make. This is a private industry product that we are being forced to buy…. In other words, its like the government telling you that you have to buy a car just because you exist.

Not buying something isn't commerce. The Commerce Clause doesn't cover what people choose not to buy…. And, I'm sorry, but forcing people to buy health insurance was never a Republican idea. Encouraging more people to buy through lowering prices and Health Savings Accounts was… neither of which was picked up by the dems.

Um, no. he was not a law professor.
he guest taught a few classes…vast difference.
And this president would push across his desk anything he can get away with…
So, i'm curious, if you all consider this a tax and its so incredibly apparent that he outright lied about “no one's taxes going up if you make less than $250K a year”… This doesn't phase you at all?

nope…this is not a tax, as much as you twist the facts to suit your needs. Sorry.

No.

If you derive income from a job, you have to pay federal Social Security tax, which you eventually get something from (when you're old), and income tax, which you get something from every day (military protection, for one thing). If you don't derive income, you don't have to pay.

The way the legislation's set up, if you derive income from a job, you must pay for health insurance, and you get health care if you're sick. If you don't, or you are poor, you don't have to pay.

What's the difference?

Here's what the U of Chicago Law Schools says on it's website: “From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.”

Nothing you said “phases” me (nor does it faze me) because what you said is not true.

Really? he never said taxes on those making less than $250K would not go up? 'Cause I know for a fact that, yes…he did. Many, many, many, many, many times…

yeah, that's quite the, uh, argument…

He was talking about an income tax, which did not happen, and if it had, and you made $251,000 a year, I wouldn't be crying for you anyway. The health care reform legislation doesn't involve income tax.

Contact me for a free home and flood insurance coverage quote http://bit.ly/ajc5p7

Sorry to offend you with typos. Hard to type on a PDA at a bus stop.

Sorry to have offended with the typos. Difficult to type on a PDA at a bus stop.

I'm pretty surprised to see how many people here honestly believe there's something unconstitutional about the healthcare bill. It's totally constitutional and playing the card that it somehow damages the foundation of the country is very irresponsible politics.

Any argument regarding its unconstitutionality is based on selective reading of the Constitution and deserves as much respect as promoting warfare through selective reading of the Bible does.

The fallout from spurious claims of unconstitutionality is a bigger threat to the nation than the healthcare bill is.

And, I'm sorry, but forcing people to buy health insurance was never a Republican idea

Apparently you have never heard of Mitt Romney? Your ignorance is pretty astounding.

Aside from your over simplification and/or misrepresentation of the events you cite in your piece, it's interesting to note your own passive aggressive hate speech.

Because you are coming at this from a liberal/Democrat perspective…. your little rant is probably seen as completely reasoned discourse by the vast majority of this site's readers… where anything from a more conservative perspective would be immediately denounced as “hate speach”….”fear mongering”…. or as you say “fanning the flames.”

Where is the outrage at Chris Mathews wanting to see a pellet through Limbaugh's head?

The University of Ottawa's VP incites a mob of 2000 angry people to near riotous heights in order to prevent Ann Coulter from exercising a little free speech, and it can't earn a 15 second mention on any of the major networks. However… ONE “conservative” nutjob throws a brick through a window… and MSNBC devotes almost 20 minutes of airtime to it.

And BTW, nothing demonstrates this more than the derogatory use of the term “Baggers.” It really identifies it's users.

I believe the mob of angry people protesting Coulter took place in Canada. Why are you bringing it up in relation to American issues?

Back in America, a brick through a window, death threats, and people marching through Congressional halls yelling profanity at representatives/Senators, using the N word and anti-gay speech — yeah, I think that's newsworthy. I don't remember that happening in the last 50 years I've been watching American politics.

If you as a conservative would speak rationally and not accuse people you disagree with as being passive-aggressive, etc., you'd find more listeners. Even on this website.

And the individual mandate was originally proposed by Sen. John McCain, and supported by the likes of Sarah Palin and Mitch McConnell when first proposed by then-Presidential Candidate John McCain.

Don't forget the cutting of gas lines to people's homes.

The Republicans need to get right with God! First the Republicans wanted to give Obama his Waterloo defeat over healthcare but instead they gave themselves their own Waterloo defeat by not participating in the debate of ideas and by becoming the party of obstructionist. Waterloo defeat refers of course to the defeat at Waterloo put an end to Napoleon's rule as Emperor of the French and was the culminating battle of the Waterloo Campaign and Napoleon's last. Republicans get right with God or get ready for future losses and Rush Limbaugh I real hope you enjoy your new home Costa Rica!

Now we know who the REAL haters are! Just read above! Hey! It's Bush's fault . . you all forgot that garbage. Interesting that 44% of voters in WA. surveyed SUPPORT McKenna and 40% oppose his lawsuit. Must be those nasty teabaggers??Did we forget how to count money? $500B in Medicare cuts! 30 million new taxpayers added to Medicaid! 10 years of taxes starting NOW. 6 years of benefits starting in 3-4 years! Sounds like a good deal. Doctor's bailing out of medicine! Mayo Clinic won't take Medicare, same as Cleveland Clinic. Millions of retirees about to lose prescription coverage! Hell, that's OK! No problem with BILLION$ AND BILLION$ in PAYOFFS! Who pays for all this? Oh! Sorry! I forgot . .those nasty, horrible corporations . . .you know those folks that HIRE people and actually pay them. Probably something foreign to some of you.No problem! Canada and UK . . here we come. Can't wait until all you Lib's are out there crying and wining that you were denied treatment for “the good of the community” or that you “just discovered” that YOUR healthcare is being rationed by some government stooge in DC. All you ever ask is”what's free for me” and you plead for DC to be your Mommy and Daddy! Let Mckenna do his job. Send Queen “G' a box of Kleenex. Better still . . give her a call . . she's the only one in this State that's hiring!!!

Costa Rica is waiting for Rush Limbaugh and all his followers.

Wow, that was some sort of regurgitation there. Didn't they teach you punctuation and sentence structure, or were you home-schooled?

It's the tragedy of America that we are always held back by the angry and fearful, who hide behind a facade of folksy self-sufficiency.