This is one of those states which specialize in moderates, -- moderate Republicans like Jack Metcalf and moderate Democrats like Adam Smith.  In keeping with its centrist tendencies, this state gave totals to third-party/independent presidential candidacies in excess of the national average in both 92 and 96.

    Senior Republican Senator Slade Gorton started out his career with a reputation of being a moderate Republican.  Since his election to the Senate, he has indicated, according to the Almanac of American Politics, less than overwhelming enthusiasm for tax cuts; in addition, he voted for the Chafee-Breaux bipartisan balanced budget plan, which took a go-slow approach to tax cuts and took the politically courageous step of urging that the methodology used to calculate the Consumer Price Index be jiggered downward to correct the Index's currently overstated value.  The above facts are basically oases in the desert however.  Gorton received a 24% rating from the Taxpayers for Common Sense for his voting record in 1998, and he has never indicated anything but dismissal of the concept of campaign finance reform.

    As far as Democratic opponents are concerned, Representative Adam Smith, who has forsworn PAC money, opposes fast track, voted for the Blue Dog budget, and enjoys high ratings from fiscal responsibility groups like the Concord Coalition and the Taxpayers for Common Sense, would appear to have been a realistic ARP option.  But on May 7 he took himself out of the running.  However, in recent years we have seen the appearance of a remarkable figure, another Smith, on the political scene of the state of Washington.  That figure is Linda Smith.

    Initially, this unusual person is usually dismissed by most pundits as a spokesman for the right.  But this right-wing spokesman managed to craft a campaign finance reform bill prior to the effort of Chris Shays and John McCain which caught the favorable attention of campaign finance reformers from across the ideological spectrum.  A strong proponent of such reforms, Smith worked with Representatives Shays and Meehan when they successfully wrested their reform bill onto the floor of the House of Representatives over the objection of the obstructionist Republican leadership in the summer of 97, managing to craft compromise language on issue advertising that won effusive praise from both of them.

    And then, in 98, during her campaign against incumbent Democratic Senator Patty Murray, Smith rejected the orthodoxy of her party's establishment by stating bluntly that there was no surplus, that Social Security was being heisted to make that phony claim, and that tax cuts, which she had long favored, were inappropriate at this time.  Subsequently, she was one of just a handful of GOP votes in the House who voted against even the smaller tax cut that most GOP moderates supported as a superior alternative to the multi-billion dollar budget-busting monstrosity that Speaker Gingrich had originally wanted.

    Smith's position then, as a congressperson voting against the vast majority of her own party, came naturally to her.  In January 97 she was was also one of a handful of Republicans who voted against the re-election of Newt Gingrich due to his ethical problems.  And of course she is very skeptical of many trade agreements, and opposed both NAFTA and GATT.

    From ARP's point of view, the timing could not be better.  Linda Smith lost her race to Patty Murray.  While she might have lost the race anyway, there is no question that the refusal of Mitch McConnell, the head of the Republican Senate campaign committee, to help her fund her campaign made her challenge that much weaker.  He has hated her implacably apparently since she began her high visibility efforts to reform American politics.  She has been ostracized and sabotaged by her party's leadership, and there is little doubt that there is not much love lost now between Ms. Smith and her party.  For that reason, I am confident that she might look favorably on an opportunity to strike out on her own as an independent or third-party candidate.  In addition, the state of Washington has seen a dramatic increase in women legislators in recent years.  Patty Murray is only the tip of the iceberg; the Washington state legislature holds the national record in that regard.  The symbolism of Linda Smith running against a senior male member of the GOP establishment which shafted her would therefore be an exciting and inspiring prospect for the third-party movement in this state, I believe.  And it would probably do a lot of good for the third-party reform movement nationwide too.  Remember too that in her last statewide race against Murray she won 42% of the vote, more than enough to probably win her victory in a three-way race, a la Jesse Ventura.

    Another dark-horse candidate who might wind up being interesting is former Democratic Representative Maria Cantwell.  When last she was in office, Cantwell amassed a pro-business moderate record and sported such fiscally reponsible positions as support for the line-item veto.  In a logical choice for someone with her record, she chose recently to join the board of the Concord Coalition.  And, on a curiously coincidental personal note, I have her email address as the result of some correspondence with her concerning her current private sector career as an executive with the Real Audio company;  I listen enthusiastically to Real Audio classical music products on the Net, you see.  I didn't even realize it was the same Maria Cantwell until April 16 of this year when reading the Hotline.  It's a small world.

    Junior Democratic Senator Patty Murray is a traditional liberal Democrat.  Her TCS rating in 98 was 44%, only one point higher than her party's 43% Senate average.  She voted against the Kerrey-Moynihan Medicare proposals and, of interest to some ARPers, is a strong supporter of MFN for China, which is in consonance with the position taken by Boeing, one of this state's biggest employers.  There is little in common between Murray's positions and those of ARP when it comes to our core issues, other than campaign finance reform.

    Senator Murray is up for election next in 2004.  At this time, there is no one I see on the political landscape who would seem to be a logical choice for ARP to endorse or to run.  About the only option is Linda Smith, assuming she decides that a rematch against Murray makes more sense than challenging Slade Gorton.  Personally, I believe that Gorton is more vulnerable, based on his 56% showing.  Besides, the sooner we have Smith in our corner the better for our long-term development as a party.

    Therefore, it looks to me as if we shall have to content ourselves with a flag-planting campaign.  Our goal should be to win at least 8% of the vote, sufficient to keep Murray at or below 50%.
 

FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    Former Representative Republican Rick White was a bete noire of the campaign finance reform effort led by Representative Chris Shays in 1997.  He was a chief sponsor of the so-called commission bill, which would have punted the issue of campaign finance reform off to a commission and relieved elected representatives of the need to cast the tough votes.  Ross Perot,  in a step that was monumentally unhelpful to the campaign finance reform effort, rejected the Shays-Meehan bill, which had the endorsement of good-government Common Cause types across the ideological spectrum, from Paul Wellstone to John McCain, and endorsed the White bill instead.  This was in marked contrast to the ARP, which endorsed the Shays-Meehan-McCain-Feingold bill in 1997.  When Chris Shays and Marty Meehan finally forced their bill to the House floor for a real debate and vote, the GOP leadership briefly got behind the White bill, hoping its presence would dilute the strength of the reform coalition and doom the Shays-Meehan legislation.  Fortunately that tactic did not work, and the word now is that Shays-Meehan is poised for another victory in the House, though its outlook in the Senate remains bleak for the time being.

    As a result of all of this, ARP had no reason to feel any great love for Congressman White.  In addition, White received only average ratings from TCS for his votes on fiscal issues.  In any case, White fell last November to Democrat Jay Inslee.  Unfortunately, Inslee is as typical a Democrat as White was a Republican, both of them pretty much followers of their party's orthodoxy.  Up until May 4, there was no politically visible figure in this district who struck me as ARP material, so I expected we would have to run a flag-planting campaign here.  I figured it would be an easy matter to win a percentage of the vote sufficient to hold both Republicrats below 50%.  In this last race in 98, not only did Inslee, the victor, receive only 51% of the vote; there was also a respectable 6% showing by a third-party candidate, so there was definitely room for us to maneuver in this swing district.

    But on May 4 of this year, all of that changed.  A state Representative, Renee Radcliff, who Roll Call describes as a liberal Republican, has announced her intention to challenge Inslee.  The Republican state leadership is up in arms over this, primarily because they believe it was White's supposed centrism which triggered the Heritage Party's decision to run the spoiler candidate which cost White victory in his re-election bid.  If the Heritage spoiled White, they will not hesitate to try to do the same with Radcliff, the GOP leadership is figuring.  Already, as with Linda Smith's Senate candidacy last year, the GOP bosses have handpicked their establishment candidate, right-wing state Senator Dan McDonald, to run in the primary on their behalf, and they want Radcliff to get out of the way, which, fortunately, she shows no signs of being willing to do.

    We should hope she sticks to her guns.  I suspect this is what the doctor ordered for ARP in this district.  We should endorse her, support her, do whatever it takes to bring her victory.  This should be good.
 

SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    Jack Metcalf(R) is a probable Trojan horse, in my opinion.  There's a hitch, however:  He has promised to serve only three terms, which means that he will not be running for re-election in '00.  This is unfortunate.  While his victory total was not impressive in 96, in 98 he came back with flying colors and won by 55%.  Metcalf's political philosophy was unique and distinctive, even in this district.  He does not fit a mold of GOP moderation or conservatism here.  As a result, his peculiar brand of fiscally conservative politically reformist thinking had no parallel or opposition in the Republican party here.  Democrats here up to now have been of the orthodox liberal variety.

    Yet, despite all of the above, there are currently no less three candidates running at the moment who have centrist, moderate reputations.  They are Democrats state Rep. Jeff Morris and Snohomish County Council Pres. Rick Larson, and Republican ex-state Rep. Barry Shelin.  While the CSSC does not yet have sufficient info to make a recommendation, the number of centrists vying for this seat bodes well for the future of ARP-sympathetic politics in this district.  In addition, this is a state which is sympathetic to third-party/independent efforts, and has given around 5%, plus or minus a point or so, to such House candidacies in the past.  So if we can find a centrist champion from among the current choices, it would appear a victor carrying the ARP stamp of approval is a distinct possibility here.

    Of course, if Metcalf changes his mind and chooses to run again, we should work hard for his re-election.
 

THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    The current incumbent, freshman Democrat Brian Baird, appears promising from ARP's point of view.  The following is a quote from the Almanac of American Politics:
 

Baird says he wants to reform campaign finance laws and protect Social Security by devoting 100 percent of the budget surplus to that program. He also calls himself a "hawk for a balanced budget".

    His approach to governance also appears promising.  He hates ideological labels, and refuses to use them.  "I say I'm a problem solver."  So far, he appears to be running true to his implicit promise; he voted against his own party's leadership in favor of the Blue Dog budget this year, for example.  For now, I recommend we give him the benefit of the doubt and plan on endorsing him for re-election in 2000 unless his voting and legislative record conflicts with the above description.  This district is a swing district (Baird lost in a whisker to Linda Smith here in 96) and my hunch is that Baird will appreciate any help he gets in his next turn at electoral bat.
 

FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    We should challenge incumbent Doc Hastings(R).  He is not a legislator who is friendly to our causes.  The district, however, does appear friendly to them.  It gave 22% of its vote to Perot in 92 and 12% to third-party/independent presidential candidates in 1996, both totals being above the national average.  In 1996, Hastings received only 53% of the vote and it looked like he could be vulnerable this year.  However, the Democratic opponent this year, Gordon Pross, was extraordinarily weak, leaving Hastings with a whopping 69% of the vote.  However, out of the ashes of the Democratic party there may be some hope here.  A candidate running on the Reform Party slate in 98, Peggy McKerlie, received a respectable 7% of the total vote.  We should look into this lady.  She may not be a Perotbot, and may be worth backing as a flag-planting candidacy.  If she can keep her organization in place, and build on it, a 19% total may not be out of the question in the year 2000, which would be sufficient to hold Hastings to no more than 50% of the total vote.
 

FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    Incumbent Republican George Nethercutt is a traditional boring Republican.  He opposes campaign finance reform and has received mediocre fiscal ratings from the Taxpayers for Common Sense.  He indicated, when first elected in 94, that he would only serve three terms, out of respect for the victory of a recent term limits initiative in the state of Washington.  That will help us, since he is well entrenched and has won his campaigns for re-election by healthy margins recently, by 56% in 96 and 57% in 98.  The Democratic party has lost considerable ground here between those two election cycles.  So much so that an American Heritage candidate managed to snag 5% of the vote in 98.  This district has voted in percentages greater than the national average for third-party/independent presidential candidates so at the least we should mount a flag-planting campaign here.  In a swing district like this one, we probably will just need to receive somewhere between 5% and 10% in 2000 to prevent the eventual Republicrat victor from winning by an absolute majority.  Of course, if Nethercutt decides to renege on his three-terms-and-out pledge, we will at least have a very salient issue on which we can base our campaign.
 

SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    Incumbent Democrat Norm Dicks is a champion pork-barreler.  One of his great services for our nation was the restoration of funding for the building of some B2 bombers even the Pentagon didn't need or want.  As a potential ARP ally he would probably be quite useless.  About his only notable accomplishment was the completion, in cooperation with Republican Chris Cox, of a comprehensive thoroughly researched report on some of the problems that have been brought to light in our relationship with China.  The committee's work was notable for its lack of bipartisanship.  Considering the way the Thompson and Burton campaign finance investigations collapsed in a morass of partisan finger-pointing, this was noteworthy indeed and Norman Dicks, as the ranking Democrat on the panel, deserves considerable credit for that fact.

    Nevertheless, the fact remains that he is not true ARP material.  He has received mediocre ratings from both the Concord Coalition and the Taxpayers for Common Sense on his fiscal record, and I do not think he is a likely candidate for inclusion in an ARP-sympathetic congressional coalition.  Since there is no high profile political figure in this district who fits the ARP profile, I suggest we run a respectable unknown and go for a flag-planting campaign.  Our goal should be to receive 18% of the vote, which might be doable considering the fact that third-party/independent presidential candidates received 14% of the vote in this district in 96.
 

SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    The current incumbent, Jim McDermott(D) may not be running for re-election since he may be convicted of a crime and/or he may choose to run for Slade Gorton's Senate seat.  He seems to have been an accessory to the folks in Florida who bugged John Boehner(R)'s cellular phone call.  Boehner is currently suing him.  If McDermott is convicted or chooses to shoot for the upper house, we should definitely mount a challenge here, since it is a district friendly to third party and/or independent candidates.  Frankly, even if McDermott decides to run, he is such damaged goods that it is probably worth our while to run someone anyway.  In that connection, the Republicans did not even bother to run anyone in 98.  As a result one third-party candidate did fairly well.  He was Stan Lippmann of the Reform Party, who received a respectable 9% total.  It might be worth our while to find out about this person.  If he is not a Perotbot and can speak in complete sentences and has an organization which survives and which can be built upon then he might be the ARP man of choice in 2000.
 

EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    Incumbent Republican Jennifer Dunn at one point was showing considerable promise.  She supported the bipartisan budget spending limits bill offered by Tim Penny and John Kasich in 93 and as late as 95 was enjoying a rating as high as 56% from the Concord Coalition.  And then it all seemed to go sour, possibly with her assumption to a House GOP leadership post.  She now has ratings in the twenties from the Taxpayers for Common Sense, opposed the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, and in general has walked away from her erstwhile moderate allies.

    Her accomodation has not been without price.  Her victory total has decreased somewhat in this district from 65% in 96 to 58% in 98.  I believe she may be vulnerable.  While there is no high visibility political figure in this district who fits the ARP profile, we should nevertheless mount a flag-planting campaign in this district.  I believe we would get some support in view of the fact that this district has voted for third-party/independent presidential candidates in percentages that exceed the nationl average.  Our goal should be to win somewhere between 8% and 10% of the vote.
 

NINTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

    Incumbent Democrat Adam Smith won his race for re-election in 98 by a comfortable margin.  However this district is not always such a Democratic pushover.  Smith won here in 96 by a bare 50%.  And one never knows in a volatile swing district like this; Smith could no doubt use whatever assistance might be forthcoming.  And assist him ARP should.  He has forsworn all PAC money, and he opposed fast track.  In addition, the Concord Coalition gave him a 70th percentile rating in 97 and the Taxpayers for Common Sense gave him a strong 65% rating in 98; in addition, he voted for the Blue Dog budget this year.  We therefore should help him in any way we can.   He might very well become a key ally to ARP.  And someone who has forsworn all PAC money and who comes from a swing district like this will almost certainly be grateful for any help he gets.