Richard S. Davis: Classic rematch for governor’s post

T he collective sigh of Republican relief when Dino Rossi announced that he would again run for governor swept across the state like a chinook wind thawing the frozen political landscape. Finally, say the faithful, we have a contender. Washington voters are now in for a long campaign season, with the drama of a great heavyweight rematch.

With nearly 13 months until Election Day, campaign-starved voters will now rush to pick up the morning paper, turn on the news and log on to their favorite political blogs. High stakes politics has returned to Washington. With the presidential candidates ignoring us, except to parachute in to hobnob with high rollers, Rossi’s announcement kick-starts the political season here.

Forget about the claims that Rossi’s Forward Washington foundation amounted to a campaign front. While the outfit dealt with public policy and his “idea bank” travels took him to friendly venues around the state, Rossi has not acted like an engaged candidate since the gavel fell in that Wenatchee courtroom in June 2005. The difference will soon be apparent.

While a lot of folks complain about long campaigns, I like them. Over time, candidates reveal themselves. In a short, tightly scripted campaign, candidates can manage their exposure to reporters and voters. But with more than a year to go before the election, there’s plenty of time for us to get to know Rossi nearly as well as we know Gregoire. He’ll be the guy who responds to the governor’s budget proposals and her state-of-the-state message. When legislative Democrats propose health care programs, taxes for paid family leave, or business regulations, reporters will want Rossi’s response.

Our political system works best when there’s an effective “loyal opposition” to challenge the majority party. With one-party rule, it’s difficult for the minority to present the contrasting perspective. Messages require messengers, and in this state effective Republican messengers have been in short supply. Rossi will find easy access to media microphones.

He’ll want to be selective. He has no obligation to respond to every half-baked idea floated in Olympia, but he must advance his own positive agenda for the state.

Although she took office amidst controversy, Gregoire swiftly embodied energy in the executive. She’s proposed ambitious new programs on a variety of fronts. A strong economy has allowed her to increase spending substantially and, I believe, at a pace that guarantees future budget shortfalls.

What would Rossi have done? What would he now do? We will be looking for answers to those questions over the next year-plus.

In 2004, Rossi had to introduce himself to most of the state. As head of the Senate’s budget-writing Ways and Means Committee, he had Olympia prominence, which is to say, practically no prominence at all elsewhere. In facing his biggest legislative challenge, he deftly balanced the recession-hammered budget, setting priorities and avoiding major new taxes. He worked well with members of both parties, styling himself as a “fiscal conservative with a social conscience.”

Gregoire’s priorities are clear. The governor believes government can and should be a positive force in people’s lives. She champions early childhood education, more money for the public schools and universities, expanded health care entitlements, and tighter environmental standards to clean up the Puget Sound and combat global warming.

It’s fair to question her approach, but a challenger must do more than cast doubt on his opponent’s policies. He must counter with better ideas. Although her strategies may be flawed, she’s pegged the right issues. What voluntary, competitive and market-based approaches would Rossi encourage to address environmental, transportation and health care challenges?

In 2004, Rossi benefited from a palpable sense that it was time for change in Olympia. The recession had shaken our faith in the status quo. And Rossi successfully positioned himself as a charismatic and pragmatic leader, one with a business background and policy instincts that didn’t stem from a career in government.

Now is not then. The case for change is not self-evident. Every election represents a crossroads, an opportunity to rethink current policies and define alternative futures. In 2008, we will have two qualified candidates poised to frame our choices. It looks like a classic rematch.