The state Republican committee convenes this weekend to elect a state chairman, and will either re-elect Diane Tebelius or replace her with Luke Esser.
Numerous party insiders have raised specific questions and concerns about the state of the WSRP under Tebelius's leadership. Some of the questions are about the fundraising problems that Eric wrote about here. There's more. Two lists of questions have been compiled:
a) General questions about Tebelius's management of the party.
b) Questions about Tebelius' (controversial) role in the gubernatorial contest lawsuit.
I've sent these questions to Tebelius for public response. Unfortunately, she hasn't responded to our earlier questions. But it's to everyone's benefit that these questions be answered before Saturday's vote. They've been raised by some who are voting and if the underlying concerns are misplaced, then it's best to clear the air.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 23, 2007 01:33 PM | Email ThisEsser is the pick from the status quo advocates. The state committee needs to draft Mark Hulst who is not in the race yet. He is a proven county chairman that knows a the winning strategy is.
Posted by: Michelle on January 23, 2007 01:35 PMAnd I sincerely doubt she will ever respond to any of this. The less the state committee knows, the better off she is. She's been hiding the truth for months, why should it be any different now?
Posted by: Don Johnson on January 23, 2007 01:58 PMYou're right on!
Posted by: Scott Olson on January 23, 2007 02:15 PMWhichever person is party head, they should be aware of the internet. Tebelius certainly isn't and Luke Esser only slightly better.
Posted by: swatter on January 23, 2007 02:58 PMI don't have a dog in this fight as the conservatives in this state have more problems than just the state party. But I would like the chance to see some answers from both candidates. And I'm not the only one.
Posted by: jimg on January 23, 2007 04:39 PMAll the Democrats have to do is point at 'em.
Posted by: Jim on January 23, 2007 05:08 PMWhy is Tebelius afraid of answering these questions? Perhaps because she's got her finger in the proverbial dyke.
Another point . . if Esser does win, in two years the same people will be trashing him as they did Chris Vance (when he was Chair), and now Diane. . . maybe I'm just a cynic.
Posted by: dedubya on January 23, 2007 07:51 PMI can't speak to all of the issues raised in the questions Stefan posed, by my original post on State Party fundraising (or lack thereof) was based entirely on reports the party files with the state PDC, available online for all to see.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 23, 2007 11:02 PMUnless I'm sorely mistaken, Diane is stonewalling the grassroots, hoping to salvage what she no doubt thought would be an easy re-election bid.
In addition to the questions posed in this post, I've heard a lot of not so nice things said about Diane--and while I'd like to believe they're not true, there's been ZERO acknowledgement or denial to suggest otherwise.
If our state chair can't be bothered to answer questions from the leading conservative blog in the state--then I think we should ask, exactly what IS she up to?
Posted by: Patrick on January 23, 2007 11:08 PMEvery one of them told me that they thought Diane was volunteering her time. One explained to me that she had specifically told him so.
And one was there at the WSRP office when they found out Diane was demanding payment. Apparently all present were surprised and shocked.
Folks that read this site tend to be involved and know lots of other involved people. If you think about the people you know, you probably know people who were really there and actually know the truth.
So why not call and ask them if the stuff about the hundred grand is true?
I did, and was told it is.
One or two phone calls sure beats a lot of uniformed typing.
Posted by: hackR on January 24, 2007 01:16 AMWell, not unless every other candidate in the past has presented answers to all those questions before hand.
By responding to the QfT, she would be setting a precident that every candidate in the future should carry that document around with their answers.
Now if that's the way we want to go as a party that is one thing. Then the party should set some standards before running. I just think this looks to much like a trap.
I mean "what were your goals for personal fundraising?" OK I want to see the goals for every county chair of the state. Bring them and present them. Because we know you have them and you wrote them down. Probably in Power Point form. Meanwhile also bring your analysis of your weaknesses.
See what I mean? (I hope I am articulating this properly.)
There are some good questions in that document. However the good questions are watered down by some very inane questions and provide an out for the Chair.
My suggestion would have been to scale your questions and concerns down to a palm card sized document and spread that arouond the voting members.
Posted by: Coyote on January 24, 2007 08:22 AMThe problem with calling Diane and asking for an explanation is that she LIES. She'll spin it any way she can in order to twist the truth. And the truth of the matter is that she's a lousy fundraiser, and she paid off the legal debt with federal dollars that should have been spent on getting Republicans elected. That's it, pure and simple. And if she gets re-elected we can all look forward to another beating in 2008.
Posted by: Don Johnson on January 24, 2007 09:11 AMShe has so consistently lied to my face and to the board and leadership about these very issues, and many of us are damned tired of it.
I don't understood why she does it, as most of these decisions (if disclosed) are up to the chair.
It is the cussed lyin' about it that causes most of the problems.
Diane reminds me of Nixon, and yes, I am damn well that OLD.
Posted by: Old Timer on January 24, 2007 10:16 AMWell Tebelius makes me realize how much worse it can be.
Don't make the mistake of thinking this election has anything to do with Moderates vs. Conservatives.
Esser, as a State Senator, has take real votes and has real positions. He's pinned down on what he beleives.
Tebelius will say whatever you want to hear.
To moderates she says, "Yeah I'm one of you -- those pro-life nut jobs need to be kept down"
To conservatives she says, "I hate those Bellevue fat cats and baby killers".
This election is about Tebelius' dishonesty, mistreatment of others and her abusive pursuit of her own self interests.
Esser, in contrast, has a record as a State Senator that's complex (some votes to my right, some to me left) but the bottom line is HE ISN'T ABOUT DIVIDING THE PARTY.
One comment above may well be true, the people that are complaining about Tebelius today could well be grousing about Esser in two years. People like to complain. I am absolutely convinced we'll all have less to complain about thought
Posted by: Please don't think this is Moderate vs. Conservative on January 24, 2007 01:05 PMShe will say anything, to anybody, anytime, anywhere. This election is COMPLETELY about Tebelius' dishonesty, mistreatment of others and her abusive pursuit of her own self interests.
After reading all of the above posts, it's not surprising why I hear she can't keep good staff.
Posted by: Don Johnson on January 24, 2007 04:06 PMThe first time I ever spoke to her, it was at a pro-life event. She was running for Congress and courting the hosting pro-life organization, The Susan B. Anthony List, for an endorsement (which she did not succeed in obtaining, but neither did any of her opponents). When we spoke, I asked her to contrast herself with the others in the race (which included Esser). I meant contrast herself on the issues. Her answer was, "Oh, we basically all have the same views. But may the best woman win." (In case anyone needs reminding, she was the only woman in a four-way primary race).
Then, I asked her what her position was on abortion. She said, "I'm pro-life, but I have the 'three exceptions'". Now, I had heard many variations on what exceptions people give to exclude the right to life to pre-born children, but I wanted to see which ones were hers and find out if there is a definitive term called "the three exceptions". So I asked, "and which exceptions are those?" I guess she was not prepared for that question. Her answer was, "Um...well...uh...(covering her forhead and looking down, then back up), oh...you people always ask that!" It was like a middle school student who'd read her notes for the exam but forgot to study them. These weren't her own ideas, but what her advisors had told her to say. Apparently we were all supposed to know what "the three exceptions" were and accept them without question. It took her a few minutes, but she did come up with them.
Months later, when I saw her again, she came up to me and said, "I think I'm going to get the SBA endorsement." I said, "oh really?" She said, "yeah, there's just a couple of things we're not quite in agreement on, but I think I'll get it." "Oh, and The Wish List also contacted me." (The Wish List is a "pro-choice" Republican women's group.) SBA did not endorse her, even though they have often endorsed candidates with "the three exceptions." Apparently, there wasn't much to her "pro-life positon". And the only way, we'll ever know if The Wish List endorsed her or not is if we become contributing members of their organization. They do public endorsements, but they also do "private endorsements" for candidates who their endorsement might do more harm than good if the word is out beyond their contributors.
I'll join Don J. in saying good post. Just change the example and I've been there with Diane. I just haven't been able to explain what the experience is like.
So am I alone in waiting to hear from Richard Pope, Esq., on the questions Stefan posted under
"b) Questions about Tebelius' (controversial) role in the gubernatorial contest lawsuit"?
Has anyone talked to him about it?
TV Fan
Posted by: TV Fan on January 26, 2007 12:16 AM