Again, I had initially intended to be neutral in this race. But I was startled by the number and stature of people who approached me with unusually serious concerns about Tebelius's leadership. The information I've posted here, here, here and below is based on conversations with about a dozen people, who have all worked closely with Tebelius in recent years.
The biggest concerns are about the finances. There are also concerns about her P.R. abilities (observers say she's too hesitant about speaking to the press, promoting Republicans and attacking the opposition); and management style ( said to be secretive, almost paranoid, and condescending to the point of driving people away).
The one person who came to me on the record defending Tebelius said that Diane has "proven that she's capable of getting along with everybody". I find that incredible. A dozen other people (all well-known within the party, with a few also known to the general public) told me they don't want to work with her again. Some refuse to work with her, period.
Tebelius made no serious attempt to promote herself and defend her record to the writers of this Republican-leaning blog. Speaking only for myself, her refusal to answer Eric's and my questions, and her failure to address the growing allegations, converted me from being supportive overall and neutral on this race, to being seriously skeptical about her fitness for the job. Any potential candidate for state office should ask themselves how effective Diane Tebelius is likely to be at promoting and defending Republican candidates to a Democrat-leaning electorate when she ineptly torpedoes her own sympathy among Republican bloggers.
Luke Esser has not actively pitched for our endorsement. But he answered Eric's questions and quite well. He's proven himself in Olympia and I've heard nothing but good things about him from people in the party. That's pretty darn good and infinitely more than I can say for Tebelius.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 26, 2007 06:18 PM | Email ThisDiane should speak up and be heard, if she is to represent the GOP of this state.
For petes sakes, this is a republican blog, and not HA.
If I had a vote, I would vote for Esser, at least he speaks.....
Posted by: Chris on January 26, 2007 06:15 PMOn the other hand, Esser has been politically effective on numerous occassions in the past. Diane Tebelius -- not so much. Esser is at least a close ally of Rob McKenna, and also on good terms with Dino Rossi, while Tebelius doesn't seem to have any close allies.
Maybe it is time to vote for the Esser of two evils. The present situation is pretty bad, and a change can't make it any worse. Esser may very well be able to do an effective job, while Tebelius has not been very effective during the past year.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 26, 2007 07:02 PMI won't support any Republican in this state that acts like a democrat!
When they can't even distance themselves from the thieves in Olympia, they have no future in this state. If given a choice of a Republican that acks like a democrat, or a democrat that acts like a democrat, the democrats will win every time.
Posted by: GS on January 26, 2007 08:02 PMWhat I will say is that Diane has not thought it necessary to reply to the questions. Luke has.
There's nothing written in the rules of the world that says that Diane must repond to the questions posed on SP.
The fact that Esser did tells me that he is paying more attention to the base than Diane.
On that basis alone I would vote for Luke Esser, if allowed to vote.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on January 26, 2007 09:49 PMWhen she became the state chair last year, I called her on the phone the day after and congratulated her. The first words out of her mouth were NOT 'thank you', they were 'the grassroots have taken back the party'. She hit the ground running the next day on Monday, and worked tirelessly for months. So what if she does not answer questions? Anyone who has been around knows what Diane is like, and we don't need to ask questions to know what she thinks.
If people don't want to work with her, it's because they don't like it because she is respectful for the grassroots not the other way around.
My husband Jerry and I fully supported her AND contributed $1,000.00 to the WSRP when she was elected. That is first time my husband has ever been enthusiastic about contributing substantially to the state party. We still fully support her for state chair, and hope she is re-elected. This weekend. Go Diane! There are a whole lot of people in the know cheering you on!
As for your endorsement Stephan, how grassroots are YOU when you have fought tooth and nail the Republican ideology and tried on more than one occasion to keep the anti-gay marriage plank out of our King County Platform. That's about as anti Republican as you can get.
Ruth Gibbs, King County
And I think Stefan may not be the only Republican in this state who thinks that there are more pressing matters for our party to deal with than the urgent impending crisis of gays marrying...especially if we ever want to win another election in this state.
In addition, you may not think it makes a difference, but why don't you ask Jan Shabro why she lost her house seat while Senator Pam Roach and Representative Dan Roach won their senate and representative seats respectively? She supported and they opposed gay marriage. Duuuuuhhhhh! Let's take this a step further. There were only two Senators up for re-election who won their seats in King County this year. Senator Pflug was unopposed. She won. Senator Roach was strongly opposed. She won anyway. Both senators are very conservative. They do not waffle on Republican issues including Gay Marriage or Property Rights or anything else in our platform. Get real. We lost every other incumbent Senate seat in King County. We have left Senator Pflug in the 5th, Senator Roach in the 31st and Senator Jarrett in the 41st. He's up for re-election next year. I wish him all the best if he doesn't heed the obvious facts. FYI - Luke Esser, nice a person as he may be, came out AGAINST the property rights initiative. Another serious Republican issue. He LOST his Senate seat people. Why do you think that happened? The Property Rights community went ballistic. He lost his volunteer base!!! Duuuuuhhhhhh! As I say, I like Luke. I even doorbelled some of the 48th precincts for him. But I do NOT want a State Party Chair who went against what he believed in order to hopefully win because evidently his campaign or the state Republican Senate Caucus took a poll and thought he might lose if he betrayed his own. Sorry Luke.
Why don't you ask Bob Williams of Evergreen Freedom Foundation why we lost both in this state and nationally? You ought to have him do a guest editorial. He will give you specific and multitudes of statistics. We left our party. We moved to the middle. The ice in the middle is thin and we skated right into the cold, cold waters of oblivion. I have been around this party as an activist and in King County for a long time. Since 1986. My family have been Republicans for 5 generations. My great, great grandfather voted for Lincoln.
I have seen us win big with our platform and conservative values - then get creamed because we listen to the drivel of 'you can't win on our platform'. I hope we got the message loud and clear this time.
Ruth Gibbs
Posted by: Ruth Gibbs on January 27, 2007 06:49 AMIn addition, you may not think it makes a difference, but why don't you ask Jan Shabro why she lost her house seat while Senator Pam Roach and Representative Dan Roach won their senate and representative seats respectively? She supported and they opposed gay marriage. Duuuuuhhhhh! Let's take this a step further. There were only two Senators up for re-election who won their seats in King County this year. Senator Pflug was unopposed. She won. Senator Roach was strongly opposed. She won anyway. Both senators are very conservative. They do not waffle on Republican issues including Gay Marriage or Property Rights or anything else in our platform. Get real. We lost every other incumbent Senate seat in King County. We have left Senator Pflug in the 5th, Senator Roach in the 31st and Senator Jarrett in the 41st. He's up for re-election next year. I wish him all the best if he doesn't heed the obvious facts. FYI - Luke Esser, nice a person as he may be, came out AGAINST the property rights initiative. Another serious Republican issue. He LOST his Senate seat people. Why do you think that happened? The Property Rights community went ballistic. He lost his volunteer base!!! Duuuuuhhhhhh! As I say, I like Luke. I even doorbelled some of the 48th precincts for him. But I do NOT want a State Party Chair who went against what he believed in order to hopefully win because evidently his campaign or the state Republican Senate Caucus took a poll and thought he might lose if he betrayed his own. Sorry Luke.
Why don't you ask Bob Williams of Evergreen Freedom Foundation why we lost both in this state and nationally? You ought to have him do a guest editorial. He will give you specific and multitudes of statistics. We left our party. We moved to the middle. The ice in the middle is thin and we skated right into the cold, cold waters of oblivion. I have been around this party as an activist and in King County for a long time. Since 1986. My family have been Republicans for 5 generations. My great, great grandfather voted for Lincoln.
I have seen us win big with our platform and conservative values - then get creamed because we listen to the drivel of 'you can't win on our platform'. I hope we got the message loud and clear this time.
Ruth Gibbs
Posted by: Ruth Gibbs on January 27, 2007 06:50 AMParty politics. You can have 'em.
Posted by: jimg on January 27, 2007 09:37 AMJust an observation. This is a race Within the Party, not against the Dem's. Tis funny how some canidates choose state or not state their positions. Reminds me of Cantwell. If you remain silent, no one can refute what you say.
Posted by: Chris on January 27, 2007 09:58 AMI agree with most of what you wrote - you make some excellent points. But what words or acts of Diane's reflect the ideas in your last post?
First, though, the books have to balance.
Posted by: Scott on January 27, 2007 11:04 AMI'm not saying Ruth's totally wrong, but she doesn't have all of her facts straight. Moderate Republicans ran and won in King County in 2006. Fred's one of them.
Posted by: DJ on January 27, 2007 11:47 AMI don't think there's anyting wrong with being a center-right moderate from the get-go, and sticking to your own principles!
Now, undoubtedly in Seattle we have a tougher sell, even with a moderate agenda. But with so many nutty liberal and radical agendas to rail against, we should be able to at least communicate our OWN views.
We have to make some big breakthroughs to reach sensible voters in Seattle. The first and foremost is debunking the perpetual boogy man mythology that has been ascribed to us. The second is introducing ourselves as neighbors, co-workers, community volunteers, dog walkers ;) etc.
Posted by: Patrick on January 28, 2007 01:29 AM