January 09, 2007
Follow-up on Questions for Esser & Tebelius
I have yet to hear back from either Luke Esser and Diane Tebelius regarding the questions I posed to them at this post (note the clarification to the post as well). I've emailed them both again this morning encouraging them to respond. As I noted in the emails, answering the questions is a good chance to speak to not only the voting members of the State Committee, but also to the grassroots who in my experience at Sound Politics, and out and about, are increasingly disgruntled with the Party as a whole.
For reference, here again are the original questions:
1) What do you see as the preeminent issue for the WSRP Chair in 2007? How do you plan to address it?
2) The GOP got clobbered in suburban legislative districts in 2006, setting aside assorted national issues influencing the election, what state and local dynamics contributed to such results?
3) How as Chair would you make the WSRP organization stronger and more effective?
4) What issues should the GOP be focusing on at the state level and why?
5) How do you propose to help make GOP candidates relevant in the suburbs again?
1) What was your greatest success as WSRP Chair in 2006? What was your greatest failure?
2) What have you learned about the state party as an organization since becoming Chair that should be improved, and how will you go about achieving it?
3) State legislative candidates in competitive races appear to have done worse than the GOP's two competitive Congressional candidates (Reichert & McMorris). Why do you believe that happened, and how can it be changed in the future?
1) Apart from national level issues, why do you think you lost your campaign for re-election, and how will that inform your potential leadership as WSRP Chair?
Posted by Eric Earling at January 09, 2007
07:28 AM | Email This
2) What lessons do you take from your time in the Legislature on where the state GOP needs to go both organizationally and on an issue basis?
3) After representing a changing suburban district for several years, what insight can you provide into Washington state's body politic and its view of Republican candidates?
They didn't get any message, Eric. It was all Bush's fault, or so I was told last week by a politico.
Maybe it is better to sink to the lowest depths before something really good happens. I don't think the party is there yet. That goes for Rossi who I don't think is a shoo-in for Governor.
3. That's right. Their losses had nothing to do with them. "It was a Democrat wave/year." "And the unpopular war."
If you should ever hear back from Luke Esser.
Ask him why he is against property rights.
Luke was openly opposed to I-933.So I think
he has some explaining to do.
5. And ask why Diane was against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage during her bid for congress...
Close your eyes and repeat after me. "The Republican losses had nothing to do with us. This was a democrat year due to an unpopular war."
And oh, "we're still a 'winning team'!"
"One team, one mission!"
7. The state re-org meeting...Draft Mark Hulst!!!
8. #6 - I don't totally buy that. The Repubs need new blood, backbone and outside the box ideas, which have been absent for quite a while.
9. KS, you don't have to buy it yet. This is their mantra. Just keep repeating it until you believe it's true.
Thanks for the clarification Michelle. Like KS, I couldn't tell which side you were on. I was 98-99% sure you were being sarcastic.
I wonder if Eric has heard anything?
11. OK, another clarification. Rush Limbaugh wasn't really advocating embryonic stem-cell research either. I'm amazed at how many people thought he was, so I just wanted to clarify that too. As he now finds himself explaining all too often, he was "illustrating absurdity with absurdity." That's what I was doing here.
12. Maybe neither Esser or Tebelius responded to questions posted on a Blog because they just might find bloggers mean-spirited, and they just did not bother to read it. Of course, I could be completely wrong.
13. Yeah and after all, we're "just a bunch of men sitting around in (our) pajamas." Why would they respond to a blogger's questions?
If these two turn the page
History won't change
For two more years we'll dig a deeper hole.
I'll lead my friends in the freedom fight,
If we happen to be left half alive.
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie.
There's nothing in the street, that's any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by the by
And the Party on the left,
Says it's the Party on the right.
And the beards have all grown longer overnight.
But the enemy's still there
With our land and now our air
And he doesn't go away with compromise.
We'll be fighting in the street, with our children at our feet
And the morals that we worshipped will be gone.
And our children won't recall
All the Freedoms we let fall
But the silver we sold out for sings the song.
I'll tip my hat to the new Chairman Clueless
Brace myself for defeats where they lead us
Smile and grin at the lies all around
Then I'll repeat the revelation and say
The same truths we did yesterday,
Then I'll get on my knees and pray...
We don't get fooled again.
15. DW, Eric prefaced that he would be independently contacting the two people and asking the questions. They seem pretty simple and ones the two should answer if they are indeed the "ANSWER".