January 23, 2007
Questions for Diane Tebelius
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 This
1. Can her.
It seems to me that the "torch" is being handed off to Esser, and there really is, right now, no real competition. If Diane was really running, and intending to win, she would be responding. She would have a spin on those questions with out a doubt.
Esser 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.
Oh, I'm sure Diane is out there spinning all this to the state committee. She'll spin her version which makes her look like a champion, and they'll buy it.
And 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?
4. You're right, Michelle, Tebelius loves Esser and is giving the race away to him. You're reading of the situation is spot on, as usual. Once again, those invisible, centrist, status quo-loving Country Club Republicans who control everything are trying to screw the grassroots.
What's the conspiracy this time? Why, it's preventing a man who's not running for state chair from becoming state chair. And the proof? Well, the fact that you can't prove the conspiracy is proof of how pervasive the conspiracy is, right? In fact, it's so pervasive, Mark Hulst is in on it! Don't drink the water!
I don't think I want to have a detailed response to the first set of questions out on the internet; however, the second question should be addressed.
Whichever person is party head, they should be aware of the internet. Tebelius certainly isn't and Luke Esser only slightly better.
7. "Ed the Head" (does "the Head" mean he's a doper?) has grasped the essence of GOP left dialogue: irrational hate speech. According to "the (acid? Pot?) Head," Michelle, who never mentioned, never suggested a conspiracy, is, nevertheless a conspiracy nut because she criticizes Tebelius' lackluster campaign. Not only that, but adjectives she never used must be put in her mouth, and the illusion created that she has, somehow, been challenged, yet failed to prove a conspiracy she never alleged.
Whatever else "the head" is on, delusional dishonesty is its primary ingredient.
8. Hmmm...a barrage of questions just a few days before an election. Hmmmm Stefan. Why don't you either call her up or......perhaps...I don't know practice represenative democracy and talk with your county's elected state committeeman and committeewoman? Especially since they'll be the ones voting on state chair.
The questions have been out there for several weeks now, Matty.
I 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.
10. In fact, December 23 is when the questions were first posed. http://soundpolitics.com/archives/007750.html
c) Kick out the Deliverance wing of the party.
All the Democrats have to do is point at 'em.
I'm just as hesitant as the next guy to have this info about our party's dysfunction hanging out on the Internet. However, it was a lack of transparency at the highest levels that caused the mess we're in--so I don't think keeping this in the dark any longer was an option.
Why is Tebelius afraid of answering these questions? Perhaps because she's got her finger in the proverbial dyke.
13. Yeah, Doug, that's what it means. Did you learn that on one of those rulers the Kiwanis hand out?
Michelle was not "[criticizing] Tebelius' lackluster campaign." Her post would indicate that Tebelius is either 1) running an actual campaign, although not a very good one, in which case it would be hard to argue that it is a "torch passing," or 2) making it appear like Tebelius is running even though she's really not in an attempt to give the state chairmanship over to Esser, which, by my definition, is a conspiracy.
And Doug, I'm sure you see the irony of calling me a drug addict while simultaneously decrying my lack of civility. By the way, I'm a low-taxes, pro-life, anti-gay marriage conservative, not a member of the "GOP left." I'm just a conservative who wishes you would stop using the name of Ronald Reagan as your criticism shield.
14. There's an irony between being a drug addict and having a lack of civility?
15. Clever, Michelle. Maybe "the Head" was slang from when you and Doug were beboping, but those of us living in this century don't recognize it as a drug term.
One of the previous comments was why don't you just call Diane and get a response? Good point. Is it possible she refuses to answer blogs because of the anger, and hate that seem to fill them? I called Diane about the allegations that are being whispered (at least on the east side) about her mismanagement of funds. Bottom line was come to WSRP HQ and look at the books. Did any of the people criticizing her do that?
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.
I 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.
dedubya--I have confidence that both Stefan and Eric did due diligence in giving Diane a chance to reply. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they had even offered to meet with her, or do a conference call.
Unless 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?
After reading the questions and comments I had some questions of my own, so I asked several people I know who worked on the recount effort and court fight to tell me about it.
Every 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.
While I am no fan of DT and really wish we had a hard driving, bare knuckles brawler running for the party top spot, I at the same time would not answer those questions. At least not in the form presented. Scale it down and perhaps.
Well, 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.
The 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.
She 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.
23. Coyote, Did you watch the SNL Hillary and Chris Mathews video? Why don't we let her pre-screen the questions before they're even asked?
Remember how we all use to think Chris Vance put his own self interest ahead of the party's? I do.
Well 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
Well said, "Please don't think this is Moderate vs. Conservative".
She 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.
I would agree that with Tebelius, it is more about self-interest. There's a reason she was referred to as "Chris Vance in a skirt." And she's real good at making you believe she's on your side, sometimes better than Vance. I never fell for it though.
The 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.
27. Very interesting, Michelle. I believe every word you wrote. Completely sounds like her - do or say whatever is necessary for the situation she is currently in. Lie to please everyone.
28. Don Johnson, Wow. Could it be that Diane Tebelius is UNITING the party???
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?