On October 3rd, I was alerted to the existence of a character assassination website designed to ruin the reputation of Republican Jane Hague‘s opponent for the King County Council. I went there and was immediately confronted by a blatant lie in large red type, right under the fake newspaper title banner. Here is a snapshot of what I saw…
(Click on the picture to see a PDF of the whole paper.)
The hit piece against Richard Pope has King County Chairman Michael Young’s fingerprints all over it, but, glaringly, not his signature. The site says it was “…authorized by the King County Republican Party,” but I am a member of the Board of highest authority in the KCGOP, the Central Committee, and I can assure you we were never consulted.
Articles on the simulated newspaper “The Truth On Pope” are attributed to “Top Staff Reporters,” but, since there is obviously no real newspaper, there are obviously no real “reporters.” Nevertheless, someone had to compose the stuff and do what little research there was.
The only known “staff” at the KCGOP are political neophytes, Executive Director Nathan Johnson and Political Director Matthew Lundh. From the KCGOP website:
| Executive Director | Nathan Johnson | 206.779.2382 | njohnson@kcgop.org |
| Political Director | Matthew Lundh | 206.354.8325 | mlundh@kcgop.org |
Are these guys the “Top Staff Reporters?”
The Red headline, attributes a Bankruptcy filing to Pope, with an alleged quotation that he is leaving the practice of law. But Pope has never filed for Bankruptcy and it is not hard to find that out. What you may discover is that Richard’s father, retired and living on a fixed income, filed for bankruptcy shortly before his death. That is a sad story, but not as sad as the Young Administration’s use of the information, after his death, to try to smear his son.
Of all the scurrilous material on the website, the fake bankruptcy claim might have been the most emphatically provable lie. That may be why it vanished a short time after I saw it. But the phoney newspaper has become the basis of direct mail campaigns for which King County Republicans are now paying, without their direct authorization.
Since it’s our dollars being used and our reputations being dragged under by these tactics, don’t we have a right to at least know who wrote this stuff?
Call the King County Office and ask who wrote the smears. Who are the “Top Staff Reporters? Where did the “Bankruptcy” story come from?
Call the King County office at (425) 990-0404, or Michael Young at (206) 628-9662.
“but I am a member of the Board of highest authority in the KCGOP, the Central Committee, and I can assure you we were never consulted.”
Really? Prove it.
Might as well re-name this post; “Doug Parris supports trial lawyer candidate for KC council. Filing frivelous lawsuits apparently is not an issue!”
Prove we were never consulted?
Why don’t you prove you never sold drugs.
Prove Barbara Bush never stole a Ferarri.
If you have any evidence that we were consulted it would be easy to bring to the table, but proving a negative is a different matter. That you demand it proves something about you.
Please re read the post…I am asking you not to prove a negative, rather prove you are a member of the highest authority of the KCRP. By who’s standard? What does that mean? Are you exageratting a bit, or simply not telling the truth?
More importanatly, why do you continue to dodge the real question, your support for a trial lawyer who files outrageous lawsuits? Why do you support someone who changes political parties for their own convenience? I would expect the same venom that you spew against Romney for his chaning postions.
I don’t know about KC GOP, but in Snohomish County the Executive Board has some authority to act on behalf of the party. In SnoCo, the Central Committee would not be required to be consulted on something like this.
The Central Committee of each County Party can overrule or replace any County officer, including the Chair or any member of the Executive Board, whose power they circumscribe by definition. All County Executive Boards derive their power from, and serve at the pleasure of, the Central Committee. Almost all Executive Boards act, between Central Committee meetings, on behalf of the Central Committee in much the same way as your Realtor would act on your behalf in a Real Estate Transaction, as your professionally skilled servant. The Central Committee of each County is the society of Precinct Committee Officers elected, by State Law, in State-run elections, in even numbered years. I am on that Committee in King County.
RBN, I answered your questions about my alleged support for Richard Pope, in detail, under the post: “Part VI: The King of Character Assassination.” But I’ll go over it again, here, so you can stay on the same page with me. I have something I want to point out afterward…
Richard Pope is being slandered by Michael Young and it has given me a topical reason to continue my coverage of Michael Young. Young, in my admittedly peculiar view, is much more important than Hague or Pope, because Young is the one, right now, preventing us from having a Conservative Political Party in King County and I believe that if it is not a Conservative Political Party, the Republican party is pretty worthless. Worse that worthless, actually, because it then provides a safety valve function for the Democrats to help them avoid boiling the frog too quickly and letting it (the public) jump out of the boiler (like they all did in 1980), thus avoiding the totalitarianism toward which the Democrat Party is accellerating.
A liberal Republican Party is the most potent single factor in promoting socialism and destroying free society.
Obviously, it is to the advantage of Pope, and the disadvantage of Hague as Candidates, that Young’s lies, as well as his ethical and political corruption, are being exposed, but that unavoidable consequence is the fault of Young, not me.
Pope is clearly, by any rational criteria, a better candidate for County Council than Hague, but I am not endorsing him, not working for him and I have no intention of doing so. I am a Republican and the Reagan Wing is a Republican organization. Pope is a Democrat. But then, so is Hague. Hague is a much better Democrat, by my reckoning, being a far-left, pro abortion, tax and spend, gay rights, liberal in the mold of Michael Young. But she has chosen to call herself a Republican, albeit in name only, and I will not endorse a Democrat against her.
The fact, that it is more practical for someone to the right of Hague (you can tell he is by her driving, alone) to run against her as a Democrat than to challenge her in a Republican primary, speaks volumes about Michael Young’s leadership direction.
But I would defend anyone against accusations when I know them to be slanders. That is a matter of Christian morality. Pope is just such a falsely accused person. It is somewhat fascinating to see people who want to claim I cannot work with anyone that disagrees with me, even slightly, now claiming I am working for Richard Pope.
What is even more fascinating is that you, RBN (may I call you “R”?), and I assume others, think that simply pointing out that Young’s accusations are false is tantamount to supporting Pope’s candidacy! It says two horrible things about the level of political discourse:
1. If telling the truth about a political opponent is, somehow, traitorous to the Republican cause it suggests that lies are, not only an acceptable form of Republican campaigning, but a desirable one, like a “trick play” in football, something I shoud cheer if it is “my team” doing it.
2. If simply pointing out that Pope is not a “nut,” not “hateful,” and not a “harasser” of women is damaging to the campaign of Jane Hague, it suggests that she has no actual political issues to run on. (and, of course, that is actually the case). She, aparently, must rely on smearing her opponent.
Both of those dynamics suggest that political campaigns are no longer debates about the direction of government, but have become a spectator sport to determine the best manipulator of public image.
By the way, did you know this is, at least, the third character-assassination campaign connected to the Young Administration in as many years to make a false allegation of “harassing women”? They seem to really like that one.
Doug, I will grant the you believe Michael Young “hates you” and even that you believe that your brand of conservative politics trumps anyone else’s.
What disturbs me most about the Pope affair is the trial lawyer aspect. I believe that trial attorneys are one of the root causes of much of what ails our society. It is a profession that seeks to extract/extort money is such an extreme way, that it destroys innovation, economic growth, while adding significant cost to small business. The profession creates very little value to society, while at the same time gouges honest businesses. Richard Pope is a perfect example of this profession. The fact that he files an outrageous lawsuit against Costco, because they do no accommodate his religious beliefs should raise alarms bells throughout the county.
Despite your claim that he is more qualified than Jane Hague, all I see is a local version of John Edwards, ready to sue at the slightest provocation. If you recognize and acknowledge the monumental damage that trial lawyers like Richard Pope impose on society, we can move on from this debate.
If you have a beef with attorneys, pledge not to vote for one. It will eliminate Rudy and that will please me and it will eliminate Pope and that will please Young. You could become very popular. As a matter of fact, if your idea catches on it would clean out more government offices than term limits. I assume you don’t like Slade Gorton.
Who do you support for Washington State Attorney General and King County Prosecutor?
There are not a bunch of “brands” of conservatism, certainly not enough so “everybody” can have one. Some people are conservative on some things but not others because they pick political positions like they were reading a wine menu and don’t believe there is such a thing as “right and wrong.”
Many people have been oriented to think that politics is an exercise in personal preference, as if we were all writing a work of fiction and could just make it up as we go along. They have no concept of higher principles to which we owe alligience, even if it is not in our personal best interest at a given point in time.
Thankfully, the generations that founded our nation through the eighteenth century were not like that, but, on average, men and women for whom principles of morality they believed to be higher than themselves were the most important thing in life.
God blessed those founders and they passed on to us a nation unlike any that had preceeded it (in the modern world) and a resultant freedom and immense prosperity. But today the fundamental principles that founded that nation are under constant attack and we seriously stand to lose all they won for us.
Freedom and Socialism are incompatible.
Justice and moral depravity are incompatible.
But we face a political party organized around both socialism and licentiousness and are infiltrated by a faction that wants to move us in their direction from within our own Party.
Choose whom you wish to serve.
Again, please re read the post. How you got that no attorney should be supported is dumbfounding. Stop diverting the issue (I assume you do so, because you have no answer!)
Doug, the issue is specifically, do you come to the defense of a trial lawyer like Richard Pope? Do you support lawsuits like the one brought up against Costco? Do you disagree that for the most part, trial lawyers are leeches on honest hard working Americans??
It may seem trivial to you, but not so to most true conservatives . You owe us a response!
Pudge,
This is for your information as well as anyone else who is reading this website and blog.
You stated: I don’t know about KC GOP, but in Snohomish County the Executive Board has some authority to act on behalf of the party. In SnoCo, the Central Committee would not be required to be consulted on something like this.
The KCGOP’s bylaws state that in the absence of a Central Committee meeting which normally happens every two years, the Executive Committee may act, and in between those meetings, the Advisory Board may act.
However, the KCGOP Chair is given wide latitude to make decisions without consulting any advisors or board as long as he or she stays within the approved budget.
I am a member of the Executive Committee, and I would like to set the record straight. We had our monthly meeting on October 1st. At that meeting, we were neither informed nor consulted about any website that was planned about Richard Pope. We were not given an opportunity for either input, advice, or to vote on this matter. As I stated, it is the right of the county chair to exercise latitude without consultation of the committee.
I have talked with several elected officers and ratified legislative district chairs, and the ones with whom I have been in contact had no more idea than I that this website would appear; or that there would be statements made on the website that were not accompanied by any documentation, and have been removed because they were false statements.
I personally was made aware of the website by KCGOP staff, as were some others. Others heard about the website from various sources. I do not even know if all of the officers know or are aware of the website yet.
The Executive Committee also has no authority or oversight to order removal of any content of the website or the website itself.
Hope this clarifies the situation.
IN THE KNOW
“rbn” (at 8), First you say, “What disturbs me most about the Pope affair is the trial lawyer aspect. I believe that trial attorneys are one of the root causes of much of what ails our society. It is a profession that seeks to extract/extort money is such an extreme way, that it destroys innovation, economic growth, while adding significant cost to small business. The profession creates very little value to society, while at the same time gouges honest businesses.”
Then you say, “How you got that no attorney should be supported is dumbfounding.”
Your diatribe against attorneys was only supposed to apply to Pope? I am supposed to understand that you don’t actually mean those things, except as a political attack, for which you are not to assume any logical intellectual responsibility, and am supposed to forget its obvious application to other things (as if you weren’t being a prize hypocrite)?
This is not the behavior of any conservative. You’ve never exhibited any attribute of a conservative. Why do you now claim to be one? What do you think the word means?
I owe you no explanation of my assessment of Pope’s suit against Costco. How could you possibly come to that conclusion? I, somehow, owe it to you to dig up the transcripts, look into the case and give you an analysis? When you won’t even be so courteous as to give me your name? How many hours of my time do I owe you? Is it because you’ve been so nice to me? What planet are you from?
Oh I get it. I’m supposed to do what you do. You want me to accept, without doing any research, someone else’s obviously ulterior assertions about the case as true and react based on that ignorant assumption. Run off my mouth with the first thing that comes into my mind. To what purpose?
Dodging again! Your tactics are not working. You slam me, without the courtesy of exposing your response to a specific inquiry.
You repost what I wrote, but refuse to comment or answer the question, I wonder why? It is a simple enough question, requires no additional time… By way of your defense of Mr. Pope, do you endorse his trial lawyer tactics, or are you simply chosing to ignore a major topic, that most conservatives agree is a huge flaw?
Your question assumes that Pope is guilty of “trial lawyer tactics” and, without research, is not possible to properly address. It is what they call a “leading question,” like, “Has Jane Hague quit driving drunk?” It is, further, beyond the scope of anything I am involved with.
I don’t know why you can’t understand plain English, R.
You accuse me, falsely, of promoting Pope’s candidacy and, despite my detailed and factual explanation with regard to that subject, to wit, that I am only “defending” him as a human being falsely accused on items I know to be fabrications, NOT promoting his candidacy, you then ask questions that presuppose the falsehood that I am his political defender. Then, when I fail to become his political defender, you accuse me of “dodging.”
You are barking at the moon. I am not his political defender. You are lying.
I am not responsible to determine whether or not your political criticisms of him are valid. You are wrong.
I am not dodging anything.
I slam you for lying. I slam you for constantly bringing false accusations of me based on your imaginary assumptions.
To answer your questions about his conduct as an attorney, I would have to do the work to find out the validity of the criticism. If I were interested in defending his candidacy I would do so, and, as well, delve into Jane Hague’s drunk driving, advocacy for gay rights and abortion, her fingerprints on massive election balloting irregularities, her rampant far-left positions and fiscal liberalism and her connection with the Young mechanism of fraud. (Just to be balanced.)
But I am not endorsing anyone in that race as I have explained to you, repeatedly. You are just intellectually hard of hearing.
You reference “…a major topic, that most conservatives agree is a huge flaw” If, by that, you mean that most conservatives think being an attorney (since you did, in fact, attack them as a class) is a huge flaw, I doubt that you have any way to have made such an assessment. You have yet to give me any indication that you have a clue as to what conservatism even is, much less know any, personally, or, thereby, know what they think, much less know what “most conservatives” think. Are you referring to some poll?
You assert that “trial lawyers,” generally, are a scourge on the Republic, listing practices you condemn and which you apply by overgeneralization, hoping to smear Pope. If Pope has used unethical tactics I deplore them, but I have no responsibility to determine whether or not the attorney class you have impugned is all, overwhelmingly, in the majority, or significantly unethical, nor if Pope is more or less guilty of the sins you allege. I’m neither defending nor criticizing Richard Pope in any general sense, nor supporting or defending his candidacy as I’ve repeatedly explained. The same holds true for attorneys. Attacking them as a class seems intellectually foolish to me.
If you want to engage in legitimate debate as to whether or not Richard Pope has acted unethically as an attorney, I recommend contacting him, personally, or his campaign. He’s easy to talk to.
If you just want to rag on the issue, online, name-calling, out of ignorance fostered by your anemic data sources, I recommend Sound Politics.
[...] Who are the “Top Staff Reporters” at Character Assassin Central? Nathan Johnson? Matthew Lundh? [...]
And at the same time Jane Hague was arrested for a DWI. And now she jokes about it.
Check this web page out. It is quite interesting.
http://horsesass.org/?p=22926