…if you choose to represent my views to others, I trust that you will also report to them that I think you are dishonest in how you represent my views.
– Joe Fuiten to Doug Parris, Dec. 19, 2005
It was an open threat that if I were to tell what I knew about him, he would claim I was lying.
Fuiten had reason to try to silence me. He knew that I was one of the few Washington State writers willing to expose liberal Republicans.
“I interviewed Joe Fuiten and he’s saying some really nasty things about you. Do you have anything you’d like to say about him?” – writer Michael Hood, Spring, 2006, interviewing me for an article in Washington Law & Politics.
I declined to criticize the good pastor publicly, but, once again, I knew very well why he was on the attack. Mr. Fuiten had become a solid ally of the Republican Left; Chris Vance, Mike McGavick and “Washington Mainstream Republicans,” and he knew I knew. We had corresponded extensively.
It started when, in 2005, I began to write about the Senatorial candidacy of Mike McGavick. Fuiten was on the McGavick team and not happy I was beginning to expose the extremes of Mike’s liberalism.
When Rev. Fuiten wrote me a note telling me to cease and desist, I responded with questions for him and we disembarked on an email exchange that eventually exceeded 3,500 words.
What emerged was enough to shock any member of the “Faith and Freedom Network.” Let me summarize:
- Joe knew that McGavick was not a conservative and did not care.
- Joe could not express one conservative position that McGavick had taken.
- Joe was aware that McGavick was a part of the Dan Evans wing of the Party and didn’t care.
- In fact, Joe would not, or could not, separate Joe Fuiten’s political philosophy from that of Slade Gorton or Dan Evans.
- Joe was aware that McGavick was “PRO-CHOICE” on abortion and didn’t care.
- Joe had no objection to the Evans/Gorton history of anti-Christian bigotry and opposition to Religious freedom.
- Joe had no concern about the Gorton/Evans/McGavick history of strident OPPOSITION to Ronald Reagan’s appointments and legislative agenda.
- Joe would not express any opposition by Joe Fuiten to abortion.
- Joe could not express any objection to the questions that resulted in my knowledge of all of the above.
In fact, the only reason Joe Fuiten had to support Mike McGavick was: “I think our best shot is to make ourselves valuable to him, and get him elected, and then stay in touch with him on the issues.” To Fuiten that was enough. We could be “valuable” to a liberal US Senator. I don’t dispute that. Certainly a Christian Minister that is capable of convincing conservatives to vote for a liberal is very “valuable.” It’s just morally wrong. He could not defend McGavick’s positions on anything. But when I suggested that his endorsement of McGavick would mislead Christians into thinking he had some good basis for it, he started attacking me personally.
But what was really offensive was that he went out of his way to demean Linda Smith and Ellen Craswell. He wanted nothing to do with them and would later publicly call Ellen “extreme.” Ellen Craswell is about as extreme as your Grandmother. Quoting a Bible verse in a gubernatorial campaign may be unproductive, at worst dumb, but it is nowhere near “extreme” Joe Fuiten uses the same religious lingo in the political sphere himself. (e.g. regarding: HB-2661: ““We will continue to work through the various processes to stand for righteousness until the Lord comes.”) The only reason Fuiten calls that “extreme” is to ingratiate himself with his real friends, the bigots of the Republican Left. I challenged him on his attack of Smith and Craswell. He didn’t even attempt to defend it.
I think it was inevitable that sooner or later, Joe Fuiten would end up attacking Tim Eyman. There’s hardly a visible conservative he hasn’t targeted.
“They’re pathological…” – Joe Fuiten, referring to the Reagan Wing in the article by Michael Hood in the Summer edition of “Washington Law & Politics”
Wait till you meet his actual friends.