[We ended Part 1 of this tale having set the stage for a meeting Doug had told Susan they had to have as long ago as August 2013 when they ran into each other at the RLCWA board meeting in Ellensburg, which we reported on here. We continue as Susan and Doug sit down to begin their meeting…]
I went to see State Party Chair Susan Hutchison because I believed she had assumed that office with the opportunity to change the WSRP Culture of “Circle the Wagons” and defeat, but was in danger, instead, of being digested. What I really wanted was to crash through the door with an offer of salvation from the Terminator series:
So I attempted, in as short a time as possible, to show her the intelligence she was missing, things not obvious on the surface to a casual observer (as Susan has been and most people are.)
What I put on Susan Hutchison’s conference table showed her that the Washington State Republican Party has been under domination by leftists, precisely as Slade Gorton bragged “lasting nearly forty years;” and that those candidates used to get conservative votes by being Republican and liberal votes by being liberal, but that the formula has quit working because, with the internet, people started getting the truth about how they voted once elected.
I gave her copies of
I reminded her of the promise of her prospective Senatorial candidacy in 2005 and 2006 and how it was attacked:
And I gave her a copy of a Constitutional Republicans of Washington document that has never been published, showing exactly how Republican treachery has united with Democrat Marxism to bring American freedom and justice to the brink of extinction over the last hundred years.
But after that, I pulled out the note I believed could spell Susan Hutchison’s political suicide. It is an email that had been sent to 12 people seven days earlier. It was the note that had given me no choice but to come here.
A PDF of that document is linked here (I believe it it the first place it has been published):
The PDF has the same three yellow highlights visible when I laid it on the table before Susan that day [Wednesday March 12].
Taken at face value, the Hutchison Note tells veteran Republican activists that Susan is set to continue on the path of the Republican Party’s self-destruction.
But I had known Susan before she got into this predicament. I knew her before she was surrounded by Serpents (or, at least, not this particular kind of serpent). I went to her office to confront her about it because I was not willing to accept the suicide note at face value.
Believing I knew the “real” Susan Hutchison, I was not convinced that she actually intended to
- use her position, unethically, to choose a Mainstream Liberal for Congress,
- tell lies to manipulate the nomination process, in effect, to
- use the efforts and contributions of Republicans to thwart their objectives, thereby
• losing more elections,
• furthering the ruin of the Republican “brand” and
• hastening the destruction of the Republic…
as her predecessors in that office have, in fact, been doing and as the “suicide note” would shout to any experienced conservative activist.
So with her “suicide note” before us on the table, I asked three primary questions.
I. The “Big Lie”
I began with the “suicide note’s” claim that
“no other person [beside Pedro Celis, had] contacted the WSRP”
[as of March 5] about running for the 1st Congressional District seat.
“I have to tell you,” I said, “that I am in possession of an electronically verifiable email from Ed Moats informing your office of his candidacy in January.”
Here, for Reagan Wing readers, is Ed Moats’ announcement:
Susan’s response was straightforward. She immediately admitted the incompetence of her office in the matter. Ed Moats, she told me, wrote to an email address available on the WSRP Website to the general public. She explained that she has had (not surprisingly) from the beginning, someone whose job it was to read through all the WSRP website email to pick out things she should see so that she could avoid wasting vast amounts of time reading things she needn’t. That person simply did not bring Moats email to her attention… ever. But another staffer did find it after the disastrous “suicide note” making her appear to be a liar, had been distributed .
I told her this snafu was precisely what I hoped had been the case.
Many, particularly including the Moats camp, will not believe her, but I find Susan’s explanation credible, first, because Susan would have had to be aware (if she were lying about not knowing Ed Moats was a candidate) that her dishonesty would be exposed. For one thing, Moats’ email announcing his candidacy had been sent to four of the same people to whom she sent the “suicide note.” And while many people are aware that a lot of GOP leaders tell lies, it might be overlooked that the reason they do so is to get other people to believe them. Being easily exposed is not on the agenda.
What I find ironic is that it is entirely possible that the only person (among those privy to Susan’s “suicide note”) that didn’t know it was false was Susan herself. In fact, it is possible that Susan was set up, intentionally, to damage her credibility. If not, how do you explain that from January 3 to March 5, while Susan Hutchison was searching high and low for a candidate to run against Suzan DelBene in the 1st, no County Party Chair mentioned Ed Moats to Susan Hutchison?
Ed Moats had obviously contacted every County Chair in his district (several of whom reacted exactly as you would expect the Old Guard Republican Establishment (O.G.R.E.) to act; as if they had, somehow, acquired the authority to reject conservative candidates in favor of worthless “moderates,” without the knowledge or consent of their bosses (the grass roots Republicans in their counties).
Being able to act alone, in secrecy, is why they rejected having a 2014 Convention, remember?
I asked Susan if the derelict staffer who fumbled (or buried) the Ed Moats announcement was still employed by the WSRP.
“No.” was the simple (and, to me, satisfying) reply. She did not volunteer the name nor the circumstances of the severance.
II. Endorsement, Nomination, or Mystery?
Next I directed Susan to the highlighted word
in the phrase, “We do, however, support Pedro as our candidate for the 1st CD…”
The suicidal problem for Susan includes the fact that such support for “Pedro as our candidate” directly contradicts the claim in the previous sentence: “The WSRP did not endorse Pedro…” (emphasis added.)
All of Susan’s efforts for Pedro Celis, her emails and verbal statements, have been acts of endorsement.
- Promoting a candidate,
- calling that person “our candidate,” and
- announcing “support” for a candidate
are EACH individual acts of endorsement. The Republican Party, following proper procedure, may endorse candidates. It is, in fact, possible to endorse (but not nominate) more than one! The existence of formal WSRP procedures for endorsement that were NOT followed is not an argument that the endorsement has not occurred, but rather, proof that the endorsement did occur but – as is all too typical for the Washington State GOP Establishment (“Bellevue Mafia”) – was not proper.
The insider “choice,” endorsement, and promotion, before the primary, of George Nethercutt (’04), Mike McGavick (’06), John McCain (’08), Dino Rossi (2010), Mitt Romney and Rob McKenna (2012) were ALL improper, unethical, contrary to rule, and the previous suicidal acts of Chris Vance, Diane Tebelius, Luke Esser, Kirby Wilbur, and their accomplices. Each “endorsement” contributed to the exposure of those State Chairs as unprincipled hacks, aiding their own downfall and accelerating the progressive crippling of the Republican Party (and directly contributing to the destructive loss of three senatorial, one gubernatorial and two presidential elections).
But if, as the Note says, the State Committee did not make the decision (to select and “support” but, somehow, not “endorse”) Pedro, who did?
I asked Susan the question:
- If “we” is supposed to be the WSRP Central Committee, that body cannot have made the decision without a vote (presumably in secret, which would have been impossible).
- Could Susan have been using the “editorial” word “we” to refer to herself?
In response, Susan engaged in the kind of verbal stonewall that professional politicians use against the press (a practice with which, as a professional newswoman, she has more than passing familiarity):
“The organization,” she said.
“How was it decided?” I asked.
“We made a decision,” she said.
I could see I would get no more from her. There were too many pitfalls for her to do any actual explaining:
- No WSRP Chair has the unilateral authority to nominate a candidate.
- No legitimate nomination of a Republican candidate can take place without a Convention or a Republican Primary.
- The Washington State Republican Party Elite has not had a legitimate nomination in well over 20 years, preferring, rather, to waste millon$ suing over the top two primary initiative because it took the power to nominate their cronies away from their friends in the liberal media.
Hutchison simply inherited this tradition. But our discussion convinced me Susan was, nevertheless, operating under the mistaken impression that her job included presiding over some mysterious, insider process to “choose” a candidate behind closed doors. And that assumption is potentially fatal.
To make a decision for all Republicans in a Congressional district for a candidate without their permission, representation, input, or knowledge, to do so without opening the process to all potential candidates, moreover to pick a candidate for Republicans with whom the vast majority disagree on a crucial issue – or at least two, as is true with Pedro Celis – is to invite, not only another loss at the polls, but widespread discontent with leadership.
III. Suicidal Policy
I dropped questioning the stonewall and went on to the next highlighted sentence. I read it aloud:
“The WSRP has the longest losing streak of any state GOP in the country.”
I told her that putting that sentence in her Note was particularly astute, but that the rest of the letter, unfortunately, seemed to make it clear that she is committed to continuing the procedures that produced the losses.
- Being willing to favor a candidate because he seems to have more campaign money…
- But NOT because he will be better at standing for our principles.
It is the same methodology that was used against Susan herself, in 2005–2006 on behalf of GOP/Left golden boy Mike McGavick…..
Susan smiled… but did not back off on the trajectory of her procedures or methodology. Like innumerable Party office holders, convention chairs, candidates for office, and Little League baseball players, Susan seems to have taught herself what her job should be by watching what her predecessor(s) have done. It’s not a bad excuse for what she has done, but it doesn’t change the fact that it cannot possibly succeed.
During the course of all that discussion (and we talked for nearly 90 minutes) I came to several
- Susan Hutchison, unlike most of her predecessors in that Office, is not a crook. I don’t think she consciously lied about Moats. But she is still struggling, without ANY previous applicable experience, to rebuild a Party amidst Serpents in an office that had been virtually destroyed before she got there, its processes corrupted and its potential consciously retarded for decades. The State Party Office could be the center of massive grassroots power, but has been organized, instead, for more that 30 years to diminish grassroots power because the powers that be disagree, profoundly, with their base on political philosophy. Susan has great talents but is facing problems beyond the abilities of most executives, like someone who is a great race car driver with a car that needs to be rebuilt. What’s worse…
- Susan genuinely thinks Pedro Celis is a conservative. She’s been fooled. Like many leaders, just like Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul and Ron Reagan, Susan Hutchison, sometimes by her own limitations, sometimes by the limitations of opportunity, takes too many people at face value and trusts too many people she should not. Being vaulted into public leadership, its demands and exponential influence dynamics has a tendency to do that. Buying into the falsehood that it is her job to choose candidates exacerbates the error.
- Susan is completely unfamiliar with Ed Moats. So while she was not in a mood to admit any further missteps (by this defacto blind endorsement) she did seem willing (at least to me) to re-visit an apparent fatal error. She repeatedly asked me about him. She seemed genuinely surprised at the possibility there was some other source for qualified candidates than the pool of available hacks on the GOP periphery, surprised that the candidate the County Chairs had hidden from her might actually be better (than the one so obviously allied with Lori Sotelo by their common business ties and their support for amnesty).
- Although the Pedro episode has undoubtedly damaged her, both by diminishing her credibility and seemingly saddling her with a counterfeit conservative candidate, Susan Hutchison is not, at least intentionally, the enemy of the Liberty/Conservative movement. She still has outstanding talent that could aid in a great political turn-around if she is given the right opportunities and makes some courageous choices against the conventional foolishness. Her communications/public relations/media skills mean she has the talent, if not the inclination, to be the reformer the Party has needed for a generation. But that was true, as well, for Kirby Wilbur. Just because Kirby used his skills to do the exact opposite does not mean Susan is destined to make the same choices.
But I also must admit that just because I envision Susan Hutchison as a powerful ally, doesn’t mean she will see the need for a major change in Party philosophy or make the hard choice to be a pioneer.