Candidate confronts ad spokesperson – intimidation or conversation?

October 24, 11:20 AMSnohomish County Progressive ExaminerChad Shue

Previous Next

3 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Snohomish County Progressive Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

It is certainly no secret that the campaign for state legislature in the 44th LD has become one of the nastier in the state. Both candidates, incumbent Democrat Liz Loomis and 3-time Republican challenger, Mike Hope have been leveling various charges against each other and the usual surrogates for each have not been shy about stepping into the fray. While these things have come to be expected in modern campaigns, Republican Hope has allegedly added the sad element of personal intimidation to his arsenal.

Yesterday I received the following email from 44th LD resident and Democratic Party activist, Kristine Petereit:

As a supporter of pro-choice viewpoints, I was featured in a mailer and TV ad reminding women of Mike Hope’s anti-choice record.  Specifically, Mike Hope opposes abortion or Plan B even in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.  This was reported by both the Everett Herald and Seattle Times on September 30, 2006 and October 4, 2006, respectively.
 
Sunday afternoon when returning from a walk with my toddler, Mr. Hope confronted me at my home.  He insisted that I publicly recant and apologize for my political opinion.  I refused and was extremely intimidated.  Here was a policeman, running for state representative, on my doorstep, demanding that I publicly rescind a statement about a position that he believes in and to date has not refuted.
 
This type of confrontation brings intimidation to a whole new level in political campaigning.  I am not aware of any public citizen being confronted in this way by any candidate running for office.  I can only imagine the chilling effect this would have on writers of letters to the editor if public citizens had to fear being confronted at their homes about their statements or opinions they made to the newspaper.  I know it sent a chill through me and I am extremely wary whenever I leave or return to my home.

Here is the ad in question:

Interestingly, Hope has recorded his own account of the meeting with Petereit on his campaign Blog:

Updated 10/20: While doorbelling our neighbors in the Everett 82 precinct today, I had the opportunity to talk with the Democratic PCO who was highlighted in negative commercials about me. It was a good conversation and I let her know that I was not upset at her for making the commercials, but that she was not accurately portraying my views. She apologized to me personally for lying in the commercials but indicated that she was unwilling to denounce the ad. She also indicated that she looked forward to speaking with me on education issues if I am elected. I will always welcome constituents in my office regardless of their political affiliation.

Mike Hope - "The Intimidator"?

There are a number of questions here. Not the least of which is the question of whether Hope was simply out doorbelling or was actually seeking out Ms Petereit. Having done a bit of partisan doorbelling myself I know that it is rare for a candidate to show up on the doorstep of a known opposition partisan. In a follow up phone call to Ms Petereit, I asked her about this. She offered the following explanation:

…the partner doorbelling with Mike told me they were doorbelling the neighborhood because a neighbor had put out a hit piece on Mike.

Another question is about the assertion that the information in the ad was in any way false – was Petereit “lying?” Well let’s review exactly what the charges are in the ad:

…But he’s opposed to emergency contraception for rape victims. In fact, Mike Hope opposes a woman’s right to choose in all circumstances* – even in the case of rape, incest or saving the life of the mother.
 
*The Everett Herald, Sept. 20, 2006; The Seattle Times, Oct. 4, 2006

NOTE: In 2006, Mike Hope was running his second campaign for the legislature; challenging popular incumbent Hans Dunshee.

Here is the relevant piece from the Herald Published Saturday, September 30, 2006, Byline: Krista J. Kapralos :

Dunshee asked Hope to confirm a rumor that he doesn't believe victims of rape should have the option of abortion. Hope said he doesn't believe in abortion in any case, but added that Dunshee's question is an example of how divided the current elected officials have become.

And from the Seattle Times published October 4, 2006. Byline: Lynn Thompson:

While the candidates largely focused on state and local issues, Dunshee did question Hope's right-to-life stance, even in the case of rape.

Hope said he agreed with some psychologists that women who are raped and then have abortions "have been victimized twice." He said he opposed even emergency contraception for rape victims. And he accused Dunshee of driving a wedge between voters on an issue unlikely to face legislators.

Let’s be clear:

Hope said he doesn't believe in abortion in any case - He said he opposed even emergency contraception for rape victims.

These are the words of the candidate and the only charges made in the ad and mailer featuring Ms Petereit.

Now we can all decide for ourselves whether the charges against Mr. Hope are appropriate in this race (the controversy over pharmacists and “Plan B” does come to mind) but we all should be truly concerned with the possibility of a candidate (in this case a former Marine, current cop and gym owner) personally intimidating a neighbor and potential constituent who expresses a negative viewpoint. There can be no place for this in our political discourse.

Peace,
Chad Shue