Dreher keeps trying to gaslight voters about his past, and so I thought I’d set the record straight.
Will Dreher has been confronted dozens of times over his choice to campaign on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh for his position on the Supreme Court. He has never apologized. He has responded to this with two kinds of gaslighting and one very bad excuse.
A. Sometimes he claims his letter of support doesn’t count as “campaigning.” This is absurd, of course, and Dreher knows it. Anyone reading the letter can see that it is addressed to heads of the judiciary committee and it was designed to persuade them to see Brett Kavanaugh positively as they considered his nomination to the Supreme Court. It was publicly released, in coordination with the Trump Administration, the day the Trump Administration announced the Kavanaugh endorsement. This is textbook campaigning. Now Dreher, being a lawyer, thinks that quibbling about words can confuse us. Alas, if one wishes to use a different word, that is okay, but there is no getting around the fact that Dreher knowingly supported, condoned, abetted, helped, aided–all of them–Kavanaugh’s quest to be on the Supreme Court.
B. This is why he most typically changes the subject by bringing up yet another letter he wrote, this time supporting an investigation after Christine Blasey Ford testified. That letter itself deserves serious criticism as well (see below). But even if it did not, it does not excuse the fact that when it was already publicly well known that Kavanaugh that Roe was wrong, presidents should be immune, regulations on semi-automatic guns were likely unconstitutional and that significant sections of the voting rights act were not worth preservnig–Dreher happily abetted Kavanaugh’s bid for the Supreme Court.The most baffling thing about this is how many of his followers have confronted me by saying Dreher never did anything to support Kavanaugh and then they describe the second letter and say that is not a letter of support. This is a classic form of gaslighting by Dreher–redirecting our attention to a less damning letter to avoid accountability for the first one.
2. After Dr. Christine Blasey Ford spoke about her sexual assault and attempted rape by Brett Kavanaugh, Will Dreher released a second letter. He has characterized this as “calling for an investigation” and an act of great courage.
A. But the mostly sternly worded part simply said that he and his pers were “deeply troubled by those allegations and the events surrounding them and were encouraged by the initiation of a formal FBI investigation, which we believe is warranted.” They never rescinded their prior vouching for him. It’s not hard to understand what that would have looked like. The same article Dreher highlights showcases a different letter from some of Kavanaugh’s former classmates. These two Kavanaugh classmates say, “That, and the lack of judicial temperament displayed on September 27 hearing, cause us to withdraw our support.” This is what rescinding looks like.Look also to the recent end of Graham Platner’s bid for Senate–it’s not hard to understand the difference between the withdrawal of support and what Dreher did. Dreher did not lead the call in any way for an investigation. And it was well known at the time that the Trump FBI investigation was likely to be a sham to put a veneer of legitimacy on Kavanaugh and logroll the nomination. That is why no Democratic leaders anywhere supported it. The main supporter of it was “moderate” Republican Susan Collins of Maine.
As Senator Patty Murray recently said of Collins on the anniversary of the end of Roe, “[Murray] made clear that voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, the decisive vote in the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision, disqualifies any Republican senator from expressing shock at the outcome. "You are going to own the suffering and pain you've inflicted on the women in this country," Murray said, directing her remarks squarely at those who enabled the ruling while now distancing themselves from its consequences.”Obviously Dreher did not have as much power as Collins. But he had much more power than we do, and he used that power to help Kavanaugh when it was known that he thought Roe was wrongly decided. His answer was the same as Susan Collins–-help the guy while expressing concern without ever withdrawing support. I’m with Patty Murray on this one.
3. Dreher claims the second letter “effectively ended my career in D.C.” But if he was so opposed by the conservative bar, why was he hired to work for the Trump Justice Department four months after the second letter? Justice Department jobs are considered “elite” in legal circles.
4. Will Dreher claims I said he “stayed silent” when Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified. And then talks about the second letter above. This appears to be just a made up accusation. The only time I can find anywhere where I mentioned he “stayed silent” was when in a mailer we pointed out that he stayed silent about Kavanaugh and Roe after Kavanaugh helped overturn Roe. The point was obvious–Dreher is unwilling to be held accountable for aiding the nomination of this terrible Supreme Court Justice.
5. Dreher says I claim he is an oil and gas lawyer. I did not say he is an oil and gas lawyer–I referenced his past work as an oil and gas lawyer. My complaints are about his history. Dreher is not foolish enough to be currently engaged in such activities while running for office.
He attempts to debunk this made up claim by pointing out times he has been on the right side of a lawsuit, ignoring the times when, say, he represented a conglomerate of oil and gas companies against the Environmental Defense Fund–and who knows how many others while working as a corporate defense attorney for years.
A. Dreher also claims I accuse him of being MAGA. This is yet another absurd fantasy designed to gaslight voters. I’ve never said anything of the sort, or honestly even thought anything of the sort. I do not believe I’ve ever sent out anything that even remotely implied this. It’s much easier for Will to put words in my mouth and refute such fantasies than it is to address my actual critiques. Voters deserve better.
B. Dreher offers a laundry list of other bizarre accusations about my career and previous writings. It’s difficult for him to offer specifics here, so mostly gestures while making claims. He has repeatedly tried twisting my small startup that involved no AI or machine learning into a mass-automation enterprise. It was an employee solidarity tool focused on the mental and physical health of call center workers. Additionally, I once made an argument to conservatives that, even on conservative assumptions–they should support gay marriage. And so he tries to imply I was a conservative for doing this. Finally, his campaign manager was, for a time, telling people I sold a company for $100M. I sold a company for $10,000 once, and that’s it! I relayed that, and his campaign manager kept repeating the lie.
The good news is, this community knows me.
I’ve served alongside hundreds, perhaps thousands of grassroots advocates, on the board at Seattle Subway, on the Citizen Oversight Panel at Sound Transit, as a member of the Transit Rider’s Union, on the Board at Futurewise, on the University District YMCA advisory board, and as a member of the 46th District Democrats. I’ve worked alongside these folks to fight for higher wages and benefits and stronger worker protections, to pass ST3 and multiple transit measures, to pass missing middle housing and ADU legislation and climate change legislation, to defend the Climate Commitment Act and the Capital Gains Tax and to evangelize the benefits of Jump Start.
I’ve raised money for progressive candidates and causes. I’ve worked with some of these groups to raise money for Social Housing and organized with them to stand up to Amazon and Microsoft when they tried to buy the social housing election and stop the “excess compensation” tax (payroll tax that starts after the millionth dollar a person earns each year) that funds social housing. We’ve organized to improve our city housing plans, to get candidates elected, to get them to make the right choices.
My writings in Seattle have been read nearly a million times, from my newsletter - Rendezvous, to my writings in local publications. I’m a regular guest on KUOW’s Week in Review. My kids are in public school here, and went to preschool in my neighborhood, and I coach my son’s soccer team. My wife is a physician that cares for hundreds and hundreds of members of our community.
I’m deeply embedded in this community.
And that’s just the volunteering.
This is why these crazy accusations don’t stick. People have been here, walking alongside me for years, working in solidarity to make this a better place. They’ve seen my professional work, my volunteering work, and know the truth.
That’s why when hundreds of people gathered to vote on the Democratic Party endorsements in the 46th District, the results came out the way they did. Dreher’s campaign was bragging that it had signed up fifty-some new members to get him endorsed, and that they didn’t plan to vote in any race but ours, an irresponsible bit of astroturfing, as we would be voting on dozens of races that night, including our State Supreme Court Justices.
I rallied two or three dozen people to join or rejoin if their membership had lapsed, but knew that most members would already know me. Gerry also brought in old friends, but was also able to count on the fact that people have worked with him and have already got well formed opinions of him as well. We all three called precinct committee officers too.
The proof was in the pudding. In the 46th District Democratic group, we use “approval” voting. That means you can vote “yes” on as many candidates as you want. An endorsement requires a 60% vote.
Hundreds of people were there. We had each spoken at a forum earlier in the week and we each got one more speech. Then the people voted.
Gerry and I each had around 50%. We were within just a few votes.
Will had 14%.
I share this story to say - these are not elite party insiders. These are the grassroots people slogging it out in long meetings, knocking doors, rallying voters, educating their neighbors - and they know who has been doing what to help make this a more affordable, just, safe community.
And their actions are testament to what I’ve been doing these last bunch of years, which is a sharp contrast to Dreher’s history.
This is why less than 14% of Dreher’s money comes from people in Seattle.
And that is why 75% of mine comes from people living right here, in Seattle.