Hypocrite spoke at Pierce County GOP Convention
April 17th, 2008 by Republican By DefaultTerry Bergeson, WA State Superintendent of Public Instruction, spoke at the Pierce County GOP Convention on Saturday. Now we find out that she approved an effort to bring children from public schools in 25 counties to see the Dalai Lama. When asked whether she would do the same for the Pope, her response was:
[Essex] PORTER: Would the Superintendent of Public Instruction urge schools to bring kids to the Pope?
[Terry] BERGESON: Well, I probably couldn’t get away with that as the Pope, Essex. But the Dalai Lama is a man of the whole world.
Radio talk show host Dori Monson talked with Bergeson about the issue. Give it a listen. She tries to make a distinction between the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Buddhists, and the Pope, spiritual leader of Roman Catholics. But as she does she describes Dalai Lama’s efforts as religious in nature, bringing our hearts, minds and spirits together to bring more compassion.
So why was this anti-Christian politician speaking at the Pierce County GOP Convention? She took advantage of a small loophole in the convention rules. You see, Terry is a Democrat. Normally, a Democrat wouldn’t be asked to or even allowed to speak at a GOP convention, but there’s a catch.
She was allowed to speak because she’s campaigning for a non-partisan position and she registered as a non-partisan to run for that office. That doesn’t make her a non-partisan. In fact, when she spoke to the precinct delegates from the 27th legislative district, she was asked about her party affiliation. She admitted she is a Democrat.
In my opinion, this is just another example of her hypocrisy. The Dalai Lama isn’t a religious leader on a religious mission, but the Pope is a religious leader on a religious mission. She’s a Democrat until it’s inconvenient, then she’s non-partisan.
But that’s what I’ve come to expect from Democrats. What is the meaning of the word ‘is’?
There’s one other thing worth mentioning about Bergeson’s visit to the PCGOP convention on Saturday. She was introduced to us (in the 27th) by the executive director of the Mainstream Republicans who is working on her campaign. A man who frequently consults on campaigns for Democrats. Birds of a feather…
Maybe her operative should consider dropping the ‘Republican’ label. Unless, of course, the Mainstream Republicans really are hypocrites, supporting Democrats while claiming to be Republicans. He’s also a PCO for the Republican Party. Isn’t there an oath involved with that office? I hope his opponent in the next PCO election points out his double standard to voters.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
RBD, I think there is a distinction here between the Dalai Lama’s visit and that of the Pope. The Dalai Lama came for a meeting to discuss the overarching philosophy of compassion, which is important not only in Buddhist thought, but in that of many other world religions, specifically very much so in Christianity (regardless of denomination, AFAIK). In fact, this meeting featured not only the Dalai Lama, but also many other significant leaders, both secular and religious, notably Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The Pope’s visit, on the other hand, is very much focused on ministering to the Roman Catholics of the United States. I think there is a big difference between hearing a lecture on the general topic of compassion at Qwest Field and hearing High Mass at Nationals Stadium, no?
April 17th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
It’s a distinction without a difference. Regardless of how it was advertised, the Dalai Lama is a religious leader spreading his religious beliefs.
Do you think for a moment that if the Pope touted his visit as ‘a mission of compassion’ that teachers, unions and school administrators (all the way up to the top administrator in the state) would allow students to be taken to the assembly?
The fact that you have accepted a double standard on the issue doesn’t make a bit of difference.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Hmmm….I like to think if an ecumenical approach was taken to organizing a “compassion” event at which the Pope was one of the speakers, schools would be able to attend such an event. I really think you’re missing some nuance here: the Pope’s visit is the Pope’s agenda, the Dalai Lama’s visit is to participate in a conversation organized by others to include a diversity of voices on a specific topic.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
jamie, I’m not the one missing the nuance. I see it very clearly.
It seems to me that what you consider ‘nuance’ is really just doubletalk.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
The Dalai Lama came to talk about compassion, which from his perspective would of course be informed by Buddhism. The Pope came to talk about Catholicism, informed by Catholicism. Big distinction in my mind. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree…
April 17th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Do you believe that I thought, for even a moment, that you would let yourself be convinced of anything? You posted here because you thought you could convince others. That’s the same reason the Dalai Lama is here in the US. He’s here promoting his religion under the guise of being compassionate.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I happen to agree that Bergeson as a government agent shouldn’t have taken such an active and official role in Seeds of Compassion as you have represented here. So the clarification I seek from you is whether she was doing this in her role as Superintendent of Public Instruction rather than extraneously to it. The extent to which Dalai Lama is a representative of a religion is hard to dispute. But it’s easy to dispute that he is representative of “The Buddhists.” That however doesn’t infringe on the point you were making. It just is indicative of oversimplification. Also, Bergeson’s quote didn’t say that she wouldn’t want to help children see the Pope, but that she wouldn’t ‘get away with it.’ It is easy to infer that on some level she thinks it unfair that she can’t give the Pope equal treatment as an ‘educator’.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
It’s obvious that the opposite is the case. She knows that the Dalai Lama is a religious leader and she knows she’s ‘getting away with’ taking the kids to see him.
If you listened to the audio she described (twice, if I recall correctly) that the Dalai Lama was there to help us be more compassionate by uniting our mind, heart and spirit (exact wording escapes me). That isn’t education, it’s spirituality and religion.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Hi Jeff,
Alex Hays here, the Mainstream Republican you attack above.
What surprises me is that we sat together in the same room for hours and hours at the county convention and you could have come over and talked to me about the concerns you note here. I think it’s weird that people have little compunction about writing nasty things on blogs but no courtesy to talk in person.
I think if you had talked with me you would have at least understood why I and many Republicans are supporting Terry Bergeson. You’d also have found out that I have worked for a very few Democrats (and only those supported by Republicans, with the blessing of the local party) and no Democrat for a partisan office in over eight years. It’s also telling to note every Democrat I’ve worked for is now a Republican, except for Mike Murphy and he at least has endorsed a Republican to replace him as state Treasurer.
So rather than get nasty, get to know me.
I work hard for the party, last year alone I put together large mailings, phone programs and media buys that helped nearly two dozen Republican candidates, and NP state Supreme Court candidate (but former R state Senator) Steve Johnson. This year I’ll put out hundreds of thousands of dollars in projects to help elect Dino Rossi, Shawn Bunney, Doug Sutherland, Dave Reichert and local Republican candidates. One major donor even credited my work with saving Dave Reichert — it’d be nice to take credit for that, but I think more than a little arrogant.
If you see a name missing from the above list (like Rob McKenna) that’s because I think he’ll smoke John Laudenberg without my help and we should spend our limited resources where they’ll do the most good. So don’t read anything negative into that.
So, please call or e-mail. First beer is on me! 253.756.7836 alexhays@washingtonmainstream.org.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
What would be your interpretation if the Dalai Lama weren’t present at this event?
April 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
and also I apologize for bad grammar. I wasn’t trying to say that the Dalai Lama or the Pope were educators, but rather that Bergeson is frankly purporting herself to be one.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Clint, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
If the Dalai Lama and all other religious leaders were not part of this event, I would still oppose taking school children to it, for two main reasons:
1) this isn’t reading, writing or arithmetic. This state needs to focus on the basics and knock off the other stuff until they’ve brought that back up to par.
2) even without the religious (Buddhist) overtones, this would be (effectively) a relatively partisan political issue. I don’t think children should be indoctrinated with politics in school or school related events.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I’ll be back later to resond to Alex.
He called, we had a nice long, cordial talk about many issues. Unfortunately, it was so long it cut into my time for other things. So when I’m done, I’ll be back to talk about it.
For now I’ll say this. Overall, it was a relatively positive conversation, even though we still disagree on some issues. So when I get back I’ll probably end up focusing on the Mainstream Republican issue rather than Alex, except where he diverges from the group’s history. I will include his reasons for supporting Terry Bergeson in order to be fair to him.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
All right. Starting with Alex Hay’s points. Saturday at the convention it was getting late in the day, the power was out and we were sitting outside waiting for the ballots for the 27th to be counted when Hays brought Bergeson around.
He introduced her without giving her party affiliation or background (she’s a Democrat and former president of the WEA). Her party affiliation would not have come out if someone from the 27th hadn’t asked. One of the main questions asked of her was whether any teacher had been penalized for under-performance or if it was just the kids who suffered. She couldn’t think of an example where that happened.
She was interrupted for another vote (selecting delegates to the state convention) and he moved on with her, apparently to another group. Immediately after that vote was finished we were called into the foyer (it had windows for light, power was still out). More order of business stuff, candidates for County Executive spoke and we voted. Somewhere in all of that Bergeson was allowed to give a campaign speech. After all of that we adjourned and I waited around for the final tally on the last vote. There was no time to look for or speak to anyone about the matter, had I thought to.
I have to admit that I was a little distracted. My step-father had major surgery the day before and was in recovery. He’s 77, my mom is 73. It’s not easy for either of them. I think the thing that bothered me the most was not being able to be there. So any mental energy that wasn’t required for me to understand what I needed to about the convention went to that issue. If I had the time to think to talk to Hays, I likely wouldn’t have thought to. I was a little overwhelmed between the personal issue and the fact that this was my first convention.
I held off posting until I could get some background on the matter. Monday through Wednesday I tried to talk with the county chair. I believe we spoke on Wednesday morning. He explained what I said above, that it was a loophole based on her declared NP status, however, he also told her and ‘her staff’ (whoever that was), that there wouldn’t be time, that all of the speaker slots were filled. The convention chair introduced her, apparently to the surprise of some of the officials at the convention, my assumption was that it was because Hays got involved but I didn’t get clarification on that point.
That’s when the ’school kids at the Dalai Lama event’ issue hit the news. So I posted. I also knew that I would be speaking with my district coordinator (is that the title?) that evening. He confirmed what the county chair had already told me.
I had no way of getting in contact with Hays before posting, so I left his name out of it. Only the people who were at the convention would know who he was, and he had the opportunity to respond in comments, which he did. I don’t think he was treated unfairly under the circumstances.
Our conversation today was amicable. He seems like a likable guy and maybe someone who likes to be liked, which is not a bad thing in his line of work. We discussed numerous issues relating mostly to the Mainstream Republican organization and the politics within the Republican party around here.
The problem with that group is that it was ‘formed’ (or maybe ‘reformed’ as these organizations sometimes are) specifically to oppose what they refer to as ‘Evangelical Christians’ within the Republican party. One of Hays’ comments at the convention was that the group was a ‘big tent’ group within the party. That comment almost got a response from me, but it would have been out of order during the delegate candidates speeches in the district voting process.
My point about the group, which is too big to cover in comments, is that they are not ‘big tent’ because they have, for years, tried to drive people like me out of the party in this area. There are other problems that dovetail with the group that are a continual problem. I’ll just sum it up by saying that the group played a major role in alienating the base of the Republican party in Western Washington.
Since that happened, the only time there has been any recognizable level of success for Republicans winning elections was in ‘94, when Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America brought Conservatives (who are often derisively referred to as ‘Evangelicals’) out to the polls. Unfortunately, since then it has been business as usual in this area and those successes have been lost, thanks in part to that group.
To his credit, Hays did explain that he has made an effort to ‘bring Evangelicals back to the table’. Although his comment seemed condescending and uninformed, it seemed that he was sincere. I was left with the impression that he really doesn’t understand the depth of the problem within the party. And in the bigger context, even if he is sincere, his efforts may be too little, too late.
He also explained that Bergeson has been endorsed by some Republicans. But looking at the records of some of them, I have to say, big deal. Many are pro-choice and support the efforts of the group that tried to drive out people like me. They often ‘endorse’ people because the alternative (the opponent) is worse. Whatever happened to running a better candidate instead of picking the one that stinks the least.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Jeff,
Thanks for the response.
One item: the party chair said that Terry Bergeson wouldn’t be allowed to speak, I asked him to reconsider and he stood by his position, this entire conversation took about 10 seconds. So I dropped it (the county party chair was busy and I didn’t want to be rude) so when Terry was invited to speak it was a pleasant surprise to me, as Terry had even started to leave the building at that moment
The convention chair is a former Republican state Representative who served on the education committee and introduced Terry with some kind words. Most county conventions I’ve attended will hear from candiates for non-partisan office, even those who are registered Democrats.
In term of folks pushing people out of the party:
I oppose that kind of behavior and I operate as an inclusive Republican. While you may have seen some of that behavior from people in the past who share my Moderate outlook, you’ve never seen me do that. In point of fact your comment above serve to try and force me out of the party, which is itself hyprocritical. As I noted when we talked moderates can, and often have, pointed to efforts from the right wing of the party to force them out. As I noted to you on the phone such “you started it!!!” exchanges aren’t very helpful, so I just cut right to the chase and instead work to create a Republican party big enough for you, me, some people to my left, some to your right and everyone in between.
Given that my work for the Mainstream Republicans and the relatively small number of people in our party who are affirmatively working to create an inclusive Republican party I hope you’re wrong about my efforts being “too little, too late”. I certainly believe you’re wrong, and I’m proud to note that leading evangelicals agree with me. When I briefly ran for state party vice chair I was endorsed by Faith and Freedom Chairman Pastor Joe Fuiten, and the day of your post I even helped Joe with a small project related to a visit by Governor Huckabee.
I’m concerned that the anger you have about events in the past is so strong that even the best efforts made today can’t convince you to set asside that anger and work for a unified Republican Party. “Anger” may be too strong a word, so I’m open to whatever term you prefer.
In any event I’m glad we had a chance to talk and I understand how you were unable to bring your concerns to me the day of the convention. You have my best wishes for you and your family.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
One clarification:
I use the term “Evangelicals” to describe people who identify themselves as Evangelicals. No insult is made or intended. I have never thought of the term as derisive, rather the opposite. My friends wo are Evangelicals use that term and less often “biblical churches”. Now if I’d said “fundamentalists” you’d have a point.
April 18th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I’m not trying to force anyone out of the party. However, anyone who doesn’t support the party platform (which has a pro-life clause) shouldn’t be an officer in the party (including PCO). People look at the platform, which is voted on and ratified by a caucus, as the guiding principles of the party and it’s (endorsed) candidates. If other principles guide the decisions of officers, then either they or the platform need to change.
The term ‘Evangelical’ is used by some Christians because it is an apt description of their beliefs. My beliefs vary significantly enough from their’s that I won’t use the term to describe myself (except in conversations where I’m dealing with someone who doesn’t understand the difference and making a point of it wouldn’t do any good).
There are many groups who hold the same social conservative values as those who call themselves ‘Evangelicals’, however, they would never refer to themselves that way. The largest group would be Roman Catholics. I would add that Roman Catholics aren’t much better in their choice of terms. They still use the term ‘Protestant’ which really only refers to a few groups that got their start in the 15th and (maybe) the 16th centuries. Anyone beyond that barely considered the Roman Catholic church as anything worth protesting. It would be like someone in America today protesting the oppression of the English Monarchy. It’s still around, but it doesn’t define who we are or effect our lives in any noteworthy way.
To put it another way, baptism by immersion is part of my beliefs, but I am not a Baptist. Evangelism is part of my beliefs, but I am not an Evangelical. From the outside it may seem like quibbling over insignificant differences, but if you look at the history of some of these issues, people have made personal sacrifices and some have even paid the ultimate price for their belief in the differences. To trivialize that would be similar to trivializing the sacrifice our soldiers have made. If you don’t understand the similarities, pick up a copy of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs or search the Web. Maybe it will bring some perspective.
As for the term ‘anger’, yes, I do at times feel angry. It usually centers around conversations like this one, which is probably why I didn’t seem all that amenable in our conversation. It didn’t take very long for me to pick up on the fact that you assumed I was an Evangelical. That tipped me off to the fact that you really didn’t understand the difference. Then when you mentioned something about ‘hundreds’ of voters in that category, I was absolutely convinced that you don’t understand the depth or breadth of the problem.
To look back toward those on the ‘other side’ of the issue, this isn’t the only source of frustration. In your situation I think you can claim ignorance of the facts I just stated (regarding the term ‘Evangelical’). There are others, some of whom have been part of your organization, who are actually religious bigots. And please understand that being a religious person doesn’t prevent someone from being a religious bigot in the same way that being a person of color doesn’t prevent someone from being a racist. There are many who sit in churches on Sunday morning and yet they harbor hatred toward people who don’t believe like they do.
Most people who claim to be ‘pro-choice’ (in my experience) have a lot of trouble understanding that, for someone like me who believes that life begins at conception, on-demand abortion is murder and that it’s just as wrong for someone like me to support someone (in politics or otherwise) who could do something to stop on-demand abortion but won’t. It’s a matter of conscience that cannot be ignored.
To put it into an analogy, our government (and most Americans) believe that supporting terrorists is wrong. To me, supporting an abortion mill like Planned Parenthood is just as wrong as supporting al Qaeda. And yet pro-choice legislators hand over hundreds of millions of tax dollars every year to that organization.
We cannot sit idly by and do nothing when we have an opportunity to do something about it, even if all we can do is vote (or not vote). It is a matter of conscience.
Then to be forced out of a political party that is supposed to represent our views, it’s adding insult to injury (the injury being that our tax dollars are being used to kill unborn babies). This isn’t the only issue that is a source of frustration to people like me, it’s just a prominent one. Supporting former officers of organizations like the WEA in their campaigns is another.
At this moment in time, there is something of a wall around the Republican party in our area. People like Chris Vance who said that the (state) party wouldn’t support pro-life candidates is just one example. But just a heads-up about that wall, if you see some people marching around it for seven days…
April 20th, 2008 at 7:50 am
I don’t understand this blind worship of the Pope or the Catholic religion. Wearing red Prada shoes is hypocritical when a church preaches against birth control so that people who are poor get poorer. There he stands in his bling and expensive robes, flanked by Archbishops dressed the same. I would have more respect if the whole leadership of the church would take a vow of poverty and give more money to the poor. We are really screwed if it is true that the Catholic vote means anything to any election. Thank you, Jesus that their numbers are getting smaller. Yes, thank you Jesus who we can pray directly to and not some hypocrite. The Catholic church has a long history of repression, i.e Central and South America, Europe (the Crusades) and the list goes on. Why is a leader of a theocrazy allowed to be at the U.N.? He’s the leader of a small country?, and a small minded people that ignored sexual abuse in it’s church. Saying you are sorry, Pope, is too late.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“Wearing red Prada shoes is hypocritical when a church preaches against birth control so that people who are poor get poorer.”
Huh? Catholics oppose abortion to keep people in poverty? Catholics oppose abortion because they believe life begins at conception, and that sex is for procreation only.
“I would have more respect if the whole leadership of the church would take a vow of poverty and give more money to the poor.”
Actually all Catholic priests take a vow of poverty, and the Catholic church gives out millions every year in charity.
“The Catholic church has a long history of repression, i.e Central and South America, Europe (the Crusades) and the list goes on.”
Every human institution has had bad leaders, or done bad things in its history. Whether you’re talking about governments, churches, businesses, etc, these are institutions run by people. People are fallible.
“He’s the leader of a small country?”
Yes, actually he is. The Vatican is a completely sovereign and autonomous nation whithin the city of Rome.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
CA Convered most of the ground here, but one fact is important:
The Catholic Church feeds more people, provides more healthcare and other direct aid to the poor, sick and dying than all the other NGO’s on Earth combined. COMBINED.
The church’s response to the sex abuse scandal has been painfully insufficient for decades. That Benedict XVI has directly and forcefully addressed it may not have meanig for Brody above, but I was greatly relieved to hear it myself.
Oh, and the shoes were a gift.
Of course such facts won’t stop anti-catholics from being anti-catholic.
April 26th, 2008 at 10:50 am
The problem with supporting secular events which promote compassion without a Biblical basis is that the idea of relavitism, or all things are equal, supplants the practice of discernment.
The primary objection against Buddism and Catholicism, in matters of human virtue and spiritual concerns, is that both religions deny the sufficiency of the Bible alone.
Buddists are aetheists.
The Catholic Church claims that its Pope’s are Apostles which have the authority to add doctrine and practices beyond what is prescribed and justified by the Bible alone.
The big idea is that everything we do counts for eternity—we live in time, but we live for eternity. In our everyday life, for many, religion is a performance or works based attempt to secure inner peace in this world and secure eternal life beyond this world.
There’s pagan religion and spirituality and there’s Christian religion and spirituality.
And there’s Bible based Christianity which is not a religion as the term is commonly known—It is knowledge based faith. It teaches that no amount of good works can ever justify one for eternal life because humans and all human works are tainted by sin. That intrinsic condition is a real problem because one must be perfect to attain eternal life. But that’s a problem that has been resolved by Christian faith.
Christianty, or The Way, as it was called in ancient times, teaches that eternal life is guaranteed to those who profess belief in Jesus as the Savior for our sin condition. Faith without works, repentance from sin, and belief that God alone is Sovereign is the only way to eternal life.
We can know these truths because they are written in the Bible.
Is there a more sufficient basis for collective action, theoretical unity, theological unity, discipline and truth?