The weird pattern in Dreher’s lies.

Here’s hoping this my last post about that guy.

Hyper Local.

While my main personal concern is national right now, and I’m spending most of my free time thinking about what will happen - I continue to always try to channel that angst into something I have agency over.

We still have one race here locally I’m watching carefully and where I feel like I can make a difference. And since I upset the apple cart by running in that race, I feel extra responsibility for seeing it through to the end.

This is, of course, Pollet v. Dreher. To be honest, I really don’t like writing newsletters on this topic. It gives fodder to the four or five loudmouth weirdos on social media who want to make this into some kind of story of personal vendetta but have never shown any curiosity about my actual state of mind. But I think it’s worth it simply on the substance and because I feel the need to exercise agency in politics where I can make a difference.

So let’s address this guy, hopefully one last time.

Lies, lies, and more lies.

Cartoon Credit goes to Brett Hamil. My campaign paid him to write something, but we did not direct the content - that came from his own brilliant mind!

I’ve levied my critiques before: Dreher’s insane embrace of out-of-state AI money, his Kavanaugh boosting, his plan to hack back the state budget, his lack of engagement in our community, and his desire for increased criminalization of what amounts to poverty.

But there is one final issue I’d like to address today—and that is his bizarre mix of dishonesty and contemptuous condescension toward voters’ intellectual capacity.

There is a pattern in how Will Dreher lies.

The pattern goes like this. Dreher straightforwardly lies when he says he has refuted something, but when he does the fake refuting, he uses a true statement that is sort of related but that he knows doesn’t answer the question. He then comes back and says he has refuted X, or shown that X isn’t true - when in fact he knows he has not done this at all.

It seems really clear that he hopes we are too dumb to notice his head fake.

(For the logic nerds: he uses either a subtle straw man or red herring, then lies by repeatedly declaring, in a knowing non sequitur, that he has refuted the claim.)

The three most egregious examples:

1. When people point out that Dreher campaigned for Kavanaugh’s bid for the Supreme Court, he claims to refute it by saying he didn’t “endorse” Kavanaugh.
   
   It’s true both that Dreher campaigned for Kavanaugh and that he didn’t use the word “endorse.” Either way, he signed a letter put out by the Trump Administration on the day of the nomination that said Kavanaugh would be great at the job and he’s a great guy. So he aided, abetted, campaigned for, helped, boosted, and pushed his nomination. In any case, Dreher says he refuted the claim that he campaigned for Kavanaugh (false), because at some point he pointed out that he never used the word “endorse” (true). But he knows that doesn’t refute the campaigning part, at all.
   

2. When people point out he never rescinded his support for Kavanaugh after it emerged that Kavanaugh was an attempted rapist, Dreher says he has debunked that too because he “called for an investigation.”
   
   In fact, Dreher never rescinded his previous support for Kavanaugh (so, once again, he’s lying), and he did support an investigation (dropping in a truth nugget). This investigation was already being called for, mostly by Kavanaugh’s moderate Republican allies who were trying to push his nomination through. He merely joined a chorus of supporters in supporting an investigation. But given that those people were supporters, it’s quite clear to anyone with half a brain that this was not any sort of rescinding of support. (And in fact, the same article Dreher cites to claim he was some sort of hero differentiates between Dreher and people who actually rescinded their support.)
   
   In short, he never in any way said or implied anything like “I no longer think (any of his copious praise for Brett Kavanaugh found in the first letter).” So he says he rescinded (false) and points to evidence (true) that is not remotely rescinding.
   

3. I’ve pointed out that Dreher told the Seattle Times he was going to solve the state budget deficit with cuts—specifically “audits” and cutting programs (Sara Nelson 2.0!).
   
   Dreher then claimed to refute this by saying I’m misleading people because he says he supports progressive taxes. Once again, Dreher is trying to head fake his audience. He claims he refutes my statement about budget cuts (false) because he said in our interview that he supports progressive taxes (true in specific circumstances).
   
   But that doesn’t refute anything about budget cuts. In fact, he explicitly said in our interview that he only supports such taxes if they are used to offset other taxes. He even said that this is where he differed from Gerry and me. (Gerry and I both support taxes that expand our total investment in people and infrastructure.) He went on to say that the answer to our budget deficit is audits and cutting programs—budget cuts!
   
   Dreher knows he’s lying about budget cuts. That’s why he avoids the question.
   
   

These aren’t the only examples. I once pointed out that he represented an oil and gas conglomerate. Others referred to his work in oil and gas. He called this disinformation. But he never refuted it. He just says he has sued oil and gas companies. Great! None of that refutes the fact that he represented an oil and gas conglomerate, and operated as an oil and gas lawyer. He recently sent out a bizarre text saying that Elena Kagan is the only Supreme Court Justice he’s ever clerked for. He’s hoping you’ll think this means he didn’t work for Kavanaugh. But he did - before Kavanaugh was on the Court. Which Will Dreher HELPED HAPPEN. Why does he keep doing this?

He thinks ethics are for the plebs, it seems.

Now, if Dreher were dumb like, well—you can probably guess which local politicos I’m thinking about—you might think he just doesn’t understand basic logic and actually believes this nonsense.

But I can assure you this isn’t the case. I can’t think of a single person I knew at Harvard Law School who would fall for this sophistry. And Dreher was top of his class.

He knows he’s deceiving you. And he just keeps doing it. Brazenly.

Because he thinks you are too dumb to notice.

You aren’t.