Indivisible activist Martha Rudersdorf went behind the camera to ask why protesters support Mike French, and none named an issue. Meanwhile, French “liked” a Facebook post mocking a local woman for backing his opponent. She wrote to him four days ago and is still waiting for an answer.
“Why Are You Supporting Mike French?”
Martha Rudersdorf is a retired Sequim teacher and an Indivisible activist. She recently took to the streets of Sequim to ask other Indivisible activists one question: “Why are you supporting Mike French?”
The first man, wearing a “F*ck Trump” hat, held a “We Stand With Canada” sign.
He said French “has been in there for a while, he’s been doing a really good job,” but gave no examples. Then he said: “His opponent is pretending to be something he’s not. He’s a real estate developer for God’s sake. You know, he’s got a ton of money.”
Martha didn’t correct him, even though an article debunked that exact claim two weeks ago. Jake has never developed real estate, though Martha and her husband have. His PDC filings show he isn’t wealthy. Public property records suggest Martha and her husband are on par with Jake, or ahead of him, when it comes to wealth.
A Family Affair
Rudersdorf next interviewed her husband, Dave LeRoux.
LeRoux recently wrote a letter to the editor in the Sequim Gazette linking Jake to Christian Nationalism.
On camera, he called French “well reasoned” and said he “has depth of knowledge.”
Next came a couple holding a sign that read “the most violent element in society is ignorance.”
They said that after talking with Mike, something about his character, his ideals, and his plan meant that “it all makes sense.”
Notice What’s Missing?
Not one person in these interviews talked about an issue. They talked about character, ideals, and level-headedness, and about how much they like Mike. Then they repeated false things people like Martha have told them about why they shouldn't like Jake Seegers.
Nobody mentioned anything French has accomplished. Nobody even explained what his plans or ideals actually are.
That has been the defining difference in this race from the start. French’s supporters don’t say much in Mike's favor, but they have plenty to say against Jake, and they would rather not talk about issues at all.
Nine Years of Record They’d Rather You Ignore
They avoid the issues for a reason. Between City Hall and the county, French has nine years of policies on the record:
Recompete is a $35 million handout to special interests and NGOs that has failed to deliver even a fraction of the 900 jobs French campaigned on.
“Affordable housing” is subsidized luxury housing that you pay for, prioritized for criminals and addicts. North View has quartz counters and harbor views, and the people running it said in their own words that they would target people “at high risk of recidivism of the jail” and those “recovering from substance use disorders.”
Harm reduction has expanded under French, who chairs the Board of Health, and Clallam County’s overdose rates are now far ahead of the state and national rates.
The “balanced” budget closes a $3 million shortfall with tax hikes instead of cuts, and voters won’t get a say in them.
The Facebook “Like”
You can see the pattern in two of French’s most avid supporters, Jim Stoffer and Debra Boynton. On Facebook, they floated a theory about Kelly Johnson, a Port Angeles realtor who supports Jake. They suggested she has a crush on him and backs him to help her real estate portfolio.
CC Watchdog already reported on that exchange. What we didn’t know then is that Mike French “liked” the comment about Kelly.
So Kelly wrote to him directly. Her letter is published here with her permission:
Mike,
I am writing regarding your decision to “like” Jim Stoffer’s recent Facebook comment about me.
By liking the post, you appeared to endorse not only the comment itself, but also the false narrative that my support for Jake Seegers is motivated by personal or financial gain rather than my sincerely held views.
The post was not a discussion of policy, qualifications, or issues affecting our community. Instead, it relied on personal attacks and insinuations, suggesting that I have a “fan girl crush” on Jake Seegers and implying that my support for him is motivated by potential financial benefit because I own property in Freshwater Bay. Neither claim has any basis in fact.
My property in Freshwater Bay has nothing to do with Jake Seegers or my real estate business. Bruce and I purchased that property together in 2001 and built the shop in 2001-2002. We later built our home in 2005. Even after our divorce, I continued to jointly own, support, and invest in the property with Bruce. Earlier this year, I found Bruce deceased in that home. The property represents a significant part of my personal history and the life we built together over 25 years. It is completely unrelated to my support of any candidate.
What I found particularly offensive was the attempt to dismiss my political opinions by reducing them to a supposed “fan girl crush” rather than addressing the substance of my views. It is a tactic that trivializes a woman’s participation in public discourse and avoids engaging with her actual positions. My support for Jake Seegers is based on my assessment of his qualifications, character, and leadership, not some imagined personal fascination.
I was equally troubled by the suggestion that my support is motivated by financial self-interest. Making unsupported insinuations about a person’s integrity, ethics, or professional motivations is unfair and contributes nothing meaningful to public discourse.
Finally, using my ownership of a home in Freshwater Bay as fodder for political speculation crossed a line. Bruce and I purchased the property and began developing it more than two decades ago, long before any of the current political issues being debated. Jake owns property off Place Road, miles from the home I own. The suggestion that my support for his candidacy is driven by real estate interests, proximity, or potential financial gain is entirely without factual basis. It is simply an attempt to question my motives rather than address my views.
Reasonable people can disagree on politics. What concerns me is when political debate shifts away from issues and records and instead becomes focused on mocking, stereotyping, and questioning the motives of private citizens who choose to participate in the process.
I understand that candidates cannot control every statement made by every supporter. However, Jim Stoffer is prominently featured on your campaign endorsement page, and your public “like” of his comment reasonably appears to signal approval of both the content and the message behind it.
I have always believed that public discourse is strongest when people debate facts, policies, and qualifications. Regardless of political differences, I hope we can agree that personal attacks, sexist stereotypes, and unfounded assumptions about a person’s motives have no place in that conversation.
Sincerely,
Kelly Johnson
Four Days, No Reply
It has been four days, and French hasn’t answered. That’s another difference between the candidates.
Compare how quickly French moved for David Herbelin, the Executive Director of Olympic Theatre Arts Center in Sequim. As French’s own emails show, the two worked behind the scenes on a new cultural access tax, which would be imposed without a vote of the people. There was a flurry of emails, same-day replies, and steady follow-up. But Herbelin had something the French wanted: a reason to raise taxes.
Kelly has nothing to offer French. She’s just a constituent asking him why his actions don’t match the values he talks about. At the last Board of Health meeting, French lectured the gallery about not making personal attacks. Then he endorsed one, aimed not at his opponent but at a private citizen.
Who Gets a Seat at the Table
When you fill out your ballot, remember who Mike French is and who he answers to. This election decides whose calls get returned and who gets a seat at the table: NGOs and special interests, or you.
See You Saturday!
