Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Paper Chase | Al Gore »

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

What’s With Hugh?

posted by on October 24 at 9:30 AM


The Seattle Times isn’t the only local publication that has some ‘splaining to do about a recent endorsement. The Stranger endorsed Hugh Foskett, the Republican running to represent the 43rd District in the State House of Representatives. The 43rd is famously liberal and famously queer—so queer, in fact, that gay wunder ‘mo Jamie Pedersen won the Dem primary without a single major endorsement. (Sorry, Ed!)

So as we pound the Seattle Times for their inexplicable McGavick endorsement—no, wait. It was totally explicable: The edit board at the Seattle Times bent over for Frank Blethen and took it like a regular pack of Mike Fanchers. Frank wants his tax cut and if he has to shred his paper’s credibility and his ed board’s integrity to get it, by God he’s going to get it.

So how we do explain our Foskett endorsement? Our completely-in-earnest Foskett endorsement? Our by-no-means-a-joke endorsement of a candidate that doesn’t have a lube packet’s chance in Basic Plumbing of defeating Jamie Pedersen?

Well, we like Hugh. We like his spunk. We like his wandering hands and roaming fingers. We like his sombrero. And his spunk—did we mention his spunk?

We also fully expect that, armed now with our endorsement, young Hugh Foskett is going to win this election and that he will make an excellent addition to the Washington State Legislature. Don’t we need a little more diversity in the 43rd District’s legislative delegation in Olympia? One way or the other—Foskett or Pedersen—it’s going to be three white males. But the 43rd already has a gay rep (Murray), and it already has an old, out-of-touch rep (Chopp). What it doesn’t have is a young, out of touch rep—by which I mean, someone under 30 and conservative. And Hugh’s words, if not his actions, tell us that he’s a conservative:

I was raised in a very conservative home in Bellevue, and am a firm believer in conservative ideals.


And why wouldn’t Hugh be a conservative? He is, after all, a graduate of Redmond’s Bear Creek School.


Our mission is to provide a high-quality, Christian liberal arts education in a nurturing environment that will enable each student to become the individual God intends.

How does Bear Creek accomplish this? Why through…

…a combination of Christian Studies, service projects, an emphasis on building a caring community, and modeling of the Christian walk by faculty and staff….


The Bear Creek School recognizes that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom—and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” Our school community is built on biblical values that reveal God’s love for us and our need to love and care for our neighbor as ourselves.

And as Hugh has shown us, there’s more than one way to care for your neighbor.


RSS icon Comments


Completely off topic, but I just wanted to say, that, except for WEEKENDS (why can't you guys get some interns to slog it up on the weekends?), this Slog is the best god-damn daily in Seattle.

Posted by seattl98104 | October 24, 2006 9:36 AM

Back in my single days I bagged quite a few boys from Bear Creek. It's gayer than Seattle Prep and almost as gay as O'Dea.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | October 24, 2006 9:52 AM

Bear Creek's mascot... is... a bear.

They're setting those nice Christian boys up for a lifetime of beer busts at the Cuff.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 24, 2006 9:55 AM

Oops. Lest anyone confuse me with Foley, let me just say that they were all ALMUNI of Bear Creak, Seattle Prep, O'Dea, etc. Everyone was 18 or older, and we were all roughly the same age.

One can't be too careful.

Posted by catalina Vel-duray | October 24, 2006 10:01 AM

you're still disrespecting jamie when you had a chance to make amends. i personally think jamie was the worst of the six candidates in the dem primary-- the most corporate, the lease likely to pursue any kind of economic justice for anyone. but still. it's clear even to jamie's detractors that endorsing hugh was not JUST a joke.

Posted by wf | October 24, 2006 10:28 AM

Does anyone other than me see a big resemblence between Hugh in these photos & Matthew Broderick, circa "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"? I have no idea what the significance of that may be, but it's definately there...

Posted by SeattleExile | October 24, 2006 10:29 AM

seattl98104: unpaid interns can't afford internet access at home!

Posted by Amy Kate | October 24, 2006 10:37 AM

Pedersen is a tool and I can see why the Stranger refused to endorse him.

Posted by Gomez | October 24, 2006 10:41 AM

And down the catwalk they come, modeling the Christian walk.

Posted by Mark Mitchell | October 24, 2006 1:06 PM

This is ever-so-slightly off topic, but I was reminded of this whole mess with this dude's MySpace recently... Teaching at a local private school, I was sitting in on a little speech being given by an admissions rep for a fancy schmancy private boarding school on the east coast. Apparently, it's now common practice for fancy schmancy private schools to look up the MySpace pages for new applicants and peruse them for objectionable content.

I think I have a serious problem with that. Sure, MySpace is great for exposing supposedly conservative Christian baby-politicians as former normal teenagers, but if a kid comes out on his MySpace then gets rejected from his hoped-for school? Or some "friend" posts a pic of the kid barfing up alcohol, so the kid gets rejected on the basis of underage drinking?

Anyway, this just reminded me and I thought I'd share...

Posted by L | October 24, 2006 1:38 PM

Gomez: If you are able to cogently explain how "Pedersen is a tool" - of what? for whom? to what end? and why? - then I may be able to grasp the contentious certitude of your declarative sentence. The Stranger has made "in jest" endorsements before - e.g. Steve Pool - BUT - Pool's name was not on the ballot. In any event, as Dan intones: "Hugh-Gin-Towel" has got no chance unless by some weird happenstance he pulls off a "Dewey Defeats Truman" - [your Google assignment for the day].

Posted by FILS-DE-VACHE | October 24, 2006 2:57 PM

I find it odd to hear someone say that the Strange has to make "amends" to Pedersen. We didn't endorse him—unless our endorsement was somehow rightfully his, we have nothing to apologize for.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 24, 2006 3:03 PM


I think WF is referring to the generalized contempt that the Stranger has shown Jamie for no apparent reason.

I read an interview with him in the SGN where he discussed his policy
priorities and they include transportation, affordable healthcare and marriage equality. So, what exactly is so objectionable?

I agree that his ties to Preston, Gates and Ellis merit scrutiny, but shouldn't you hold off on the criticism until he's actually done something in the political arena for which he should be criticized?

Posted by Andrew | October 24, 2006 3:53 PM

By 'ties,' you meant puppet strings. And you're naive if you think PG&E and clients thereof won't use his position to make things happen, should he be elected.

Posted by Gomez | October 24, 2006 5:52 PM

i'm not saying the stranger had to do anything, or has to apologize for anything. i don't really give a shit about jamie or what the stranger thinks about him. i just doubt that the ONLY reason the stranger endorsed hugh was to make a joke. that's all.

Posted by wf | October 24, 2006 6:17 PM

No, Gomez, the naive position is yours. Thinking that Peterson is somehow going to do Preston Gates's bidding just because he works for them is rather dim.

Posted by Fnarf | October 24, 2006 6:31 PM

L @10:

Foskett's profile was on Facebook, which, unlike MySpace requires a user login and is invisible to search engines.

Posted by factcheck | October 24, 2006 7:11 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).