Editor Ken Vance offers his perspective on the decision of the Clark County Republican Party to reject Leslie Lewallen as a Republican candidate in this important race
Ken Vance, editor
Clark County Today
My dear friend Mark Warkentien passed away this past winter. Mark was a long-time executive in the National Basketball Association. At one of the many lunches I enjoyed with him over the years, he told me something I will never forget.
“I don’t care what it is, if they’re keeping score, I want to win,’’ he said. Obviously, Mark’s life was professional sports. Even though it may seem like life or death at times, pro sports are still just games being played with some kind of a ball.
A case can be made that there is no greater scoreboard in our society than who wins elections, particularly at the federal level. Elected officials at that level have the ability to impact how much we are taxed. How those funds are allocated or distributed. They can directly impact our quality of life. It’s not a game with a ball. Much higher stakes are involved.
There has been much discussion this week about the decision by the Clark County Republican Party (CCRP) to double down on its support for Joe Kent in his attempt to unseat Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in the 2024 Third Congressional District race for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. A majority of the precinct committee officers who were present at the July 13 meeting rejected a request by Camas City Council Member Leslie Lewallen to be recognized as a Republican in the Third Congressional District race.
Clark County Today has published several letters to the editor and many comments were also posted on those letters. There has been support for Kent and others have supported Lewallen. Others have talked about a fair process of letting the voters decide. All of those opinions are valid. For me, it’s not about that. Like my friend Mark said, it’s about winning.
Many in this community, including myself in this previous column, have urged the Republicans to learn from past failures, put aside their differences, and do what it takes to win elections. Whether you like this particular strategy or not, the CCRP PCOs are trying to do just that by rallying around a single candidate in the 2024 Third Congressional District race.
I’ve never heard a negative word about Leslie Lewallen. The CCRP previously recognized her as a Republican candidate in her bid to become a member of the Camas City Council. For all I know, she would be a wonderful congresswoman. But, the question is, does she give the Republicans the best chance of unseating an incumbent Democrat? I think the answer to that is very clear that she doesn’t. I know, I know, Gluesenkamp Perez seemingly came from obscurity to unseat Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler in her bid to be reelected for the sixth time, but without going too far down a previous rabbit hole, that was more about the Republicans’ failures than it was about Gluesenkamp Perez.
Kent lost to Perez by 2,629 votes, less than 1 percent. And, I am one of those who believe he wouldn’t have lost had the Republicans not made him spend virtually all of his campaign finances to just narrowly survive the primary. In the weeks and months between the primary and the general election, the Kent campaign was financially on fumes and I couldn’t turn my TV on without seeing an ad for Gluesenkamp Perez, who still had a war chest because she was basically unchallenged in the primary.
In that 2022 election, the Republicans had at least three very strong candidates in addition to the incumbent Herrera Beutler. Kent was joined by Heidi St. John, who gave Kent all he could handle in the primary, and former state Representative Vicki Kraft. I don’t endorse candidates or tell anyone how to vote, but if I were to hand out endorsements, at some point during her political career, I’m sure I would have endorsed Kraft. But, there was no way she was going to get elected in 2022 and her presence in the race only further complicated matters.
The Republicans attempted to unseat their own incumbent, Herrera Beutler, largely because of her vote to impeach President Donald Trump. Had they not attempted to do so, I believe she would have easily sailed to another term in the U.S. House of Representatives. And, had they not been split on such a crowded field during a bloody primary campaign season, Kent would have had enough gas left in the tank after the primary to defeat Gluesenkamp Perez in the general election. .
This column is not an endorsement for Joe Kent. It’s an endorsement for the CCRP’s strategy. By virtue of his narrow loss to Gluesenkamp Perez in 2022, Kent has earned the right to be the Republicans’ featured candidate in this race in 2024. If he can’t get the job done this time, then his political career, at least in the Third Congressional District, is likely over. The CCRP is doing the right thing by doubling down on a single candidate for this very important race.
Also read:
- Opinion: Small districts vote to restore democracy to their statewide association
Liv Finne believes an increasing number of parents and local school board members want schools to drop partisan political causes and focus on providing a good education to their children. - Letter: ‘(Kevin) Peterson himself ultimately is responsible for his death’Vancouver resident Ann Donnelly shares her perspective on the lawsuit filed by the family of Kevin Peterson against the Clark County Sheriff’s Office and others.
- Opinion: Eradicating barriers to state employment is on Washington state’s agendaElizabeth Hovde believes state hiring should be based on skills and abilities needed for a position, without automatically excluding those who don’t hold a college degree.
- Opinion: Free-market health care innovations should be used to make lives better, not expand government power
Elizabeth Hovde of the Washington Policy Center believes congressional and state policymakers need to find constructive solutions to concerns over new technologies in health care. - POLL: Do you believe there should be a forensic audit of the Clark County Elections Department?Do you believe there should be a forensic audit of the Clark County Elections Department?
Agree 100%. People need to look at the big picture. R’s need to win this seat back. A bloody primary cost the R’s this seat; so we need to pivot our strategy and unite behind one candidate.
The CCRP is spot on with their unification behind one candidate. I believe that Joe Kent is the one for the job! We need to fight hard, not be split, and right our ship. He’s a hard worker with lots of great support, understand the issues fit which he can have an impact & offers solid, valid solutions. Finally we can focus on ONE issue; unseat the dem.
Thank you! We are in this to win it!
This is not about Leslie it is about a winning strategy!
Herrera had failed us since Cathy McMorris Rogers parachuted her in here to take on Baird.
In the interim, when she acted, it was never in our best interests, and frequently, her voting record reflected how she “felt” (like her vote to support Obamacare) instead of how WE felt .. which is her job.
Had she been in the general, she’d likely have won which is true. And we would have been punished with 2 additional years of blowing us off along with her never ending efforts to trash Trump, like she did on the impeachment scam.
I would rather have the hard-corps antifa-supporting leftist we’ve got than the never-changing fake Republican (who I can proudly say I NEVER voted for in any capacity) who wasted the seat for 12 years, leaving us precious little to show for her wasted time in Congress.
In fact, what did she do FOR us… Instead of TO us?
And would what you say if Sen. John Braun, Sen. Lynda Wilson, or Rep. Jim Walsh got in the race–all with legislative experience, a proven ability to get elected, and higher name recognition, therefore giving them a greater chance of winning?
Like when a tree falls in the forest Dawn, Its like no one hears or reads your questions.
I wonder are they afraid to answer? There is intimidation
going on. Threats of censorship, and name calling from a few elected Legislative District officers on social media.
I wonder why 10 precinct representatives at the clean up meeting on Thursday did not vote to sustain Leslie Lewallens recognition or not. She has already been recognized as a Republican candidate in Clark County. I guess we’ll never know why they choose to not participate in the vote. 10 voters abstained from voting and were not counted, and over a hundred choose not to attend. Some are precinct officers who generally never miss a meeting. They have been staying home. Even missing Kent’s endorsement meeting.
I smell dissension in the party, not unity behind a closed primary process.
Ten abstained and 171 didn’t bother to show up. My guess is it’s because they don’t want to be called liars, bitch, RINOs, and threatened with censure. You’re right about dissension. Anyone who can do simple math can see the majority of the body is not participating or against. If everyone were excited and unified they should be falling all over themselves to get to the meetings and vote in favor of Kent.
Vance made it clear he’s not concerned with candidate quality, only winning, so I was curious if one of these legislators, with a greater chance of winning got into the race if he would swap his support. There’s still a lot of time before the filing date and anything could happen.
Ten people abstained and 171 didn’t bother to show up. My guess is it’s because they don’t want to be called liar, bitch, RINO, or threatened with censure. You’re right about dissension. Anyone who can do simple math can see that the majority of the body isn’t participating or is voting against Kent. If everyone were so excited and unified, they should be falling all over themselves to get to the meetings and vote in favor of Kent.
Vance made it clear he’s not concerned with candidate quality, only winning, so I was curious if one of these legislators, with a greater chance of winning got into the race if he would swap his support. There’s still a lot of time before the filing date and anything could happen.
What would I say?
The exact, same, thing. Their titles don’t impress me, particularly RINOs like Wilson who voted for that horrific McCleary budget that’s been a major reason our property taxes have exploded with zero return for that money and Braun, who lied about limiting himself to 2 terms in the Senate when he first ran.
Of course, your support of HSJ shows you have no problem with lying candidates.
Dividing the ticket likely guarantees the expenditure of mass amounts of money that won’t be there for the general while Perez sits on her checkbook.
The result? A crippled GOP candidate, hamstrung by RINOs like Kathy McDonald and her fake Republican ilk raising money for their antifa supporting buddy that you and those with your perspective wanted so badly to win.
Well, your support of a wholly unqualified candidate who was running a state-level race for a federal seat had the desired effect.
You got what you wanted then, and you may get what you wanted now.
That is, unless the field is cleared for the primary, then the same scum who dumped millions in the last few weeks of the last primary to trash Kent will do it again while you sit on the sideline and applaud.
Insanity has many definitions. Doing the same thing, over and over again while expecting a different outcome is one of them. And that what you and those who share your POV are advocating.
You should have learned something last election. Clearly, you did not.
No one asked you. Not only do you not know what a lie is, you have nothing to offer beyond jr. high level snark.
An R, by itself, is not a win. Thinking so is what allows the GOP to remain in the Uniparty. Only MAGA candidates matter, and it remains to be seen if Joe is a balls-out, libtard stomping, MAGA man but he’s got my vote.
I find it very interesting that for the first time in a LONG time the CCRP is run by people with a SPINE, and the stink people are now out in the open whining and having hissy fits. Previously, the CCRP was ingulfed in the stench of romney rino-ism and was repellent to most people. The last election was a total fiasco obvious to everybody but delusional rinos… oh, sorry, that’s redundant. The right way to win is to pick one candidate with a spine and run with that candidate. It was very interesting that even with the rinos, Romney National Committee and the GOPe and their shills and toadies stabbing Kent in the back that he barely lost the election. Just imagine it all people that call themselves republicans could just figure out how to win, and get behind the selected candidate. Oh, I guess rinos would rather have Nancy Pelosi back?
Kent has a compelling story, but that’s all he has. No experience, no platform (other than the false narrative Trump was cheated out off a second term). And his shadowy former unknown personal past will be revealed even more when Perez’ war chest starts beating. ‘R’ does have a chance: but not with Kent.
Yet, you fail to offer any alternative. Why is that?
Yet you fail to offer any viable alternative. Why is that?
I agree with Mike S. Kent has nothing to stand on besides endorsing Trump. I’ve been a conservative my entire life, but Kent does not seem to be a candidate who will help SW Wash. I also am very suspicious of someone who moves from PDX to run for office. Open up the race, SW Wash conservatives deserve a better candidate.
This curious strategy being orchestrated by members of the Party I know to be solid Conservatives has me thinking. Why?
Why risk disharmony between supporters of Joe and supporters of other Republican candidates a year ahead of the Primary vote? It’s not like we haven’t seen how this movie ends.
It is my observation, if Mr Kent has around 90% County Party support, as his press releases boast, the confindence in his abillity to raise money and convince voters of his merit isn’t being reflected by this doubling down. Let’s not forget this hype is based off 49 votes coming out of a 249 officer membership. Concievably there is space for another Congressional Candidate, even Lewellan, to approach the governing body at a meeting with better attendance, and be recognized or even endorsed alongside Kent..
I can’t help wonder if he and his local braintrust read the tea leaves from the Aug 2, 2022 Clark Primary Election results where, in fact, fellow Republicans St John and Kraft pulled 17.97%, 25,156 votes, away from JHB. Joe was only 1,498 votes behind Jaime. I submit that without those other candidates in the race, the Genenal ballot would have had Jaime and Marie., not Joe vs. Marie. I am not looking at the other county primary results, and it is conjecture at this point. However, if the August 2024 Primary victory depends on every other contender being benched on the sidelines for the Quarterback to run the ball to the endzone, maybe the obvious answer is the answer.
Mayve you should stand by and learn something.
Your dogged support of a totally unqualified candidate showed even then that you and knowledge of how Politics works are not to be found in the same room.
I agree with Mike S. Kent has nothing to stand on besides endorsing Trump. I’ve been a conservative my entire life, but Kent does not seem to be a candidate who will help SW Wash. I also am very suspicious of someone who moves from PDX to run for office. Open up the race, SW Wash conservatives deserve a better candidate.
Gonna lose again
Then what are you worried about?
Tell us you were an HSJ supporter without telling us you were an HSJ supporter.
Kinda cult-like, from the look of it.
Mr. Vance places a great deal of emphasis on winning as being All Important. He opines that ” A case can be made that there is no greater scoreboard in our society than who wins elections, particularly at the federal level.” Such a case can be made but I believe a stronger case can be made that a score which matters more than who wins is one which measures what is right against that which is wrong.
Whether Kent has earned the right to be the Republicans’ featured candidate in 2024 is a matter which traditionally, and as a matter of doing what’s right, would be left up to the voters in the primary election. Not up to a decision made by the CCRCC a year before the primary and forced upon the voters against those voters’ own better judgment.
Much of the GOP push to clear the path for Joe Kent is driven by an unwarranted sense of desperation on the part of Kent’s supporters and has caused the GOP to publish a public denial that Leslie Lewallen is a Republican when the architects of that aberration from normal GOP policy know that the verdict they have laid against her is not true. To clear the path for Kent they are attempting to “cancel” an established Republican who currently holds a seat in public office. Winning at all costs, regardless of what it takes, is a dangerous new attitude in the local GOP and it needs to be reined in. Not encouraged.
Mr. Vance, has urged the Republicans to learn from past failures, and is now pleased that they seem to have done so at least in respect to the 2022 debacle involving Kent’s loss to Perez. However, Mr. Vance, like others who have assessed the errors made by Republicans in 2022, overlooks the biggest error, and misplaces the blame for the cause of the “bloody primary campaign season” on vote splitting between too many candidates in the GOP field. In reality, the cause of that bloody campaign season was the effort by Kent’s supporters to clear the path for Kent at any costs. The exact same mistake they are making right now. It was not vote-splitting that caused the fight–it was fear of the vote splitting. The same fear that has instigated the fight today. Is it a rational fear?
An overlooked distinction between the 2022 primary and the 2024 is that in the former the incumbent was a Republican that the Republicans wanted to defeat at the primary, and justifiably so. There was some basis for the fear that splitting Republican votes in the primary would allow the incumbent to advance to the primary, although that did not in fact happen. In 2024 the incumbent will be a Democrat and the only Democrat on the primary ballot. We may predict right now that a Republican will advance to the general election no matter how many ways they split the vote. The only fear of splitting the vote is that the Republican who advances is one that the voters choose–not the one that a small minority in the CCRCC have chosen.
That fear does not justify this act of desperation which is doing nothing to unify the Party and in both the short and long-runs will do more damage than it can possibly do good. In this case, the end surely does not justify the means.
Not only will the strategy likely backfire on them but it is simply unethical to refuse to recognize the true status of a person’s political preferences when you know they are in truth what they present themselves to be. It is done specifically to cause those voters who might want a choice other than Kent in the primary to view Lewallen with a jaded eye because of the ‘Not A Recognized Republican” sign they have put on her back.
Moreover, while it is technically within the bylaws to refuse to recognize a Republican candidate for “strategic” purposes, that is not the purpose the rule was created for and it is an abuse of the rules to use it for that purpose. The party which flies the banner of Republicanism ought to display a little more respect for the rule-of-law.
What they are doing sets bad precedent and it puts too much power in too few hands. The leaders of this effort have made it clear that they intend to make this new process SOP in future elections. They have also said that if a person wants to run for an office in which the anointed has already been named, well, then that person should let them (the Party Leadership) find a different race for the person to try for. Can this lead to anything but backroom dealmaking?
But what is worse on my scorecard is that what they have done to Lewallen is deceitful on its face and is a far cry from “Do Unto Others As You Would Have Done Unto You.”
So far in this contest the GOP score for doing what is right is very low and winning will not improve that score. But they earn higher points for favoring pragmatism over principle. That is not the Republican way.
“Whether Kent has earned the right to be the Republicans’ featured candidate in 2024 is a matter which traditionally, and as a matter of doing what’s right, would be left up to the voters in the primary election.”
Odd. I missed the part where she was somehow disqualified from being in the primary by this action,. Could you help me with that?
The Party is the Party. Nothing more now less.
Party support is appreciated, but it guarantees nothing.
The people, as always, will have the final say. They, presumably, can think for themselves.
But that doesn’t change the reality: Replaying 2022 again will result in Perez winning.
Again.
So, the question is do you stick with what you consider to be your principles and lose, or do you take a reality check and at least have the chance to win?
The Republican party today, is not the party I grew up with. Where it is heading is disturbing. The lack of professionalsm and leadership is pathetic. CCRP will not bully me into voting for Joe Kent. This is not democracy. We have other choices.
I agree JJ – if party leadership is going to limit choices, then a lot of ppl will just sit it out rather than vote for someone like kent.
We no longer have a representative government in congress, now the CCRP is following suit? Let the voters decide who the CCRP should support.
If your definition of “WINNING” requires forcing others to surrender their principles, then you need a dictionary because that is not what “WINNING” means. Joe Kent has not been properly vetted. The only “Washingtonian” part of him is D.C. He is better fit to run in Oregon as a Democrat from where he belongs.