Lacking substantive policy differences, political candidates in party primaries tend to focus — more so than in general elections — on questions about ideological purity. That’s what you see going on in House District 24 as we approach Tuesday’s moment of truth.
Partisans take this stuff seriously, which is why the right and left wings of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, often grumble that the candidate who makes it to the general election isn’t conservative or liberal enough. You’ll see that happening this year with Ralph Nader, and it’s also going to dog John McCain all the way to Nov. 4.
That’s the debate going on in District 24, and as my article today notes, the target is Ed Glad, who — political questions aside — is one of the better prepared political newcomers I’ve interviewed over the years.
He’s been catching flak over his membership in and work for the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters. In the political blogosphere, he’s been linked ominously to union “thugs,” “henchmen,” and “goons.”
Notwithstanding the fact that American labor has traditionally been a Democratic stronghold, I think a dialogue like that doesn’t give enough credit to Republicans who happen to be — due to a myriad of complex factors — members of unions.
They may be a minority, but their numbers aren’t small, either, and probably vary depending on the trade. Long before he was president of the United States, Ronald Reagan was the president of a union, the Screen Actors Guild, in that liberal enclave known as Hollywood. And other than Glad, another local GOP-er and union member who comes to mind is — surprise — Jim Bunn, the third candidate in the race. He’s with Teamsters Local 223. And, I’m told, he played a key role in recent talks over staffing levels in the Yamhill County Jail, where he works. No one, to my knowledge, is complaining that Bunn is a Teamster.
When I contacted Glad about it, he said he preferred to “stick to the issues.” I pointed out that for some Republicans, at least, his union work is an issue. Glad is politically savvy enough to get that, but on the other hand, as a lifelong conservative, he’s understandably exasperated by it.
“My opponents have yet to attack my agenda,” he said this morning. “Perhaps it’s because they know I am advocating for the things that are important to the people of our district.”
It may not be an issue in his mind, but I think everyone understands that how this shakes out will be of immense importance to Republicans of all stripes, union or not. Off the top of my head, I can think of three or four conclusions that either camp might make about a Glad or Weidner victory.
And, of course, it will have implications for how things play out in November, when the Republican candidate — whoever it happens to be — will have appeal to more than just Republican voters. The seat has been held by a Democrat before, and Sal Peralta’s strong showing two years ago illustrates that, depending on the candidate, political affiliation may not be as important to voters in November as it is to the party faithful in May.
4 responses so far ↓
1 eyes r open // May 16, 2008 at 4:28 am
Funny how Ed Glad wants to stick to the “issues”. The issue of getting support from traditional Democratic unions is an ISSUE. Ducking it doesn’t make it go away. Getting personal appointments from a Democratic governor because of his union ties is an issue. The News Register/ David Bates refuses to talk about or question Ed Glad about. David Bates never brings up the fact that Ed Glad gave money twice to the Democratic party; from his own checking account. One check went to (D)Rep. Darlene Hooley $250.00. The other check Ed Glad gave went to the Democratic party for $500.00. This can be verified through http://www.opensecrets.org. This Brings us to the Question of Being your own Man. Ed Glad said he gave money to Rep. Hooley becaues his union did. Why not say no, I am a Republican. For republicans That is an issue and substantive policy difference. David Bates has know about all of this, yet hides it from the readers. David Bates uses phrases like, “Lacking substantive policy differences”, To mask how Ed Glad will vote. I have never seen or heard of a “Conservative Republican” ever give money to the Democrats. How will Ed Glad really vote? The first test, is when the issue of school vouchers comes up, or preserving the right of “Home schooling” comes up. There are Bills that will be submitted next January concerning these issues. Will Ed Glad tow the OEA line, Or will he support the issues his party Supports? How will Ed vote on the issues of Transportation projects, (when the unions demand repayment on ther investment), that are wastefull but bring in union jobs. Ed says “My opponents have yet to attack my agenda,”. Yes they have, it is your Democratic union agenda. Not to let Bunn of the hook he too has lobbied for the Dental industry. In fact he got a big fat check from a prominent dentist. I am sure he lobbied hard of behalf of local Teamsters Local 223, to get more deputies hired. Jim weiderner has Been the only candidate to come out and propose a Simple but effective solution to the “Dundee traffic issue” . He is not beholden to unions or their money. Which I am sure appeals to REPUBLICAN voters not RINO’s. Keep your eyes open, Frauds and deceitful people are everywhere. Depending on David Bates to tell the whole story not just part of the story, well that just won’t happen. He has an agenda, it is to sell papers not inform you. Keep that in mind when you read the paper.
eyes r open
2 David Bates // May 16, 2008 at 6:06 am
You seem to base your criticism of my reporting — and my previously classified mission of attempting to sell newspapers — on the fact that Ed Glad’s contribution to the Democratic Party has not made its way into my articles on the House District 24 race.
True enough, although that’s a pretty wobbly pole on which to mount an argument. We reported, prominently, that Glad contributed to Darlene Hooley, a well-known Oregon Democrat. We reported that one of his opponents, Jim Weidner, believes this is of enormous significance, and for those who agree with him, we reported precisely where to look for additional information on Glad’s political contributions — which were made, as he has emphasized and you are aware, in relation to his work as the political director for the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters.
It is interesting that you think it is significant that the other candidate in the race, Jim Bunn, got “a big fat check” from a dentist, coupling this fact with the allegation that he lobbied for the dental industry. I have to wonder, if Weidner is ultimately elected and becomes the recipient of generous contributions from business and industry interests in Oregon (and beyond) if you will argue for an equal measure of significance if a review of his voting record following the 2009 session suggests that he largely did exactly what the Oregon Restaurant Association wanted him to do.
Finally, regarding the charge that I “hide” relevant information from readers, I wonder how this squares with your choice to use a pen name, “eyes r open.” I know who you are, but you evidently wish to hide your identity from readers. I may not report every single fact that I jot down in my notebook, for this or any other story, but my name is featured at the top of every one.
3 eyes r open // May 16, 2008 at 8:20 am
Knowingly leaving KEY information out of an article is hiding and not being forthright with your readers. Since this is a REPUBLICAN race, It is a huge piece of information that A republican candidate (who calls himself “A Lifelong Conservative Republican”) has given $500.00 dollars to the Oregon Democratic Party. That is a BIG deal. That one fact, directly challenges Ed Glad’s credibility as “A lifelong Conservative Republican” Yet you won’t challenge him, Why is that ? Please explain to all your readers why? The fact that you hide behind the line ” I may not report every single fact that I jot down in my notebook” is a bad excuse. My guess is that you have a vested interest, based on endorsements/politcal beliefs I could be wrong.
If Jim Weidner is elected, his record after 2009 should be looked at, infact I would say he will probably “show” his record not “hide” from it. All candidates should be held accountable, and challenged based on their record. Fair and complete reporting, is all the readers want. With all the facts presented, readers can make a truly informed decision. I asking you to present all the facts. eyes r open
4 David Bates // May 16, 2008 at 8:42 am
I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a “key” fact, and probably also on the question of whether other Republicans are as interested in this as you clearly are. I reported the Hooley contribution because, frankly, that was the one I’d personally heard Weidner allude to most frequently. Unlike you, I just think that the substantive distinction between contributing to a prominent liberal Democrat and the Democratic party itself is slight, at best. In my interview with Glad, I did press this question, and reported his response. You clearly didn’t like his answer. But thank-you, though, for illustrating my observation that: “Partisans take this stuff seriously.”
You must log in to post a comment.