Please do not vote for Matt Wingard – 322.5

Generally I would prefer to be about voting for one candidate instead of against another, but much of my voting life has been choosing between the lesser of two evils, and this candidate is truly the greater evil.

If you have been following the news at all, much has been made of him attacking his son with a screwdriver, and that is not my issue. No, I am not really comfortable with the idea of hitting a seven year old in the head with anything, but it was several years ago, and it is totally possible that he has taken the anger management classes, and gotten help, and should be able to move on with his life. You might be able to argue that you don’t get to have a political life if you do these things, at least not if people find out before you get elected, and I think that might have influenced the situation that made me mad.

Wingard, a republican, is running for a seat in House District 26. He also currently holds this seat, without having won it, managing it through sheer party politics and chicanery. Jerry Krummel, also a republican, had the job, but resigned to take another job with a few months left on his term. The policy is that a joint board of county commissioners will make a selection out of three filed candidates, and if there are not three candidates the governor will make an appointment. Clearly the purpose of that policy is that even if the voters do not get a say, there is a selection, and a good candidate can be chosen.

The county commissioners made this decision, because they had three candidates. The candidates were Matt Wingard, one of his campaign volunteers, and a college student that Wingard pays to post campaign signs. Both of them said they did not want the position, and endorsed Matt.

The county commissioners that voted for Matt were all republican as well. Of the democrats, two voted for the college kid, one abstained because he knew too much about Matt to be impartial, and one abstained because the entire thing was a joke. Under the circumstances I’m not sure what I would have done. I would have been angry at the manipulation, but did they have time to see it coming and rouse up some legitimate competition?

Regardless, two unequivocal supporters are not competition, and it should have gone to the governor. Since he is a democrat, I think that is one reason why they did it this way. Regardless of party, I think you could not appoint either Wingard or Adamson, because it is too much of an endorsement of either candidate for a contested seat. I think I would have gone for some respected retired community member—after all, it is only for a few months. This begs the question, why bother with the manipulation for only a few months, and I think it goes back to the child abuse.

When the story came out, there was a lot of inter-party conflict about whether Wingard should withdraw, because some people no longer felt like they could support him and a lot of people didn’t mind the conviction on its own, but had doubts about his ability to win. This was a concern because he was regarded as a rising star in the party and that he would be a key player in the future.

I think they found a brilliant way to get around that. A lot of people automatically vote for the incumbent, and with Wingard now in the election as the incumbent it defuses the stigma of the conviction. I say it’s brilliant, but it also involves a complete lack of integrity, utter disrespect for the voters (and their intelligence), and open contempt for the law by those who are entrusted with making and upholding the law.

In the interest of full disclosure, I went to school with Matt, and we hung out in the same group in junior high. In high school we went in separate directions, and I really have not been in touch with him. This is not a personal attack, although I will say that it did not surprise me at all that he was using manipulation to get ahead. He was already pretty good at manipulation at fourteen, so it makes sense that he has honed that particular skill, especially in politics.

On another level, it is personal in that if I had not recognized his name I would not have read the story, and been infuriated by it. I admit that, but also I have grown from that because I realize that I should have read it regardless. What happens with in-state politics is important, and affects everyone in state. Another article that disturbed me a while back was one showing the relationship between political contributions and getting your issues heard. Maybe we can only vote for one representative, but we can still keep track of the other district representatives and write letters or reprimands or have an impact in some way.

Regarding Jessica Adamson, she seems okay. She has an impressive list of endorsements, mainly based on her policies and experience. Wingard himself said this election is about transportation, and she definitely has more experience there. In addition, for those of you who might have qualms about voting for a democrat, she was a republican until recently, but switched because she felt the party had lost touch. That would be a discussion for another day.

One thing that impresses me a lot is that if you go to her web page, there is nothing about Matt. It is her biography and platform and endorsements. On Matt’s page, the first thing you see is a letter from his son’s mother condemning her, and complaining that she must have some reporter from the Oregonian in her pocket. It’s not like Willamette Week ignored the story.

Anyway, this is one that I hope you will consider and will forward to anyone in District 26. Wingard is poised to go far, and that will be dangerous. This can be nipped in the bud.

http://jessicaadamson.com/