Doug Muck Refused to Attend Klamath County Dinner with McAlmond

In American politics, where rhetoric often overshadows substance, moments of personal conduct can reveal more about a candidate's character than any policy platform. The recent events surrounding the Klamath County Republican Presidents Dinner serve as a poignant example.

This gathering, intended to honor the legacy of Republican presidents and foster unity among party members, became a stage for division when one candidate, Doug Muck, chose to abstain from attending. His stated reason—that he did not wish to share the space with fellow US Senate candidate Russ McAlmond, whom he falsely accused of name-calling—highlights a troubling pattern of behavior that prioritizes personal grudges over party cohesion and public service.

Yet, the facts paint a different picture: McAlmond has never engaged in such tactics, while Muck himself has resorted to unfounded attacks. This incident not only reflects poorly on Muck but also underscores the importance of honesty, ethics, and respect in political campaigns.

The Klamath County Republican Presidents Dinner, held to celebrate the party's historical roots and current aspirations, featured invited speakers including Russ McAlmond and Ed Diehl, a candidate for Oregon governor. McAlmond delivered a speech that resonated deeply with attendees, drawing parallels between Abraham Lincoln—our nation's first Republican president—and the enduring Republican commitment to human rights.

Lincoln's dedication to abolishing slavery stood in stark contrast to the Democratic Party's pro-slavery stance at the time, a historical truth McAlmond used to inspire reflection on contemporary values. The Klamath County Republicans responded enthusiastically, sending a text message to McAlmond praising his address as "excellent" and expressing that it was an "honor" to have him and Diehl in attendance. Their commendation extended beyond mere politeness; it affirmed the value of McAlmond's presence and message.

In contrast, Doug Muck's decision to skip the event was rooted in a fabricated narrative. He informed organizers that his absence stemmed from McAlmond allegedly calling him names—a claim entirely without merit. McAlmond, known for his principled approach, has consistently avoided personal attacks, viewing name-calling as dehumanizing and counterproductive.

The Klamath County Republican Party, recognizing the implications of Muck's boycott, noted that it reflected on his "character." They expressed gratitude to McAlmond and Diehl for their personal attendance, implicitly contrasting their commitment with Muck's withdrawal.

This response from party leaders suggests a broader concern: when a candidate opts out of a unifying event over baseless accusations, it erodes trust and fragments the Republican base at a time when solidarity is crucial for electoral success.

Delving deeper, the irony of Muck's accusations becomes apparent when examining his own actions. Directly from McAlmond's account, Muck has labeled him a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) on public social media platforms like Facebook. This term, often wielded as a weapon in intra-party disputes, dismisses a fellow Republican's legitimacy without substantive debate.

Furthermore, Muck falsely claimed that one of McAlmond's companies "supports" illegal immigrants, a baseless allegation that stirs unnecessary controversy and misleads voters. No company that McAlmond owns has ever supported illegal immigrants or the hiring of any undocumented individuals. 

Adding to this pattern, Muck posted a conspiracy theory attacking Joseph Rice, a Republican colleague of McAlmond's in Josephine County. McAlmond, upon seeing this, publicly criticized the unfounded assault on someone he knows well, emphasizing the need for Republicans to support rather than undermine one another.

To date, Muck has neither apologized nor retracted these statements, allowing the damage to linger unchecked. Such behavior raises fundamental questions about leadership.

In a Republican primary, where candidates share core values like limited government, individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility, differences should be debated on merit, not devolved into personal smears. McAlmond's campaign exemplifies this ideal: he attends events regardless of criticism, exercising his free speech rights while respecting those of others.

He views politics as a forum for ideas, not insults, and prioritizes honesty and ethics above all. Name-calling, in his view, diminishes the humanity of opponents and distracts from real issues facing Oregonians, such as economic challenges, education, and public safety.

By contrast, Muck's refusal to attend the dinner—and his unapologetic attacks—suggest a reluctance to engage openly, perhaps fearing scrutiny or genuine dialogue.This episode is more than a minor spat; it is a microcosm of the challenges facing the Republican Party in Oregon and nationwide.

In an era of polarized politics, voters deserve candidates who model civility and integrity. Boycotting a party event over imagined slights not only alienates supporters but also weakens the collective effort to advance conservative principles.

McAlmond's steadfast participation, despite potential discomfort, demonstrates resilience and dedication. It reminds us that true leadership involves showing up, speaking truthfully, and building bridges rather than burning them.

As Oregon Republicans navigate the 2026 US Senate race, let this incident serve as a call to higher standards. Respect for all candidates—regardless of internal rivalries—strengthens the party and honors the democratic process.

Free speech is a cornerstone of our republic, but it must be wielded responsibly, without descending into dehumanizing tactics. Honesty and ethics, as championed by McAlmond, are not mere slogans; they are the foundation of trustworthy governance. In the end, voters will decide based on character as much as policy, and events like the Klamath County dinner reveal who truly embodies the Republican ethos of unity, honesty and principle.