Ethics Before Party

Ethics Before Party: Why McAlmond Refuses to Compromise on Integrity

In the rough-and-tumble world of politics, loyalty to party can sometimes feel like the highest virtue. Yet for Russ McAlmond, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Oregon, one principle stands higher still: ethics comes before party.

McAlmond believes that no Republican should ever be compelled to support another Republican who has shown himself to be unethical. To do so would betray the very values conservatives claim to defend. An unethical Republican does not merely harm his opponent; he inflicts profound moral damage on the entire Republican Party in Oregon and on conservatives across the nation.

We are expected—and we must expect of ourselves—to uphold a higher moral standard than our Democratic counterparts. When that standard is abandoned in the pursuit of victory, the party we love is diminished, and the public’s trust is eroded.

Political competition is healthy and necessary. Voters deserve a real choice, and candidates should vigorously make their case on the merits of their records, vision, and ideas.

But competition must be conducted with honor.

It is one thing to contrast policy positions or highlight differences in experience. It is quite another to lie about a fellow Republican’s accomplishments, education, or—most egregiously—his military service in order to win a primary.

Such conduct is not strategy; it is sabotage. It is not leadership; it is character assassination. And it has no place in a party that claims to stand for truth, personal responsibility, and American exceptionalism.

David Smith’s campaign against Russ McAlmond has crossed that line. Smith has repeatedly attacked McAlmond’s background, questioning his education and professional achievements despite clear, verifiable records. Most disturbing has been Smith’s assault on McAlmond’s honorable service in the United States Marine Corps.

McAlmond is a documented veteran whose DD-214 discharge papers confirm his service. Yet Smith has publicly cast doubt by saying “if” McAlmond served, planting the seed of suspicion that his military record might be fabricated or exaggerated. This is not subtle political rhetoric; it is a deliberate attempt to diminish a veteran’s sacrifice in the eyes of voters.

Even more troubling is Smith’s attempt to borrow military credibility by invoking his own father’s service as though it somehow transfers to him. Smith is not a veteran. Equating a father’s honorable record with one’s own experience in a political contest against a tested Marine is a form of stolen valor.

It misleads voters and disrespects every man and woman who has worn the uniform.

True respect for the military begins with honesty about one’s own relationship to it. McAlmond earned his title through service; Smith has tried to rent his father’s.

Russ McAlmond has made clear that ethics is non-negotiable. Should David Smith win the Republican primary through lies and personal attacks rather than on the strength of his own record, McAlmond will not endorse him in the general election.

This is not a threat; it is a statement of principle. McAlmond will not support the Democratic candidate, whose policies he firmly opposes. But neither will he lend his name, his reputation, or his hard-earned credibility to a candidate who has shown contempt for truth and for the standards Republicans must uphold.

Oregon conservatives deserve better.

The Republican Party deserves better.

The American people deserve leaders who win by elevating the debate, not by dragging it into the gutter. Some may argue that party unity must come first—that in a blue state like Oregon, Republicans cannot afford to divide. McAlmond rejects that counsel. Unity purchased with dishonesty is counterfeit.

A party that tolerates lies about veterans, fabrications about records, and personal smears will not attract the principled voters it needs to grow. It will repel them.

Conservatives in Oregon and across the country are hungry for leaders who place country, honor, and truth above temporary electoral advantage. The choice before Republican voters in Oregon is therefore larger than one Senate seat. It is a choice between short-term tactical victory at any cost and the long-term moral health of the conservative movement.

Russ McAlmond has chosen the latter.

He asks his fellow Republicans to join him—not in blind loyalty to a party label, but in loyalty to the higher standard that makes the label worth defending. Ethics first. Always. Oregon deserves a U.S. Senator who understands that real strength flows from character, not from the willingness to win at all costs.