Blog

As a candidate for the United States Senate from Oregon, I, Russ McAlmond, have built my campaign on the foundational principles of American conservatism: individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and the unyielding belief that every person is created equal in the eyes of God and under the law. These are the values enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, which boldly proclaims that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." This is the essence of American exceptionalism—a rejection of group hierarchies, tribal divisions, and collectivist ideologies that judge people not by their character or actions, but by their race, religion, or ethnicity.It is with this commitment to true conservatism that I must address a disturbing trend among some self-proclaimed "conservative" pundits, namely Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. Their recent rhetoric, laced with antisemitic undertones and outright hostility toward Israel and the Jewish people, is not only morally reprehensible but fundamentally at odds with conservative principles. This is not hyperbole; it is a clear betrayal of the individualism that defines our movement. President Donald Trump himself has recognized this deviation, publicly disavowing Tucker Carlson for his criticism of U.S. actions against Iran, stating that Carlson has "lost his way" and is no longer part of the MAGA movement. This disavowal from the leader of our party is proof positive that antisemitism and hatred toward Israel and the Jewish people are not conservative values—they are aberrations that will not be tolerated by the Republican Party.My campaign has zero tolerance for antisemitism, racism, or any form of group judgmentalism. These are not conservative ideals; they are collectivist poisons that erode the individual dignity at the heart of our philosophy. Conservatism celebrates the unique potential of every person, free from the shackles of identity-based oppression. Yet, Carlson and Owens have increasingly embraced narratives that group people—particularly Jews—into monolithic categories ripe for judgment and blame. Carlson's platforming of Holocaust revisionists and his condemnation of U.S.-Israel cooperation as "disgusting and evil" veers into dangerous territory, implying a collective culpability for Jews and Israel that echoes age-old tropes. Owens has gone even further, downplaying the horrors of Nazi experiments during the Holocaust as "bizarre propaganda," promoting blood libel conspiracies, and accusing Jews of controlling the slave trade—claims that have earned her the ignominious title of "Antisemite of the Year" from advocacy groups. Such rhetoric is not just offensive; it is a direct assault on the truth and a embrace of division. By putting people into groups and judging them collectively—whether through antisemitic conspiracies about Jewish influence or anti-Israel isolationism—Carlson and Owens have shifted their politics from conservatism to collectivism. Collectivism is a leftist and European political philosophy, one that prioritizes group identity over individual merit. It is alien to American conservatism, which draws from the Enlightenment ideals of Locke and the Founding Fathers, not the tribalism of old-world ideologies. This collectivist mindset is precisely what the current Democratic Party promotes through their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. DEI divides Americans into oppressed and oppressor groups, creating an intersectional hierarchy where individuals are judged by their race, gender, or other identities rather than their contributions or character. It fosters resentment, entitlement, and government overreach—the very antithesis of conservative values. The Declaration of Independence rejects this outright: we are all created equal, not some better or worse based on our groups. To see so-called conservatives like Carlson and Owens adopt similar group-based judgments reveals their true colors—they have wandered into the ideological territory of the left, where collectivism reigns.True conservatives understand that supporting Israel, our steadfast ally in the Middle East, is not about favoritism toward any group but about defending shared values of democracy, freedom, and security against radical threats. Antisemitism, like all forms of racism, undermines this by reducing complex geopolitical realities to hateful stereotypes. It divides our movement and weakens our nation. As Oregon's next Senator, I will fight to ensure the Republican Party remains a bulwark against such hatred, promoting policies that unite Americans around individual opportunity and national strength.In conclusion, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens are no longer true conservatives. Their descent into collectivist rhetoric proves they have lost their way, much as President Trump has declared. The Republican Party and the MAGA movement must reject this poison to preserve the principles that make America great. My campaign stands firm: zero tolerance for hate, full commitment to equality, and an unapologetic embrace of American individualism. Together, we can build a future where every Oregonian—and every American—thrives as an individual, not as a member of a judged group.

Carlson and Owen Are Not True Conservatives

Low section view of man standing by text FALSE or TRUE

Oregon Republicans face a critical decision in the upcoming primary for the 2026 U.S. Senate election. Incumbent Democrat Jeff Merkley, seeking a fourth term, has proven to be a formidable opponent in a state that leans blue. To have any realistic shot at flipping this seat, the party must nominate a candidate who can appeal beyond the base, attract independents, and demonstrate credibility on key issues like national security, financial responsibility, and human rights. Unfortunately, the truth is that Jo Rae Perkins, who has twice run and lost decisively in statewide Senate races, does not fit this profile. Her track record proves her persistent weaknesses that have doomed campaigns—and would do so again if she secures the nomination.Perkins' electoral history speaks volumes. In 2020, she challenged Jeff Merkley and garnered only 39.3% of the vote, losing by a staggering 17.6-point margin. Two years later, in 2022, she ran against Ron Wyden and fared little better, capturing 40.9% while Wyden secured 55.8%—another double-digit defeat. These losses were not narrow misses; they were resounding rejections in a state where Republicans need every possible crossover vote to compete. Perkins has had two chances, backed by the party each time, and failed to capitalize on them. Repeating this pattern in 2026 would certainly hand Merkley an easy victory, wasting resources and momentum that could be directed toward a winnable fight in a critical year. One of the core reasons for Perkins' defeats is her well-documented embrace of fringe conspiracy theories, particularly QAnon. This discredited movement, which promotes baseless claims about a secret cabal of elites, has alienated moderate voters and independents essential for statewide success in Oregon. Perkins publicly aligned herself with QAnon in a now-deleted video on the night of her 2020 primary win, declaring, "I stand with Q and the team. Thank you Anons, and thank you patriots." She has since defended her interest in the group, appearing on QAnon-affiliated platforms and incorporating its rhetoric into her messaging. This extremism has not only drawn national scrutiny but also turned off unaffiliated voters, who overwhelmingly supported Merkley in 2020 by wide margins. In a state where independents make up a significant portion of the electorate, Perkins' positions have proven toxic, limiting her to a narrow slice of the Republican base and preventing the kind of broad coalition needed to win.Financial credibility is another area where Perkins falls short. Despite touting her background as a financial advisor, her Certified Financial Planner (CFP) certification was permanently revoked in 2010 by the CFP Board of Standards following two personal bankruptcies. This revocation stemmed from violations of professional standards, undermining her claims of expertise in budgeting and economic matters. In contrast, Russ McAlmond has maintained his CFP license in good standing for over 30 years, building a successful career in finance that includes founding Evergreen Capital Management and serving as Chief Investment Officer at Rogue Russell Investments. McAlmond's unblemished record positions him to credibly address Oregon's economic challenges, from inflation to fiscal restraint, without the baggage that has plagued Perkins. Perkins also lacks military service, a key credential in a state with a strong veteran community. There is no record of her serving in the armed forces, which limits her ability to connect with voters on issues of national defense and veterans' affairs. McAlmond, however, is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran with three years of active duty, including a 15-month overseas deployment, and an honorable discharge. His firsthand experience equips him to advocate effectively for military families, VA improvements, and a strong national security posture—areas where Perkins has no comparable insight.Fundraising has been another perennial weakness for Perkins. Her campaigns have struggled to attract significant donations, hampering her ability to compete in expensive media markets. Combined with her inability to draw crossover support due to polarizing views, this has left her outmatched against well-funded Democratic incumbents. McAlmond, with his professional network and fresh appeal, is better positioned to build a robust war chest and broaden the voter tent. Moreover, Perkins does not represent the change Oregon Republicans need. She is not a new face; she's a perennial candidate with a history of losses in congressional and local races dating back to 1994. Her education includes an associate degree in business management and a bachelor's in political science, but she has no notable background in human rights activism. McAlmond, on the other hand, holds advanced degrees including an MBA and a Master of Science in Financial Services, along with certifications like Chartered Financial Consultant and Chartered Life Underwriter. As the founder and executive director of the Center for Human Equality, he has dedicated himself to promoting individual rights and combating group-based stereotypes, viewing every person as a unique individual worthy of equal treatment. This commitment to human equality sets him apart as a principled conservative who can unite rather than divide.The truth is inescapable: Jo Rae Perkins cannot win against Jeff Merkley in November 2026. Her two prior Senate bids have already proven this, and the same vulnerabilities—extremism, financial inconsistencies, lack of military service, and poor broad appeal—will resurface, amplified by Merkley's supporters and Oregon media outlets. Republicans deserve better than a two-time loser recycling failed strategies. Nominating Russ McAlmond offers a genuine path forward: a veteran, financial expert, and human rights advocate ready to fight for Oregon with common sense and integrity. It's time for a new chapter and new Republican. Vote McAlmond in the primary and give the party a fighting chance.

The Truth About Jo Rae Perkin's Candidacy

Republicans Attack. US presidental elections.

In the landscape of Oregon's 2026 U.S. Senate election, where incumbent Democrat Jeff Merkley seeks a fourth term, the Republican primary field is crowded but lacks depth in viable challengers capable of mounting a serious general election campaign. Oregon, a state that has leaned Democratic in recent federal elections, demands a Republican candidate who can appeal beyond the party's base—someone with credibility, a proven track record, and the ability to attract independents and moderates. Among the contenders, Russ McAlmond emerges as their only choice. As a U.S. Marine veteran, successful businessman, and highly educated financial expert, McAlmond possesses the unique combination of experience, moderation, and appeal that gives him a realistic path to victory against Merkley. In contrast, his Republican rivals, including perennial candidate Jo Rae Perkins and others like David Burch and Timothy Skelton, carry significant liabilities that would likely doom their chances in November.McAlmond's background begins with his service in the U.S. Marine Corps, where he enlisted at age 18 and served three years on active duty, including a 15-month overseas deployment. This honorable service not only demonstrates his commitment to country but also resonates in a state with a strong veteran community. Unlike many politicians who enter public life without real-world trials, McAlmond's military experience instilled discipline and a sense of duty that he carried into his civilian career. After his discharge, he built a thriving financial planning business from the ground up, rising to become President and CEO of Evergreen Capital Management before founding Rogue Russell Investments. This entrepreneurial success showcases his understanding of economic issues like taxes, small business growth, and personal finance—critical concerns for Oregonians grappling with inflation, housing costs, and job security.Educationally, McAlmond is the most qualified candidates in the race. He holds two bachelor's degrees (in Business Administration and Management &amp; Organizational Leadership), an MBA, and a Master of Science in Financial Services (MSFS). He also earned a leadership certificate from Harvard University, along with advanced certifications like Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC) and Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU). These credentials surpass those of many in the field, including Merkley, who has a bachelor's and a master's in public policy. While Merkley's education is impressive, McAlmond's specialized focus on finance and business provides practical expertise for addressing Oregon's economic challenges, such as revitalizing rural communities and supporting industries like timber and agriculture.What sets McAlmond apart from his Republican opponents is his proven track record and broad appeal. As the founder of the Center for Human Equality, he advocates for human rights through "Ethical Individualism," emphasizing respect for individuals over divisive group identities. This moderate stance positions him well to attract Oregon's large bloc of independent voters, who make up about a third of the electorate and often decide close races. McAlmond's campaign emphasizes common-sense policies: fiscal responsibility, border security, and environmental stewardship without extremism. In a state where Merkley has faced criticism for his progressive positions on issues like immigration and social issues - labeling him an "extremist" - McAlmond offers a balanced alternative that could peel away moderates disillusioned with Democratic dominance.In comparison, McAlmond's primary rivals lack the substance and electability needed to beat Merkley. Jo Rae Perkins, who recently switched from a House bid to the Senate race, has a history of electoral defeats, including lopsided losses to Merkley in 2020 (57% to 39%) and to Ron Wyden in 2022. Her campaigns have been marred by controversies, including her public support for QAnon conspiracy theories, which drew national scrutiny and alienated mainstream voters. Perkins has also filed for personal bankruptcy twice and had her CFP certification revoked, undermining her claims of financial expertise. Her fundraising has historically been weak; in past cycles, she raised modest sums compared to incumbents, limiting her ability to compete in a general election. These issues, all public record from her previous runs, make her a vulnerable nominee who would likely face the same easy defeat against Merkley.Other Republican candidates fare no better. David Smith and Timothy Skelton, for instance, lack McAlmond's educational depth, human rights experience, or veteran status. Smith entered the race in the last days before closing while McAlmond has been in the race to defeat Merkley since 2025.&nbsp;McAlmond enters the race unencumbered by scandals or crossover votes with Democrats, with a fresh voice and the credentials to challenge Merkley's incumbency advantage. Oregon's political dynamics further bolster McAlmond's case. The state hasn't elected a Republican senator since 2002, but shifting voter sentiments—driven by concerns over crime, homelessness, and economic stagnation—could create openings for a moderate like him. Merkley, while popular among Democrats, has approval ratings that dip among independents, and his long tenure invites "time for change" arguments. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">McAlmond's human rights advocacy and business savvy could bridge partisan divides, pulling in voters who see him as a pragmatic problem-solver rather than an ideologue.<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">In conclusion, Russ McAlmond is the only Republican in the 2026 Oregon Senate race with the military valor, business success, educational prowess, and moderate appeal to credibly challenge Jeff Merkley. His opponents' weaknesses—past losses, controversies, and limited records—would squander any Republican momentum. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">By nominating McAlmond, Oregon Republicans can field a candidate ready to fight for everyday Oregonians, potentially flipping the seat and delivering a much-needed voice for balance in Washington. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">The path to victory in November runs through a strong primary choice, and McAlmond is that choice.

Only Republican to Beat Merkley in 2026

United States of America traditional government office view

In an era dominated by narratives of systemic injustice and identity-based conflicts, Russell McAlmond's philosophy of Ethical Individualism stands as a compelling alternative. Outlined in his 2021 book Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy, this framework emphasizes the infinite uniqueness of each human being, rejecting any form of "group judgmentalism" that assigns moral value based on collective categories. Instead, it advocates for human relations grounded in mutual respect, trust, and dignity, viewing every person as an irreplaceable "mosaic of experiences" rather than a representative of a group. This approach is fundamentally antithetical to the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy, a paradigm rooted in Karl Marx's class analysis and extended by modern leftist thought into broader identity politics. That dichotomy posits society as divided into inherently antagonistic groups: the powerful oppressors, deemed morally corrupt by their dominance, and the powerless oppressed, often idealized as virtuous victims. Such a framework is not only a false binary that oversimplifies human morality by judging entire groups based on supposed power dynamics but also errs in treating power as intrinsically immoral. Ethical Individualism counters this by affirming individual moral agency and recognizing power as morally neutral—dependent entirely on the character and intentions of those who wield it.The Foundations of Ethical IndividualismEthical Individualism, as articulated by McAlmond, is a "human relational philosophy" designed for the 21st century, prioritizing individuality over collective identities. It argues that every person possesses an "infinite uniqueness," shaped by personal perceptions, inner experiences, and choices, which cannot be reduced to group affiliations like race, class, nationality, or power status. Groupism, in McAlmond's view, fosters division and undermines equality by imposing stereotypes and collective guilt or privilege, leading to toxic judgmentalism. Instead, moral evaluations must focus on observable individual actions and character, promoting win-win interactions that cultivate harmony. This philosophy emerged from McAlmond's experiences as an advocate for human equality, responding to modern discourses that exacerbate polarization through group-based narratives. At its core, Ethical Individualism upholds moral agency as residing in the individual, not derived from or tainted by group membership. Power, wealth, or status does not inherently corrupt; rather, ethical outcomes depend on how individuals exercise their agency. This stands in stark opposition to frameworks that essentialize groups as morally superior or inferior based on power imbalances.The Oppressor-Oppressed Dichotomy in Marxism and Modern LeftismThe oppressor-oppressed framework originates in Marx's historical materialism, which interprets human history as a perpetual class struggle between the bourgeoisie (oppressors, who control the means of production) and the proletariat (oppressed, who are exploited for labor). For Marx, this binary drives societal change, with oppression stemming from economic dominance, rendering the powerful inherently immoral and the powerless victims deserving of revolutionary uplift. In the 20th century, this dichotomy evolved through critical theory and the Frankfurt School, expanding beyond class to encompass race, gender, sexuality, and other identities—a process often termed "cultural Marxism." Modern leftist thought, influenced by figures like Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, further entrenches this by portraying violence or resistance from the oppressed as justified, while deeming oppressors' actions as inherently violent. In contemporary applications, such as critical race theory and intersectionality, the framework identifies "oppressors" (e.g., whites, males, heterosexuals) as privileged and complicit in systemic harm, while "oppressed" groups (e.g., people of color, women, LGBTQ+ individuals) are positioned as morally elevated due to their victimization. Defenders argue it illuminates systemic inequalities, empowering marginalized voices and justifying reparative actions. However, critics contend it reduces complex societies to binaries, fostering division, excusing misconduct from "oppressed" groups, and inverting traditional moral accountability. The False Dichotomy: Group Judgments and the Demonization of PowerThis oppressor-oppressed lens is a false dichotomy because it judges entire groups as morally inferior solely based on perceived power dynamics, ignoring individual variation and agency. It assumes oppressors are uniformly corrupt, while the oppressed are inherently noble, romanticizing victimhood and potentially justifying harm against the former. This overlooks how individuals within "oppressed" groups can perpetrate evil, or those in "oppressor" groups can act benevolently, reducing people to stereotypes and eroding personal responsibility. Moreover, it treats power as inherently immoral, equating dominance with ethical depravity, which discourages responsible leadership and perpetuates cycles of resentment. Power as Morally NeutralPhilosophically, power is morally neutral—a capacity or tool that amplifies the wielder's existing character, intentions, and values, rather than possessing inherent good or evil. As Lord Acton noted, power "tends to corrupt," but this is a tendency, not an inevitability, influenced by psychological factors like disinhibition rather than intrinsic morality. It can enable large-scale good (e.g., just governance) or harm (e.g., tyranny), depending on the morality of individuals or institutions. Seeking power is not unethical in itself; its ethicality lies in acquisition and use. This neutrality aligns with virtue ethics, where power requires guardrails like accountability to prevent abuse. Ethical Individualism's Disagreement: Moral Agency and Power NeutralityEthical Individualism rejects the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy precisely because it violates individual moral agency, imposing group-based moral inferiority that hinders genuine connections. By focusing on uniqueness, it counters the fallacy of collective guilt, insisting judgments be based on personal ethics, not power positions. Power's neutrality reinforces this: a powerful individual's morality is assessed by actions (e.g., benevolent use for mutual benefit), not mere possession. This promotes accountability and empathy, avoiding the dichotomy's pitfalls of division and moral inversion. In conclusion, the oppressor-oppressed framework, while aiming to address injustices, creates a false moral binary that dehumanizes through group judgments and misattributes immorality to power itself. Ethical Individualism offers a superior path by embracing individual agency and power's neutrality, fostering relations built on respect rather than resentment. In a polarized world, McAlmond's vision reminds us that true equality arises from recognizing each person's irreplaceable humanity and agency.&nbsp;

Power is Morally Neutral

Bible opened next to patriotic American flag, symbolizing faith national pride during quiet reading session

In the heart of America's founding principles lies the unassailable right to freedom of religion—or freedom from religion—a cornerstone that protects every citizen's conscience and beliefs. It is unAmerican to be opposed to freedom of religion for everyone.&nbsp;As a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Oregon, I, Russ McAlmond, believe it is imperative for our party to uphold this fundamental liberty with unwavering commitment. Republicans in Oregon and across the nation must be vigilant in respecting these rights for all Americans, including our fellow party members. By doing so, we not only honor the Constitution but also build a stronger, more inclusive party capable of winning elections and governing effectively.The temptation to transform the Republican Party into a "Christian only" enclave is a misguided path that ultimately shrinks our ranks rather than expanding them. History teaches us that exclusivity breeds division, while inclusivity fosters growth. When we insist on religious litmus tests, we alienate potential allies who share our core values of limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and strong national defense. These principles are not the exclusive domain of any one faith; they resonate with Americans from all walks of life. Good Republicans come in many forms—they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, and more. Each brings unique perspectives and strengths to our cause. To suggest otherwise is not only untrue but counterproductive. There is no single religion for the Republican Party; our tent must be big enough for all who believe in conservative ideals, regardless of their spiritual beliefs or lack thereof.This message is particularly critical in Oregon, a state where statewide victories hinge on broad coalitions. Republicans here cannot afford to win only in echo chambers; we need the support of independent voters, who make up a significant portion of our electorate. These independents often prioritize practical solutions over ideological purity, and they are quick to reject any hint of religious favoritism in politics. By welcoming diverse voices, we appeal to these crucial swing voters, demonstrating that the GOP is a party for all Oregonians—farmers in the Willamette Valley, tech workers in Portland, and families in rural communities alike. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">In a state as diverse as ours, from the coastal towns to the high desert, our success depends on unity, not uniformity. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">Let me be clear: there is nothing wrong with Christians becoming more politically involved in the Republican Party. In fact, their participation enriches our discussions and brings moral clarity to issues like family values, community service, and ethical governance. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">Faith-inspired activism has long been a positive force in American politics, motivating leaders to fight for justice and compassion. However, it is vital for the credibility and longevity of our party that we do not allow it to morph into a one-religion entity. Such a shift would alienate non-Christians and even fellow Christians who may not align with a narrow interpretation of faith. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">We must resist the urge to judge or exclude based on perceived religious authenticity, ensuring that no one is sidelined simply because they do not fit a self-proclaimed "true Christian" mold. Instead, we should evaluate potential Republican nominees and leaders based on their qualifications, experience, and knowledge of secular governance that serves everyone. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">Does a candidate understand the intricacies of federal policy, from economic reform to environmental stewardship? Have they demonstrated a track record of effective leadership in their communities or professions? Are they committed to upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights for all, without imposing personal beliefs on others? <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">These are the questions that matter. By focusing on merit over faith, we ensure that our party fields the best possible representatives—ones who can win elections and deliver results for Oregon families.As we move forward in this campaign, let us recommit to the Republican Party as a beacon of freedom, where religious diversity is not a liability but a strength. <span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);" data-mce-style="font-family: inherit; font-size: calc(18px * var(--body-fontSize, 1)); font-style: var(--body-fontStyle, normal);">Together, we can build a party that reflects the true mosaic of America, winning hearts and minds across the spectrum. I ask for your support in this vision for Oregon and the USA: vote Russ McAlmond for U.S. Senate, and let's secure a prosperous, inclusive future for all of us.&nbsp;

Religious Freedom in Oregon

In the politically diverse state of Oregon, where nonaffiliated voters (NAVs) now comprise the largest segment of the electorate at around 36%, followed closely by Democrats at 32% and Republicans at 24%, defeating a long-serving incumbent like Senator Jeff Merkley requires more than traditional party-line appeals. Merkley, a Democrat first elected in 2008 and seeking a fourth term in 2026, has built a reputation as a progressive aligned with extreme left-wing causes, including strong support for the Green New Deal, opposition to border security measures, and advocacy for policies that some view as prioritizing identity politics over individual rights. Yet, his positions have alienated moderate voters, creating an opening for a Republican challenger—if the GOP nominates the right candidate. The only realistic path to victory lies in selecting a moderate like Russ McAlmond, a human rights activist, U.S. Marine veteran, and author whose credentials can neutralize Democratic attacks on Republican human rights records while attracting crossover votes from independents, NAVs, and even disillusioned Democrats who see Merkley as having veered too far left.The Pitfalls of Past Republican NominationsOregon Republicans have struggled to mount competitive challenges against Democratic senators in recent cycles, largely due to nominating candidates perceived as extremists or conspiracy theorists. A prime example is Jo Rae Perkins, the 2020 Republican nominee who ran against Merkley. Perkins, a perennial candidate and vocal supporter of QAnon theories, garnered only 39.3% of the vote in a race where Merkley secured a comfortable 56.9% majority. Her association with fringe ideas, including claims about a "deep state" and election denialism, alienated moderates and independents, who make up a critical voting bloc in Oregon. Perkins' campaign raised minimal funds—less than $100,000 by election's end—and failed to broaden appeal beyond the GOP base. This pattern repeated in 2022 when Perkins again won the Republican primary for the other Senate seat but lost decisively to incumbent Ron Wyden, capturing just 40.9%. Such nominees reinforce Democratic narratives that Republicans are out of touch or extreme, deterring the state's large NAV population—many of whom supported Merkley in past elections—from considering GOP alternatives. To flip the seat, Republicans must avoid hardcore ideologues who cannot expand the tent. Nominating another conspiracy theorist or far-right figure would doom the effort, as it did with Perkins, ensuring Merkley's reelection in a state that hasn't sent a Republican to the Senate since 2002.Merkley's Shift Leftward and the Opportunity for ModeratesJeff Merkley, once seen as a pragmatic Democrat with roots in Oregon's timber country, has increasingly aligned with the party's progressive wing, creating vulnerabilities among centrist voters. As ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and a senior voice on foreign relations, Merkley has championed causes like the Green New Deal, which he describes as needing to "transform every sector of our economy," including phasing out fossil fuels—a stance that resonates in urban Portland but alienates rural Oregonians dependent on logging, farming, and energy jobs. He has opposed border security enhancements, co-sponsored bills to limit ICE operations, and supported sanctuary policies, even as Oregon grapples with fentanyl influxes and strained resources. Merkley has also backed expansions of gender-affirming care for minors and revisions to Title IX that allow biological males in women's sports, positions criticized as prioritizing ideology over fairness and parental rights. These stances have drawn praise from extremist groups like the Portland and Eugene Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who hail him as a "strong ally" on anti-Israel platforms, including his votes against aid to Israel and condemnations of its actions in Gaza. For moderate Democrats and independents, this represents a drift too far left, especially in a state where economic concerns like inflation, homelessness, and wildfire management loom large. Polls and voter registration trends suggest growing dissatisfaction: NAVs have surged to outnumber both major parties, often citing disillusionment with extremism on both sides. A candidate who can frame Merkley as an ideologue while offering common-sense alternatives could peel off these voters, but only if they trust the Republican to uphold human rights and unity—areas where the GOP has been vulnerable to attacks.Russ McAlmond: A Moderate with Gravitas and AppealEnter Russ McAlmond, a Republican candidate who stands out as uniquely positioned to exploit these openings. A U.S. Marine veteran who enlisted at 18 during wartime, McAlmond brings military discipline and a commitment to service, having earned service-connected disabilities from his 15-month overseas deployment. His educational credentials are impressive: bachelor's degrees in Business Administration and Management &amp; Organizational Leadership, an MBA, an MSFS (Master of Science in Financial Services), and certifications as a CFP (Certified Financial Planner), ChFC (Chartered Financial Consultant), and CLU (Chartered Life Underwriter). As founder and Executive Director of the Center for Human Equality (CHE) in Grants Pass, Oregon, he has dedicated his career to human rights advocacy, emphasizing "ethical individualism"—a philosophy that treats every person as a unique individual deserving respect, beyond group identities or stereotypes. McAlmond's book, Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy, published in 2021 directly addresses improving human relations through truth, unity, and rejecting racism, judgments, and collectivism. Drawing from his own dysfunctional family background—marked by parental divorce and relational strife—McAlmond advocates for empathy-driven policies, such as mental health resources for at-risk youth and veterans, while promoting individual rights over group-based divisions. This human rights focus allows him to reframe the party as the historical champion of equality (e.g., Lincoln's anti-slavery legacy) against Democratic collectivism. As a self-described "common-sense centrist," McAlmond opposes extremism on both sides, pledging town halls in all 36 counties, secure borders without sanctuary policies, affordable energy without crippling rural jobs, and protections for women's sports and parental rights. His campaign emphasizes unity, calling for "zero tolerance for hate" including antisemitism, and standing firmly with Israel against terrorism - contrasting sharply with Merkley's hateful criticisms. Early indicators, like Polymarket odds giving him a 58% chance of winning the GOP primary, reflect his growing appeal. McAlmond's Unique Ability to Attract Crossover VotesWhat sets McAlmond apart is his potential to draw from Oregon's vast pool of moderates. In a state where NAVs and independents decide close races, his articulate, educated demeanor and focus on human relations can attract those who backed Merkley previously but now view him as too radical. Moderate Democrats concerned about inflation, drug addiction, or gender policies in schools may cross over, seeing McAlmond as a fighter for individual opportunity—scholarships based on merit, not race; criminal justice protecting victims; and legal immigration aligned with American values. His veteran status and anti-extremism message resonate with rural voters, while his human rights activism blunts urban Democratic smears.No Other Republican Matches McAlmond's ProfileAmong the 2026 GOP field none possess McAlmond's combination of gravitas, education, and broad appeal. Other Republicans lack his national profile, book authorship, or human rights credentials, risking a repeat of Perkins' narrow base. Conclusion: The Path ForwardTo defeat Jeff Merkley, Republicans must nominate Russ McAlmond—a moderate human rights activist whose intelligence, articulation, and vision for unity offer the only credible shot at victory. By appealing to Oregon's moderate core and neutralizing partisan attacks, McAlmond can turn Merkley's leftward extremism into a liability, mobilizing NAVs, independents, and crossover Democrats. Any other choice risks another conspiracy nomination and certain defeat. Oregon deserves a senator who prioritizes common sense over ideology; McAlmond is that leader.