From the new book by Sam Carpenter, a chapter from Making Oregon Great Again: Guide to the Grassroots Revitalization of the Oregon Republican Party (and the Defeat of the Ruling Class).
Download the entire book for free at www.makeoregongreatagain.com/book
CHAPTER 26
The Lars Larson Debate Semi-Debacle.
In Portland, on May 11th, four days before the primary election, I participated in a debate with Knute Buehler and Greg Wooldridge on FM News 101.1 KXL-FM. It was broadcast through the state via syndication.
Diana and I entered the studio ten minutes before the scheduled starting time and immediately noticed Wooldridge, Buhler, Cuff, and their various operatives, supporters, and family (e.g. Buehler’s wife, Patricia), huddled together, relaxed, chatting, laughing. Standing and sitting in the small theater, they took up most of the first row of seats and the narrow open floor space closest to the stage.
The two of us were alone. I had told David to take the day off, that we could handle it. (My mistake). Diana sat in the third row. The time had come to begin the debate and I stood at a lectern facing Larson, the moderator, with Wooldridge on my left and Buehler on my right. Without dissecting everything that was said, along with the body language, it was obvious that I was the target.
In the debate, neither Buehler nor Wooldridge attacked the other, but instead continuously disparaged me, snickering quietly, self-assured. I hammered back. Buehler’s team, Wooldridge’s team (including Bruce Cuff and Jonathan Lockwood), and their other various campaign operatives/sycophants, sat in the front row incessantly staring me down. But those attempts at intimidation didn’t bother me. By the time of the debate I was used to it and expected it.
In the course of the debate, Wooldridge, with a self-satisfied little grin that I will never forget, turned to me and said (and I only slightly paraphrase), “You are a stolen valor fraud.” He knew it was a lie, and he knew I could verify it was a lie…but he also knew we were just four days from the election and I would never have time to repair the damage.
Paraphrasing again, he also said that, “…his team had contacted Army authorities in San Juan Puerto Rico about my attempt to enlist there in 1971.” He said they could, “find no evidence of my claim.” So, here was his logic: people were to believe Wooldridge’s campaign people were investigating me, in the final weeks of the campaign, to see if they could validate my story: to show I had not lied about trying to enlist? Really? His people were directed to DEFEND me? But because they could find nothing, I WAS guilty?
L to R: Knute Buehler, me, Greg Wooldridge
This is like saying, “a bank was robbed and I can’t find evidence it was not you. therefore, you are guilty!”
ARRRGGGHHH!
In 1971, and as I’ve mentioned, I had worked with an Army recruiter in San Juan (who, no doubt, is deceased by now). And anyway, because of Wooldridge’s tenure as an officer in the Navy, he knows full well that no information would be released to him or anyone else. My attempt at enlistment was 48 years ago!
Lies, distortions and the assumption that voters are stupid.
Wooldridge used his record as a military officer to give credibility to his accusations. His performance was disgraceful. Again, to quote Daniel Crowe: “…a knowingly false allegation of ‘stolen valor’ is as detestable as the act of stealing valor itself, as false allegations undermine the credibility of future truthful ones in the same manner that false allegations of rape undermine the credibility of future allegations of that horrid crime.”
Buehler’s and Wooldridge’s deportment? Here’s video of the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WFU27n266k.
There is a point near the end of the event where I half-answered a question about whether I would enforce a gun-control law that would severely restrict the use of certain weapons. I failed to answer the question fully, in the moment thinking back on former President Obama and of current Governor Brown, and how they decided, based on their ideologies, what laws to enforce and what ones to ignore.
I had forty seconds to answer and in that brief time I said it was my job as governor to enforce the law whatever it is, but I failed to add that the initiative petitions (IP 43 and IP44) we were discussing would never become law because they were unconstitutional; that if the measures made the ballot and were passed, as governor, I would ask my AG to file an immediate injunction to prevent them from being enforced until the courts said they were constitutional (which would never happen). We would run it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. And even then, should the Supreme Court find it constitutional (not a chance), county sheriffs would make the final decision about whether to enforce it or not. (Would they enforce it? No way.)
IP43 and IP44 were much ado about nothing. Neither came close to qualifying for the ballot.
For the record, here’s a very short video I recorded in late April with gun rights advocate friends, pertaining IP43 and IP44. It best illustrates my position: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-RBWdH_M_g
I am 100% pro-Second Amendment as-written. Don’t talk to me about nonsensical gun control measures. For details about my stance, go here:
https://www.makeoregongreatagain.com/issues/sam-carpenter-on-gun-control-policy/
The other factor that influenced my answer is that I am a stickler for the rule-of-law, and especially the U.S. Constitution. My book Work the System is about written, pointed and decisive protocol in a business, and about not getting distracted by every wind that blows.
In the debate, both Buehler and Wooldridge, without qualification, said they would break the law.
Part of the one-layer-deeper/simplicity approach tenet is to understand, deep in one’s guts, that personal errors are most often the result of very elementary personal influences: too little sleep, not eating right, not exercising, working too hard – and not due to some profound existential outside influence. And so it was with the incomplete answer I gave Larson. Although the answer to his question was not incorrect, it was incomplete: a result of my utter physical and mental exhaustion from road-tripping for four and a half months.
And as I stood there, I was annoyed by the obvious gang-up and the childish innuendo from Buehler and Wooldridge. My bad answer was near the end of the debate. Yes, in a sense I cracked, and yes I wish I had done a better job with that answer.
For any serious candidate, the physical and mental exhaustion of campaigning is a very real thing. If you’re going to run for office, best to allow for it in advance.
From his seat in the front row of the debate, Jonathon Lockwood, being his usual bellyacher-self, called Kevin Starrett of the Oregon Firearms Federation to tell him of my bad answer. Starrett’s knee-jerk response was to instantly downgrade my OFF rating of B (the highest rating a non-office holder can be assigned), to F, even before the debate was over. Then, Lockwood announced OFF’s action to Lars Larson between questions.
Lars Larson? Some have said it was a set-up, in order to trap me. It wasn’t. So, I’m OK that he drilled me hard about the ballot measures. In fact, Larson, in his own inimitable in-your-face way, and thinking quickly, generously gave me a second opportunity to give a proper answer, but I could not get past my basic premise that following the law is a governor’s prime responsibility.
(Here’s a Facebook post I put up regarding gun control in March, 2018, two months prior to the debate: https://www.makeoregongreatagain.com/sixty-in-sixty/point-89-they-want-to-take-our-guns/)
The debate ended and then Diana and I left the venue, with Buehler, Wooldridge, Cuff, et al, huddled all together by the front door of the studio, quietly and happily chatting away as they watched our quiet departure…
Here is a post I made immediately after the debate: https://www.makeoregongreatagain.com/newsroom/bungling-real-problem-politcal-chicanery/
Regarding the immediate backlash from my bad answer on IP43 and IP44: the Facebook/social media assaults from my political opponent’s attack crews began instantly. We were 72 hours from Election Day, and Friday night until the early hours, and all of Saturday and into Sunday, Diana, David and I fended off the Facebook onslaughts that castigated me for being, “a traitor to gun owners everywhere.” I was called every name in the book. It was an incessant hammering until we finally took stock of what was happening and began to recognize names. Some of these operatives had come to our Page scores of times, with what looked like first-time comments, making it seem like it was the end of the world; that everyone hated me. But, on Sunday morning we began to ban the obvious zealots. We blocked sixty or so individuals and by late Sunday morning the onslaught virtually stopped.
In the final election tally, we estimate I lost maybe five overall points due to my incomplete answer. Most people had already voted, and not all that many watched the debate. And many actually liked my partial answer, understanding the point I was trying to make.
In any case, the other three sides had been desperately waiting for some kind of a faux pas and I gave them this one just four days before the election.