The Everett Herald reversed its endorsement of a Democratic legislative candidate less than a week before the 2022 elections “after the paper said it found ‘serious misrepresentations’ in the candidate’s work history,” Seattle TV station KING 5 reported on Wednesday, November 2, 2022.
The Democrat, Clyde Shavers of Oak Harbor, is running for a seat currently held by GOP Rep. Greg Gilday of Camano Island. (Read the King 5 story here, and the Everett Herald editorial here.)
The Herald called out Shavers for saying he served aboard a Navy submarine when he didn’t, and calling himself an attorney when he isn’t, and questioned his “integrity.”
But if Shavers exaggerated his experiences, he didn’t by much. He graduated from the Naval Academy and submarine school, and was assigned to a submarine. But he decided sub duty wasn’t for him, requested a transfer, and served as a public affairs officer. After leaving the Navy, he graduated from Yale Law School and worked for a law firm, but still has to pass the bar exam.
The Herald doesn’t like him calling himself an attorney before he’s admitted to the bar, or saying he “served aboard a submarine while in the Navy.” I can’t verify he made either of those claims; they don’t appear in the voters pamphlet (here, at p. 23) or on his campaign website (here).
His campaign website says he “commissioned into the nuclear submarine community,” which technically is true, and is explicit that he was “a public affairs officer,” which wouldn’t mislead anyone to believe he served on a sub. It says he graduated from law school, but doesn’t claim he’s an attorney.
The Herald editorial indicates those representations appeared in an interview, campaign literature, and a Public Disclosure Commission form. None of that is verifiable online; I don’t know what was said in the interview, haven’t seen the campaign flyer, and the only PDC information about Shavers online is a campaign finance report here.
The Herald isn’t wrong to highlight discrepancies in a candidate’s biography; but the embellishments it describes, while arguably something more than trivial, are nowhere near “serious misrepresentations.” Given his actual biography, they’re at worst mild embellishments. Graduating from the Naval Academy and Yale Law School are, by themselves, very major accomplishments.
The Herald didn’t mention it was tipped off by a letter that Shavers’ father, a highly partisan Republican, wrote to Gilday; or that Brett Shavers has his own credibility problems. He claims his son “disdains the military,” but saying that about someone who graduated from the Naval Academy and served 6 years as a Navy officer requires proof. More damning, Brett Shavers was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, trying to overthrow our government. Given that, I’d believe his son before I’d believe him.
There are other problems with the Herald‘s raison d’être for switching its endorsement from Shavers to Gilday. They said,
“Candidates for public office, because of the trust that is required to represent the interests of the residents of one’s district and the state, must be held to a high standard regarding the veracity of their record and their positions. Shavers has violated that trust.”
But few Republican candidates could meet the standard of trust the Herald is setting for Shavers. Donald Trump wouldn’t; Herschel Walker doesn’t. (Note: I’m not saying the Herald endorsed those individuals; those are just examples.) Another problem is the Herald doesn’t give issue-oriented voters any reasons to vote for Gilday. All they said about him was,
“Gilday, having served one term in the House, had shown a dedication in serving his community and had demonstrated he can work collaboratively with Democrats as well as those within his own party.”
This is too vague for voters concerned about issues like abortion, voting rights, and whether the attacks on school curricula and libraries occurring elsewhere are going to infect our state, too. It’s troubling that Gilday’s campaign website (here) says nothing about his positions. Neither does his voters pamphlet candidate statement (here, at p.23). Given his party’s track record, as a voter I’d be reluctant to sign that blank check. With Shavers, at least you know what you’re getting (read his positions here).
At this point, it’s fair to ask why the Herald editorial board endorsed Shavers in the first place. The answer is pretty simple: Between “two strong candidates,” they liked him slightly better, because of his “enthusiasm for bringing sometimes disparate groups together to find solutions that benefit all involved, as well as a willingness to challenge his own party on some of its legislative proposals” (see their original endorsement editorial on Sept. 20, 2022, here). Those reasons for supporting him haven’t gone away.
The accusation that Shavers exaggerated his accomplishments is baffling given he’s someone with impressive credentials who doesn’t need to exaggerate. I’m confident the Herald is sincere about its reason for changing its endorsement; it saw something it doesn’t like, and that’s fair.
But politics is full of far worse things to dislike, and many worse candidates than Shavers; so going forward, shouldn’t we as news consumers hold the Herald to its own standard for endorsing candidates, when it endorses candidates in the future?
I’m not saying it’s OK to exaggerate or embellish. But double standards aren’t OK, either, and there are worse offenders than Shavers; so I expect the Herald to not endorse them, either. They need to be consistent, otherwise it’ll look partisan.