This story reminds me that I used to have a post every election cycle listing my “Dirty Dozen”—a list of 12 candidates for re-election or office that I deemed ethically unacceptable. The list would include, in addition to automatic honorees like Rep. Maxine Waters, such oddities as Rich Iott, whose candidacy foundered when it was discovered that he had an obsession with dressing up as an SS officer. Usually I made an effort to include an equal number f Democrats and Republicans—it wasn’t hard.
It wouldn’t be hard this time, either. What would be hard, indeed, I decided, impossible, would be to keep the list to just a dozen. To begin with, “The Squad” would take care of all of the Democratic slots right off the bat. Every one of them (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Jamaal Bowman of New York and Cori Bush of Missouri) is an embarrassment: incompetent, blindly ideological, and anti-American to the core. There wouldn’t even be room for Waters, or Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, Majority Whip (and hypocrite “election denier”) James Clyburn, or the ridiculous Stacey Abrams. Then we have Nancy Pelosi, who has crossed more ethics lines with each passing year, and the truly horrible Adam Schiff (D-Cal). I couldn’t fit John Fetterman onto the list, or any of the awful Democratic governors running for re-election—and if I tried, then there would be no room for the Republicans who should never hold political office, like Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), or (you knew this was coming) Herschel Walker, the creepy Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia, who compared the Capitol riot to a “normal tourist visit,” and Rep. Tom Massie (R-Ky) who thought this was an appropriate Christmas card…
Well, I could go on, but this is depressing me. The point is that there are far, far too many ridiculous, incompetent, unethical people making our laws for anyone to be able to trust the government….and I haven’t even drilled down to the state level, where it’s worse.
So meet the entertaining Shavers. Clyde Shavers, the Democratic candidate for Washington state’s 10th legislative district, claimed to be an officer serving on a nuclear submarine in the Navy for eight years. He wasn’t one. He also has claimed to be a lawyer. He isn’t a lawyer either; in fact, he doesn’t know what a lawyer is. On his website, Shavers writes,
To those who point to my F-1 form that states my profession as “Attorney – Lawyer”, there were only three drop-down menu items to select. While a “lawyer” is considered someone who graduated from law school and an “attorney” is considered someone who passed the bar exam, I was unable to select one-or-the-other on my F-1 form. I fully intend to take the bar exam next year and serve as an attorney.
Wrong. Graduating from law school means you have a law degree, but that doesn’t make you a lawyer, because you aren’t licensed to practice law. Nor is he correct regarding “attorney”—that’s the correct definition of “lawyer.” An attorney is someone who is engaged in the practice of law, something Shavers can’t do, because he isn’t a lawyer.
But I digress: back to the submarine issue. Shavers false claims about serving on a nuclear submarine came to light last week when his father, Good Old Dad, wrote to his son’s Republican opponent to reveal “Clyde was never a submarine officer, not even for a day, ” while detailing how his son’s “use of his family’s history and values as a foundation for his credibility and values” have “gone farther than I can accept.” You can read the letter here.
What a rotten thing to do to your son right before an election. Checking Shavers’ claims about his background is the job of the news media (but he’s a Democrat, so you can’t expect that) and his opponent. A family member isn’t obligated to lie for a candidate, but for son (as in Herschel Walker’s case) or father in this case to set out to undermine a candidate qualifies as particularly heinous disloyalty and betrayal. It is hateful, which doesn’t mean Shavers pere’s accusation isn’t true. Shavers fils so far hasn’t agreed to answer questions about his father’s letter, and his careful, vague, explanation on his website leads me to think his father’s accusations are accurate.
Worse than Shavers’ hemming and hawing, perhaps, is his attempt at deflection by focusing on how darn hurt he is, and blaming his father’s attack on “politics.” Why, Dad was one of those evil MAGA types who went to D.C. on January 6th to exercise his Constitutional right to protest what looked to him like stolen election!
Yeah, Clyde Shavers has no business making laws, as it appears clear that he is a phony and a weasel. Still, he’s less of an exception than he should be in a healthy republic.
12 thoughts on “Why There’s No Ethics “Dirty Dozen” This Election, And Those Wacky Shavers: Whatever The Truth Is, The Father Is Unethical And The Son Is Untrustworthy”
I absolutely disagree with your assessment of the father. The guy is a Marin Corp vet and used to be a cop. My guess is he has an integrity streak a mile wide, that he spoke to his son about all of the lies and finally couldn’t stomach them any further. There are many, many examples (Hunter Biden comes to mind) of kids doing really unethical things, with the full knowledge of their families, and no one saying a word until it all blew up. This father decided to set the record straight before his obviously dishonest and undeserving son was able to get into office and turn into the next Adam Schiff, or worse. This story especially resonates for me as a retired nuclear trained Naval Officer who served for more than 30 years in the field this guy failed out of. In short, I think the father did us a favor. Being a good father doesn’t mean standing back in silence while your son bullshits the world. I agree it would’ve been better for someone outside of the family to have dug all of this up, but they didn’t, so the old man stepped up. Too bad it had to be him.
To agree with you, I’d have to know that Dad told Son: “You need to come clean on this. If you don’t, I’ll have to. And I mean it.”
I hear you and suppose we will never know for sure, but in the father’s letter he mentioned conversations that fell on deaf ears. Considering the son doesn’t refute what the father wrote, I know who I believe.
My other problem is with the timing. Shaver has been making the sub claim from before the primary. Why the late hit from the father? If he was outraged from an integrity standpoint, the time to come forward was as early as possible. He sent his letter almost as late as possible, which seems like an act of spite more than act of principle.
The timing is certainly problematic, but without being mind readers we will never know. Still, if the old man wrote the truth, and it seems that he did, I still think outing a person who’s essentially guilty of stolen valor (it takes several years of hard work and training, numerous exams, practical demonstrations in tactics and casualty control, etc.) to earn gold dolphins (the insignia of a submarine officer), is a public service – even if he was motivated by spite. The guy failed out in nuclear power school. It’s incredibly insulting to people who actually earned it – especially considering how early in the program he failed out.
As per above, the dirty dozen seems to have turned into the dirty 18 and is weighted 2 to 1 in favor (favor??) of the Democrats. It could be argued that the least offensive Democrat is worse than the most offensive Republican. As Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson) in the original House of Cards might say, ‘you might think so; I couldn’t possibly comment’.
How soon after that was he shot dead at the unveiling of the statue of Margaret Thatcher?
From the father’s letter:
“I have seen the claims that Clyde’s residence is in question, that he lives in a Bed
and Breakfast. This is true. Clyde has told us that he rents a room in a Bed and
Breakfast. This is his only tie to Whidbey Island and LD10. He has never worked or
Aren’t you required to own property in a district before you can run in it? This might be a Canadianism, but up here not only do you need to own property in the area you represent, but you’re required to spend a certain amount of time in it. How is he running in a district he has no connection to, renting a room in a B&B?
In the US, you simply have to live in the district (and be registered to vote there). There is no property requirement, and the definition of “live” is the subject of Clintonian deception. Residency can usually be “proven” to the ratification of the local clerk with postmarked mail, bank statements, utility bills, etc.
Bizarre…. Literally no skin in the game.
I have a humble suggestion for American election reform.
That Christmas card photograph reminds me of something I heard once, that went “The family that slays together, stays together”.