The race for Washington’s 3rd Congressional District got a little more heated in the closing minutes of a debate Tuesday night.
Clark County Today viewed the KATU-TV debate between Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Washington State Senator John Braun at a watch party held at the Clark County Republican Party headquarters.
While there were a few comments here and there from the small gathering at the party, for the most part, the viewers simply watched and listened to the hourlong debate.
There were some exceptions, though.
Especially when Gluesenkamp Perez brought up the death of one of Braun’s employees, claiming that Braun did not treat that employee’s family with respect.
“Oh that’s low. That’s very low,” one viewer said.
Interestingly enough, Braun had a similar description when responding to Gluesenkamp Perez:
“This is a new low for Marie,” Braun said.
He then went on to explain his point of view from the incident, noting that he talked, in person, to the son of the man who died.
“This is just an example of what Marie, a D.C. politician, will do to keep her seat in Washington, D.C,” Braun said.
“You owe that family an apology,” Gluesenkamp Perez retorted.
“What the hell?” a viewer said loudly.
Others in the crowd were disgusted by that statement, as well, as the candidates pivoted to their closing statements.
While that portion of the debate angered some in the watch party, another comment from Gluesenkamp Perez befuddled them.
When talking about the homeless, Gluesenkamp Perez implied that part of the problem stems from the timing of people being released from custody. She said she wants reforms on “what time people get out of prison or jail.”
“If you get out in the middle of the night, you’re going to have a huge problem finding treatment or finding safe housing,” she said.
“What?” a viewer asked.
Others looked around, shrugged, and wondered how the timing of a person being released from prison or jail affects the overall homeless problem in Clark County.
Much of the rest of the debate did not lead to obvious reactions. The debate was narrated by KATU reporter Wright Gazaway.
To see the entire debate, go to: https://katu.com/news/politics/gluesenkamp-perez-braun-set-to-debate-in-race-for-washingtons-3rd-congressional-district-poitics-election-2026-balance-power-congress-republicans-democrats-trimp
Here are some of the highlights.
Braun continued his theme he made in the previous debate, describing Gluesenkamp Perez as ineffective as a U.S. Representative.
“Marie likes to talk about moving a bill or introducing a bill, followed by a press release. That doesn’t actually get any results,” Braun said.
“It’s one thing to say, ‘I’ve got an idea,’” he said, noting that while he has been in the state legislature, he has got things done. She just talks about getting things done, he said.
Both candidates said Congress needs to do a better job of asserting itself and remember its role as one of the three branches of government.
“We did not elect a supreme leader. We elect presidents in this country,” Gluesenkamp Perez said.
As far as voter ID and election security, Braun said that mail-in balloting and voter identification can go together.
“All people are saying is let’s have a process, let’s require that if you are going to register to vote that you are eligible to vote. That’s not controversial,” Braun said, adding that the country should be doing more to build trust in the election system.
Gluesenkamp Perez said: “Voting is for U.S. citizens.”
She added, however, that the federal government should have no say in how elections are held.
“States have the authority to set the time, place, and manner of elections,” she said.
Gazaway also asked about the conflict with Iran.
Gluesenkamp Perez said she follows her own values in regard to military action.
“Does it make us safer, more secure, more prosperous?” she asked. “The president and the administrations have gone into this war recklessly, with no clear objectives, and no strategy to achieve them. They have put our troops in danger.”
She added: “None of this is for the betterment of the American people.”
Braun noted that he has a son, a daughter, and a son-in-law in the military. Plus, he is a veteran himself.
“I will not and I do not support war without clear objectives,” he said.
He started his answer, though, noting there is an objective in this conflict.
“Iran with the potential to build nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. We can’t allow that to happen,” he said.
The candidates talked about transgender athletes, as well. Braun noted the Clark County female athletes who protested against having to compete against biological males in a cross country race this fall.
On the issue of abortion, Braun said he is pro-mother and pro-baby and he would like there to be fewer abortions in the world.
“That said, the court has been clear, this is a state issue,” he said, adding that he respects the law of Washington state allowing access to abortion.
Gluesenkamp Perez is not convinced. She said she is afraid Braun will fight to ban abortion.
“Women in Washington state are not safe with Senator Braun in D.C.,” she said.
In their closing arguments, both candidates used similar language to that used at the previous week’s debate.
“I am profoundly grateful to people across this community — teachers, law enforcement, loggers, mill workers, veterans, day care workers — who have shaped and guided my policy,” Gluesenkamp Perez said. “I know who I work for, and it is a gift to work for these wonderful people in Southwest Washington.
She said Braun is not for the people.
“We cannot afford to send another multimillionaire yes-man to Congress.”
Braun also kept up his theme, as well.
“A press release is not results. Simple as that. She has become the … politician she claims to abhor, where she attacks viciously and ruthlessly without understanding,” Braun said, referring to his opponent.
He pivoted to his candidacy, and then a final question for voters.
“I have a record of success. I have a record of delivering results in the Navy, in business, and as a citizen legislator. I will ask once again: Has Marie had a single, tangible accomplishment that has made your life better or your family’s life better? If she hasn’t, then it’s time for a change, and I ask for your vote.”
Comments
Loading comments…