Donnelly: Kent-Perez election highlights clear contrasts

His career in the military demonstrates extraordinary courage, volunteering for 11 combat deployments, excelling his way into Special Forces, and finally to the CIA. A Gold Star husband, he experienced the ultimate sacrifice needed to defend freedom.

China is plainly allying with Russia, Iran, and North Korea to defeat the U.S. Espionage is key to China’s tactics, and Kent’s expertise in military intelligence is urgently needed on the House Intelligence Committee. The U.S. must excel in military intelligence.

Candidate Kent’s shortcomings have been abundantly aired by his opposition, including by several prominent Republicans who take issue with Kent’s positions on the 2020 election, election security, abortion, and the Ukraine war. Recently, criticism has centered on puzzling discrepancies in his filings regarding the identity of his employer and the nature of the work.

Kent has wisely moderated his stances on the 2020 election outcome. He now affirms Biden is lawfully elected and terms the Jan. 6 rioters “felons.” At an Oct. 31 reception in Camas, Kent’s well-chosen remarks avoided the past and focused on major issues for the future, effectively uniting prominent community leaders of various viewpoints.

This election choice — Kent or Marie Perez — is indeed about two visions. Kent will consistently support the philosophical approach to government that I and other conservatives believe is essential to preserving freedom in a dangerous world: limited, not ever-expanding, government; a strong border policy that deters, not encourages, illegal entry; a strong dollar backed up by fiscal restraint; peace through strength, not military weakness, incompetence, or “wokeness.”

Perez, in contrast, would join the Democratic caucus and would likely vote accordingly most of the time. Assuming so, she will be supporting a border policy allowing cartels to bring murderous fentanyl and trafficked women and children to our streets. In the guise of addressing climate change, Perez’s caucus would look to expand government powers over our formerly abundant, reliable, and affordable energy supplies, replacing them with vague plans for untested and likely costly technologies.

Perez purports to support small business and manufacturing, but it is hard to imagine how increasing energy costs and allowing crime into our country help embattled businesses. And national unrestricted abortion, if enacted, would bring unspeakably inhumane outcomes for fetuses.

Ideally, candidate Kent would have no shortcomings. He would have filed impeccable disclosures, been forthcoming about his earnings, and tamped down his rhetoric earlier. But such shortcomings are dwarfed by the history-changing issues at hand, where he is the clear choice.