“Equating Vaughn’s military service to that of a Boy Scout was a poor comparison by Bill Sali. Hey, Bill, Vaughn Ward did serve in Iraq after 9/11 and came home a decorated Marine. -Pete Cenarussa

Bill Sali’s comments were incredibly insensitive and inappropriate. Bill and Raul’s attempt to degrade Vaughn’s service and leadership is disrespectful to all the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and the Boys Scouts of America that have served our country for generations. I hope Bill and Raul will issue an apology and let Idahoans know how deeply they appreciate Vaughn’s and his fellow veterans’ service to our country.”
– Major General Ben Doty, USA (Ret.) and former Veterans for Sali Chairman

As much as I’m loathed to disagree with these two gentlemen, I have to point out a problem. Sali didn’t compare Ward’s service in the military to the Boy Scouts. Here’s the in-context quote:

“Vaughn has served our country with distinction and we owe him a debt of gratitude for that, as we do all of our veterans,” Sali said. “But I have to tell you, sending Vaughn Ward to Washington, D.C., is a little bit like sending a Boy Scout to Iraq. He doesn’t have any experience casting tough votes. He doesn’t have experience in the political arena.”

Now, in context, Sali first of all said we owe Ward a debt of gratitude for his service. Sali then made his analogy based on the fact that Ward had no experience in the political arena or on casting tough votes. He basically said that without that experience in legislating, Ward wasn’t prepared to enter into Congress. It was a an analogy, and a poorly stated one. It wasn’t an insult on the military service and the boy scouts.

What should Labrador and Sali do? For Raul, I think the important is to stay focused on the campaign. For Sali, I think it’s important that he come out and say something because this will grow into a “political fact” that Bill Sali equated service in the military with being in the Boy Scouts.

He could say something like, “I did not disparage Vaughn Ward’s military service. I said it should be honored. My point, which I didn’t state as I well would have liked is that while I honor his service, Vaughn is not prepared to go to Washington. He doesn’t have that experience of standing up to the Speaker or the Governor, and saying we’ll choose conservative principles over political expediency. And that Independence and dedication to conservative values iis what we need in Washington and Raul has shown that time and time again.”

It does almost seem that Ward’s campaign really wants Raul to concede that Ward’s congressional leadership ability is no different than Labrador’s which at this point would really be conceding the race.

Well, you know, Vaughn has served our country with distinction and we owe him a debt of gratitude for that, there is no way around that, as we do with all of our veterans. But I have to tell you, sending Vaughn Ward to Washington, D.C. is a little bit like sending a boy scout to Iraq. He doesn’t have any experience casting tough votes. He doesn’t have experience in the political realm.

I suppose one could get technical and point out that Boy Scouts can be up to 18, so many people have gone from the Scouts to the Army, but clearly Sali was thinking on the lower end of the boy scout age spectrum, which are ten and eleven year olds.

I wouldn’t entirely agree with the idea that we always ought to go with legislative experience. I’ll take inexperience v. a really bad record, but Sali’s point here has some validity. It’s the one issue I’ve come back to over and over again that remains Ward’s big question mark. How can conservatives know he’ll be trustworthy when it comes down to crunch time and the leadership is demanding something in violation of conservative principles. This is the question many conservatives have.

Well, what was Vaughn’s response going to be? The first response was somewhat typical of the the banal cliches released by the Ward campaign, “Idaho Republicans are ready for new leadership, the kind of fiscally conservative, common-sense approach that Vaughn Ward will bring to Congress.” The second response was more direct:

“No decision in Congress will be tougher than the decisions Vaughn made in combat.  Vaughn is a proven combat leader who has spent his life in service to Idaho and our country.  Bill Sali and Raul Labrador are politicians who represent a failed establishment that has given us higher unemployment, increased spending, and a record deficit.   

Yep, mark this on your calendars. Bill Sali has been accused of many things. Being a member of the political establishment isn’t one of them–until now. Of course Ward’s statement is quite ironic as he just made an announcement of a new co-chair, Former Idaho Secretary of State Pete Cenarrusa, who served nine terms as Secretary of State. You can’t get much more establishment than Pete Cenarrusa, who was last seen fighting against term limits in Idaho in 2002. So let me combine the two messages, “Idahoans are ready for new leadership, that’s why we’re pleased to announce that we’ve been endorsed by the a guy who served thirty-six years in office.”

So, let me understand this, what the Ward campaign is saying is, “Look, I have the support of Dirk Kempthorne, Lori Otter, Lt. Governor Brad Little, Minority Leader Boehner, Minority Whip Cantor, the NRCC Chairman, and Kirk Sullivan, but that Raul Labrador guy represents the establishment.”

My question to Vaughn Ward is if Raul Labrador represents the establishment, why has nearly every member of the party establishment endorsed you.

And as for Bill Sali as an establishment Republican. Give me a break. He locked horns with Bruce Newcombe and Mike Simpson wanted to throw Bill Sali out a third story window. You don’t get more anti-establishment than that. The ACU, whose endorsement Vaughn trumpets gave Sali a 98% American Conservative Union rating, he scored a 94% anti-pork rating, and was twice given an “A” by the National Taxpayer’s Union. Bill Sali is as conservative as you can get.

Ward’s attack on Sali was either dishonest, or completely ignorant. Either Ward knows that Sali’s got a conservative record, but saw some rhetorical value in pitting himself against “the establishment”, or he either has no clue what Mr. Sali’s actual record is.

Hanlon’s razor demands that we prefer ignorance over plain deception. Ignorance would also seem to fit the way the Ward campaign has been run. While Ward is up on national issues, he seems more than a bit out of it when it comes to understanding the dynamics of state politics.

 I was at the State March for Life and Sali’s name was mentioned with a sense of reverence. Those of us who are conservative activists know Sali’s name and we know Sali’s record. Sali won two straight primaries from the voters whose support Ward needs. Were these voters just dupes of the establishment when they supported this conservative Congressman?

If Vaughn Ward wants to win in the fall, he’s going to need the support of folks who respect what Bill Sali represents. Dumping on him isn’t going to help. To me it raises questions as to if he can bring our party together if he’s nominated.

It also should be noted that he didn’t answer the concern. It was far easier to attack the messenger than to come up with something that would reasurre Idaho voters. The fact that Vaughn Ward served in the military will not mean he’ll be a fiscal conservative. It doesn’t mean he’ll have a conservative voting record.

Bob Dornan, Duncan Hunter, Daniel Inouye, John Murtha, Duke Cunningham, John Kerry, John McCain and hundreds more have served in Congress, and their military experience has produced different ideologies, different fiscal records, different willingness to stand up under political fire. John Boehner served this country in the U.S. Navy and it didn’t stop him from voting for TARP.

With respect to Vaughn Ward, I would have to say, “Thank you for your service, but you’ve still failed to answer the question.”

The first thought on my tired brain is that Sali made his way down to the Capitol, so that he could show up to endorse Raul Labrador in the Republian Primary. And that remains my strongest bet.

At the same time, if Sali was filing for office, he’d have to go into the Secretary of State’s office to file his paperwork. My bet at the moment is on endorsement rather than an announcement because I’m also on the Sali campaign’s e-mail list. And if you were about to announce for office, you’d want as many supporters, friends, etc. present as possible, and Bill Sali didn’t send anything out. 

Regardless, today is the day when we’ll see a lot of intrigue and a few last minute surprised. When I first ran for the legislature in 2004,  I remained unopposed in the Republican Primary until about five minutes until five. A lot will change. A local politico told me that the eager people file early, and the strategic ones file at the last minute, so by the end of today, I think there will be a few surprised and we’ll have a firm grasp of what the Fall looks like.

What would a Sali entry into the primary mean?  Sali’s big in-district supporters have gone over to Labrador for the most part, most of Sali’s biggest out of district backers have gone to Ward. How he would get a campaign together at this point is iffy.

On the other hand, while the political types have committed, many of the people haven’t. And a Sali entry would put us into the same type of six-person field that got him nominated in 2006. (Albeit, this would be a weaker six person field. I could only imagine Sali, Labrador, or Ward winning. Last time around, five of the six candidates were feasible primary winners.)

However, it’d be an incredibly bad play. It’d be doubtful that Sali could win given the lack of political capital. Even if he did, he’d be stepping on some folks, notably Raul Labrador, who has left his state house seat. I don’t think Sali would do that. I think Sali won’t run for Congress.

However, that’s not to say Sali couldn’t run for something else. Governor Sali has a nice ring to it, so does Lieutenant Governor Sali. In the Governor’s race, there’s been a lot of conservative concern about how Governor Otter’s been doing his job, and no big name has come forward to challenge Lieutenant Governor Brad Little. Either of these could be a real opportunity for Sali to catch fire without burning a friend.

If Sali doesn’t run this year, that doesn’t mean that Sali’s gone forever from Idaho politics. Consider that J.D. Hayworth waited 4 years after his congressional defeat to launch his comeback bid. Sali could do the same.  Like Hayworth, Sali faced some absolutely revolting attempts at character assassination and may just need some type to get ready to roll.

“Bill probably enjoys all the press he’s getting, I guess, but it’d be nice if we’d just kind of ignore Bill and move forward,” Roberts told the Idaho Statesman during a phone interview Friday while on a North Idaho campaign swing.

That might not have been the way to do it. In fact, I think that was kind of a slap across the face to both Congressman Sali and people supportive of him.  I don’ t thing Sali is dragging this out for publicity. In fact, I’ve mostly heard about it through intra-party conversation, not the press.

The difficulty of making a decision comes from the fact that Bill Sali went through a brutal campaign and there are a lot of knives in his back that quite honestly have Republican fingerprints on them, including establishment folks who decided to go passive aggressive on him.

On the other hand, the country’s in trouble and we could really use the Principled Conservative leadership that Bill Sali would provide if he got back to Congress.  I don’t know whether Congressman Sali will run, but if he did, he’d have my support.

I think there are two things Sali would need to do to be successful is to address two big issues. Number one is public relations. He has a press opponent in the Idaho Statesman that serves as the advocacy arm of the Minnick Campaign. They’ve absolutely thrashed him.

I think the image of Sali is totally untrue. He’s a friendly stand-up guy if you meet him. Most Idahoans haven’t and he’s been really defined by the press. He’d really have to have some strategy to reintroduce himself.

Secondly, he needs to find some way to raise sufficient funds, which was his big issue last time. I think in a 3-way Republican Primary, he wins. If a Sali entry drains Roberts’ support and forces Roberts out, I think it becomes a lot harder.

For my part, I’d love to see Sali back in Congress, but I pray that he follows the biblical admonition to count the costs, and I’m sure he’ll make the right decision.

The Federal Election Commission concluded its own staff failed to adequately assist then-U.S. Rep. Bill Sali file a 2008 campaign finance report. In a May 1 memo, FEC staff members wrote the “repeated failure on the part of Commission staff to promptly follow-up…and help them with their software problem” led to the Republican House member’s tardy July 2008 quarterly filing.

Vickie Holbrooke over at the Idaho Press-Tribune issued a graceful apology. Sadly,  most critics have refused to own up. Kevin Richert at the Idaho Statesman has said nothing in terms of an apology. While in the comments, both Bubblehead and Julie Fanselow have demanded to see the actual memo before doing anything else.

So, apparently, they believe it’s possible that the AP quoted the Memo without actually seeing it and that Bill Sali fabricated it in order to fool the AP into believing he’d been exonderated.  ‘

Truth is that they don’t want to take responsibility for the the false attacks on Bill Sali. They attacked what amounted to a trivial matter of being late with an FEC report to attack Sali as dishonest and incompetent, and refuse to acknowledge their errors.  Instead, they pursue a conspiratorial line of reasoning that makes crop circles sound reasonable.

The situation is reminiscent of the comments of Former Labor Secretary Ray Donovan after a court acquitted him of criminal charges, “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?” 

The office doesn’t exist. And restoration won’t happen when most of the press covers the allegations but gives short thrift to when you’re cleared or fail to acknowledge their errors. This failure to take responsibility on the part on most Sali critics is why we are having an ever increasing number of sociopaths and other ne’erdowells in political office. Decent people refuse to submit to this insanity, which is why we have a government that is quickly going insane.

Sali concedes Idaho’s 1st CD race to Minnick, but blames the fact that he lost on the fact that the campaign was heavily outspent. So, if I understand this, Sali believes that if he had more money, he could have won? I think there’s more to blame than just how much money was donated. I think it has much more to do with how he operated as a politician.

It’s a well-known political fact that the candidate who raises the most money wins. While perhaps, do you really think if fundraising was equal, Minnick would have won? No way. True, Sali had problems with some people here, but the money spent by Minnick and the DCCC can buy a lot of voter problems. Minnick got on the air sooner and longer.

Of course, the question many have is can Sali come back? Dennis Mansfield has invited Sali to ministry or business.  He also is probably one of the few people I know who could make his living in music. But 54 is kind of young to hang ‘em up in politics.

This is the first defeat of Sali’s 18 year political career. No matter what field you’re in, a 19-1 record (General Elections and Primaries) is pretty darn good. Governor Otter lost the governor’s race in 1978 and that wasn’t the end of him.

 This campaign has put Sali and his family through the ringer, though the way in which Minnick won (through unfair personal attacks on the Congressman based on events that occurred when Sali was in his 20s and 30s)  may themselves could help fuel a desire for a comeback rather than causing him to rule it out.

If he does come back, he’ll need to find some way to counter Minnick’s money advantage. One thing that I would do if I were Sali and I were to make a come back is that I would go door to door in Canyon County and other usually reliable places that went for Minnick, and schedule more rallies overall. People who meet Sali are more likely to like him. People who sit on their tushes watching TV or reading the Statesman are more likely to believe their spin.

It’s too soon to know what Congressman Sali will do, but whatever he chooses, he’ll continue to have our family’s support and thanks.

I wish Congressman-elect Minnick all the best. However, I’ll be honest that I’m troubled with the way he won. The use of 20 year-old tax liens that were paid off to besmirch the integrity of Congressman Sali seems to me to be taking the low road to Capitol Hill. The type of campaign that Walt Minnick has run is illustative of why good people don’t run for office. Unfortunately, St. Peter has never run.

Regardless, I believe that what’s intended for evil will be used for good. I’ve been honored to support Congressman Sali these pest two years, but I trust that God has a plan for him and his wonderful family.

10. Supported by Planned Parenthood:

Congressman Bill Sali (R-Id.) believes Planned Parenthood should not be funded by your tax dollars. Planned Parenthood bills itself as the Lenscrafters of Family Planning. Great, but we don’t give tax subsidies to LensCrafters. LensCrafters also hasn’t been under criminal investigation for helping to cover up the abuse of underage girls.

Minnick is endorsed by not only Planned Parenthood, but also NARAL Pro-Choice America. Based on to the money poured into the race, Big Abortion expects to get a big boost if Walt Minnick is elected to Congress.

9. Endorsed Barack Obama-in January

One can’t take down a Democrat solely for supporting Obama except that Minnick made his endorsement in January. Minnick could have supported Hillary Clinton, who was more moderate, or stayed neutral. Instead, Minnick urged the Democrats to select the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate as its nominee when there were other viable choices. How then can Minnick claim to be a “conservative” Democrat? How can he claim fiscal conservatism with his support for a candidate that James Pethokoukis of U.S. News and World Report declared would bring “Half billion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.”

8. Fool Me Once…

Minnick is taking the line that he’ll go to Washington and stop earmarks and balance the budget. Wait? Haven’t we heard that line before? Yes, we did. In 2006, House Democratic Candidates ran as Conservative Populists and won on similar themes throughout the country. Yet, to a person, the House Freshman class has turned out to be absolutely worthless on fiscal issues. In 2007, there were anti-Pork Amendments brought up in the U.S. House, your average House Democrat voted to cut the pork only 2% of the time. It’s easy to talk the fiscal conservative talk, it’s hard to actually govern. Why should we believe Minnick when 50+ House Democratic Freshman failed to keep their promise in 2006?

7. Charlie Rangel

While the media rapped Congressman Sali for support from out-of-state conservatives, the liberal press in Idaho remains characteristically uncurious about Minnick’s out-of-state fundraising. A chief example is Congressman Charlie Rangel. If Minnick is the scourge of earmarks, Rangel certainly didn’t know it, as his PAC sent $10,000 to Minnick’s campaign.

Rangel obtained an earmark for the Charlie Rangel Center for public service in New York City, the Monument to Me. Congressman Sali opposed this earmark while not a single House Democratic Freshman did. Subsequently, Rangel came under investigation for raising $12 million for the center, much of it from businesses with issues before his committee. To top it all of as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rangel failed to pay taxes on income he earned from a rental property. As embarrassing scandals mounted, the New York Times called for Rangel to resign as Ways and Means Committee Chairman.

Up in Alaska, the Democratic Nominee for U.S. Senate, Mark Begitch (D) realized that running as a government reformer and taking Rangel’s money didn’t mix, so he donated all of Rangel’s donation to charity. Meanwhile, Walt Minnick is clinging to Rangel’s donation like his Presidential Candidate said rural folks cling to guns and religion.

6. Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

Minnick declared his support for amnesty for illegal aliens as proposed by President Bush. Like Bush, he’d rather not call it amnesty.

5. Bankrolling the Left

For someone who claims to be a conservative Democrat, Minnick supports a lot of liberals for high office in-state and out. If I were a conservative Democrat who wanted to support candidates out-of-state, I would probably give to guys like Rep. Scott Mattheson (D-UT) or Gene Taylor (D-Ms.) who are fairly conservative. Instead, Minnick gave money to the Senate re-election campaign of John Kerry in 1996. He supported the House Campaign of Department of Peace supporter Congressman Mark Udall (D-CO), and he contributed to Senator Maria Cantwell’s (D-WA.) campaign.

In Idaho, he’s supported such far left members of the State Legislature as State Representative Nicole LeFavour, who is so far to the left she opposed a bill to make it a crime to physically coerce a woman to have an abortion. Another Minnick beneficiary was Mike Burkett, who fought against a bill that required legal status be verified before the state gives out any non-emergency benefits.

In addition, Minnick gave money to defeat our State’s Marriage Amendment at the polls in 2008 and also gave money in support an initiative that would force the State to spend $210 million in taxes any way that it chose. The money was to be used for whatever educational expenses school districts wanted. What was that about fiscal responsibility?

You can tell a lot about someone by where they invest their personal resources. Minnick’s support for the far left in Idaho and across the nation speaks volumes.

4. Extreme Environmentalist

Idaho’s resource industry has been devastated by closing lands off to resource management and logging. In addition, there has been an incessant hue and cry for breaching of Idaho dams. Minnick has been a big part of this environmental movement that has hurt our state. He served on the Governing Board of the Wilderness Society for 16 years, and was a big donor to EarthJustice, a legal group that uses litigation to force far left environmental policies through the courts, while destroying good paying jobs.

3. Its What We Don’t Know

In this top 10 list, we’ve hit some of the top issues. However, much of Minnick’s issue positions are unknown. On the issue of card check, I e-mailed Minnick’s campaign more than 3 months ago for information on where Minnick stands on the Employer Free Choice Act, a bill that would allow unions to intimidate workers by eliminating the secret ballot in union elections. As of this date, I don’t know where Walt Minnick stands on that issue, but I do know Walt Minnick has raised nearly $100,000 from Labor Unions including $5,000 from the National Education Association, and that he’s raised $165,000 from New York City in Individual Itemized contributions.

Ultimately, we don’t just elect Congressmen to handle issues that we’re up to speed on, but those that we don’t have either time or inclination to follow. That’s where the question, “What’s this guy’s real philosophy?” becomes so critical. Can Idaho trust him to be a Conservative? The record says no.

2. D+ From the NRA

Minnick scored a D+ from the NRA for saying that he that didn’t support the ownership of guns that are “not used for sporting purposes.” Minnick backs the Brady law. Minnick D+ rating is astounding in Idaho.

The NRA is a not a partisan organization. Democratic Senate Nominee Larry LaRocco scored an A. Our neighboring Senator Max Baucus received an A+ from the NRA. Even Colorado Senate Candidate Mark Udall scored a C, while his brother Tom scored a C- in New Mexico.

Minnick is touting the endorsement of a phony gun organization called American Hunters and Shooters Association, which has also endorsed gun control proponent Obama for President.

1. Bill Sali

The #1 reason that Walt Minnick should not go to Congress is that the first district already has a great Congressman. Bill Sali received a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union and was ranked a Taxpayer Hero by the National Taxpayers Union. While Walt Minnick talks about fighting government waste, Bill Sali has actually been endorsed by Citizens Against Government Waste. He’s voted against $1.16 trillion in federal spending.

Bill Sali has received an A+ rating not only from the NRA, but from the more stringent Gun Owners of America. He’s been recognized by the Family Research Council for his leadership on pro-family issues, and has received support from National Right to Life. .

He’s also focused on fixing Washington’s broken culture that allows bills in the 10-figure range to be brought and passed in less than 48 hours.

Of course, the narrative is that people might agree with Sali on the issues, but that he’s a bombastic counterproductive Congressman who alienates those around him. The only problem? It’s not true.

The Idaho Statesman, which is owned by McClatchy, has only endorsed Bill Sali once in his political career (when his opponent skipped the interview.) The Statesman had to report that McClatchy’s Washington reporter failed to find anyone Congressman Sali had alienated during his tenure. If they could have found a person in Washington to rip Bill Sali, believe me, they would have. In fact, Sali has received compliments from Democrats and Republicans alike on the Hill.

Idaho’s 1st District has a great Congressman who stands as a voice of sanity in a madhouse we call Washington. He has a compass, and it points True North. Idaho shouldn’t throw that away to elect a dime store Democrat.

Well, I decided to e-mail the E-mail the NRA, Political Victory Fund and asked them about their stance on the issue and why they’d given Minnick the D+ rating. George Dovel of the NRA Political Victory Fund explained:

The two items that were cited in the NRA D+ rating for Walt Minnick were (1) that he did not support the ownership of guns that are not used for sporting purposes and (2) that he supported the Brady Bill. The Attorney General and subsequently the U.S. Supreme Court properly ruled that the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting – it is about the right to own and use firearms for protection. Since the ruling that District of Columbia residents, and all others except convicted felons or people judged to be mentally unfit or a threat to someone else (e.g. under a protection order), are entitled by our Constitution to own firearms solely for self-protection, many states, counties and cities have been forced to change their anti-gun laws.

When Australians were given the amnesty period to turn in their guns, those that were used for hunting or sporting purposes were excluded. That resulted in an effective ban on owning or possessing firearms for self-protection much to the dismay of people I have communicated with there who believed it was okay to outlaw so-called “Saturday night specials” and weapons that may permit the use of extended magazines.

Unfortunately many well-intentioned U.S. politicians believe that affordable handguns or other firearms intended solely for self-protection should not be made available to Americans, especially including those who are less affluent. In the 15 years or so that I have acted as an NRA election volunteer I have never known of a candidate for office in Idaho that did not claim to support the Second Amendment.

Minnick has cited his support from American Hunters and Shooters Association, which from all accounts seems to be a front group for gun control activists according to the Gun Owners of America:

“Walt Minnick claims to support the Second Amendment, yet he is endorsed by a new breed of anti-gun radicals masquerading as friends of gun rights.

“The American Hunters and Shooters Association — a group supporting Minnick — has a name designed to appeal to gun owners and sportsmen, but it is nothing more than a front organization for the Obama campaign and gun control extremists.

“Anti-gun activists know the American people do not support their radical agenda. The old gun control groups that enjoyed their heyday during two Clinton administrations are shrinking or are out of existence. So they’ve come up with clever new packaging, using images of hunters instead of criminal street gangs as illustrations on campaign literature. But a picture of a hunter on a website is not going to pull the wool over the eyes of gun owners.

“Just look at the candidates AHSA’s president Ray Schoenke has contributed to in the past: Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy, not to mention Handgun Control, Inc. This list represents the Who’s Who of the anti-gun movement!

“This year AHSA is touting Barack Obama, who would be the most anti-gun president in the history of this country.

“If congressional candidate Walt Minnick cared one bit about the Second Amendment, he would publicly denounce the radical AHSA.

“Rep. Bill Sali stands in stark contrast to his anti-gun opponent, earning an ‘A+’ rating from GOA for his efforts in Congress to protect and defend the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

“Gun Owners of America is proud to endorse Rep. Bill Sali for reelection, and urges gun owners and sportsmen to vote on Tuesday.”

We’re seeing the success of both the second Amendment and pro-life causes with Democrats creating fake groups to pretend to support those things, even if they’re working against them. The NRA has an article on their website fully explaining their view on the organization. Any group that claims to care about guns and supports Barack Obama is a little nuts.

Obama served on the board of the Joyce foundation, which used its deep pockets to push anti-gun research. According to PJM, here’s how it went down:

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

Their efforts almost worked. Those who dissented from the court’s decision decision upholding the second Amendment as an individual right cited articles that the Joyce Foundation funded. Again, how could any group seriously concerned about firearms back Obama?

BOISE — Democratic candidate Walt Minnick leads Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Sali by a seven-to-five margin in one of the most-telling polls of Idaho’s 1st Congressional District race: A tally of the two rivals’ personal firearms.

Out on the Idaho frontier, gun ownership — especially in tight elections — stands in as a surrogate for candidates to communicate shared values with residents, many of whom are passionate hunters.

Minnick owns seven guns — three pistols from .22 caliber to .48 caliber, a .22-caliber rifle, two Remington shotguns and a pellet gun. Sali owns two shotguns and three rifles.

We can’t all be Phil Gramm, who owns more than 300 guns and once declared, “I have more guns than I need and less guns than I want.”

If you’re concerned about gun rights, and choose to support a candidate who got a D+ from the NRA over one who got A+ because the D+ guy happens to hold two more guns, then you’re fighting for your 2nd Amendment rights with a peashooter.

As an aside, I find it curious that Minnick lists a Pellet gun as among his guns, as that’s not a firearm, so Minnick’s claim to own two more guns has got to at least get an asterisk.

Those are the results of a statewide mock election among students in high school senior government classes, organized by the Idaho Secretary of State’s office. Of the more than 4,704 online ballots cast Thursday and Friday by students at 54 schools across the state, and tallied up this morning, 47.8 percent favored Democrat Barack Obama for president, to 45.6 percent for Republican John McCain. Independent Ralph Nader got 4 percent, Libertarian Bob Bar got 1.6 percent and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin got 1 percent…

In the congressional races, Republican incumbent Bill Sali edged Democrat Walt Minnick in the student vote in the 1st Congressional District, 52.8 percent to 47.2 percent, while GOP Rep. Mike Simpson collected 65.9 percent to Democratic challenger Deborah Holmes’ 34.1 percent in the 2nd Congressional District.

Now, let’s think about this. Obama wins among Idaho Kids with 51.8% voting for leftist candidates Obama or Nader (public education/media propoganda successful.) Yet, in the end, Bill Sali wins over Minnick by a healthy 6 point margin. Given that the kids voting are much more liberal than their parents, it would seem safe to suggest Congressman Sali should win by an even stronger margin when the elections are held.

Second pieces of news that helps Sali comes from the Idaho Press Tribune. Last election cycle, Democrat Larry Grant ran the table of newspaper endorsements in heading towards a loss. They didn’t endorse Sali this time, opting for “no endorsement decision.” While the Press Tribune tweaked Sali, but it’s Saturday Editorial was an unabashed slam on Walt Minnick:

Because the 1st District does lean conservative, Minnick’s high-pressure effort to convince Idahoans he’s so far on the right raises red flags.

Consider this question the IPT asked in an online survey: On a political scale from extremely liberal (1) to the very conservative (10), where are you on a scale of 1 to 10? Minnick answered with a 7. Sali answered with an 8. There’s something wrong with this picture.

On one issue, Minnick touts himself as a strong supporter of gun rights — a critically important topic in Southwest Idaho. But consider how his grade from the National Rifle Association stacks up to other federal candidates in the election the pro-gun group gave a rating:

Minnick: D+

Sali: A

Jim Risch: A

Larry LaRocco: A

Mike Simpson: A

Clearly, there’s a disconnect between the image Minnick tries to project and where he stands. Notice that fellow Democrat LaRocco received an A.

Further, in debates and interviews, Minnick seems to try to say things that make everyone happy, conservatives and left-leaners alike. But he usually leaves a lot of room to wiggle…

Instead of fresh ideas, Minnick brought politics as usual to the table.

This is damning for the Democrats. Unanimous support of newspapers was key to Larry Grant’s bid, but the Press-Tribune broke ranks. Worst yet, they advertised the biggest weakspot in Minnick’s issue stances: Gun rights. The D+ rating from the NRA should be “D” for devestating.

Kevin Richert takes issue with Sali on only quoting the parts of the Editorial where the paper calls out Minnick:

In a remarkably glass half-full reading of the editorial, Sali neglects to mention the non-endorsement. An omission that is itself disingenuous and misleading.

I disagree with Kevin here. If the Sali campaign said, “In its endorsement editorial, the Press-Tribune said…” Richert would have a point. But it’s not the campaign’s job to spread around criticism and attacks on Congressman Sali.

That’s the job of the Idaho Statesman.

In all seriousness, by Richert’s standard, campaigns are being disingenuous and misleading when they put out press releases praising their guy and criticizing the other guy and failing to note where their candidate made gaffes or the other made a good point.

For a newspaper to try and turn a common political practice into being “misleading and disingenuous” in one and only one case is itself misleading and disingenuous.

“What he’s saying now is he’s keeping an open mind about it,” said Sali spokesman Wayne Hoffman. “But he’s very concerned about the scope and magnitude of this proposal.”

A spokesman for Walt Minnick, Sali’s Democratic opponent in the First Congressional District race, cries flip-flop.

“If nothing is done as Sali advocates, Idaho families run the risk of losing everything,” said Minnick spokesman John Foster. And Foster says keeping an open mind wasn’t the message Sali was sending last week.

But Hoffman says Sali’s letter dealt with piecemeal bailouts by the feds.

The government’s plan to buy $700 billion in banks’ mortgage debt is a big bird of a different feather with many wondering if it will fly.

So what was Sali’s message last week on this situation according to the Idaho Statesman?

Asked whether Friday’s developments might change Sali’s mind, Hoffman replied, “He is willing, as always, to keep an open mind but right now it feels very, very wrong and very bad for our country, our kids and our grandkids.”

So, last week in the Statesman, Bill Sali’s spokesman said that based on recent events, Sali had severe concerns, but was willing to keep an open mind. Today, on Television, Sali’s spokesman said Sali has severe concern but is keeping an open mind. And this, Walt Minnick’s spokesman calls a flip flop?

It seems to me the biggest flip flop going on is on the Democratic side of the aisle as they’ve gone from insisting Bill Sali is so dangerously blindly stubborn to send the nation into a depression to alleging he’s an unprincipled flip flopper.

We have little doubt that in many cases the motivation of regulators has been a fervent desire to preserve market stability and avoid tumultuous disruptions and systemic risk. To that end, such motives are commendable. Yet the fact remains that these massive federal bailouts have exposed taxpayers to literally tens of billions of dollars of new risk, diluted the incentive for the private sector to make the difficult but necessary decisions to address its fiscal problems, and created a sizable moral hazard where companies are absolved, not punished, for excessive risk taking.

While there are likely many causes that contributed to this economic turmoil we are now facing, it is clear that at least some part of it has been furthered by the moral hazard created by the potential for government intervention. For decades and more acutely in recent years, we witnessed how the formerly implicit, now explicit, government guarantee behind the GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac allowed them to swell to stratospheric and ultimately unsustainable financial heights. Regrettably, the GSE precedent and the March Bear Stearns bailout might have spurred other companies likewise to conclude that they, too, were “too big to fail” and prevented them from acknowledging the true gravity of their financial situations.

As tempting as it is to resort to federal intervention as a bailout for fiscal problems, the blunt truth is that the federal government cannot afford to be the automatic savior for every company facing financial peril. Look at the facts: in 2008, the federal government through its various agencies has taken on $9 billion of losses from the collapse of IndyMac, $29 billion of risk from the Bear Stearns bailout, $85 billion of risk from the AIG bailout, and at least $200 billion and potentially trillions of dollars of risk from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailouts. Those figures do not even include the $300 billion of exposure to expand the FHA to refinance problem mortgages or a reported $25 billion loan being considered for big Detroit automakers.

All of these financial commitments come on top of a projected budget deficit of $407 billion in FY08, a national debt of $9.6 trillion, and over $640 billion in proposed tax increases passed by the House of Representatives this Congress. Add to that record energy prices, increased labor costs, the assault on private pools of capital and foreign investment, trade agreements long ignored, and a host of new government mandates on everything from cars to light bulbs. These conditions have lumped together to create a perfect storm of financial uncertainty for nearly every segment of our economy and a resulting scarcity of liquid capital and available credit…

It is evident that no one wants to be the one who says no to a fiscal rescue when there is so much at stake. But the reality is that actions like federal bailouts taken to delay short-term financial pain often end up producing long-term damage to our entire economy. One need only look to Japan and the banking crisis that led to its ‘Lost Decade’ of recession and stagnant economic growth from which it has still failed to recover. The IMF has called those economic problems “a failure to deal proactively with the impact of the collapse in asset prices” that has led to real GDP growth only averaging 1 percent a year over the past decade.

These objections aren’t philisophical, they are fiscal objections. What’s happening here is poor fiscal policy, not because it violates something in a book by Adam Smith or Ayn Rand, but because fundamentally, it’s unwise, unsound, and has put our nation at a huge risk. You can argue with it, but it’s a fiscal issue.

Yeah, there are philisophical issues in the letter. The argument that bail outs can be a creep towards socialism is a philisophical point, but it’s hardly the only point in the letter. And the idea of destroying the free market economy in this country in principle is something that’s worth considering. Though obviously, when it’s not practical, we can feel free to discard every principle that made this country great. (Sarcasm off.)

On a related note, Bryan Fischer at the Idaho Values Alliance wrote:

The current crisis in America’s financial industries has been created by the federal government. At its root is a Clinton-era directive to mortgage lenders to make race-based loans to non-credit-worthy customers under threat of punishment from the federal government.

Banks were directed to ignore historic yardsticks such as credit history, sources of income and amount of down payment and ordered to underwrite risky loans or face potentially crippling class action discrimination lawsuits.

These loans defied common sense, fiscal prudence and every standard banking practice. Artificially low interest rates, created by the Federal Reserve, added to the problem by giving lenders another incentive to make logic-defying loans.

At Huckleberries, liberal commenters jumped on the statement:

The wing nut email system must have burnt up over the weekend, first Gary Ingram and now Bryan “The Hater” Fischer are pimping the “it’s all the minorities fault” line of reasoning…

In one sentence Fischer blames the current crisis on Clinton and racial minorities!..

Wow! Just when I thought Fisher couldn’t get any worse, now he’s blaming Wall Street’s recent collapse on minorities? Outrageous!!!!…

This is honestly the first time I’ve read this sort of racist BS given as a reason for the current crony capitalist bailout of Wall Street.

Isn’t being able to cry racism a wonderful thing? It means that you don’t have to actually think.

The piled on charges of racism miss the point that Fischer didn’t say, “It’s the fault of Black people or Hispanics.” He didn’t blame minority borrowers. He blamed federal policy.

He said, “It’s the fault of federal policies that made banks give loans to uncreditworthy borrowers.” People are questioning Fischer’s statement all over the place without even bothering to research its truth. Actually, slightly less than 9 years ago, Fannie Mae announced a program and it was covered by the New York Times:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

(emphasis mine.)

So, in part due to pressure from the Clinton Administration to increase minority home ownership, thus began an increase in sub-prime loans. Bryan Fischer has his facts straight unlike those who are attacking him. However, this gets more juicy because the author of the piece, Stephen Holmes saw a danger:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

Don’t argue with Bryan Fischer, please, send your letters to the New York Times alleging they are racist.

Simpson also criticized Sali’s ruling out another bailout.

“What’s his answer: to let the economy go down?” Simpson said. “Sometimes Bill puts himself in a philosophical position that’s untenable that he can’t get off of. We got into this mess because of the failure of government oversight. Consequently, I think there’s a role for government to play in trying to get us out of this, as much as I don’t like it.”

I know one thing that would make Congressman Simpson oppose the bail out. If it was offset with spending cuts. This would make sense and be fair, but Congress would rather send the country into depression than match bail out funds with cuts in domestic spending.

I actually didn’t think the AIG bail out was that bad. After all, AIG was being loaned money at an extremely high 11% interest rate. The idea of buying out all these mortgages under the terms of the proposed bail out, however, makes me queasy. Consider:

1. The Treasury Secretary is given $700 billion, no questions asked and no strings attached, to purchase mortgage securities. This isn’t like a Resolution Trust Corporation situation where these are purchased for Pennies on the dollar and sold at a profit. Instead, Paul Krugman points out, under the Carte Blanche terms of the proposal, it’s very well possible that we could end up paying a premium price for bad debts. Yes, I’m taking Paul Krugman seriously and even agreeing with him on this issue. No, pigs are not flying.
2. But what could be better than $700 billion bail out? How about a $700 billion bail out where the disbursement of the money is at the total discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury and subject to no review by any agency or the courts?
3. What could be better than a $700 billion bail out with no possibility of review by any federal agency or by the courts? How about if that bail also includes buying out bad mortgage debt from foreign banks? Why can’t their governments handle them? Or better yet, as the collapse of the U.S. Financial system would lead to global misery, why not shake down a few hundred billion dollars from foreign governments?
4. The bail out, as proposed, only encourages more bad behavior. Shielding companies from the effects of poor economic decisions with no repercussions encourages more bad decision making with the hope or more bailouts. At least AIG had some repercussions: An absurd interest rate on their loan and probable loss of dividends until this mess is cleaned up. The plan that’s coming from the White House gives companies no disincentive to avoid needing a future bail out.
5. This $700 billion bail out comes at a time when our country is more than $9 trillion in debt and raises the ceiling to $11.3 trillion and we’re running a deficit of nearly $450 billion a year. The Democrats promise to try and add in another $150 billion for a 2nd economic stimulus package (because that last one worked so well.) Short-term thinking by Congress that leaves us all holding the bag.

If one is going to do any type of bailout, it ought to look a lot like the Resolution Trust Corporation, not the writing of Carte Blanche to financials. Nor should this money all be drawn out of Congress’ hat. The long-term consequences of carelessly adding debt to our nation is high, and I think Sali is much closer to being right than is Simpson.

Speaking of Sali’s opponent, Walt Minnick:

Sali’s opponent, Democrat Walt Minnick, said he is an old friend and fishing partner of Secretary Paulson, whom he met while working at the Pentagon in 1970. Minnick said he trusts Paulson and Bernanke to craft the best plan possible.

Good to know that he’s not even been elected and Walt Minnick’s part of the Washington, DC good ol’ boy network.

I’d encourage everyone to read Newt Gingrich’s guest post at the Corner on this issue.

Lack of Incentive: The bill allows offshore drilling, only for States that choose it, no closer than 50 miles from the coast, however it also prohibits revenue sharing of new oil and gas proceeds, thereby removing any incentive for States to “opt in” and allow drilling off their coasts. Nor does the bill offer any lawsuit protection, so companies that do search for oil will continue to be hampered with limitless litigation by environmental groups.

Reduces revenue: The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has estimated the government could initially receive $5 billion in additional revenue without raising taxes by opening the OCS and allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR]. Yet this bill continues to limit drilling in the OCS.  According to CBO, it reduces revenue to the Treasury by $1 billion,

New Fees for Energy Companies: The bill raises $5.8 billion by imposing new fees on certain leases that currently pay no royalties. It also imposes $1.8 billion of new fees on non-producing Gulf of Mexico leases, and requires retroactive lease payments back to 1 October 2007 on certain leases.

Yeah, make energy companies pay royalties of $7.6 billion on leases that aren’t producing anything, that’s great policy. The Bill also includes a $2 billion earmark for New York State ( I know Walt Minnick would have supported his New York masters on that.)  It also places requirements for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to develop “loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for energy- and location-efficient mortgages on low- and moderate-income housing. ” I think Freddie and Fannie have been flexible enough, thank you very much. If they were anymore flexible, they’d have been handing money out the door.

This illustrates one of the key reasons for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: government mandates that were placed on them and other lenders by the Democrats, and the Clinton Administration in particular.

Congressman Sali talked about other problems with the energy bill. Reading through MGR’s, you get the impression that he just voted against it because he thinks we need to consume more energy. I’d urge you to watch the full clip where he addresses several key problems with this phony legislation:

“I was asked by Bill Sali if I would get out of this race and it didn’t make any sense to me,” said Pro-Life.

Congressman Bill Sali isn’t in this race.  He has a race of his own for Idaho’s first congressional district.

But the man who calls himself Pro-Life says three weeks ago, he was personally called by Sali at his home.

“I got a call from Congressman Bill Sali,” said Kent Marmon, Libertarian Party candidate.

The other two candidates have similar stories.

“It was on a Friday evening, Bill was on his way to a wedding rehearsal for his daughter who was getting married the next day.  He asked me if I had considered the fact that I was taking votes away from Jim Risch, helping Larry LaRocco, and if I considered bowing out of the race,” said Marmon.

My thoughts? Is there anything illegal about this? No. Anything unethical, immoral, etc? No. There is something unseemly about it? You might not like it, but Congressman Sali didn’t threaten them if they didn’t get out. He believed that both Marmon and the candidate formerly known as Marvin Richardson cared about things like the right to life, avoiding big government, and insuring intelligent picks on the court get confirmed. As one of Idaho’s senior conservative statesman, he did his thing and made his request.

I say, shame on Pro-Life and Marmon for turning a private conversation into news fodder. According to Pro-Life and Marmon both, Congressman Sali made a private request that they consider dropping out with no threats accompanying it. In the same story, Independent Candidate Rex Rammell showed some class by not publicly naming “friends” in the GOP who had asked him to leave the race. Apparently, Rammell would like to have some Republican friends after the election.

Mountain Goat Report proclaims Congressman Sali, “Idaho’s GOP hitman” and, “Apparently he’s spending way too much time interfering in Idaho’s U.S. Senate race.” Folks, he made two phone calls on behalf of the Republican team.

As you read these type of attacks, remember the same people who are attacking him as the GOP hitman, also attack him as an extremist for voting against the majority of his party when he believes they’re wrong. These people want to portray Bill Sali as both too Independent outside his party’s mainstream and as a partisan hitman at the same time. It’s the same double minded attack we’ve been hearing for 2 1/2 years.

I also found this piece Alan posted as unintentional irony to be unintentionally obtuse. He writes:

The banner at the top of Bill Sali’s blog says “Accept No Substitutes!” And yet, today features another post by Adam Graham, substituting for Bill, posted by Noah Wall, also subbing.

Subbing, nothing. Neither I nor Noah are subbing for Bill Sali. Noah runs the blog and I’m providing exclusive guest posts at the campaign’s request. Most of the posts on Walt Minnick’s blog are from John Foster. When Larry Grant had a blog last time, most of the posts came from Julie Fanselow or others. What “accept no substitutes” would tend to indicates is that there are quite a few blogs that have Bill Sali’s name in the title. This is the sanctioned blog. That’s all it means.

Headline: Minnick campaign proudly based in the District Walt will represent

Did you know Bill Sali’s campaign office and Congressional in-state headquarters are both in Idaho’s Second Congressional District. Normally that wouldn’t be a problem—except Sali represents the First District.

Well, here’s a question. Where does Minnick live? In the first district or in the second district? The answer: maybe, as the Idaho GOP has found:

BOISE, ID – The Idaho Republican Party has learned Democrat Walter Minnick, a candidate for Idaho’s 1st Congressional District, paid his 2008 property taxes earlier this year and claimed a property tax exemption for his primary residence, located in Idaho’s 2nd Congressional District.

Norm Semanko, Chairman of the Idaho Republican Party, commented, “It reminds me of ‘Where’s Waldo?’ Where is Walter Minnick’s primary place of residence? Does he live at the location where he’s registered to vote? Or does he live at the location where he’s claiming a property tax exemption of $100,000? Where’s Walter’s house?”

In 2007, Minnick claimed a homeowner’s exemption for his home in the 2nd District. He again claimed the exemption, worth $100,938 in 2008, although he indicated to the FEC that he moved. Minnick currently rents a residence in Idaho’s 1st Congressional District.

 “It doesn’t appear that there’s anything illegal happening here,” said Semanko, “but it does look like Walter Minnick is playing a shell game with Idaho voters about where he actually lives. When he registers to vote, Minnick says his primary residence is in the 1st CD. But when he needs to pay his taxes, Minnick says his primary residence is in the 2nd CD. There’s no question he’s gaming the system.”

So, he’s renting a house in the 1st District as his primary residence? Anyone want to be on whether Minnick will still be renting if he loses this Fall. Secondly, Minnick’s act seems to be such sophistry. He goes after Sali for the location of his office, when Minnick’s home that he actually owns is in the 2nd District. Semanko is right that it’s perfectly legal. Politicos on both sides cross district lines all the time.

Were it not for the garbage that Minnick and the left-bloggers were putting out last week, I wouldn’t even be talking about this. But this gives you a picture of what Walt Minnick’s about.  This whole thing last week by the left and by Minnick’s campaign was pure sophistry.

I found this interesting quote from Minnick from a Knight-Ridder story the 1996 Senate campaign:

WASHINGTON _ When Walter Minnick talks about politicians and politics, he often uses one word to describe his attitude: cynical…

Railing against politicians who talk “hogwash out of both sides of their mouths”

Thus Walt Minnick has become the picture of the type of cynical politician he said turned him off in 1996 as he talks hogwash out of both sides of his mouth.

As an aside, why is Minnick taking the homeowners exemption? As according to the liberals, the rich don’t pay enough and our schools and roads need more money, why not forgo the exemption and give more money to schools rather than taking an exemption as questionable as this. That would be leadership by example.

Apparently, not one of Minnick’s specialties.

UPDATE

It turns out the Idaho GOP got the story wrong and Minnick didn’t pay Property Taxes in Idaho’s 2nd Distrct. My apologies to Mr. Minnick for the error.

I still think the entire making a big deal out of Congressman Sali’s office being in the 2nd District, while Minnick moved to the 1st to run is a little silly.

You’d also think that given how squeezed the middle class is feeling lately, he’d consider casting a few votes to help them out as well.  But according to TheMiddleClass.org, a project of the non-partisan Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (DMI) which tracks and compiles an annual congressional scorecard of votes impacting middle class Americans, Congressman Sali is no friend of the middle class.  He earned an F for 2007.  He’s working on a 26% for 2008.

Wow, how did you find a totally non-partisan group to represent the middle class? Free of partisan bias they declare what’s in the interest of the middle class. Right…

Actually, when one looks at the board of the Drum Major Institute, some names stick out such as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who wrote a piece at Huffington Post informing people in Mississippi that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment on them for electing Haley Barbour as governor. You also see on their board Andrew Young, III the son of liberal icon and Former Democratic Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young, Jr and Clinton White House Council Bernard Nussbaum. The website’s front page is officially non-partisan but progressive is painted everywhere throughout the page.

Bill Sali believes in liberty! He supports limited government. Hard to believe, I know. If what the middle class really needs is more government regulation, more green non-sense, and a bigger nanny state to take of them, than this organization has an agenda for the middle class. Given the miserable failure that most government programs represent not only in America, but around the world, why on Earth would we want to government to step into more and more areas of our lives?

Second, in answer to this, Chris at Unequivocal Notion alleges Bill Sali is working for big oil. Continuing the pattern of demogoguery that the Minnick campaign and the far left have been using throughout this oil crisis as they have the brilliant idea that raising taxes on the oil companies is going to solve the oil crisis. That makes a ton of sense.

>

Finally, we have this “old hat” criticism about Congressman Sali’s re-election headbands with a yellow feather in them:

Why did Rep. Bill Sali ruin the day of celebrating the cultural diversity that is America by handing out such a stereotypical, white man, degradation of advertisement as the headbands with yellow feathers? It showed a definite lack of taste and the true measure of the man. Do we as Idahoans want to be represented by such a rude, insensitive person as would use such a blatant stereotype of proud Native American culture to further his own campaign?

What political correct nonsense. Yellow handbands are not a stereotype of native American culture. When was the last time you saw a movie with a Native American wearing a yellow headband with a yellow feather? As one lady observed in the comments, “Sali’s minions were also at the parade in Star (Mule Days) and Emmett (Cherry Days) and yes, it was surprising to see the headbands, especially in these days of thin skins. But, my grandkids sure enjoyed them!”

Now Bill Sali’s re-election campaign has launched a blog and I have to applaud the effort. Congressman Sali is a leader in the fight for fiscal responsibility, the sanctity of human life, the protection of our Second Amendment liberties, and now his campaign has taken a key step in leading Republicans into the blogosphere.

This blog will provide vital information and content that is original to the blog. It will provide voters with necessary information as they make an important choice this November.

Congressman Sali’s got a challenge on his blog right now. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has decided that, while Americans suffer under high gas prices, Congress needs a “well-deserved” vacation. Well, Congressman Sali wants to get the word back to the Speaker that Idahoans need relief and are suffering under the burden of high gas prices. He’s requesting Idahoans let him know how much they’re spending on gasoline.

Usually, my trips to the gas station don’t cost me as much as some other folks. I usually fill up when my tank is half full. Still, last week was a tough week for me on gas. I filled up my rental car before driving home from Portland and filled it up twice before getting back to Boise to keep up with my half a tank policy. Then, after flying back to Oregon, I drove my new used car home to Boise. The total cost for gasoline on both trips: $155.57.

Ouch! There’s only one silver lining in this cloud.

It could have been worse.

The vehicles I drove were a 2008 Chevy Cobalt and a 1993 Ford Taurus. The Cobalt got about 30 MPG on the Highway, and the Taurus got 27.

Imagine what type of week you had if you were an over the road truck driver. You probably drove three times as much as I did and maybe more. Your vehicle only gets 6 MPG. Conservatively, you’re looking at somewhere between 15-18 times what I spent. No wonder family trucking firms are feeling the squeeze.

If you’ve bought gas in the past week, let Congressman Sali know. He’s your voice in Washington and is working to get Nancy Pelosi to come off the book tour and get to work for Americans.

There are also many faulty arguments. For example, Bubblehead argues that Congressman Sali is out of touch with the district because he’s never supported a tax increase and Idaho’s 1st District frequently approves school levies. What Bubblehead leaves out of the equation is that these elections are lightly attended and are won by the targeted advertising of Teacher’s Unions and can’t be said to represent a majority of all voters, just those who learned from the Statesman an election was going on.

However, let us take a look at the vaunted “Power Rankings” Bubblehead gets excited about. He spent a whole post on why Bill Sali ranks #423 in Congressional Power and nothing he wrote about contributed to that score. Let’s take a look at how these power rankings come together and what really goes into them.

They are based on four factors as listed on the website that make up the score.

First is position, and that has to do with Congressman Sali’s tenure in Washington and the committees he’s seated on as well as positions held in the House leadership.  He sits on the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Oversight and Reform. These aren’t great assignments, but whether or not Natural Resources is important to Congress.org, it’s a pretty darn important committee to Idahoans. As a new member of the minority party, House leadership positions don’t present themselves in the first term. Sorry.

The second element of this thing is called Influence. This is based on the important parts of a Congressman’s job such as “making media appearances, fundraising for colleagues, and serving in Caucus leadership.” Apparently, while the left loves to attack Brandi Swindell as a media hound, Bill Sali is unfit for office because he didn’t make enough appearances on Geraldo Rivera. His score here was only 0.12.

The third element of this score is called the Legislation Score which measures “How much power has the legislator demonstrated through the passage of legislation or shaping legislation through amendments thus far?” This seems a fair measure of success and by this measure, Sali did very well. Sali’s score of 1.50, as a Freshman of the Minority Party, was not bad. In fact, 197 Congressmen, many of them members of the Majority Party who had been in Congress for many years, ranked lower than Sali. Congressman Sali’s score is also on par with 50 members of Congress, meaning that, in doing the job of legislating, Congressman Sali ranks near or close to the majority of Congress.

The final element of the Power Ranking, though, is earmarks and that’s where Congressman Sali’s ranking really suffers. Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA) (ranked #13 in Congressilonal Power Rankings) sought funding for his contributors’ pet projects and to maintain a wasteful National Drug Intelligence Center, a wasteful and a redundant program. Congressman Sali, in contrast, only requested some minor earmarks for reasonable projects totaling $11 million. Sali ranks 367 in Earmark Score with 0.30.

So Bill Sali’s big crime against his power ranking? He didn’t roll in the mud with Jack Murtha and hasn’t been on TV as much as Dennis Kucinich. Of that Idahoans can be proud.

“Drill here, drill now” is the current R talking point. You see it all over. Okay, fine, but Bill is parroting it senselessly. Where is he that he wants to “drill here?” In Washington DC? Is there oil under the beltway? Did he write it in Idaho? Does he want us to start drilling in Idaho? Is there any oil in Idaho to drill for?  (No)

You know, I never watched an interview when someone said, “Drill here, drill now.” and thought, “You know I don’t think there’s any oil under Fox Studios in New York.” Drill here refers to the United States.

Couldn’t he just say something like, we need to allow the states to open up their offshore locations for exploration?

Couldn’t he say something clunkier and less catchy that doesn’t also reflect his view that drilling should be done in ANWR too? How dare any political leaders or movements have phrases that communicate ideas in as few words as possible? Democrats however should have ideas that communicate only vague feelings of positivity. Yes, we can. In regards to a longer post on Energy, Alan writes:

 Unfortunately, he appears to be focued solely on drilling. I agree with Obama on this; drilling can be part of the solution, but isn’t enough by itself.

First of all, I wonder what part of the Democratic energy plan, “Skipping town and leaving Americans holding the bag for $4 a gallon gasoline” is going to fix this problem. Second, Congressman Sali said in the post, “I’m cosponsoring a number of bills that would increase American energy independence, yet Speaker Pelosi won’t allow those bills to come up for a vote.”

What might those bills look like? Alan need to go no further than Congressman Sali’s website, third headline under news:

“Rather than voting on adjournment, Congress should be debating long term efforts to increase production of American energy, including drilling in ANWR and offshore. We should be voting to remove restrictions on the development of oil shale; increase the number of nuclear power facilities; advance hydro- and wind-power; and incentivize new technologies, such as hydrogen and electric automobiles.

“But families also need relief while we develop American resources. That is why I recently introduced legislation to do exactly that. The Family Energy Relief Act (FERA) of 2008 will provide Americans with a tax credit of $1,000 for couples, $500 for individuals and $250 per dependent to help offset the price they are paying at the pump,” concluded Sali.

The purpose of the blog post, Alan cited is not to explain every nuance of a policy and if Alan is going to go after the Congressman’s energy policy, he at least should fully research what that policy is.

Yeah, except for that little ole vote he cast back in Aug. of 2006 when Sali voted to increase the Idaho sales tax by 1%.

For some reason I guess that vote doesn’t count.

You’re right, that vote doesn’t count, because it was a net tax cut. Quoting from the Text of the Bill as linked by Chris:

Immediately reduces Idaho property taxes $260 million.
Commencing October 1, 2006, increases annualized sales tax
revenues approximately $210 million, for a net tax reduction of
$50 million.

Thus a net $50 million tax cut, not a tax increase. It was  an overall tax cut. However, thanks for playing, we have lovely parting gift for you.

By the way, we’ve already played this one before.

UPDATE:

Chris replies as follows:

• Sali voted to raise Idaho’s sales tax from 5% to 6% while he was a legislator in Idaho, thus raising taxes on a vast swath of Idahoans who didn’t benefit from the property tax shift.

Given that Idaho has some of the highest home ownership rates in the country (between 70), so most folks saw a reduction in their property tax.  And for those who rent, well the cost of rent is determined in part of landlord expense, so less taxes for landlords means less expense.

The test of if an action was a tax cut or tax increase can’t be determined by the idea that every single person must benefit or that a wide swath isn’t inconvenienced. How wide a swath had no benefit at all from the state not having a bunch of people lose their houses over high property taxes and depress the economy? 10%? 5%? The only fair measure is whether overall taxes went up or down.

I’d also remind Chris than more than 2/3 of voters endorsed Risch’s plan, and finally point out that liberals in the Idaho Education Association were pushing a plan to raise the Sales Tax to 6% with no tax relief whatsoever.

I believe in the Second Amendment…

I don’t think an abortion business that wants to be the Lens Crafters of Family Planning and raked in $100 million in profit deserves federal funds.

I believe in less spending, less government, and more freedom.

I believe my money shouldn’t be spent on monuments to members of Congress and other wasteful pork.

I believe principles matter.

I believe in not following a Democratic Majority that’s leading over a clift.

I believe leaders are the ones who stand out front and take potshots.

I believe Bill Sali is doing a fine job as Idaho’s 1st District Congressman. He has a 100% Conservative Voting Record from the American Conservative Union, he was named a Defender of Economic Freedom, a Friend of Taxpayers. He has been named a Hero of the Pro-Life movement. He is a reliable vote for the second Amendment and has been endorsed by Gun Owners of America.

He is being targeted by Big Teacher’s Unions, liberal Congressmen, far leftists, as well as the most of the local press (but I repeat myself), and as such is facing a challenge from a well-funded opponent

I went ahead and donated another $20 to his campaign and would urge all Americans concerned with freedom to donate to this effort. We cannot afford to lose Congressmen like Bill Sali and I will do everything I can to help him get re-elected.

Click here to donate to Congressman Sali on my Slatecard.

I also donated $5 to David Cuddy.

Richert wonders if there’s some political calculation in Sali signing on as a co-sponsor three weeks before the Republican Congressional primary. Given the attempts by the Left to paint Sali as a divisive political incompetent, it seems to be a contradiction to allege that he sponsored the bill for political gain, particularly when no official statement was even issued from Sali’s office.

Richert wonders, “Staking out common cause against the U.N. will further cement Sali’s standing with the Paul Republicans – but it will be intriguing to see how it plays with the mainstream GOP.”

I don’t know. I tend to think most mainstream Republicans don’t kneel by their beds at night and thank God that the UN is there to waste money, take bribes and kickbacks from Saddam Hussein at the expense of poor children in Iraq, and be a haven for anti-semitism and one-sided attacks on the state of Israel. The position is hardly extreme. If Idaho Republicans had voted on Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney would have probably won our state. Romney had the endorsement of the Lieutenant Governor and most of the party establishment. Romney called the U.N. a failure and called for a league of free nations, while John McCain believes the U.N. Security Council needs to be circumvented with a league of Democracies. So, Sali’s position is that we need to withdraw from an organization that’s so ineffectual, John McCain believes it has to be circumvented.  Exactly why should we be part of an organization we want to make irrelevant because of its level of corruption and undue influence by tyrants and despots?

Given that John McCain is slightly to the left of the GOP mainstream, and Sali’s position is slightly to the right of McCain’s, by definition, I don’t think Sali’s position can be termed “out of the mainstream” for Republican voters.

Case in point, on Tuesday, Bill Sali flip-flopped on ethics reform. He voted against a bill that would’ve created an independent, bipartisan panel to review and refer ethics complaints to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. But, just last year, on January 5, 2007, Sali supported an ethics reform package that created a zero tolerance gift ban from lobbyists and banned lobbyist-financed trips (HRS 6, Vote #7).

First of all, it’s an inaccurate statement on its face. If Sali voted against a zero tolerance gift ban after voting for it, that would be a flip flop. They are two seperate measures. What Sali opposed was the creation of a new bureaucracy. Now, let’s forget for a moment that to pass this ethics bill, Democrats violated House Rules by keeping the vote open after the allotted time when a majority was against the bill in order to strong arm senior Democrats into backing (not very ethical of them), but the problems with the bill were numerous:

One of the members who helped study the idea opposed it and told the Midland Daily News why he opposed it:

  Midland Republican Dave Camp on Tuesday strongly criticized House Democrats’ “flawed ethics proposal,” which the House passed 229-182.

 It has some “absurd” provisions, Camp told colleagues.

The bill would weaken ethics enforcement “by adding an unnecessary and even unconstitutional layer of bureaucracy to an already failing ethics process,” he said.

Instead, Camp said, the House should increase bipartisanship, transparency and accountability in the investigations process.

“We should require that all members” appointed to the already existing Ethics Committee be chosen jointly by the speaker and minority leader and require monthly status reports by the committee on pending investigations, he said.

The vote established the new Office of Congressional Ethics. It is to have six members of “exceptional public standing.”

Current House members, federal employees and anyone who has been a registered lobbyist in the past year would be ineligible.

Camp served on an eight-member task force created to consider whether the House should create the new office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, and House Republican Leader John Boehner announced that task force on Jan. 31, 2007.

House Democratic leaders promoted the new office as a way to restore credibility to an internal policing process seen as largely ineffective in recent years, as some lawmakers were indicted, rebuked and jailed for various offenses.

But lawmakers of both parties had deep reservations about creating the independent panel to investigate suspected wrongdoing.

Creation of the office means the House is for the first time delegating authority for regulating behavior in the House to nonlawmakers.

Opponents said the new panel could lead to purely partisan inquiries and would impair the ability of the existing ethics committee to conduct its own inquiries.

Camp criticized these provisions:

* Reviews by the board would advance on tie votes. Camp said that’s “undemocratic and runs contrary to our entire system of majority government. ”

* When board reviews end, the findings are referred to the Ethics Committee for further action. “This puts us right back at the failed system in which we find ourselves today,” Camp said.

* Board members would be appointed for four years, yet the House reassembles itself — and must renew its internal rules — every two years.

Now, what does Camp mean by unconstitional? Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitutions states:

Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

The Constitution leaves the punishment of House Members entirely to the members of each House. Of course, the Bill ultimately does the ball back in Congress’ Court as part of its reform, it takes a two-step process and adds this ethics commission as a third, thus guaranteeing that serious ethics complaints have an additional step to take.

And so, Bill Sali voted against an unnecessary ethics bureaucracy, while at the same supporting tough standards for members of Congress.  What does that mean according to Mr. Hill?:

This is also a perfect example of why Bill Sali is one of the least effective members of Congress. There seems to be absolutely no rhyme nor reason to how he votes on any given issue. We deserve straight-talk from our representatives, not this kind of erratic political posturing.

There is no rhyme or reason if you choose not to actually read up on why people voted against a bill. Rather, it all becomes very confusing when you choose to remove substance from a debate and create flip flops when a Congressman opposes wasting time and money on a bill that won’t solve anything

Back in July, Rep. Obey of Wisconsin offered H.Amdt 550, an amendment striking all earmarks from one of those bills, the Labor, HHS and Education funding.  The amendment failed on a 53-369 vote.  If Bill Sali had courage, he would tell you that when he had the chance to wipe out all of those “wasteful and outlandish programs,” he voted against it.

Yes, and if some better research were done, we would know that Congressman Obey (D-WI) actually voted against his own Amendment. If this was not a Democratic effort at fiscal responsibility, what was it?

It was an effort to prove that grandest sin (and the only real one in the eyes of Democrats.) “I think 90 percent of the earmarks attached by Members of both parties are perfectly legitimate….Members vote for the amendment that I intend to attach to every appropriation bill, which would call for a total elimination on earmarks. I want to see how many of you actually vote for it. I want to see how many of you do not give hypocrisy a bad name.”

Of course, Obey missed the key argument. The argument from most Republicans has not been “no earmarks” but transparency and that the earmarks be of a reasonable nature.

While MGR is right that voting for the Obey Amendment (if a non-serious Amendment like that passed) would have gotten rid of all wasteful earmarks, it would have gotten rid of the non-wasteful ones as well. Efforts in the House have focused on egregious areas of waste and the overall size of the budget. Sali has been consistent on opposing waste, but has never taken a “eliminate all earmarks” platform.

Secondly, it has to be said that the wasteful earmarks that remained in the bill were only one element of the bill’s issue. The bill was “bloated” according to Sali, which means it spent too much money and far exceeded the President’s request. 

Also Democratic Congressional  Walter Minnick issued his response to Sali, questioning his sincerity and demanding to know why other actions weren’t taken:

Or if he had voted to curtail pork barrel earmarks by all Congressmen when that bill was introduced at the beginning of this Congress–and for legislation requiring that any new Congressional spending be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.

Or if he had introduced a bill to require that the federal government balance its budget annually like you and I and the state of Idaho have to do every year.

Mr. Minnick could use some better researchers, because Bill Sali is an original co-sponsor of the Balanced Budget Amendment, H.J. Res 1. Please note in the past that most opposition to this bill has come from the Democratic Party and that no votes have been scheduled on this issue. Second point, regarding Pay as You Go, Bill Sali addressed this issue in depth in January:

“While ‘pay as you go’ is an appealing slogan, the reality is that the Democratic proposal passed today provides ample room for tax hikes and higher federal spending under the guise of fiscal responsibility,” U.S. Rep. Bill Sali said today. “This is really a case of legislative false advertising.

“No one wants greater spending restraint than me, which is why I am an original cosponsor of the Balanced Budget Amendment legislation being introduced in the new Congress. Yet when the Democratic leadership uses a term like ‘pay as you go’ to justify spending priorities not in line with our country’s needs, I have to oppose it.

“Moreover, spending hikes are all the easier because if they are added to a budget resolution’s baseline, they are exempted from ‘Paygo.’ Put another way, the Democratic ‘pay as you go’ plan gives a strong platform for bigger federal spending.

“We must not raise taxes, increase entitlement spending or reduce vital defense spending under the guise of ‘paying as you go.’ True fiscal discipline means making tough choices and putting Uncle Sam on a diet, which is what I’ll fight for in the next two years of my congressional term,” Sali concluded.

The attack of Bill Sali for alleged hypocrisy is a sign of weakness. Not only is the argument weak based on Sali’s record, but it shows the bankruptcy of the Democrat position.

It amounts to a tacit admission that he’s correct on the need for restraining federal spending. At this point, save for Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN), no Democrat (including a lot of freshman who ran around pretending to be fiscal conservatives) in the House has consistently stood up for fiscal discipline in Congress. There’s no reason to believe that Walter Minnick or Larry Grant or whoever will be any different than the Big Spending Democrat majority. Rather they will raise your taxes in the name of fiscal discipline, but they have no plans to reduce the size and scope of government. They don’t believe government needs to go on diet, but rather that you and I need to get used to having a lot less money, so we can fund big government largess.

Last week, Sali issued a press release to trumpet a pair of budget earmarks in a federal spending bill: $500,000 for a widening project on U.S. 95 and $500,000 for highway work from Banks to Lowman. In a textbook case of burying the news, the press release’s last paragraph contains some oh-by-the-way fine print: “Sali voted against the overall measure because it contains a series of other unnecessary, bloated spending proposals and would hike overall spending by $7.1 billion more than current funding and $5.3 billion more than the President has requested…”

So spokesman Wayne Hoffman draws the thankless job of explaining Sali’s vote. Members of Congress should advocate for earmarks in their state or congressional district, but they ultimately should vote on bills based on their merits. “We’ve got to put principle over politics,” said Hoffman, who asserts that it takes “an awful lot of courage” to vote against a spending bill containing local projects.

Courageous? I suspect Sali’s critics would suggest a different adjective.

Actually, Kevin, it’d be courageous of you to go ahead and use that adjective as you’re clearly a Sali critic. However, I digress.

Is Sali hypocritical on federal spending? First, we need to understand the nature of an earmark. An earmark itself doesn’t directly increase federal spending. It directs it. So, it instructs the Department of Transportation to use highway funds for Highway 95. If all members of Congress kept their requests at $1 million, this wouldn’t be a problem.

However, there are two problems we run into. First, is that a lot of folks put in earmarks for things that are clearly not in the national interest. Maintaining federal highways are, setting up visitor centers hither and yon are not. In some cases, the earmarks add up to Billions of Dollars, limiting the Department’s ability to make good judgments on what needs to be done through the competitive bid process.

The second problem is that the earmarks lead to increased spending, and it’s not just to cover the earmarks. This year’s Transportation Budget include $2.2 billion in Earmarks, but is $5.3 billion over the President’s request. Appropriators increase general spending levels to generally grow the size of government.

Then they use the earmarks members have received as leverage. Congressman John Campbell (R-CA) posted a speech by Appropriations Commitee Chairman David Obey (D-WI.) on his blog a few weeks back that illustrated this point:

Mr. OBEY. I know there are some people in this Chamber who believe that if this bill goes down, if the President vetoes it, that somehow a way will be found to compromise and still protect these earmarks.

I want to make it clear, I have been told many times by the White House that they have no intention whatsoever of compromising on this or any other bill that exceeds the President’s wishes. If that is the case and if this bill goes down, then the only alternative left to us will be to bring in a bill at the President’s level of funding.

I would ask every serious-minded person in this body, if they really think there is a chance of a snowball in Hades that Members’ earmarks on either side of the aisle will survive if we wind up at the President’s level of funding, I think you understand that is not likely. And so I think the fate of all of the work that has gone into this bill, the fate of every project that Members have been concerned about is in your hands.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thus, it is hoped that Congressmen, like Bill Sali, who may have $1 million in earmarks in a bill will vote for it despite the fact it will run up billions in unnecessary deficit spending. Sali makes the right and hard choice time and time again to vote for the best interests of the whole country and Idaho’s children, who will be left to shoulder this.

This is not something that’s easy, particularly if the earmarks die. But, what’s led to high deficits is that faced with similar situations, members of Congress have always chosen their parochial interests over the country’s.

Now, some might ask if it would be better for Sali to simply forswear earmarks altogether. There are 17 Republicans who have. Sali has not, for understandable reasons. If, for example on highway bills, Congressman Sali doesn’t request funds for necessary improvements on Idaho highways, the chance of the highways in his district getting the necessary funding through a needs based competitive process are much slimmer thanks to members of Congress who’ve gotten earmarks to get their road improvements guaranteed This would amount to unilateral disarmament.

As long as Sali keeps his earmark requests reasonable, opposes wasteful earmarks, votes against bloated appropriations bills rather than support them to save his earmarks, then I think he’s doing the best he can given the circumstances presented him.

A USA Today article reprinted at FederalTimes.com reports on the number of free trips being taken by members of Congress despite new House travel restrictions. One eye catching mention was this:

The Club for Growth, which supports tax cuts and smaller government, spent $32,242 to bring 10 GOP lawmakers to its April convention at the Ritz-Carlton Palm Beach in Florida that included a four-hour cruise on a 170-foot yacht, reports show.

Interesting because we know that Club for Growth bankrolled Idaho Congressman Bill Sali’s 2006 primary and general election campaigns. Did Club for Growth pay for Bill Sali to attend this April convention?

According to OpenSecrets, Club for Growth flew Sali from D.C. to West Palm Beach to attend a “Winter Conference where Congressman Sali was asked to speak about his work on the Natural Resources Committee and how to work with Democratic Party” on March 29th through April 1st at a cost of $3,491.

This is interesting for many reasons. The first being that MGR has missed the point of the USA Today story which stated:

Despite new House travel restrictions, lawmakers accepted free trips worth nearly $1.9 million during the first eight months of this year — more than in all of 2006, records show.

The amount of travel lawmakers take at the expense of private groups typically declines in an election year, but last year it dramatically fell. Stung by scandals, lawmakers worried about re-election cut in half the amount of privately funded travel they took to $1.7 million, according to CQ MoneyLine, a nonpartisan group that tracks congressional travel.

So when the Democrats took power, the amount of paid travel increased. If taking outside travel makes corruption, then are not the Democrats corrupt for their increased travel? What I also found fascinating was the decision of USA Today to focus on the Club for Growth Trip, rather than a conference on “No Child Left Behind” hosted by the Aspen Institute in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Aspen Institute paid between $6,081 and $8, 749 per head for members to attend the conference to have several Congressmen attend. Yet, that escapes the notice of USA Today, while the Club for Growth, paying half as much, is featured.

Ultimately, some trips are suspect. When you have industry groups flying Congressmen into exotic locales and subsequently getting earmarks, that’s a sign something is wrong. But is everyone who flies a member of Congress somewhere trying to buy them? No, I particularly lack suspicion of purely ideological groups like the conservative Heritage Foundation, the Liberal Brookings Institutes, and yes, the Club for Growth.

When the Club for Growth fly members of Congress to a conference, it’s because these people are committed to the cause. For the Club for Growth, the cause is less spending and less government, with a laser-beam focus on pork. That’s where Bill Sali got his 94% rating. What type of projects did the Club oppose (and Bill Sali agree with them on)? Only:

• A $2 million no bid contract to Sherwin Williams to develop a “paint shield” that the Pentagon didn’t ask for and in which the American people have no stake.

• $2 million for a public service center named in honor of current New York Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY)

• $150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium.

• $878,046 for Catfish Pathogen Genomic Project in Auburn, Alabama.

Insuring the public money is spent wisely is not a bad thing. Nor did Club for Growth need to donate money to Sali for him to reach that conclusion. Congressman Sali has been very firmly in support of that before Club for Growth came along, as his legislative record shows. The Club’s support is based on Congressman Sali’s actual values.

What’s wrong with Sali taking a trip financed by the Club for Growth? Are all Congressional trips wrong? If so, what about the Democrats that take them? Will a Democratic Congressman promise no trips for him and his staff that are paid for by a private party? Are all Democratic Congressmen corrupt who’ve taken these junkets?

What’s wrong with the Club for Growth itself? Is it wrong for out-of-state people to contribute to campaigns? If so, what about the $72, 103 Larry Grant raised from out of state via the liberal Act Blue in mostly non-itemized contributions, or $95,000 from Unions +$10,000s from out-of-state liberal leadership PACs? That out of state influence evidently is okay, as no liberal in Idaho has done anything other than duck or dodge when Larry Grant’s contributions are mentioned.

Of course, they’ll attack the club with ad hominem attacks, not incisively say, “This is what’s wrong with their position.” Because if they explain what their problem is with the positions and philosophy of the Club for Growth, they will show how far out of Idaho’s mainstream they are, because the positions of the Club for Growth are more representative of Idaho than the Idaho Democratic Party is.

There’s no higher principle here. What this is about is political gamesmanship.

Sali explains his “no” vote on his Congressional website by stating that “This bill is very harmful. It takes money from hardworking Americans while opening the door to provide health insurance to undocumented foreign nationals, including gang members, drug cartel operatives and terrorists. Further, it taxes Idahoans to provide health insurance to people already covered by private insurance or can afford to get it.”

What? Aiding gang members, drug cartels and terrorists? How does providing health insurance to children aid these adverse groups?

As for undocumented workers using fake Social Security numbers to get benefits, we need to fix the Social Security database and enforcement mechanisms, not deny children the health care they need.

As for taking money from Idaho’s hardworking families to pay for it, Congress covered the cost by raising the tax on cigarettes and cigars. Unfortunately, it appears Sali’s vote may have something to do with his taking campaign contributions from the tobacco lobby.

There’s quite a few problems with Mr. Grant’s position. Notice the accusation of tobacco-influence. I find it funny that Mr. Grant impugns Congressman Sali’s honor on the basis of $2,000 in contributions while Mr. Grant has taken more than $100,000 from labor Unions and much more from career politicians like Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank (click here for all the details.). I assure you Bill Sali needed no funds to oppose the SCHIP bill. He’d do it for free based on conservative principles. To allege that the only reason someone would dare disagree with you is special interest payola

The simple fact of the matter is that cigarette taxes are not paid by tobacco companies, but by smokers, which tend to be more prevalent in Idaho’s lower and working classes. Yes, it’s true that unlike other taxes, the cigarette tax is a strictly voluntary deal, butit’s also an addiction. So is Larry Grant suggesting that smokers are not hard working Idaho Families?

The only the way tobacco companies lose money is if people stop smoking or cut back and if that happens, than Mr. Grant’s pain-free source of revenue goes up in smoke. As it is, it’s calculated that 22 million new smokers will be needed to pay for this program in the next 10 years to keep the program afloat.  

As to gang members, drug cartels, and terrorists, Mr. Grant would understand that comments if he also understood that children includes anyone up to age 25, including these folks, who would be part of the illegal immigrant population.

Bill Sali, according to his chief supporter, Adam Graham, hates earmarks.

Quite the flatterer, Mr. Grant, but might I suggest actually linking what I said so your readers can read what I wrote and decide for themselves? I actually found nowhere where I said Mr. Sali hates earmarks; he does hate wasteful earmarks and he’s been opposed to those while your Democratic buddies have been spending money on things like no bid contracts to Sherwin Williams. I’ve addressed the issue of his spending in-district, which is rather modest. All things considered, you’re trying to take Bill Sali’s position against waste and do a Reducto Ad Absurdum. Bill Sali has never said, “I oppose all earmarks,” and the type of argument that’s being made is a vast over-simplification that does poor service to the people of Idaho.

Yes, I have concluded after some thought about it, that Bill Sali is fundamentally un-American. Why do I think so? Consider his voting record. Sali has voted “no” repeatedly. I don’t know the actual percentage of no votes compared with yes votes but I suspect it is very high indeed, perhaps even as much as 90%. If all of the bills he has voted against could be considered harmful to the United States one might conclude that he is a true patriot standing up to protect his country. But none of those bills, whether you might agree with them or not, were designed to harm the U.S. On the contrary, they were all designed to improve the lives of Americans in one way or another. If this is true, and I assure you it is true, I can only conclude that Sali does not have the best interest of our country in mind when he casts his negative votes – that is, put simply, he is un-American.

Is Bill Sali unpatriotic daring to vote against things that are designed improve the lives of Americans? Let’s take a look:

• Bill Sali voted for an Amendment eliminating $130,000 in funds for the Abraham Lincoln National Airport. Now even though the airport doesn’t actually exist and amounts little more than political cronyism for Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. we’re assured that the nonexistent Airport is meant to make our lives better and by being against it, Bill Sali is unpatriotic.
• Bill Sali voted for an Amendment that was against a prison museum in Kansas. While one may wonder why Kansas cannot fund its own museums rather than begging for Washington to fund its parochial projects, this museum would improve the lives of Americans and by being against it, Bill Sali is unpatriotic.
• In an egregious vote Bill Sali opposed the Charlie Rangel center for Public Service by voting to cut it. The new center will include an office for Congressman Rangel and the Center will serve as a monument to his grand accomplishment as a member of Congress. While some might call it vain largesse that wastes taxpayer money, it really would improve the lives of Americans and Bill Sali is unpatriotic for voting against it.
• Finally, Bill Sali opposed a microbial paint shield. Bill Sali let minor facts such as that the Pentagon didn’t request the funding, the contract was awarded as a no-bid sweetheart deal to Sherwin Williams, and taxpayers would own no rights to any invention resulting from the research blind him to the fact that this would improve the lives of Americans. Thus, he was so unpatriotic as to oppose it.

What are we Americans to do? Having such unpatriotic members of Congress poses a clear danger to many industries. If we get too many of these unpatriotic members of Congress who oppose projects like those listed above, we could see whole industries put out of business. Lobbyists could lose their jobs due to the hopelessness of trying to lobby for projects that while on their face are absurd, actually really are meant to help the American people. You could see tax accountants at risk if there aren’t new tax loopholes for them to help their clients take advantages of this. In fact, if we get too many more unpatriotic Congressmen, we could actually save this Republic.

The Idaho congressman said many illegal immigrants are in the country to work but estimated that 1 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. are affiliated with gangs.

“It’s like the sixth largest army in the world operating within our borders,” he said.

Speaking at a Meridian Chamber of Commerce luncheon, the freshman Republican said Congress needs to stem the tide of illegal immigration and not grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Human rights activist Estella O. Zamora questioned Sali’s statistics and said that while the U.S. needs to improve immigration policy, most illegal immigrants are not a threat.

On the heels of Sali’s controversial remarks about U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., a Muslim, and a Hindu prayer on the floor of the Senate, the Sali campaign handed out American Indian-style headbands at the Western Idaho Fair.

The headbands feature a bright yellow feather, the first-term 1st District congressman’s name and, the campaign insists, a nonoffensive design. Here’s what Sali campaign manager Michelle Glasgow said in a statement (published here in full):

“Congressman Sali has been using the headbands in his campaigns since about 1998. The company he originally ordered them from assured him that the design would not infringe on symbols of any Native American tribes. After he had been using them for a couple of election cycles, one tribal member raised a question whether the design was similar to one of their tribal symbols. In response, the Sali campaign created its own design for the headbands and there have been no concerns expressed by any of the tribes since.

“Your newspaper even ran a picture a couple of years ago featuring a child wearing one of Bill’s headbands. The kids really enjoy them. Parents enjoy them. Some companies (also at the Western Idaho Fair) are handing out their own headbands for marketing purposes. Their overwhelming popularity is a sign that the public finds them not only acceptable, but desirable. You’re the only one who has posed a question about them.

“On a side note, little kids in school still make Indian headbands as a way to introduce youngsters to tribal cultures and customs. I’d say that’s a good thing.”

So let’s summarize:

1) Bill Sali has been handing out these headbands for 9 years.

2) Kevin Richert’s paper featured pictures of them in the past.

3) Public Schools make similar headbands, and Kevin, I think some of the teachers are members of the Idaho Education Association, so you know they have to be right.

Kevin Richert asks:

Let me ask my question bluntly: Why does Sali do this?

See above. Perhaps, it’s the fact that in 9 years, only an overly PC newsman has been offended.

I am not of American Indian descent, so it’s not my place to be offended. But it’s no secret that some American Indians have protested the use of American Indian sports nicknames and mascots — long before Sali started handing out his headbands.

I’m 1/32 Cherokee and my wife is 1/8 Cherokee. Together we say, “No big deal.” My wife even wore one during the fair parade.

It’s no stretch to say the headbands run the risk of being offensive.

Actually, it’s a stretch and the thing about those headbands-they don’t stretch. Hundreds of businesses use them as Sali pointed out. The first time I saw them was at the Northwest Montana Fair by Culligan Water. Richert writes:

To me, using an American Indian headband in the name of building voter ID is needlessly controversial. It’s one more reason to question Sali’s judgment.

Yeah, and taking up 10 paragraphs of newsprint to talk about this is one more reason to question the Statesman’s judgment.  There’s an old say, “The law cares not for triffles.” Apparently, that’s the Newspaper’s department.

Linked by Huckl

We have millions of children raised without fathers.

Social Security is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.

Our Congress spends tax money profligately, handing out no bid contracts to special interest groups.

In the midst of this, what takes priority on your Idaho liberal blogs? That Bill Sali objected to a Hindu prayer offered in the Senate (and clarified in the Statesman.)That’s the big whupdee-doo.

Of course, this has nothing to do with what Sali said or did. You can’t identify a single blogger whose mouthing off on this issue who hasn’t been attacking Sali for the past year and a half now.

Sali is the man who can do no right in the eyes of Idaho’s left. He’s attacked as an extremist for standing up against outrageous federal spending, as the argument goes that if 300 members of Congress say it’s right, then Bill Sali is wrong. We’re told that Bill Sali can’t get things done for Idaho because he’s a partisan bomb thrower. And when seeking modest funding for proposals such as highways and detox centers, he’s attacked as a pork barrel politician on par with those who hand out no-bid $2 million earmarks to Sherwin Williams in the Defense Spending bill the Pentagon never asked for. In 6 months in Congress, Bill Sali has done nothing at all right, if these folks are to be believed.

These blogs are playing partisan games. So they focus on irrelevant issues. Big news, Democratic Chairman Dick Stallings has called for Sali to resign and the partisan leftist blogs have splattered it all over the Internet. They focus on the fact that 300 Members of Congress voted for pork barrel spending and that Bill Sali said no rather than whether he was right to say no.

Why don’t Democrats brag about how much Idaho’s missing out on by not having great Democratic reformers in Congress? Perhaps, because only fourteen percent of the American people have confidence in that Democratic Congress. Here on my blog, I posted a video from CNN that exposed how the Democratic Party in office gutted earmarks reform and passed countless pieces of unnecessary pork spending, broke their promise to the American people, and behaved in a disreputable and arrogant fashion. Alan at Idablue stopped to complain. No, he didn’t complain the report misrepresented his party’s abysmal record. You see, he took offense that I referred to the Democratic Majority as the Democrat Majority. Alan writes:

Engage the issues seriously. Avoid name calling; it’s beneath you.

I’m glad Alan thinks I’m above name-calling. Funny he doesn’t think that fellow liberal Julie Fanselow is above name-calling. Julie called College Republicans, “College Repugnicans,” called me a “Theocon” and MGR has called me an “extreme rite winger” and yet, Alan was nowhere to be found. You want to insist that people only be called what they want to be called? Then might I suggest cleaning up your own side’s house.

As for engaging issues seriously, I more often than not feel in a minority in doing that as it seems the Leftosphere is more obsessed with being little more than online infomercials for the Democratic Party. Last year, I can remember many more posts about the goings on in Washington and the scandals of Congress, yet it seems that for the most part, my liberal colleagues have taken a see-no-evil (other than Bill Sali) approach to Washington. That is unfair to readers and unjust to Washington.

They’ve got a lot to hide and ignore, if they seriously expect the corrupt Democratic Majority to claim Idaho’s 1st District seat. So, we ignore the big issues and focus on minutae. The current state of our politics reminds me of something Christ said:

But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets and calling unto their fellows and saying, `We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, `He hath a devil!’

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, `Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.”-Matt. 11:16-20

Rather than addressing the serious points of the messages of Christ and John the Baptist, the people of that day, like children played games and focused on irrelevant sidebars to avoid facing the truth. Of course, this isn’t just true of Idaho politics: from the debates over whether Jeri Thompson’s a trophy wife or Fred’s a trophy candidate to the Hillary Clinton cleavage issue to the absurd debate between campaigns over petty little issues, our politics and become more childish and silly.

Now, lest I be misquoted, I don’t think either Bill Sali or I am on par with Christ or John the Baptist, but judging the state of our current politics, folks in general haven’t changed a whole lot in 2000 years.

As proof, he cites four projects and suggests Bill Sali is “wallowing” in pork:

Let me make a few points here.

First of all, the attack is hypocritical. Remember, when Bill Sali was running for Congress, Democrats said he was such a hothead he couldn’t get anything done. Now, he gets something done and now he’s a pork barrel politician.

As the Idahoan likes to say, “We’re conservatives, not anarchists.” Sali’s $1.1 million is not unreasonable. Some of it does, unfortunately go beyond the original scope and intent of the Constitution and would better be paid for by state government or by private donations (I wouldn’t put the $500,000 in federal highway funds in the category.) However, as it is in the Judicial Branch, extra-constitutional demands have been placed on the legislative branch.

The current buddy-buddy system in Washington makes things hard. If a member of Congress opposes the outrageous spending request by a colleague (such as John Murtha’s $23 million earmark for the redundant National Drug Intelligence Center.) they face loss of far more mundane appropriations. Therefore, most stand by and refuse to oppose even the most outrageous waste.

Bill Sali is not one of that number.  For example, even though the projects he’s requested will be in the Labor/HHS Bill, it’s expected to be vetoed by President Bush for its high spending and Congressman Sali has pledged to sustain that veto. Congressman Sali is doing what he sees as best for his constiuents, but he won’t play the Washington game and vote for a bill that will hurt our country to gain temporary political gain.

The groups that actually monitor government spending don’t demand that a candidate oppose all spending or not seek any projects. They rate members of Congress on how they vote on key economic conservative issues. I can guarantee you that Bill Sali’s efforts against government largesse will earn him a spot as a “Taxpayer’s Friend Award Winner for 2007″ from National Taxpayers Unions.

Time and time again, he’s chosen to go into the gap and oppose wasteful spending. Henserling, Campbell, and Flake have introduced anti-pork Amendments, and Sali has been one of only 42 members of Congress to be a reliable vote against pork. That places him ahead of more than 90% of colleagues, so yes, I say that makes him a warrior.

Grant said he’s “disconcerted” by the criticism. “If folks think I’m gonna just toe the Democratic line, then I didn’t do a good job of presenting my position. What I probably need to do is talk with more of these folks more about their issues.”

Talking is one thing. Grant’s problem is listening…

Grant didn’t seize the moment. His campaign chief was an amateur working on her first campaign as a paid staffer. Grant also was hamstrung by his discomfort with retail politics — the county fairs, house parties and Rotary clubs where Idaho voters expect to be wooed.

Enter the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the little outfit that engineered Democratic takeover of the House. DCCC urged Grant to hire a professional campaign manager. Grant met the guy, but didn’t make the hire. “When the DCCC said, ‘You need this kid from California,’ I said no,” Grant recalled. “What could he have added to the campaign that we didn’t already have? The answer is nothing.”

Grant had watched former Rep. Richard Stallings lose to Dirk Kempthorne in the 1992 Senate race, in part because he hired an outside campaign chief who didn’t get Idaho. But it turns out the DCCC’s “kid” was an experienced hand in his 30s. With guidance, he could have helped.

The biggest riddle of 2006: Why, with polls showing a dead heat in October, did DCCC provide Grant no money? Answer: Because he was bullheaded and busy running what he liked to call “a different kind of campaign…”

It was a different type of campaign.

There was the whole flap over Grant thinking that having God in the pledge was unconstitutional (not reported by the Statesman), deceptive campaign advertising, hijacking an e-mail list to spam supporters of another candidate (not reported by the Statesman), ran TV ads with depressing music and tone, refuted himself on social security, never gave me a straight answer on whether they painted or photoshopped their donkey, and who could forget the Larry Grant for Congress broom drill team. Really, the arrogance that Popkey now writes about. Of course, Grant blew many opportunities

Immediately after Sali’s bruising primary, Grant had a great chance to establish himself as a moderate, business-friendly alternative. He had two meetings with the Associated General Contractors, who doubted Sali’s reliability on infrastructure spending, including highways.

Instead of courting them, the Ivy Leaguer from Fruitland lectured the contractors on unions, the minimum wage and a gas-tax hike, and said his aim would be to clean up Congress. “You may hate unions, but that’s the way it is, guys,” Grant recalled telling AGC. “I’m not afraid of being on the side of the working guy.”

So, the problem was that Grant was too liberal not only on social issues, but economic issues and was quite combative with these groups. Hmm. Didn’t that deserve press attention at the time?

Apparently, Popkey didn’t think so. I wouldn’t buy it if he said he didn’t know about it. Nobody gossips like political folks. Why didn’t we hear about how Grant campaign turned down offers of help and pushed aside timely advice?

Because the liberal media didn’t want us to hear about it. Dan Popkey was busy spouting nonsense such as, “Democrat Larry Grant appears poised to win by eroding the GOP vote.” go actually tell us the disaster going on with the Grant campaign. Don’t you think this was kind of important for voters to know about? Given that the chief media argument against Bill Sali was “doesn’t play well with others,” we ought to have known about Grant’s issues as well, but we didn’t. The media just regurgitated the same four or five stories of Bill Sali’s encounters with self-important legislative officials.

Why is this story coming out now? My opinion is that the intent is to head off a 2nd Grant campaign. Rand Lewis looks like a good bet to some folks in the state Democrat Party, much better than trying the second time to make a good first impression. It’d be a lot easier if Lewis ran unopposed or with token opposition rather than against Grant who has the money to compete, some national connections, and name recognition, but is almost certain to do worse in a 2nd round with Bill Sali.

Popkey’s piece will deal a blow to the Grant campaign, as Popkey continues to be the tool of liberal Democrat campaigns.

UPDATE:

Linked by Idaho Values Alliance and Trish and Halli.

Thanks. Idaho Rocks comes to Grant’s defense:

Popkey also criticizes Larry’s campaign manager, who, based on my personal experience, was always on top of everything and available for any questions. Popkey conveniently never mentions Larry’s blogger, Julie from Red State Rebels, who almost single-handedly catapulted Larry into national attention and brought interest to this race on the DailyKos. Also, I don’t know which country fair, house party, or Rotary Club meeting Popkey attended while Larry Grant was present that caused him to quip about Grant’s “discomfort with retail politics,” but it obviously wasn’t in Idaho’s far north, where Larry always seemed at ease as well as having the ability to put others at ease as well.

Finally, I think that any Democrat who is “grieving and resentful” is more a figment of Popkey’s imagination than any reality I know of. I may be in Idaho’s far north, but I’m not stupid enough to fall for “the arrogance and political deafness” of some newspaper writer who decides to dump on a very viable, popular, and well-liked Democratic candidate.

Well, my friend, if Dan Popkey is now making up Democrats, than he’s continuing the same process of making up Republicans and predicting certain GOP doom on election day.

Randy Stapilus provides a more even-handed approach.

We do disagree on a couple of other points.

One mistake he attributes to Grant is his decision to use local help rather than national (one reason he didn’t get as much national party financial help as some other candidates). Maybe; but having seen parts of the national party/consultant world up close, we’re very hesitant to conclude that it was a bad call. Over the years, the Idaho track record of Democratic national operatives is spotty at best – take that as a generous view. (There’s a fine big-picture view of this point in the book Crashing the Gate by Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga; their take on the Democratic consulting world is spot on.) Not knowing enough to evaluate the specific personnel in this case, we aren’t concluding that Grant made the right call there. But he may have.

Popkey suggests that Grant could have won this race save only, presumably, for his mistakes. We see no reason to think so. In an extremely close race, small things – a TV ad that technically was better or worse, or the shift of pockets of voters, could shift the results; anything could. This race wasn’t that close. Grant’s vote total was about 12,000 short of Sali’s, too much to make up with small-scale alterations. There is also the fact, not often mentioned, that Sali’s race, primary and general, was cannily run, and little was left to chance. The race was monitored intensively by Sali’s money backers (the same people, Club for Growth and associates, who had been with him since he entered the primary), and it was pouring in funds in the final weeks. So what if Grant missed out on a few hundred thousand from the Democratic party? The Club would have truck-loaded in much more than that in compensation. Most of the internal Republican issues that Sali faced post-primary were healed within a couple of months, and there’s little Grant could have done to change that. And this is a very Republican district that, up-ticket and down, continued its Republican voting patterns last year as they had been doing. There’s no evidence in the voting record that this race was so closely up for grabs.

Well, of course, Stapilus is right, there’s no proof that what the DCCC suggested would have done anything other than expend resources, but lest we forget, none of the incidents involving Bill Sali were ever put in context, so why put Grant’s issues in context. The important thing is that Larry Grant ignored advice: good, bad, or indifferent, does it really matter? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Also, Stapilus hits the nail on the head, Larry Grant didn’t lose the race. Bill Sali ran it, with a great campaign and organization from start to finish. Julie Fanselow has oddly enough posted a link to Stapilus’ piece.

One of the commenters is still trying to slam Andy Hedden-Nicely for running as a third party:

Not to nix competition but ANDY-HEDDON-NICELY former publisher of the BW was approaching all the liberal voters that wouuldn’t go near Sali ans telling them how He had a much better plan than grant.What was that plan andy? The Plan was to shove Grant out of the way of liberal voters while pushing a loser for the peple of Idaho into Congress.

Okay, lets take a look at the results, Bill Sali won by 11,908 votes, Andy Hedden-Nicely received 2,882 votes. Had the third parties not been running, Grant would have needed to win 98% of their votes to come out the winner. Sali got 49.94% of the vote. He won. Get over it.

This Reuters story on fatherlessness is the lead item on tonight’s podcast. The costs of fatherlessness and single parenthood to our society and its children are astounding. Liberals tend to seek out government social programs that address symptoms, rather than dealing with the root of the problem: family decline. Sadly, many would rather pretend all lifestyle and family choices are equal in the face of evidence that says they are not.

Also, Republicans apparently reached a deal with Democrats to allow the disclosure of pork-laden secret earmarks in federal spending bills. I’ve been a critic of the Republican Minority when they’ve deserved it, but standing firm on this is key.

It’s also a small victory (and even that’s been called into doubt by some stories since I finished recording an hour ago) but if we can get to the point where our politicians are at least openly spending their pork rather than doing it secretyly, we’ll have made progress. (Hat Tip: Instapundit.)

Meanwhile, a study points out serious flaws in reports on abstinence programs. It seems that in order to get favored results, certain programs were cherry picked which included some common features that greatly increased the risk of failure.

To say teaching abstinence doesn’t work is silly. Some programs don’t work well or aren’t thought out. That doesn’t mean programs can’t work, only that a few haven’t. There are a multitude of different programs and to declare they all “don’t work” is merely wishful thinking. But what can we expect from the American left.

Click here to download. Click here to add my podcast to your I-tunes.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Right Pundits, Perri Nelson’s Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, stikNstein… has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Idaho’s First District Congressman Bill Sali continues his quest to embed himself with the tiniest of minorities. This time he’s voted with 19 others against a bill that would authorize support of science and engineering researchers.

Mountain Goat Report shows us the numbers, gives us no clue as to what the opponents arguments were against the bill, but give us an implication that being on the “wrong side” of a 397-20 vote indicates Bill Sali is wrong. In fact that Bill Sali is just willy nilly voting against bills because he’s “anti-science.” Did MGR call Sali’s office and ask? Get a statement he could respond to? No, just filed a charge to attack Bill Sali.

The assumption here is that successful Congressmen are never on the losing side of lop-sided votes. Of course, that’s not true. Mike Pence, one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress voted against the same bill.

How does one define an effective Congressman? Is it someone like Robert Byrd or Ted Stevens who’ve created our nation’s fiscal crisis with their massive egocentric overspending? They bring home the bacon, but grandkids get stuck paying the bill. Is it someone who passes big impressive government programs which end up doing more harm than good? No.

As I see it, the folks of Idaho’s 1st District msde a choice for someone who represented their values. Not the values of Seattle, the Bay Area, or Maryland, but Idaho values. In the current Democrat Congress, those values are not popular. Does that mean we surrender who we are and what we believe for some pork? Will we sell our souls to gain fool’s gold that kids and grandkids will have to pay for? Idaho said no.

They elected someone who would stand firm against the tides of statism and liberalism. They elected Bill Sali to represent their values whether they’re popular or not. It’s tough getting anywhere as a freshman in the minority party, but I don’t believe either status will last forever. I believe he’s got grit and determination mixed with a good style that will serve him well in the long run. Yes, some folks in Idaho’s political establishment didn’t like him because of inconvenient dedication to principle. But had we had 220 or so members of Congress like him for the past few years, I can safely say we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today, and only by electing more men of his caliber can we hope to make our way back.

First is, it is stunning to me that this body will consume over 36 hours of floor debate on a nonbinding resolution. This should be on the consent calendar. Irrespective of one’s position on the war in Iraq, all taxpayers are right to be incensed at such waste in this Congress.

This legislation will not have the effect of law, will neither inspire nor impede military action in Iraq or elsewhere, will not encourage our troops on the ground nor foster victory over America’s enemies that practice terror. It will have one effect: poking the President of the United States in the eye, diminishing his credibility among the international community and eroding his ability to lead here at home. It will also have the very genuine result of undermining and demoralizing our soldiers that are now in harm’s way.

Second, equally stunning is the apparent preoccupation with demeaning President Bush while ignoring those who are our real enemies. Our enemies are not in the White House or the Defense Department. They are not people like David Petraeus or his staff. They are not the vast majority of Muslims throughout the world, who, like us, want simply to live peaceful and secure lives.

America’s enemies are radical Islamists, less than 1 percent of all Muslims, whose faith requires that a pure Islamic state be established and that violence is the instrument by which to establish it. Their faith requires terrorist acts against the West and all Muslims who stand in the way of that agenda.

That is why Osama bin Laden can say that he and his followers are ‘‘in love with death.’’ Indiscriminate slaughter is, for these sick people, merely a tool in their arsenal of moral barbarity.

That is why his second-in-command has declared that Iraq and Afghanistan are
‘‘the two most crucial fields’’ in their war. That is why al Qaeda in Iraq has declared an Islamic state in Iraq’s Anbar Province.

Third, how do America’s enemies view us? For one thing, they fear George W. Bush and our military. That is why Libya’s Mu’ammar Qadhafi 3 years ago surrendered his nuclear materials to the U.S. That is why Moqtada al-Sadr, Iraq’s most powerful militia leader, just made a beeline for Iran; not for a sunny vacation from long, tiresome days of planning suicide bombings, but because he feared for his life.

But America’s enemies view Congress quite differently. They see us as divided,irresolute, unwilling to face honestly their concerted plan for our destruction. Hence, this nonbinding resolution.

In light of this reality, I would ask my friends across the aisle, what is your binding plan for defeating America’s enemies? America, our allies and our enemies are still waiting for your binding plan.

More than 3,000 Americans have died upholding the hope of defeating America’s real enemies and bringing freedom to Iraq. We must not allow their deaths to become a pretext for the abandonment of that hope of victory or abandoning the Iraqi people. But rather, they must serve as the inspiration of a renewed commitment to hope of victory and security for Iraq. We owe to their heroism and sacrifice nothing less than one thing, victory over America’s enemies in Iraq.

America is the last best hope of man on Earth. A victory in Iraq is our last best hope of defeat of America’s most dangerous enemies and also the freedom and security in the Middle East. We must not fail.

—–

Last week, Congressman Sali joined with 17 other Congressmen in signing a letter demanding that the Justice Department conduct a polygraph of former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger (which had been agreed to as part of Berger’s plea agreement.) For those unfamiliar with the case, Sandy Berger stole several classified documents from the National Archives:

The report from the inspector-general for the National Archives, Paul Brachfeld, said Mr. Berger executed the cloak-and-dagger maneuver in October 2003 while taking a break from reviewing Clinton-era documents in connection with the work of the so-called September 11 commission.

” Mr. Berger exited the archive onto Pennsylvania Avenue,” the report says, recounting the story the former national security chief told investigators. “He did not want to run the risk of bringing the documents back in the building. … He headed toward a construction area on 9th Street. Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the archives and the DOJ, and did not see anyone. He removed the documents from his pockets, folded the notes in a ‘V’ shape, and inserted the documents in the center. He walked inside the construction fence and slid the documents under a trailer.”

According to the report, Mr. Berger said he retrieved the documents after leaving the archives complex for the evening and took the papers to his office. It is not clear how long the documents were unattended at the construction site, but the report suggests it was a few hours, at most.

The former national security chief said he cut three documents up in his office and discarded them in the trash. Mr. Berger returned two other documents after archivists notified him that some records were missing, but his efforts to retrieve the others from the trash collector were unsuccessful.

He left classified documents unattended under a trailer, but the situation gets worse according to Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.):

In October, Mr. Davis led an effort to hold hearings to determine whether any documents were “destroyed, removed or were missing” after visits by Mr. Berger to the Archives. He said the full extent of Mr. Berger’s document removal “can never be known” and the Justice Department could not assure the September 11 commission that it received all the documents to which Mr. Berger had access.

We need the truth and Congressman Sali is doing what it takes to insure we get it.