Rep. Bill Sali’s Reader’s View of Dec. 5 was, at best, a distortion of facts. Rep. Sali claims that he voted against “wasteful spending” as the bills in question contained earmarks (a term he avoided throughout his piece) for other districts and the great citizens of Idaho should not have to pay for them.

Does Rep. Sali understand how Congress works? Are any other representatives or states eager to pay for his earmarks?

No, but that is how the budget game is played in Washington, D.C., and if Rep. Sali cannot work the game to his constituents’ advantage, then he is ill-suited to represent Idaho.

If Rep. Sali was so concerned with excessive spending he could have voted in the affirmative to the “pay as you go” legislation, since “… government should never spend more than it collects from taxpayers,” but he did not…

Actually, the PayGo rule as has been chronicled was a joke intended only to make it hard to cut taxes and does not effect Domestic discretionary spending.

In addition, the bill was bloated, not just because of earmarks, but because the size of the bills were far in excess of President Bush’s requests.

Because Congressman Sali and more than 140 other members of Congress said no to the excessive, Democratic Spending requests, our nation will save over $150 billion over the next five years.

I also have to question whether Mr. Mason sees no difference between funding a detox center in Boise and $100,000 for signage for the LA Fashion district? When Mr. Mason describes the process in Washington, he’s right, usually members of Congress say, “I give you your pet projects, you vote for my pet projects.” And that’s how you end up with a $9 trillion national debt. Would Mr. Mason argue that’s in Idaho’s best interest?

Most folks that are Republicans are Republicans because their parents or some friend was a Republican. Their political decisions are strongly influenced by what they have been taught. Not by actual events that play out on a daily basis.

What every Republican ought to do is to ask, wait a minute … Is this new law going to help me, or is it going to hurt me? Way too often, Republicans will vote for some new law the way their party bosses tell them to vote, and not how it will affect them personally.

Well, my father was an Independent, and so was my mother. Neither voted much until 1992. Akren does have a point, there are people in both parties who really don’t belong, who really haven’t thought through the positions of their party, but those people are on both sides of the aisle, not just one.

Akren also devolves politics down to little more than self-interest. According to Akren our votes should be about, “What’s in it for me?” not “What’s right? What are the correct principles for government to follow?” For example, the change in smoking policy in bowling alleys will make those times I go bowling more enjoyable, but I oppose because it goes beyond the proper role of government. However, Mr. Akren seems to only advocate the politics of personal and convenience, so he would not have found friends among our founding fathers (you know, those fellas who risked their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.”)

If I were a Republican, I would go down to the county offices and change my party affiliation to Democrat.

And the County Clerk would say, “Sir, look at your card, do you have a party affiliation on here? No. Because, we don’t have party registration yet in Idaho. So, therefore there is nothing for your to change.”

Talk about not thinking.

In the category of harsh generalizations, Ryan Tannenholz writes:

There are two species of man that I do not have much respect for: rednecks and hunters. At least rednecks, being closely related to the chimpanzee, have some excuse.

First of all, I have to wonder would the Statesman have published an article beginning with, “There are two species of man that I do not have much respect for: hippies and Blacks. At least Blacks, being closely related to the chimpanzee, have some excuse.” Or how about we replace it with Jews, Indians, Native Americans, etc.? The Statesman would have refused to run it, but instead, it’s okay to attack “rednecks.” Now, mind you “rednecks” can sometimes refer to racists, and I wouldn’t argue with that, but there’s the much broader definition that includes a lot of good people that liberals look down on. Nice words from the tolerant side of the political debate:

Hunters take their children into the forest, hold onto a big gun and, bang, kill extremely dangerous little deer — not for food but because of their massive egos. Their indiscriminate killing and wanton desire to shoot for their trophies makes me sick. At least if a wolf or a wild animal kills, it is for survival.

It’s funny that hunters don’t kill for food, because hunters have shared their venison with me on many occasions, both deer and elk. It’s also certainly not indiscriminate shooting. Good hunters follow the laws as well as their tags on what they can bag.

We have McDonalds and domestic animals. Why do we have to kill wild animals?

I guess you can ask North Enders why they have a garden when there are plenty of places they can buy food, or why folks head up to the Mountains to pick huckleberries. There’s something attractive to folks about getting food the natural way.

Also, a good hunter can save money if he plays his cards right; 400 pounds of beef is going to cost a lot more than the effort that’s required to kill a moose. Plus for hunters, it’s an enjoyable way to spend vacation.

This legislation to eradicate the wolf is barbaric and only based on greed — so hunters have more game to waste on their egos.

Well, it’s also to save ranchers from losing animals where McDonalds and the stores get their beef. Wolf re-introduction is mainly backed by Boiseans who don’t have to live with wolves. (Note: I never hear anyone proposing wolf re-introduction into Hyde Park.)

Sometimes I’m ashamed to be called human. I am a wolf, in human form, deceiving human beings.

I guess wolves are pretty good typing teachers.

Anti-Wolf Coalition leader Ron Gillett is a joke who lives in his own fantasy land.

Which is more absurd? The writer stating that he’s a wolf, or after stating that, arguing that his opponent lives in a fantasy land? Well, Ryan (or perhaps he’d prefer Wolf Boy) may need to come up with some better arguments as well as figure out that, unless he has fur and paws, he’s not a wolf.

Linked by Clayton Cramer. Thank you.

Mark Clayton writes:

The majority of Californians moving here, most notably from the Riverside area he refers to, are not liberals. Inland southern California remains one of the state’s last bastions of conservatism and we are the ones moving here. Contrary to your statement that we cater to treehuggers , same sex marriage, Muslims and the ACLU, is laughable. Idaho’s liberals are home grown, just cruise around the North End of Boise and you can almost smell it. We southern California refugees speak English, pay taxes and will make sure this state stays red and will not send another liberal like Frank Church to Washington ever again. As far as not being able to drive, c’mon, get off your tractor and go with the flow of traffic.

One last thought, right on Bill Sali.

The “get off the tractor” isn’t teasing some folks will take kindly to, but still an interesting letter, particularly when combined with Brian Glennon’s letter:

Mr. Bradbury attempts to paint all of us newcomers with the same brush. Many of us came here to Idaho because we share the same social and political norms found here. The California we knew and loved changed, not for the better. California left us … so we left California. Crime, overcrowding, pollution, gangs and the ACLU are all things that offend us, so we became refugees in search of a better quality of life. We found it in Idaho. For the reasons stated above, we, maybe even more than Mr. Bradbury, will do all we can to ensure that Idaho doesn’t go down the same path that California went, and will vote accordingly. We know first hand what can happen because we have been there.

Now, of course I should state that not all of the left’s leadership or membership comes from Idaho, there are many imports: old hippies who do want to recreate California values here in Idaho.

This has not been the trend. The newcomers have been far more conservative, which explains a move from liberal Republican Orval H. Hansen in Congress to a more conservative breed of Republican represented by Mike Crapo, Bill Sali, and others.

On the same note, I think newcomers have made Idaho’s Democratic Party more liberal. For the most part, gone are the days of Cecil Andrus and John Evans. With the exception of Branden Durst (D-18), Margaret Henbest (D-16), and Mary Lou Shepherd (D-2), the Democratic legislative delegation is hard left.

So, I think one can say that imports have made the GOP more conservative and the Democrats mor liberal.

In an unrelated note:

Gary Bennett writes in today’s letters:

Boiseans were recently treated to the God and Country rally and to the Live Earth concert.

One was a peaceful gathering of loving people who truly care about the human race and the other was a raucous rally of rowdies in support of a divisive policy, a failed politician and a nonexistent Bronze Age deity. (“Let us prey,” the preacher said to his fellow pastors.)

Was Mr. Bennett even at the God and Country rally? The letter doesn’t say. However, I’ve atttended the event in the past and whatever complaints you might have about it, it’s not about politics. It’s about celebrating God and the men and women who serve our Country. It’s quite a shame that some on the left can’t appreciate the men who serve our country.

As for Live Earth, I wouldn’t speak so glowingly of a hypocritical pat yourself on the back for saving the Earth while emitting 74,500 tons of carbon in the course of the concert.

On July 1, David Volk wrote:

I had no problem a couple of months ago finding studies, both here and abroad, that found that in a free society atheists and agnostics not only behaved morally, they were better at it then their Christian counterparts.

Now, not having that letter to read, I can’t respond it, but I can reasonably ask what he means moral and how he is able to determine that from an objective perspective. Good social science does not support him, but let’s not waste too much time. He explains his reasoning:

Christians have a negative view of personal morality, saying everyone is a sinner in the eyes of the Lord. By not having that negative view, atheists and agnostics are apt to have a positive view. With a positive view, they are more accomplished in morality.

Similarly, a principle of goal setting is focus on what you want, not on what you don’t want.

No studies to back this up, no real proof, just his word as why this is. And of course, properly Christians should take morality as a positive goal. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” not, “If you love me, don’t break my commandments.” Of course, this entire “forum” is not very good for debating substantive issues as Timothy Kempf  astutely observed:

I think the Idaho Statesman should change the name of the newspaper section titled “Reader’s View” to “Legislator’s Agenda” or “Councilman’s Forum” or perhaps “Board Chairman’s Log.” A very simple online review of the most recent opinions printed reveals that every author is an executive director, a chairman, a councilman, a politician, etc.

So where are the readers’ opinions?

The section titled “letters to the editor” contains articles from readers, but that section has a significant space limitation. It is sometimes difficult to formulate a mature argument and offer meaningful solutions in 200 words or less. As a result, most letters lack substance, appear simple and end up sounding like a complaint. Perhaps they should change the name of that section to “Readers’ Rants.”

Ouch! That smarts the Statesman. Dr. Kempf is absolutely right.  The Reader’s view doesn’t really represent a place for average Idahoans of any ideology. Really kind of an elite subset of folks who can get in. The rest of us can forget about it. I have yet to develop my 200 word letter (don’t know what it’ll be about) to the Statesman. Thank goodness for the blogosphere.

Finally, Meghan Anderson writes/rants on the English only bill:

Or better yet, tell me what this new law will accomplish.

Easy, it recognizes the importance of English in our society and culture as the unifying language for all people in Idaho. Not everyone may know it at first, but they can learn, and by so doing we avoid create linguistic subcultures that are seperate from the rest of Idaho. Meghan asks:

 I wonder if anyone who backs this law has ever tried to learn another language or traveled to a non-English speaking country.

Yes, many have travelled to many different places. Some places have some signs in English and people speak it widely because there’s money to be made from rich American tourists. But in parts tourists don’t go to, people speak their native tongue and none of us would demand that Mexico start speaking English just because we move there. Learning a language is hard for most of us in America, because we really we’re not getting a holistic emersion into the language. You sit in a classroom for a few hours and learn Russian, you go outside and everyone is speaking English. Those who come to America speaking another language have a great opportunity to immerse themselves in the language if they want to become part of the American culture.

Recently, as a colleague and I discussed and exulted over the historic 68 percent supermajority passage of the community college, my friend commented that it was too bad a minority can dictate to the majority. She is absolutely correct. (Just to keep my comments in context, I am a conservative; no namby-pamby, tax-loving liberal am I. But I recognize that government entities have to be funded by the public.)

You always have to be a little careful when people make that claim, because it’s usually followed by a load of unconservativeness. The issue isn’t whether government has to be funded by the public, but how much and what the requirement should be for doing this:

In virtually every other referendum, including public elections, the simple majority wins. Conservatives have a fit if a minority ethnic or special-interest group pushes for privileges. “How can these minorities have such influence,” we demand. And we extol the virtues of majority rule in elections, carefully counting percentage points over 50 percent. In two other states as I participated in college tax referenda where a simple majority was the rule, we considered 61 percent of the vote a landslide. Yet in Idaho, it is not only a minority, but a super minority that can nullify a majority wish. We used to call that tyranny. Are there no legislators who will rid us of the tyranny of supermajority?

Peter Humm answers this quite well in yesterday’s letters:

I am getting tired of the griping from supporters of various bond issues about the requirement to get a two-thirds supermajority of voters to pass a tax increase. Most bond elections are deliberately scheduled to avoid the regular elections, which ensures a low turnout (25 percent of registered voters).

Bond issues that increase property taxes require only a two-thirds (67 percent) approval of those 25 percent of the registered voters. Two-thirds of only 25 percent of registered voters can therefore pass a tax increase that affects all property owners, and two-thirds of 25 percent is 16.7 percent of all registered voters (math: .25 times .667 equals .167). This is more like a tiny minority of all registered voters, not the supermajority you keep griping about. Pro-tax groups only have to persuade a tiny minority of 16.7 percent of registered voters to turn out and support their new tax. So please stop whining about needing a supermajority of voters.

Precisely. The first issue I voted on here in Idaho was a proposed Auditorium District in February, 2004. It contained Boise as well as Garden City. General polling places were closed. The vote was held in February. If memory serves me right, turnout was under 10%, in part because less than 10 polling places (which were not people’s usual places to vote) were used. What Mr. Watson seems to be saying is that in an election like that, that Majority should be able to committ all the property owners in the town to that proposition. No liberal has even come on this blog or their own blog to argue why this is right or fair. The requirement of 2/3 majority insures you have to work and get a lot of support before raising taxes.

We also live in a Republic, not a Democracy, and I find the idea that 2/3 of the people have to say yes comforting, that means before committing everyone’s money, we get a great deal of support which will lessen and mitigate possible resentment down the road.

In Tuesday’s letter, there was also an interesting letter from Daniel Forrey:

I believe divorce is being over-used and it’s making it too easy for people to end marriages. If divorce was outlawed people would think twice before getting married so fast. Today people go into a marriage thinking that they’re not obligated to commitment. They think that if it gets bad they can just take the easy way out and get divorced.

Divorce doesn’t just affect the couple. It could affect any kids they may have. Divorce is tearing families apart nationwide. Single-parent homes are unstable, financially as well as emotionally. In a divorce you have to split everything in half. Children are the main ones who get torn apart in a divorce. They get torn through things like custody battles and having to move around from place to place.

I understand the sentiment and Mr. Forrey has a great point. Of course, we can’t end divorce because there are still legitimate reasons for it. I favor an approach like that taken by Frank Keating with the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative has had some success in reducing divorce and it’s an approach I support: providing education and support for marriages within the state.

—–

What happened to the $200 million we were already overtaxed that was earmarked for schools? Isn’t the community college a school? Why didn’t they just use some of that money and then replace it later with the money made by the college?

I assume he’s referring to the Sales Tax increase that was tied to property tax reductions. That’s the difference between money for public schools and post-secondary education.

And why are the supporters of this thing allowed to send out unsolicited absentee ballots to potential supporters? Isn’t that illegal, or at least an abuse of the absentee ballot system? If they were going to abuse the system like that, they should have been forced to send absentee ballots to everyone, not just potential supporters.

Illegal, no. An abuse of the system. Maybe. Let’s be clear, I didn’t just receive one absentee ballot request (not an actual ballot. Thanks to the Bubblehead for the correction in the comments.), I’d to have gotten like four. I feared this whole thing would lead to a backlash. Still, they played by the rules we have in place. If you don’t like them, call your legislator. This doesn’t have much to do with the merits of the college though.

So now property owners get to pay for a community college most will never use while non-property owners, again, will not have to pay for anything.

A couple things. First, having gone to Community College in Kalispell, I’ll attest that many if not most students were either homeowners or their kids, and a fully developed college will offer classes for the whole community. As for non-property owners not paying anything, they’ll not pay anything directly, but they’ll see it in their rent. Remember rental property does not come with a home owner’s exemption and landlords all pass the taxes on to their tenants, so yes everyone will pay, some will just see it more directly.

Big corporations backed the building of the college, so why didn’t they privately fund it?

Great portions of it are being privately funded, as well as the state chipping in $5 million. The taxpayers of Ada and Canyon County are only playing a small portion.

The whole process has just been flat out wrong and unfair to the property owners of Ada and Canyon counties, and I really hope someone out there takes legal action to block this thing considering how the system was abused.

You can sue, but you’ve got no case. The people vote. Accept it, don’t be a sorehead.

Thomas John Caldwell writes:

The passing of HR 1592 on Tuesday, May 8, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender and disabled people could be protected as well. The 1999 Hate Crimes Act slowed down the percent of crimes being committed, but it didn’t protect everybody. Society must accept the idea that we’re all individuals and our likes and dislikes vary. We live in a country founded on the basis of equality and freedom, but the government’s willingness to except different people under their rule is never-ceasing.

So society must accept we’re all individuals by passing a law that punishes crimes against different groups of people differently. Say what?

John Wynn writes:

It was disappointing to see that the Idaho Statesman won a lawsuit to be the only newspaper in Boise that can print legal notices in the future. In doing so, the court effectively eliminated competition in the marketplace for the publishing of legal notices.

Really, I think the Statesman’s the primary thing that’s read in this valley other than the Bible (where we can’t print legal notices.) If there’s any solace, those days are numbered with new technologies on the horizon the decline of newspapers in general.

It appears from observing the large number of vehicles without a front license plate in Ada County that it is no longer necessary to display a front license plate in Idaho. Oh, it is still on the books and every vehicle owner is given two plates to be displayed, but law enforcement won’t stop you. I have even called the Ada County Sheriff’s Office about this common violation and was told that it wasn’t a high priority and that “we have other things to do.”

Hmmm, a lot of potential income on tickets is being lost because officers won’t enforce an obvious violation of the law. You can keep driving those one-plate vehicles. You won’t be stopped.

As some of the commenters at Unequivocal Notion have pointed out the police indeed do have better things to do.

I also think the letter writer is missing a key point. Police officers approach cars from behind usually and spotting a front license plate violation can be a challenge. True, they may spot it in a car beside them, in which case all they have to do is slow down, change lanes, get behind them and flash the lights. This can be a difficult arrangement.

Truth be told, I don’t think we really need the front license plate (yes, I still have mine.) We only need the back license plate because that’s what people see. The front is redundant and police can do better focusing on real criminals.

—–

But Canyon County residents were angry at Ada’s efforts to push mandatory car emissions testing.

That’s basically it. They get no sympathy from Rex Robert McCoy who has this proposal:

I am writing about the air quality and Canyon County. Dan Romero was quoted as saying, “When you start to impose more regulations and bureaucracy on Canyon County, they say just leave me alone.” My suggestion is that we will leave them alone when they quit driving Canyon County registered vehicles in Ada County. You are contributing to our air problem but not willing to do anything about it.

These drivers should be stopped, checked for an inspection certificate, and if they don’t have one, be ticketed. Once they present an inspection certificate, the ticket would be voided. I don’t understand what the big deal is to pay for an inspection once a year to ensure your car is not polluting the air.

This should apply to all vehicles that are driven in Ada County. Even the ones from other counties belonging to people who have property in those counties.

Well, Mr. McCoy has clearly got a practical mind. We can stop every single car coming out of Canyon County or anywhere else to make sure they’ve got emission stickers. We can even set up roadblocks on the Interstate. Those people from Montana, Utah, Washington want to drive through OUR city and pollute our air, they’d bettter have an emissions test.

Indeed, we’ve found the perfect way to unite right wingers and left wing Ada County residents. Just tell the left wing Ada County residents that illegal aliens are crossing the border in SUVs and it’ll get both sides to agree to build a wall around Ada County to keep out illegals and SUV drivers.

Now, this might have the effect of crippling our economy, massively inconveniencing our businesses, costing us millions in enforcement costs, and getting a bill introduced to move the State Capitol to Pocatello, but the important thing is that NO CAR would get into Ada County without an emissions test.

The big reason is that its a $15 fee if your car fails the emission’s test. Here’s a clue. Who is driving the old cars that have emissions problems? Poor people. Its a huge cost to someone who’s not making a lot of money.

I came to Boise to 2003, and I was driving an old 1982 Mazda GLC and it got somewhere between 25-30 miles to the gallon, which was good because I was earning less than 25 K a year. In March 2004, I received the card saying that I needed to get this thing certified for emissions. I drove it down to the emissions place and they’re unable to test it because the muffler was out. The car was noisier without the muffler, but otherwise I didn’t particularly need it, except to pass the emissions test, so I did about $120 muffler job.

I came back and it failed emissions miserably and I took to it my mechanic. My mechanic had to get a catylitic convert and a few other parts custom made and I was looking at another $130 or so.

I took it back to emissions and it failed again. As I’d spent $250, I thought I was done because they said they would give a 1 year waiver if you’d completed $200 in emissions related repairs. However, the county didn’t count the muffler job, so it was back to the repair shop. They did more work on it and about May 15th, I got it passed emissions. On July 1st, it died.

I got another cheap car and got a tune up for it on my own. Then in September mI got the emissions card, took the car down and it failed emissions. Another $65 later, it passed.

So I spent about 1-2% of my household income complying with Ada County’s emission law. Of course, that’s a small price to pay in order to breathe the same air as Rex Robert McCoy.

Having said that, its unfair that Canyon County residents don’t have to do emissions, but we really just have ourselves to blame. We’re the ones who have a County Commission that requires it. Its also somewhat silly to try and push this off on Canyon County, when a lot of people come to work from Boise County and Mountain Home. Really, if you’re going to do this, you’d need a statewide law.

And if we’re going to have a state law, we’d better do some things to make sure we’re not stranding poor people, particularly in areas like Bonner’s Ferry or anywhere in Northern Idaho, really. You need better public transportation. You need some type of non-profit group that will help poor people get their cars up to standards to pass emissions. Until then, this issue is just really Limousine liberalism.

—–

To me, it appears that Chairman Stallings attempt to get Democrats to show up and vote in the Democratic Primary pretty much failed.

54,632 votes have been counted in the GOP Governor’s Primary while only 13,166 in the Democratic Primary as of right now. The State’s Republican, but its not that Republican. It indicates one of two things and probably a combination of the two. One, Democrats are not as excited about the election. Two, they’re crossing over to try and influence Republican races. Either way, its a tough night for the Dems and doesn’t portend well for the Fall.

In the big race of the night, its tight. With about half the precincts in, Bill Sali holds a good lead in the 1st Congressional district:

Bill Sali 9,567 26%
Keith Johnson 7,023 20%
Shelia Sorensen 6,994 20%

Now, everyone else in the race is too far back to catch up. Vasquez is around 15%, Semanko at 11%, and Skip Brandt with 9%. Clearly Brandt made a mistake giving up his Senate seat for this race.

In other races, the Statesman’s calling Larry LaRocco the next Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor. Lawrence Wasden is going to get another chance at the Attorney General’s Office, crushing his primary opponent 73-27%.

Other races, the Statesman calling too close to call. I’ll stick my neck out and project that Donna Jones will be the GOP Nominee for State Controller. She leads 59-41% with 62% of the vote counted.

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction Race is down to the wire. First, on the Democratic side. Those who wasted their votes to try and bring about the nomination of Vasquez are missing out on a nail-biting Superintendent Primary. Jana Jones leads Brenty Marley 53-47%.

GOP is even closer tonight. Steve Smiley has a 1200 vote lead with 62% of the vote counted, ahead 42-40%. This’ll be a late race.

And in blogging news, though its not a surprise, Julie Fanselow of Red State Rebels was elected Democratic Precinct Captain in Precinct 95. Stay here for further updates.

I’ll be hanging with the Dems at Red State Rebels where its an election open thread. The very restrictive 43rd State Blues has also opened things up for primary night.

—–

To Brandi Swindell and all of you who wrote in letters of support: “What were y’all thinkin’?” This is called an introduction to the world of politics. Or, in college lingo, world of politics 101. In this class experience, you learn many aspects of the political world. To start with, a lesson in the chapter of mudslinging. It happens. Deal with it.

Next in line would be a course called sociology 101. You learn about having your norms challenged. Take a lot of notes, you’ll need them. You might want to dabble in a few communication courses. You would learn that whining is not listed as a tool of effective communication.

And last, but far from least, a lesson from anatomy and physiology I would be helpful in your endeavors. You will learn the amazing intricacies of the human body. Especially the skeletal system, which is supported by the spine. Get one.

Wow, where does one start. Mudslinging happens and you respond to it, that’s exactly what happened in this campaign. The accusation of a “lack of spine” is so misdirected and ill-thought out, its sad. If Brandi was spineless she would have quit the campaign with all the attacks coming her way or compromised.

I don’t believe the campaign “whined” as Ms. Hollingsworth put it, but I wonder if they teaching “condescending elitism” as a communications skill. 73% of Idahoans don’t have a Bachelor’s degree. Its great she’s completing one in June, but I hope the attitude in her letter isn’t the attitude she takes towards other people. Without a Bachelor’s degree, George Washington saved this Republic. This country is free because a lot of men, many of them uneducated, fought and died so we could be free.

Education is not a virtue, its a skill, its an experience. When you strip away all the education, the fancy letters, and the big classes, what you have left is the virtue of a person. Its this value that we tend to forget.

Brandi Swindell

—–

The Republican Party that I know and love is based upon smaller government and fiscal responsibility, and I don’t see how Brandi fits into those concepts.

That’s a great question and I’ve got great answers. Lets start with a simple fact. Brandi will definitely represent a huge change in limited government compared to her opponent Maryanne Jordan.

Ms. Jordan voted 56 times year to date to increase taxes and fees in the City of Boise. 56 times and she’s not done yet. They’ve increased fees on Charitable solicitors, taxi cab rates, dance lessons, and Merry-go-rounds. It doesn’t take much to improve on a record of sticking it to the people of Boise time and time again.

Secondly, as a Boise homeowner, I support Brandi for City Council because she’ll introduce legislation within her first 2-3 weeks on the Council to make sure that someday the City can’t decide they want to take my home by eminent domain to build a big box store or a hotel. My wife and I have wanted a place of our own for years and we finally got it. It was a lot of hassle. First, we had to find the house. We had to get the home inspection, the appraisal, mortgage, grants, but after nearly 2 months from start to finish, we had our own house. In all of my life, even growing up, I’d never had a place my own. Making sure, that government can’t capriously come and take my home from me is one of the best things that could be done to limit government.

So, Mr. Cozzens, in short that’s what Brandi Swindell has to do with limited government and fiscal responsibility.

Brandi Swindell

—–

There have been a lot of statements made by liberals attacking Brandi Swindell’s character. Having heard Brandi speak, I’d like to share my observations.

Contrary to what some people say, she’s not driven by publicity. If she was, she wouldn’t be willing to give up a national platform for the city she loves. Brandi entered the public arena because she cares about people, and she was willing to put aside her own doubts about herself and do what she saw needed to be done. This is the very essence of leadership.

I’ve observed her at a recent Christian conference and noted that she doesn’t just hang around with the powerful but will go and talk and spend time with most anyone, try to understand them, respect them and learn from them. This goes to the heart of what we need on a City Council that shunned public comment on the Ten Commandments and has been condemned even by The Statesman for its arrogance.

It’s time for a change. It’s time for a city councilwoman who will listen and lead. Join me on Nov. 8 in electing Brandi Swindell to the City Council.

From Martin Johncox we get this argument against Brandi Swindell:

Call me ultra-conservative, but I believe a productive citizen has at least two of these by their mid-20s: a job, his or her own dwelling, occupational training, a marriage or children. Brandi Swindell demonstrates for a living, and it wouldn’t surprise me if she lives with her parents. When people drive by protests and yell “Get a job!” they’re talking about indulged professional activists like her. Working people with families can’t afford to get arrested.

First of all, I’m glad that by Mr. Johncox’s definition I’m a productive citizen, so I’m sure he won’t have any problem backing me if I choose to run for City Council or State Legislature as I have all three. However, I’m also a Conservative, I have a sneaking suspicion that will leave me out.

Secondly, some of the people who did get arrested at the monument did have families. The “crime” she was arrested for was minor, a lot less serious than DUI or a lot of crimes many people in the valley seem to be able to afford and deal with it.

Third, as to the concern about “professional activists,” I think we’re at the point where this is really a mute issue. Look, professional activists like Nicole LeFavour are elected to office all the time. Brandi has had experience working jobs obviously in terms of working at Yellowstone Park. Ms. Lefavour cites her own work experience in the Frank Church wilderness. She went out and worked for a Congressional campaign in New York. She has worked at normal work. Its just been over the last few years, her work has been organizing a national organization as well as a great local organization.

So, apparently Conservatives are to punish the people who stand up for our values by refusing to support them because that’s their focus rather than doing a laundry list of things we think will make them acceptable for public office. Look, we need people who professionally work for good causes, because there’s always to be more people working against what’s good full-time, non-stop.

Fortunately, state Director Kirk Sullivan has personally assured me the party will no longer assist Swindell’s campaign in any way. This should restore the party’s integrity.

Mr. Johncox claims to be a precint captain. I certainly hope we find which precinct he’s in and get him out. If Mr. Sullivan wanted to say this publicly, if he wanted it in the Newspaper, he would have said it.

As a blogger, I’ve got to be very careful. I know a lot of people and am around them quite a bit. The things I hear often would make great blog posts, but I don’t post them. The reason is that whether its damaging or not, good or bad, that some things are not things people would be comfortable being quoted on and what Mr. Sullivan said privately to Mr. Johncox is one of those things, unless he got permission to use it in the letter.

We go to Bob McDermid who writes:

“Brandi infuses every action with an extreme conservative religious viewpoint that is simply out of step with Boise residents.”

First of all, I’ve got to tell you that I get a kick out of people who backed John Kerry (and most of the liberal letter writes did, I’ll bet you bottom dollar) telling us what the mainstream thoughts in Idaho are.

I would bet this that the mainstream of Idaho doesn’t think Christianity is a disqualifier for office. The author goes on to write:

She is in the same league as the homophobic Rev. Fred Phelps. Phelps argued before the City Council that if Boise allowed one religious display on its property, it must allow him to erect a monument commemorating the death of Matthew Shepard, a gay man murdered in a homophobic hate crime in Wyoming in 1998. If the council hadn’t acted, Phelps would have had legal ground to erect his hate memorial here in our home town.

This is utter nonsense. Phelps never sued to get his monument into Meridian or into Nampa and they just ignored him. Why Alan Shealy and Mary Anne Jordan didn’t is because they wanted the monument out.

City Councilman Alan Shealy gives us another reason not to vote for Mary Anne Jordan by endorsing her. He writes:

Make no mistake. This is no time for experimentation in our city government.

Sorry, Mr. Shealy. This City Council is broke and it needs fixed.

Michael De Angelo writes:

The best qualification this princess of the religious-Nazi wing of the Republican Party has to offer is as proselytizer for a hunk of rock that was a marketing ploy for a Cecil B. DeMille movie. Her efforts to have government control what may happen within the confines of a woman’s body and to prohibit contraceptives, and regarding the Terri Schiavo fiasco, are obscene.

Wow, this guy’s a lovely gentleman. Nice Ad hominen attacks. Bryan Fischer actually had a great point in his blog on Friday regarding the DeMille attack:

Maryanne Jordan’s stated position in today’s Statesman contains a number of errors or misrepresentations. First, she cavalierly dismisses the gift of the monument back in 1965 as simply part of “movie promotion.” However, the “Ten Commandments” movie came out in 1956. Surely Jordan must realize nobody promotes a movie nine years after it has been released, especially in an era before VHS and DVD.

Enough said.

Dave Washburn hits the nail on the head with a great letter, here it is:

Brandi Swindell, shame on you. How dare you be good-looking! Don’t you know that if you want to run for City Council, you have to pull out all your teeth but one, grow a wart on your nose, either cultivate or paint ugly pimples all over your face, let your hair turn into a rat’s nest, gain at least a hundred pounds, and — oh, wait, that’s only if you’re conservative. As long as you toe Dan Popkey’s line, you can look however you want to. Now I’m all confused…

Well, that was it. There was a note of the bottom of the Letter to the Editor’s on Popkey column attacking Swindell:

Editor’s note: Dan Popkey apologizes today on Local 1.

Unlike, the rest of Popkey’s columns, this wasn’t on the Internet and I don’t take the Statesman at home. Boise Guardian has a summary of it:

In his Sunday column, Popkey acknowledged that he knew better and shouldn’t have said things about Brandi’s good looks.

If that’s all, its good that he apologized though if he said he knew better that to me always begs a question. If you knew better, why the heck did you do it in the first place? Unlike the rest of Popkey’s columns, this one’s not online, so I can’t quote it. I’ll take a look at it at Wal-Mart tomorrow and if its interesting, I’ll blog about it.

tag:Brandi Swindell

—–

Sheilia Francis writes in regarding new educational standards proposed by the board of Education:

Why does the Idaho State Board of Education feel it necessary to change graduation requirements?

This is a ridiculous request of students, and it would be the end of programs such as music, theatre, arts, and other extra-curricular activities.

Now for those of you who missed it, basically there’s new Educational standards requiring students to pass a test of basic competency to make it into high school from 8th grade.

On one hand, I understand her concern but if students can not read, write, or do arithmatic (the 3r’s) on a basic level then the rest of it doesn’t matter, because they’ve left school unprepared for the realities of life.

I think, the concern about the arts is valid. Clearly, the Founders never had a mind a society where everyone was just a corporate robot. Might I suggest homeschooling? Homeschooled mothers are amazing. I’ve seen so many who’ve dedicated themselves to schooling. They get traditional school lessons done in a few hours and then the kids have time for art and music and all kinds of things.

Other than that, a great reform is specialized high schools like they have in New York where kids can go to a High School that specializes or vocational schools. I believe in school choice in a way that parents are going to have a lot of choices for their kids and kids will be the winners.

In the current structure of public schools, however, you can’t send a high school who can’t read, write, or do math at that level. I saw a kid who because of social promotion was continually promoted, but struggled through 4th grade books. He graduated high school and ended up working at a ski resort. I don’t know how much better he can get because he has a high school diploma that’s virtually worthless.

Sparkle Patterson reads Dan Popkey the riot act in her letter to the editor and she may have hit a little too close to home with one of her comments:

I suppose this is indicative of your behavior towards women in general. If you don’t like what they have to say, you belittle them.

In a marriage, if you acted with so much contempt for your wife, you would end up divorced. As a newspaper journalist you should be reprimanded.

Popkey has mentioned in previous columns that he is in fact divorced, but never what was behind it. I don’t know and neither does Mrs. Patterson. Still can’t wonder whether the association will occur to people reading it.

In endorsing Mary Anne Jordan, Marlene Strong writes:

Hot-button social issues such as those espoused by her opponent have no place in city politics

I would agree accept for two things. First, Brandi hasn’t just focused on social issues. Secondly, Brandi didn’t bring social issues to the municipal level, Ms. Jordan did by voting to remove the ten commandments monument.

Brandi Swindell, Boise

—–

It is wonderful that a young person in Boise wants to run for City Council, however, I find something lacking in Ms. Swindell’s resume — a college education.

Perhaps Ms. Swindell should use her time to further her education before running for City Council…pursuing higher education would hopefully broaden her perspective.

Okay, yeah I remember there was that part of the City Code that requires members of the City Council to be College Graduates…oh wait, that doesn’t exist.

It would appear that Ms. Dunlap may need to go back to school on statistics. 77.4% of Idahoans don’t have a Bachelor’s degree according to the US Census Bureau. In addition, we elected 17 legislators last year who had not finished a Bachelor’s degree. Shirley McKague has served 5 terms in the legislature despite never going beyond High School.

Dan Popkey had some things to say on this issue this weekend. First, he’s mad at the Idaho Republican Party for letting Brandi Swindell use their resources to run the campaign:

That’s been the practice. Party stalwarts worked hard for former Mayor Brent Coles, a Republican, and incumbent Mayor Dave Bieter, a Democrat. But until now party infrastructure — offices, voter lists, staff — have not been employed in non-partisan contests.

Hey Dan! Guess when non-partisanship died in Boise city government? When the mayor and the council showed themselves to be San Francisco style liberals by removing the Ten Commandments monument. If liberals will stop our cities from becoming a ground zero in the culture wars, we wouldn’t be here. Dan goes on:

I’m baffled Sullivan picked Swindell for this leap into non-partisan elections. Jim Tibbs might make sense, but not an extremist who opposes condom use and has zero experience with the collaborative skills it takes to make a city work.

Councilwoman Jordan is a businesswoman who sells police supplies. She’s toiled in the vineyard of local issues as president of the West Valley Neighborhood Association and a Planning & Zoning commissioner. She’s worked on Foothills preservation and transportation planning. She’s been on the council since 2003 and has a degree in political science.

Swindell graduated from Meridian High School but has no college degree. Image is everything. Good looks got her TV time on O’Reilly…

Wow, so she only gets on TV because of her looks, not because of anything she has to say or contribute…hmm!

SEXIST ALERT! BIG FAT SEXIST ALERT!

Can you imagine someone writing this about a liberal woman, “Why she only gets on talk shows because of her looks.” It would not be tolerated, but the editorial board of the Statesman just gives it a wink and a nod. Its okay to be sexist if you work for the liberal media.

Also if Jordan is such a great councilwoman and has the great personal skills, why did she support the brilliant idea of not even holding a public hearing on the Ten Commandments issue.

In my lifetime, the national debt has gone up more than 8 trillion dollars under college educated “smart people.” Wasteful government programs are started by these same people. The Boise City Council is full of elitists who think they know so much better than the people who elected them and don’t care what the uneducated masses think. We need Common Sense from a citizen of Boise and not just another arrogant politician. That’s why Brandi should be elected.

Boise, Brandi Swindell

—–

“He was very likable but I think his view of evil is simplistic. There is no dialogue that is going to stop an insane terrorist from attacking innocent people. His views on human nature are also very naive. He believes we are born good, but parents know you don’t have to teach your children to be bad. They know how to do that. You have to teach them to be good. He also doesn’t believe in a creator. If the colonists had been Buddhists, we wouldn’t have the United States.”

Now, this is his statement of honest disagreement with the Dalai Lama’s views, but Joyceann Fick wrote in letters to the editor to the Statesman:

Fischer seems to think he alone has cornered the market on “acceptable” beliefs. That he would actually criticize the tenets of the Dalai Lama only proves how narrow-minded and intolerant Fischer’s message really is.

He didn’t say that the Dalai Lama’s beliefs were unacceptable, he said they were wrong. He disputed and challenged them, he respectfully disagreed and expressed his opinion. He took the good, the bad, and as a pastor called to speak the truths of the Christian faith, he pointed out what were the problems in this message. Last I heard, debating and discussing viewpoints was an American tradition, apparently not when the Dalai Lama is here. We’re to have our religious leaders pretend down is up and 2+2=5 to please the left. Next up, we have Kurt Caswell, from Lubbock, Texas who just had to join in from 2,00 miles away:

I find it astonishing that a spiritual leader would help to cultivate an atmosphere of fear and vengeance over hope and light…If Fischer would only compare his words with the words of the terrorists he wishes to kill, he’d find his world view is identical…

If the colonists had been Buddhists we would indeed have a United States (see Fischer’s comments), but instead of a United States founded on acts of terrorism against the 500 Indian Nations, we’d have, perhaps, a true union of states and peoples.

Wow, now Christians who after politely sitting through a speech by the Dalai Lama and disagree with him are the equivalent of Al Queda terrorists. This is Mr Caswell’s attempt to spread hope and light instead of vengeance.

Secondly, Fischer had a point. America had a very strong protestant (particularly reformed influence) in its founding. Books have been written about the role Scottish Presbytrianism played in the country’s founding.

More importantly, the point he made is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator and the rights, King George violated were given to us by the Creator. If you believe there’s no Creator, how do you fight a Revolution based on violations of rights He gave you.

However, there were some people who had some common sense about this, among them was Stacey Boone:

According to an article in The Idaho Statesman on July 24, the Dalai Lama is believed to be “an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Buddha of Compassion.” This is religion. This is a form of Buddhism. Since the state is not supposed to support one religion over another, I wonder if Gov. Kempthorne and his office will be promoting a visit and speaking engagement to Idaho’s children by Billy Graham or maybe the pope.

Now our state, because of the White Supremacist problem up North for many years is always ready to show itself diverse and tolerant with things like this, but I have to question where the ACLU was. Apparently, they’re warming up for their fight against Christmas trees and manger scences. I’ve heard garbage about Buddhism being a philosophy, but most people are going to say its a religion. The Seperation of Church and State, the danger of religion in the public square can only be used against Christians.

tags: Dalai Lama, Seperation
Of Church and State, Bryan Fischer, Idaho

—–

“Government did not give us our rights,” the Rev. Bryan Fischer, coalition co-director and senior pastor at Boise’s Community Church of the Valley, said Tuesday. “God gave us our rights. That is the foundation of our government in the United States.”

Separation of church and state is one of America’s most precious freedoms.

So, they’re taking issue with Pastor Fischer’s view on rights coming from God? Lets go to the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Guess what? Jefferson said our rights came from God. Now, let me stop here, because our good friend, Radical Russ is going to tell us that the founders, particularly Jefferson was a Deist and that it was a deistic God. Those who go around saying the founders are deists haven’t looked the term up in the dictionary. Take a look at this definion of “deism” from Dictionary.com

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

So, lets go further down in the Declaration of Independence:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in general Congress Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…

If God left the world alone, after creating it, why are you appealing to Him? Doesn’t make sense, unless the Founders weren’t deists.

How about Thomas Paine, lets take a look at The America Crisis

I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent.

Wait, Mr. Paine, if God abandonned the world, then he doesn’t really have a choice about it, does he? Unless, Thomas Paine wasn’t a true deists.

What about Benjamin Franklin? Lets take a look at his speech calling for prayer at the Constitutional Convention calling for prayer

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age.

How can God govern in the affairs of men if he abandonned the world? Perhaps, Dr. Franklin wasn’t a true deist.

Finally, Mr. Thomas Jefferson speaking for himself (and not a committee as he was when he wrote the Declaration of Independence:

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Wait, why tremble if God’s abandonned the world. Maybe Jefferson wasn’t a true deist, either.

All of the founders were more likely non-religious theists, which is defined as:

Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Its clear that no one really believed in the absentee landlord that modern deists speak of.

He begins:

Some of you out there would like to prohibit abortion. At the same time, you are against birth control.

That one’s easy. Abortifacents destroy fetilized human life, just as abortion does. I don’t oppose all birth control, but those who do would tell you that both are the same in that both treat children as diseases.

You also want a tax cut. At the same time you are members of tax-exempt organizations that in many instances are little more than private clubs.

The problem is not too little taxes, but too much spending. In addition, good churches and charities take care of the community’s needs and can reduce the amount we have to spend in taxes in care for the poor and correcting problems caused by poor morals.

Another weirdity is about worshipping a being who was all about peace. Yet you are all about war.

Couldn’t be further from the truth. I opposed Gulf War I, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo actions. Christians are a little more nuanced than that. I was also undecided going into Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

Maybe, we view “peace” a little different than you. Peace seems to be defined as the absence of US military forces. China is at peace, its people are in bondage to the government, and live in fear of their lives. That’s what Christ called “peace as the world gives it.”

Patrick Henry, one of those crazy warmongers cried in 1775, “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others might take but as for me, Give me Liberty or give me death!”

Finally, you are trying to teach creationism and intelligent design to our young people. The plain fact is that evolution has occurred.

Hey, scientists disagree with you, not as to microevolution (small changes in a species as a result of climate) but as to macroevolution, the idea that you can take one species and get another through natural selection.

Indeed, since when did it become, “The Fact of Evolution”, last I heard it was “The Theory.” Not all intelligent design people are creationists and the two are different. Intelligent design teaches there was a pattern of intelligence, rather than just mere randomness involved in creating the universe. You want to think its God, or a space alien, or time travellers that’s up to you. That’s outside of science.

Some intelligent design people believe in some Evolution helped by the designer. And you know what? That’s okay! We’re in a free country where we can think, debate, argue, and find the truth. Perhaps, it will be a while until we can move beyond 19th century theories as sacred to biology. As one Chinese scientist observed, “In China, you can criticize Darwin but not the government. In the US, you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”

—–

Simmons doesn’t think the law will let him keep the latest winner’s identity secret for long anyway.

Then they conclude, that its his moral duty to come forward and they explain:

Let the governor hand you your oversized check with the TV lights glaring. Millions of people with dreams like yours contributed to your sudden wealth. They would like to meet you. You have a tradition to uphold.

Yes, the lottery is a wonderful tradition. Rarely has such a system been devised that robs both winners and losers.

The winner of the $200+ million powerball jackpot is taking time to plan. That’s good, because people who buy lottery tickets generally have no clue about handling it.

Bankrate.com has an article on 8 people who lost all of their winnings. One interesting quote is from Bud Post who lives on Social Security and food stamps after winning the lottery said, “I wish it never happened. It was totally a nightmare.”

So good luck avoiding the fate of these “lucky folks.” Also, where did the money come from? It came from desperate people, poor people, those on public assistance who have little, but thanks to a government campaign to manipulate and deceive citizens into pouring hard-earned money down a sinkhole have taken money that should have gone to necessities to play a game that they have no chance of winning.

In that $200 millions are included the rent of people so desperate to believe they should get ahead, that they spent their rent money on it. The person who won the Lottery gets to be the Grand Sucker, the prophet of greed and avarice.

The Statesman’s right for once. It all comes with the package.

—–

Ted Armstrong didn’t have much sympathy for an outfitter who lost three hunting dogs to the wolves recently. In today’s letters to the editor, he writes

It is ironic that the outfitter assumes no risk as he enters an area known as wolf habitat. It is laughable that he believes the federal government is responsible for his loss. It is irresponsible when it is considered that this is the same federal government that allows him to hunt the land at little or virtually no cost. It is pathetic that we have come to the point where even an outfitter, the embodiment of strength and independence, assumes the victim’s role.

To an extent, he’s right, but the Federal government introduced the wolves and unlike the Black Bear he was hunting, he couldn’t even shoot the wolf legally without getting a huge fine for destroying an endangered species.

So, as we reintroduce bloodthirsty predators to harm the lives of humans and domesticated animals, we should perhaps form a new phrase, “Build a Better Mousetrap and the left will make the mouse an endangered species.”

—–

I served my time for 25 years to keep them safe and sound and my family didn’t bellyache the way some of these people are doing. They all better thank the good Lord that we don’t have to talk Japanese or German after World War II. There were a hell of a lot of men and women that never came back to become fathers or mothers…All we can do now is praise them in the past and pray for those that are now serving. God bless them for doing their share as I did.

Mr. Stewart really makes a good point. I think the problem is really generational. Mr. Stewart came from a generation that didn’t brag, that did its job and didn’t stand around waiting for a pat on the back. That’s not my generation. We expect to be recognized for the smallest sacrifice and to whine all the way while doing it. I’m the same way in my own work.

The fact is that this country is free because people became inconvenienced for the cause of American liberty and continued self-government. Ted Williams may very well have been remembered as the greatest player who ever lived had he not gone off to fight in World War II. Willie Mays lost 2 prime years of his career to Korea. I mean we need more Pat Tillman’s, less whiners and that goes for me also. That’s what makes the greatest generation so great, they’re unassuming about the whole thing.

Meg Young had a letter on teenagers. She sounds like a nice girl whose had some bad experience with people, she writes:

I smiled at the woman waiting next to me; she scowled. Then I noticed her keys on the counter in front of me. She snatched them up and gave me another suspicious look. Did she think I was going to steal her keys?

Adding this up, it seemed that adults generally distrust or dislike young people. Teenagers are not bad. Why is it that people suspect us of doing bad things?

Wow, its a pretty good question. Like I said, from what she writes she sounds like a nice girl. If she’d actually say, “Good morning” to a stranger she’s a lot friendlier than most teenagers who seem to be caught up in their own little world.

The answer is kind of like racial profiling. The biggest challenge is to learn as much as humanely possible not to judge people you don’t know based on how they look. Eventually, she’ll grow up and won’t have to deal with the teen discrimination, but a lot of us will still be overweight or a minority. This may be my letter to the editor this week.

—–

I could not believe how far off Charles Yates was in his letter to the editor in which he alleged that the fight for Terri Schaivo’s life wasn’t about her right to life, because if it had been, “We’d spend more money on schools than we do on prisons.” Mr. Yates should read the governor’s budget. The budget for adult and juvenile corrections is $156.6 million, the budget for schools $1.38 billion, eight times what we spend on prisons.

Also, “We’d control guns so kids couldn’t go to school and kill kids.” It’s already against the law to bring a gun to school. I’d also point out the largest number of deaths to occur at a school was caused by a bomb, not guns.

He also accuses pro-lifers of defending clinic shooters, when no responsible pro-life leader supports shooting abortionists.

On the same page, there were attacks on Brandi Swindell for going down to Florida. What really bugs leftists about Ms. Swindell is what she represents. Polls are showing that the younger generation is trending pro-life. She represents the coming defeat for a culture of death as a new generation embraces the sanctity of human life.

Qwest deregulation passed and Senate District 21 had no one representing them on the vote which causes a problem:

Voters in 34 legislative districts at least can hold their senators accountable on Qwest…But because District 21 has no senator, voters have no one they can hold to account.

As the Statesman noted, Kempthorne supports Qwest deregulation and so would anyone he appointed. In addition, people appointed to these type of vacancies tend to fill out the unexpired term and go home. So, how is having a Senator who will vote Yes on the bill and not run again going to help matters? Also, can’t they hold their two House members accountable? This is not a crisis, despite the Statesmen’s whining.

—–

I also believe we (the United States) need to turn around and sit down with both Iran and North and South Korea and start peace talks. This is what Osama fears the most. Peace between our neighbors and us.

–If it were only that simple. The US has been negotiating with North Korea. However, contrary to what Mr. McNealy says, it’s not the US at its best to appease our enemies despite their oppression and their nuclear proliferation. If you want to find out how appeasement works, ask Neville Chamberlain.

—–

Perhaps the greatest promise of the American Revolution was freedom to reject the scriptural garbage to which the powerful and would-be powerful would have all of us genuflect.

—Really, consider that the Declaration of Independence says all men are endowed by their “creator”. Also, General Washington in his farewell address called “religion and morality” “indespensable supports”.

To these American Talibans, I simply say: If you don’t want abortion, don’t have one. If you detest homosexuality, don’t engage in it. And if you want to pray in school, keep it to yourself.

—Well, if you don’t want murder, don’t kill people. If you detest slavery, don’t engage it. If you want to have civil rights monuments, keep it to yourself. The same logic applies and I’m quite tired of secularists who hold themselves to a different standard.

Then we have this ever-friendly letter from Thomas Conn,

We need public transportation for all the new people who have moved here.

Being an old-timer here, I wish about 80 percent of everyone who has moved here in the last 20 years would go back to where they came from.

–Well, we’re all immigrants here, except for the Native Americans. I understand not wanting to Californicate the area, but to blanketly not welcome people is the height of ill-manneredness. I wonder if Mr. Conn has any children in the area. If so, he has the growth to thank for it. If I want to get away from the crowd, I’d move to Boise County and Mr. Conn might want to consider the option.

—–

Kurt Marco wrote:

I find it amusing that our legislators are agonizing over whether to keep the state cigarette tax at a measly 57 cents a pack while all of Idaho’s neighboring states already have higher rates — Montana’s is $1.70…Instead of freezing the tax, I suggest we increase it by at least a dollar.

—I find it interesting that the liberal anti-smoking nazis favor increasing the tax. Have you taken look at who buys cigarettes? The poor or middle class are the primary buyers of cigarettes. Yes, they can quit but most won’t and who’ll it hurt? The poor.

Same thing with the lottery. It’s all to help the poor, but letting the poor keep more of their own money would make things better. Increasing the cigarette tax doesn’t help fight big tobacco, because people are addicted. It helps government and it hurts the poor.

Bethine Church (wife of Former Senator Frank Church) wrote:

My husband, Frank Church, was the first chairman of the permanent Select Committee on Aging. He believed that Franklin Roosevelt saved the elderly with assured retirement security.

And thus we see how Democrats see us, the people as only helpless bystanders in our destiny. Even the elderly who are living alright on Social Security are doing so because they worked hard, they worked long hours and earned a high average.

Senator Church believed that FDR was the messiah, saving the elderly from total poverty.

—–

Here’s a better idea. Trust doctors to do their job. And drop the patronizing insinuation that women don’t already agonize over a decision to get an abortion.

–First of all, lets start with the idea that doctors should be trusted with no regulations and no oversight. Where else in the medical profession are you not required to provide information on risks and side-affects of a procedure. Even to get immunized, my mother received several papers talking of remote risks of deadly side affects.

The issue of whether women agonize over the abortion decision is not the issue (although some women clearly don’t fully understand what they’re doing), but whether they get all the information they need. You can go through all the agony you want, but if you’re not informed of all the facts, it does you no good. Are the supporters of this bill being patronizing by daring to suggest that women don’t all have medical degrees and haven’t dedicated themselves to studying all the information on the abortion procedure. In this sense, abortion is no different than any other procedure, to make a decision people must be fully informed.

—–

Is this the Idaho Republican Party? Do the quotes above represent the way Republicans see themselves? Does Ms. Coulter personify the thoughtful leadership they demand that we accept? Are her opinions the “mainstream” all-American values Republicans are so proud of defending? I hope not. And I hope Ms. Coulter speaks with dignity and grace, sticking to well-founded arguments and avoiding personal attack. Should she, on the other hand, revert to the examples above, and the audience leap to their feet in cheers, then maybe that tells us something about Idaho Republicans.

–First of all, Ann Coulter does go over the top occassionally, but she’s quite interesting and some of her quotes are taken out of context. I wonder if Mr. Emery would drag a bunch of Michael Moore’s quotes. Indeed, as to namecalling, two of the most-respect pundits on the left (Al Franken and Michael Moore) have written books such as “Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot” and “Stupid, White Men”. Such antics earned Michael Moore a seat by President Carter at the last Democratic Convention. So, who are Democrats to lecture us on taking the high road?

—–

I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of Idahoans would rather leave the sales tax rate at 6 percent and give more money to education and health care.

-So, you’re that sure we’re fools?

Education is now more than 60% of the budget and health care costs are rising with Medicaid. It’s simply not true that we’re not funding these programs. Read last year’s budget, 63% of the Budget goes to Education and 20% goes to Health and Human Services, so at this point, Health and Education are 83% of the Budget.

Ms. King asks an interesting question at the end of her letter,

Why aren’t this governor and the majority party at the Statehouse as committed to education and health care as they are to building roads?

–I think the question is legitimate as to why we’re in debt and the governor’s wanting a huge new project and the fact is that the governor wants a legacy for building something big and if nothing else, he’s leaving a big headache for the next governor.

—–

I’ve got another poem or so in me and will be posting them in the next few days, as well as another column that I hope to finish tonight.

Until then, life’s pretty much going on and your prayers are greatly coveted as I have to make a lot of decisions soon.

We are experiencing a shortage of money for road repair. Has it come to mind that if all the counties were required to have emission-control testing for their vehicles, as well as those in Ada County, that the money from this would provide some of the financing for repair and additions to our roads and to our highways throughout our state?

–Some problems with the idea. First of all, I doubt the County is making much money off the emissions test requirements. Indeed, it looks like the profit is going to the private operators of the Emissions van. Reviewing the FY2005 budget for the Ada County Highway Department, I find that Emissions

Second, this shows the Democrats truly hypocritical stands as the party of the working man. In 2003, most Democrats backed a sales tax and tobacco tax increases which really hit poor people hardest and the same is true with emissions test.

In most cases, if you own a newer vehicle, you shouldn’t have much problem getting passed an emissions test, but if you own an older vehicle, watch out. It’s true that you can get a one year waiver if you spend $200 on emissions related repairs.

I had a very frustrating situation with the emissions department as I spent more than $200 to get my car qualified only to have it break down and then have to spend $67 to get the new car ready for emissions.

Expanding this to the entire state is going to hit poor people hardest, the people who can least afford to down $200 keeping a car going that’s barely worth that. In more rural parts of Idaho, people would really have no choice because of the lack of a good public transportation system. (Then again we don’t really have that in Boise either).

—–

Before we hand out tax breaks to Albertsons for “creating” jobs, our lawmakers should first ask questions like:

1. How many jobs did Albertsons eliminate during the past four years? My wife’s job was one of those. She was let go with just three weeks extra pay after more than 11 years of service.

2. How many well-paying Albertsons cashier positions will be eliminated by having customers scan their purchases themselves?

Always remember: One man’s tax cut is another man’s tax increase.

First, the time frame for the first point of the last 4 years is arbitrary and apparently tied to the time his wife’s job was eliminated as regrettable as this is, jobs do go away during economic downturns, and the 2001-2004 era had some rough patches.

Second, most new technologies will cost some people jobs because the economy and mass production are constantly creating more efficient processes. How many Blacksmiths were put out of business by the horseless carriage? The economy changes and its something we have to be prepared for because to do otherwise is to make people go through inconvenience and hassles simply to keep unnecessary jobs around.

Third, the idea that taxes are a zero sum game has been refuted, time and time again as decreased taxes means more money in the economy and more money that can be invested in useful economic activities rather than being flushed down a bureaucratic rathole.

—–

Eliminate the Congressional Pension Fund, along with taxpayer sponsorship of retired congressmen’s offices, staffers, stationery, etc., and start kicking those millions into the Social Security Trust Fund.

–Well, first of all, most retired Congressman don’t get offices. The only people I’ve heard of getting offices of any sort where living former Speakers of the House which number two, but I don’t even think they have offices.

Congressional pensions are ridiculous (what job do you get full pension at after working their five years), but I don’t think simply getting rid of the Congressional pensions would do anything.

If we were paying to send Congressman’s children to private schools and we stopped paying for it, they’d do it themselves, not fix our public schools. Congressmen have a lot of investment options and most can get well-set for retirement anyway. Plus, if we eliminated Congressional pensions, the money wouldn’t go to the Social Security trust fund, it’d go to reducing the deficit, which is a good idea.

A key point people miss is that what Congress does with its own perks are really pocket change compared to the problems of the country. You could make every member of Congress a volunteer with no pay and you’d still not have saved a Billion dollars. You may even have worse problems because people willing to do a Congressman’s job for free are getting sustinance from somewhere, big labor or big business will pay what the taxpayers don’t but if you think we’d come out on the favorable end of the deal, you’ve got another thing coming.

The idea that Congress doesn’t care about the Social Security system because they’ve got their pensions is absurd. Congress acts on a lot of things that don’t affect it. That’s why memebers of Congress propose HMO reform. The reason they don’t want to touch it because there’s millions of people ready to pounce on them if they make the “wrong” move. It is the risk of public rejection that makes them not act.

—–

In response to the letter Jan. 22 from Travis Brewer of Spokane, “Why Bush is Right”:

Mr. Brewer, it’s clear you voted for Bush.

Boy, I guess you have Travis Brewer now. Sorry, Travis, he found out you voted for Bush. Never would have guessed it by the header. Mr. Castillo goes on to write:

The Kyoto Treaty was a way for countries to come together to raise awareness about global warming.

Clinton was able to care for the environment and ensure a great economy. Mr. Bush has turned his back on our air and water but created jobs that pay $7 to $10 per hour.

Okay, first of all, the Kyoto protocol would about double our energy bills and it further exempts most developing nations on Earth including China and India.

Second, President Clinton did such a good job “managing” our forests that we’ve got to see millions of acres burn over the past few years.

Finally when will Liberals realize that the President creates no jobs. The economy creates jobs and they were turning out $7 and $10 an hour jobs during the Clinton Administration. Indeed I had 2 $5.50 an hour jobs during the Clinton Administration. What a miserable failure!

—–

If abortion is made illegal, a new symbol will have to be added to that display: adult-sized crosses made out of bent wire coat hangers.

Do people really think making abortion illegal will stop all abortions? >
Emphasis on all added by me.

First of all, the Wire coat hanger as a symbol of back alley abortions is absurd. Back Alley referred to the Entrance women used to the abortion clinic. Before Roe v. Wade, 94% of illegal abortions were performed by doctors or other medical professionals and many of the remaining of the 6% were performed by people who had guidance from medical professionals. It’s a big lie that will not die.

Second, of course banning abortion won’t stop all abortions, anymore than drug laws stop all people from using drugs or drunk driving laws stop all people from driving drunk. The idea that because lawless people will ignore the law, we shouldn’t have laws would leave us a society without any rules.

—–

With the extremist Republicans now in charge, there is no middle ground. They think the problem with America is that the rich are not rich enough and the poor not poor enough, with no room for those in the middle. (Class, that is).

The moral party’s first order of business is to destroy Social Security. It has nothing to do with the program. The “right” (i.e. wealthy) have always hated the idea of a democratic government (i.e. the people). This boils down to a hatred for democracy.

His next line is, “They are using scare tactics”. This is one of the most ironic statements I’ve ever read. This poor paranoid individual accuses Republicans of hatred for Democracy and wanting to make people distrust their government. (Actually, Mr. Ingraham, getting people distrust government is not a hard task, government officials help with that).

This is definitely another fun look at what the Democratic Party has become.

—–

—–

Proponents say states need constitutional amendments to keep activist judges from overturning the people’s will. But no legal threat to traditional marriage exists in Idaho. No other state is required to accept another state’s gay marriages — not that any state except Massachusetts permits them anyway. Idaho already prohibits gay marriages by law.

–But, the Statesman conveniently ignores the fact that people are taking their Massachusetts gay marriage license to other states. It’s time to take proactive action against the gay agenda before they get their way in the courts. If Massachusetts had banned gay marriage by Constitutional Amendment, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in today.

—–

If America produces a defective president, he should be recalled; it’s the American way. A tragic illegal war, record deficit spending, failing approval rating, environmental mayhem, divisive leadership, etc. He must be recalled; it’s the Lemon Law.

Not sure if Mr. Polsky’s aware that the Constitution doesn’t provide for recall of the President, but I digress. The American people had a chance to vote on George W. Bush (last election) and they voted to re-elect the President. Rather than talking about lemons, perhaps (especially given the fact Bush had probably not been re-inaugurated when Mr. Polsky wrote his letter) he should talk about another fruit: sour grapes.

—–

In the first place, she wants legislators to consider what she has to say before trying to illegalize abortion like they always do. Having attended Saturday’s March for Life, I can assure her that outlawing abortion is not on the table, making a new parental consent/notification law is if the current bill reversed as well as finding a common sense solution on informed consent.

Ms. Silva writes:

While I would like to take you at your word that you value the life of a child, I find no concrete evidence to support it. Where are you when it comes to bettering the lives of our impoverished children, insuring them, feeding them, funding Head Start, rebuilding our schools?

This is the most amazing and audacious statement. To begin with, our state budget is already 60% spent on education. Secondly, our state politicians have bent over backwards to pass health insurance for kids (did she ever hear of the CHIPs program).

Secondly, there’s a lot of private action that goes on as Christian organizations like the Salvation Army to help kids out. Ms. Silva is a liberal, so compassion is not measure of how much of your own money you expend to a cause, it’s based on how much you want the government to give.

She goes on to write,

It’s starting to feel a bit like Dickens’ London, where in the novel “Bleak House,” the homeless orphan Jo sits to eat his crumb of bread on the steps of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. (While Dickens admired certain charitable aspects of Victorian evangelicals, he was repelled by hypocrisy, which he suspected in anyone making a show of piety and eager to impose it on others.

Now, there’s this idea by liberals and some Christians that spreading the Gospel overseas is not compatible with charity home. Dickens may have thought this and he was wrong. When missionaries come, they don’t just bring the word of God, they bring medicine and clothing. They help out local people in attempt to show the compassion of Christ.

I have a friend whose a missionary in India, and a rebel guerilla leader actually had a meeting with him and thanked him for giving candy to his children. His work is valuable. Others handle the care of the poor at home.

She then writes,

2. If your sincere aim is to end abortion, shouldn’t you want to end unwanted pregnancy?

–Um, no. It’s as if you ask someone who wants to alleviate human suffering, why they don’t stop tornadoes. Unplanned pregnancies that come at bad times can be avoided but can’t be stopped as a rule.

She then writes,

Wouldn’t you be working with Planned Parenthood, not against them..?

—Sure, if we wanted to support genocidal race Nazis who kill countless millions of children every year. Why not?

Wouldn’t you stop trying to punish women and make men responsible, too? (Odd that you’d like to throw women’s doctors in jail but not the men who get them pregnant.)

—Lets understand a moral distinction between a man who kills unborn children and a man who gets a woman pregnant, with her consent. The man has nothing to do with the abortion decision in this country, only the woman gets to decide.

It appears Ms. Silva is under the impression a women getting pregnant has nothing to do with the woman. Women just wake up pregnant one day and a man who causes unwanted pregnancy should go to jail, but not the woman because she didn’t do anything. Perfect logic.

If your real aim is to end abortion rather than punish women, why not mandate free sterilization and sperm-banking for life for pubescent boys? Imagine it: No woman would ever get pregnant without the intention and desire of her partner to fulfill their collective wish; abortion would become nearly obsolete; deadbeat dads would disappear. Sure, it smacks of totalitarianism — of the state taking away the most intimate reproductive decisions of the individual — but you’re content to do that to women now, to force a woman to bear a child she does not want or cannot care for…

-Again, it appears Ms. Silva has no sense of proportionality. In her world, there’s no difference between sterilizing minor children and telling women who’ve had sex that they need to carry the child to term. If these are the same, maybe men should stop arguing against Child Support unless the state ties all the tubes of the women in the state. It would make just as much sense.

—–

I am not sure what was worse, that they felt comfortable voicing such hatred in public without fear of reprisal or that I had to explain to my daughter what a “coon” was.

—Now, the latter, I think should have made her more uncomfortable. It was extremely offensive what the men did, but should she be uncomfortable that these didn’t fear reprisal? I don’t think so. We live in America where you can say what you want and you can even say extremely stupid and offensive things.

I detest what these men were saying, but if we ever get to the point in this country we have to fear reprisals, we’ve either become a dictatorship or lost all sense of tolerance.

Nick Brizzi had an absolutely fascinating letter, he says:

How many more traffic signals does it take to stop tens of thousands of vehicles in this valley per day to create twice the pollution? If you said double the amount, think again.

I also wonder how many citizens who campaign for more signals because of one or two poor drivers who are injured coming onto roadways are also campaigning to reduce pollution.

–I think he raises some great points, particularly as how different social engineering plans run counter each other when we think about it.

Obviously, there has to be a balance between safety and environmental concerns, but there are several places where there’s an excessive amount of Stop lights. Orchard, Curtis, and any street near the Capitol come to mind when you think of that. What’s it doing to our emissions and our air? It’s definitely worth studying and kudos to Mr. Brizzi for thinking on his feet.

—–

—–

Could it be that Mr. Simpson has confused the U.N. with our House of Representatives?

No, he doesn’t, although Congress has it’s own problems. The difference is that we, the People can change Congress. The UN, a group of international bureaucrats unaccountable to the people, we cannot.

—–

She stated that government must practice fiscal responsibility. Is that why George Bush is proposing to borrow $2 trillion to privatize Social Security, and in doing this not giving one kind thought or deed to society’s impoverished?

Now, first of all, who does Ms. Sower think these accounts will help, but those of us with not a lot of money.

The Democrats idea of compassion and kindess is to create programs that make people dependent on government for a pittance. This is what Social Security is. The left’s demogouges rather than actually solving problems. They’re doing it now with Medicaid and their self-righteous anger with proposed deductibles. When the poor are out of health care or a livelihood because systems went bankrupt and they did nothing to stop it, what are they going to say then?

Compassion is having the foresight to make changes that will make programs last rather than wither away.

—–

Terrorism fear and a bigoted version of moral values trumpeted by the Bush campaign blindsided the voters to the dangers of his spend-and-borrow economic agenda. Our children and grandchildren are being burdened with an unconscionable debt load. A more immediate consequence will occur when the Chinese and Japanese central banks lose confidence in the U.S. dollar and stop lending dollars to finance our huge trade deficit, expected to exceed $600 billion next year and $800 billion in 2006. When this happens, interest rates will soar and trigger an inflationary spiral that Bush and company will be powerless to control.

Mr. Custer has a point about the dangers of deficits. We do need to get our fiscal house in order and the President is trying to cut the deficit. The idea that if President Bush fails to do so, we’ll regret our decision in the past election is somewhat absurd.

John F. Kerry has no plan to balance the budget, nor does any politician. Increasing taxes is not the answer as it can kill the economy and lead to a DECREASE in net revenue and economic opportunity, nor would phasing out tax relief be enough to stop the runaway deficit even if the economy were assumed to be a Zero-sum game.

—–

Second, as I read Newman’s Reader’s View, I couldn’t help but juxtapose her reactions to Christian culture with mine. How can two well-educated Jewish adults live in the same area, immersed in Christian symbolism, and yet draw entirely different conclusions?…What’s my point? It’s that Marcy Newman would, most probably, have just as hard a time with me, a fellow Jew, as she does with the dominance of Christian culture. The real battle in Idaho, as in all of America, is not between Jew and Christian. It’s between secular fundamentalists and religious traditionalists over the soul of this nation.

Mr. Gorin has a point. In terms of what’s going on the anti-God crowd really knows no bounds (well, except they won’t attack Islam). Christians and Orthodox Jews are not together on a lot of these issues but because of fundamental agreements on several key points.

First, I think that people like Daniel Lapin (national President of Toward Tradition) have a real problem with the left’s idea to make the US into Europe. Europe is truly a hostile anti-semetic hotbed. To change the US into Europe is to bring on the horrors of anti-semetism.

Second, Christians are behind traditional Jews on important issues like Israel. In short, American Christians are a fairly tolerant lot and in the key culture battles, stand with Traditionalist Jews.

So, based on common ethics and some commonalities in worldviews, Conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews find common cause.

—–

The news isn’t all bad. You won’t be charged if you look at fewer than $10 worth of pages in a calendar year. And you won’t be charged more than $2.40 per court document, no matter how many pages it contains.

The courts also provide exemptions from charges to educational researchers and nonprofit organizations. You also can view the documents free if you visit the federal courthouses in Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow and Pocatello, though printouts will cost you a dime a page…

Well, this doesn’t sound all that awful but the Statesman thinks Congress should act to end the practice:

We urge Idaho Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo, and Reps. Mike Simpson and C.L. “Butch” Otter, to secure passage of a bill to make public access to federal court records once again free of charge. Federal courts should use the Internet to disseminate their public records more widely than ever, for the benefit of American citizens — not as a revenue source.

Now, since when does the Statesman have a problem with the government charging fees? Well, the Statesman explains in the course of the article:

Lawyers, news media (emphasis mine), state and local government agencies, and ordinary citizens will be charged.

So, the Statesman’s problem when you come down to it is that they’ll be charged. BTW, do you want to know what it costs to get a copy of a Statesman article from more than a week back? $2.95. The Statesman used to have free archives online, but recently started to charge everyone an obscene rate to get copies of articles more than a year old or even to view them. Unlike the Courts, there’s nowhere you can go and view the Statesman’s articles for free to find out whether you need them or not or if they’re relevant unless you feel like going to the library and digging through paper copies and microfishe.

For the Statesman to go off on the Federal Courts like this is the height of self-serving hypocrisy.

—–

Here’s why the new copayments won’t put much of a dent in Medicaid spending. First, the 1,500 children in CHIP-B are a sliver of the state’s 165,000 Medicaid participants. Second, the copayments will apply only to two services —the “non-emergency” ER visits and prescription drugs — not to physician visits or other services.

This amazed me because the key idea is that 2 homosexuals do not reproduce on their own. They need either an egg donor or to have sex with a woman. He goes on to list a series of examples of homosexual men who had sex with hetrosexual women producing children, thus proving homosexuality is a choice. Good job!

—–
——–

Our local UCC congregation is filled with a rich variety of people, many of whom have felt alienated from religious institutions in the past. They seek a place where questions are valued and Christian faith is not dogmatic. They seek a place to be accepted for who they are and welcomed with God’s extravagant love.

The UCC is fulfilling scripture today by tolerating, welcoming, and accepting sin in the church.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts.-1. Timothy 4:3

The UCC is basically providing people a feeling of religiosity seperated from any obligation to live a holy, righteous life. For shame.

Writes Roark:

As sorely tempting as it is to focus my comments on Mr. Ripley’s lamentable record in his personal life and “values,” it is more important to challenge his major contention that Idaho Democrats don’t “respect” the values and sensibilities of Idaho families.

Apparently, rather than focusing on Mr. Ripley’s personal life and debating it in a fair fashion, he’d rather just throw out an innuendo with no explanation. It’s part of Democratic family values.

Every abortion represents a failure at some level or other. In an ideal society, every child would be welcomed into the world with a guarantee of two loving parents, adequate food, shelter, clothing, health care and a first-class education. Most Idaho Democrats I know believe that when we can provide such guarantees, abortions will be rare indeed. I don’t purport to speak for the Idaho Democratic Party, but all Idaho Democrats I know are working and hoping for a time when our social structure is such that, except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother, no woman will need or want to choose abortion.

In the meantime, it is hard to understand how forcing an unwilling, unprepared and unsupported woman to have an unwanted child will strengthen the institutions of marriage and family in Idaho.

–Okay, first of all how does the government “guarantee” children two parents? Secondly, it’s easy to see where the Democrats make their mistake politically. Their view is that a child should be had if the world is perfect or ideal, versus a true pro-life viewpoint. Mr. Roark is ignoring the number of adoptive parents. Secondly, he seems to believe that only those children of well-off parents deserve an inalienable right to live. Apparently, they only stand up for the downtrooden to a certain degree.

Democrats have always valued the family — that’s why we passed laws to take children out of the coal mines and women out of the sweat shops. We passed a minimum wage and gave workers the right to organize and fight for better working conditions and better pay to support their families.

First of all, since he’s talking about historical achievements, when he is going to claim slavery and segregation? Second of all, most of these reforms were bipartisan (the Progressive era Child Labor law had many Republican backers).

We created the Social Security system so that families didn’t have to take food out of their children’s mouths in order to provide food for those too old to work anymore. We created Social Security and Medicare so that the oldest members of our families didn’t have to face their twilight years penniless, sick and helpless.

Wow, the Democrats think highly of themselves? Shouldn’t we all thank them for giving us a Social Security System that guarantees a Seniors a pittance for a retirement and medicare system that has to be saved every ten years? Good job on that.

The attitude of Mr. Roark is a key problem the Democrats face. The expectation from the article is that we should all love the Democrats and be grateful for what they’ve done for us. It was a disturbing idea that was spoken clearly by a much more honest Democrat decades back who gave it straight up that people owed the Democrats and better deliver. Harry Truman is his acceptance speech at the 1948 Democratic Convention observed:

Never in the world were the farmers of any republic or any kingdom or any other country as prosperous as the farmers of the United States; and if they don’t do their duty by the Democratic Party, they are the most ungrateful people in the world!…And I say to labor what I have said to the farmers; they are the most ungrateful people in the world if they pass the Democratic Party by this year.

The rise of wages and the strength and resurgance of the farm sector was all the doing of the Democratic Party. The American people did nothing according to Truman. My friends Mr. Roark thinks we should be grateful to the Democrats and see them as defenders fo the family because they’ve created deeply flawed programs that are running our nation into debt while keeping people in poverty.

Mr. Roarke goes on:

Idaho Democrats see many challenges to the strength of Idaho families: the number of good-paying jobs that have left the state since the so-called “Right to Work” law took effect, a tax structure that places a disproportionate burden on the middle class, the rising number of parents who work two and three jobs to support their families, the increasing number of children being raised in single-parent households, the number of deadbeat dads who refuse to pay their court-ordered child support and the number of families without any health insurance.

I wouldn’t disagree with most of these. First of all, the tax burden is very high for middle class families, but the Democrats have not brought forward any solid reform measure. I was the only one talking about tax reform in the last campaign. The big thing the Democrats due is they lie to people and confuse them about right-to-work. Right-to-work is a huge bad guy that has caused all of our economic problems. Of course, the idea that because union membership isn’t requires that business eliminate jobs in the state is a bit far fetched to begin with. It doesn’t work as a reasonable explanation. National Right to Work has a map of all the states who have right to work laws:

So, if Right to Work is the cause of our state’s problems then similar states without Right to Work should be prospering. Not really. Infoplease has a chart that shows the Per Capita Income of each state. Montana, which is completely surrounded by Right to Work States does not have a Right to Work law. So how much more does the average Montanan earn than the Average Idahoan. According to the chart, nine whole dollars ($25,911 for Idaho and $25,920 for Montana). In addition our mutal neighbors in Wyoming earn $32,808 or 27% more than the Average Idahoan. Floridians, Texans, North Dakotans, Virginians, Nevadans, etc. all earn more than Idahoans. This all goes to prove that Right to Work is a Democratic bogeyman.

He gets to the end and writes:

At present, there can be no dispute that a majority of Idaho voters identify themselves with the Republican label, and that is not likely to change in the immediate future. Idaho Democrats have lost many elections in recent years…

One thing he gets right the whole article.

—–