Let me say that first off, if Raul Labrador runs for Governor, I will be behind him 150%. The question of whether he should run is going to be up to him and will depend on where he can make the most difference?

Being in the House of Representatives is an often difficult job particularly when the House as a whole has such weak-kneed and fiscally liberal folks as Mike Simpson in it. It’s dysfunctional and any conservative gains are going to be stymied by a Democratic President and Senate. This will be the case for at least the next four years.

In Idaho on the other hand, Raul Labrador would have a huge Republican contingent in the legislature, and the ability to dramatically impact state policy on issues such as taxes, size of government, and reform of education.

I have to wonder if people who think Raul Labrador should stay in Washington DC have fallen into the trap of thinking what goes on in Washington is far more important that what is happening at our State Capitol. It’s not so.

Republicans have held the Governor’s Mansion in our state for going on 20 years, with all but Jim Risch’s six month tenure seeing the Governor’s mansion occupied by hard-core party establishment guys like Phil Batt, Dirk Kempthorne, and Butch Otter. The question Idaho Conservatives is, Are we better off now than we were twenty years ago?

Other than getting some pro-life legislation passed, how different would our state be if we’d been led to that most endangered of political dinosaurs, the Idaho Moderate Democrat leading our state with Republican legislatures we have had. Given the size of the GOP majorities, we ought to have made serious changes to our state, we ought to be a model of wise and prudent tax policy, of innovative limited government.

Instead, what do we have? We have an income tax code that’s a refugee from the progressive era.  A sales tax that plays so many favorites and picks so many winners and losers that it excludes more sales than it taxes. We have an education system that is in desperate need of reform, and a sprawling state government that we didn’t use the late fiscal shortfalls as a chance to fix.

The reason for this is that we have a state leadership that views power as an end.  Conservatives need to change the state executive desperately but have shown very little competence in doing so.

In 2010, the best conservatives could come up with was Rex Rammell.  If conservatives don’t plan to win the Governorship in 2014, they’ll easily lose it with another lackluster candidate.

To be clear, Raul Labrador is not the only candidate who would make a fine Governor. I’ve often thought the same of Senators Russ Fulcher and Marv Hagedorn. However, what makes Raul Labrador such an interesting potential candidate is that he has the name recognition and fundraising base to easily run this campaign while others will have to work to get that statewide recognition.

While I’d hate to lose Raul Labrador’s legislative capabilities in Washington, our state needs Conservative leadership in the governor’s office that’ll make up for the past twenty wasted stagnant years. So, if Raul Labrador thinks he can makes a difference as Governor, I hope he runs.

If not, I hope conservatives can offer a serious alternative to a continuation of the status quo of Batt-Kempthorne-Otter.

I did not swear to uphold just part of the Constitution. Our Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms, but it also includes the “supremacy clause” that says that every state shall abide by the laws passed by our Congress.

So, despite the fact that I personally oppose some of the gun control measures currently under consideration, my oath requires me to uphold the laws that are passed by our federal and state representatives…

I fear that passions have led people into a rally of mistruth. It is time we truly respect the Constitution and our system of justice. Regardless of your personal opinion on the Second Amendment, embrace everyone’s liberty and use our well-established process to pass laws and contest them.

• I’m on board if Congressman Raul Labrador runs for governor. We’ve had a Republican Governor in Idaho for 20 years but you wouldn’t know it looking at the state of our state’s finances, its tax code, or its education system.  We ought to be one of the most innovative conservative states in the nation. Instead, we have a Governor who is willing to rest on his laurels and propose insignificant bills that due nothing to address our state’s fundamental tax and fiscal problems which sees our state so often running behind. I think Raul Labrador would offer Idaho a new generation of leadership. Though if he doesn’t run, I hope some conservative will actually offer an alternative to Otter. If Otter is re-elected expect to accomplishment the name of his running mate-little. And if conservatives choose to sit idly by and let Otter cruise to another term, they’re choosing the slow and steady decline of our stat.e
• Idaho Reporter notes Butch Otter has gone from proposing eliminating funding for IPTV to offering an increase a budge. Of course Otter was for eliminating in 2010 when he was facing a primary and needed to throw a bone to conservative voters. Though perhaps, its a case of “once bitten twice shy.” I don’t think the way that Senator Sheryl Nuxoll framed the issue helped the cause of reducing it, “Private enterprise is where innovation comes from. I believe the private sector could fulfill the niche that Idaho Public Television currently fulfills.” Laudable sentiments but that turns the debate into an existence over IPTV and state funding or no, it won’t go away. They’ll run an extra telethon or so, but it won’t go away.  There are people who like classical music on the radio or Masterpiece Theater who get upset when you threaten their public broadcasting. This debate shouldn’t be about “ending public television” but ending subsidies for public television. The reason the left is gung ho about government funding is that they believe the government should be funding this in toto as an ideological commitment. That’s the argument you have to take down. Going to war with Public TV as a concept is a bad idea.
• Count me as a “yes” for making it harder for initiatives and referenda to qualify for the ballot. I’ve become less a fan of direct democracy over time. As someone who tries to cast informed voters and really studies issues, I love the idea of  direct democracy. The reality is though that our founders had good reason for making our country a Republic. If you look at California and how its problems have resulted (to some extent) from a bevy of ballot initiatives that often run at cross-purposes from one another.  The California ballot is unruly with its endless pages of initiatives.  Few people are going to realistically take the time to study every little issue on a very lengthy ballot. That’s why our founders gave us a republican form of system where we the people designate representatives to act on our behalf. Now, if we have representatives who refuse to pass good laws or pass bad ones, we don’t need a referendum, we need new representatives.
• Finally, I’ve never before announced that an issue will be on the Idaho Conservative scorecard, but let me go ahead and make an exception. Health Care Exchanges will be on the scorecard and a vote against the Health Care Exchanges will be scored a conservative vote.

Owyhee Prosecutor Doug Emory said Thursday he would not seek the death penalty against Herrera, who could still be sent to prison for life, without parole, if found guilty of first degree murder.

An Owyhee County grand jury found late last year that Herrera, “with the intentional application of torture,” intentionally inflicted “extreme and prolonged pain,” by “inflicting repeated acts of blunt force trauma upon (Nakita) by means of physical force … emotional abuse, and/or lack of physical and/or medical care, which caused bruising, pain, burns, broken bones, and injuries,” that led to the toddler’s death on Aug. 16.

You know some people think Idaho is intolerant. Let me suggest that we’re way too tolerant and lax on real evil. I’m not an advocate of willy nilly application of the death penalty, but if there’s a case where it should apply. It’s this one. If what the prosecutor alleges is true. This woman took a child who it was her duty to protect and tortured and destroyed her. If Convicted, this woman should face the death penalty.

But I think prosecutors have been very lax in using it when it should be used against people who have done unspeakable acts of evil. Prosecutors shy away from it. Maybe, it’s because it’s such a pain to work through and Idaho’s Capitol Punishment laws are a joke. We have people who’ve been waiting thirty years for their execution and their victims also waiting.  It is a messed up system and it needs to be fixed.

It also requires prosecutors who are willing to actually pursue the necessary sentence rather than taking the easy way out.

Rep. Paul Ryan is a popular budget-writer in GOP circles. Based on the math of the Electoral College, Mitt Romney would have been better off looking elsewhere for a running mate.

That was the assessment offered by Sen. Jim Risch in a Statesman editorial board meeting Thursday. “(Ryan) was not my first choice for vice president.”

A 34-year-old Middleton woman has been sentenced to eight years in prison, including two fixed, for felony lewd conduct with a child under 16 — but the sentence was suspended and she was placed on probation, the Canyon County Prosecutor’s Office said Thursday.

Judge Thomas J. Ryan then ordered Robin Hackney to serve 120 days in the Canyon County Jail. She must also register as a sex-offender for life.

All but 120 days of her sentence was suspended. Anyone think that a man with a 15 year old girl would get 120 days? I know for a fact that doesn’t happen in Idaho.  He wouldn’t be seeing the outside of a jail cell this decade if there cases had been reversed. But it continues a nationwide problem: the innocence of teenage boys is valued far less than that of teenage girls.

It’s because we assume that boys “enjoy” these encounters far more so in the grand scheme of things, women who have sex with underaged boys are not a threat to society, the way male sex predators are.

I beg to differ. The reason we have laws against sex with the underaged is that we recognize they aren’t adults, they don’t know what they’re doing and in principle any adult having sex with someone whose actions are being ruled by their hormones, whose mind hasn’t caught up to their body, is taking advantage of them. This is just as true with a woman having sex with a teenage boy as it is a man having sex with a teenage girl.

And with courts handing out sentences like this, there’s little deterrent being offered to a crime.  The odds of being caught at some thing like this are very slim and if at the end of the road, the punishment doesn’t suit the crime, then you’re going to have a lot more 30 something women gratifying themselves on teenage boys.

Butch Otter is likely to go 1-for-2 on this route. It really is unprecedented what happened at the 2008 convention with Otter’s choice for Chairman, Kirk Sullivan, being denied re-election. There is not near the level of angst now that many of the grassroots commands have been acted on. Expect Dean Sorensen to win and party activists to rue the day it happened. I hope conservative enjoyed having platform statements from candidates because I’d bet money that Chairman Sorensen and his new Executive Director won’t be sending them out.

On the other hand, Otter’s efforts to reopen the closed primary are going to be probably be given a cold shoulder by delegates. Having gone through years of this debate, only the die hards of the open primary are ready to go back through it. If he cared about party unity, he’d drop the idea in the name of consensus and unity.

Here’s the problem. Butch Otter is not interested in bringing grassroots and establishment to harmony. There’s one thing he wants from grassroots Republicans.

Complete submission to his will.

It’s Governor Otter’s way or the highway, that’s the way Otter has tried to have things run in the GOP. This is why he’s putting up a Sorensen for Party Chairman. If he cared about bringing the party together, he would offer a candidate who would meet the approval of the conservative wing, but Otter wants total submission. And more likely than not, his choice as GOP chairman will take that approach.

There is more than enough reason to throw out the state’s existing political establishment. I was on the floor at the 2008 Convention as Butch Otter’s machine wanted to deny secret ballot elections for Party offices. With many delegates state employees, at the very least, there was an implied threat of political reprisals. When Raul Labrador stood to speak, members of the party establishment jeered like they were New York political machine thugs.

When Butch Otter didn’t get his way, he through a tantrum. He refused to raise funds to help support Bill Sali’s re-election campaign until it was too late in the process and was shedding no tears over the seat going to the Democrats.

We also saw the case of Chris Pentico, where the Otter Administration prosecuted a grassroots conservative activist.

Otter represents a political establishment that at its core is about old political families who believe, like the Aristocracy of old, that their power is secured by their birthright and that it is the duty of the common folk to bow to their will.

Yet, conservatives refused to do anything to seriously challenge this establishment in 2010. Otter was opposed for Governor by four candidates whose campaigns were more doomed from the start than the Edmund Fitzgerald.  Only token opposition was made to Brad Little who got to become the state’s new Crown Prince Lieutenant Governor.

Now I note in the Statesman article, Region 2 Chairwoman Lee Ann Callear says:

“We support the governor, but we’re not going to be bullied,” she said. “We want the party run from the grass roots up, not the top down. I don’t understand why he has to have his person. To me, a guy that’s finally the governor of Idaho — that’s not enough?”

The problem is that the Governor didn’t learn his lesson after 2008 and decide to submit to grassroots leadership. He threw a tantrum and there was no consequence  for this. By continuing to “support the Governor,” conservatives are enabling to continue the same behavior because he’s not going to change.

One of the challenges is that Otter hasn’t been all bad: he held the line on taxes during the downturn, he provided some critical support to Tom Luna on education reform, and he’s made some good legislative appointments.  And some people like Otter for the conservative principles he used to stand for and the conservative rhetoric he can still whip out on the appropriate occasion. The problem is that he represents a political establishment that’s far more interested in rewarding its allies than it is bringing about the type of things conservatives care about in terms of school choice, tax reform, and more freedom and as long as Otter and the monied establishment is in power.

Emerson Observed, “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.” The idea politically is that you must defeat your political opponent totally when you go after him, not just give him a black eye and allow him to stay in office, because if you do that, he’s going to strike. That’s exactly what conservatives have tried to do and this is where we’re at. And the longer we keep this constant bifurcated approach to Otter and the establishment up, the longer the party’s going to be divided.

Either conservatives need to bow to Otter as the power who must be obeyed or they need to resolve to not only elect a conservative chairman, but to offer a serious alternative to Otter  and Little in the 2014 elections.

On Tuesday, some 144,500 votes were cast in Idaho’s GOP congressional races. And, as the GOP correctly notes in a news release, that is a marked increase from 2008, when 126,573 votes were cast in the congressional races.

But the turnout for GOP congressional races was also about a 9 percent decrease from 2010, when 158,746 votes were case in GOP congressional primaries.

Normally, a comparison between 2008 and 2012 might hold water, since both years are presidential years. But since the Idaho GOP held its first-ever presidential caucus in March, taking the presidential race off the 2012 ballot, there’s an apples-to-oranges element to the comparison.

Sorry, but it is an apples-to-apples comparison. Kevin’s argument makes one bad assumption and misses one key point.

First, the bad assumption: That a significant number of people turned out for Idaho’s Presidential Primary. By the time, Idaho voted last time, the Republican Presidential race had been over for nearly three months. That’s not likely going to be a big draw.

Kevin neglects to note what 2010 had that 2012 didn’t. 2010 didn’t have the Presidential race, but it did have the U.S. Senate seat, and  all the state offices up for election including contested races for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Controller. In addition, the 2010 Idaho U.S. House primary between Vaughn Ward and Raul Labrador. In 2012, the Congressional Races topped the ballot and no primary was that exciting. It all depended on local  elections. Given that, the result was solid.

In addition, regarding the focus of whether turnout was up or down as a measure of the success of the election. The purpose of closed primaries was to stop liberals, Democrats, and people who didn’t share Republican values from voting. In this election, more actual Republicans showed up to vote.

I’d add that when it comes to other things, Richert and the Statesman have no problem with low turnout elections. They’d be perfectly fine with a local option sales tax bill that would allow for elections in odd numbered election years when hardly anyone outside of Boise’s North End shows up to vote. What makes the Statesman mad is that Republicans are now the ones picking their nominees and that means their editorial board has less influence than ever.

Mission accomplished.

High Level:

Re-opening the Primary: The party establishment including Butch Otter is eagerly rubbing its hands together at the prospect of being able to reopen Idaho’s primary due to “disappointing turnout” which saw turnout from 25% of voters to 23% (really conclusive numbers, eh?). In an email from Norm Semanko:

During yesterday’s primary, 144,500 votes were cast in the two Republican Congressional races. In 2008, the number was 126,573, according to the Secretary of State’s website. That is an increase of nearly 15% for Republican voters. On the other hand, the total Democrat primary votes in the Congressional races dropped by over one-third from 2008 to 2012.

In essence, the primary turnout was lower on the Democratic side, while Republican turnout was actually higher even with no big top of the ticket race. However, this is numbers and logic. Don’t expect that to be reported in the media, don’t expect it come from Otter and Ysura at the State Convention. Expect an effort to undo years of progress on the closed primary and thanks to Ryan Davidson (more on that later), they may have a shot at doing it.

Who got excluded from the primary? Liberals wanting to sabotage the primary or who know they have no prayer of beating Republicans in the Fall and want to pick as liberal a GOP nominee as possible. Liberal members of the media who don’t want to explain to their friends at the Idaho Press Club that they voted Republicans. Good riddance.

Idaho 1st District: Barring some unforeseen tragedy, Raul Labrador will be the first two term Congressman the District has had since 2006. In 2008, Matt Salisbury got 40% against Bill Sali in the GOP primary while Walt Minnick cruised to the Democratic nomination. In 2012, Raul Labrador beat back his intraparty challenger by a 4:1 margin. At the same time, former NFL Wide Receiver Jimmy Farris struggled in the Democratic Primary, winning by only a 53-47% margin. What made this remarkable was that he was being challenged by Cynthia Clickingbeard, a bipolar former doctor whose license was revoked and who was arrested for assault, and had to face a mental health evaluation to see if she was even capable of understanding the charges against her.  Again, Farris so impressed Democratic voters that he could only get 53% against her.

Raul Labrador is as good as re-elected.

District 2: Mike Simpson was re-nominated in 2010 with 58% of the vote.  In the face of such a humbling turnout, Mike Simpson could reconsider and understand the importance of fealty to the Constitution and to the values of his constituents. He could become a champion of the values of the Republican Party.

Instead, he just decided to fake it, which worked well enough. He won 70% of the vote. Chick Heileson finished with 30% (up from 24% a few years ago), but came nowhere close as he was vastly outspent.

The bottom line lesson of the race is that if anyone is going to beat Mike Simpson, he’ll have to raise a ton of money, be very charismatic, and be LDS. Tough combination and no I know who can fill it.

Simpson is headed for an eighth term easily as he faces Idaho Senator Nicole LeFavour. When I first came to Idaho in 2003, Democrats nominated candidates who wouldn’t antagonize voters. With past candidates like Jim Hansen and Debbie Holmes, that idea has become increasingly passe. With the nomination of a militant leftist who decided to inform religiously conservative legislators by sending them Brokeback Mountain for Christmas, Democrats have abandoned this strategy. Outside of Democratic strongholds like the North End and Blaine County, I would hate to be a Democrat running for anything in the 2nd District. The former slam poets history of rants, tantrums, intolerance  and extremism makes her an inviting target and before this election is over someone’s going to tie a Democratic opponent to the far left positions of “Barack Obama and Nicole LeFavour.”

I just hope Republicans will be judicious about going after her as there’s no need to spike the ball in races that are well in hand.

Ada County:

The Paul Bomb explodes: Romney supporters walked away with the majority of precinct contests won in Ada County. While this doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll shut supporters of Ron Paul out of slots to the state convention, it does represent a significant reversal of fortunes for Paul supporters and those who want to challenge the party establishment.

If the establishment succeeds in dominating Ada County’s delegation to the State Convention, many of the key victories conservatives have won in recent years will be in peril such as the closed primary and the party platform questionnaire. In addition, Butch Otter will be able to pick the next chairman with little concern as to what conservatives think about it.

If this happens, the fiasco can be laid at the feet of Ryan Davidson who picked an ill-advised fight in his attempt to suspend the rules and overturn the results of the Idaho Caucus and award all the delegates to the third place candidates. Davidson was willing to have “scorched earth.” Well, he certainly got it on Tuesday.

The success of many of the “Paul people” in Idaho came not from the message of Ron Paul, but from people whose commitment to conservative values was not tied to one particular presidential candidate being willing to work in a coalition with Ron Paul folks to restore the Idaho GOP to grassroots control.

What too many Paul supporters have chosen to do is to make involvement in the process primarily about the presidency. In the process, they’re fracturing conservatives and losing the state party.

In the case of this campaign to overturn the Caucus, Republican voters are settled on Mitt Romney as our nominee. We don’t want another four years of Barack Obama. We are concerned about the immediate danger of government-run health care, Obama’s war on family, marriage, decency, and the certain bankruptcy around the corner. In the midst of these concern, Paul people wanted to undermine the Republican nominee in his battle against Barack Obama. The establishment took advantage of this short-sightedness. Ron Paul handed them a loaded gun and the establishment just pulled the trigger.

If conservatives want to see the Republican establishment rule we just need to keep biting and kicking, and at war with each other over presidential candidates. It’s only when we stand together on our common objectives that we’ll get anything done. If Ron Paul supporters in Idaho want to play a significant role in the party in the future, this is a lesson they have to learn.

Moving on to countywide race:

Commissioner: Jim Tibbs’ victory was no surprise. Sharon Ullman’s loss was interesting, mainly because it followed a long line of turnover in the County Commissioner elections. In the last four elections, one County Commissioner has been defeated:

2006: Judy Peavey-Derr (R) lost Republican Primary.
2008: Paul Woods (D) lost re-election
2010: Fred Tilman (R) lost Republican Primary
2012: Sharon Ullman (R) lost Republican Primary.

It could be that voters have some deep underlying dissatisfaction with the way that County Government is working or it could be voters think an infusion of new blood every election is a good thing. Whatever the case, while I offer congratulations to Ed Case and Jim Tibbs, I’d advise them not to get too comfortable if they win in the Fall. With electoral history like this, the phrase, “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” is apt.

Legislative Races Highlights:

District 14: Marv Hagedorn’s  star rose with a win in the Senate primary and facing no opposition in the Fall. Hagedorn, along with Senators Russ Fulcher (R-22) and Rep. Cliff Bayer (R) who is a shoo-in to move up to the Senate, may provide the strongest trio of results-oriented conservatives in the State Senate. Any one of three would make an excellent candidate for higher office and if local conservatives had any sense they would consider it the first chance they get.

District 17: Judy Peavey-Derr’s  opponent in the Republican Primary, Thomas Bullock, won 43%. As of the last campaign finance report, he’d spent no money, he had no campaign expenditures or money raised. My wife and I voted for him because Lucas Baumbach said he was pro-life and whoever Thomas Bullock was, he was Judy Peavey-Derr. Not being Judy Peavey-Derr was enough for 43% of the vote. Senator Elliot Werk doesn’t have a whole lot to worry about this Fall.

District 18: The nail-biter of the night came in District 18 with an incredible race between Brad Bolicek and John Hruby. Hruby had the financial advantage with the first financial report showing Hruby out-raising Bolicek 8:1. However, Bolicek managed to pull off the victory through hard work and a record of involvement in local politics plus the endorsement of Idaho Chooses Life. This tough campaign is good preparation for what will be a formidable Fall Campaign against a three term incumbent in Phyllis King (D-18).

District 20: I have to admit some disappointment with Tom LeClaire’s loss. I think he would have made a great state representative. He’s a good guy and would have been great for District 20. What may have hurt him most may have been the Idaho Statesman endorsement. Candidates tout those things when they get them, but I think that in many races, it’s the kiss of death.  It’s a difficult issue to deal with. If I ever run for office and somehow I was endorsed by the Statesman, I would denounce the endorsement as sabotage.

District 21: I was pleased by Steve Harris’ win in Seat A. Seat B was a disappointment because you had too many conservatives running and splitting the vote.

Thoughts Outside of Ada County:

The gang’s (mostly) all here. Redistricting did a number on a few solid conservatives. Representative Steve Thayn found himself in a Senate race in the same district that Rep. Lenore Barrett (formerly of District 35) found herself in a tight House race.

Thayn is one of the most innovative legislators we have, while Barrett is a rock solid conservative fighter. The one time I met the great Helen Chenoweth-Hage was in the Spring of 2004 at a rally for conservative legislative candidates. Her advise to us (should we get elected) was to follow the lead of Lenore Barrett.

I never got the opportunity, but conservative legislators will have that opportunity for a while longer after Barrett won in the new District 8, while Thayn became its new Senator.  Both are such great conservatives that losing either one of them would be a huge loss.

Up in Northern Idaho, conservative freshmen Senator Steve Vick (R-2) and Representative Vito Barberi (R-2) won renomination easily. Vick defeated former Senator Mike Jorgensen (R-2) by a 61-38% margin which should finish his career. Both Vick and Barberi are set for long runs as conservative champions.

Senator Tim Corder was finally ousted when Senator Bert Brackett won the GOP primary by 14 points in the new District 23.  Corder was the last name on the list of RINOs I made in 2010. All others are retired.

The one somewhat sad note was the defeat of Phil Hart (R-2). I do hope there’s an upside for Hart, as getting some of these thorny issues out of the media and public eye may make it easier to resolve. I commend Hart for his service and sacrifice even at a time of great personal difficulty. Those commenters who opined that Hart was somehow getting a big financial from serving in the legislature must have no idea what legislators make. Hart’s decision to serve even while facing all this legal trouble constitute a big time sacrifice of time and money.

Of course, there were other races that went wrong. The more moderate members of the District 1 delegation all beat back their primary challenges handily and challenges to establishment incumbents went nowhere.

For me, the night was mixed with more good happening than bad. That’s politics in the Republican Primary and after the State Convention, it’ll be time to pivot to the Fall and beat the Democrats.

In Seat A, for the party establishment, Robert Simison, the chief of staff for Mayor Tammy de Weerd is seeking the seat. Simison is being challenged by Parrish Miller and Steven Harris.

Of the two, my preference is Harris. Harris brings valuable life experience that will enable him to serve as a strong fiscal conservative. Harris is also the reliable pro-life candidate in the race.

In Seat B, there are several inexperienced candidates, most of whom are presenting a solid conservative agenda. In the end, I feel that Lori Shewmaker is the best candidate. In 2010, she was a giant slayer, defeating the plague on District 21 republicans that was Steve Ricks. She has solid conservative values and brings energy and passion to the race. She is the best conservative choice and I would encourage district 21 voters to support her.

Halverson has some good principles, but he’s short on specifics, and really his answers to the Statesman questionnaire sound like he should be running for the legislature.

Bowen intrigues me, but in the end I’m not sold. Jim Tibbs represents an experienced public servant with a record of thoughtful leadership. He has shown himself a faithful leader and would make a wise choice.

In the Sheriff’s race, Curtis Cattau is challenging Sheriff Gary Raney but doesn’t provide a case for replacing Raney. Raney has been doing a good job and I see no reason to replace him, so I’ll vote to renominate.

“If two-thirds of the delegates to the Idaho State Convention are Ron Paul supporters, they can vote to suspend the rules, overturn the results of the caucus and award all the national delegates to Ron Paul.”

 

Certainly, the convention CAN go ahead and put aside the votes of 51% of the people. They CAN invalidate countless hours of volunteer work done as well as the time,money, and pains that thousands of Idahoans to go out and participate in a Caucus.They CAN ignore the votes of the Party regulars because Mr. Davidson thinks he knows better, but should they? I would say no.

I should note that I write this as someone who spent the last five years advocating against a Mitt Romney candidacy.  I don’t like his nomination and don’t think he’s a great candidate but the idea that trying to throw the nomination to a guy who got 10.86% of the vote is going to help us defeat Obama in the fall is a pipe dream.

But here is where the dilemma comes infor conservatives. This is being pushed through the Precinct Committee races. These races are about a lot more than the presidential delegate selection process. Through 2008 and 2010, an anti-Establishment push has occurred. It’s allowed the election of Norm Semanko as Chairman. In that role, Semanko has done great things for our party, including beginning the effort to send out questionaires as to where our candidates stand on the Party platform.

Ron Paul lost the caucuses and so therefore, the focus ought to be on electing a new chairman at Twin Falls who will live up to conservative values. Instead, Davidson has handed the establishment a weapon with which they can get back into power at this year’s convention because they can tell voters quite honestly that a vote for Ron Paul backers will lead to an overturning of the state’s caucus results that will allow the third place candidate to get all the delegates.

Conservative voters will face a hard pick. Voting for the Romney slate of Precinct Committeemen will ensure that the integrity of Idaho’s election process will ensure the votes of Idaho Republicans are not disregarded. On the other hand, it will also end up handing control of the state party back to the landed political establishment who cares little for grassroots conservatives and more for its own power.

It may make sense to vote for the Paul people because the odds of them winning 2/3 of delegates are small or it may be that the move to use a technicality to overturn the votes of a majority of Caucus-goers may be a bridge too far. This will be the dilemma faced on Tuesday.

As an eddenum, Caucus critics will no doubt chime in claiming that the caucus allowed this to happen. That’s nonsense. The suspension of the rules Davidson proposes could be used after a primary as well.

In  Seat A, Rep. Joe Palmer (R-20) has two challengers who talk a fairly conservative game including Richard Dees who the Idaho Statesman endorsed out of pique over Palmer sponsoring a bill that took aim at Occupy Wall Street.

Palmer has impressed house leaders and attracted the attention of House Speaker Lawrence Denney who hand-picked him to head up the House Transportation Committee. Palmer is a conservative stalwart with an outstanding 98% conservative voting record.  The wise choice is to vote to renominate and re-elect Joe Palmer.

In Seat B, I see a familiar name, that of Tom LeClaire. In 2004, my first involvement in Idaho politics was a primary campaign against Mr. LeClaire. He beat me by a solid margin over in District 16. Since then, he and his family have moved to Meridian.

Over the course of the past eight years or so, I’ve gotten an opportunity to learn more about Tom and his family. Tom is a true conservative with a long and distinguished background of service to his community and to the Republican Party. His service on such varied areas as the Moscow (Idaho) City Council, the Latah County GOP, the Meridian Parks and Rec. board, and coaching Y-Ball shows someone who is more concerned with serving the communities he’s lived in rather than just seeking power.

As someone who works a regular 40-hour a week job, I feel Tom LeClaire brings a unique understanding of the experience of Idaho workers. While small business owners, retirees, and farmers provided valuable experience, it often feels like those of who work in normal settings as hourly workers are under-represented and Tom can definitely relate well to that experience.

I do appreciate the great service that Patrick Malloy has rendered to Christians and Conservatives in Idaho and  across America in his work with the Alliance Defense Fund, but the candidacy of Tom LeClaire presents District 20 residents with a great candidate who is well-deserving of their support. So I proudly endorse Tom LeClaire for State House in District 20.

A good ad from Heileson that makes a cogent against Simpson. Not sure that really happened in 2010. Primary will be interesting. Simpson was held under 60% last time, but with all the out of state PAC money, he has to be favorite. Still, Lugar was a favorite too.

Another is running in District 22: Fred Tilman. Commissioner Tilman developed a record as a solid conservative leader when he stood as our Ada County Commissioner. He was a trustworthy stalwart and a solid Republican who held the line on taxes and advocated for innovative common sense solutions that didn’t expand the size of government.

Tilman’s practical experience of conservative governance makes him a great pick for District 22 voters. Sadly, I think we’ve seen a rash of ill-advised primary campaigns with grassroots conservatives running against candidates who have records as solid conservative leaders. The sooner Idaho Conservatives abandon the “challenge them all and let God sort it out” approach to primary politics, the better off we’ll be.

Both Mark Patterson and Curtis Ellis offer conservative stances on the issues, however Patterson offers conservatives a better chance of prevailing in the fall as he has shown himself better able to network and build bridges with local conservatives  and shown himself superior at the business of running a campaign. Patterson ran a strong primary campaign in 2010 against long-time incumbent Max Black. That campaign experience will serve him well at running an effective campaign in the general.

Patterson would be a conservative leader in the State House. His dedication and strong belief in conservative constitutional principles would serve Idaho well.  That taken with the fact that Patterson is the most likely candidate to win in the Fall, the choice in District 15 is clear, Mark Patterson is the best candidate for State House.

In 2004, I* was a voter in the 16th District. I faced a tough decision as to whether to vote for Graham Patterson or a more conservative challenger. I ended up voting for Patterson because he was conservative enough and the opponent I was considering had not put on a serious campaign.  Fairy Hitchcock recently  filed a campaign finance report indicating a grand total of $17.91 in contributions and expenditures and hasn’t bothered to fill out the Statesman’s Voter Guide.

So once again, Patterson earns my nod by default. While he’s not as conservative as I am, if Patterson is elected to the State House, he will be more conservative than anyone elected to District 16 in the past decade. He is a good man who has made great efforts on the Republican Party and Republican candidates.  The best choice available is Graham Patterson for State House.

I might vote for him as useless protest vote to stop us from making Judy Peavey Derr the sacrificial RINO in our district.  The good news for Mr. Bullock, if he can’t be bothered with the basics of running a campaign is that being an ex-candidate is no bother at all.

Sharon Ullman in her term has cleared the bar. She certainly far exceeded the expectations of the Idaho Statesman which would have had you believe that her tenure would be full of more drama than a night at the Metropolitan Opera.  I’ve observed Ullman in her four years back on the job and have found her to be competent, responsive, and an advocate for limited and wiser government. Ullman has brought valuable perspective to the Commissioner’s office, and it would be a shame to lose her.

While I’ve had disagreements with Commissioner Ullman, I think she’s done a commendable job. In addition, her opponent is Dave Case, a Kuna School Board member who proudly endorsed Planned Parenthood’s Democratic Congressman Walt Minnick over Raul Labrador.

I will take a leader with a record of supporting limited government over one who chose to support a radical pro-abortionist Democrat.

For conservatives, the choice is clear. Vote Sharon Ullman for Commissioner.

In one corner is Idaho Representative Marv Hagedorn (R-20) who has spent three terms in the State House. Representative Hagedorn’s conservative bonafides are beyond question. He has a 95% career Idaho Conservative voting record and in multiple years was recognized as a Lion of Conservativism.

More than just a voting record or a warm body, Marv Hagedorn is one of the legislature’s most thoughtful and intelligent lawmakers. Along with Steve Thayn, Russ Fulcher, and Cliff Bayer, he is among the Treasure Valleys’ most essential conservative leaders. He has been a fighter for conservative values and one who has led the fight for innovative conservative solutions in the State House.

On the other hand, we have Former Senator Stan Bastian (R) who represented the old District 14 in the House for one term and one in the Senate. During his years in the legislature, Bastian was a consistent friend of the IEA, choosing the support of big Teachers Unions over children. Bastian netted a 75% Idaho Conservative rating for 2007 and 2008 sessions and managed to attempt to wrangle re-election by saying one thing to conservatives before the election and doing another once in office. Well people caught on.

While there are other candidates in the race, the big choice in District 14 is between a true conservative leader and a moderate who is contstantly reinventing himself. The choice is clear. Vote for Marv Hagedorn for Senate.

I endorsed Rep. Reed DeMourdant (R-14) in 2010. DeMourdant has justified conservative faith in him by posting a 95% Idaho Conservative Voting record. Anyone can put out fliers and promise to vote conservative. DeMourdant’s done it and he deserves to be renominated and re-elected to a second term.

Bolicek and Hruby provided nearly identical conservative answers to the Cornerstone Voter Guide, the big difference being that Hruby advocates for state regulation of home schoolers, who quite frankly don’t need the government intrusion and are doing quite well without it.

Beyond this single point, there are many other reasons to support Bolicek. Bolicek has prior experience as a candidate. I was a witness to how hard he worked in 2006. Unfortunately, he had the bad fortune to find himself up against a popular Democratic incumbent in one of the biggest Democratic years in history.

However, after his defeat, Brad responded by becoming an active supporter of the Idaho Republican Party. He volunteered and worked for other candidates and earned the support of Republicans to become Vice-Chairman of the Ada County GOP.

One of the easiest ways for legislative seats to slip away is for the GOP to nominate a candidate who flakes out. We needn’t about that happening with Brad Bolicek as the GOP nominee. He will flat out, work to bring Seat B back to the GOP.

In addition, he is committed solidly to bedrock conservative principles. Wise conservatives in District 18 would do well to give their wholehearted support to Brad Bolicek.

Senator Tim Corder (R) boasts one of the most liberal voting records (56% Idaho Conservative Rating) in the Senate Republican Caucus. Indeed, with the retirements of Senators Joyce Broadsword and John Andreason, and Representative Tom Trail, Corder may be the last RINO standing in the new legislature. On issue after issue, Corder has leaned left and played to the media and IEA. Corder is an avowed opponent of school choice and in 2012 opposed lifting the cap on new Charter Schools, choosing to support the interests of the IEA over the interests of Idaho students and parents.

Senator Bert Brackett, while not perfect, represents a much more center right approach (83% Idaho Conservative Voting Record). Brackett has shown his conservative credentials not only on school choice but on school reform in general. Brackett stood firmly for the Idaho Health Freedom Act to protect citizens from the Unconstitutional encroachments of Obamacare. Senator Brackett is endorsed by Governor Otter, and I’ll gladly lend my voice to that endorsement.

Idaho Representative Pete Nielsen (R) faces a challenge from Matthew Bundy and Steve Millington, both of whom seem to be well-intentioned. However, both are short on specifics. Neither chose to fill out the Cornerstone Institute’s questionnaire. Nielsen, not only provided conservative answers to Cornerstone’s questions, he has a rock solid 92% conservative voting record. Give me a solid conservative with a record any day. I wholeheartedly endorse Pete Nielsen for re-nomination and re-election as a reliable conservative.

To Simpson that message has been to go back to Washington and beg more money from his special interest masters while proposing tax increases in violation of his tax pledge.  His defense for this was, “When I signed the pledge not to raise taxes… I didn’t know it was a marriage agreement that would last forever.”

Unlike most people, I’ve been in a position to sign a pledge back when I ran for the State House a few years after Simpson was elected to Congres. In addition to the pledge, Americans for Tax Reform sends out a packet of information explaining what exactly you’re getting yourself into. Their FAQ at the state level is little different than their Federal FAQ which makes it clear this pledge is a long-term arrangement:

Do I have to take the Pledge again if I run for re-election?

No. Pledge signers are bound for the duration of their tenure in the office to which they are elected.

When I signed this pledge, I resolved that if I ever made the decision that  a tax increase was necessary my only honorable course would be to resign and face voters again. Of course, I doubt the question of what an honorable course would be was on Simpson’s mind when he signed this pledge. His more pressing concern was getting conservatives to give him that first term back in 1998.  Did he read the FAQ? Did he even give any contemplation to what it meant to give your word?

We know what Mike Simpson’s word is worth. That’s what I’m endorsing Chick Heileson for Congress. Chick Heileson stands firmly for constitutional values. He opposed Wall Street Bailouts.  Chick Heileson is a businessman, veteran, and citizen who will bring integrity back to the representation of the second district. I will vote for Chick Heileson and in the strongest terms possible, I encourage everyone to go out and cast your vote in the Republican Primary for Chick Heileson for Congress.

In 2010, I endorsed the campaign of Raul Labrador. I knew Labrador would be a superb Congressman and a great rising star for our party, not only in Idaho, but nationally as well. Residents of the 1st District saw this as well, as they handed him the nomination in an upset over the candidate backed by more money and more establishment support.

Raul Labrador hasn’t disappointed. His 96% Conservative Voting Record is superb. More importantly, he’s become a prominent national voice in the 2010 Freshman Class.

For these reasons, I’m pleased to endorse Raul Labrador for re-election.

The House Scorecard will be coming next week. We have twice the number of votes and twice the number of members, so it’ll take some work.

The Idaho Sheriff’s Association has said admissions of guilt will be crucial to enforcing the legislation.

Admissions of guilt? I’m sorry d when I think of a guilty party admitting to authority that they were guilty, I think of Perry Mason and I guess if police are going to get many tickets, they’re going to have to practice:

Isn’t true that you were behind the wheel texting Tara about Justin Bieber? Isn’t it true that you said he was cute when he was taking that turn? Isn’t true that Tara said, “LOL.” Isn’t it all true?

Of course, in reality, those honest citizens who say, “Yeah, I was texting.” will get the violation. Those who say, “Nope officer, I was playing Pac-man,” will simply get a stern lecture.  So thus the bill reward the dishonest citizen willing to lie and punishes the honest one.

I appreciate that texting and driving is a dumb thing to do. I don’t do it. (I rarely text when not driving.)  But it’s also  dumb thing for the legislature to think that every dumb act requires its own law. We already had distracted drive laws on the books.

If this bill might put to rest the issue of what you do in your car by asking that this unenforcable law to the books. The problem is that when a teen gets into a car accident because they ignored the law, the same folks will be back saying the problem is that the law’s not strong enough. And this bill is just the start of nanny state attempts to micromanage and control what you can and cannot do in your car. Les Bock and Elliot Werk introduce S1251 which bans cell phone use while driving.

Be prepared for a lot more well-intentioned but dumb traffic regulations to make their way through the legislature. The texting ban was only the start.

My wife and I arrived around 4:30 to get started and went through the line and security and found a seat. The Ada County Party did a good job organizing the Taco Bell Arena and cramming us in. Of course, we’d be there a long time. The County Party had put out the word that the doors would close at 7:00, but this was pushed back half an hour due to a couple thousand people still being in line. Finally, they crammed 9,000 registered voters plus their kids into Taco Bell Arena and finally the program got underway.

The event had a festive atmosphere with people waiving signs and cheering. A couple gentlemen brought along white plastic hats with a red, white, and blue hat band on them and put their favorite candidates on. There was cheering from Ron Paul and Rick Santorum people. While Mitt Romney won the night, his fans were rarely heard from. The Ron Paul people were louder than the Rick Santorum folks, but as the final results showed, there were slightly more of us than them.

My wife commented that the Caucus, even though it took longer was a lot more fun than a primary. And she was right. In the same way, if you enjoy cooking, that making a meal from scratch is more fun than shoving a TV dinner in the microwave. Though, there were some people in other parts of our state who didn’t have as good a time. (More on that later.)

The voting and counting got underway at about 8:30 and we had the results of the first ballot about 9:30. We cast our votes with a token, which turned out to be a penny (more on that later) by going into the voting booth and putting our penny into a jar. After Andrea and I visited the over-priced concessions, we returned to our seats.

The result was a Mitt Romney win in Ada County and Idaho, which was not what I was hoping for.  However, I wasn’t unhappy with the night. I was reminded how fans of my Colorado Rockies lived with their 67-95 record that first season. They were only glad that there was baseball. Similarly, I was glad that Idaho had a caucus-and a voice.

That said, I offer a few minor criticisms of the event.

First of all, for Ada County, I have only one real complaint and that was their use of a penny as the token for voting. Can you say, “Voter fraud?” After I got out of the polling booth, it occurred to me that someone might have a couple extra votes in their pocket. This didn’t appear to be the case as there were actually a smaller number of people voting than the announced caucus attendance due to some people giving up and going home. But the County GOP was tempting fate. If they’d ended up with an overvote, they would have been in a pickle. If we’re going to continue with token voting, I’d urge them to spring for something a little more secure and harder to forge like a wooden slug. The one thing that avoided massive fraud may have been that they didn’t let people know in advance what the token would be. But next time, they need to do something else.

Other than that, I congratulate the party on its good work and particularly its successful coin promotion.

For the State Party, I have two criticisms.

First, was its decision to release results on the website while large caucuses were still voting at 8:30. I found out CNN had called Idaho for Romney before I went to the voting booth. While I appreciate that the media wants to have access to information and the Party wants to give it to them, it is far more important for the vote at the caucus not to be influenced by other counties. In Kootenai County, they learned that Romney had won the state after they’d only completed one round of voting  and a bunch of people left. In Ada County, we don’t usually have election results in until 10 o’clock and I hope the state party will hold off in the future.

I’d also suggest that under this system,  for accuracy’s sake, raw vote totals should not be released, only the count of delegates to the State Convention for each county. The results that are on the web are a classic case of comparing apples to oranges. We have the results from some counties that are first ballot results, others that are second ballot, a few that are third ballot, and at least one that’s fourth ballot.  If you were going to accurately report the popular vote, you’d need first ballot totals from all counties and it’d be confusing, particularly if a candidate didn’t lead on the first ballot but won the state.

What I would actually prefer, after last night is that we dispense with multiple ballot voting. Multiple ballots were probably a cinch to do in places like Bonner County, but in Kootenai County, it was a nightmare. Their first ballot had 3800 people vote and they only managed to dispense with Buddy Roemer. Thanks to Newt Gingrich’s visit to Northern Idaho, he stayed on for the second ballot.  Of course, they found out before they held their second ballot, that Romney won and a 1000 people left. By the time the fourth ballot was complete, only 1170 people remained.

If Ada had to go multiple ballots (and 180 less votes for Romney and we would have), it would have been an equally long night. Requiring a majority vote and that multiple ballots be held until a majority is arrived at does not work in medium-sized to large counties, particularly when you’re voting on a week night.  People have got jobs.  Many senior citizens can’t be up all night either. I would suggest that, in the future, each County simply reports its votes and that the State Party would then divide its convention delegates proportionally.  If they still wanted to have the possibility of winner-take-all at 50%, then it could be based off the statewide vote.

This would also give counties some more flexibility as to how they hold their Caucuses. If Ada wants to hold the biggest Caucus in America, they could. They also could do caucuses at multiple locations. Without having to have votes reach a majority, this would not present an undue burden.

Of course, Idaho’s Caucuses would lose some of its uniqueness. None of the other states in the country followed the process Idaho used for its ever caucus.  Last night in Kootenai, we learned why. And hopefully, the next caucus will be better for the education.

And Rhoades is not the longest serving death row inmate. That “honor” goes to Gene Francis Stuart, who was sentenced 29 years ago to die for the torture death of a 3 year old boy. There are four others with current death sentences that have been waiting for their execution for more than 20 years.  While I understand that we all want to be careful making sure that executions are done to the right people, doesn’t anyone else think that 30 years of appeals for the obviously and manifestly guilty is obscene. In Stuart’s case, the wait for his execution has been nearly 10 times the short life of his victim.

It’s no wonder that prosecutors didn’t push for the death penalty in the Robert Manwill case.  If Daniel Ehrlick were sentenced to death, the odds are he would die of old age before he was executed.

Note to legislators and judges: Streamline this appeals process, so that it’s humane to the victims’ families. This forever wait for justice blunts the purpose of the death penalty which is to express society’s strongest sanction against the most heinous crimes. If we’re going to wait 30 years to carry out the execution few  even remember  why we’re doing this, then why bother with the death penalty? Do we just have a need to keep the court’s busy? Either streamline the appeals or end the thing. As it is right now, Idaho’s death row is a joke.

Update: A reminder via Don Surber that Idaho isn’t alone in this problem:

Since 1978 when California reinstated capital punishment, 54 condemned inmates have died from natural causes, 19 committed suicide, 13 were executed in California, one was executed in Missouri and six died from other causes, including murder.

When 4 times as many people are dying of natural causes as are being executed, the system is failing.

“Usually when you have a big field like this, some candidates kind of focus on Iowa, some focus on New Hampshire, and some focus on Florida or Nevada,” he said. “So there may very well be some candidates, especially some very conservative candidates, who feel New Hampshire isn’t the right venue for them, so they might actually come to Idaho. That seems like it’s possible.”

Possible, not terribly probable. I’ve never known of presidential candidates to leave campaigning in New Hampshire. to go to a non-binding straw poll. No candidate is going to be able to argue to donors. “I may have finished 7th in Iowa and 6th in New Hampshire, but I won the Idaho Straw Poll.”  Duncan Hunter did head to Wyoming last time, but there were delegates at stake there.  Unfortunately, the Idaho Straw Poll is a victim of Florida violating the rules and moving its primary to January which led to Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina also moving up their contests.  Had that not happened, we’d have a decent shot at getting a few candidates to come in.

I will participate, but I fully expect the Straw Poll to go to Ron Paul because not only is this the type of pay-to-play event that his supporters have done well at across the country, but Paul has a strong base in the state.

Reporters can create controversy — or the appearance of it — by reporting half the story or taking details out of context. Conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh report on the national media bias each day, but here are examples of sensationalist journalism closer to home.

Now, how the heck did Rush Limbaugh get into this story, we might ask? It seems to me that McKenzie is trying to play himself up as a victim of media bias in the hopes of gaining sympathy from Conservatives. Well, it doesn’t work, at least not for me.

McKenzie and McGee’s use of the higher rate of per diem is in the news not because they’re the two most conservative Senators in the legislator (they’re not) but because it’s a massively inappropriate use of the privilege.  Legally, they can do it.

But there’s a bigger issue here both ethically and in leadership by example. As an ethical matter, the purpose of the Per Diem for members who live within 50 miles of the Capitol is to pay for them to stay in the City of Boise. Now, McKenzie can talk legalities until he’s blue in the face, but the reason the extra per diem money is given is not to compenstate members for having to put up with living in Boise, but rather to defray the costs of staying in the city. If you’re not spending money to stay here, and are sleeping with relatives like Senator McGee, you’re gaming the system.

McKenzie goes on to make the point that our legislators don’t do the job for the money and are very modestly paid. While this may be true, to quote that great statesman Superchicken, “You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.”  The low rate of pay (which McKenzie claims not to be complaining about) doesn’t justify grabbing for all the taxpayer benefits, whether they’re in accord with the Spirit of the law or not.

In a time of economic crisis, when police officers and teachers are having to do with less, it sends the wrong message for legislators to be taking thousands extra per year by gaming the per diem system.

The Statesman Editorial Board lambasted both McGee and McKenzie on this and while the Statesman is often biased, even a broken clock is right twice  a day. The criticism has been well-deserved and it seems both men could learn a thing or two about leadership.

In the meanwhile, Dennis Mansfield calls for McGee’s resignation citing an action with hypocritical undertones:

 I was told today by two very reputable sources that John McGee as a part of GOP Senate Leadership last year agreed to fire a key administrative secretary in the Idaho State Senate because she had been arrested on a DUI. (I am keeping her name anonymous for her sake and for her reputation.) BTW, she did not contact me, nor did anyone connected to her.

So if you’re a legislative secretary, you get caught drunk driving, you lose your job. If however, you’re the golden boy of the GOP establishment, you don’t even a slap on the hand from leadership? It looks bad.

That said, I’m not quite into the call for him to resign camp. While I trust that Mansfield and his sources are being accurate, the information is second and third hand. Is there some aggravating circumstance that somehow made the legislative secretary’s action worse than McGee’s? For example, was she drunk with kids in the back seat of the car? Was she a serial DUI offender?  We need more facts and we need more context.

However, if after we have all the context in the world, it still looks like McGee is a hypocrite who holds underlings to a higher standard than he holds himself, he should definitely resign.

After we parked, my wife remarked the only thing that would have been less comforting would have been if the driver sat leaned back and was staring with their feet.

The incident also led me to think of the texting while driving debate. This was a good reminder of why our current law focusing on “distracted” driving makes sense. Drivers should be paying attention and that’s what law enforcement should be focused on, not micromanaging the exact use of electronic devices in the car’s cabin.

Here is how one tipster phrased it: “The only name I’ve heard is Elliot Werk. Several people I know have told me that he is considering running because of his aspirations to run for Mayor at some point in the future and plus he is pretty ineffective in the state legislature (consider the fact that he lost the minority leadership race as the straw that broke the camel’s back). You may wanna give him a call and ask him about his plans.”

Boise is the only place in the state that would be unwise enough to entrust Elliot Werk with political power. And the ineffective part is true, though most Democrats won’t admit it. Even though Werk was very pivotal in giving Democrats complete control of four boise districts for 4 years, all it got him was on the losing end of 28-7 votes. 

This would be interesting should Werk leave the Senate as Kate Kelly left last year, and Nicole LeFavour nearly returned to the State House. What this would suggest is that for Democratic politicians in Idaho, there’s a point when you hit the wall, so to speak, at the state level, where it’s not worth it anymore to spend months of your lives when you’re not going to get your ideas enacted.

As for the Boise Mayoral and Council elections, I don’t see a lot of reason for conservative optomism. One reason I’m really not tempted by this race is the results of the 2009 Council elections when insurgent campaigns had the Trolley Folly going in their favor plus the growth of the Tea Party movement and the Democrats won the seats overwhelmingly. The North End continues to dominate city politics with much higher turnout than the rest of the city and conservatives have failed to do anything to cut into this advantage. So, if Werk runs, he probably has a good shot of getting elected.

“I think there are medical explanations … that may very well exist in this case that will negate any criminal liability,” his attorney, Scott McKay, said.

DFO at Huckleberries says that 73% of our legislators are educated, which suggests that graduating high school doesn’t count as being “educated.” So apparently, we’re spending around $70,000-$80,000 or thereabouts to put kids through K-12 and we’re really turning out “uneducated people.”

Seriously,  I don’t think this is a problem and really not that interesting. The number is far less than the percentage without the degrees among the general public. Many people just don’t need 4 years of college to live their lives. I’ve been living on a 2-year degree and been doing fine.  There are many professions such as plumbers and farmers that require no college degree. and people make a good living at them and are able to run for office.

For those who think a higher degree of education will produce a better leader,  I’d point out that the people who produced our current crisis were some among the most educated and smartest people in the room.

My personal preference would have been to have been smart and enacted reforms that would have led to cost reductions and quality increases during the good times by introducing market forces into many of these antiquated government programs.

I say all this to lead up to a discussion of the Meridian School District which has had to make plans to tighten its belt after voters refused to tighten theirs. We’d expect that Democrats would appreciate cuts that avoided reducing classroom educational time.

Former Rep. Branden Durst (D-18) shows that’s not the case:

If you have a student-athlete in the Meridian School District, make sure you tell the next Tea Party Patriot you see, “THANK YOU!” Thank you, for forcing my family to pay $100 for my middle or high school student to participate in athletics. You see, thanks to the Tea Party and Austin Hill stridently opposing the recent school bond levy election, the District is being forced to adopt a Pay to Play scheme in order to maintain its school sports.

There is nothing more patriotic then telling the poor kid he can’t play middle school football because his mom and/or dad can’t afford to fork out the dough. After all, elitism and exclusivity is the American Way! Just think, if you have a family with four students between 6th and 12th grade and each of your students play a sport in the fall and in the spring, you’ll be lucky enough to pay $800! That’s a bargain compared to the $25 the levy would have cost!

All Branden needs is  a Charlton Heston impersonator to do a planet of the Apes-style scream.

Under Branden’s scenario with the family with four kids in sports, everybody in the Meridian School District is paying for these parents to get their kids into athletics. And what if your kid doesn’t play a traditional high school sport, but is into Karate or rock climbing? Apparently, in Branden’s world, you should take a Karate chop to your family budget to pay for other kids to play football.

While I can see some civic value in us paying for education, paying 100 percent for High School football? Not so much.

And don’t other leagues charge money to participate? You’ll find that kids have to pay participate in many recreational leagues and their parents pay.

There are, of course, many free or very cheap ways to play sports: church leagues, open gyms, Boys and Girls Clubs. When I was a kid, I played baseball and basketball in several states, just not in a league usually. I played in backyards in sandlots. I had a fun and got excercise. I didn’t have a professional career in sports, but I was never going to do that anyway, and neither are most kids. So no one is saying kids can’t play sports, just that if they can’t find the money, they can’t play in the Merdian School District.

Beyond this, Branden’s arguments pose two big problems. First, is the inability to seperate needs from wants and the important from the trivial.

Second point, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of parents. 

The state should protect children from abuse and neglect. However, beyond that  function, God, in His wisdom, gave children to parents. Ultimately, it is the job of parents to provide things for children: food and shelter, the necessities of life, and little extras like fees for sports leagues.

In my childhood, we didn’t have much. We lived often in low rent places and we got a lot of inexpensive food. But somehow or another, my family managed to scrape together money for the long road trips that were needed for the trips my brother and I for our athletic and academic competitions. That was sacrifice on the part of my parents. That’s the job of parents: to lay down their lives for their kids.

The idea that the world owes your kids a High School sports career is insane when you have people really hurting in this economy with high gas prices, and an uncertain economic future for our country.

The way the Democrats have responded to this economic crisis is through crass demagoguery to scare everyone about Putting Students First  and now  Branden’s post makes it clear that the Idaho Democrats are proud to be the party of bread and circuses.

I think so. To get elected as a Democrat in Idaho, you’ll have to tell different people different things on what you believe and govern. And Ms. Duke already has experience playing two people as once, she has to be considered a frontrunner.

The entire ranking is a farce.

Representatives were not evaluated on the same criteria as Senators, so both reports are meaningless.

Case in point: Representatives were ranked on how they voted on the guns on campus legislation. Senators were not – which is odd because the guns on campus bill was killed in the Senate, and the Republican Senators who voted against it (particularly McGee) got favorable conservative rankings anyway.

This disparity, in addition to the intrinsic inanity of the rankings, blows the rankings completely apart and highlights how meaningless they are.

However, it’s not surprising – the “ranker” is not known for consistency, clarity and logic anyway.

The commenter is entitlted to his opinion. However, there’s a big problem in his logic. The one vote he cites as an example was not killed on the Senate floor, it was killed in committee, so the whole Senate never got a chance to vote on it, thus it didn’t end up on the scorecard because the senate did not vote on it. No legislative scorecard can effectively score a vote in committee as opposed to votes on the floor. That’s comparing apples and oranges. 80% of the Senate didn’t vote on the bill because they weren’t part of the committee that killed it.

And there’s a big logical problem with this argument against the scorecard as well. If we were comparing House members to Senators, it would be necessary that the House and Senate have the exact same issues. However, the scorecards compare House Members to House members and Senators to Senators. The only thing that’s needed is for each member of a given house to be judged on the same bills. I based the idea for these rankings on the American Conservative Union rankings. If you compare the votes the ACU used in the Senate and the votes used in the House, you will find entirely different sets of issues, based on what was actually voted upon on the floor.

This is the case with every scorecard for any group.  Because people who write scorecards have no control over what bills make their way to the floor. Scorecards are not perfect tools, but they are tools that provide voters with actual information on how legislators voted and that’s what we’re trying to do.

I want to highlight the four State Senators who had a 100 percent score in the past session. They were:

We salute these lions of conservativism for their strong stance for conservative values.

They were:

Steve Vick (R-3)
Sheryl Nuxoll (R-8)
Monty Pearce (R-9)
Dean Mortimer (R-32)

We salute these lions of conservativism for their strong stance for conservative values