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.

In 2011 When Speaker Boehner had a chance to demand real fiscal change, he instead blinked when facing President Obama and relented with a milquetoast deal that raised the debt ceiling with the feckless expectation that a bi-partisan commission would come up with cuts or there would be automatic spending cuts. The bi-partisan commission predictably failed and the cuts that were proposed to justify the last giant increase in the debt ceiling have been something every politician has been trying to avoid occurring.

Then this past year, Speaker Boehner,  floundered in negotiations with President Obama punted to the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, ending up with a bill that increases the debt limit by increasing taxes $40 for every $1 in spending cuts.

Talk about crap sandwiches. It’s time for John Boehner to go.

He became Republican leader in 2006 after Tom DeLay resigned. He was chosen as a compromise candidate between the status quo roughshod management style of then Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Conservative Stalwart John Shadegg (R-Az.).  He is Speaker by accident and he has shown no talents particular for the job.

Boehner has no negotiating acumen. He is constantly outmaneuvered at every turn by the White House in negotiations. Despite, a working class background, he does not communicate effectively with the American people.

He doesn’t seem to have a Caucus that’s willing to follow him. He proposed a “Plan B” that would raise taxes only on those earning $1 million or more and was unable to get his own caucus to support it.  This could have been because, knowing that he would need conservative support for any sort of debt ceiling deal, he antagonized that part of his caucus by punishing four members of the Caucus for not towing the party line. He’s no better with the moderate side of the Republican Caucus. When he was minority leader, he failed to get the moderates to go along with an earmark ban within the Republican Caucus.

The only sort of “leadership” Boehner is capable of is presenting doomsday scenarios as he did on TARP and on the fiscal cliff to frighten cowardly politicians into betraying conservative principles. John Boehner is like a general whose only talent is leading retreats.

When people speak of John Boehner and his defense, they say he’s a good man. I don’t dispute it, but that’s not good enough. They say it’s a tough job, and they’re right. But the fact remains that it’s a tough job he has shown himself incapable of doing.

They may even argue in defense of this bill that it was necessary for Republicans to get the tax issue off the table. The debate had ceased to be about deficit spending and had become about the willingness of Republicans to vainly block tax increases on the rich. Their may be a kernel of truth to that, but whose fault is it that the debate got away from Republicans? None other than Boehner’s.

Republicans might hope that with the tax issue off the table they can turn this debate back to spending and reducing our mammoth debt. However, they’d be wrong, as long as John Boehner remains Speaker of the House. Boehner has turned the Speaker’s office into a veritable “Crap Sandwich” stand and Democrats can expect that he will cry and quote poetry, but at the end of the day, he will blink and once again he’ll serve up his apologies and tell the House and the American people to swallow the latest confection that has happened to him. If Republicans expect a different result, they’d better get a different Speaker.

Nothing symbolizes what’s wrong with the Republican Party in America than that the fact that John Boehner is the most powerful Republican in this country. As long as that’s the case, the Republican Party is pointless and irrelevant. The Republican Party’s position today is reminiscent of the post-World War II GOP that enjoyed terms in the majority but squandered it’s time there behind the listless leadership of Speaker Joseph Martin who led the Republican Party to become a minority for forty years.

If there are not seventeen members in the entire House Republican membership who have the courage to prevent the re-election of this leader who is dragging our Party and our country, than the Republican Party isn’t worth a red cent. To be clear, if John Boehner is re-elected Speaker of the House, I intend to expend no effort for and give no money to the national Republican Party and its various committees. As long as John Boehner remains America’s most influential Republican, it is  a waste of time, energy, and money.

Gun control wouldn’t have prevented this (indeed a story from China about the knifing of 22 children shows the folly of it), a pistol packing teacher  mitigated the tragedy. Neither would have prevented it. We’re dealing with a type of evil deep-seated with the heart of our nation.

The problem comes down to this: We are no longer a  God-fearing nation. This is not to say that we are atheists or agnostics, far from it. And this is not a Jerry Falwell style, “Atheists, agnostics, abortionists, and homosexuals caused 9/11″ rant.

In some ways, the non-religious person is more honest than many American professed Christians. Americans serve a designer God, a convenient God who fits their needs.  We want a God who approves everything we do, who calls us to nothing higher. We want a Santa Claus in the sky who will help us out.  We want a God who allows us to be comfortable, who allows us to fit in. We want a God who is flexible enough to change with our times.

Or perhaps we just want a God whose up there but stays out of our business.

This isn’t the God of the Bible. This isn’t the God of our Founding Fathers. This God is an amorphous blob, an impressionist painting splattered on the wall that can be whatever you want it to be.  We are a nation with no fear or reverence for God.  God is merely a mascot and symbol we use in pursuit of what we want.

In prior generations, people would avoid even taking God’s name in vain and would apologize if they did. Now, “OMG!” is a frequent throw away phrase on chat. ” Today, God is sport for the denizens of Comedy Central and Hollywood make of Christ and His sacrifice.

We are surrounded by an entire culture from every generation that treats God as either non-existent or irrelevant whether its politics, business, or entertainment, the story is the same.

The question ultimately is whether a culture that dishonors God in sexual relations, in marriages, in the workplace, in child rearing methods, in education, in politics, in business practices, and in every other area of life can truly expect anyone or anything else to be treated as sacred. As long as we are a nation that tells people that it comes to morals that God doesn’t care and that you can, “Make it up as you go,” then we can expect that some of this improvisation will end up hurting people who will in turn hurt others.

We like to feel powerful, like there’s .  In politics, our leaders like to think they can do something to fix every problem. We like to think there’s a simple way we can fix things. Even comic book writers do it. J Michael Straczynski and his fans have come up with their own seven point  proposal. There has to be some amazing magic legislation that can avoid this.

However, to paraphrase Ecclesiastes, “Of writing many blog posts, there is no end…Fear God and keep His Commandments.” That advice isn’t popular, but it’s the only that will work. And the implementation doesn’t begin in Washington DC or some state Capital. It begins in your house and mine which makes easier and harder too, but it’s the only thing that will work.

However, as Christians, we have to be aware that our nation more than having political problems has spiritual problems that are at the root of it. Our political problems are so intractable because our hearts are so hard.

Our Libertarian friends will extol the virtues of selfishness and looking out for yourself, Yet, I would suggest thatAmericais in the throes of national and cultural decline because of a cultural of selfishness and self-centeredness.

This is not to say that all the emphasis our society places on the individual is bad. I’m grateful that we don’t live in a country where the individual is stamped on by an almighty government.

Why is that we are unable to reform our nation’s entitlements? Selfish seniors or near seniors are manipulated into believing that any reforms will affect them and so are willing to allow future generations to suffer horrifically in order to protect their existing benefits because “we worked for them.”

We have entitlements grown out of proportion because many families would rather have the government take care of their aging relatives rather than them. This is also why we have so much for government-funded school lunches and school breakfasts. There are many parents who can’t, but there are many who just don’t. The same pursuit of selfish desires explains the over-sized burdens of foster care and correctional facilities with men from broken homes.

Why is that younger people came out to vote for Obama despite the fact that he was wrecking their futures and had left them with record unemployment? Because President Obama allowed them to remain as “children” on their parents health insurance until they were twenty-six years.

Yes, it is part of our culture’s new extended adolescence. Young men, who would have  in prior generations, seized the day, begun families, started businesses, and sought to make something of themselves too often follow the easy path to being overgrown children who are going nowhere because it’s easy.

Our political culture is gripped by this self childish worship. We have liberals who believe that they are demigods who can create Heaven on Earth, we have libertarians who  believe every man is an island and ought to be granted full autonomy. Both are equally egotistical, equally egregious self-willed positions that are symbols of the Spirit of Our Age.

We fundamentally as a society, believe we don’t need God. This not to say we’re an atheistic society. We believe God is okay-in his place. We might like God like we like Doctor Phil or like we enjoy music. For many, religion is good for comfort, it’s good for their well-being, but don’t think that it’s going to change their lives.

We are a nation of Cafeteria Christians who will choose which Christian doctrines we’ll believe in and which we won’t. If you’re a protestant, you’ll change churches until you find that fits you like a suit you and fits all your preferences.

Our problem is that while Americans acknowledge the existence of God, most of us in our heart of hearts deny His authority. We are looking out for our self-interest as we see it. And we will not let anyone man, moral, or even God, restrain us from our pursuit of what we want. This was well-illustrated during the last election (particularly the primaries) as I noted many professed Christians committing the grossest of slanders against good and decent men.

Our libertarian friends will praise as the highest virtue, the pursuit of enlightened self interest. The problem with human beings in general is that we have a twisted idea of what our is really in our best interest and are not that enlightened about it. For most, what’s in their self-interest is what will provide the short-term gratification. If you don’t believe this, you only have to examine our waist lines and our bank statements.

Examine the Federal Budget. The libertarians like to tell us about the high cost of the War on Drugs. I wonder if they’ve taken a look at the high social costs and big budget expense of our people’s War on the rule of God in our lives: of broken homes, out of control health care costs, and rampant fraud. The breakdown of the family itself costs us $300 billion a year.

Let me be clear, I’m not calling for any level of government to make us submit to God. History shows that  theocracy just allows unbalanced people to oppress others and ambitious people to disguise their avarice in a cloak of religion. Nor do I exclude myself from being a part of this problem. I think almost all us who live in this country, follow the ways of our culture, some times without thinking about it.

The Reverend Billy Graham called for our nation to repent:

We must also remember that no election will ever solveAmerica’s most basic problems. That is because the trouble, at its root, is in the human heart, and the only path to true restoration—for a person or for a nation—is through repentance. The Bible says, “Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19–20, ESV). Only the Gospel, God’s Good News, has the power to change lives, heal hearts, and restore a nation.

John Adams said of our country’s constitution, “Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The ideal of the Founding Fathers was self-government. However, self-government will not work for a whole people if we are being driven by exalted egos that tell us we and are immediate needs are the center of the universe. While, there are many things that can help bring our nation back, repentance is essential.  We must become a people that relies on God and trusts in Him to direct our lives, so that we can exercise self-government as a blessing to ourselves and others, and not a curse.

There are many hare-brained proposals out there on how the GOP can find its way back to success that involve various compromises of principle. We need to become a party that favors rewarding illegal aliens for breaking our countries laws, we need to become more socially liberal so that we can attract non-religious voters, apparently that the GOP should operate on the theory that two birds in the bush is worth pursuing at the cost of the birds in the hand. Or that the GOP needs to become all things to all people.

Never mind that the GOP nominated the most liberal, big-time political chameleon in the entire field. Folks, if trying to be all things to all people really worked, Mitt Romney would have won in a landslide.

For this same reason, I categorically reject attempts to blame conservatives or principled voters for the defeat of Mitt Romney.  They got their candidate nominated and it was their job to get enough votes for their candidate to win. If they failed to do that, they have no one to blame but themselves.

To these people, what the Republican Party actually stands for and what a Republican victory actually means doesn’t matter as much as the Republican winning whatever that is supposed to mean.

Then we have the purveyors of hare-brained schemes. There are the advocates of a third parties who say what our divided country needs is yet another political party.  Logic seems to escape third party advocates. The reason they advocate for a third party is generally because they’ve lacked the intelligence, skill, and financial resources to change the Republican Party. So, apparently what we need is a political party that’s broke and where none of its leaders are possessed with any political skills. We all ready have both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties that serve as living monuments to the total unadvised nature of such proposals.

Then we have the concerns about fraud, which are not entirely illegitimate. However,  there is no way isolated cases of fraud will change the outcome of this election. Obama won this election by votes in four states. And if there were a serious chance of proving massive fraud by recounts, don’t you think the guy who has spent the last five years of his life running for President might do something about it?

Then we have those who are calling for the dissolution of the union. Yes, even as most of us are celebrating Veteran’s Days, there are those who are eagerly circulating on Facebook and posting on Twitter about petition for dissolution of the Union. Yes, Millions of men and women have died for our country but let’s break it up because we don’t like the way the election went!

Let me be clear, there is no such thing as peaceful secession in 21st Century America. Sorry, if you don’t like that, but that’s the fact. We have been taught in schools that if there were ever another secession, it would be perfectly okay for the federal government to come down on the offending state like an avenging angel. Even if you think America would let states go, you can’t find a single state of the country where a majority want to break up the union.

The good news out of this election is that the results of an Obama victory are not nearly as apocalyptic as some of his most outspoken supporters believe. There probably will be some tax hike on people earning $200,000 or more a year.  We better pray every day for the health, safety, and job satisfaction of every member of the Supreme Court because Obama could do great harm to our nation’s future and culture with more radical judges.  And Obamacare is going to be very hard to get rid of, if not impossible. Nothing will be done to avoid the fiscal cliff because this president lacks the guts to actually do anything, so we’ll face an even sharper economic crisis in coming years.

However, for those who simply want an (R) to win, there’s good news. The second term of most presidents are usually much rockier than the first. And with the Democrats certain to have an epic primary struggle and not having an incumbent president, or a particularly deep bench, there’s a strong chance of a Republican victory in 2016 given that the election came down to 400,000 votes in four states.

However, the Obama presidency is not the problem. It’s a symptom of a much larger series of problems that grip our Republic. We must address these problems if our country to survive in a recognizable form at all in the next years. We’ll begin talking about those problems tomorrow.

My thoughts on this election are still somewhat muddled. I wish I had a giant masterplan: a way forward and believe me there are some strategic common sense actions, but this whole thing goes far beyond politics.  So I’m thinking about it, praying about it, and hopefully have something to say next week.

My top line predictions:

President
Obama 290
Romney 248

Senate: 51D, 48R, 1I +1R, +1I

House: 237R, 198 +4D

Governorships: Republicans pick up North Carolina and Montana Governorships. Status quote prevails in all other states.

Click here to download.

While they’re generally right on that,  the fact is that we really haven’t really seen a lopsided debate performance like that in a very long time if ever. Maybe Admiral Stockdale’s “What Am I Doing Here” performance in the 1992 Vice-Presidential debate was worse, and perhaps Michael Dukakis’ ’88 performance was on par.

Romney was in command and the President was on defense the whole time. He was outmatched every time. The President didn’t get the better of a single exchange. Even the slam dunk attack on the Romney for the similarities between Romneycare and Obamacare went awry. Even on caring about people, Romney came across better, repeatedly telling the President that people are hurting and the President responded by regurgitating talking points.

The Independent Voter who is concerned about the voter who is concerned about where the country is going was left with no real reason to hope for anything other than standing in place under a second Obama term.

I think that what makes this debate different is that the President didn’t just lose, he looked weak, and almost pathetic in this debate performance. That’ s not how a President should look. If ever a Presidential debate is going to impact a race, this one will.

While I tend to believe the condition of the country will have a larger impact on the question of winning or losing the election than a debate, I think that if the President continues to turn in these poor performances, there are a couple of consequences.

First, the Democrats could suffer downticket as voters who may be willing to vote for Obama aren’t going to be willing to give him a blank check.

Second, if Obama continues this course, he could hurt Democrats down-ticket even if he does win. The poor debate performance will raise voter concerns about giving Obama a blank check.

Plus, if Obama can’t connect with Independent, it could cost him in swing states and lead to a popular vote win/electoral vote loss situation.

Of course, it’s early, but Romney’s win really puts some pressure on the Obama campaign.

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.”

“Recognize this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court,” Romney told CBS. “The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts. It’s been settled for some time in the courts.”

Thanks for stirring leadership Mitt. Romney’s political wimpiness on this issue threatens to sink the ticket.

Of course, many conservative and Republican friends will point out, “This election isn’t about abortion, this election about the economy.”

I have news for you. For a certain block voters who the GOP needs to win to take the Presidency that every year if they will vote, they will vote on the basis of these cultural and social issues regardless of what else is going on.

Every year when the GOP turns off social conservatives, things end up not going well. In 1996, Evangelical Turnout was down. In 2000, we ended up counting hanging chads in Florida because 2 million less Evangelicals than Karl Rove counted on showed up at the polls.  In 2008, not even Sarah Palin could get religious conservatives in the polls in force. Only in 2004, when social conservatives were engaged by the marriage issue have Republican won a solid majority in the past 20 years.

Like I said, Republican friends will argue with my post, but the folks who they need to argue with aren’t listening to them, they’re not reading blogs, they’re not listening to talk radio. These social conservative voters are listening to Governor Romney and he just told them, “You might as well not bother to show up on election day.” And that’s how you get 4 more years of Barack Obama.

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.

Appropriate for Trinity Sunday.

Behold the Triple Steal. Last one in the Majors was in 2008 before that 1987.

In honor of America’s dead.

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.

As reported by Big Peace, Time magazine has obtained a memo written by Leon Panetta, then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency and now-Secretary of Defense, that says “operational decision-making and control” was really in the hands of William McRaven, a three-star admiral and former Navy SEAL.

“The timing, operational decision-making and control are in Adm. McRaven’s hands,” the memo says. “The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the president. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the president for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and, if he is not there, to get out.”

In other words, it was McRaven’s call to pull the trigger or not on the raid.

This makes Paul Shanklin’s parody even more salient:

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.

If you want to support Stanton Health Care, click here to donate.

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.

I don’t particularly care who Governor Romney chooses as his running mate. As long as he keeps with his commitment to a pro-life Vice-Presidential Candidate, I could care less. If I were to have any favorites, it would be Ohio Senator Rob Portman, a boring vague figure who would fit right in on the Romney ticket.

Conservatives who opposed Governor Romney are disappointed, but we have to be frank. The nomination of Mitt Romney is an event we have brought upon ourselves and which we deserve for a lack of planning, foolish divisiveness, and lack of foresight. I’ll talk about how we can remedy these situations in the future–but not until after the Fall election.

I’ll not paper over Romney’s problems or be dishonest about the endorsement of Romney. Several people have looked like fools this cycle because last cycle that acted like Romney was a true conservative and this cycle they’re declaring him anathema. Let me be completely honest, a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the lesser of two evils.

After Mitt Romney has been on the national stage for five years, I cannot define what his political core is, or even if he has one. I have no idea whether he’s running to achieve the current program he’s talking about, has a hidden agenda, or no agenda at all. The one consistent theme of Romney’s political career has been personal ambition.

Mitt Romney has praised Rick Santorum for running a good campaign. I wish I could sincerely praise Governor Romney for that. He’s run a campaign based on tearing down men of better courage and achievement for the conservative movement. To quote Speaker Gingrich, “Romney is like a four foot eight guy who wants to play center on a basketball team. The only way he can do it is to make others smaller.” When I hear Romney or his supporters complain about the negative tone of the campaign and how it has damaged the GOP, I’m reminded of the man who murdered both his parents and begged for leniency because he was an orphan.

Because of the campaign Romney won, he has left behind a GOP electorate where there are many hard feelings and he’ll have to overcome that. He’ll also have to overcome the record negative ratings he has earned for himself as a result of the campaign he has run. My biggest reservation about supporting Romney is that it may encourage the same gut-turning tactics by future campaigns. In addition, Romney’s ascension teaches us that principles don’t matter as long as you have money, ambition, and the ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

However, I said Romney is a lesser evil and I meant it. A Christian Pastor when referring to these “lesser of two evils” choices asked a good question, “Shouldn’t Christians want less evil?”

Barack Obama has run an Administration that has sought to attack the religious liberty of the American people. He has shown that he believes there is no limit on the power and size of the Central Government. As America is on the brink of fiscal abyss, he has proposed the most outlandish budget proposals ever seen. While a Bill Clinton might react to this by proposing spending cuts and tax increases, Obama has opposed tax increases and even more spending. In Barack Obama’s world, you can have $1.5 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see without consequence.

Barack Obama has stymied attempts at drilling for oil even as Gas Prices surge out of control, threatening the well-being of every American. He is making unwise cuts in our defense budget that will endanger our national security for years down the road.

Finally, Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president in the history of this Republic. His administration’s policy is to promote, encourage, and finance the destruction of innocent human life wherever and whenever it can.

This is a key issue for me. As bad as Mitt Romney has treated Rick Santorum and other conservatives in this race, it is nothing next to how Barack Obama has treated the unborn. Therefore, while I mistrust Mitt Romney, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on a few points.

Governor Romney has pledged to be a pro-life President and to appoint strict constructionist to the court. While his appointments in Massachusetts give reason for doubt, the fact is that Romney has been endorsed by conservatives such as Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice which has a major interest in arguing before the court on behalf of the unborn and religious liberties. I will, for the purpose of this election, trust that endorsement means Romney will appoint strict constructionist judges. Conservatives can take comfort in the appointment of Harriet Miers. President Bush appointed her but she was forced to withdraw when conservatives dissented and were unsure of her commitment. We have no such leverage on an Obama appointment.

Secondly, in the face of our current fiscal crisis, I will entertain the hope that once in Washington, Romney will face the fiscal crisis and the entitlement crisis head on. If he won’t face it from principle, I hope he faces it from pragmatism. No one wants to be the president who sent America into insolvency. However, seriously addressing these problems requires political courage which Romney has shown no evidence of. I give Romney about 25% chance of seriously taking on the nation’s fiscal future in a meaningful way. However, that’s 25% higher than I would give President Obama and if Romney only makes minor changes to cover his tail and forestall the most serious consequences of our national problems until after his Administration, Romney will have still done more for the country than Obama.

Romney supporters will doubtless not appreciate the honest tone of this. However, I think that there will be enough insincere pabulum written by conservatives between now and Election Day to fill the entire Library of Congress. I hope this endorsement will speak to those who are truly displeased with the nomination of Mitt Romney. I hope that they will join me in supporting the lesser of two evils in this campaign, and hoping for the best.

I wish Governor Romney the best. For the duration of the campaign, I won’t post anything negative about Governor Romney. I reserve the right to criticize Romney’s campaign if it does something boneheaded, but I endorse Governor Romney as the lesser of two evils in this race.

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

-Matthew 28:1-6

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.

This didn’t matter so much in Washington because there was no need to get a majority and it wasn’t binding anyway.  But Idaho is very different.

To understand the Idaho Caucuses, you must realize:

1) That the vote is by County. Each county has a share of the National Convention delegates based on population. Ada’s share is 5.414 delegates, Canyon’s is 2.263. On the other end of the spectrum, several counties have 0.323 delegates at stake.

2) To win the County Caucus, a candidate must get a majority of the vote. If that doesn’t happen on the first ballot, then subsequent ballots may occur. This is aided by eliminating the candidate with the least votes after each round of balloting. For example, if Buddy Roemer finishes last and Newt Gingrich finishes 4th with less than 15% of the vote, the second ballot will have Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney. If Paul is then eliminated, the third ballot will offer a choice between only Santorum and Romney.

3) If someone wins a majority of the Convention delegates (16.001), they get them all.

The Washington results should tell us that there are many counties where Mitt Romney will not get a first ballot victory, particularly the state’s most populous counties.  Given that Mitt Romney will win some counties overwhelmingly on the first ballot, the course of action for suppoorters of nn-Mitt campaigns should be clear for when the balloting finally ends and all but two choices have been eliminated:  Mitt Romney v. Not Mitt Romney, the obvious strategy is to vote for the candidate who isn’t Mitt Romney.

The reason is that counties which go for Romney on the second or third  ballot will move Mitt towards getting 16.001 delegates he’ll need to get all 32 of the State’s delegates. If you’re a Paul supporter and you find yourself  with a  choice between Santorm and Romney, the proper strategy would to be to vote for Santorum, if you’re a Santorum supporter and you find yourself with a choice between Paul and Romney, vote for Paul. This is a strategic decision. In this circumstance, a 3rd ballot vote that goes to Romney helps ensure that county caucuses your candidate won elsewhere won’t net him any delegates.

Of course, this could be easier said than done. Paul supporters and non-Paul conservatives have had some nasty debates in person and online and harsh words have flown from both campaigns. The question is whether this can be put aside for one evening for the mutual benefit of winning delegates for our preferred candidates.

Romney cherry picks a vote here or there to justify these statements. But if we want to know what really went on, we don’t need to look a handful of votes ripped from context by political opponents from twenty years ago. We need to instead look at Santorum’s whole career and his ratings by groups that had no intention of having their ratings used in a Presidential campaign and so didn’t tilt their ratings.

Three good comparisons:

1) The National Taxpayers Union ratings for fiscal conservative issues.

2) The American Conservative Union rating for overall conservatism.

3) The AFL-CIO ratings for labor comparison.

The problem? Santorum’s record in Congress is very similar to Idaho’s Senior Senator Mike Crapo. Let us compare the eight years that Crapo and Santorum served in the Senate:

In eight years in the Senate, Santorum’s record finished ahead of Crapo four times, behind him twice, and twice they received the same grade.  For overall conservative ratings, Santorum edges Crapo six out of eight years, though in 2002 and 2003, Senate absences accounted for the difference between the two.

As for AFL-CIO Ratings, Mike Crapo received a career rating of 12% through 2009, Rick Santorum’s career rating is 13%.  So if Rick Santorum is big labor’s favorite Republican than Mike Crapo’s not far behind.

It would be absurd to suggest that Mike Crapo is in the pocket of big labor and is not a fiscal conservative. But that’s exactly what the Romney camp wants us to believe about Rick Santorum who had a comparable record  to Crapo when they were serving in the Senate.  Therefore, according to Mitt Romney’s logic despite all evidence to the contrary, Crapo must not be a fiscal conservative.

Which raises another point? How is Mitt Romney, the supposed fiscal conservative getting support from fiscal “liberals” like Mike Simpson (who is a real big spender), or Butch Otter (who like Santorum voted for Medicare Part D.)?

If Santorum is an untrustworthy fiscal liberal, than aren’t the people who have endorsed Romney untrustworthy fiscal liberals? And if the people who say Romney is trustworthy aren’t trustworthy than where does that leave us? If we actually pretend the Romney campaign is sincere, I fear our wheels will end up spinning like Harry Mudd’s android.

Of course, nothing the Romney campaign is saying about Santorum sincerely bothers them. Some of their biggest supporters are much more liberal than Santorum. The fact that they won’t admit to that is clear from an actual examination of the Senate record is that Santorum had an Idaho record while representing a blue state in the U.S. Senate.

Updated to reflect the fact that Mike Crapo hasn’t endorsed anyone yet.

Conventional wisdom says that this state should be an easy win for Mitt Romney. Conventional wisdom didn’t work out too well in Colorado.

If you’d like to help in this effort in any way, email me at idaho.santorum@gmail.com.

Great victory speech to end a great night.

Our Republican Caucus workers (God bless ‘em) are going to have their hands full. We’re going to have a lot of Republicans showing up to register to have their first real say in the Republican nomination process since Gerald Ford was battling Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, from everything I can gather, many folks have not registered Republican in advance.  Many Republican elected officials, legislative district chairmen, and other activists still haven’t registered.

Please note that long delays waiting in line will not constitute a conspiracy against your candidate, they’ll constitute people not having registered as Republican in advance, and the pain points as we adapt to party registration.

If you registered after July 2011 and checked the box as a Republican, you’re good to go.

If you’ve not, please download this form, mail it in to your county election office and have it there by February 17th. If it’s convenient for you, you can do what my wife and I did and stop by the County election office and register in person. In Ada County, it’s on Benjamin Road, so if you happen to be out near the mall before 5 on a weekday, and can find the time, you can do it that way.

Even, if you read this after February 17th, you can still expedite the process when you get to the Caucus site by printing up the form above and filling it out in advance.

If you don’t want to spend a lot of time waiting in line to register, be kind to caucus workers, be kind to yourself, and be kind to your fellow caucus attendees who need to go to work the next day, and do your best to register as a Republican by February 17th.