Idaho Democrats Challenge, Day Two: Bubblehead’s Noble Attempt

Bubblehead responded to my questions for Idaho Democrats. As he points out, there’s a problem:

How about Republican bloggers who are supporting Democrats in this election? Can we answer?

You can answer, but it doesn’t count. I didn’t actually know if he was still counting himself as a Republican, but yay, good. Maybe, we can arrange a steak dinner after the election. One who backed the most losing Idaho candidates buys. Or maybe we could go Dutch.

Anyway, my first question was:

1) If Jerry Brady believes we need better jobs in Idaho, why does he offer his own campaign callers a pittance of $7.50 an hour with the only benefit being that they get to work to elect a great governor? Bonus: Explain how these jobs are better, given that telemarketing jobs are often seen in the Statesman for $9.00 an hour.

Bubblehead replies:

My answers would be “working for non-profits normally pays less, so you’re comparing apples and oranges”

That’s not actually an answer. That would be the answer to another question, which is, “Why would people work for Jerry Brady if he’s paying them such a pittance?” And even then I’m not sure that’s right. I don’t think the insistent people calling for all the various organization are being paid $7.50 an hour.

The question is about Jerry Brady. Why doesn’t he set the example by creating good jobs in our state rather than paying his workers McWages? Now, Jerry Brady advocates raising the minimum wage to $7.00 an hour minimum, which would hurt some small businesses and non-profits, but Jerry Brady would make them pay more. Shouldn’t he be willing to set the example and put his money where his mouth is?

Now, on to question two:

2) If Bill Sali’s out of State Campaign Contributions are corrupt attempts to buy our elections, what does that make the tens of thousands of dollars rolling into the state for Larry Grant? Is out of state money only corrupting in larger doses?

Bubblehead replies:

“compare the percentage of in-state contributions vs. out of state for Sali and Grant, and you’ll see most of Sali’s individual contributions come from out-of-state, and most of Grant’s are from in-state. There’s nothing ‘wrong’ with that, but it does call into question the depth of Sali’s local support”.

There’s nothing wrong with that? If there’s nothing wrong with that, you need to get a memo out. Because yesterday, Jill Kuratis wrote:

A gang of out-of-staters quietly rode into Idaho this year to install their hatchet-man in a top job. It’s a powerful position, with reach into all our wallets and say-so over every aspect of our lives and our children’s: a seat in Congress. Like horse thieves salivating over a corral of prizewinners, this crew had a master plan. But they’re hoping you don’t notice, even now.

Indeed, Jill Kuratis writes of a sinister plan to steal the election and Bubblehead says, “There’s nothing wrong with it.” That’s why an answer from him’s not going to count, becuase he’s right that there’s nothing wrong with it, but the Democrats don’t see it that way. Where Bubblehead gets it wrong is that it doesn’t necessarily say something about the depth of local support.

Does he personally know anyone who has given the $200 to even show up as a blip on the Federal Election radar screen? I don’t and I’ve never given any Federal Campaign more than $100 in my whole life (and that wasn’t all at once.) A conclusion that Sali’s local support is weak is based on the fact that he’s received more money from upper middle class and rich voters, a lot of them big time Democratic party men like Larry LaRocco. A big portion of that in-state money comes from Grant himself.

So, I’ll challenge Democratic bloggers to address this issue and whether they do or not, I’ll raise the challenge.

Idaho, Larry Grant, Jerry Brady