I grudgingly voted for Clinton. (My preferred candidate in ’92 was Paul Tsongas.) But that’s another argument: WWII was a “good” war, as we all know.

If Jim Risch had a valid physical disqualification that kept him from serving during a time of national draft, I will lay this argument to rest. But he has yet to say why he did not serve, so until he does, I think this remains a valid point of difference between LaRocco and Risch – though hardly not the only difference between them.

Let’s be fair: Isn’t it ironic that Idaho Democrats are fielding candidates (Minnick and LaRocco) who served in the Army during the Vietnam era, while the Idaho GOP has two candidates of the same generation (Sali and Risch) who did not? And that Risch and Sali would continue the disastrous policies of chickenhawks Bush and Cheney, who also skipped Vietnam, but that Minnick and LaRocco know better?

If Idahoans are fine with four more years of Bush-Cheney policies, they’ll be fine with Sali and Risch. Otherwise, they’ll want to give LaRocco and Minnick a chance.

Second point, do you think there’s no legitimate reason not to have served? That’s the stand you’re taking. So if Jim Risch had a physical injury that made him incapable of serving that should disqualify him from Public Office? If he took a completely legitimate deferrment that should disqualify him from public office? That’s the position you seeem to be arguing.

I knew you’d bring up Obama. Let’s just say there’s a big difference between LaRocco and Risch, who came of age during Vietnam and the draft, and Obama, whose generation had … um, Grenada. Whether or not someone from the Baby Boom generation served in the military is much more germane than whether a Gen Xer signed up.

As for influence, no, I wasn’t referring to pork, but simply the ability to get things done. As a member of the Democratic majority, LaRocco would automatically be as powerful as Mike Crapo (if not more so), and with credit awarded for his two House terms, he’d be one of the most powerful freshmen senators, period. Moreover, LaRocco pledged tonight to work across the aisle, just as Barack Obama says he will do.

It’s time for Idaho to end its unthinking fealty to the Republican Party.

I don’t know what early returns you’re talking about, I don’t see anything on the Secretary of State’s website. I don’t think that any race is determinant of ideology. The one thing I’ve come to conclude about elections is that they’re about likability and I think losses in these races will be out how the media painted the candidates, not their ideology. Conservatives will lose, conservatives will win and a couple primary tells us nothing about the future of the state.

On another election matter, early returns show both Rep. Bowers and Thayn losing, and I’m sure Sen. McKague will lose too. Is there any chance at all that you’ll admit that even most Republicans don’t like extremists, or will you just blame cross-over Democrats and refuse to consider the alternative?