Press "Enter" to skip to content

Recall

stapiluslogo2

The months-long campaign to recall Yamhill County Commissioner Lindsay Berschauer, alongside the school board recall efforts in Newberg, may suggest to some people in the county the impression that recalls are a commonplace part of the political scenery.

They’re not. In the bigger picture, they’re an unusual feature of democracy, and in most places they aren’t used all that much or at all.

But in some places they do pop up repeatedly, and Oregon is one of those places.

And where they are used, they tend to get a lot of attention.

You probably don’t know much about the municipal politics of North Pole, Alaska, but in 1998 it came to the world’s attention when its mayor was recalled.

And you might have heard last month about one aspect of Seattle city politics. A council member there, Kshama Sawant, was nearly recalled on December 7, she survived by 310 votes (razor-close in a city the size of Seattle). One of the charges against her, Yamhill countians may be interested to know (with some echoes of local politics), had to do with an incident in which Swant opened the locked doors of city hall to a protesting crowd, in her case Black Lives Matter participants.

In the Northwest, the highest-profile recent successful recall was in 2005 when Spokane Mayor James West was ousted by the voters.

Around the world, most democracies only allow for replacing elected officials at the next election. Apart from the United States - and not in all states - recalls are common features in just a few countries, including Japan, Peru, Ecuador and parts of Germany and Canada, and some other scattered places. Worldwide, it’s the exception rather than the rule.

It wasn’t an original feature of American government, though it was used in some places in colonial and revolutionary America. It was unheard of in America in most of the 19th century, and only as the 20th arrived did the progressive movement of a century ago start to propose it.

This is strictly a state and local government feature, by the way, and 10 states (Utah is the only one in the west) have no provisions for recall. There is no way to recall a member of Congress. People have tried to take up the effort at times over the years, only to learn it isn’t legally possible.

Oregon, famously, was a national leader in this, when voters in 1908 amended the state constitution to allow for the recall (just a few years after approving initiatives, referenda and direct primaries).

The rules surrounding recall vary in detail and overall reach. In Washington state, for example, recall is allowed but proponents have to officially state grounds for recall - and not just any grounds will do. State law says they have to show “Commission of some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office.” Hard facts are needed to support all that, because a court will review the grounds, and will reject the recall effort if the stated grounds don’t meet the legal requirements. Judges sometimes have done just that. Washington is not alone in setting a moderate-to-high bar for recalls. Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Virginia also place specific requirements on recalls; only certain types of violations will qualify.

Oregon is looser in that regard: No grounds are required.

Oregon also allows for recall of every public officer in the state; many states only allow certain officials to be recalled, in some cases only a few categories of them.

You do have to wait at least six months after the official is sworn in to try to recall them. (The law is saying the public has to give the official a chance to do the job properly.)

Oregon also does have (as recall backers in the Yamhill commission case have learned in detail) highly specific requirements for petition signature collections and numbers of signatures, and a deadline for submission.

And maybe because the recall option goes back so far in the state’s history, it has become in the state a relatively often-used device. In the last five years, at least 37 attempted recalls, most at the city and county level but a few aimed at state officials, have been tried. In the last couple of decades, many of Yamhill County’s cities have seen recall attempts, usually unsuccessful.

Some Oregon recalls do succeed. In 2018 Toledo Mayor Billy Jo Smith and a couple of council members were ousted over complaints about how city business was being managed. In 2011 Cornelius Mayor Neal Knight and two council members were recalled after a squabble related to the city manager.

Most such efforts never get as far as actual elections, though. One good example - or several, depending on how you count - would be the recurring effort in recent years to recall Governor Kate Brown.

Recalling an elected official isn’t easy, and it shouldn’t be: Set the bar too low and any official with a critic will face endless attempts at a recall, and a government can’t function. The legal requirements generally are intended to ensure that a large portion of the electorate really wants to undo what the voters not so long ago did. That’s also the reason for the “grounds” in states like Washington, to ensure that the problems generating the recall actually are serious enough that the city, county or state really can’t wait until next time around.

Still, the recall is there for a reason. Sometimes mistakes are made in elections, as they are everywhere else. It’s there, as a last-resort safety valve.

As in the case of regular elections, it’s up to the voters to decide whether to exercise it.

This article originally appeared in the McMinnville (OR News-Register.
 

An almost perfect campaign speech

malloy

Gov. Brad Little has not yet announced his re-election plans, but it’s not much of a mystery. As he has told reporters, “Don’t bet against it.”

And if (or when) he does run, don’t wager against him using more than a few lines from his State of the State address that kicked off this year’s legislative session. As State of the State messages go, it was a pretty good campaign speech.

He called his plan, “Leading Idaho,” which is the kind of bold talk that plays well in a campaign – but not as well before a crowd of skeptical (if not hostile) politicians. Seated behind him, and peering over his shoulder, were Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin, who wants Little’s job, and House Speaker Scott Bedke – who is running for lieutenant governor. In the audience, there was Rep. Priscilla Giddings, who is running against Bedke, and two candidates for secretary of state – Sen. Mary Souza and Rep. Dorothy Moon.

Spoiler alert: There will be a lot of politics happening in this year’s session.
But there was more to this tough crowd. It included a b and of conservatives who think the governor should be returning more of a record surplus to taxpayers and Democrats who think Little wants to cut taxes too much. It’s a nice backdrop to a messy legislative session. They’d probably be here through July if this were not an election year.

But for now, with his State of the State address out of the way, Little can leave the heavy lifting to lawmakers. Little’s big decision in the immediate future is picking a time, place and date for his re-election announcement and choosing his favorite lines from his State of the State message.

He has a nice list of talking points.

“Idaho’s economy is stronger than ever before. We’re one of only four states with more jobs today than before the pandemic. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Our budget is balanced. We have robust reserves. Idaho businesses and citizens benefit from living and working in the least regulated state in the nation.”

The list goes on. The state is spending more money for education, while providing tax cuts. Again, it’s not enough to satisfy Democrats or right-wing Republicans. And editorial writers will continue to remind us that despite the increases Little is proposing for education, Idaho ranks at or near the nation’s bottom in most education-funding categories. Critics also will point out that Idaho’s record surplus was not entirely the result of skillful management on the part of state government, as Little implies with this comment: “While D.C. is digging the country into a $29 trillion hole, Idaho has a record surplus of $1.9 billion and counting.”

Of course, more than half that amount came from the federal government in COVID relief, thus contributing to the $29 trillion national debt.

But there’s nothing unusual about smoke and mirrors in a campaign speech. Yes, we have problems with growth, exploding housing costs and rising property taxes that are not sustainable for many Idahoans. His speech focused on the positives and, to Little’s credit, Idaho is in relatively decent shape.

It’s always good for a Republican in Idaho to take swings at President Biden and those pesky Democrats ruling the roost in Congress. Little offered a few well-timed digs.

“While President Biden divides Americans in his attempts to elevate the role of government in citizens’ lives, coercing Americans with government-imposed vaccine mandates, Idaho says ‘no,’” Little said. “Our lawsuits challenging Biden’s polarizing vaccine mandates are working. I banned divisive vaccine passports. I never mandated masks or vaccines. We responded to a crisis with a balanced approach and kept Idaho open. And while President Biden continues to dismiss the catastrophe at the U.S.-Mexico border, Idaho is banding together with other states to act.”

And, of course, no campaign speech can be complete without talking about children, grandchildren, the love for his wife and the people who have made a difference in his life. He checked all those boxes.

The only thing missing was a thumbs up from former President Trump, which is the Holy Grail of political endorsements. McGeachin managed to land that one.

ctmalloy@outlook. Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook. com
 

Worried Republicans

rainey

I feel sorry for Republicans. Yes, I really do.

Oh, no! Not the crazy, immoral, sex-abusing, race-baiting, publicity-seeking, ignorant ones who show up in the headlines, day-after-day. No. Never them!

I mean the thoughtful, concerned, conservative-leaning, socially responsible, God-fearing, centrist, compromise-believing, all-around good people like Bob Dole, Howard Baker, Everett Dirksen, John McCain, Michael Steele, Jerry Ford, the Bushes, etc., etc., etc.. Where have Republicans like that gone? Are all the “normal” ones dead?

If so, where the Hell did their descendants go?

I’m sick and tired of McCarthy, Cruz, Paul, Taylor-Greene, Boebert, Gosar, Biggs, Gohmert, Ronny Jackson, Sessions, Scaliese, et al..

McCarthy’s latest misadventure is loudly and repeatedly claiming he’ll fight the January 6th Committee every step of the way. He’ll refuse the official “request” to appear - he’ll reject any subpoenas on his doorstep - ignore the Constitutionally-authorized power of the Committee.

His words: “As a representative and leader of a minority party, it is with neither regret nor satisfaction that I have concluded to not participate in this select committee’s abuse of power that stains this institution today and will harm it going forward. The Committee is not conducting a legitimate investigation ... and is not serving any legislative purpose.”

A load of B.S.. Any high school civics class could tear McCarthy’s full statement apart and highlight the lies - if not the historical ignorance - therein. With little effort.

That’s what I’m talking about when I write “I’m sick and tired” of (r)epublicans. Yes, Virginia, small “r.”

But, at the same time, my heart goes out to anyone in this country who lays an intellectually positive claim to the name “Republican” - large “R!”

Day after day, after seemingly endless day, those good, honest, God-fearing, responsible, conservative people listen to their small “r” brothers-and-sisters lie, misrepresent facts, shout their idiocy with meaningless drivel while showing their deep ignorance. Like McCarthy. They find little-to-no support or even acknowledgment of/for their good Republican hopes, aspirations and dreams.

Nothing in the headlines - or on the “telly” these days - represents what normal, right-thinking Republicans among the citizenry expect of their Party. I’m sure many go to bed each night, sick of what has happened to the GOP, hoping tomorrow will be the day civility, honesty and responsibility return. And the next day. And the next. And the next. That’s gotta be tough.

But, there are some small glimmers of hope. The January 6th Committee, for example, so far appears to be hard-working, diligent, smart and very, very professional in what activities we can see. It’s beginning to feel the Committee’s final report will be a blockbuster with investigation details of nearly hourly happenings from before the 6th to well after.

The Committee has been very, very smart, so far, publically revealing snippets of information a bit at a time. If one D.J. Trump isn’t feeling the pressure mounting, and a spear jabbing him in the ribs, he’s either more factually-challenged than we thought or living in some dream world in which he thinks his followers will rush into the streets to save him. Some will. Most won’t.

Right-thinking, caring and responsible Republicans face a huge decision come primary election time. They’ve either got to stay and fight to keep the nut cases off the November ballot (if they have the strength to do so) or, jump over the fence and vote with Democrats. If, in their Party, the current crop of liars, politically-ignorant, McCarthy types survive to “fight another day,” GOP politics will become “sewer” politics. And it won’t get better for many years.

There are two ways to beat the “bad guys.

One is the ballot box. The other is for elected Republican leaders to finally show some sense of responsibility and punish the miscreants themselves. But, don’t hold your breath, waiting for the second method to come forth. It won’t. It’s the “leadership” (McCarthy, Scaliese, Elise Stefanic, McConnell, Barrasso, et al.) that are the problem. As long as these people serve in those “leadership” positions, there’ll be no house cleaning and no diversion from the loud, raucous, truth-denying bunch we presently have.

So, my thoughtful, truth-telling, honest, civically-responsible Republican friends, there IS hope. And that hope is YOU! We want to see you and your progeny survive and prosper to become the “Republican Party that was.” Ready to offer to meet at the table on any issue, to talk, to compromise and to work for better government and a better America. We want you to succeed! We really do!

‘Cause if you don’t, our Democracy - our Republic - our entire nation can - and most likely - will be lost. That’s how important you are!

Tell us what we can do to help.
 

Constitutional shirking

jones

Idaho has an historic $1.6 billion revenue surplus, much of which can and should be used to finally satisfy the Legislature's constitutional duty to provide adequate funding for Idaho’s public school system.

Article IX, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution commands that “it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free common schools.” This is one of the most important responsibilities of the State.

The Idaho Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that these are not idle words. Rather, the Legislature must provide sufficient funding to properly operate our public school system. There can be no argument that the Legislature has failed to carry out this solemn obligation for many years. The issue was considered by the Supreme Court in a long-running case, titled Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity v. State, often referred to as the ISEEO case. The case was filed in 1990 and came before the Court on five occasions, producing five decisions.

In its second decision in 1996, the Court suspected that the State was not adequately funding the instructional side of the education system and sent the case back to the trial court for further consideration of that issue. The Legislature did increase school funding for a while but that did not last long.

In the third round of the litigation, the focus became the proper meaning of a “thorough system” of public schools. The Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that “a safe environment conducive to learning is inherently part of a thorough system of public, free common schools.” The Court said that further litigation was necessary to decide whether school facilities--buildings and fixtures--were being adequately financed by the State. The case was sent back to the trial court to find whether dilapidated school facilities were harming the work of educating our kids.

When the case came back in its fifth iteration in 2005, the Court ruled that the Legislature had not met its constitutional duty to provide a thorough system of education with regard to school facilities. The ruling specified, “it is the duty of the State, and not this Court or the local school districts, to meet this constitutional mandate.” It was made clear that the Legislature could not place the primary funding responsibility for school facilities upon local property tax payers. The Court approvingly quoted an Ohio Supreme Court decision for the proposition that property taxes are not the answer for satisfying the constitutional mandate: “The valuation of local property has no connection whatsoever to the actual education needs of the locality, with the result that a system over reliant on local property taxes is by its very nature an arbitrary system that can never be totally thorough.”

In a special session of the Legislature in 2006, legislation proposed by then-Governor Jim Risch was approved to reduce reliance on property taxes and shift the burden to sales and income taxes. In the last ten years, the burden on property tax payers has substantially increased because the Legislature has failed to carry out its responsibility to provide adequate funding for either school facilities or instructional operations. Supplemental property tax levies amounted to $218.2 million in 2021-2022. Plant facilities levies were about $53 million last year and may well be more this year. These are obligations that the Legislature should pay out of general tax revenues. Local property tax payers should not be saddled with these costs.

The Legislature is clearly shirking its constitutional duty to provide a thorough system of public schools. Ever since the deep recession of 2008, public leaders, including former Governor Otter and any number of legislators, have admitted this to be the case. Instead of falling all over themselves to figure out how many hundreds of millions of the present surplus should be dished out in tax cuts, legislators should finally take the opportunity to meet their constitutional duty of adequately funding public school operations and facilities.

We clearly have the money so let’s require the legislators to carry out their responsibility under the Idaho Constitution. Our kids' education depends on it.
 

The lone farmer and the ponderosa

stapiluslogo2

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle on January 14..

Here’s a recipe for concentrated depression:

The embattled and seriously troubled Klamath Basin, a center of social and environmental pathologies for two decades and more, facing a future, three decades hence, where climate change could make conditions far worse.

You could spin a dystopian novel from that. Or you could tell a more optimistic story. In a project the Klamath Falls newspaper, the Herald and News, released last week, it did both, in the form of a pair of short stories. (It was funded in part by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Environmental Solutions Initiative.)

It did more than tell stories. It also suggested ways out of the area’s bitter water and environmental conflicts while painting a specific picture of what a climate changed future actually may look like. The report showed that how people respond to the coming changes could make a vast difference.

Much of what we hear about climate change sounds theoretical: A temperature change of a couple of degrees (doesn’t sound like a lot) or an iceberg cleaved off in Antarctica. What about where I live?

The Klamath report got specific about that, about wildfires - of which last summer’s immense Bootleg Fire, just east of the Klamath area, was only a foretaste - major weather swings, frequent severe drought years, and hotter summers.

The Klamath River Basin seems ill-prepared for any of this. The drought year 2001 was a turning point, when the Basin’s water supplies dropped enough that conflicts involving irrigators, environmental interests, nearby tribes and others exploded, and the area has been on edge for years since with little relief in sight. It has attracted outside attention which often has added to the area’s troubles.

So what might happen in the next two to three decades?

The newspaper project outlined the current situation and then, out of many plausible possibilities, sketched out a couple of fictional but fact-infused scenarios.

One was “lone farmer.”

It begins in an upcoming drought year (maybe this one), as water is shut off or severely limited to many users, and anger rises to a flashpoint. Agitators - apparently connected to out-of-area provocateurs like Idahoan Ammon Bundy - seize the Klamath system headgates and open the water to the irrigation canal. But there’s little water, and the incident is the last straw for the feds, who cut off environmental and assistance for the area. Diminished water both on the surface and in local aquifers leaves fish dying, vast acreages of crops unwatered and houses by the hundreds without running water. Many of the endangered species in the area become extinct. Local farmers become endangered too, nearly all selling out to an international corporation which takes over almost all the area’s farm land. Only the local tribes remain, a significant political or legal factor, though after ongoing environmental hardship and the loss of fish runs, many tribal members move out of the area. Wildfires like the massive Bootleg Fire recur. The area's population falls by a third or more, as farm families move out of the area or to a corporate-built residential community.

The second story, “lodgepole and ponderosa,” led with this: “Young people are hard at work restoring and protecting the Klamath Basin’s wetlands, forests and waterways. Despite intensifying climate change impacts, a 30-year effort has put the basin on a path toward resilience."

The climate change assumed in both stories is the same. But in this one, a different trajectory is sketched for the next decade on the local and federal levels. Nationally, “The Interior Department establishes a climate corps program for each watershed in the Western U.S., inspired by the Civilian Conservation Corps created a century earlier." Locally, a new cooperative agreement between the various interests in the area - agricultural, tribal, residential, environmental and others - evolves a series of compromises on water and land use. The local group acquires some water from the federal government under an agreement on how it will be used, and water use in many places changes.

The end result is happier than in “lone farmer”: More local control, more prosperity at least for local businesses, and more local people, albeit with close discipline needed on everyone’s part.

The report suggested that, “The Klamath still has the ingredients of a successful watershed: Land, water, plants, birds, fish and people who care deeply about their homes and communities. But those things must be intricately connected in order to survive.”

The two scenarios seem to suggest as much.
 

How dare you?

meador

How dare you?

How dare you deface this sacred symbol with your crybaby nonsense? You made a choice to refuse a vaccine that countless health professionals from all over the political spectrum say you should get.

I’m cool with your choice. It’s a free country, after all.

This month, many jurisdictions will see vaccination requirements of some sort kick in. While many people believe this is an entirely new tyranny, I wonder where their kids were when they were required to attend public school. Surely they weren’t all home-schooled?

We’ve had vaccine requirements since before I was born — this is not new. Further, I understand some of the reluctance to get the vaccine; I would’ve preferred to go without, too. But I live in an imperfect world and enough highly-educated health care professionals are telling me to get vaccinated. So I’m vaccinated.

I chose to be vaccinated.

You can choose to remain unvaccinated and you can either accept the consequences or you can complain like there’s no tomorrow.

But how dare you vandalize the holy image of this yellow star?

You chose not to get a vaccine. Yes, you might be refused entrance to a restaurant but there are other restaurants that will welcome you. You might not be able to attend church or a concert but you should know by now that your choices have consequences.

You chose not to get a vaccine.

You were not fired or prevented from working because of who you are — if you did lose your job, you had a choice.

You were not kept out of restaurants or theaters because of who you are — you had a choice.

You did not have your business ransacked and looted before it was confiscated by the government.

You did not have your place of worship set alight as the fire department watched and laughed, making sure neighboring structures didn’t burn. You did not have to watch while holy objects from within your church were desecrated in the street. You did not see your grandparents’ graves vandalized and violated.

You were not forcibly loaded aboard cattle cars along with your children, denied food and water, one bucket serving as a toilet for dozens of people on a journey to hell. You didn’t arrive, freezing, stinking and terrified at camps where thugs in Hugo Boss uniforms decided you would live or die with the flick of a wrist.

You did not see an S.S. officer hold your infant child by its hind leg and bash its head against the steel of a truck when the child wouldn’t stop crying.

You weren’t forced to hold your infant child up in front of you so the barbarian about to kill you could get you and your child with one bullet.

You didn’t see your family forcibly separated from you, your spouse and children sent to a killing chamber disguised as a shower, where gas caused people to claw atop each other in attempts to find air to breathe that didn’t choke them. Your children weren’t found buried beneath the human mountain of death that remained once the poison had done its job.

You weren’t housed on wooden pallets, no comfort, no heat, in vast dorms of filth, with more than triple the number of human beings for which the space was designed. You weren’t given a scoop of dirty, lukewarm water ­— with hunk of turnip in it if you were lucky ­— for your daily meal. You weren’t forced to stand for hours in freezing rain while monsters obsessed with counting counted you, over and over.

You weren’t infested with lice and disease then denied even rudimentary health care.

You weren’t forced to work in a crematorium feeding body after ghoulish body into the hellish flames, sometimes recognizing a dead friend, neighbor or even child before you burnt them to ashes. You weren’t then forced to feed the funeral pyres when the ovens couldn’t keep up with that Teutonic efficiency.

You weren’t eventually liberated to find everything you once had gone — your home, your business, your family, maybe even your town.

The Judenstern represents a horror beyond what you can imagine. How dare you raise your pathetic “suffering” to the level of the Shoah — the most monstrous atrocity in human history.

You are free to complain, to cry, to declare how terribly unfair it all is. You are free to magnify your vaccine-free suffering as much as you like.

But you are also free to get the vaccine.

What you are not free to do is to hijack the sacred symbol of a people who had no choice, who know what true suffering is — the suffering of unspeakable sorrow, of unimaginable genocide.

How dare you equate your small suffering with the horror of the Shoah? How dare you take this liberty?

If you want to remain vaccine-free, so be it. Buck up and accept the consequences of your choice.

Do not create repugnant false equivalencies by elevating your self-imposed suffering with the Holocaust.

Just don’t.

How dare you?

Matthew Meador is a former food and wine writer, senior editor and a rare moderate Republican who now writes political commentary. Previously, Matt was an award-winning graphic artist who often put his skills to use during election seasons. Matt has served in various capacities on political campaigns, for pollsters and for elected officials. Contact him at matthewmeador.com.

Photocomposite unknown provenance
 

An obligation of office

johnson

Idaho’s senior senator Mike Crapo did something unusual. His constituents should find it unsettling, even arrogant.

The Republican announced that he will seek a fifth term in the Senate by issuing a press release. No questions asked or answered, thank you very much.

Crapo, who calls himself an “unwavering conservative,” did serve up a little political red meat in his release – no substance, but plenty of fear. “The threats to our values, our way of life and our Constitution itself are intense, extremely well-funded and well-organized,” Crapo said.

I’d like to hear more but Crapo’s not taking questions.

There once was a tradition – perhaps more an obligation – that when candidates announced for high public office they would tour the state, making a series of appearances at airports or hotel ballrooms and engage journalists on why they were applying for a job. A big part of the deal was to answer questions, or at least act like you were doing so.

Like so many other things we can be bemoan as lost to a better past is the notion that a politician, particularly one asking to be re-elected, has an obligation to answer questions. Crapo, long ago more at home in Washington than in Weiser, doesn’t stoop to answering questions. I know this because I asked him, or more correctly asked his staff, a few questions via email.

The first was: “Do you believe Joe Biden fairly won the 2020 presidential election?”

I also asked: “Why have you not spoken out against the lies and misinformation that have been spread about that election? For example, on January 6 you made no statement at all about the events of a year ago, even while the former president was continuing to repeat lies about the election.”

I wanted to know how Crapo feels about the investigation underway into the events of January 6, 2021, so I asked: “Do you support the House investigation on the events of January 6, 2021?” And “why did you oppose an independent commission (to investigate the Capitol attack) when it was considered by the Senate?”

Knowing that Donald Trump continues to dominate the Republican Party and shows every inclination to run for president again in 2024, I asked Crapo: “If Donald Trump were to run again for president in 2024 and win the Republican nomination, would you support him?”

Trump endorsed Crapo long before the senator announced his re-election last week, so I thought it would be interesting to know whether Crapo sought that endorsement and how it came about, so I asked.

Just before the Idaho governor proposed to increase funding for Idaho State Police protection of the State Capitol in Boise – 13 new positions at a cost of $2.8 million – presumably in anticipation of more violent stunts like the militant Ammon Bundy pulled off in 2020, I sought Crapo’s views about the danger of politically motivated violence.

Just to jog your memory, a police officer who testified at Bundy’s trial in 2021 said, “It was chaos,” with six State Police officers “pushed, shoved and battered” by a crowd of protesters. The day before Bundy was arrested, an angry mob stormed into the Idaho House gallery. A door was broken down. Bundy is, of course, seeking the Republican nomination for governor of Idaho.

So, I asked Crapo, “There is growing evidence that many Americans on the political right are willing to engage in violence in the interest of their political positions. Do you view this as a danger to democracy?”

And since the senator has been around for a long time, I posed this question: “Given Idaho’s long history of dealing with various hate groups, including the Aryan Nations, why have you not spoken out against this trend or condemned, for example, groups like The Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and the rightwing activist Ammon Bundy? There have been anti-Semitic attacks on, for example, the Anne Frank Memorial in Boise, but you have made no effort to condemn them. Why?”

At one level, I didn’t expect much from Crapo, the thirteenth most senior member of the Senate. He long ago became a get-along, go-along Republican in lock step with his party’s leadership, voting to convict Bill Clinton and let Trump skate, twice. Crapo rarely utters anything beyond the sterile talking points that GOP political consultants crank out for him.

But frankly I did expect an answer to the question about Biden being legitimately elected. South Dakota’s very conservative Senator Mike Rounds, for example, said recently when asked the same question I put to Crapo: “The election was fair, as fair as we have seen. We simply did not win the election, as Republicans, for the presidency. And moving forward — and that’s the way we want to look at this — moving forward, we have to refocus once again on what it’s going to take to win the presidency.”

I thought a question about whether Crapo would support Trump – again – might get a “let’s cross that bridge when we come to it” type response. Or an invitation to zing Bundy or disavow the radical Proud Boys might actually present an opportunity for a career politician to show a bit of leadership, not to mention backbone.

By the way, I told Crapo’s staff I would publish any response in its entirety.

Here’s the totality of what I got in response to my questions:

“Marc, we have known and worked with you a long time in your various roles. But, these questions indicate a blatant partisan bias. Senator Crapo has repeatedly addressed these questions and people know how he feels about these issues. Moreover, to suggest Senator Crapo has not spoken out against acts of violence or hatred – political or otherwise – is categorically false. He won’t participate in such a thinly-veiled partisan effort intended to distract voters’ attention away from the national debacle unfolding at the hands of Biden/Schumer/Pelosi.”

I guess Crapo could have saved time by simply giving me a two-word answer.

In fact, most of his constituents don’t know where Crapo stands on a lot of these questions and many others, because silence on big issues is a political strategy in the modern GOP. Much safer to invoke a “national debacle.”

But you might ask why a guy whose been in Congress for 30 years won’t answer even a simple question, knowing his entire answer will see print, about whether the last election was honest. Why is a senator who has Trump’s endorsement unwilling to talk about it? And when given an opportunity to condemn political violence or anti-Semitism attacks the premise of the question.

What is Crapo afraid of? What should you be afraid of?

State of the campaign

stapiluslogo1

Usually something - a new idea, a major policy initiative, an area of interest - jumps out when a governor delivers a state of the state address.
In Idaho Governor Brad Little’s state of the state address last Monday it was this: The most overtly campaign-oriented SOS I’ve ever heard.

Little does have a serious campaign challenge coming up in the next few months, and not only for himself but also for his political allies who will be waging a possibly bitter battle against serious opposition in the Republican primary.

In his speech to the legislature and to the state, Little seemed more than aware of this: That reality seemed to dominate him. He was almost two-thirds of the way through the speech before he began to deliver what sounds like the heart of a normal SOS. And that was in a relatively brief speech, by far his shortest SOS, and only about two-thirds as long as last year’s. (Brevity ordinarily is a virtue, but you do need to get the job done.)

Why do I say this? You can start with the references to the Biden Administration. Throwing a quick hit of shade in the direction of a presidency of the other party isn’t something new; governors of both parties routinely do a bit of it. But ordinarily, it’s just a quick side jaunt. The subject at hand, after all, is supposed to be the state of the state.

But Little went much further than the norm in the first two-thirds of his speech, over and over and over: “While President Biden divides Americans in his attempts to elevate the role of government in citizens’ lives … Biden’s polarizing vaccine mandates … as Bidenflation surges … while President Biden continues to dismiss the catastrophe at the U.S.-Mexico border … President Biden’s flawed border policies … Biden’s inaction as inflation swells under Biden’s watch … With Bidenflation exploding.”

And there were the traditional “DC is awful” remarks, but again more of those than usual: “While D.C. is digging the country into a $29 trillion hole … While D.C. continues to crank out onerous new regulations … While D.C. wants to raise taxes on all citizens.”

All of which would have fit in well enough at a Republican Lincoln Day dinner (which circuit is just getting underway), but a state of the state is supposed to be a report about the condition of the state and recommendations for the future, a slice of governing, not campaigning. Little got to some of that, but at the tail end of the speech.

There was another element to this speech that seemed unusual for its obviousness.

These speeches almost always have an element of self-congratulation, reports of conditions going well and efforts by the speaker that paid off. Usually governors go out of their way to throw some praise at the legislature as well; this speech contained not much of that. (Nor did it get around to a lot of significant problems in Idaho - from housing affordability to the notably high Covid-19 death rate to widespread attacks on education - but many governors ignore such things in their SOS.)

Little’s self-praise included some larger elements (economic and regulatory, mainly) but keyed off a statement in which he cited people he knew who influenced him, and then this:

“Leaders give people confidence and show the way through humble strength. Leaders go through life with a spirit of service. Leaders listen. The voice of a leader is effective, not just loud. Every day I endeavor to live up to the example of my mentors. That is what the people of Idaho deserve from their Governor, and it is what they deserve from all those elected to public office.”

So in putting a label on his legislative proposals, and making the linkage unavoidable, he said, “My plan is called LEADING IDAHO.” (The caps are his.)

It was a speech underwritten and delivered on behalf of Idaho’s taxpayers - who do include non-Republicans as well as party members - suitable for framing at the next Lincoln Day dinner.

The campaign is on.

(photo/Idaho Ed News)
 

Uncertainty

schmidt

If nothing else, this Covid experience has taught us a lot about how we all deal with uncertainty. I hope you have learned your own limits with the beast.

Medical training teaches us practitioners to pursue certainty. The fact of a diagnosis used to mean the certainty of prognosis was narrowed. We, the white-coated authorities gave the grim prediction to the patient of days, months, or years of life remaining. We could recommend treatments but hedge them with learned uncertainty that wouldn’t (we hoped) harm our position of authority.

Many things have eroded this authority, this modified Corona virus common cold is just the most recent. Many people suffered with ill-defined pain and fatigue and since we, the medical profession had found some cures here and there, we felt the pressure to continue to cure. Alas, the refrain of learning to “live with” the chronic condition is not a cure most seek.

Make no mistake, many things are very curable. Pneumonia still kills, but we have many drugs that can and do cure. When diagnosing cancer, it used to be we were like poker players, understanding the odds of when and where the disease was discovered, the ameliorating odds of our treatments, and then we, but really, the patient, played the hand dealt. Nowadays we have some incredibly curative treatments for the “Big C”. That game has changed for some.

But when COVID popped up, nobody knew the cards in the deck, or even the rules of the game. We had to discover them as the disease unfolded around us, taking some in the first wave, maybe less in the second, and now even less as it mutates and changes, as we so slowly modify, not our genetics, but our behavior in the face of it.

I took my granddaughter to the hardware store this weekend. She’s only three and unimmunized. Her mom, my daughter, an ICU nurse, has taught her to wear a mask in settings like this. Her mom has cared for many ventilated, critical, even dying patients. I’ve been to that store a dozen times in the past few weeks and didn’t wear a mask. I’m immunized and boosted. I keep my distance but feel pretty safe amongst those people I don’t see too often. But she wore a mask last Saturday, so I did too. I realized I was doing it to support my granddaughter. I didn’t feel like a sheep, though I had to take my glasses off as they kept fogging up.

This virus is evolving faster than we can calculate the odds. In the early wave of infections one out of a thousand infected would die from it. Those odds are now much lower, but the odds of getting the virus have gone up significantly. How do you want to play your hand? Maybe more important, how do you see this game as won or lost?

If you, unmasked and unimmunized surviving and your neighbor with the mask and shots dying means you win, then we might be a doomed species. I just don’t see life as a poker game with the pile of chips giving a sense of satisfaction, even glee. We humans have not easily grasped the concept that we are all in this together.

This uncertainty, this disease spreading silently among us, should be giving us an opportunity to show our character, our natures to our neighbors.

Medical training did not teach me to deny death. In fact, I had to come to accept suffering as a part of the human condition. But I found I needed to work daily to ease the pain, ease the suffering of my patients and myself if I was to have any peace in this world. I wish that for all of you too.