Press "Enter" to skip to content

Remembering Steve Symms

August 21, 2024

Steve Symms’ mark on Idaho politics was undeniable and his 1980 stunning victory over Sen. Frank Church was historic. Church was the last Idaho Democrat to hold a U.S. Senate seat.

Accolades came pouring in after his recent death.

“Steve Symms routinely pushed back on government overreach, stood up for the working people of Idaho and defended freedoms we hold dear,” said Gov. Brad Little.

“He was a staunch defender of conservative values in Washington, D.C., for the people of Idaho. His commitment to Idaho and conservative principles has stood as an inspiration for our state leaders,” said Idaho Sen. Jim Risch.

“Steve was an exceptional public servant whose dedicated years of service and unwavering commitment to Idaho have left a lasting legacy on our state,” said Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson.

Those viewpoints were appropriate, and well stated. I remember Steve in a different way, as one of the most personable political people I’ve encountered in more than 45 years. I’ve heard stories about Steve being a favorite traveling partner of the late Arkansas Sen. Dale Bumpers. I had some exposure to Bumpers during my days in Arkansas and they were two of a kind – gregarious and funny. I can only imagine the entertainment they provided to one another during long plane flights.

Many years ago, Steve told me a story about him filling in for Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virgina during a speaking engagement. Keep in mind that the two were polar opposites politically. But Byrd, as I was told, had a scheduling conflict for a particular event and asked Steve to substitute. That arrangement probably wouldn’t happen in today’s crash-and-burn political environment.

The first time I met Steve was early in my career (very early) when I was writing sports for the Daily Idahonian in Moscow (now the Moscow-Pullman Daily News). Steve dropped into the office one Saturday and, as usual, was the model of charm. I still remember a comment from a colleague after Symms left the office: “He just loves being a congressman.”

Indeed, he did.

I went to different places a few years later and was not in Idaho during his run for the Senate 1980. But I I had many occasions to converse with Steve when I returned to the state in late 1984 and became a political writer for the Post Register of Idaho Falls. I wasn’t always kind to Steve with my writings, but Steve never complained (perhaps much to my disappointment). If congeniality were his main weapon, then Steve took me to the woodshed at least a few times.

Access to Steve was not a problem, since he didn’t hold grudges. He always was willing – if not eager – to explain his positions on issues.

I had occasion to talk with Steve some time ago, and a “few minutes” turned into a lengthy conversation about politics (past and present) and life in general.

I was fascinated about his perspective of his campaign against Church. I’ve heard so many stories about how “bitter” and “nasty” that campaign was. As old-timers tell it, surrogates on both sides were quite active during that campaign. But for Steve, who typically was an upbeat campaigner, there was nothing dirty on his end. He had plenty of talking points during that campaign, including the need for “conservative leadership.” But as Steve told me, he had respect and admiration for Church, personally and politically. And no one was more surprised than Steve when he won that election.

One quality about Steve that I especially admire was that he knew when to quit. He was re-elected to the Senate in 1986, in a hard-fought battle with then-Gov. John Evans, but he knew that a second term would be his last. Maybe that explains why he paid little attention what I, or anyone else, wrote about him.

Steve was just 54 when he left the Senate, which is the prime age for many political careers. But Steve thought there was more to life than politics, and he didn’t want to spend his golden years in the Senate. He also thought that, after two terms, it was time to give someone else a chance to serve.

There was something that remained consistent about Steve, as a member of Congress and during my conversation with him. In both settings, he seemed to be quite comfortable with himself.

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

 

Close and closer

August 20, 2024

If things keep going the way they are now, we're going to have the closest Presidential election in decades.

Last week's well-respected national Pew poll showed 46% favoring Kamala Harris and 45% DJT.  A single percentage point difference with a margin of error of 3-4-percent.

Backers in both camps talk of a "breakout moment" but no one has been able to come up such.  We just keep waiting.

As if that weren't enough to keep worriers worrying, Trump has already begun beating the "election integrity" drums, threatening to challenge November results in each state.

Used to be - before things went all electronic - you voted, then went home to watch the results.  Now, you vote, go home and wait for the challenges to come in.

Elections are meant to pick winners.  And, they do.  But, the challenge process has been more active of late.  Challenges, in some places, have dragged the process out for weeks.

Most election rules allow for challenges to this-and-that.  And, for the most part, that's been a good thing.  Making sure results are accurate.  Keeping the voting process on the right track.

But, we've seen - all too many times - challenges that were "off the wall."  Just meant to stir things up rather than assure results were accurate and that the rules were followed.   That could be what we see nationally in November.  Challenges here and there just for the sake of challenging.

Some Trump's followers have already promised doing just that.  If they do, we'll be waiting for the final count long after November 5th.

Your scribe, long ago, hoped that Trump would wander off into the swamp - never to be heard from again.  Alas, that has not been the case.  His ever-present, dour countenance continues.  His disruptive presence will hang around no matter the outcome in November.

While Republicans have long produced a plethora of candidates in nearly all elections, Democrats have struggled to keep up.  Their bench of candidates-in-waiting has been noticeably thin.  Typically, in Idaho for example, nearly half the 2024 races for the Idaho Legislature have no Democrat opposition filed.

Oregon does somewhat better, even attracting a goodly number of third Party names on the ballot.  While Idaho is stridently Republican, Oregon leans more to a true two-party presence with a generally good mix to pick from.  There are more contested races, top to bottom.

Oregon, which has been considered "purple" for a long time, has been shifting slightly leftward and can reasonably be called a soft shade of "blue."  Idaho, at the same time, has been consistently "red."

How much faith one puts in polling differs considerably.  But, it really doesn't mean much this far out when candidates are still running neck-and-neck.  You'll see more meaningful results a couple of weeks before November five.

But, it's going to be really tight this time.  Which means you'll need more popcorn.  Better lay in a stock.

 

Undercutting Ukraine’s defense

August 19, 2024

Ukraine’s recent cross-border attack on Russia highlights a serious problem in its ability to defend against Vladimir Putin’s genocidal war. The U.S and its NATO allies recognized the grave threat that the war posed against their collective national security interests and correctly responded by supplying weapons to the beleaguered nation. Senator Jim Risch has repeatedly said that Putin’s war poses a serious threat to America’s national security. He told columnist Chuck Malloy: “If we abandon Ukraine and throw in the towel…there will be major consequences.” Getting out of Ukraine, “I believe, would set up the largest arms race that the planet has ever seen.”

 

Unfortunately, we have conditioned our aid on the unreasonable restriction that U.S. supplied equipment and munitions may not be deployed on Russian soil. We have gradually loosened the restriction, but have usually made known just how far Ukrainian operations can extend into Russian territory. The Russians have no such restrictions. We should lift all restrictions on our aid, allowing the Ukrainians to strike any targets in Russia that Putin uses to support his war. And, we should start supplying Ukraine with longer-range weaponry to take out those targets.

 

I’ve personally witnessed the folly of restrictions like we have imposed on Ukraine. While flying a nighttime recon mission in Vietnam on June 27, 1969, I observed a sizable North Vietnamese Army (NVA) unit just over the Cambodian border from Tay Ninh Province, where I was stationed. As we approached the border in a single-engine “Bird Dog” spotter plane, the pilot and I saw over a dozen lights just a stone’s throw over the border. When we got about half of a kilometer from the location, all the lights disappeared. As we moved away, they reappeared. We turned back toward the border a couple of times with the same result.

That, plus the fact that the NVA was in full control of the border areas, confirmed that it was an enemy unit. My heavy artillery battalion could have eliminated it in minutes, safeguarding the lives of U.S. troops and our South Vietnamese partners. The restrictions made that impossible.

The NVA unit need not have worried about disclosing its location because it was well known by all concerned that U.S. forces were strictly prohibited from firing upon communist forces located in Cambodia. The restriction gave the NVA a valuable advantage in the war, narrowing the dangers it had to plan against. It took good advantage of the policy, maintaining numerous facilities just over the border from Tay Ninh Province, knowing they could not be disturbed by American forces. The NVA could attack at will and simply return to their Cambodian sanctuary where they could not be touched.

It made no sense to let NVA forces know of our self-imposed combat restrictions during the Vietnam War. Nor does it make sense now to publicly impose unreasonable restrictions on U.S. aid to Ukraine. The policy has hamstrung the Ukrainian war effort and resulted in needless loss of lives. Ukraine’s cross-border attack has already caused chaos for Russian forces. Our removal of the aid restraint will dramatically expand the battlefield and complicate Putin’s efforts to subjugate the Ukrainian people.

The Ukrainians suffered many more needless casualties as a result of the unconscionable six-month delay by the U.S. House of Representatives in providing critical war supplies. Three Members of Idaho’s Congressional delegation understood the urgent need for the $61 billion aid package and voted for it.

Unfortunately, Rep. Russ Fulcher has not figured out that America is on Ukraine’s side. He supported the six-month delay and then voted against the aid when the issue was finally brought up for a vote on April 19. He and the extremists in control of the House did Putin a great favor by holding up the war supplies that the Ukrainians so desperately needed. The Republicans for Ukraine group gave Fulcher an “F–Very Poor” grade on its Ukraine report card as a result of his repeated refusal to support this important U.S. ally. Because he refuses to support the important national security interests of the United States, it is time for voters to call him home.

 

Reasons and ranked choice

Reasons and ranked choice

August 18, 2024

In November 2022, Democrat Tina Kotek was elected governor of Oregon with 47% of the vote. That was enough to win the general election, since her total was slightly higher than that of her leading opponent, Republican Christine Drazan.

She was able to win with less than a majority of support because other candidates siphoned off votes. But what might have happened if the rules said no one could be elected governor with less than half – 50% – of the vote?

What often happens in this case in places with ranked choice voting is that a runoff election is held between the top two contenders.

The runoff decision could be made in the general election if voters could select their second or third choices. That’s what Oregon Measure 117, setting up ranked-choice voting, would do. When voters pick their preferred candidate for governor or for other designated offices, they would also be able to choose a second-place choice.

The result could have been different – or not – had Oregon already had a ranked choice voting system in place when Kotek was elected. Oregon has enough close elections, which usually are won by Democrats, that you might expect Democrats to put up a brick wall against ranked choice voting. Not so: The large number of legislators who signed on in public support all are Democrats, and the large list of organizations backing it as well are Democratic-leaning, with Democratic lawmakers in the Legislature providing the votes to refer the measure to the ballot.

The measure would apply to national and statewide offices but it would exclude legislative races, which would still be won by the top vote-getter. It also would allow cities, counties, school districts and special districts to use ranked choice voting if they preferred.

Nevertheless, Oregon Republicans have generally opposed the measure.

One reason might be the situation in Idaho, where a ranked choice initiative on the ballot this year has been far more publicly controversial than it has in Oregon, causing a split within the Republican Party.

Idaho’s proposal, which made it to the ballot through grassroots organizing and signature gathering, would create ranked choice elections and also change the primary election system. Right now, only registered Republicans can vote in Republican primaries, while Democratic primaries are open to all. If the ranked choice measure were adopted, all primaries would be open.

Republicans in the Idaho Legislature oppose the proposition and so does the state party organization. Idaho Republican Chair Dorothy Moon, in arguing against the initiative, said, “Leftists have long been frustrated that Idaho is a conservative state. Having given up on changing hearts and minds with persuasive arguments, they now want to change the rules of the game. This is part of a long pattern of an insatiable thirst for power: mass mail-in ballots, gerrymandering, unmonitored drop boxes and even allowing noncitizens to vote.”

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador is also against it, but this week his attempt to squash it through the courts failed with the Idaho Supreme Court dismissing his petition on procedural grounds.

Ranked choice voting – and open primaries – has become one of the hottest political issues of the year in Idaho. But it is less a battle between Republicans and Democrats and more between the Trump-oriented Republicans who lead the state party organization, and more traditional and moderate Republicans. That latter group supports ranked choice voting.

The Oregon Republican Party’s opposition to ranked choice voting has been framed more as concern about the process than about an ideological or partisan advantage. A GOP newsletter in Oregon described it as “a snake oil sales pitch that sounds reasonable until you realize too late that you have been flim-flammed out of your vote and the public has been manipulated into a computer-derived configuration of the vote.”

Its main argument is that ranked choice voting is too complex and might exhaust voters with options. But that hasn’t been reported as a significant problem in Maine, Alaska or other jurisdictions that have tried it.

Ranked choice voting does have a bias: toward candidates who are at least generally acceptable to at least half of the voters. Candidates who appeal to the extremes are disadvantaged. The same would apply, generally, to political parties: If your candidates are likely to appeal to more people in any given area, they’ll do better. If not, they won’t.

In both Oregon and Idaho, Democrats figure their candidates will appeal to a broader spectrum of voters. But the Republicans – at least the Donald Trump-based Republicans like those leading the political parties in each state – sense they need to rely on a smaller support base, at least in smaller places.

Watch the election results on the ballot issue in both Oregon and Idaho to see who prevails.

This column and photo were originally published in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

The politics of nice and normal

August 17, 2024

Two things have struck me about the recent selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as the vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket.

The first was the guy’s resume before politics – high school social studies teacher and football coach, National Guard sergeant major, duck hunter, state college graduate. Walz won a Minnesota congressional delegation cooking contest with his hot dish recipe. If Walz is what he seems to be – and if he’s faking it he’s doing a really great job – he is a remarkably normal American, something increasingly rare in our politics.

[The original version of this column was filed before the Trump campaign attacked Walz’s military record. It’s hard to believe the attacks, or better yet smears – managed by the same guy who “Swift boated” Senator John Kerry in 2004 – will stick to Walz who, after all, spent 24 years in the Guard.]

The second was the obvious joy he brings to politics. Enough to remind you of Hubert Humphrey, another Minnesota vice president. Walz smiles a lot. He laughs. He seems to enjoy the personal interactions of retail politics. He’s the kind of politician who can “work the room,” engaging with total strangers and enjoy it. This, too, has become extremely rare.

I worked for a politician with the same characteristics. His name was Cecil Andrus, and I have always thought he was the most comfortable person in his own skin that I have ever known. Tim Walz reminds me of Cece Andrus, a politician who spent a career overachieving as a Democrat in a very conservative state.

Andrus, the four-term Idaho governor and secretary of the interior, never met a stranger. He loved, absolutely loved, the small personal interactions that can make or break a retail politician. If Andrus walked into a room and spotted a political adversary, someone he had a political difference with, he made a beeline for that person. He’d extend a hand and crack a joke, totally disarming the other person. It was a skill most of us lack, engaging with someone we disagree with.

People still tell me stories about the first time they met Andrus. They remember the details, and while he had a legendary ability to recall names and faces he wasn’t perfect, but most everyone thinks he was.

He could make a joke at his own expense. When was the last time you heard that from our national real estate developer and serial sexual abuser? Or literally anyone in national politics, come to think of it?

Andrus freely appropriated an old joke attributed to the great Arizona Congressman Mo Udall who related walking into an Iowa barber shop in 1976 while campaigning for president. “Good morning, I’m Mo Udall and I’m running for president,” Mo would say. And he would then relate the barber’s reaction: “I know, we were just laughing about that this morning.”

Who doesn’t like a guy who can tell that kind of joke on himself?

After riding a horse in the Eastern Idaho Fair parade, a supporter said to Andrus: “Boy, you got a warm reception.” His replay, “Yup, and some were waving all five fingers.”

The Republican ticket is populated by two angry sourpusses. Donald Trump is a raging insult machine. A man selling darkness. He’s running for one reason: to stay out of jail. His running mate is a shape shifting 40-year-old who reinforces the negative. America is going to hell. Dark skinned people are taking your jobs. Meanness is a virtue. Angry cat ladies are ruining the country.

There are two kinds of political campaigns: campaigns built on anger, grievance and destroying the opponent and campaigns centered on hope and the future.

I suspect Kamala Harris chose the former high school teacher from Nebraska because he doesn’t display any grievance. Like Cece Andrus he isn’t a hater.

J.D. Vance, the GOP vice presidential candidate, went to Yale, made a bundle working as a venture capitalist in California and said he despised Trump before he didn’t. Tim Walz went to Chadron State College, taught school in Alliance, Nebraska – I know that place and it is conservative and rural – and later coached a high school football team to the Minnesota state championship.

What do those who have observed him up close say about Vance? “I don’t know that I can disrespect someone more than J. D. Vance,” Romney told journalist McKay Coppins, who pegs Vance an opportunistic phony. “How do you sit next to him at lunch?”

As Aaron Sanderford wrote in the Nebraska Examiner, “Walz coached linebackers and signaled the defense at Alliance High School under coach Jeff Tomlin.”

“Tomlin said he remembers Walz as an amazing coach and social studies teacher. He called Walz ‘an ordinary guy with the extraordinary ability to have a vision for who he is and who he wants to be.’

“He was an exceptional teacher, one of the best I’ve been around,” Tomlin said.

The Republican campaign has only two gears: negative and nasty. It’s not morning in America, it’s a vision of a shithole country, populated by vile people who, as Trump said this week, “want this country to go communist immediately, if not sooner.”

That’s preposterous Trumpian BS, a convicted felon and Putin apologist telling the rest of us about law and order. The Republican campaign will continue to disintegrate day-by-day with Trump, if it is possible, growing more and more unhinged.

One reason Walz will be so effective over the next three months is that, again like Andrus, he’s both decent and tough. He can make a joke, as he did while trolling fellow Governor Kristi Noem, she of South Dakota puppy killing fame, and never mention the subject of the jab. Walz posted a photo of his own dog taking a treat and saying “show me you didn’t shoot your dog and dump it in a gravel pit. I’ll go first.” Noem wasn’t mentioned. Everyone knew. Noem, of course, wanted to be Trump’s vice president and, as if to compensate for not making it, immediately labeled Walz “radical.”

Another inviolate rule: Politics is a matter of addition. Tim Walz is additive to the Democratic ticket. We’ll be talking about the high school course he developed on the Holocaust, while Vance is still answering questions about calling Trump “America’s Hitler.”

Hope is additive. Grievance is exhausting. We’ll see soon enough if America wants a future of hope or something much darker.

 

Steve Symms

Steve Symms

August 16, 2024

Some people in politics remake the political reality around them. Others jump into the whitewater and run with it, sometimes rapidly, and sometimes successfully.

Steve Symms, one of the central figures in the premier Idaho political contest of the last century, who served in Congress from Idaho for two decades and who died in Virginia on August 8, falls clearly into the second category.

It might not obviously seem that way at first, to look at the effect his rise had.

His political ascent in Idaho was quick, stunning and impactful.

Symm’s first candidacy was for the U.S. House - he didn’t work his way up the steps like fellow Republican Jim McClure, who started as a small-county prosecutor and state senator - and the effect of his races and time in the House was to secure the Idaho first district as solidly Republican. On the front end of his time in the House, the district was plausibly competitive and had a somewhat centrist-right feel. Afterward and since (and despite three Democratic wins there in the last half-century), it has become not just Republican but fiercely so. His successor in the House, Larry Craig, had sounded like a centrist during his time as an Idaho legislator; from his 1980 race to follow Symms he read almost identically from the same script.

In Idaho politics Symms today may be best known as the Republican who finally defeated four-term Democratic Senator Frank Church, a major figure in the state and in the nation too: A candidate for president just four years earlier. Since that election, no Democrat has won a Senate seat from Idaho. The election was a political watershed.

For all that, and for all that individualism was an important part of his ideology, Symms was very much part of the tide and part of his group.

When he first won in 1972, he was part of an emerging collection of Canyon County libertarians (former Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter was in the circle), and seemed at first to enter the race more with the idea of spreading his faction’s free-market and ideological message than with any realistic idea of winning. But Symms turned out to be an excellent retail campaigner, among the best Idaho has seen, and in the primary his Republican opponent had a flawed campaign: The cheerful fresh face won. In the general election he benefited from the strong organizational work McClure, who was also on the ballot for senator, had led over the previous six years. Symms always campaigned energetically, and people liked him, but he broke no real new ground in his eight years. During his time in the House, he even seemed to edge back a bit on some of his earliest stances (on abortion, for example), getting more in line with the Republican caucus.

In 1980, running against Church, Symms had the benefit of an extremely well-run campaign (campaign manager Phil Reberger long has been regarded as one of the best Idaho has seen). But that wasn’t all: National conservative groups weighed in too, scorching the earth against Church long before Symms formally even announced as a candidate.

And not only that: This was the year of the Reagan Revolution, led by the soon to be president whose popularity approached godhood in Idaho. Symms was very much swimming with the tide. This is clearer in hindsight than it was at the time, because Church was widely popular in Idaho; had won decisive re-elections in 1974 against one of Symms’ closest political allies (Bob Smith) and in 1968 against another sitting U.S. representative, George Hansen, who like Symms was a terrific retail campaigner.

A less talented candidate couldn’t have beaten Church, but Symms’ political strength was limited. Six years later, as an incumbent, Symms nearly lost his re-election to Democratic Governor John Evans. And, after personal issues emerged into public view, he opted not to run again in 1992.

Right time, right place.

 

Harris and foreign policy

August 14, 2024

Vice President Kamala Harris may be the Democratic Party’s brightest star at the moment, but the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee says he’s not impressed with her resume when it comes to foreign policy.

“What has she done in the three and a half years as vice president? The only thing that people can point to is that she was named as the border czar,” said Idaho Sen. Jim Risch, who has been on the committee under three administrations. “They are now running away from that, saying she was not the border czar. But she was supposed to straighten that mess out. It did not get better at all; it got worse. That’s a foreign-relations thing, no question about it, and she was a total failure.”

Risch says illegal border crossings of 10 million or more a year is hardly a success story, “and that’s not just the border with Mexico. We have lots and lots of other foreign relations issues and, so far, I have not seen her produce anything in foreign relations, let alone any level of success.”

Harris and others have countered that a bipartisan bill aimed at solving the border crisis was in the works, only to be nixed by former President Trump and Republicans who feared that resolving the border issue would give Democrats an advantage in the fall elections. Risch tells a different story.

“Many people have bitten on that bait,” he said. “But if you drill down on the bill that they are talking about, the bill solves nothing. One Republican signed onto that bill, which does not make it a bipartisan bill. It allowed 2,500 illegal crossings into this country every day. I would not have voted for that. I would not vote for a bill that allowed even one person to cross into the country illegally every day.”

And even if it were the perfect piece of legislation, Risch said, “Why would you need a bill at all?”

It’s no surprise that Risch favors Trump policies over Biden-Harris, but the stakes go beyond partisan politics. The Idaho senator, who had a strong working relationship with Trump during his four years in the White House, could play a key role in the shaping of foreign policy in a second Trump term. Such prospects would not exist under a Harris administration.

Risch says he has no doubt that Trump would be superior to Harris in the handling of foreign policy.

“He says, ‘America First,’ which makes all those on the left bristle. Well, if you don’t want America first, who do you want first? The job of the president of the United States is to make America first,” Risch says. “The result of that is what you saw in Trump’s foreign policy. Can you argue about some of it? Sure, you can. But Trump had the unique ability to frustrate foreign actors, especially the autocrats that you should worry about, because they never knew what he was going to do.”

Risch says Biden’s administration has been plagued by a series of wrong turns, which includes the “embarrassing” withdrawal from Afghanistan. “The move to get out as he did cost the lives of 13 Marines and who knows how many private citizens. That tells you the story right there.”

But his critique of the Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy doesn’t stop there. Recently, Risch released a report analyzing the administration’s policies on China – with the unflattering title, “One step forward, two steps back.” Risch also offered a blueprint for what needs to be done with China in the years to come.

“In November, 2020, I published a report on the importance of the United States and our European partners working together to counter an increasing confrontational China,” he said. “Nearly four years later, China’s efforts to undermine prosperity, security and good governance in every region of the globe continue to be what I consider the most important foreign policy challenge of our time. If we are to succeed in confronting China, the next administration must do more than the Biden-Harris administration has over the last four years.”

It’s a good guess that Risch’s comprehensive report and blunt critique is not on the president’s or vice president’s late-night reading list. But he could have a much friendlier audience with Trump back in the White House.

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

 

Worth a second look

August 13, 2024

We, here in the Northwest, are not considered "battleground states" for political purposes.  Especially Oregon and Washington.

As such, we seldom get a first-hand opportunity to "press the flesh" with national candidates.  We have only the "telly" to size them up.

Still, with the near-constant media coverage, we've had a pretty good look at what's being offered.  Given the clear differences in candidates, I suspect nearly all of us have made our choices - mentally speaking.

So, the constant media coverage has sort of flowed over us without getting a lot of attention.  We've sort of put the whole mishmash "on hold" and gone about our lives.

But, the current national campaign is like no other in my long life.  There's not been such clear choices.  Ever.  But - every so often - one of the main characters does - or says - something so "out-in-right-field" it brings us up short.

Case in point.  GOP VP candidate J.D. Vance.  In a private email to Trump, he gave this advice.

"We should just seize the administrative state for our own purposes...fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our own people (Trump loyalists)....and we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country."

That should scare the Hell out of anyone who reads or hears such a quote.  A GOP candidate for Vice President on a national ticket.  If ever there was a call to a dictatorship in this country, that's it.  Loud and clear.  You can't mistake the intent of those words.  And they are not - repeat - not taken out of context.  Vance has "owned" the quote!

I repeat.  "The current national campaign is like none other in my long life."  No national candidate - within my ear shot - has said or intimated such a thing.  None.  Ever.

Don't mistake the meaning here.  It's not to automatically endorse or otherwise encourage voting for candidates of the other Party.  No, Sir.  The quote is being brought to your attention in the spirit of having an informed electorate.

We hear a lot about "Project 2025," a sort of "manifesto" produced by some 140 conservative Republicans.  Vance wrote the forward for the final product so he well-knows what's in it, though he has repeatedly professed no knowledge of the undertaking.

Vance's participation in that work - and the quoted statement above - should be taken as evidence of his political persuasion.  A window into what can be expected should the GOP ticket win in November.

The office of Vice President is often given little notice because the occupant in any administration usually lives in the shadow of the Presidency.  Only occasionally, as in the cases of Gerald Ford and Lyndon Johnson, have emergency circumstances thrust the V.P. into that higher position.

Should Donald Trump become President, he will be the oldest person to do so.  While his health is apparently good for a man his age, every day added makes that age more of a risk factor.  As such, the office of Vice President takes on new and important meaning.  Add to that - Trump has already had a brush with death at the hands of a shooter at one of his campaign appearances.

While marking up your ballot this year, you might want to look at the office of Vice President a little longer than usual.  Give it just a little more examination.

We will.  At our house.

 

Blood in the water

August 12, 2024

Those promoting schemes to use Idaho taxpayer money to pay for private and religious schooling appear to be gearing up for a decisive push in the 2025 legislative session. A variety of out-of-state, dark-money groups helped to defeat several home-grown Idaho legislators who were dedicated to improving Idaho’s public schools. Those defeats may have frightened Idaho’s Governor and Superintendent of Schools to buy into the schemers’ plans to raid the Idaho treasury to benefit private and religious schools.

Several extremist groups poured about $1.5 million into the closed GOP primary this year, targeting reasonable legislators who opposed using tax revenues for private and religious schooling. Several outstanding legislators who stood up for public education were defeated in nasty, truth-deprived campaigns. With the apparent defeat of about 6 opponents of voucher programs, those wanting to saddle taxpayers with the cost of private education seem to be smelling blood in the water on the issue.

One young op-ed writer has suggested that debate over school vouchers was the cause of those defeats, saying that “voters rewarded pro-school choice candidates.” He specifically pointed to the defeat of House Education Committee chair Julie Yamamoto of Caldwell. There was no principled debate in her election contest. Yamamoto was defeated by a constant drumbeat of falsehoods and negative claims over the course of a year. Nasty pamphlets distributed by paid door-knockers falsely claimed Yamamoto supported porn in school libraries. Additionally, her opponent was an Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) darling and we all know the IFF wants to do away with public schools.

The other public school supporters were defeated by scurrilous campaigns and also by the fact that the closed GOP primary strongly favors the most extreme candidates.

Speaking of the IFF, one of its go-to favorites, Branden Durst, published an op-ed supporting almost every variety of taxpayer-funded private and religious schooling. We may remember how Durst almost destroyed the West Bonner County School District last year. The school patrons rose up and tossed him out.

Chris Cargill, the head of the IFF’s sister group, the Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC), was also out with an op-ed touting private education. It should be noted that both organizations are part of the far-right State Policy Network, which is funded by dark-money interests throughout the country. MSPC is part of the infamous Project 2025, which Donald Trump says is too radical for him.

Cargill claims that it is just fine under the Idaho Constitution to force taxpayers to fund private and religious schools. He is dead wrong. The Idaho Constitution specifically prohibits state money from being used to support religious education. The U.S. Supreme Court has provided school voucher proponents with a backdoor around the prohibition, but the backdoor only works if a government decides to provide program support for private schools generally.

According to Chief Justice John Roberts: “A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” So, a state can refuse to spend taxpayer money on religious schooling by simply refusing to subsidize any private schools. Idaho lawmakers are well aware of that fact and will assuredly face a lawsuit in court if they try to use the backdoor approach.

Some of our state officials appear to have been spooked by the defeat of several voucher opponents and have weakened their stance against throwing public funds into private schools. Debbie Chritchfield, Idaho’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, has hinted that she and Governor Little are working on a voucher plan. The Governor has said he would only support a plan that “does not draw resources away from public schools.” No such plan has ever been invented so, unless he breaks his word, he will oppose the pipe dream of the voucher cheerleaders.

Idahoans know that public schools are the heart and sole of most communities in the state. I don’t believe they will buy the voucher schemes being hyped by IFF, MSPC and Project 2025, but that is a story for another time.