Comments on: Channeling Howard Cosell http://blogforidaho.com/2008/03/25/channeling-howard-cosell/ Official Blog of the Idaho Democratic Freedom Caucus Wed, 07 Jan 2009 06:11:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: W. Lane Startin http://blogforidaho.com/2008/03/25/channeling-howard-cosell/#comment-11 W. Lane Startin Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:12:16 +0000 http://blogforidaho.wordpress.com/?p=12#comment-11 As far as this particular piece of legislation goes, I could take it or leave it. It passes the legitimacy test by the absolute slimmest of margins. Whether or not you're pro-life yourself is immaterial here (I happen to not only be pro-choice, but pro-choice, adopted and born after Roe v. Wade). If someone wants to rename themselves Pro-Life, and goes through the legal process necessary to do it, that person should be called Pro-Life. If Pro-Life runs for office, that name should be the primary identifier on the ballot. It appears that's what's happening here, just with the "formerly known as" disclaimer appended to it. As far as this particular piece of legislation goes, I could take it or leave it. It passes the legitimacy test by the absolute slimmest of margins.

Whether or not you’re pro-life yourself is immaterial here (I happen to not only be pro-choice, but pro-choice, adopted and born after Roe v. Wade). If someone wants to rename themselves Pro-Life, and goes through the legal process necessary to do it, that person should be called Pro-Life. If Pro-Life runs for office, that name should be the primary identifier on the ballot. It appears that’s what’s happening here, just with the “formerly known as” disclaimer appended to it.

]]> By: liberaltarian http://blogforidaho.com/2008/03/25/channeling-howard-cosell/#comment-9 liberaltarian Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:55:52 +0000 http://blogforidaho.wordpress.com/?p=12#comment-9 My own take on this issue is: it just goes to show how dumb the elitist Republican leadership beleives their own constituancy to be. How true or not this may be, I won't comment on here. I will say, though, that every ballot I've ever read clearly states "Vote for one," and the blessing of literacy is not confined to those of us with a public education. It insults the intelligence of the Idaho Voter to imply that if we were to see a "position" we agree with as a name on a list of candidates' names, we would unknowingly spoil our ballots. No, the real motive here is using their position of power to make it difficult for someone else to freely express themselves and to dare to run for office against them. For the record, I completely disagree with Mr. Pro-Life, and do personaly think it is a pretty silly thing to change one's name to a position. But it isn't the State's job to regulate names. My own take on this issue is: it just goes to show how dumb the elitist Republican leadership beleives their own constituancy to be. How true or not this may be, I won’t comment on here. I will say, though, that every ballot I’ve ever read clearly states “Vote for one,” and the blessing of literacy is not confined to those of us with a public education. It insults the intelligence of the Idaho Voter to imply that if we were to see a “position” we agree with as a name on a list of candidates’ names, we would unknowingly spoil our ballots. No, the real motive here is using their position of power to make it difficult for someone else to freely express themselves and to dare to run for office against them. For the record, I completely disagree with Mr. Pro-Life, and do personaly think it is a pretty silly thing to change one’s name to a position. But it isn’t the State’s job to regulate names.

]]>