Archive for the '2008 election' Category

On Larry Grant’s exit

Published 10 April 2008 2008 election , Idaho 1st Congressional District , Larry Grant , Walt Minnick 4 Comments
Tags: , ,

I’m in the process of opening a new insurance office in the Boise area (and consequently neglecting my blogly duties, sorry). Today I was up there signing some papers and took the opportunity to meet with 2nd District Congressional candidate Debbie Holmes, who I’m serving as campaign treasurer for. She broke the news to me that Larry Grant had dropped out of the 1st CD race.

I was stunned. This had all the makings of a clean and competitive primary that could have drawn a lot of attention to Idaho Democrats. Nevertheless, I understand Larry’s point of view.

“There isn’t ten cents worth of difference between my view of the world and Walt Minnick’s,” Grant said in his withdrawal statement today. “That’s why we need to be working together to beat Bill Sali, not spending valuable time and resources in a contentious primary.”

I have a great deal of respect for Larry Grant. Although I resolved to personally stay neutral in the 1st CD primary, Grant’s commitment to grassroots politics and willingness to personally address matters in the blogosphere in a manner that few candidates in either party would dare attempt doesn’t go unnoticed. A few months ago I declared over at 43SB that “Larry Grant is not a wuss”. That statement is as true today as it ever was.

That said, the choice in the 1st CD is now as plain as can be: help defeat one of the most obscenely statist Republicans in the nation and support Walt Minnick with fervor. As for Grant, I hope to see him around again very soon, maybe even in a race that I can vote for him here in Twin Falls.

Pro-liberty points against McCain

Published 28 March 2008 2008 election 0 Comments
Tags: , , ,

I’m largely reduced to cut-and-paste after a mishap yesterday which has my arm in a sling for a couple days. No broken bones; I’ll be OK.

The DFC’s Mike O’Mara put together a few points on John McCain’s voting record of interest to the small-l crowd:

- Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
- Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
- Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
- Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
- Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
- Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)

-Rated 25% by APHA, indicating an anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
- Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
- The League of Conservation Voters (the self-described “independent political voice for the environment”) gave McCain a score of 0% for the 110th Congress, First Session.

Gravelanche warning?

Published 25 March 2008 2008 election 2 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

Tonight the Democratic presidential race really is down to two. Presidential also-ran Mike Gravel joined the Libertarian Party today (hat tip: Freedom Democrats). Democrats may not care. Democrats may not have to care.

But they might. The potential is there - albeit a remote one - for him to be a true spoiler in November.

While Gravel’s campaign to date has been at times, um … bizarre, the former US Senator from Alaska would give the LP ticket a boost of credibility that the likes of Steve Kubby, Mary Ruwart, Christine Smith, Wayne Allyn “Millionaire Republican” Root or even former US Rep. Bob Barr couldn’t even come close to. Gravel’s anti-war credentials are as strong as anyone’s. He’s a solid supporter of LGBT rights, Social Security and universal health care. He’s also better known than any of the current LP candidates, by far.

A few things have to happen. First, to embrace Gravel the Libertarians would have to shed their Ron Paul-fanboy and “Trekkies Against the Post Office” reputation. While I think doing so would do them a world of good with or without Gravel, I don’t see it happening.

Second, Democrats would have to nominate Hillary Clinton. The “small-l” libertarian element out there has been warming up to Barack Obama quite a bit, and like a lot of other factions in our “big tent,” would be very unlikely to abandon him regardless of what happens elsewhere.

But I know a quite a few libertarian Democrats who, if found in a position where Hillary and Gravel are on the November ballot (but not Obama), would give the erstwhile Alaskan more than a second look. If you need a new reason to support Obama, I think you’ve found one.

I don’t think this is a particularly likely scenario, but I do think it’s more likely than another Ralph Nader-inspired fiasco.

Having been there and done that myself on the whole third party bit, frankly I’m disappointed in Gravel. While our loss is the Libertarian Party’s gain, I don’t think he’s going to find what he’s looking for there.

Channeling Howard Cosell

Published 25 March 2008 2008 election 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , ,

Back in 1964, heavyweight boxing champion Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali to reflect his affiliation with the Nation of Islam, and later more mainstream Sunni Islam. Many in the sports media of the day initially resisted referring to the boxer as Ali, with the notable exception of the late Howard Cosell. It was only after the lead that Cosell and a handful of others took that the rest of the sporting world began to follow suit.

Cosell’s gesture was an admirable and important one, and reflected his conviction that an individual had the right to choose his or her own name based on his or her beliefs. On that same token, I believe we should respect the right of the former Melvin Richardson, a Letha farmer and conservative activist, to change his name to Pro-Life.

If you follow Idaho politics at all you know Pro-Life, a former Constitution Party member turned independent, is one of the 13 candidates for our open United States Senate seat. As reported by both NewWest and Ridenbaugh Press, the Idaho State Senate unanimously passed legislation stating that any candidate who had “changed their name and has changed their name to words that convey or attempt to convey a political message” may at the discretion of the secretary of state have his name appended on the ballot with something to the effect of “A person, formerly known as …”. The bill is widely expected to become law in very short order.

This is oddly reminiscent of the 1979 San Francisco mayoral election, which featured candidates named Sister Boom Boom and Jello Biafra - the latter of Dead Kennedys fame - who finished third and fourth respectively out of 10 contenders. In response, the City of San Fransisco passed a resolution that candidates could only run in municipal elections under their legal names. This I think is reasonable, since neither Sister Boom Boom (a.k.a. Jack Fertig) nor Jello Biafra (a.k.a. Eric Reed Boucher) legally changed their names, and their campaigns were largely pranks, especially Biafra’s.

This situation, however, is a little different. Pro-Life did legally change his name, and while I question his campaign strategy overall, I don’t believe he’s doing this as a prank. I certainly don’t have a problem with measures designed to provide objective facts to voters. I generally agree with Randy Stapilus’ assessment that, “If ballots should be clear and simple, and they should be, the added bit of information (Secretary of State Ben) Ysursa calls for ought to help.”

But my support of this is guarded. Rumblings that this is politically motivated, lest Republicans split the vote with one-issue independents, aren’t without merit. It is my hope that this doesn’t go any further. Pro-Life has the right to appear on the November ballot as Pro-Life, either with or without the clarification. Like Howard Cosell did for Muhammad Ali, for the sake of individual rights - and not because of anything else Pro-Life stands for - we should support him on this matter.

Latest

RSS

Archives

Categories