[
In his letter to the editor appearing in Sunday’s Coeur d’Alene Press, writer David B. Larsen made a conditional indirect threat. Even the casual reader can reasonably conclude that Larsen’s letter was written to intimidate city council candidate Jim Brannon into dropping his lawsuit contesting the results of the November 3 election. Equally offensive, it was also written to intimidate others who might dare challenge incumbents for public office in Coeur d’Alene.
[
The generic form of a conditional threat is, “Unless you take this action or fail to take this action, then this adverse consequence will befall you.” Clearly, that is the message Larsen is trying to send. The threat is indirect versus direct, because Larsen says “future employers” may act adversely to Brannon’s interests if he fails to drop the lawsuit. In contrast, if Larsen had said, “Unless you drop the lawsuit, I will see to it you never work in this town again,” that would have been a conditional direct threat.
The conditional indirect threat is contained in this language from Larsen’s letter:
I suggest to you that it is time to move on. The citizens have spoken/not spoken so please accept the results. I say this not simply because I favor Mr. Kennedy’s re-election, but because I fear your continued efforts at overturning the election may result in making it more difficult for you to find meaningful employment in the future. You might be perceived as being a disgruntled individual thereby making future employers more cautious about hiring you.
But if Larsen was truly concerned only about Brannon’s future employment prospects, he would have called Brannon or written a personal and private letter to him. Instead, Larsen chose to publish it in “… an open letter to Jim Brannon,” in the Coeur d’Alene Press. It is this public pronouncement by Larsen that suggests he intends for his letter to serve as a warning, a conditional indirect threat, to future candidates as well as to Brannon. The “you” in Larsen’s language is intended not just for Brannon but for the larger audience of potential candidates.
Larsen’s message to Jim Brannon was unmistakable: Back off on the election contest lawsuit … or else. Was this an attempt to intimidate Brannon and other future electors? You bet. Intimidation is alive and well in Coeur d’Alene. The question is, how long will the people in Coeur d’Alene be willing to allow intimidation like this to continue?
I don’t know this Larsen guy so his letter is meaningless to me, but it did read like a subtle misguided warning.
This area can take, take, take, and take. But, what the “takers” fail to recognize is when you have nothing, you have nothing to lose, thus you become stronger and you no longer fear those who want to intimidate. Surviving is an art form and some of us are really good at it, because we have lots of practice. 🙂
Granted, this stuff can get ugly. When I read comments about Brannon going to church and he needed bodyguards, I was a bit unsettled because CDA community life was actually scripting into a real life ‘Soprano’ drama, but unfortunately, it’s not fiction. When it comes to real life, the only thing worth fighting for is your moral integrity because it gives you peace.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 13, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Stebbijo,
It is Jim Brannon’s moral integrity that distinguishes him from Mike Kennedy and the others on the city council. As far as I know, Jim never needed any bodyguards at church or anywhere else.
Comment by Bill — December 13, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Nice, the Democrat Party at it’s best!
Comment by Pariah — December 13, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
Well Bill, all you say is true but Larson is irreverent so what he says makes little difference. Such a sophomoric attempt to influence public opinion. He states that Brannon’s GOP base didn’t turn out to help him. Neither did Kennedy’s Democrats turn out to help him. A real deep thinker, that Larson. However it was nice of him to express his concern about Brannon’s future. I’m so moved. No wonder he lost at two attempts to win a legislative seat in Boise.
Comment by Gary Ingram — December 13, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Yeah, I guess he is also irreverent, but I intended to say he is irrelevant.
Comment by Gary Ingram — December 13, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
Didn’t he pretend to educate children for money?
Comment by Pariah — December 13, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Two-time loser Larsen refers to the low voter turnout in his ‘conditional threat letter’– which actually sounded like some florist or interior decorator dude deciding to get weally ANGRY!
I posted my theory why turnout is so low earlier but I’ll repost it ’cause I think it fits. Larsen and the Dems specifically DON’T want higher voter turnout because they are afraid of the outcome.
Here ’tis-
“I’ve wondered about the low percentage of voters in each election for years and I’ve recently had a ‘road to damascus’ moment.
Here’s my theory- Jury duty is determined how? By voter lists. The ordeal of jury duty is loathed by most citizens for the following reasons: it takes them away from jobs and family; it is a deep cost to them while they watch attorneys prattle and prance at $100-500 per hour; it shows that the entire system is simply there to subsidize the American Trial Lawyers Association; it has nothing to do with ‘Justice’ and they realize that the process has nothing to do with ‘good citizenship.’
Why not use the federal census and/or DMV records as well as voting records? Because then the ‘jury of peers’ would be more realistic and elections would be less “controlled.”
Every so often the term ‘tort reform’ is bandied about with no follow thru. Why not legal system reform?
Some suggestions: reduce the number of jurors to 5. Pay them what they’re paid at their day jobs. Put a 20% charge on all awards to pay for “the system”. Raise filling fees dramatically (but have a reserve for qualified “poor” people).
Allow the “peers” (aka jurors) to submit questions to the judge anout the case. Allow jurors to see any info about the case they want. Allow the jurors to determine if the loser should pay for costs (this would rapidly shrink frivolous lawsuits) and use the afformentioned federal census and/or DMV records as well as voting records.
These are just a few. Any others?”
Comment by Zapatista — December 13, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Bill,
No doubt it is Jim Brannon’s moral integrity that keeps him in the running and many of you. That is why you are still here and fighting for what is right.
There was a comment some posts ago that made a remark about Jim needing bodyguards when he went to church – I guess Mike and Jim go to the same church? That is what I drew my thoughts from; I did not mean to imply that he actually had real bodyguards. I doubt if things would ever get that nasty here in CDA.
Because, I do not “mix” with many of you, what I read may be taken a bit differently even it is really just meant as a poke. However, with that said, veiled warnings in the press should not be taken lightly – because some veiled warnings or in this case ‘Letter to the Editor’ are for real and can get to you, psychologically. But then, I just got through watching Angels and Demons, so maybe it’s just the after effects of the movie getting to me. 🙂
Comment by Stebbijo — December 13, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
It’s interesting how this irrelevant two time monumental loser keeps weighing in on local issues. I remember seeing him at a candidates forum at the Mica Flats Grange a couple of years ago. His condescension and arrogance were on full display. Typical indoctrinator, errrr, educator. The local Democrat party should pay him to stay home, he’s kinda’ like the N. Idaho Joe Biden.
Comment by Will Penny — December 13, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
“….he’s kinda’ like the N. Idaho Joe Biden.”
Hahaha…so true! Hadn’t made the connection before but that’s dead on!
Comment by Zapatista — December 13, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
The incumbents retain portfolio of pocket votes. In every election they are assured of “X” number of votes regardless of their past performance or the issues. The same incumbents render the voting process inconvenient and cumbersome to intentionally impede voter turnout. My greatest disappointment during this election was the election day edition from the CdA Press that failed to detail the polling locations. If the investigation prompted by Brannon suit is diligently pursued I believe there’s going to be a number of bats fleeing the neighborhood. Get ready for the amazed surprised responses. “Oh, I did not know that.” I seriously believe that in upwards of 25% of the incumbent votes are flawed in some manner.
Comment by Wallypog — December 14, 2009 @ 5:01 am
Stebbijo,
When amoral, dishonest people want an equally amoral and dishonest candidate to be installed in an elected or appointed position where s/he can use public money to enrich them and their business partners and relatives, you should never assume that “…things would ever get that nasty here in CDA.” The extent of public corruption is determined by the availability of unaccountable or sloppily administered public money, not geographic placement. The environment that allows and encourages public corruption is fostered by the lack of diligent, aggressive news reporting and a public unwilling to believe there could possibly be thieves among those who have lived all their lives here. The attitude that people who appear to give generously are somehow entitled to steal from the public purse fertilizes public corruption.
Comment by Bill — December 14, 2009 @ 6:43 am
Bill, you say it perfectly. I hope the elections lawsuit changes things and puts the spotlight where it needs to be and I facetiously meant,” I doubt if things would ever get that nasty here in CDA”, kind of like Jim Brannon needing bodyguards. I am very thankful that Brannon has gone forward and is challenging the election and he was smart enough to know that a recount would have been a waste of time. I also think that he has the right lawyer, who also believes in getting things done right.
Comment by Stebbijo — December 14, 2009 @ 9:38 am