Should Idaho’s capital city Boise change its name to Clowntown? If so, Idaho’s Governor Clement L. Otter may have earned the opportunity to be its first mayor under the new name.
According to the Idaho Statesman, Otter insisted that candidates Walt Bayes and Harley Brown be allowed to participate in the Republican gubernatorial primary election candidates debate with him and his principal challenger, state Senator Russ Fulcher.
By many accounts, the result was a debacle rather than a debate.
The debate (or whatever it was) was presented by the Idaho Press Club, the League of Women Voters, and Idaho Public Television. The presenters had established a debate format and rules which the participants presumably agreed to follow. Though it might not have been obvious from the participation in the debate, the presenters had also established criteria for choosing the candidates who would be invited to participate. But as the Idaho Statesman implied in its article linked above and as candidate Fulcher alleged specifically in a statement posted on his campaign website after the debate, the presenters may have disregarded the eligibility criteria when they allowed one or both of candidates Bayes and Brown to participate.
OpenCdA has sent inquiries to both the Fulcher campaign and to Idaho Public Television (IPT).
Of IPT, we asked:
In a statement on his campaign website, gubernatorial candidate Sen. Russ Fulcher stated, “Although they did not meet the debate’s qualifying criteria, governor Otter demanded inclusion of two perennial candidates, Walt Bayes and Harley Brown, as a contingency of his participation in the only debate he would agree to.”
1. Did candidate Bayes and candidate Brown meet each of the “Criteria for choosing candidates in the Idaho Debates” as those were stated at http://idahoptv.org/elections/2014/rules.cfm?
2. If either or both candidates Bayes and Brown did not meet each of the “Criteria …,” then why was the noncompliant candidate(s) allowed to participate in the gubernatorial debate? Was Governor Otter’s participation in the debate contingent on an invitation to participate being extended to either or both candidates Bayes and Brown?
3. If the decision was made to invite and allow participation by either candidates Bayes and Brown and if that decision was made contrary to the “Criteria…,” please identify by name and organizational affiliation the person(s) consulted in the decision and the person(s) who made the decision.
Of Sen. Fulcher’s campaign, we asked:
Idaho Public Television’s website listed the “Criteria for choosing candidates in the Idaho Debates.” Which of these criteria did each of the two candidates Bayes and Brown not meet? Since the debate was presented by the Idaho Press Club, the League of Women Voters, and Idaho Public Television, who at each of these organizations agreed to waive those requirements?
Their responses, if any, will be an addendum to this post.
Hi Bill, I haven’t seen one bit of coverage in the CdA Press, have you? The Idaho Statesman, down is Boise has had at least two articles, as you note, but the Press is silent.
This is a big deal because Idaho is being ridiculed all over the internet and most probably on late night TV.
Comment by mary — May 16, 2014 @ 8:45 am
Otter has to go. He’ll win the primary. If Fulcher supporters can join Democrats in the Fall by voting for Balukoff perhaps we can get rid of this embarrassment.
Comment by Dan Gookin — May 16, 2014 @ 9:09 am
Mary,
No, but since the Governor is ultra-cozy with the Hagadone Corporation, I wouldn’t expect anything substantive from the HagaPress.
I’m more concerned about Sen. Fulcher’s allegation that the presenters (Idaho Press Club, League of Women Voters of Idaho, and Idaho Public Television) waived participation criteria to secure the Governor’s participation in the debate. If Fulcher’s allegation is factual, then the presenters as well as Governor Otter, Moderator Melissa Davlin (IPT), and alleged journalists/panelists Betsy Russell (Spokesman-Review), Dan Popkey (Idaho Statesman), and Aaron Kunz (IPT) had an obligation to disclose that fact to the viewers.
Comment by Bill — May 16, 2014 @ 9:15 am
It really is a circus – but our own press is doing everything they can to protect their copyright. LOL.
“Reichert said network executives will meet Friday to discuss whether to take steps to protect their copyright. Reichert said a lawyer is mulling the matter but his initial reaction “was that most of the articles and links seem to be for news purposes, broadly defined, and we have a tradition of not blocking those kinds of things.”
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/15/3186178/idahos-goofy-guvs-debate-could.html?sp=%2F99%2F101%2F1272%2F#storylink=cpy
Comment by Stebbijo — May 16, 2014 @ 10:34 am
Dan,
I’m intrigued by a few things Balukoff has said. For example, his candidacy announcement on December 3, 2013, said, “As a businessman and community leader, Balukoff believes that 20 years of one-party rule has created a pay-to-play culture in Idaho government and has led to poor policies that harm the state’s economy.” In the 14 years we’ve lived here, I can’t remember a single statewide elected official in Idaho publicly acknowledging the existence of “a pay to play culture in Idaho government.” Since he was at one time a CPA (his license lapsed in 1994), I presume he knows that the phrase “pay to play” refers to public officials soliciting and/or accepting bribes or kickbacks in return for some official action.
If Balukoff were to be elected in November as a Democrat, he might have both the courage and the horsepower to work with the US Department of Justice and get our rather worthless US Attorney Wendy Jo Olson replaced with an aggressive, competent US Attorney who would actually turn the FBI and IRS loose on some of Idaho’s pay-to-players. Now that would be worth paying a premium price for seats and popcorn to watch!
Comment by Bill — May 16, 2014 @ 10:57 am
Interesting. I believe Otter made it a circus clearly on purpose to keep attention away from his ineptness and I believe the organizers were so desperate to have Otter participate that they changed the rules.
I noted in today’s Cda Press that there was a front page article about Otter. I thought that it was probably just a way to get his name/picture in front of the readers one day before the election without appearing to be printing election ‘news’. Interestingly the article stated that what Otter ‘giveth’ with a big PR fanfare and televised performance, he has now ‘taketh’ back. The big fanfare was that he was making a new public records ombudsman position so that persons denied public records can appeal, before going to court, to in order to obtain a second look at the request from an ‘honest shooter’. The article states that apparently, the evening before the public bells and whistles announcement, that the part of the announcement for the big fanfare–establishing an ombudsman position that would review requests for public records was…eliminated. Oh well, it must have been just a detail. HA! Apparently someone decided that the ombudsman position to review denied public requests really should be something that the legislature addresses. HA! Political comedy at its best, but sadly to the extent anyone would decide to vote for him because of his ‘insistence on making public records public’ they probably didn’t see (read) today’s article–stating ‘never mind’.
Comment by up river — May 19, 2014 @ 3:12 pm
Bill, I just wanna’ say, I am glad you have not entered any political race. If you do, we might not know what is happening in our ‘neck of the woods.’ Two out of three isn’t too shabby considering the authors who have exited this blog in order to pay attention to their political careers. 🙂 You might consider ‘guest’ commentary. It might help other aspiring political candidates. 🙂
Congrats to Mary!
Comment by Stebbijo — May 22, 2014 @ 6:37 pm