What’s conservative enough? Who’s conservative enough? Our readers have been bantering that question about with increasing intensity over the long weekend. Local political groups are mirroring the national scene, with a great deal of finger-pointing and not a lot of bridge building.
Here’s my question to you: If you agree with 80 % of the essential principles of a political group, should you tolerate the 20% with which you don’t fully agree?
Idaho gets an F regarding openness and transparency:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/states_of_disclosure/
Comment by Dan — June 1, 2010 @ 6:14 pm
VERY interesting, Dan! What catches my eye is that Idaho,Michigan and Vermont are the bottom three, tied for last place. And in 2006 they were all tied at 50. Another amazing thing is that Louisiana (home of Gov. Bobby Jindal) has risen from #44 out of 50 in 2006, to #1 today! Wow, that’s a major legislative change!
Good for them. Maybe Idaho can take a lesson…?
Comment by mary — June 1, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
Let’s wait and see if the Hart machine and its candidates are the real thing or hypocrites. They ran on family values, trust and Christian principles. Seems they need to walk the straight and narrow since they did some very unfair finger pointing. When Alice Rankin is considered not conservative enough I wonder about their definition of conservative. Do they disagree with Alice’s strong opposition to illegal immigration or her dedication to lowering taxes, or perhaps her years of service to conservative causes?
Comment by citizen — June 1, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
Quite an interesting analysis of the “disclosure” label on the link that Dan provided. I just wanted to remind the moderator and responders that Idaho still doesn’t even require disclosure on real estate transactions. How’s that for hiding an insignificant transactions? This state and counties function in a cloak of darkness.
Comment by Ancientemplar — June 1, 2010 @ 8:58 pm
Really interesting question. While I doubt that one can agree 100% with the doctrines of ones chosen political affiliation, I think that it comes down to just what “20%” you do disagree with. There are certain things that, even if only 1%, I could not go along with. Which is why I’m a moderate independent. In politics I believe that we just do the best we can. I could never vote radical right any more than I could vote looney left. It is a matter of degree I suspect.
I believe the Rally Right contingent is going to give Minnick another win in Nov. I very much doubt I could vote for Labrador. I simply don’t believe what he says. And as for Vick, not a good win. I noted a letter in this mornings Press that was truly sad as well as disgusting. Apparently some house near Sherman flew a Nazi flag on Memorial Day. Are they creeping back to CDA or did they never leave?
Comment by rochereau — June 2, 2010 @ 8:09 am
Mary, I’m a big fan of Bobby Jindal.
Comment by rochereau — June 2, 2010 @ 8:11 am
What a fun group. Even the poster can’t stay on thread. Regardless, here is my 2 cents. I don’t care about someone else’s 100%. You agree with my 100%. Don’t expect me to become an apologist for any of it because of your perception of the purity of my choices. 🙂
Comment by Gary Ingram — June 2, 2010 @ 10:09 am
Here are some quick thoughts, starting with Gary’s comments–this is an “Open Session”, so all decent topics are allowed, not just the proposed question.
Rochereau, I’m liking Gov. Bobby Jindal’s forceful response to the oil fiasco off the coast of his state. He acts more like a leader than our Pres.
Citizen, I was supporting Vaughn Ward but also had a good conversation with Raul Labrador one day early in the campaign. I was impressed with him and liked his style and his answers to some tough questions. That said, my support stayed with Vaughn but the skirmish during the few days before the Primary was ugly and seemed contradictory to the goals of conservative values.
Can I support Labrador now, in his race against Minnick? Yes. He’s far better than Minnick and he would not be beholden to the Obama/Pelosi dictates.
Comment by mary — June 2, 2010 @ 10:46 am
Gary, I don’t really understand your post re: 100% your choices and apology. I can’t figure what you mean in relation to the question.
My problem with Labrador are his varied comments. Of course, in a one on one converstion he will say what he believes you want to hear. That is not to say it isn’t his actual opinion. Still, these comments (as are all politicians) are calculated to gain votes. I was really turned off by his “icing on the cake” comment. The smart thing would have been to condemn the video and that slimy type of smear tactic. The comment he did make, leads me to believe he will “do (or accept) whatever it takes”. And this leaves the voter in a quandry. I don’t care for Minnick or his politics. But Sali was an embarrassment, which gave Minnick the win. And Labrador, too much of a question mark.
Comment by rochereau — June 2, 2010 @ 11:03 am
I don’t expect to agree with very many at the 100% level. But I do care about some issues enough to drop association with them on these critical issues. For example: I recently had to write and harangue rallyright.org a few times before I got them to drop me from their list. Why? Because they had Jim Clark speak to the group and gave him kudos. What’s my problem with Jim? He blocked Jessica’s Law from being brought out of the committee he headed and put to the legislature for vote. As most know, Jessica’s Law, or the equivalent, puts convicted offenders who rape a child under 13 years of age in jail for 25 years minimum. It’s not a complex issue. Child rapists don’t rehabilitate, do re-offend and need to be put away. I put a lot of letters in the CdA Press and always sent copies to Jim and his supporters. I never got an answer. So Idaho is a soft state on pedophiles and Jim is the major reason. (I sent emails to Otter also and have a letter from his stating that if the bill ever gets to his desk he will sign it.) The bottom line is that I’ll support most conservative causes and organizations on their issues and overlook some of the issue I don’t care about. But never when it come to protecting children. Or animals for that matter, but that’s another issue and the cure is stonewalled by another legislature member.
Comment by vernwrites — June 2, 2010 @ 11:49 am
Mary, I did not say I was not voting for Labrador. If I were to vote today I would vote for him as Minnick has to go. I am simply warning the new candidates to be careful of being “holier than thou art”. It is a real turn off. Labrador was endorsed by the “holier than thou art” crowd and should be careful of them least he suffers like Sali.
Comment by citizen — June 2, 2010 @ 11:54 am
Oops, sorry Mary. I read the question and ignored the “Open Session”.
Rochereau, Try again, you’ll get it. Just my way of talking/writing. I march to my own drummer. Does that help?
Comment by Gary Ingram — June 2, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
So, I agree with Ancienttemplar, in that some issues may be too essential for compromise. It does seem, however, that many conservatives are nit-picking at each other for reasons that are less important than the ultimate alternative. For example, I’ve been told that many libertarian conservatives were so upset with the way Ron Paul was treated during the last election, that they withheld their votes entirely, at all levels of voting.
Do you think that actually happened? What would be the impact if something similar, with whatever conservative faction, happens again?
Comment by mary — June 2, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
Vernwrites, I agree with what you say I had no idea that Jessicas law didn’t apply in Idaho. That is disgraceful. Why would any person block that legislation?? Appalling! Gary,I also march to my own drummer, although it has been said that my drummer can be tone deaf. 🙂
As for Labrador, he is still too much of an egnigma. Is he much better that Minnick just because he is a Republican? We really don’t know how he actually stands. I go back to the Sali/Minnick election. The majority of this very Republican state believed that Sali was so bad, they elected a Democrat. I am a moderate independent who basically votes Republican. That doesn’t mean that Republicans are always right. Labrador has left a very bad taste with me.
Comment by rochereau — June 2, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
Rochereau, whenever I start thinking like you I try to envision Nancy Pelosi remaining as Speaker.. A vote for Minnick is a vote for Pelosi….that should sober us up. Republicans defecting brought us Obama as president. Hopefully, after a short venting of emotions we get behind Labrador.
Comment by citizen — June 2, 2010 @ 2:15 pm
Minnick and Labrador are card carrying conservatives and both have law degrees. Minnick was a repub in the White House during the Watergate Investigation and resigned over the firing of Archibald Cox. He quit as a matter of integrity and ethics.
Minnick is a pro choice conservative and Labrador a right to life conservative. Minnick is heading toward 70 years of age while Labrador could become one of those dreaded career politicos.
The right to life issue is vexing to me as the repubs who are for less govt want to be right smack in the middle of our bedrooms and the Dems are saying it it a matter if individual choice. The repubs don’t appear to be adopting unwanted children nor do they care to pay to support them. The Dems on the otherhand want programs for everything cradle to grave.
If the Dems hold onto the House my vote goes to Minnick if the Repubs take over then Labrador gets my vote.
Comment by paul — June 2, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
First, believe it, Pelosi will not remain speaker. I truly believe that, overall, the Republicans will regain control in Nov. Next, I didn’t say I would vote for Minnick, I will not. But that doesn’t say I can vote for Labrador. Let me give you another scenario other than a vote for Minnick is a vote for Pelosi. This state elected Sali who was not only incompetent, but an embarrassment. So Minnick became the lesser of two evils in the eyes of the voters. So Idaho sent a Democrat to add to the sweep and the resultant, totally incompetent and possibly even worse (than incompetent) president we now suffer through. Let us say I am correct about Labrador. That he is a Sali, so to speak, and the voters want to get rid of him in the same way. That puts the situation back to square one. Labrador runs in Nov., that is now given. He is not as strong a Republican candidate as we might have had. And that leaves the outcome open for concern. Rally Right is bad news. Labrador, by extension may also be bad news. He makes me very uncomfortable. But don’t worry citizen, Pelosi will go up in a puff of voter ire no matter who wins in Idaho. I know democrats who find her apalling. Her days are, thankfully, numbered.
Comment by rochereau — June 2, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
I can assure you that Labrador is not like Sali. He works they system well. Just look at his record in Boise. I can’t go on and on because he wasn’t my pick, but he’s a far cry from Bill Sali and he’s much better than Minnick. Just remember that Walt Minnick had to wait until the very last minute on the controversial votes, to see if Nancy needed his vote to make it pass. When she didn’t, and she gave him the nod, he was allowed to vote NO, with just enough flourish to impress Idahoans.
Paul, How will you be able to know if the Dems or the Repubs are in charge of the House before you vote?
And as a pro-life conservative, I simply want the government to defend the right of pre-born children to live, just like they should defend you or any of us from physical attack. It’s in the constitution: the right to life!
Comment by mary — June 2, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
In no way do I compare the men (Sali and Labrador.) I compare circumstances.
A lot of coming together needs to happen to beat Minnick. It looks like things are getting off on the right foot in Kootenai County Republican Precinct. There were a good variety of people elected to fill positions at their meeting tonight…..Matt Roetter, Tina Jacobson, and Ruthie Johnson to name a few.
Comment by citizen — June 2, 2010 @ 9:18 pm
Mary, that was just a theoretical scenario. I wasn’t saying that Labrador was, or is, a Sali. I don’t yet know what he is. I just know that he makes me uncomfortable. It goes back to your original question. Can one vote for someone that they can’t or do not fully approve.
Comment by rochereau — June 3, 2010 @ 7:41 am
Which choice brings greater potential for positive outcomes, even though that choice may not be perfect? Which creates the chance for bigger problems?
Comment by mary — June 3, 2010 @ 7:55 am
And that is the million dollar question! All I am saying is, at this point, we don’t know whether Labrador does bring the greater potential for positive outcome. What we do know raises more questions IMO. Another (theoretical) scenario. Could it be that Labrador didn’t condemn the video because in doing so, he would displease his backers. He had already won, he could have and should have, strongly condemned that scurilious form of campaigning. Yet he made what was at best, an ill considered remark. A remark I found to raise red flags (for me).
I would remind you of the election during the Clinton administration when the Republicans regained control and then totally “blew it”. Newt Gingrich and crew, in their hypocritical and narrow minded focus, created nothing positive. ie:remember Newts “family values dictate” while he was carrying on an adulterous affair….
Speaking only for myself, at the end of the day I must live with my conscience and make my decisions based on what I believe to be right.
Comment by rochereau — June 3, 2010 @ 11:10 am
You make strong points, Rochereau. I agree that Labrador should be clear about his view of the Anti-Ward video which went viral the last two days before the Primary Election. If Labrador or any of his staff had anything to do with it, or even had the chance to stop it but did not, they are implicated in unethical campaigning.
I hear, through the rumor mill, that Minnick may have been behind getting the Anti-Ward video on the Jay Leno show so quickly. Anyone else hear that?
Comment by mary — June 3, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
Mary who are you hearing that was responsible for video really? Baumbach had to of have had help.http://dirtybird43.wordpress.com/
Comment by dirtybird43 — July 4, 2010 @ 8:37 pm